Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Late Night with Seth Meyers" channel.

  1. Not saying these stories are not generally examples of black experiences with the police... but this one specifically sounds just as much as a story about how police ends up behaving if operating in a country with 3 times as many firearms as people. In other words... rooting out racism in the police force will of course make things better, but I don't think you'll ever get to a healthy police mentality unless you also curb the gun problem.
    22
  2. Michael Moore is doing the silly thing himself. Climate Change is not a "liberal agenda" ... it's a fact of physics and it's an existential threat to humanity. Politics doesn't matter. Nature is NOT going to ask how you voted before it floods your lawn. Also ... what's with the gender thing? ... this is not about gender.... it's about facts and decency. Vote him out because he's a liar - not because he's a male, or his color (although orange is really offensive)
    21
  3. Yeah... Not a US citizen, but the US Senate doesn't in any way look like the greatest anything. Mitch McConnell killed the last dignity it had.
    2
  4. No ... but I still not sure it's wise to paint scientific question with bearing on the survival of humanity as political issues. This will only reinforce their idea of it being totally reasonable to reject facts based on whether you like the other view of those stating them.
    2
  5. > From where I'm standing, it looks more like a liberal-globalist, anti-White agenda. May I suggest you move closer to a place where you can hear the actual scientists then? > I'm all for taking care of the planet and protecting our environment. So let's start with the real issues. Recreating the conditions of the Perm/Trias event in a few centuries IS the real issue. > The West, and in fact all White countries, are already reducing their ecological footprints Not nearly fast enought. And Trumps policies have made it worse and threatened to accelerate the use of fossil fuels. > By contrast, in 2100 AD there will be four billion Africans and their ecological footprints per capita will have multipled. Sure... so let's show them how it's done then? What do you otherwise expect? ... that poor countries who have not even contributed to the problem historically somehow have the resources to deploy the technology needed to solve the problem by them selves, while the US and Europe use "clean coal" (or another fantasy concept) Listen... the CO2 footprint of the average African individual is WAY!! below that of a European or an American. > Start advocating for that, and maybe I'll listen to you when you claim to be concerned about global warming. That's a weird kind of threat. ... what should determine whether the problem is real should be science... not your personal feelings about how I argue. It's not like nature cares about your feelings. You can sit there all day outraged that you think I don't care about over population (which is btw false) ... and it won't change a single law of physics. What does it help you in 50 years when we're all f*cked to point and complain about some guy you once met on the Internet who didn't mention over population when you wanted? ... this is just silly. > Oh, and allowing mass immigration... If you care about mass migration, then imagine what will happen when billions of people livelihood around the is destroy by Climate Change. ... when the middle east becomes too hot to physiologically be outside in daytime (we've already seen temperature records above 50 degree C) ... imagine the immigration waves you'll have to deal with then.
    2
  6. +Dan Linberg > "Look, I like science. Scientific issues pertaining to biology, evolution and future possibilities such as AI, robotics and space travel are among my favorite topics. But if this conversation is to be honest, is there any way that I, with no expertise in climate-related sciences, is going to study enough of the facts to become unbiasedly, scientifically convinced about climate change one way or the other?" That depends solely on your definition of "enough" ... and I'd advice you to consider whether you are applying the same level of "enough" to all the other scientific issues you mentioned. That said... there's PLENTY of science material out there about global warming for enlightening the average science geek. ... I'm not a biologist either, but I feel pretty comfortable discussing evolution with creationists and I know when they are misunderstanding or strawmanning the science. And that's actually the important thing. Try to "steelman" the science. Do your very best to honestly understand what the argument is and don't try to invent counter-arguments which assumes a strawman. (Like the "The climate has always changed" strawman). > Unless you're some kind of expert, the same goes for you I'm not. But before spending 10 years on following the science behind the climate problem, I spend almost as many years following the evolution vs. creationism debate. I didn't start with assuming the biologist were a part of a huge atheist conspiracy. > Had academia not been thoroughly infiltrated by gender-denial, race-denial, LGBTP, feminism and other cultural marxist, pseudoscientific bullshit -- I would have trusted them. I'd suggest you listen to a guy like Jonathan Hait, who points out EXACTLY that problem with the humanities as you are mentioning there. You should also take note that he explicitly says it's not an issue in the natural sciences and engineering AND that he is by no means a climate science denier. (and he's a conservative). Don't use problems in "gender studies" to smear the physics department. That is not "steelmanning". > Also, I might have been more inclined to listen had they not been calling climate skeptics "deniers" Well... creationists are per definition evolution deniers. Do you have a better word for those who deny the theory of anthropocentric global warming? .. then I'm all ears. And no! ... "skeptics" is not that. You are not a "skeptic" just because you doubt something. Skepticism is about investigating the evidence, NOT about doubting in spite of evidence. That's dogmatism. Rejecting a well established scientific theory because you think someone at some university somewhere is an unhinged gender-studies leftists, is NOT being "skeptical" ... that's just being silly. Nature and natural science doesn't care about your feelings. > but because unlike left-liberal lunatics, I would not take chances where something of infinite value is at stake. ... given that the inertia in the climate system is such that we by inaction already have committed us selves to serious trouble, and that (I'm guessing) you fully support a president trying to make it worse - you have already done that.
