(potholer54) Response to "The Global Warming Hoax Lord Monckton & Stefan Molyneux"

[Mole]

[luxfelix]

Invite more climate change scientists to the show to make their opposing case?

[rosencrantz]

Was there an interview with a climate scientist?

[Mister Mister]

I can only take so much condescending dry British sarcasm unfortunately

[A4E]

Also, warmer temperature means more life on the planet. More life means more Co2 in circulation. So logically no matter how the planet has been heated, there will be a resulting increase in Co2.

 

Al Gore is known to have used this as evidence for Co2 being the source of the warming, by sliding the Co2 data an amount of years back in time, so that it looks like Co2 is causing the warming.

 

Its not so different from saying retreating glaciers are causing global warming. Glaciers were advancing during the little ice age, so its natural that they would retreat afterwards.

[RamynKing]

Hehe I came here today to make this thread! The replies are very helpful.

 

Does anybody else find the issue of climate change^TM to be extremely challenging to nail down and enter debates about?

 

Maybe because it's more science-heavy than say other issues where we can use relatively recent history to make cases?

 

I even find it hard to make stefan's fiat currency case when it comes to warming debates. It makes sense when he says it, but it always seems like a stretch when I wanna pull it out in life. Maybe that's one of those arguments that require the other party to be considerably awake on a range of issues beforehand.

[Anuojat]

 

Apparently Stefan said that the earths temperature never changed - except he hasn't and frequently brings up the prior period of cooling.

 

The "magic multiplier" point is also much easier to rebut when you don't actually include any of Stefan's argument.

 

Apparently Lord Monckton making a few calculation errors in the past is grounds for dismissing everything he has ever said - this is not an argument.

 

Paying a fee to get your research reviewed for a journal is bad and discrediting, but billions in climate science funding is... err, lets not talk about that at all. Viewpoints which contradict the mainstream narrative are also incredibly welcome in scientific journals, except they are not. See Beaver, Kevin Re: Biosocial Criminology.

 

These manipulated data sets all agree with each other and thus X - is also not an argument.

 

Melting glaciers are bad because white ice reflects the suns rays back into space, while the dark ocean traps them, which leads to more warming. Somehow though, increased water vapor because of this increased warming, leading to giant white clouds, does not impact the suns rays in any way shape or form.

 

And that's just what I remember off the top of my head. I appreciate people promoting our interviews though!

 

 

Regarding Lord Monckton, "Manipulated" Datsets and Impact of water vapor and cloud cover and glaciers check potholer54's entire playlist he has adressed and talked about these:

 

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP

 

Parts 17-21 Are of Monckton and Glaciers/Cloudcover/watervapor/Glaciers are Parts 2, 22, 29 and 30 (for part 29 sources.)

[Will Torbald]

Does anybody else find the issue of climate change^TM to be extremely challenging to nail down and enter debates about?

 

 

Yes, because it's not about climate, but about ontology. It entirely upends people's reality to accept that the government, the UN, Bill Nye, all the celebrities, the news - they are all part of a great push for "fake science news" in order to gain more power and tax companies to oblivion, or who knows why else. I would never debate it from a science perspective, but a political one. I really don't care about the science of it because not even scientists can even know with any certainty what the hell is going on. It is too chaotic to predict with any honesty.

[WasatchMan]

I think it would be good for business to do a response video.  A lot of people take potholer's analysis on global warming as the gold standard.

[Mole]

 

Apparently Stefan said that the earths temperature never changed - except he hasn't and frequently brings up the prior period of cooling.

 

The "magic multiplier" point is also much easier to rebut when you don't actually include any of Stefan's argument.

 

Apparently Lord Monckton making a few calculation errors in the past is grounds for dismissing everything he has ever said - this is not an argument.

 

Paying a fee to get your research reviewed for a journal is bad and discrediting, but billions in climate science funding is... err, lets not talk about that at all. Viewpoints which contradict the mainstream narrative are also incredibly welcome in scientific journals, except they are not. See Beaver, Kevin Re: Biosocial Criminology.

 

These manipulated data sets all agree with each other and thus X - is also not an argument.

 

Melting glaciers are bad because white ice reflects the suns rays back into space, while the dark ocean traps them, which leads to more warming. Somehow though, increased water vapor because of this increased warming, leading to giant white clouds, does not impact the suns rays in any way shape or form.

