Stefan Molyneux

>>8508942

Bloody fucking none !

Listen him and think again, and again until it sinks.

>>8508942
Molyneux is a egoistical fruitcake. I don't really see the point of digging through his shit to find the worst parts.

>The other thread probably already discussed this but all serious responses are beneath a thousand of idiotic ones.
Welcome to /sci/.

File: Stefan Molyneux Prophecy.png (44KB, 890x445px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 890x445px

>>8510045
>Welcome to /sci/.
This.

Also, if you treat Molyneux as a biased radio host, you might start to enjoy some of his videos - he's still mostly full of shit and an egomaniac, but he has some good points.

One more thing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7XJIioZEgQ
THE BOND WAS STRONG ENOUGH THAT I DIDN'T FUCKING KILL HER
THAT'S MY FORGIVENESS

>climate scientists across the world agree agw is real: have credentials and study the climate for a living
>molyneux says it's not real: has a YouTube channel


lmao mass literacy was a mistake

File: Stefan Molyneux Pepe.png (243KB, 1753x620px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 1753x620px

>>8510550
ONE DOLLAR

>>8508942
>jew
>bald
into the oven it goes

>>8508942
Here, I will repost my responses to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gDErDwXqhc which is actually just Stefan reading this article out loud: https://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case

I will not bother responding to his other videos, since this is his most "scientific." The rest are typical nutjob politicized conspiracy logic that doesn't merit a response.

Skeptic Claim 1: The feedbacks reduce the greenhouse effect.

If this were true then the climatological history of the Earth would be very different from what it actually is. What we see is that the Earth swings between glacial and interglacial periods. Glacial periods end quickly and begin slowly. This is because they end when the orbital eccentricity of the Earth causes it to receive more solar radiation, which evaporates CO2 and water vapor from the oceans, which warm the Earth further via the greenhouse effect, creating a positive feedback loop which rapidly warms the Earth. Eventually the orbital eccentricity of the Earth swings back and the Earth slowly cools back into a glacial phase. If the feedback loop reduced the greenhouse effect, we would see the exact opposite, the Earth would constantly be glacial and only warm slowly, as there is nothing to cause rapid warming.

The fact that feedback loops increase the greenhouse effect is based not just on fundamental theory but on direct empirical observations of the effect of water vapor. The skeptics who find sensitivity of 1 degree or less are most commonly cherrypicking a brief period of low warming and calculating sensitivity from that. It's simply faulty science. Here's an article discussing the phenomenon among skeptics https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jan/12/nasa-study-fixes-error-in-low-contrarian-climate-sensitivity-estimates

Continued...

>>8508942
Skeptic Claim 2: Hansen's 1988 predictions are wrong

Yes, they're wrong because they overestimated climate sensitivity (also the three scenarios do not match today's greenhouse gas concentrations). A climate sensitivity of 3 degrees C results in the observed trend. The video fails to point this out because it directly contradicts their first point.

Another thing to point out is that skeptics often claim that the satellite temperature data is "more accurate" than thermometer stations, but they're not. The only reason skeptics prefer them is because they show colder temperatures than the surface. It is important to remember that satellites don't measure the temperature of the surface but of the lower troposphere.

Skeptic Claim 3: We haven't been measuring ocean temps properly since 2003, so the models are wrong.

Yet another example of cherrypicking. There is no reason to reject previous ocean heat data and ARGO buoys suffer from many of the same issues as previous measurements. When you take all the data into account, the "prediction" is actually just the trendline of observed ocean warming.

Skeptic Claim 4: The Tropospheric Hotspot is the most "prominent" feature of climatological theory and its missing

This one is a bit more nuanced, so read up on why it's false here: http://www.realclimate.org/docs/santer_etal_IJoC_08_fact_sheet.pdf

Skeptic Claim 5: Outgoing radiation is increasing

The sole source of this claim is a single flawed paper which contradicts essentially every other study on the same question and has been debunked numerous times: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Lindzen-Choi-2009-low-climate-sensitivity.htm

What all of these claims essentially boil down to is a willingness to misleadingly present only some parts of the picture (and exaggerate those parts) in order to argue for a preconceived ideological conclusion. It's not scientific.

>>8508942
>>8510584
>>8510586
And feel free to read the responses from deniers to these posts and my responses to them, they really illustrate how deniers only listen to what they want to hear:

>>8509858
>>8509862
>>8509863
>>8509867
>>8509873

what if it's too late to fix global warming?

is it REALLY worth sacrificing your national energy independence when countries like china don't give two shits and will gladly out-compete you while further raping the doomed environment?

plus, it's entirely possible that intelligent life forms will rise up again in earth's future, and be better adapted to the new climate, and might even be smarter than us too

>>8508942
>The other thread probably already discussed this but all serious responses are beneath a thousand of idiotic ones.
>implying this thread will be any different

>>8509566
>listen to Molyjew until you indoctrinate yourself
Really makes me HURR

>>8510600
>too late to fix global warming?
Yes, we should have started in the middle of the last little ice age.

File: 2.jpg (13KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 500x282px

>>8510600
>what if it's too late to fix global warming?
Then we don't have to worry about ever paying off our debt since there's no future to really worry about so we may as well publicly finance reconstructing a total reconstruction of our energy infrastructure to have as low of a carbon foot print as possible... 99% nuclear, wind, solar, etc, etc...

>is it REALLY worth sacrificing your national energy independence when countries like china don't give two shits and will gladly out-compete you while further raping the doomed environment?
China's actually implementing reforms now because they won't be able to breath or sustain life if they don't seriously move towards non-polluting energy sources

>>8510600
>what if it's too late to fix global warming?
It doesn't really work like that. instead, the consequences will just get steadily worse the longer we contribute to the problem.

>is it REALLY worth sacrificing your national energy independence when countries like china don't give two shits and will gladly out-compete you while further raping the doomed environment?
Yes?
Firstly because China actually DOES care, and are actually doing pretty well at advancing renewable and nuclear energy. They don't want to get screwed by the climate either.
Secondly, "well fuck everyone then, we all burn" is the worst possible solution to the Tragedy of the Commons. I get why it's appealing to people's inner vindictive five-year-old, but grow up

>>8510600
China is the only major power that gives a shit about installing wind turbines