Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Al Gore, Free Speech and Climate Change Debate (Pt.3) | Alex Epstein | ENVIRONMENT | Rubin Report" video.

  1. I call bullshit on that... This is supposed to be about basing ones approach on reason and much of this discussion is premised on denial of scientific facts... Don't you think people would be critical if it had been an interview about someone having a political opinion on space exploration premised on flat earth believe?
    10
  2. ... and I have yet to hear a single scientist warn that (quote) "the world is gonna explode in a ball of fire" Are you sure you are trying to have an honest conversation?
    7
  3. Andy Brice ... to lately: "It's a hoax created by the Chinese".
    6
  4. Luis Dias Except... Anita Sarkeesian is a con-artist. Michael Mann does science... and the overwhelming majority of the relevant scientific community agrees with him. With the same logic you could argue that Richard Dawkins was just like Anita Sarkeesian because he refuses to debate creationists. Science is not democracy. Not all scientific claims deserve the same respect. If you want respect for your scientific claim, go do the research and publish it in the scientific literature. Don't sit in a chair complaining that you have been the victim of SJW and blame everybody for being Anita.
    6
  5. ... The "opposing viewpoint" about climate science ... in form of a cacophony of misinformation about the science has now been ongoing for more than 7 years ... there's really nothing new to this. The public discourse should be beyond that now. I heard nothing new, only the same denialist talking points used to justify doing the exact opposite of what the overwhelming consensus of scientists tell us we urgently need to do.
    4
  6. Jack Allen ... well... some times it's a good thing to be able to name those who you are thinking of. - like it's possible with terms like "creationist". It's not a choice between having a name and having a good fair and honest dialogue. I would be glad to have a short word for "Those who reject the scientific consensus position on anthropogenic global warming without evidence to back their claims" ... (like we do wrt. evolution and "creationists") ... But if you think you do not fall in that group and actually do have good evidence to back your position, then I would happily have a fair and honest conversation. ... but FYI - I don't think what Alex did was that - fair and honest.
    4
  7. Luis Dias "What, is Exxon stopping their shareholders from reading IPCC reports?" Exxon knew about this as early as 1979 ... when exactly was the first IPCC report released? ... and when did Exxon start funding  misinformation about climate science? Do you also think the Tobacco RICO case was baseless?
    4
  8. Luis Dias Well... let me enlighten you with some facts then: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
    4
  9. Luis Dias You are not getting it ... not only did they know about the concept, but their internal research were practically arrived at the same conclusions that IPCC would first publish in the nineties. ... and which is btw. basically the same overall conclusion as we have today. This is not just knowing of the topic... they had results and conclusions like we do today. Please... before throwing anymore swearwords and accusations against me... read up on the topic.  
    4
  10. RESISTFEAR I don't give a shit about Al Gore ... I haven't seen his movie. I don't care. He's not a scientist. What I care about is what every single relevant scientific organization world wide is telling us: We have a huge problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_scientific_organizations_of_national_or_international_standing
    3
  11. 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
  12. Andy Brice We already have that.
    3
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Stephen Tkacs "good points" ? ... such as?
    2
  19. Stephen Tkacs To make this short.. I think 1 is nonsense and 2 blatantly ignores the problem. Wrt. 3: Yes... the FREE market will. ... but not all unregulated markets are free. As it is now there's a huge negative externalities given that producers of energy based on fossil fuels don' t pay the true cost to society and the coming generations for their production.
    2
  20. Jeff Fischer It's a point of view which is not taken serious in  the public discussion because it relies on a premise that established science it wrong.
    2
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. 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
  24. Jack Allen I would argue that "a better term" includes one which is idiomatic enough to actually be used in a sentence.
