Comments by "Jason Dashney" (@jasondashney) on ""Climate Change is a Myth" -- A Nobel Prize Winner's Embarrassing Ideas" video.

As soon as Sabine uses that term, she removes any pretence of objectivity.
27
@draugami the ideology definitely does feed on the money generated. And right now, absolutely nobody can dispute that all of the money and climate science is in saying that we are in crisis. Just sayin.
10
@aaronjennings8385 it's a ridiculous comment. Go through this entire comment section and it's absolutely full of people saying that this person is dumb. Every climate video on both sides of the debate are absolutely full of everybody calling the other side dumb.
6
@AlfW but if he agreed with your position, I'll bet you my entire bank account that you would cite the fact that he's a Nobel prize winner as evidence that he is correct.
1
@AlfW Right on. Keep it that way. Be objective about all evidence always.
1
There are a lot of people who are very highly, regarded, who are also denying that climate change is the catastrophe, the media portrays. But it's just like when anybody who went against the original Covid narrative, it didn't matter if they were among the most highly credentialled people in the world, they were automatically dismissed before even being heard. Humans do not want objectivity in the least.
1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_nH1BAfDhs&t=2s. This video does a good job of talking about that. They delve into what exactly the 97% message means and it's all over the map and completely discombobulated. The terms used are so vague as to basically be meaningless.
1
@CD-kg9by Because it's become a catch-phrase for people clearly on one side of the spectrum. When you hear that term you know exactly where they are coming from, and they will always refuse to debate. It's like during covid when people called anybody who wasn't 100% on board with The Narrative, "deniers". Even after the vast majority of what the skeptics talked about was proven correct (you can still get and transmit covid with the vax, that kids weren't at risk etc) they still kept up the rhetoric and refused to admit they were wrong. It's okay to be objective and genuinely listen to the other side. Saying "climate denier" is as low resolution and disingenuous thing you can say because it is all encompassing, and completely lacks nuance. Try asking someone who says that what they mean by that, and get them to be specific. They won't have an answer. People who are against the Paris Accord we're often called that. It didn't matter if the people were pounding the table saying that the Paris accord was a waste of money, and that same money could be put a far better use to accomplish the same goals. Didn't matter, if you were against the Paris Accord, you were a science denier and climate denier despite the fact that you actually wanted the problems solved instead of political grandstanding.
1