Opinion on Dave Rubin?!

>but only invites guests who agree with him
That's not true at all. A couple recent examples include Scott Adams, Milo Yiannopolous (or however the fuck you spell that) and Alex Epstein.

only one of those I recognize is Milo who is also an anti-sjw/"cultural libertarian" who is in the same camp as Dave Rubin. But I'll watch the other two interviews

He's a typical left-wing pseudo-intellectual. I have never seen him bring on a guest he has serious disagreements with, and most of his "reasonableness" is, in fact, simply unproven assumptions presented as indisputable fact. He tends to present issues in eh absence of meaningful context, which is proof of his own lack of curiosity and intellectual integrity.

he is the incarnation of a centrist. he has literally no opinion.

Is aw the Adams and Milo interviews. He clearly did not have any serious disagreements with those two. There were slight divergences of perspective on some issues, sure, but both are, like Rubin, "cultural libertarians" who think they are smarter than everyone else.

>only one of those I recognize is Milo
Alex Epstein is a fossil fuels advocate. Scott Adams is the creator of Dilbert and is basically a Trump supporter masquerading as an expert on persuasion. Neither of their interviews really touched on the topic of the regressive left at all.

>Is aw the Adams and Milo interviews. He clearly did not have any serious disagreements with those two.
That's just because Dave Rubin doesn't argue with his guests. I guarantee you that he does not see eye-to-eye with either one of them.

>anti SJW

So he's a gay man who doesn't have to try and impress women on college campuses by being feminist or as they're called in some quarters a cuck

why should he? does it matter?

>didnt even know he was gay until now, he really doesnt bring that shit up
The fact that he doesn't bring it up unless the topic of gay marriage comes up is a credit to gay people.

probably because it's irrelevant until gay marriage comes up

>a centrist is one who has no opinion
when will this meme end

never, centrist

I know. What I'm getting at is the fact that many other fags (Milo included) make the topic of who they prefer to have sex with into a major part of their identity. I like to look at porn of anime girls, but you don't hear my bringing this up in every conversation I have with people or when I introduce myself to new people.

>Rubin

>www.echoman.com/See for yourself why Echo's Visual >Health Record is the best Electronic Health Record for behavioral health.
What are you trying to get at here...?

>(((Rubin)))

So he's a Jew and a homosexual. Where have I heard this degeneracy before?

This desu.

Dave Rubin: It's harder to swallow the red pill than it is to swallow a cock.

He's coming around, slowly. Fits and starts, but he is coming around.

Ironically, better than most of the (((news))).

A centrist can hold strong opinions from both sides of the aisle, not everything is black and white medpack.

He's another Jew trying to co-opt the "Alt Right" movement try get more shekels. He proclaimed on Moleneux's JewTube video that he's a Jew from Queens and Long Island.

and he had a really bad nose job

>trying to co-opt the "Alt Right" movement

Not at all. He's a self-proclaimed liberal.

No more "le right wing anti sjw" fags please.

I like his show. He has interesting people on. It serves a purpose.

He himself doesn't have a lot of interesting or powerful opinions or thoughts, but I don't think he has any pretensions to. His show is just about actually listening to and taking seriously viewpoints that leftist culture rejects out of hand.

Hopefully some day he'll have an actual fascist or someone like Kevin Macdonald on to really trigger people

Sane and likable, even though he has a middle child's face and probably had a flame shirt in middle school.

Great vector to start normies onto the alt right. He gives fair coverage to some of our tamer ideas in an approachable way. Recommend to normie friends and push the o-window

>Dave Rubin doesn't argue with his guests

Which is the heart of the problem. Since classical antiquity western civilization has known that a dialectic discourse (two parties arguing contrary positions) was the best way to get to the truth. Rubin's unwillingness to challenge his guests is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

A degenerate centrist lolbertarian. At least Milo calls out SJWs and PC culture.

>Dave Rubin
>right wing

Time to stop posting.

Still a Leftist. Squirmed hard when Milo named the Jew in front of him, even though they're both fucking Jews.
Savagely bluepilled.

