Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Psychology of Trump & the Ostrich Parasitic Syndrome (Pt. 1) | Gad Saad | ACADEMIA | Rubin Report" video.

  1. Well... I'm with Sam Harris here and not with Gad Saad. Trump is a fact-free dangerous buffoon. So, sue me...
    29
  2. +matt sinco You are approaching relativism here. The fact-free aspect of the Trump administration is orders of magnitude larger than anything you have seen in otherwise enlightened western democracies. It resembles what you find in 1984-like authoritarian regimes. Here's just a recent example: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/aug/07/usda-climate-change-language-censorship-emails
    5
  3. +matt sinco "On climate change, check out the 31,000 scientists who signed a petition asking for a chance to argue that the current "consensus" is flawed. " How can I take you seriously when you spout such uninformed nonsense. Go look into the story behind the "Oregon petition". I have must admit, I have little patience for such fact-free arguments. It speaks volumes about your ideological bias.
    5
  4. +matt since I've been hearing all the denier arguments for the last, at least, 8 years. Including the "petition" argument. I really has lost my patience with it. People interested can start on the Wikipedia-page for references: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition Anyway.... such a petition has absolutely no bearing on the state of the science. What matters is the accumulated weight of the collective evidence - as published in the peer reviewed literature. If any of your * cough * "scientists" disagree, they can go publish the results of their research. But they don't ... instead they make statements to the blogosphere. Wonder why? ... The answer is actually simple. It's because the only strategy they have is the same as that of the creationists and tobacco-companies. Manufactured controversy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufactured_controversy) Actually ... for every argument a climate science denier comes up with there's an equivalent one following the same pattern made by the creationists. Go look up "Project Steve".
    2
  5. +matt sinco. JESUS! .. .and now the Wikipedia-argument. ... listen, if you cannot mount the concentration to check the easily accessible references to sources Wikipedia gives you to verify the content you should not AT ALL try to express opinions about stuff you find on pages like nas.org. You obvious didn't bother to check that their only source was a completely non-scientific statement from a well known climate science denier Fred Singer (with no expertise in climate science btw.) Wikipedia is not authoritative fact. But it DOES provide elaborate sources for people to verify the authenticity about what's written. Some times it fails yes... but instead of just declaring everything-Wikipedia a lie with no other argument that you have heard that's a thing to say, how about you pointed out what the specific problem you saw wrt. the Wikipedia text in relation to the source was??? .. .No? ... I thought so much. * sigh * Carl Sagan predicted this state of ignorance 20 years ago: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DG0N5HEUwAAdNAk.jpg
    1
  6. +matt sinco. So ... in which peer reviewed science journal has this Professor of Business and economics Jerry J. Lovell published his result wrt. climate science?
    1
  7. +matt sinco You claim to "give sources", yet, I've asked you repeatedly where I can find the actual published science from those who you call your "sources". ... no reply. So, I ask again. Where has Patrick Moore, Timothy ball and Ivar Giaever published their climate research ?? AND: It's pretty relevant to attack your "sources", since you seem to argue from authority when you, say, mention Ivar (not Ivan) Giaever. Yes, he is a Nobel Laureate, but he is also capable of arguing such nonsensical arguments as (paraphrasing): "The Earth has warmed from 288K to 288.8K, that's 0.3% - what's the problem?" Now, I don't have a Nobel price in physics, but it shouldn't take more than high school physics to understand how stupid that argument is. It's like someone trying to refute your doctors warnings about your fever by saying: "Nonsense, your body has only warmed from 310K to 314K - that's 1.%, what's the problem?" So me, and everybody interested in science, facts and reason a favor at stop quoting stuff you find in the blogosphere and start basing your arguments in the accumulated evidence of real science.
    1