Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Scientists Make Stand Against Trump" video.

As a scientist myself I view Trump administrations as being on the path towards success. And I view this march to be asinine. Really, if Bill Nye is the only "scientist" you can get to speak at these rallies than you are desperate.
8
"Science is supposed to be about objective study and skepticism, not obedience to doctrine." Best saying in this entire comment section. The left has turned science into a religion.
2
Yes. I am a scientist but I support the constitution and feel that any funding for science should be at the state and local level. The reality is that the problem with science these days is the fact that it has become politicized and the left is misrepresenting it.
2
Who were poll? Were they only academic scientists or those in industry as well? Also, you have to realize that they know science and really not much of anything else. Those scientists do not have a deep understanding on economics or the market which if you did your political bias will differ.
2
Jace, liberals are treating science as a religion which is a disgrace to science.
2
I am a scientist. I use nonlinear optical techniques to study biological structures.
2
Jairo, I am a scientist. I use nonlinear optical techniques to study biological material.
2
Read the book "Why Scientist Disagree About Global Warming". They run through the consensus.
1
I study science for a living. Fact is that what George is saying is true. Politically motivated science is being attacked, but not science. The political left has poisoned science and have led the general public, who the majority of them are not scientists, down the wrong path on the issues. They have done so to grow in power. Remember, these are politicians. This is a march against science in my opinion as the people marching here want more government involved in science.
1
Science is always up for debate. My friend is doing his doctorate work on energy transfer in electronic transitions. They are being looked at to explain the physics behind photosynthesis which is debated. Here is a paper related to the topic (I know this paper as it is related to my work). http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n6/abs/nphys1652.html
1
"Yes, DETAILS are always up for debate, but when someone pretend there is a debate about whether global warming is happening, or evolutionary theory, then they aren't interested in debating details" Except almost everyone is saying the earth is warming. That is the problem. When someone comes up as a skeptic people immediately label them as a climate change denier when they aren't. " but whether evolution happened is not of debate." I agree. But that is not my point. Same with climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. What is happening right now we do not fully understand. And is it even bad? "The right has made science as much a religion as the left. " Uh, no. The right wants to keep science out of DC and leave it in the hands of the scientists. ". It's the reporting of science being turned into the science, " You can report things incorrectly. Science is a complex field that few understand. It seems like you are one of those few. That is not to be rude by you are presenting yourself like that. I get angry when I hear politicians like Obama and Bernie make claims in the name of science. I can see why Bernie struggled in science " The ones pretending there is some sort of broad "debate" are the same type of people that think creation science and spirit science are science" Again, not true. Look up Dover vs Penn and remember, that was a Bush appointed judge. "but if you are pretending there is a debate about whether AGW is happening," It is happening. But to what degree is man playing and is it even bad? "There is nothing wrong with more government in science, " Yes there is. It creates bureaucracy and special interest groups and hinders progress. "This particular government is supposed to ve a democracy, and people based, but it's led by corporations " Obama has received donor money from "green" energy companies. "By the way, science happens to have a left leaning," Not true at all. "because reality has a left leaning liberal bias." Yeah, like there are more than two genders. Or there is not a consensus on climate change. Or how Oregon, a liberal state, has anti-vaxxers. That is just on science, do not let me get to economics as you will look foolish on that statement.
1
Dayne, it is clear that you have a bias. You label anyone who is a skeptic a denier. And you said that reality has a liberal bias.
1
" Scientists have been some of the most politically active people I know," As a scientist I disagree. To me they are ignorant when it comes to politics.
1
Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" There is not consensus on the issue and thus no reason to strike.
1
Pedro, read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" They cover the NASA consensus and how it is deceptive.
1
Alex, a lot of things causes terrorism. Terrorists are not fighting for resources but are fighting for an ideology and the fact that they hate other people. Climate change has little to do with it.
1
" The mistake scientists made was laying the blame on mankind and our use of fossil fuels. " Actually, the political left is doing that, not scientists.
