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

  1. Dave Kent well... that depends... Climate change is irreversible over any time scale meaningful to humans. The worst case scenarios are truly horrifying and should be avoided at any cost. And the uncertainty of how close were are to them should make us deploy basic risk management and ACT!
    2
  2. ***** Somehow I think people who are willing to ignore that Trump is completely void of the knowledge about real world problems an willing to lie about everything (Trump steaks, anyone?) are wasting my time. We need honest people with an actual understanding of real world problems... precisely not Trump.
    2
  3. Andrew Kibler I've tried much... but I've never tried to be called an authoritarian just for saying controversial opinions shouldn't be given an platform unchallenged . Get you shit straight Andrew. Also .. .nothing is "proven" in natural sciences. You don't "prove" stuff in science. The argument that "it's not proven" does nothing but reveal that the person arguing has a lack of understanding of the scientific method: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
    2
  4. Andrew Kibler Fair enough ... I stand by the rest of my reply then. Also: http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html Anthropogenic global warming is equally a fact. - A scientific theory. Supported by a vast body of evidence. Someone else brought climate change up under this video.
    2
  5. Christopher Rand "his tweets" ?? .. could you be specific? And what on earth do "partisan Dem" (whatever that means) have to do whether he's a "skeptic" ... (one has to note that thousands of people these days call them selves "skeptics' without actually being, so I have to wonder whether this makes any sense at all).
    2
  6. Yeah sure... America was a wonderful idea. If it actually was like Thomas Paine envisioned, then it would really be great. But in practical terms it's currently broken in so many ways (mostly due to the GOP), I'd rather live where I do now.
    2
  7. +chefaopt I addressed your ridiculous claim that there was no other argument than "97%". Nothing else. Regarding sea ice extend. Yeah, the Antartic sea ice expanded for a period. But not enough to make up for the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. Anyway... that's history now and your talking-point is obsolete. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles And I don't think you would be wise to challenge whether I've read or understand the issue... that would be stupid. ""How does a change of 0,01% of the Earth's atmosphere composition be the sole or even the main culprit for the Earth warming?"" Appeal to emotion about small numbers. Try walk into a room with 300ppm HCN and spend a few minutes there arguing that small concentrations of gasses can't have an effect.
    2
  8. " How come I'm ridiculed and called a heretic for asking these questions specially after the 97% has been debunked?" For the exact same reason as people like Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are ridiculed for postulating nonsense and pulling straw men wrt. other fields of science. Some times people are just so deep in denial that they are absolutely immune to any rational arguments. It's not surprising that many people confronted with such dogmatic behavior just gives up explaining and leave it at the fact that there's almost unanimous consent between climate scientists that a) The Earth is warmning, b) It's due to man made increases in green house gasses, and c) It's very dangerous. "How come the climate has been warming way slowly since 98 yet the CO2 emissions kept increasing at pretty much the same rate? " Inertia, Internal variation, go look it up. ... and the climate has not been warning "slowly" the last 3 years.
    2
  9. Btw. Dave.... revisiting this interview and seeing the style difference between this and other more recent interviews. I like the more confrontational style - challenging the claims... The "just give them rope and they'll hang them selves" and then just throwing softballs strategy is not half as interesting.... and honestly naive.
    2
  10. ***** I wouldn't call them "hardcore classical liberals". It's some kind of anarcho-capitalism - which to me is just as utopian absurd as communism. btw... In Europe the word "liberal" still has its original meaning. We don't use the word "libertarian".
    2
  11. Wrt. constitutions ... I don't know the Swiss, but I have the impression that changing the US constitution is about as difficult as changing the Danish. So it's not the US which is especially difficult compared to everyone else.
    2
  12. Gian-Marco Moder Sure ... As a bit of information, the Danish constitution can only be changed by getting approved by 2 constitutive parliaments (so there need to be a general election) AND THEN a referendum where at least 40% of those eligible to vote and a majority votes YES. So .. in practice it is done seldom.