WIDE
KHAZAR
MOUTH

I wouldn't say that he needs to argue with or debate his guests for his interviews to be interesting, but he definitely needs to step in when they start spewing actual bullshit and hold them to some standards of honesty and empiricism. It's one thing to not challenge a guest's opinions that he may disagree with, but the problem is when he doesn't control his guests when they start to make questionable claims about the world that they can't support.

Wait, this jew is also gay?

I can take the judaism, but there is no place in the right for faggots. They fuck poop, man, they aren't mentally normal.

Gay liberal libertarian.

Not really libertarian. Not that smart. Not that good at critical reasoning.

Should change the name of his show to "just listening".

Explain in more detail.

Him and stefan had a good conversation yesterday

That's an overly-critical exaggeration, but there is truth behind all of your criticisms.

It's also why, I think, Stefan Molyneux is willing to have him on FDR via webcam, but is not too excited to go on Rubin's show in person "unless there is market demand for it," which, of course, there isn't.

This

Except desu hes way too far on the side of the right. It's good to listen and all but when your taking the guy who wrote 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels' seriously your honestly just retarded.

He's still a cuck. Supports lolbertarian Johnson like a fag.

lol you must be a noob phrenologist. The jude has a wide grin, usually lacking a deep fossa canina. This gives rise to the characteristic "semitic smile" you see in this cocksmoker, and other of his tribe.

this is why the jew snarls as he smiles

>but when your taking the guy who wrote 'The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels' seriously your honestly just retarded.

>there's no moral case to be made for fossil fuels
Do you even know what his argument is? Can you explain it to me under the assumption that I have never heard of him? I'm going to guess no but please blow me away

I never really noticed it before.

faggots aren't "cucks", they are are all dramatic suicide cases. The only reason they are killing themselves today is they anticipate a more extravagant stage tommorow.

This. It is so blatant and obvious that when he does it he doesn't actually think there is a middle ground, he doesn't like being in direct opposition to his guests. While it is annoying to watch I think he just uses it to keep the conversation going and let the person keep explaining their ideas and not get bogged down in argument. Like he says the show is about ideas and letting the viewer decide, he bit his tounge pretty hard when the climate change denier was on.

who's the climate change denier?

I've seen two people on his show that people call climate change deniers... who don't actually deny that climate change is a thing, they just don't believe we should literally allow millions of people in the third world to die in the quest to prevent the average temperature from increasing by a degree over the next 100 years, there's no more radical stance than that one

I don't like him. He comes off as an elitist.

>the climate change denier
The fact that you call Alex Epstein a "denier," as if climate change were a religion and he were a heretic, makes me take your opinion about as seriously as I'd take the opinion of a high school kiddie.

Yeah it seems to rest on the idea that if he's just blind enough of on how bad climate change really is its morally justifiable to use fossil fuels due to the benefit it has for humanity as a whole.

It is scientific fact that climate change is happening and will have destructive effects on human life (e.g. Ocean acidification, rising global temperatures etc.) and to sit their and take Alex Epstein as having any legitimate arguments against climate change is incorrect.

>If I call it a religion I don't have to actually argue with it

If someone didn't believe in gravity would me calling them a gravity denier make the theory of gravity a religion?

>It is a scientific fact that
Are you a climate scientist? How do you know?

I've read a lot about how this data has been cooked. Also, notice how your chart ends at the year 2000? That's because the Earth stopped warming since around then. climatedepot.com/2015/11/04/no-global-warming-at-all-for-18-years-9-months-a-new-record-the-pause-lengthens-again-just-in-time-for-un-summit-in-paris/

Explain the global warning pause without resorting to religious style attacks.

>one degree over 150 years
>implying this is catastrophic while fossil fuel use directly correlates to fewer climate related deaths
gonna have to do more than that to convince me we should turn to the government to "fix" this when they're the ones who regulated the one viable alternative out of existence in the first place

I wish people would stop coming here to seek validation from autists and anime faggots on their youtube personalities.

