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

  1. Didn't Dave just say that he regard scientific facts as "politics" ?
    2
  2. Hey Dave... here's an advice for your solution to "get out of this" .... maybe stop eating the nonsense people like Glenn Beck feeds you with. Oh, he sits there, pretending to be the victim and be the reasonable one "taking responsibility" ... let's "look at the facts". Here's what Glenn Beck said about the IPCC: "“There’s not enough knives. If this, if the IPCC had been done by Japanese scientists, there’s not enough knives on planet Earth for hara-kiri that should have occurred. I mean, these guys have so dishonored themselves, so dishonored scientists." Don't give me that BS ... If you want to meet people in reasonable discussions, don't come to them saying that they are the problem because Glenn Beck said so ...
    2
  3. +Edward Holmes I agree - Thank you. As a (geo)libertarian, I've grown increasingly frustrated with the irrationality crawling out of the woodwork the past years amongst people who call them selves libertarians. Nice to know there's others left who believe it starts by getting the facts straight. - THEN we can find solutions. I'm amazed at the science denial from libertarians. ... why? ... I mean... if you believe your ideology is the right one, then it must be because you think it can present solutions to any problem the real world might throw at us. ... but many libertarians instead react to problem (like climate change) by denying the real world and the facts about it.
    2
  4. +Stuart Morrow You are entitled to your own opinions - not your own facts. People insisting on living in an alternate physical reality should not be taken serious. That be it flat-earthers as well as homeopaths. I don't see what that has to do with priorities. If your position was to acknowledge the basic scientific facts and (say) accept that climate change is real, man made and dangerous, but just don't give a shit because you don't feel any responsibility to future generations. ... well... then that's a "priority". Not one I agree with, but at least it's an "opinion" - not just denial of facts. And I can't really see that's a left-wing, nor right-wing position. Not denying science should be everybodys first priority, so we can start with the facts, and THEN have the political discussion. I don't like left-wing science denial either.
    2
  5. Sounds like grifter jackpot.
    2
  6. Exactly ... everyone is prone to the no-true-scotsman fallacy. If you don't look deeper at the example and evaluate the cause of failure it's not useful for much ... and dave seems not to be interested in that.
    2
  7. Ajit Pai ... pretending that there's no such thing as network effects in economy. This man is trying to con you all.
    2
  8. I certainly would expect Sam Harris to be horrified by much of what was said here.
    2
  9. > And nowhere in the constitution has there ever been a specific mention of separation of church and state.... AFAIK that's how the establishment clause has been interpreted. Amongst other things because of Jeffersons assurance of a wall of separation.
    2
  10. Do some research about the origins of the word "libertarian". Also, read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-communism
    2
  11. No - "libertarian" used to be a word used about a group of socialists. Then it got adapted to mean "classical liberal" in the US (In Europe we don't use that word for liberalists). ... and there are plenty of spectrum amongst "libertarians" even in the US. From "right-libertarian"/anarcho-capitalists to "left-libertarian". But my point is that even though language evolves, you can't really monopolize a word and prevent people from using it in the original meaning. So Brendan is perfectly sane to use the term libertarian Marxist.
    2
  12. yep ... But now the US has left there's no cake for you.
    2
  13. +Invictus > 2. The left was wrong about the coming ice age. This myth is really obnoxious. I remember the colorful popular press stories about an ice age from the 70's too, but that was NOT the scientific literature. People claiming to be well informed about climate science in the 70's should really watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms Many of your other claims are equally stupid. A lot of what was warned against turned out to not end up as bad as warned about BECAUSE WE FUCKING DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!! ... contrary to what's happening now wrt. the green house effect.
    2
  14. Well ... he did say kinda between the lines that he regard facts as political intolerance.
    2
  15. > He just stated that the DNC hadn't done anything unethical during the run-up No he didn't ... go watch that part again. > Clinton also hired a foreign actor to lie about Trumps affiliation to the Russians First of all ... the claim that what Cambridge Analytical produced is lies is totally subjective on your part. Secondly ... how does that even compare to colluding with the Russian government?