 

And that's just what I remember off the top of my head. I appreciate people promoting our interviews though!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17:24 He did not say Stefan said that. He said that Stefan believes that "global temperature has always been stable". Perhaps stable was an ambiguous word, however, he's really saying Stefan believes that global temperature variables are not greatly interdependent and thus, stable. That's why he brought up times Stefan vaguely suggested that, and that's why he argued against that. He did not say Stefan said earth's temperature hasn't changed, he did not give examples where Stefan suggested that, nor did he argue against it.

 

10:30 That's a valid argument, Mike. He didn't let Stefan make the argument for the magic multiplier, however, if memory serves me right, the argument I have heard come out of Stefan's mouth is that it is rare to have positive feedbacks in the natural world. Other than that, he's had guests such as Christopher Monckton claiming to have evidence against it. potholer54's argument is still sound.

 

He did not say everything Christopher Monckton said is dismissable.

 

4:50 That's a true statement but that's irrelevant to his argument. He did not argue that this is why Monckton is wrong, or that it discredits him. His argument is that it does not give him credit. To be fair, Monckton never claimed that it gives him credit.

 

2:50 I assume by X you mean a conclusion about the physical world.  "Now clearly there's something wrong when everyone's measuring average global temperature, and only one measurement is way out of line. Even Roy Spencer agreed there had to be something wrong with the RSS data." Since he uses the word 'agreed'. his suggesting that there's something wrong with the RSS data because of the consensus. Your argument is valid, however, I would be careful not to dismiss potholer54's whole argument.

 

Another user in this thread linked a video by potholer54 suggesting why this is an invalid argument. If you aren't open to immediate feedback after your argument by your opponent, then you have not made an argument because your argument is no longer subject to falsification. Every argument about the physical world must be subject to falsification. Not an argument.

 

I have been a loyal FDR listener for four years. I know this show is not friendly towards conspiracy theories. But from my perspective, this climate change conversation has many parallels to conspiracy theories. Firstly, the misrepresentation of evidence that can be verified by as Stefan calls it, "a quick google search". (I don't think the best science fiction author could have made it all up). Secondly, the interviews with these people who most definitely believe in conspiracy theories such as the New World Order. And thirdly, there's an underlying narrative, namely government corruption. If these things are true, I think you could empathise with how I feel. Please show me how I am wrong or misinterpreted your rebutal, because my perception of your mistakes doesn't support the notion of philosophical rigour in this conversation. I know many great thinkers such as Thomas Sowell and Christopher Hitchenst can have a certain level of cognitive dissonance, I hope this isn't an example of it.

 

 

[A4E]

I think it would be good for business to do a response video.  A lot of people take potholer's analysis on global warming as the gold standard.

As long as they hold up Co2 as a doomsday molecule, it would be like responding to flat earth videos. I am sure humans have some small effect on warming the planet, but so does beetles, worms, algae, fish, whales, ants, termites...

 

We know that it is a hoax, and not a real danger, for many different reasons. Some of the most known reasons are that governments/UN are not applying the cheapest, most effective, and environmental friendly ways to cool down the planet. Another reason I can think of is that it would be mandatory to make all cars white. But some of the most obvious reasons is that those who speak out the most about this danger are themselves carbon footprint maniacs. And government servants/officials never use skype/line/whatever for their worldwide meetings. No, they have to fly to meet in person every time. How strange, I thought this was "the worlds biggest problem"?

 

It is always about the "little people" who have to "pay for their sins". I have never seen any mandatory solutions for people to paint their rooftops white, I guess because that does not send resources to those in power.

 

Here in Norway many years ago, there was a guy who invented a cheap environmental friendly white powder or something that could be spread out in huge areas to reflect sunlight. Never heard ANYTHING about it since.

 

 

There are other real worldwide environmental issues to worry about. Like man made plastic pollution.

 

We are wasting countless resources and time and energy and thought on this BS, that politically is all about more state power. And EVEN if it is all true, here is a guy making a case for why it is ridiculous to let state or world powers try to do anything about it with their carbon tax:

 

[Gavitor]

So he points out that it was 20x hotter in the past yet life still exists... Life tends to thrive in a warmer climate so I'm not seeing any negatives from planet getting warmer.

 

I think Ben makes some good points when he debates it.

 

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

Well, looks like Stef has been completely disproved on this topic. The best course of action now is to give everything back into the hands of governments and to remove all our personal freedoms, because this is the only eay to solve the problem.

