Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "The Rubin Report" channel.

  1. Christopher Zamonska-Blake  ... Not that I agree, but it's kinda easier to "kill it" if you rewrite reality - including the science - to premise you argument.
    3
  2. Jesse Sewell ... first of all. I don't think you have understood Dawkins at all. He is rather specific about that he primarily cares about what's true ... if we have no reason be assume something is true, then why believe it is? ... how is it helpful to believe in falsehoods? So ... why do people believe in falsehoods? ... well you can claim that it has nothing to do with the culture into which they were born and their parents belief. ... I find that idiotic. Especially based on my personal experience on struggling with understanding the "religion" concept most of my childhood until I realized that the only thing holding me back from openly rejecting the nonsense was exactly that: Other people and family expectations.
    3
  3. PengyGoy: Here's some advice: Spend less time writing Youtube comments, more time reading the science and understanding how it works. There's just as little doubt about that humans are the cause of th current climate change as there is about whether evolution created the species. - and the information is readily available on the net if you have an honest interest in understanding.
    3
  4. +chefaopt Your argument would be so much more convincing if you didn't blatantly lie and claim your opponent "can only parrot "muh 97%" The IPCC has published 5 big reports filled with summery of scientific arguments. You chose to ignore it and strawman your opponent by claiming they can only "parrot 97%" ... You're a blatantly dishonest debater.
    3
  5. * sigh * http://ipcc.ch/report/ar5/ ... the ignorance... it hurts.
    3
  6. It's insanely annoying he constantly equates those concerned about CO2 with the traditional anti-nuclear "green" movement. THESE ARE NOT THE SAME. Countless of people concerned about the climate have ACTIVELY promoted nuclear as a part of the solution.
    3
  7. +Chríss M I would argue that it is the "far right liberalists" who have actually abandoned classical liberalism and become what is actually anarcho-capitalists. If you look at what classical liberalists said, they didn't actually rule out government regulation at any cost. For many people who call them selves libertarians today, no regulation at all have become a goal in it self. That's not classical liberalism - that's anarcho-capitalism.
    3
  8. Andy Brice We already have that.
    3
  9. Stef Verdonk "Third world nations also tend to be the biggest losers from climate change due to their geographical locations. " And they know this and they are not stupid.
    3
  10. Jack Allen ... I'm thankful that you didn't include me in "the left" - and I assure you I'm not colluding with them and any agreement about the science is coincidental. Wrt. "the term" .... "Climate Change Denier" ... Personally I prefer "Climate Science Denier" - since science denial, it is ... However, - you are more than welcome to suggest another better and more precise term.
    3
  11. Jack Allen Do you seriously claim that you are in doubt about what people intent to mean you are denying when they use the term? Are seriously claiming that you not at all aware that the topic at hand is not whether the climate of earth is immutable or has been different in the distant past, but whether humans are changing it in a significant way right now? What other reason could there be for pretending not to know what is meant by the term? ... aside from deliberately wanting to derail the discussion. If you don't like the term, I encouraged to you come up with a better, more precise term, which identifies the group were are talking about: Those who deny the established science on anthropogenic global warming and its consequences.  
    3
  12. Matthew Morton ... Yeah... instant need to label "the enemy" ... as, say "the left".
    3
  13. John Cobalt "Nevertheless the consensus among scientists was at the time that the world was getting dumber," I'd like to see a reference for that claim. "Climate change isn't a scientific theory" Anthropogenic Global Warming is a well established scientific theory - just as evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics and so on...
    3
  14. Nick LoCascio - and others. Trying to argue this whole thread without solid definitions of what constitutes things like "life" is meaningless. For the first many days of a pregnancy the embryo can in no way "live" by its own. It's simply dumbing the issue down to insist to disregard the individual being of the mother and solely focusing on the the few cells which constitute the embryo have human DNA inside them.
    3
  15. Taylor Adams > "Simply saying "sorry, brankuptcy, don't have to pay you now" isn't exactly a great way to get out of paying a debt." That's also not the way bankruptcy works - at least on in Europe. It's not without consequences to declare bankruptcy and you will still have to pay your debt if you later becomes able to do so. > "and even the American president takes pride in the fact that he learned those rules and regulations and used them to his advantage. Just doesn't sound very libertarian to me." Neither to me. But then ... In Denmark we actually have regulations preventing people from exploiting bankruptcy rules like Donald Trump did. > "Some things are simply handled more easily by the government (such as infrastructure in most cases)" I could agree with that... but I would state it more generally (as a georgist). The government comes into play when we are speaking of monopolies. Essential infrastructure (like sewage system), stuff where there's a natural monopoly which excludes actual competition is justified as government responsibility since the monopoly it self is a violation of the basic principles. The thing that gives you that monopoly - a natural opportunity - is not the fruit of your own labor. That could be the unimproved land, the radiowave spectrum or other natural opportunities. Monopolizing those without compensating the rest of society for the positive externalizes the society creates is unjust. So the government should be involved in such monopolies - or at least, collect the rent from such monopolies - as, say, a land value tax.