    2
  25. 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
  26. 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
  27. Luis Dias "The real discussion that is on the table is whether if the government should have the power to prosecute you for having the wrong opinions on a very important topic regarding policy at all." Oh no.... that's not the issue in this discussion AT ALL. Yes, I know Epstein mentioned Exxon... but he also badly misrepresented the actual legal situation wrt. Exxon to make it look like what you described. If Exxon is being sued it is NOT for "having the wrong opinions" ... it's for 1 of 2 things: 1) Not informing their shareholders on stuff they knew and should have informed them about. (illegal under financial law), or 2) RICO investigations exactly like the tobacco industry were a few years back.
    2
  28. UnknownXV I asked for research ... not your home grown opinion that one can just look at the last 20 years ... which of course is ignoring the last 3 record years and basic facts about climatology that you can't say anything from a sequence of 20 cherry-picked years. Especially you can't say anything about the final equilibrium temperature from thermometers as long as we have still not reached equilibrium and are still pumping CO2 out. At best you can estimate the transient response... like this: http://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/2016/reconciling-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
    2
  29. Luis Dias That's fair ... if it's actually a real issue and not just something he says to make the government look like it is suppressing opinions about science it don't like. ... the thing is, that I've been following this closely, and I have seen NOTHING in relation to prosecuting people who have just spoken their opinion - how stupid it might be. Of course... if he was on the payroll for some of the defendants and did the dirty work for them, the case would be different. I'm not saying that he is - I don't know.
    2
  30. RESISTFEAR I don't care about Al Gore ... I care about what the scientists say. ... this link was from a blot run by actual climate scientists, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't in anyway "prove your point" about the science.
    2
  31. Wil Hobbs "But not on the global warming sites...it doesn't fit their narrative." Oh puhleeeesss... How do you think you can get away with such dishonesty.
    2
  32. Wil Hobbs ... at some point - in the face of danger - sounding alarm is the well thought out position.
    2
  33. Visfen ... except for the little detail that what he "explained" was not the same as what MM explained ... and MM was right.
    1
  34. Visfen So much nonsense... here's a few comments: "would mean that the earth really should have spiraled into some kind of Venus about a thousand times in our geological history," No it wouldn't . Go read up on the physics. "that a few degrees Celsius difference over a hundred years is beyond our capabilities." You are trying to ignore the consequences of that. The fact alone that the sea-level rise from that would be devastating to all coastal cities should raise concerns. "He fails, throughout all his talking, to adress why the climate models predict more warming that we have had" They don't: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/ ... I find you criticism subjective and the few facts you try to base it on are simply just wrong.
    1
  35. Visfen ... I'm sorry, but your post simply oozes of that you are willing to invent any argument ad-hoc without knowing anything about it... It's too time consuming for me to answer everything in detail, but here's a small example: "It's using CMIP5 instead of satellite data (the earlier is not as reliable)" First of all CMIP5 is a model experiment - not a temperature record. Your comparison is meaningless. Secondly - if you try to suggest that satellite data is more reliable than thermometers, you know nothing about satellite temperature measurements. Even Carl Mears who run the Remote Sensing System satellite record will tell you that he regards thermometers as more reliable. You are simply wrong ... and it don't seems you care.
    1
  36. Jack Allen No... because I simply don't have time to read all posts. I'll gladly tell my honest opinion on specific posts if you have any concrete complaints though.
    1
  37. Mark Scott I don't disagree.
    1
  38. Stef Verdonk Yes - I think so too ... sorry if I was ambigious :)
    1
  39. Jack Allen "Yes it is because you can't have an honest conversation built on and around a dishonest term." ... like, - say - "anti-humans" ?
    1
  40. Conquer Oh please... Isn't it enough that Alex spend a large part of the Interview trying to make it seem like everyone concerned about the climate was against nuclear power ... now you want to put everyone thinking Alex is waste of time into the TYT box. How's that for identity politics.  
    1
  41. Ross Crosby Let's start by pointing out that his argument that we're at a "very low point" wrt. CO2 and temperature in the history of the globe. Yes... nobody is denying that. But that's completely besides the point. It really doesn't matter that the biosphere (including dinosarus) had much more CO2 and a lot warmer climate 65 million years ago. What matters to humans is the climate OUR species has evolved under and more importantly the climate our civilization has grown to depend upon. He's peddling a red herring trying to create manufactured doubt.