1
Nu Skinner, no one hates science. They hate how politicians has poisoned it. I find this march to be asinine as the democrats have been misrepresenting science for years now.
1
http://www.mitr.p.lodz.pl/evu/lectures/Hamm.pdf There is a book that is related to my work.
1
Erick, if you were a scientist you will understand that a problem in science is how it has become politicized, and politics have poisoned it. Look at climate change. What liberal politicians are saying is not what the scientists are saying. There is an agenda. Obama received money from "green" energy companies during his campaign. But when you look at the issue of climate change the questions are 1. How much is man playing a role? 2. Is it even bad? As for the cuts, yes, they are bad. But we need to cut in many programs. We are running a deficit as spending has been going up for years. And if you want to help on alternative fuels than reduce regulations that hinder progress in them. For example, to make solar cells it requires minerals from mines (such as the f-elements). But opening new mines, due to federal regulations, is expensive.
1
Robert, you do not have to believe me as that does not change anything. Fact is that when they get Bill Nye as the scientists to represent this march goes to show how terrible it is. Bill Nye ran a kid show and never produced a peer reviewed paper.
1
"So what we deduct from the science and education budgets, we give to the military. " We have been increasing science and education spending for the past few years. Also, most education spending is local and science spending, on a constitutional standpoint, should be as well. Defense spending is constitutional and defense spending, in terms of percent GDP has been going down the past few years. I am a supporter of cutting all across the board as we are a nation in debt. But there is a reason why defense spending increased a little.
1
Jo Fisher, it is funny that you mentioned Tyson. Look up the video "Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?-Neil deGrasse Tyson" Richard Dawkins is a troll and has not done anything relative to science in 30 years.
1
Read the constitution and show me where it says the federal government is allowed to fund for education and science research. Spoiler alert, it does not exist. Thus it becomes a state issue.
1
Dawkins has done great work up until the 80s. Since then he took the atheist thing and ran with it acting no different the religious radicals he criticizes. Dawkins is an embarrassment to the atheist crowd.
1
The 14th amendments has it so everyone is equal in the eyes of the law. The government cannot discriminate which is why Jim Crow Laws were abolish and it was the amendment for Brown vs Board. People can, government can't. "Now, care to explain how reporting on planned demonstrations by scientists constitutes a discussion of any aspect of science?" They are discussing science and have in the past. " And by the way, you have yet to indicate where the Constitution prohibits the government from funding education and scientific research" The Constitution lists what the role of the federal government is. If it does not list funding for science and education than it is not allowed to do it. "what makes spending on defense constitutional " Article I, section 8 " To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;" ", who on the political left has "poisoned science,"" At this point about all of them. Politics poisons a lot. The democrats are the ones who are actively involved in science, thus they have poisoned it. Plus, those same politicians are not scientists, so by your logic they should not be discussing it. "which go against mainstream, peer-reviewed science," Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". You will not hear a scientist say the same thing politicians are saying about climate change.
1
1. Yes it does. A law cannot be bias towards anyone. " And by the way, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin in BOTH the private and the public sector. " And that is a wrong ruling as that should be a state issue involving private companies. But the SC has made incorrect rulings in the past. Look up Kelo vs City of New London. 2. They discussed science in the past and they are discussing funding in science. They are not economists either, so they should not be discussing that as well. Ana has a degree in journalism for example. Cenk has one in management. 3. In the constitution. It lists the role of congress and the presidency. So Article I and Article II. 4. "By that logic, the federal government is not allowed to fund the National Weather Service, the FDC or the CDC. " National Weather Service can fall in line with the commerce clause as there is an interest in having weather across the country being known due to trade over state lines.. The FDC, to a degree can fall in line with the commerce clause to prevent certain food and drugs from going from one state to another that does not meet a standard. Same with the CDC to a degree. 5. " In other words, you can’t name any on the political left who have “poisoned science.”" Bernie Sanders and Barrack Obama. Remember. Sanders even admitted that he struggled in science classes. " And by the way, how many on the left can be described as anti-evolution, antivaxx, anti man-made global warming and anti stem cell research? " You keep pointing to the same things. One, evolution is what it is, a theory. Also, a Bush appointed judge in the Dover vs Penn trial ruled in favor of science over creationism. Very few are anti-vaxx and they are the radicals of the group (also, Bill Maher has been criticized for being anti-vaxx). They are not anti-man made global warming. They disagree to what degree man is playing a role in climate change. Scott Pruit even said that man is influencing climate. Also, Bush had a more environmental friendly home compared to Gore. And stem cell research was never banned. They did not want federal funds going to it. Meanwhile the left is using science as an excuse to raise taxes and regulations and give money to special interest groups.