    2
  16. Huh? ... I've gotten used to hear insane stuff in the comment section of The Rubin Report ..... but... seriously?
    2
  17. Your entire case rest on the premise that doing the private opposition research which the Democrats did (which btw. was started by republicans) is in ANY WAY "the same dirt" as what they just talked about with Trump. THAT'S JUST NONSENSE ... even if what he produced was false (which nothing indicates it is). YOU watch from 8:08 again and listen to what he says. He explicitly doesn't say that the Democrats didn't play dirty. He just says that it's in no way comparable to the treason the Trump campaign is accused of.
    2
  18. Jesus ... this is why the rest of the world look at the US with their jaws on the floor.
    2
  19. Funny ... I feel pretty much in the same political "quadrant" as Shermer ... but the more I read Dave Twitter feed I get convinced I'm not in his.
    2
  20. Dave Rubin has gone full shill. Ajit Pai is blatantly dishonest. He doesn't look at the evidence.... since despite there maybe not having been any strict rules preventing it, the Internet has de-facto been a neutral carrier service. So, pointing to history and claiming it's evidence for allowing NOT being neutral is just dishonest.
    2
  21. Trae is right... (at 11:00) ... listening to Americans speak in code-language with "n-word", "c-word", "p-word" ... and the rest of the alphabet drives European nuts.
    1
  22. SDC Smedly What makes you think Europeans don't do that ? Did you see the Flemming Rose interview? .... and btw... very few countries have laws against holocaust denial. Germany has.
    1
  23. Bex Fire WUWT has just as much credibility wrt. climate change as answersingenesis.org has wrt. biology.
    1
  24. Oh... at 9:00 ... finally something I agree with Prager on: "The American experiment is unraveling" . It sure look like that from the out side.
    1
  25. So - if you best option is being a place where you have no opportunity - then that's a step in the right direction. ... sure ... that makes sense.
    1
  26. As a geo-libertarian, I don't feel Yaron Brook represents my views. I agree that reason and science should be essential pillars. But as I know Yaron, we have huge differences in how we apply that principle. Please have someone from the Niskanen Center on, for an interview with libertarians who doesn't deny the results of climate science. (http://niskanencenter.org/)
    1
  27. Reuben Handel sure... that's a convincing argument.
    1
  28. S Martz  "That's not science. It's technology." ... but nowhere near production ready. "I do look forward to my warm winters, I will say." Well... there's a little thing called science which tells us that's not the only effect. ... and maybe not even that. For some time not the jet-stream has weakened leading to cooler air getting further south (polar vortex) while the arctic gets most of the heating - melting the ice.
    1
  29. S Martz Yes... it would. But that's so many years into the future that we can easily screw our selves over 3 times before that.
    1
  30. DJ7223 The first half of your comment makes no sense... "I've heard the ice cap theory that the Arctic is shrinking (the first one to come to mind) and I have found evidence to refute that" Interesting... why is it that you don't mention what that evidence is? Also ... what do you mean "the Arctic is shrinking" ??? .. Greenland is melting and so is the sea ice. ... The arctic it self stays the same size. "Is there anything that you have that would explain your argument for climate change?" There's no "my argument for climate change". There's the scientific case for anthropogenic global warming, and it's not something I have invented. The evidence supporting that is overwhelming consisting of multiple independent lines of evidence. Presenting it all here would be impossible. I would have to know what specific about the science it is you deny is true.
    1
  31. Reuben Handel Applying "reason" now?
    1
  32. DJ7223 What do you think your link shows? East Antarctica has been gaining mass for thousands of year ... and it's slowing now. But stilll enough to outweigh the ice loss from WAIS. As I say... I cannot provide the entire evidence in a youtube comment.... Don't be ridiculous. Tell me specifically WHAT about the scientific position you don't believe , and I'll try to help you understand how the scientists arrived at that conclusion. PS: I don't care about what Al Gore or other politiicians/activists say. I care about the scientific position.
    1
  33. Tyler Donhardt What makes it different from "creationist" ?
    1
  34. Tyler Donhardt No - honestly ... what's the difference? ... aside from the scientific theory being subject to denial?