    2
  13. Jack Allen That doesn't change the fact that if 5 billion people burn coal/gas/oil every day the temperature will go up with 4-6 degrees over the next 100 years.... and then it certainly becomes a problem for mainly the third world. If you really care for the third world you would get behind the scientists, accept the science stop listening to misinformers like Epstein and help find solutions. This is not "environmentalism" ... this a a planetary and generational problem.
    2
  14. Stef Verdonk No... I was mostly pointing this out in relation to those who argue was should use more fossil fuels to help the 3rd world.
    2
  15. Jack Allen ... impressive... now, do you seriously think that anyone using the term "climate change denier" does it to suggest that those he is talking about in general denies that climate is not static? ... or are you just fabricating a red herring to take focus away from the real subject?
    2
  16. Jack Allen I would argue that "a better term" includes one which is idiomatic enough to actually be used in a sentence.
    2
  17. Stef Verdonk I actually have nothing against the "catastrophist" label... it's very possible that we are heading towards scenarios which could be called "catastrophic". The best estimate of sea level rise within the next 200 years would in it self be a catastrophe for coastal cities. What I object towards is the way Alex tries to use that term to fool people into believe that he accepts established science, but that it's only the "catastrophists" he disagrees with. ... when in fact he reject basically everything IPCC says and the examples of "catastrophist" arguments he presents like "run-away" or "accelerating" effect of CO2 is not something IPCC predicts. He lies to try to make his own position sound as the pragmatic middle ground - when it's not.
    2
  18. Well... I certainly understand your frustration. This was supposed to be based on "reason" ... but it sure seems there's been created a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance by having several climate deniers on to misrepresent the science again and again. That's not basing a show on "reason". If Dave wanted to base discussions like this on reason he would have dialogs where actual scientists had a chance to object ... and he would bring in others than just Michael Mann to defend reason. I've counted 6 right wing guests who deny climate science now ... Of course primarily Crowder and Epstein actually discussed it. Why not have a libertarian who DOESN'T deny climate science on?
    2
  19. jcapcik No ... In my mind the best estimate of what the consequences will be from man made climate change is the one we GET FROM SCIENCE. ... and that's bad enough. Alex doesn't agree with that estimate... but he has no science to back his claim. btw: Please refrain from strawmen.
    2
  20. jcapcik "because the science is continually proven wrong (reality has not matched their dire predictions)." Which is just plain wrong. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/ Now tell me again how anyone who ought to know better and is actually following what happend wrt. the model situation would keep peddling such a talking-point. "he's actually not a man made climate change denier (which you failed to notice)," ... because he peddles nonsense like the above that "science is continually proven wrong" and makes people like you repeat those talking-points in a echo-chamber of misinformation. Yes - he's a science denier ... plain and simple.
    2
  21. Adam Smasher  ... you have 2 misunderstandings here. When science advances it very seldom proves prior knowledge wrong in the sense that it completely overturns what we know. It refines the details of an ever better model of reality. The theory of evolution is constantly being improved, but that doesn't mean we can wake up tomorrow and realize that creationism is true. The other problem: The point of that saying is that theories should be falsifiable ... not that they are constantly falsified. There's virtually NO chance that we will overturn the fact supported by overwhelming evidence, that 1) The planet is warming, 2) It's due to human emissions of CO2, 3) It has the potential to become a very serious problem.
    2
  22. Adam Smasher "For hundreds of years Newtonian mechanics was how the universe worked. Then Einstein threw it out." No he didn't ... He presented a more general theory which under non extreme conditions reduces to Newtons theory. "The science does NOT prove your third point." Science never "proves" anything like you do in math and computer-science. In natural sciences you support hypothesis with evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html And you are wrong ... there's solid evidence that increasing the CO2 level at the rate we are doing has the potential for serious consequences... Worst case scenarios being something like the Perm/Trias event.
    2
  23. +Pilkie101 I suspect we could call his stance on climate science "religous" then?
    2
  24. ***** "It would require many, many pages to define the precise nature of evil, but most people recognize evil when they see it." Sure... but what if I told you that I recognize Dennis Prager -or at least his work -  as evil ?
