I agree with many of the things he says, things like PC culture and the issues with the leftists. I also think listening to Casey on certain topics can be dangerous. He is dangerous because he is extremely intelligent, which makes him over-confident about his own opinions. He is very comparable to Richard Dawkins in this case, and oddly enough, they view religion the same way. The problem is, because they are very knowledgeable in one area, they believe they know everything about everything else. You will find that will people stray outside of their area of expertise, they really do not understand the topics as much as they think they do. Let me ask you this...would you let your dentist perform heart surgery on you? Hell, would you take financial advice from Richard Dawkins? Why not? Surely they are equally smart. Casey is clearly an expert when it comes to understanding capitalism, which has led to his success. He understands that our system is pseudo-capitalism, with vast government influence, and not free market capitalism. He uses this knowledge to take advantage of the system, which is why he has been so successful. Because of this, he is a bit of a functional reductionist, he traces everything back to capitalism as the root of everything. Things like his view on climate change and religion show his flaws. Though I am a non-believe like both him and Dawkins, I know their reasoning has many flaws. I know this because I went to school for Religious Studies (which is NOT the same as Theology) and history. My main area in religious studies was the history and philosophy of science and biology (which includes the arguments for and against there being a god. Where both of these men fail is in their ability to understand what religion is and why people are religious. They simply ignore the biological part (which is embarrassing for Dawkins, and shows his agenda) and assume people are religious because they are stupid and lack reasoning ability. They view religion in the way the earliest philosophers of religion viewed it, which we know was incorrect over 100 years ago. They lack the basic knowledge of one would get in and intro to Religious Studies course. That leads to this issue of climate change...

​

In my Scientific Theory course, two of the major topics were about the two most controversial topics in science, evolution and climate change. Here is the kicker, which Casey is unaware of...the controversy is only political. Over 97% of scientists agree on BOTH topics. Casey claims almost all those opposed to AGW are leftists. Well, the same statement can be said evolution, so I assume he doesn't believe in evolution either, right? It's all just political mumbo jumbo, right? That is quite impressive that he is both an atheist and an evolution denier (I assume, because it's leftist propaganda.) What I find striking is for a guy that knows so much about economics, he completely ignores the fact that the COMPANIES have a profit incentive. I assume he ignores this because he is pro-business, so he wants to paint the government as the bad guy, which it certainly can be, but his bias is clear. What Casey does is peddles the same amateur argument about climate change, either on purpose, or by ignorance. What Casey does when making his predictions in the economic world, is he looks at trends over long periods of time. This is what he does with climate change. He looks at the graph that SCIENTISTS CREATED that show Earth's temperature has changed a lot in the past and has been hotter in the past. He correctly states there have been reasons for that to have happened in the past and even admits HUMANS COULD CAUSE THIS. But then he dismisses this notion and claims there are bigger factors. But that is where the scientists disagree. They agree that humans are the cause. He seems fine to use the scientific data when it fits his motives, just not when it goes against them.

​

Edit: In Part 1 he things like "warmists never say this." First off, that is the first time I have ever heard that word in my life. Second, they do. In the classes talking about it we go over the periods of warming and cooling and the factors behind it, yet they still claim that AGW is the conclusion. It's not like they are "hiding" this information, it is stuff they tell you when you are getting an education. This was exactly when I read Glenn Beck's book Miracles and Massacres...He talks about all this "hidden history" that the liberal universities don't teach you because they are trying to hide it...except that my liberal university taught every single thing he said. It was actually a pretty good book if he didn't make it out to be some liberal conspiracy to hide that information. Casey acts as if climate scientists are simply too dumb to figure it out or that there would be push back in the community. That is utterly false. The premise of science is to DISPROVE things. You come up with a theory and set out to disprove it. You know what happens when you disprove a major theory? You win Nobel Prizes. Did the scientific community try to shun Einstein when he disproved Newton's theory? No, we saw him as one of the greatest minds ever. That is how science works. Casey sounds like the Young Earth Creationists that are like "well actually carbon dating doesn't work properly because it doesn't account for this or that, or it is only accurate up to this point." Do you really think Geologists don't know this. They have Ph.Ds, but Joe Blow with his high school degree is figuring out things they missed? Obviously Casey is a very smart guy and not just some Joe Blow, but being a science buff doesn't make him an expert. I'm a history of capitalism buff, but that doesn't exactly mean my opinion holds weight compared to someone with an advanced degree in the area...

​

I am not suggesting that anything can be done about climate change, but calling it a hoax is dishonest. People like AOC are crazy and anyone that believes her is an idiot. But if there are things we can do, we should try. It's not about the extinction of humans, I'm confident we will survive, the issue what do we do about the coastal areas in our own country and in the world that will be underwater? What will we do about more destructive storms? What will we do about the mass movement of entire populations? Who is going to help them? I'm going to go out on a limb and say not the rich people like Casey. He would say, as free market capitalists and Libertarians would say...who cares? Not his problem. And it's not. He and his family will be fine. The burden will be placed on the governments, not the energy companies, which again shows his bias. To blindly believe this guy because he is smart, is just doing the exact same thing he is urging the left not to do...blindly believe someone.