The difference between science and religion is that science makes falsifiable predictions about the world. Climate scientists have consistently made these predictions and they've been consistently been proven wrong for decades now, by reality. Yet, believers are not shaken by this at all.

He is the perfect trojan horse to redpill normies.

>gay
>jew
>liberal
>cultivated and polite

Now that he's partnering with alt-right figures he'll only spread the movement. I would never been red pilled if I hadn't seen Stefan Molyneux on Joe Rogan. Same principle applies with Rubin, he's a gateway.

not surprising considering weathermen can't even predict the next 7 days accurately
"climate science" is extremely young and unreliable, it's like having cancer in africa and turning to voodoo shamans to treat you because they're the "experts"

On an interview with Larry Elder he tells Larry elder that all cops have more intent to shoot black than whites

He's a good guy. The definition of classic liberal.

He also had Micheal Mann on.

>Explain the global warning pause without resorting to religious style attacks.

If you pick your dates right you can make your data say anything. The pause as I understand it is explained by the absorption of heat by the ocean pic related.

>I've read a lot about how this data has been cooked
Adjusted. Important to do when your temperature stations happen to be around new developments meaning it'll throw off the recorded data. This details how and why data is adjusted.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016187/full

And the rate of that temperaure increase has doubled in the past 50 years earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalWarming/page2.php

>while fossil fuel use directly correlates to fewer climate related deaths

So what happens when we reach the tipping point and millions of square kilometers primarily in the developing world is no longer viable to grow food? What happens when all the oceans are so acidic that costal communities world wide lose many of their main industries when all the marine life dies out? This is mass extinction level shit there's no justifiable way to argue that any death due to holding back on fossil fuels compares in any way to what will happen when shit hits the fan.

Give me a few that weren't made by politicians or climate activists

...

Here you go, bro.

youtube.com/watch?v=pnU29u7YQpQ

He and Alex Epstein aren't of equal validity and to sit there and accept them both as such is just dishonest to your audience.

>If you pick your dates right you can make your data say anything.
Look, if the Earth is warming in correlation to human use of fossil fuels and has been doing so for 100+ years, then there should be no pause. *I'm* the one saying that all years should be included. You are the one who omits data that stops at the year 2000, right when the truth becomes too inconvenient.

>The pause as I understand it is explained by the absorption of heat by the ocean pic related.
How deep is you understanding of this topic? Can you explain it or cite a robust background of relevant literature about it?

>Adjusted. Important to do when your temperature stations happen to be around new developments meaning it'll throw off the recorded data. This details how and why data is adjusted.
>onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011JD016187/full
I don't have time to read and critically analyze the whole study. I also lack the expertise. But just reading the abstract, this shit reeks of pseudoscience.

>And the rate of that temperaure increase has doubled in the past 50 years
But fallen to zero in the past 18 years?

>So what happens when we reach the tipping point and millions of square kilometers primarily in the developing world is no longer viable to grow food? What happens when all the oceans are so acidic that costal communities world wide lose many of their main industries when all the marine life dies out? This is mass extinction level shit there's no justifiable way to argue that any death due to holding back on fossil fuels compares in any way to what will happen when shit hits the fan.
Alarmism is not an argument.

>Give me a few that weren't made by politicians or climate activists
Did you do any research before writing your post? Let me help you.
google.com/search?q=global warming predictions proven wrong&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

He's a fucking retard

And seperately is a leftist, which makes him more of a retard

Hearing him conflate gay marriage with libertarianism nearly made me puke

>1:36
>"Also, Jews like Trump's daughter get plastic surgery to make their nose look smaller."

He's a middling annoyance who says things that are occasionally promising but usually just pretty fucking safe.

She's a convert. Not legit Jew.

She recently made a revised version of the video where she uses Scarlet Johanson instead.

I have respect for him, but he doesn't come off as very intelligent, not sure what new ideas he brings to the forefront. Although he's an interviewer at heart so that's not really what he is trying to do.