[EclecticIdealist]

Well, looks like Stef has been completely disproved on this topic. The best course of action now is to give everything back into the hands of governments and to remove all our personal freedoms, because this is the only way to solve the problem.

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. Just like if someone criticizes companies that exploit their employees, they're marxists.

[Anuojat]

After he simply invented positions for Stefan, I don't have much desire to click through his other videos.

Besides Concurring with that Mole said, I want to point out that this could exactly be the case with Poholer54 he heard Stefan talking about the "magic" multiplier and stopped lisening further because its equally misrepresentetative of what climate scientist say.

 

Now you could say he SHOULD have kep lisening more of stefans videos but... isint that the same rule youre talking about here?

Well, looks like Stef has been completely disproved on this topic. The best course of action now is to give everything back into the hands of governments and to remove all our personal freedoms, because this is the only eay to solve the problem.

 

 

Yeah, that's exactly what he's saying. Just like if someone criticizes companies that exploit their employees, they're marxists.

 Who is this thread (Or potholer54) has ever said anything like that?

 

I dont recall him ever saying that in his videos and i dont see evidence of anyone here or other threads about his videos advocating for government "solution".

[DaVinci]

I'm fascinated by the subject and still trying to get a grasp on it so I'm going to watch potholer54's videos. What he said about Stefan in the video in the OP was irrelevant to me. 

[EclecticIdealist]

 Who in this thread (Or potholer54) has ever said anything like that?

I quoted him in my post. 

[Anuojat]

I quoted him in my post. 

 You quoted Dylan not anyone else.

Nope. I'm not the one making a "rebuttal" video.

 

If I was making a rebuttal video I'd make damn sure to not invent positions for the person I'm rebutting and actually address their specific arguments.

ALLRIGHT, FAIR POINT.

You folks may have infinite time to waste, but I'd rather watch the work of a different climate change proponent to hasn't already demonstrated themselves to be either careless or manipulative.

 

Not to mention that we've already addressed many of his stated points in other videos - just as we'll continue to do in the future.

WHERE? ALL IVE SEEN IS MISUNDERSTANDING AND THINGS WHICH POTHOLER54 ADRESSES IN HIS VIDEOS BUT MAYBE I MISSED SOME VIDEO ON THIS.

 

Nobody cares about your "perspective" and if you've listened to the show you should know that you actually need to bring reason and evidence to the table. Not perspective.

 

The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims - i.e. the climate change alarmists - and there are PLENTY of good reasons to be incredibly skeptical given a long history of failed predictions, false claims, manipulated data sets, the career-destroying opposition to those who bring up any skepticism, massive financial incentives for conforming to the dominant narrative, etc.

SOURCES FOR ANY OF THESE (counter)CLAIMS? ALSO WHY "ALARMIST"? ALL IVE EVER SEEN ARE THE POLITICALLY MOTIVATED VS THE ACTUAL SCIENCE ON THE MATTER, IF YOU MEAN POLITICALLY BIASED ALARMIST THEN OK.

[EclecticIdealist]

You quoted Dylan not anyone else.

My response was to his sarcastic comment to his strawman interpretation of the video. What aren't you understanding?

[Mole]

Nobody cares about your "perspective" and if you've listened to the show you should know that you actually need to bring reason and evidence to the table. Not perspective.

 

The burden of proof is on those making the extraordinary claims - i.e. the climate change alarmists - and there are PLENTY of good reasons to be incredibly skeptical given a long history of failed predictions, false claims, manipulated data sets, the career-destroying opposition to those who bring up any skepticism, massive financial incentives for conforming to the dominant narrative, etc.

Maybe you don't, but some people might care about my reasoning followed by my perspective because they sympathise with it, and therefore know there's a greater chance that their feelings are justified. Like when you go to see a therapist, regardless of the evidence you already have. That kind of sympathy is important because people don't always react the same in the face of evidence. People aren't perfectly rational.

[Anuojat]

My response was to his sarcastic comment to his strawman interpretation of the video. What aren't you understanding?

Oh my bad i misunderstood you My apologiez (typo i know)

As long as they hold up Co2 as a doomsday molecule, it would be like responding to flat earth videos. I am sure humans have some small effect on warming the planet, but so does beetles, worms, algae, fish, whales, ants, termites...

SCIENTISTS NO, POLITICIANS YES. DEPICTING Co2 AS DOOMSDAY MOLECULE IS NOT FOUND IN ANY FORM IN SCIENTIFIC PAPERS. BLOGS, MEDIA AND THE POLITICIANS MOUTH YES.

