Comments by "Marc Jones" (@QT5656) on "The Problem With Sabine Hossenfelder" video.

Thank you! I totally agree that Sabine is playing both sides (whether intentional or not). Some parts of her climate change videos are good but other parts are either poorly introduced, poorly concluded, unfairly extreme, or seem intentionally ambiguous to attract likes and clicks from climate-change-evidence deniers. Many of the comments under her videos highlighting the confusion resulting directly from her words. Sabine says she wants Science to improve. However, many of her fans simply want all Science to end so that their opinions are equal in weight to those of experts.
25
@Dwarfurious Yeah, she claimed that in the 1980s the evidence wasn't good enough to justify action. And yet as I've pointed out to her in the comments and on Twitter, in the 1980s the companies thought the evidence good enough to justify upgrading infrastructure to prepare for higher sea level, permafrost thaw, and stronger storms.
17
I agree. Her climate change videos have some good in them but they also at times seem intentionally ambiguous to attract likes and clicks from the climate-change-evidence deniers. An opportunity wasted.
7
@SpeakerWiggin49 Believe me, I have done but there is only so much time in the day. As Professor Dave explains, Sabine often presents facts ambiguously such that the comments under her videos are full of comments by climate change deniers who think she agrees with them.
6
Yay! A shout out for Vaush!
5
Jean Michael Godier also does a good job of showcasing new discoveries.
3
@xxwookey The oil companies have repeatedly lied about their product. It's unreasonable to claim that the consumer shares some responsibility without that key context. Particularly when oil companies have done all they can to restrict alternative sources of energy including wind, solar, and nuclear. Please listen to Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
3
@jonasmejerpedersen4847 Consumption is part of the equation but only a very minor one given that oil companies have repeatedly lied about their product and deliberately sabotaged alternative options. Please listed to Drilled by Amy Westervelt.
3
Thank you! Some of the comments under Sabine's Climate Change videos are depressing which highlights how her video titles and openings often pander to people such as "enlightened centrists" who do not understand science nearly as much as they think they do.
3
@Dwarfurious Exactly. She claimed that in the 1980s the evidence wasn't good enough in the 1980s to justify action. However, as I've pointed out to her in the comments and on Twitter, in the 1980s Exxon thought the evidence good enough to upgrade infrastructure to prepare for higher sea level, permafrost thaw, and stronger storms. Not to mention the fact they buried the evidence and invested millions in a cynical disinformation campaign which is still ongoing today.
1
@Dwarfurious Yeah. She claimed that in the 1980s the evidence wasn't good enough to justify action. And yet as I've pointed out to her in the comments and on Twitter, in the 1980s Exx0n thought the evidence good enough to upgrade infrastructure to prepare for higher sea level, permafrost thaw, and stronger storms. Not to mention the fact they buried the evidence and invested millions in a cynical disinformation campaign which is still ongoing today.
1