Still can't believe he talked to stefan the moonman monlyeux

>So what happens when we reach the tipping point
you mean IF we reach the tipping point, and cheaper energy and better technology would be used to overcome those obstacles. the reason fossil fuel use directly correlates to fewer climate related deaths is because it allows us to accomplish things that would be impossible with just human labor, including very tiny numbers of people producing vastly huge quantities of food because it's cheap and efficient for them to use farm equipment. there is no shortage of farmland in this world and a loss of some due to MAYBE rising seawaters won't put a dent in food production, ESPECIALLY if energy continues to become cheaper and technology continues to advance
>This is mass extinction level shit there's no justifiable way to argue that any death due to holding back on fossil fuels compares in any way to what will happen when shit hits the fan.
so... you're actually making the case for letting people die because if we don't let them die, more people MIGHT die because you have speculated about vague data
I'm gonna have to say no

>(((Rubin)))
Controlled opposition.

He thinks Trump contradicts himself and probably believes shit like politifact.

Fucking Kikist.

Get off Cred Forums

Cred Forums is a board of peace.

>ou are the one who omits data that stops at the year 2000, right when the truth becomes too inconvenient.

I never denied that air temperatures haven't been rising since 2000 but its something that should be expected on short term models for their to exist certain fluctuations on short term time scales.

>How deep is you understanding of this topic?

Not insanely deep I'm not a climate scientist however if your looking for a reason why air temperatures paused since 2000 scientists typically direct you to the sea warming see pic above. You have to take in to acount the warming of all earth systems not just the ones which reaffirm your point of view.

> But just reading the abstract, this shit reeks of pseudoscience.

Well it's not its published in a respected journal

>But fallen to zero in the past 18 years?

Air temperatures yes. Other systems no.

>Alarmism is not an argument.

These things will happen it's not alarmisim. Believe it or not most of the world depends on natural resources such as the seas or fertile land these two things are very sensitive to changes in atmospheric CO2.

>Did you do any research before writing your post? Let me help you.

I want examples.

He's more respectable and presentable than Milo, I wouldn't even had known rubin was gay if not for milo never shutting the fuck up about it. He's not up his own ass unlike that nigger too.
Also can someone post a screencap of the 90 million get? I missed it because of sleep.

(((Dave Rubin)))

>>Still can't believe he talked to stefan the moonman monlyeux
Everybody who is intelligent knows about Stefan Molyneux. I was watching some of the Right Side Broadcasting pre-game interviews and even the RSBN guy knew about Molyneux.

>Controlled opposition.
Another fag who has not watched a single one of Rubin's interviews.

Monlynuex says some truth.

He's just so interesting because I have no idea what he actually thinks.

On one hand he seems like a crazy cult leader that obsessed with parenting because he was abused as a kid.

On the other he seems like a person honestly concerned with the state of society, and uses a pragmatic approach to view society whilst sharing his viewpoint.

I can't really tell which one is which. It's probably a bit of both.

>impossible with just human labor

Alternative energy, we wouldn't be going back to pre-industrial revolution conditions.

>there is no shortage of farmland in this world and a loss of some due to MAYBE rising seawaters won't put a dent in food production, ESPECIALLY if energy continues to become cheaper and technology continues to advance

I'm not talking about farmland destroyed because of this rising sea levels I'm talking about effects such as prolonged droughts.

>so... you're actually making the case for letting people die because if we don't let them die

Yes some people will have to have it shittier and some will die so that we won't all end up fucked in a no return situation.

>I want examples.
Apparently not very badly, since you didn't ever try to google for them.