We know that it is a hoax, and not a real danger, for many different reasons. Some of the most known reasons are that governments/UN are not applying the cheapest, most effective, and environmental friendly ways to cool down the planet. Another reason I can think of is that it would be mandatory to make all cars white. But some of the most obvious reasons is that those who speak out the most about this danger are themselves carbon footprint maniacs. And government servants/officials never use skype/line/whatever for their worldwide meetings. No, they have to fly to meet in person every time. How strange, I thought this was "the worlds biggest problem"?

A SCINETIFIC THEORY IS NOT A HOAX IF GOVERNMENTS DO A B C OR D. IF I UNDERSTAND YOU TALKING ABOUT THE SCIENCE ON THE MATTER RATHER THAN POLITICAL STANCES OR POLICIANS WORDS.

[A4E]

@Anuojat

 

 

SCIENTISTS NO, POLITICIANS YES

You have a very good point. Most scientists are not alarmists, they don't think there is any significant danger. And big names in science are already trying to blow out the steam of this scare. Very important that you made this distinction actually, so that we hopefully do not waste too much time on this.

 

Most (rational) scientists admit that they don't know precisely how much, or if any significant effect humans are having on climate. (yes there are scientists who are still alarmists. I am speaking of them as a whole).

 

Most sincere thanks!

[Caley McKibbin]

Yes, because it's not about climate, but about ontology. It entirely upends people's reality to accept that the government, the UN, Bill Nye, all the celebrities, the news - they are all part of a great push for "fake science news" in order to gain more power and tax companies to oblivion, or who knows why else.

That was proven very concretely in this survey.  Greater science literacy and numeracy reduces alarmism a bit.  But not among the people that are already alarmists before they pick up a pencil.

[Anuojat]

@Anuojat

 

You have a very good point. Most scientists are not alarmists, they don't think there is any significant danger. And big names in science are already trying to blow out the steam of this scare. Very important that you made this distinction actually, so that we hopefully do not waste too much time on this.

 

Most (rational) scientists admit that they don't know precisely how much, or if any significant effect humans are having on climate. (yes there are scientists who are still alarmists. I am speaking of them as a whole).

 

Most sincere thanks!

Youre welcome. Incidentally i DO know and have friend who works in the field. Not YET as fully fledged climate scientist but definately knowledable on the matter and very much on the "calm down and let think and look the science" camp. And yes he is fellow member of FDR.

[Mole]

Facts don't care about your feelings.

Feelings care about facts.

[Anuojat]

 

Addentum here to the recent news story... (sources in the video description)

[Goldenages]

The alleged global warming is a perfect example for an instrument that strengthens the state.

In Germany the costs for the "Energiewende" til now are ~ 150 billion Euro. Total costs are estimated up to 500 billion. Prices for electricity are among the highest in Europe.

Wasted for a medieval technology, everybody with basic physical knowledge knows that it is not possible to supply a industrial country with wind and solarpower.

I have discussed hours about this topic, pretty much in vain.

Its argued that electric cars will be used as energy storage. Calculated roughly, if there are 40 million cars in Germany (i.e. all cars in Germany electric) and all of them are charged and connected to the power grid, they can support for 72 hours. Thats not only way too short, during that time no car can drive, and nobody can go to work.

Right now in January there was snow on the solar panels, and nearly no wind, for 2 weeks.

 

Members of the green party in Germany stated, that the customers will have to adapt their demand to the available electricity.

Well, thats not a new idea, in Romania under the dictator Nicolea Ceausescu they had such a situation not only for electricity, but also for gas and all other goods.

After the fall of the sowjetregime Ceausescu and his wife were executed by a firing squad.

 

Joachim Schellnhuber, a physicist and adviser of Angela Merkel, wrote "The Great Transformation" (or "World in Transition"), a vision of a CO2 less industrie. To achieve this, a world CO2 bank should be implemented, giving certificates (for money) to every country in the world, and all industrie must only produce within this CO2 certificate.

If you want to have some fun: http://www.wbgu.de/en/flagship-reports/fr-2011-a-social-contrac

 

So there are more than hints that all this CO2 nonsense is another approach of the lefts to establish slavery, even if the worst case scenario of global warming was correct (which for sure is not) it would be Disneyland against such plans.

Donald Trump has the right attitude, disempower the Church of Global Warming.

Thank God.

 

regards

Andi