    1
  42. Austen Gee So... how will you defend that he is making the argument that we are presently at a "low" point wrt. CO2 and temperature. ... what's the point of that argument if not to make it seem like it's not a problem to raise the CO2 level at the speed we are currently doing it?
    1
  43. Fuddy Duddy It's not doublethink... Science is not democracy. Not every scientific claim deserves equal respect and science doesn't advance by public debate. Science advances by the scientific method in the scientific literature.
    1
  44. Austen Gee "The point of the argument is to make it seem like it is not a serious problem, but that does not make him a climate change denier," It sure does... If he's willing to use such a bullshit argument to justify ignoring science which runs directly counter to what he needs for his premise... Yes that's denial. "The question is the magnitude and whether that is a net positive or negative for humanity." Which there has been a lot of research into - which he is also ignoring. The scientific community has done an impressive work to actually inform us about the possible consequences and their likelihood... and he's just saying "Nahh... I don't think it'll be that bad".
    1
  45. jakep1979 Oh please... What is the IQ requirement for "understanding" this channel? Nobody is saying Epstein should be allowed to peddle his nonsense...This is not a free speech question. What some people is upset about is that this seem like a radical deviation from the described ideal of this channel. To quote: "The Rubin Report is essentially a forum dedicated to applying reason to the big questions of the day. No subject is off limits. None is spared the light of logic." I would argue that Epstein is very much spared the light of logic, by having no one to call out his BS wrt. the science.
    1
  46. thegreatpeon you obviously haven't been looking then.
    1
  47. Fuddy Duddy ... No. I'm saying that if you are going to dive into a subject where there's a lot of political misinformation (like climate change), then bring on another guest so each side can object when stuff is not portrayed loyally. ... and in general. Beware of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance Don't commit the journalistic fallacy of thinking everything should be presented 50/50 just because there someone disagrees. ... That not how science works.
    1
  48. jakep1979 I wont' and don't speak for Max. I speak for my self. I'm not "unsubcribing" in protest... But I also think the throwing around the "regressive" label towards anyone who thinks Alex Epstein is full of crap is childish. If you had been following my posts you would have noticed that I AM actually addressing the arguments of the guest ... I'd rather not had to spend time doing it, because this debunking of denialist talking points have gone on for years and years now ... I had hoped we were beyond that. But AT THE SAME TIME (not in the same posts though) I'm also pointing out that if the ideal of the Rubin Report is to (quote) "apply reason to the big questions of the day", then this is NOT the way to do it. When the topic is one where there's a great deal of political misinformation spread about scientific results then the right way is not to commit the journalistic fallacy of a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance. This is not how science work. It's not 50/50 just because there are more than one opinion. ... You create a false balance by letting the opinions not supported by evidence go by unchallenged. So - when doing such a topic - at least make it a conversation where there's also someone to point out the misrepresentations when they happen.
    1
  49. Fahad Hossain ... I reply to that when Dave has actually put Alex Epstein into context, by inviting someone to address the nonsense. Right now Dave has just invited Mark Steyn ... so it looks bleak for the argument you were trying to make.
    1
  50. Fahad Hossain ... you make it sound so easy. Dave haven't got time to read all thrown at him
    1
  51. Ben - ... You obviously know absolutely nothing about what I've tried.
    1
  52. Ben - ... and you disagree with what I wrote? Do you personally believe Dave has time to read everything?
    1
  53. Ben - ... you were the one inventing the idea that I have not tried. I'm not going to defend any position based on that premise ... Now... if you based something on what I actually wrote... that would be different.
    1
  54. UnknownXV "Science is being exaggerated in climatology". And you say that based on what research?
    1
  55. Adam Delmar Milankovitch cycles. And the average CO2 concentration during Interglacials (until we changed it) was ~280ppm.
    1
  56. RESISTFEAR It's warming exactly as predicted: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2016/08/unforced-variations-aug-2016/
    1