    1
  35. Myles F. Corcoran Well... it's probably objectively true that the arrival of agriculture and burning of forest did contribute somewhat to an increased greenhouse effect. But the quantitative perspective matters. Even though deniers who don't care about magnitudes often abuse the gradual cooling of the interglacial to construct some argument that we somehow "need" to quadruple the CO2-content to avoid a new glaciation in the near future, it is true that there has been a small gradual cooling since the mid-Holocene (until 100 years ago). The activities of the first agricultural humans obviously haven't been enough to offset that. ... so it might actually have been somewhat beneficial. ... But we are talking temperature variations much less than 1 degree C. It's a completely different scale we are operating on now with burning of fossil fuels.  
    1
  36. DJ7223 ... I really don't care about all the creative ways people try to refute the 97% figure from the study by the SKS guys... The figure has been replicated by multiple independent studies by now. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ Every single international scientific organization of relevance supports the theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing ... and there's a reason for that: The evidence fits the theory, it's well substantiated and there is NO (nada!) alternative explanation which even remotely is supported by any evidence. The case for climate science denial is NO BETTER than the case for creationism.
    1
  37. DJ7223 First I need to tell you one thing in very unambiguous terms: If you just reject the information on a Wikipedia-article because you find it "hard to believe" instead of ACTAULLY FOLLOWING THE REFERENCES ON THAT PAGE AND READING THE INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATIONS STATEMENTS ON THEIR OWN WEBSITE to confirm the correctness of the content, ... then you obviously don't care about the sources provided to you and discussing with you is a waste of time.
    1
  38. DJ7223 sigh... I mentioned that every single international scientific organization of relevance supported the position of the IPCC. ... I linked you to the documentation. You just dismissed it as being "hard to believe".
    1
  39. DJ7223 Jesus! ... Do you even read the links you are provided? I linked to to a list of scientific organizations (in fact all of them) agreeing with the IPCC. ... and aside from you not knowing that it's not "a NASA satellite" , I actually linked you to the guy responsible for the graph you are referring to telling you Ted Cruz haven't got a clue about what he is talking about.
    1
  40. DJ7223 Go read the 2 comments from Dec. 1st.
    1
  41. DJ7223 Sigh... Learn to use a dictionary. Follow the references. There's no "interpretation" of the author. The author didn't write the sources he cites. Either you are willfully being ignorant or you are simply not qualified to make claims about subjects so complex as climate science.
    1
  42. DJ7223 Nice try .... I just ask you to not dismiss documentation for my arguments with "hard to believe" without actually reading it.  ... yes we're done. I'm not going to spend time writing comments to someone not bothering to read and understand what I write.
    1
  43. I guess the problem Trump supporters have with criticizing Trump is that the stuff he does which should be criticized is so bad that they know they risk contribute to taking him down. So they shut up and chose to be enablers of autocracy instead.
    1
  44. 123MrHurbert "and in this case (providing he did in fact mislead Rubin on the science)" ... it's hard to tell... I'm not sure if he actually duped Dave into thinking he had the "scientific" position or if Dave just played along.
    1
  45. Captain B. ... like... say... evolution?
    1
  46. Captain B. ok... so you argue you don't have right wing science deniers in the UK?
    1
  47. Captain B. ... given that you ended with a question mark, I suppose it was a question. The answer is "no"
    1
  48. ***** yes... and I guess the US two-party system has really hurt the vocabulary. In Europe where we have several parties (in most countries) there are clear differences between "liberals", "conservatives", "socialists" - and even nuances like "social-liberals" and "social democrats". As a classical liberal/geo-libertarian our "main" political foe in Denmark is actually the conservative party.
    1
  49. jas wats "Sorry, but today's leftists are the modern embodiment of Nazism." .... but of course... if anyone accused you for then taking the next step and use violence, then you would complain about being misunderstood, - right? So... my point was just there actually exist such a thing as fascism. The merger of government, corporatism, and a militarized society with an authoritarian leader and limited free speech. Look at the stuff Trump has already done and tell me it's not worth considering whether this will evolve to actual fascism.
    1
  50. jas wats ... have you ever seen how a real democracy with a voting system 100% free of voter AND election fraud works? Come to Denmark, and I'll show you. No voter-ID needed.
    1