    2
  25. ***** "We can control global warming." Not if people like Prager get their way. "Can we control Islam?" We have to ... I just point out that evil takes many forms and Prager is in no position to claim the mantle of good.
    2
  26. ZulStrait Well... at 17, it is pretty advanced to have thought through the religion stuff and being fluent in a foreign language expressing it. I do worry about whether his risk management is well thought through though.
    2
  27. n00g75 ????? "your side" ??? Why do I get the impression that the only ones with an agenda to make otherwise purely scientific issues into a two-sided political issue are those eager to denying the science?
    2
  28. Dear Bill Whittle ... I've seen a few of your videos and if you have never told a lie - then you are just plain stupid.
    2
  29. James Walton "The question is: where do you draw the line?" Basing legislation in belief systems without any evidence. Have a nice day too...
    2
  30. Andrei ... sure seems a lot of Christians have forgotten to save their "adjustments" for the "other" world then ...
    2
  31. Mary Angelica "Having such bans as laws do not imply utopianism." No - but making these small "adjustments" (As Barron calls them) based on a utopian ideology is. "If it is true that abortion is the killing of an innocent human being, why would making abortion illegal be utopianism while in other cases of killing it's just common sense law?" Because it's an absolutists world view disconnected from reality based on bronze age mythology. The world is more complex than a black and white interpretation like that. Aside from the scientific part and there being no evidence at all for the "soul" concept - there's the freedom of the individual and self ownership of the woman. I have no use for the opinion of religion when deciding a question like that. Authoritarianism, absolutism and superstition should not be a factor.
    2
  32. James Walton I'm saying that you cannot have it both ways. You cannot sit and argue that other peoples "adjustments" made on the basis of utopianism leads to the piling up of corpses and then, at the same time, advocate your own set of "adjustments" justified by your own utopianism.
    2
  33. James Walton "so science, as far as I understand it, will never give us an answer to the question of whether killing or enslaving a human is justifiable." Even is we allow that premise: Neither will belief systems based on imaginary beings and bronze age dogma.
    2
  34. James Walton Facts and reason and pragmatism goes. If you want to claim that life begins at conception and abortion should be completely banned, then you have to at least: 1) Realize that many pregnancies abort them selves without anyone noticing in the first month after conception. 2) Tell me how you respect the womans self ownership of her body by having the government set up police in her womb granting rights to something which can't exist outside her body. 3) Account for when the "soul" which makes the egg before conception different from the egg after enters the embryo. 4) Tell me which twin of monozygotic twins get the soul - and how you know. ... and a lot of other questions aimed at your religiously motivated absolutism. I'm not in favor of abortions... No one is. Especially not women. It's not an easy thing to do. But you have to allow for some pragmatism and evaluate each on a case by case basis. The earlier in the pregnancy, the more pragmatism is needed. Cases do exist where in late term you have the choice of killing the fetus OR the mother by not aborting. That's one of the most hard decisions to take in life, but religion has NO! None, ZERO role to play in the decision on the part of the government. The only religious views relevant here is that of the woman.
    2
  35. James Walton Short comments > "... and, ultimately, through an appeal to some sort of ultimate foundation." Well... as long as that ultimate foundation is not a fantasy creature epistemological indistinguishable from any other of the thousands of Gods humanity has invented. "... but then you have to concede that all morality is therefore relative," Nah... I don't. But it's not really important where and to which extend I find an objective moral basis. I'm not the one with the authoritarian tendencies. ad 1) I was actually not speaking of miscarriages in general. I was speaking about all the very early rejections of the embryo which then woman probably doesn't even notice and just think that contraceptions worked (or that they were lucky). So, when do you deem that such a "misfire" was actually an accident or you would have to prosecute the woman for negligence leading to manslaughter? ad 2) "and I think it's hard for me, as a man," Yeah... that alone should make both of us recuse our selves from forcing any woman to anything in this regard. ad 3) Oh this was very much to do with a concept of  a "soul". Your argument just above was that there was either 1 human or 2 humans. So at some point you must think that a single cell turns into a "human" ... whether or not you call it "soul" is irrelevant. The point is you think you know when a "human" starts existing. ad 4) Yes - see above. If there's either 1 or 2 humans, which one of the cell clusters is then not "human"? Or - unless you want to argue that any human cell or group of cells is "human" ... then ... by that definition and logic you will be obligated to keep your chopped of leg alive or face criminal charges.