    3
  16. ***** That too ... all we can says is that looking back at the geological record, every other time where the CO2 level has risen this fast (or just a fraction of this speed) the result has been catastrophic climate change. - like the PETM and Perm/Trias. ... We don't know exactly when we'll trigger something which makes it unstoppable, but we know it's a very real possibility. And yes... after the Perm/Trias mass extinction the tropics were too warm for anything to live.
    3
  17. Roseanne is right. An unregulated market is often not a free market. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market#Geoist_Economics ... probably not (or most definitely not) what she meant. But she's right that "free market" is an abused term.
    3
  18. omg ... Dave, you are naive wrt. Trump.
    3
  19. +Wyatt Nite - If that was the case about Climate Science, then it's rather strange that ExxonMobile's internal scientists already in 1979 reached basically the same conclusion as we have now - isn't it?
    3
  20. Wyatt Nite The Scientific community is not "incorruptible" ... but it's hard to reach 120+ years of research confirming it self and every major scientific society of international standing endorsing the consensus based on flawed results. ... if that was the case, we would have to question evolution, relativity, quantum mechanics the same way as those who question climate science. ... and yes. I know there's many in the US who actually questions evolution like that (and some overlap with those who questions climate science). ... but maybe that's more telling about the self proclaimed "skeptics" than about the science.
    3
  21. Kingsir da boss Kinda sad you didn't find your comment well founded enough to specify what exactly you think I've missed.  
    3
  22. Yeah... Shermer is right.. .Epstein is wrong. And yes, Epstein does deny the science. He's as good at making it sound like he doesn't, but anyone knowing what the actual scientific position is will recognize that he is actually misrepresenting the science to carve out a fake rational position.
    3
  23. I can understand you have noticed that TYT and Sam Seder has regressive tendencies. But what on earth do you have against David Pakman? ... To me he seems like one of the YT media persons most capable of objective thought you can find.
    3
  24. Shadilay Kekistanis Btw... if I didn't mention it already... this is worth a read wrt. the differences between conservatism and liberalism - and Europe and the US. https://niskanencenter.org/blog/op-ed-real-realignment/ When I say conservatism is NOT the same as liberalism, I am, of course - as a European - speaking about European conservatism and classical liberalism. But I would also argue that the US republican party have been very alien to science and reason - and in that way also rejects the ideas of the liberal thinkers of the enlightenment.
    3
  25. This is why Christopher Hitchens regarded the Kurds as his friends.
    3
  26. Yeah ... I think he have invented the name "capitalist party" for no good reason. What he describes is minarchism. Milton Friedman just did it better.
    3
  27. Andrew Mcmillan: No, it's not a "terrible thing" to do ... it's just utterly naive. ... given a topic complex enough and a person interviewed without any honest interest in objectivity you are just feeding into Brandolinis law. All experience shows that there's enough gullible people out there to amplify nonsense if it's not challenged.
    3
  28. Aanthanur DC ... and btw... it would be easier to take Gad Saad serious here if he stopped mocking Bill Nye and sat down and had the conversation with him.
    3
  29. ***** Good thing we have the entire scientific community to listen to instead of Al Gore then.
    3
  30. Luis Dias I'm not talking about ordinary people who have spoken against the science. ... the millions of everyday deniers you find in the blogosphere. I'm talking about Exxon ... and at the least Epstein should present that case faithfully. I'm fully aware that as much as one could dream of having a way to weed out all the denier misinformation (given the serious consequences it has), it would be a free speech problem to do it and therefor impossible. But that's not what we are talking about here. - as I said: There's RICO (like the Tobacco case) and Exxon had responsibilities to its shareholders. "Perhaps you could even get the government do so." AFAIK the goverment has standing here. Don't know if it's criminal to omit shareholder information. "But all of this ancient crap does not justify current witch trials," Which "current witch trial" ??? This case is not too old to prosecute.
    3
  31. RESISTFEAR I haven't seen Al Gores movie. I don't care about it. I care about what the scientists say ... I linked you directly to what the scientists say. I would want to make a point, link me to the exact science you are claiming "didn't happen".
    3
  32. Unless you seriously believe that there's a case for financial institutions to get percentages of every activity in society, you should maybe consider whether something is actually better done without the middle man. Even money ... why would we let banks have a piece of the cake when we could do it ourselves with - say - Bitcoin? It's not given that the optimal solution for society always is to involve bankers. So - even if bankers works for free and provided administration of the insurance for free, what would the total cost for society be of this model? ... There will always be a percentage with more bad luck than foresight ending up without insurance to prevent them for getting their lives ruined (by bankruptcy or lack of work ability). Saying "charity will fix it is not an answer. This will cause social problems. So unless you want to employ a police force to "remove" poor people causing problems from society in general, prevention is more cost effective than treatment. You can say this is "the individuals responsibility", but unless you are prepared to simply let "responsible" or sufficiently unlucky people die in the streets you will end up needing some kind of mandatory insurance (just like we in my country has mandatory fire insurance for houses). But why just not cut out the middleman? ... A single payer health-care system is much simpler, doesn't cost percentages to the financial industry and works perfectly well. ... and when watching the absurdity of US health-care politics I'm very happy to live in a country where this is simply a non-issue. Everyone has health-care from the moment of birth.