    2
  7. > The problem with predictions of climate change is that there are an enormous amount of variables which no one can really know the weight of. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to "do the math" to calculate the effect of man-made CO2 emissions. You are inventing arguments out of thin air to suit your preferred conclusion. You just told me that you have (quote) " no expertise in climate-related sciences". ... and yet, you suddenly claim to be wiser than the actual scientists. You are committing EXACTLY the mistake Tom Nichols described in my link above. > the reason why experts have been predicting disaster at least since the 1970's, yet the sea levels have still not even begun to rise appreciably. I just told you that the scientists didn't predict cooling/ice-age in the 1970s ... They actually predicted global warming. ... just as they have done with increasingly warnings since at least the 1950s. ... And now your argument is that BECAUSE they warned in good time before they thought the sea level would start rising that's also wrong? Science didn't predict we would have meters of sea level rise today. ... If you want to convince me that you are reasonable and objective, STEELMAN the Science... argue against what it ACTUALLY says,... not a strawman. > "The climate has always changed" is not a strawman It is a strawman. Because the scientist are not trying to argue against what we know from the geological record about climate. THEY KNOW the history of climate. They ALSO know that that is not the issue. Human civilization didn't exist at those time and we have no reason to believe the climate would change NOW had we not done it our selves. So the enormous cost of climate change TODAY is purely self inflicted... REGARDLESS of what happened millions of years ago. And btw... Many of those ancient climate changes WE KNOW was due to CO2 being release for one reason or the other and they happend WAY SLOWER than what we are doing today. (with the rare exception of the K/T event) > but it doesn't look like it's doing so at an alarming rate. ... which is just nonsense. Unless you are 60+ years old and define "non-alarming rate" as not-in-my-lifetime ... > Again, I don't claim to be able to do the math Yet... you just told the scientists that you knew better than them what could be done. What you are practicing is not "skepticism" ... you are approaching climate science exactly the same way creationists approach biology.
    2
  8. Sometimes I think about how different Danish police acts compared to this ... but also ... I wonder how the Danish police would behave if we had 3 times as many firearms as citizens.
    1
  9. +chickadee Let me guess: You also think the theory of evolution is an ideological plot by atheists?
    1
  10. 1990sodapop > Climate change is not physics Interesting... are there other things in the natural world you think are not governed by physics?
    1
  11. @Jane Ryan Thanks for your feedback. > No one is saying climate change is a liberal agenda Click and listen: 7:16 > We're saying it's on the ballot because Republicans are denying it and don't plan on doing anything about it. I fully agree with that. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea reinforcing their belief that this is not an existential fact of nature, but a "liberal agenda".
    1
  12. Free Ma > Peter? Your lawn? You think all that is at stake is your lawn! No... Look up the word "metaphor". I'm fully aware of the seriousness of the Climate issue. My point here was that I don't think it's a good idea to go around calling it a "liberal agenda" ... If you are doing it as a Republican, you are just being an idiot ignorant about science. If you are doing it as Michal Moore, you are reinforcing the idiocy of the idiots. Get it?
    1
  13. +Michel Foucault XVI I'm kinda confused here ... Where did you get from that I believe in open borders??? I'm a "liberal", alright... but not in the US sense. That word has lost its meaning in the US. I'm a European "liberal" - in the original sense of the word: Liberalism. First of all, though ... I believe in *Science*. Nature doesn't care about feelings or ideology, but if you believe your ideology is the right, then it must be because you believe it can give answers to every problem the natural world may throw at us - or at least, not give answers which just makes the problems worse. ... So regardless of ideology, trying to solve problems of physics, by trying to deny their existence is just intellectually bankrupt.
    1
  14. Well ... I want to be able to look my kids and their kids in the eyes when I grow old.
    1