Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "On Abortion and Climate Change (Pt. 3) | Steven Crowder | COMEDY | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +Bex Fire "Compelling" ? ... if you want your bubble confirmed.
    2
  2. 1:28 ... again ... being exposed to "different ideas" is good. But just as it doesn't take long for me to feel I'm wasting my time listening to creationists, so do I equally have no patience for other science denial. So why are we listening to this climate science denier?
    2
  3. 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
  4. 4:44 ARRHHHGGGG.... My brian hurts. This is NOT a "healthy" discussion any more than having Ken Ham spout nonsense about "Creation Science". When people as Steven Crowder demonstrates SO clearly that they have NO interest in actually understanding the problem and engaging in a rational discussion on one topic, why should we trust them to do it on any other topic? How is Steven not just wasting our time?
    2
  5. 4:00 More BULLSHIT. Do Steven Crowder really believe the way you settle science is by asking a non-scientist questions about carefully crafted talking points and if he can't give a clear answer then the science is wrong? Why do we entertain this nonsense?
    2
  6. 9:00 No Dave. The truth is NOT "some where in between". Mann is right. Steven is wrong. ... it's so simple. Steven is not participating in the actual discussion. He's inventing conspiracy theories to daemonize those who take the problem serious and don't have ideological biases (as Steven has). Now you have had 4 climate deniers on. ... all we need is a creationist to tell us about how wrong the biologists are.
    2
  7. Bex Fire WUWT has just as much credibility wrt. climate change as answersingenesis.org has wrt. biology.
    1
  8. I really have to question whether 10 minutes of a climate science denier is "The battle of ideas". Is it also a "battle of ideas" listening people thinking that the world is only 6000 years old? Does it really make sense to take scientific questions out of the scientific method and try to resolve them in an "battle of ideas" framed in a setting of political or religious ideology?
    1
  9. And... btw... "A fair tax system". It's not just about numbers. It's about how to think about economics and liberalism. Henry George described how a fair tax system would look like, by taxing the value of land. Even Milton Friedman agreed.
    1
  10. 10:18 ... Sure we have "enough energy" - if you ignore the scientific fact of mad made climate change.
    1