    3
  33. philj212 Wow ... so that one sentence is the total source criticism you are going to apply to Laurens work. impressive.
    3
  34. +Fark Googol If you think that statement from Lauren is an indicator that she has anything to teach CNN, then you are dumbing the concept of journalism down to being redundant.
    3
  35. > Well, she does anchors her claims in well argumented view backed with evidence. You've got to be kidding.
    3
  36. ohmandamp: ... It actually is a fact that human emissions are a single digit percent of annual emissions. What this guy isn't telling you is that that is a complete bullshit number to throw out if you actually want to talk about the problem science describes. These ~5% is a surplus which are not re-absorbed in the carbon cycle as the rest, so they contribute to a slight increase in the absolute level (around 2-3 ppmv/year) ... and it is the "ACCUMULATED* CO2 level which is the problem. If we had only increased the CO2 level by 2-3.75% ... yeah... that wouldn't be a problem. But that's not what we are talking about. He just throws out that number because he wants you to think of some small number to get a feeling that there's insignificance to the problem. AND THAT kind of tactics is why it's a waste of everybody's time to give these deniers a platform.
    3
  37. ***** "...which is very different from saying "The evolution theory isn't as clear as they make you believe". But the thing is... evolution is exactly as clear as the scientists say it is. Scientists don't claim abiogenesis is explained. Prager is just putting up a strawman to justify why he think he know better than the scientists. ... and he needs that because he has some science he wants to deny. He wants to spread manufactured doubt about climate science, so  it serves him well if he can make it look like scientist in general are trying to fool you.
    3
  38. ***** Yeah... let's go to the blogosphere to find "proof" that what every single Scienctific Organization of relevance (NAS, Royal Society, AGU, ... ) is telling us is the case, is false. Sure... that'll help... and while you're at it you can also find "proofs on the net" that evolution is an atheist conspiracy. ... requires time, but I can assure you that it's there. I'm sick and tired of hearing climate science deniers (and creationists) talk about how there's "no consensus" and why they think it matters. Science doesn't advance by consensus. A consensus materializes from the weight of the accumulated evidence and if you are a policymaker you damned well have to take the consensus seriously. Just as you would have to take a consensus amongst you doctors on a hospital seriously if you were a patient. And YES - there IS a scientific consensus that: * The earth is warming * It's just to human emissions of greenhouse gasses (primarily CO2) * It's very dangerous.
    3
  39. Yeah ... just as the "debate" isn't about species, but about whether evolution made the species ... which it didn't. Same type of argument, - difference only in scientific theory rejected.
    3
  40. +No One Nahh... promoting incompetence is not reducing government. It' s preparing for fascism. If you actually wanted to reduce government, you'd just not staff it. That's what he has done with the state department. Unfortunately - that's also what you would do if you just wanted to hand it all to the Russian oligarchy.
    3
  41. +SilentAsShadow "Not 'all' evidence. Don't be a sheep. There's plenty to the contrary" Actually there's not. Been spending 8 years following the science closely and I've only seen utter BS from the denier camp.
    3
  42. "Who is your only possible employer... the government. " Nonsense.
    3
  43. +Moses King Some days I long for a government who had the guts to say "fuck off" to those people who think they can reap the benefits of the state, without contributing. Remember never to set foot on a public road.
    3
  44. "Libertarian" is originally a word used in socialist context. It's only in the US it measn "classical liberal". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
    3
  45. Timothy Bowen Actually... that might be a deeper question than even yourself is aware of. You see... the establishment clause separates religion and state. So ... somehow you could argue that it also protects the regressive agenda by not letting the state pretend that one religion is better than another. And that's kinda the whole problem with the concept of religion. You can take any totalitarian ideology - add some supernatural claims and call it a religion (just look at Scientology). Therefore, something doesn't deserve respect just because it's a religion. You have to judge ideologies on their merits. So why can't you criticize Islamism in the school the same way as Communism? Maybe because the religious right and the creationists doesn't want to open the flood gates for criticism of Christian dogma? ... Shouldn't we just be allow to call out bad ideas, on their merits?
    3
  46. +basdenoudsten1 Yeah... capitalism and marxism are incompatible. But libertarian marxism is a pretty well defined thing - and the original meaning of the word. Try not to insist everyone has the same narrow definition of the word "libertarian" as you have. ... and go read up on the history of the word.
    3
  47. There is a fair tax system. Tax people based on their use of natural opportunities. Thomas Paine figured this out. ... we're just the slow ones.
    3
  48. Trump is first and foremost a corrupt businessman working to create a Russian style oligarchy and with a fascination of authoritarian rulers. Whether he is "conservative" or "liberal" is just nonsense. He's neither. He cares about himself. That's his ideology.
    3
  49. +Adam Haynes Yeahh... "Group think" - in EXACTLY the same way as when most physicists accept "The Big Bang" and Quantum mechanics and EXACTLY the same way as it's "Group think" when most biologists accept evolution. For some reason, people tend to converge on agreeing on facts ... You can call it "Group think". I call it science.
    3
  50. Yes, we are decades away from 20 feet sea level rise.... that's called INERTIA
    2