1
I am a scientist and I view anyone marching in this event to be an idiot.
1
Robert, the political left has poisoned science. Instead of using science as a means to advance our society and create wealth, they have used it as a means to grow in power and tax and regulate the economy in their favor. Take climate change for example. What the political left if saying about climate change the scientists are not saying at all. But people buy into what politics are saying (none of which are scientists) and become ignorant on the issue. Trump is not anti-science. Right now we have a budget problem and we need to cut. Also, the political left has become extreme on the climate change issue so we need to pull back on it. I support what Trump is doing. Those that don't are either ignorant or have a bias.
1
High schools can't teach creationism. Look up Dover vs Pennsylvania. By they way, that was a Bush appointed judge that ruled on that case.
1
You don't prove anything with science.
1
If you say you're a liberal, it's the same as saying that you're an economic denier.
1
Martin, that is true and that is a problem I have right now with the left. It has become so bad that they refuse to acknowledge counter viewpoints, even scientists themselves. I work in science and recently a bunch of my colleagues received a book entitled "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" in their mailbox for free. They ripped on it and feel that Trump promoted the book (which is not true from what I have seen). I later asked one if they actually read the book. They said no. How can you then criticize something if you did not read it? It has citations, some from Nature and Science. And the authors have PhDs. Immediately by not reading it make them look anti-intellectual. But they refuse to read it because 1. They have such a strong belief in something 2. They feel it is promoted by Trump and that he is somehow "anti-science" It is sad and frustrating to watch.
1
Anthony, the 97% consensus has been debunked a long time ago. Anyone who cites it is anti-science in my book.
1
Anthony, Fred Singer cited similar works in his book. "was universally slammed by the scientific community for distorting his research to suggest climate change is fake." Please show where that happened. Also, who is saying climate change is fake? Questioning the issue of climate change is not calling it fake. You have become so extreme on the issue that anyone who even questions your strongly held, religious like belief you call a "climate change denier". I know climate change is happening, it has been for over 4 billion years. I support what that article says for the most part. Am I a climate change denier? Remember, I just said climate change is happening.
1
" he was called out on it and debunked by actual scientist. please look it up..." Or how about you give us that information.
1
"These studies are on global warming as a general subject, so it's normal that a large part of them would not draw a conclusion on the CAUSE." As someone who reads and publishes papers myself I will say that the vast majority of scientists do not come up with a conclusion, and those that do do so in a vague manner. The reason why is because nothing is science is certain, and science is driven off of doubt an skepticism. Anyone who drifts from that is no longer doing science but instead is doing doctrine. "As a scientist working in chemistry in europe, I "BELIEVE" that we can asses that most of us will still agree on man-made climate change, as when it comes to CAUSE, studies go overwhelmingly in it's favor (97% compared to 3% from the statistics above) after peer-review" As someone who studies physical chemistry I will say that man is having an influence on the climate. The issue is to what degree? We cannot say. And is it even bad? We cannot accurately measure the influence the climate change will have on the environment. Consider this, we do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis. Photosynthesis is taught in grade school, but the actual physics of it, at the quantum level, is still in debate. The other issue with climate change is that it is a vague issue. It involves many fields in science. A biologist has their viewpoints and their research, but lacks understanding of physics. Using the photosynthesis example, a biologist understands that to a point, but they do not understand the quantum mechanical side of it. It is safe to say that almost every biologist in my university does not even know what a quantum coherence is. But a physicists is not out in the field studying patterns in plants and living organism for example. Climate change is a very vague and complex issue. Anyone who starts to give high certainty on the issue is either ignorant on the topic or bias. We do not know how the environment is going to react. We can make predictions but we do not know. Evolution itself is a complex topic (and is why it is a grad level course). So, as a scientist myself, I will say that the issue on climate change is not settled, and anyone who says it is is bias.