    2
  36. Holo4ever 17 So the church didn't advocate against condoms in Africa?
    2
  37. James Walton Well... for starters ... from a classical liberal point of view it violated all the central tenets: self ownership, the right to the fruits of your own labor, that one persons freedom only extends so far that it does not infringe on other peoples equal freedom.
    2
  38. Komninos Maraslidis I know that James Walton put an assumption into his question that morality has to come from some objective source. ... And I know that I didn't answer his question. I don't know whether he actually insists morals has to come from a bronze-age book, but I'm aware that people thinking they have argued that morality has to come from "God" often quickly jump to the next step postulating that they then know the nature of that God and what "he" wants. My answer was not like that because I don't think you can find a more objective basis for morality than liberalism, but because I honestly think it's more useful for everyday life to think in the terms of "Rights of Man" and classical liberalism, then in terms of natural sciences when you wonders what the moral think to do.
    2
  39. (quote) "How you fight the irrational... it's very hard... because you can give evidence and it doesn't convince people". Yeah Dennis... like with you can climate science. (and evolution for the matter). There are actually people to go to if you want to have a reason-based approach to the real world. (Like Sam Harris)... but Dennis Prager is NOT one of them. He's just another of these ideologues who happily turns to science denial when science goes against their ideology. ... of which Dave have had so many on by now it's getting absurd.
    2
  40. +trexx32 Do like Denmark... send an election specific ID in the mail to people 2 weeks before the election. Everyone is registred when they turn 18. "Purging" doesn't exist as a concept. You get an election-ID in the mail 2 weeks before, but you can also use any other government issued ID. And voting is with pen and paper. No "machines" to mess things up.
    2
  41. No - actually - they came up with the same result. Your question is not hypothetical - it has been played out. Exxons own scientists reached the same conclusion already 25 years ago.
    2
  42. Jesse Sewell ... seems a rational comment to me. But then... I also live in a country who have not elected a guy like Trump and is primarily atheist.
    2
  43. Matthew Morton Denmark
    2
  44. Matthew Morton Do you feel grown up now?
    2
  45. Zakum "Dysfunctional compared to other first world nations in the survey. Millions of Australians aren't killing themselves to go to the US." Exactly ... here in  Northern Europe... 20 years ago young people might have had a dream to go to the US and try to work there. - just for the experience. Nowadays ... not so much. People just shake their head looking at the insanity. Trump getting elected won't help the image of US being dysfunctional.
    2
  46. sisbrawny Well ... for starters, he's yet another republican climate science denier.   (yes, I know they didn't touch upon this in this interview)
    2
  47. +The God Emperor "And it ignores another problem not every market can respond the same. A true free market with no regulations (as in no anti-monopoly laws) will mathematically lead to monopolies" Correct... and - as a member of a geo-libertarian party - I can tell you that not all libertarians ignore science and math. ... but unfortunately an alarming number have done so recently. Especially wrt. climate change.
    2
  48. theAwakener ... which was also not what I said. I regard my self as a libertarian. And I'm NOT an anarcho-capitalist. But when discussing climate change with others who call them self libertarians the reality is that many (not all) invoke dogmatic anarcho-capitalistic principles  to justify denying climate science.
    2
  49. Maxime Laneville I know that the show is about being exposed to different opinions, and Mr. Molyneux is certainly entitled to his... but it's much more interesting to listen to someone who has actually thought what he says through than someone who's just going to waste your time. I'd much rather have Philip Mason (thunderf00t) on.
    2
  50. *Ahh.. * .. Lawrence Krauss ... nice to have a guy who really understands science on the Rubin Report. A nice relief ... You shouldn't be afraid to hear different opinions, but it can also quickly become a waste of time to hear one right wing science denier after the other... cough Crowder, Epstein... cough
    2