You can see he is siding with conservatives very very slowly, like how he very very slowly outed himself. My opinion on him? He's okay with the same criticism as you

Well the first article talks about environmentalist predictions and another talks about Al Gores incorrect predictions so if you want to support your argument give me one example you can find of a demonstrably inaccurate prediction accepted by climate scientists

>Alternative energy
the only viable alternative energy is nuclear, which environmentalists want the government to regulate out of existence because it's scary
wind and solar do not work 100% of the time due to lack of wind or sun, they require either batteries which reduce efficiency or burning fossil fuels during their downtime, they are inferior technologies

>I'm talking about effects such as prolonged droughts
yes because warmer oceans and air temperature means less water evaporates... oh wait
even if that was true my point still stands on cheaper energy and better technology being GOOD for agriculture, and who's to say that with a changing climate, we won't end up with more arable land? never even mind the fact that CO2 is FOOD for plants

You're willing to let millions of people die through forced restrictions on their own natural resources based on weak catastrophic predictions and I find that despicable
Environmentalists and communists are the most nihilistic and suicidal people on this planet

Your goalposts shifting is transparent and weak. Where did Al Gore get his predicitons? His ass?

Hydroelectric is the other a viable alternative energy.

he reminds me of a muppet

ah right that too, environmentalists don't like that either because it changes the environment, they are anti-human at their core

Holy shit my eyes have been opened

>Gay
Dropped. One of the biggest enemies around today.

It's a trend that will pass. If you're an unmarried man in Hollywood and not married these days, being gay is the most fashionable and job-getting decision you can make.

>It's a trend that will pass.
lol

It's not going anywhere. Faggots are the oligarchy's shocktroops in the erosion of representative government and freedom of religion and conscience. They're too successful in this regard to simply "pass".

Pretty much. Dave Rubin is me back when I first figured out liberals were dangerously full of shit but I hadn't quite gotten the courage and conviction to go down the far right rabbit hole yet. Basically me in my 3rd and 4th year of college.

He's the purple pull I use to ease apolitical normies or people who are circumstantial social SJWs away from the left.

Being replaced by the transgender shtick?

>yes because warmer oceans and air temperature means less water evaporates... oh wait

That's not true.
climatehotmap.org/global-warming-effects/drought.html

>even if that was true my point still stands on cheaper energy and better technology being GOOD for agriculture

Of course they're good for agriculture but extensive use of these things is eventually going to fuck up the climate beyond repair and whilst richer areas may continue to farm for another several decades poorer areas are going to be left with ravaged and it will then only be so long until the richer areas go under as well.

>never even mind the fact that CO2 is FOOD for plants

Bate

>weak catastrophic predictions

Untrue. Pic related.

I'll admit I was wrong when someone provides me with some examples. Honestly the fact that now several people have replied to that point and not provided any evidence really makes me think there is none.

>Where did Al Gore get his predicitons? His ass?

Very possibly

>Your goalposts shifting is transparent and weak
No has provided a single example let alone an example of an actual scientific prediction.

I love him. His show is actually about debating rather than getting triggered and using ad hominem. He also quit TYT because of the way Cenk treated Sam Harris.

Climate change is happening just as it has happened for millions of years

Do humans influence it? Yeah, probably. But not to any significant degree.

Will it KILL US ALL OMG WE'RE SO FUCKED? Definitely not.

Here are all the peer-reviewed papers that examine humans contribution to global warming and the degree to which we contribute. If your anons analysis ever gets published in a journal let me know but I can't help but feeling he might be leaving a few key facts out.

But he hardly debates, he just gives his side or the opposite sides opinion loosely and that's it really, giving the person who he is interviewing their side across

Peer-reviewed by climate """"""""""scientists"""""""""" who will be out of a job the instant they acknowledge it's all extremely overblown

>Nice facts but you forgot I still have my conjecture and hearsay

Honestly which part of their brain are the alt-right missing? You guys scream science when it comes to trivial shit such as differences between races but then completely stick your fingers in your ears and scream when something counters your worldview. Be consistent at the very least.

did you see the one with roseanne? who knew roseanne hated whites so much?

and the fact that he sees her open anti goy hatred as normal, but is super offended by merchant memes (though he doesn't try to actively censor them- what a mensch) should tell you everything you need to know.

he punches left, so he gets a get out of oven free card.

Nice swastika...

LINGUISTIC

KILL

SHOT

BOOM

Heil Hitler!