1
"when the overwhelming majority of scientist are saying the same thing" They aren't though. " FACT: Fossil fuels pollute and harm the environment" To what degree though. " FACT: Fossil fuels are not a sustainable source of energy." We know. But right now it is the best we have and we need them to produce resources to use alternative forms of energy. We can't just create solar panels and wind mills without energy. "FACT: crude oil kills ocean life and destroys the planet. " Eh, depends. "the real question is if we are capable of better than why not force the government to do so." One, are we capable. Next, the government involves bureaucracy and special interest groups. That creates inefficiency and hinders progress. Plus, despite what you feel the private sector does support going green. Exxon mobile help fund the San Gorgonio wind farm.
1
"Theories and the consensus behind them form from the collection of the vague conclusions when the evidence from enough published studies point into a direction (to take the photoshyntesis exemple, studies pointed to a global understanding that it exist and globally how it works and is thus taught in schools). That's how we have a base for further studies, but of course the science behind it is not settled. And it is when enough studies find that previous ones where lacking that the theory and thus the consensus behind it is debated or approved further with modifications according to the studies following the baseline found." I agree, when it comes to climate change we are lacking a lot as the environment is complex. Sticking to photosynthesis (I pick this because my friend gave a talk on this and this is his research project that is very interesting) we do not understand the quantum nature of it and as we look deeper in it is it unclear how energy can reach a reaction center at a high probability in a short time scale (femtosecond) with so much noise involved. If we expand that to all of nature than the evolution process is complex. What makes people think the environment cannot involve? "The effect climate change will have on the environment: here I find you overly skeptical, we do have temperature trend data, true alarmistic go too far with the effects it could have in the future, but we can still corelate that to what we have nowadays (warmer sea, level rising for exemple) " I do not deny the data, and very few do. The questions remain. How much is man playing a role, and is it even bad? But few are denying the data as the data is there. What it all means is the question. "The effect climate change will have on the environment: here I find you overly skeptical, we do have temperature trend data, true alarmistic go too far with the effects it could have in the future, but we can still corelate that to what we have nowadays (warmer sea, level rising for exemple) " I agree 100% to that. I am not suggesting that it is a non-issue. It is, and we should keep looking into it. But we have to stop the fear mongering. In reality climate change has been discussed for decades. Simply looking at movies like Waterworld and Mad Max, the issue existed. In the early 90s there was a kid show called Dinosaurs that talked about the issue of pollution and climate change and how evil businesses were doing it, it was the episode called "Changing Nature". That was 23 years ago. That is a problem I have, the constant fear mongering which stirs up emotions and does away with logic and reasoning. " And is it even bad? Economicaly, yes" In some ways. Forcing people to lose their jobs is also bad economically. That is why this is such a touchy subject as taxes are going to up and jobs will be lost. "That's trust between scientists of different fields" Eh, I beg to differ at times. For the most part yes. But I will admit there has been some disagreement with biologist and o-chemists vs the physical scientists. Rutherford is science is either physics or stamp collecting.
1
"yes we are capable the are literally hundreds of patents that would change the energy market that have been stopped up by the oil industry" That is not true. Alternative energy will not be able to power our industry. "and yes the overwhelming majority of scientist are saying the same thing." No they aren't.
1