Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Is There Still a Debate Over Climate Change? | Alex Epstein | ENVIRONMENT | Rubin Report" video.

  1. No ... it's fine that Dave doesn't insert himself.... but I would appreciate if he took the approach to guest who he knew would say controversial things about science that he made it a "3-way" with a dialog between two people... so there was some way to allow for objections to prevent the whole thing to be premised on a lie about the science.
    9
  2. It would be sad if this de-generated into making statements about SJW triggering ... and not actually about applying reason.
    3
  3. +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
  4. 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
  5. Captain B. "Anthroprogenic climate change is a myth," ... someone in another thread said he had never seen anyone denying the science. ... well...
    2
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. blurglide "I'm saying advanced life eventually WILL end when enough CO2 gets sequestered, primarily as sea shells and coral" Do you really think that's a more urgent problem than not destroying half of the biosphere and flooding all coastal cities within the next 200 years?  
    2
  12. blurglide "but you're presenting a false dichotmy" Before I spend time debunking the rest of your post... Are you seriously interested in knowing what's wrong with your claims which you must know are completely contrary to accepted science.
    2
  13. Eric Duprey Science which have went through the peer review process and have stood the test of time . ... it's really not that hard.
    2
  14. Eric Duprey I'm perfectly aware that fields like psychology is in major crises wrt. the peer review literature. But this is natural sciences... Please link me to the study that shows the peer review process in natural sciences is broken so even an overwhelming consensus can't be trusted.  
    2
  15. TheAnnoyingGunner My point was that 1) I'm aware psychology is a mess wrt. peer review (never cared much for it anyway) and 2) you cannot just transfer that situation to natural sciences. Of course things can slip through ... But you don't get multiple independent lines of evidence saying the same thing repeatedly if it's just wrong. PS: I didn't take it personally. I just want to be sure I'm as unambiguous wrt. what my argument is as possible.
    2
  16. 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
  17. Captain B. ... like... say... evolution?
    1
  18. Captain B. ok... so you argue you don't have right wing science deniers in the UK?
    1
  19. Captain B. ... given that you ended with a question mark, I suppose it was a question. The answer is "no"
    1
  20. No - I didn't notice that... actually quite the opposite. At several times he tried to insinuate that the scientific community was wrong about their warnings.
    1
  21. Have you any evidence which support that we should worry about plant growth stopping? Mind you that we are now >400ppmv, the next glaciation would have been ~50.000 years away even without our CO2 addition and there's pretty good evidence that plants didn't stop growing in any of the glaciations during the last 800.000 years. Are you really trying to claim that the world would have ended if it were not for humans "accidentially" releasing extra CO2? (which is the only conclusion I can get if you think you had a valid point)
    1
  22. TheAnnoyingGunner ... and people will have to keep debunking these denier talking-points as long as there are journalists who happily create a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_balance by making it seem like it's always a 50/50 issue when two people disagree about science. ... We ought to able to move on from this - given the stated ideal about "applying reason to the big ideas".
    1
  23. TheAnnoyingGunner So ... let's see ... We've know about the effect on CO2 on the climate since Arrhenius 120 years ago. And you mention a single paper from 2015, which we (I assume) already now know is flawed. Sure... some flawed research get past the peer review process in all fields. But it'll soon be correct by follow up studies in most fields. Anthropogenic Climate Change has stood the test of times and is a theory based on solid evidence - like other scientific theories. To claim that 120 years of science is just a failure of the peer review process is insane.
    1
  24. TheAnnoyingGunner "All I wanted to say is that you shouldn't blindly trust the results of any paper, just because it got the stamp of approval by some other guys." Which also was NOT what I was saying. Trusting the scientist on global warming is NOT trusting any single random paper.... it's trusting 120+ years of research (since Fourier actually) which have stood the test of time in the scientific literature with the major results backed by multiple independent lines of evidence. Also - equally important - the ones claiming the science is wrong have NO alternative well supported explanation ... heck! ... they don't even agree about how to approach an alternative explanation. They are basically just shooting at anything they can deny.
    1
  25. Ming64 ... parading the extend of your ability to related to actual issues of the real world there?
    1
  26. Gabriel Sáenz Except there is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_climate_change_science The first formulation of the current theory was done by Arrhenius in 1896 He basically got the same result as the current: A doubling of CO2 will result in 1.5-4.5 degree C temp rise.
    1
  27. Gabriel Sáenz Come on ... if you should state how long evolution had been a research subject, you would also go back to Darwin And I should point out that Even Arrhenius had the result of several degrees ECS.
    1
  28. Gabriel Sáenz Darwin didn't "prove" anything. You don't prove stuff in natural sciences. You back it up with evidence. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html ... just as they do in climate science. And what do the "political and economics reasons" to push a certain climate narrative matter if we know the science is solid? I didn't address it because I think it's a conspiracy theory and because I think it really doesn't matter if you are wrong about the science anyway. And now we're at it.... I can't count the amount of times I've heard people trying to ensure me that they do not deny that "climate change exists" ... while they are still directly contradicting everything the scientific consensus says about the problem at hand.
    1