Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Germany PROVES We Can END Fossil Fuels" video.

The "only thing in they way" is industry. We have a lot of industry, especially in scientific research in the US that makes it so we can't go straight to alternative energy that easily. We should work on it, but we just can't point at Germany, who has 1/3 of the US population and not the industry we have, and say "look, it can work". It is more complicated than that.
3
sdrawkcabgnipytmi Scientific research is an industry. Look at Los Alamos and how much energy is requires to run the Z-pinch machine for example. Or even in some labs at university how they constantly have to have machines running 24/7. In my lab we keep our laser on 24/7 which means our chillers as well. That requires a lot of energy that has to be reliable. There is a lot about the US that is different. Also, Germany is not doing that well. Germany still uses a lot of coal and has high energy prices.
1
Jochen Müller We can't force it though. Forcing it will hurt the economy and the poor will suffer.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi There are really no major labs in Germany that they fund themselves. As I said, we need a reliable source of energy and from my perspective I trust fossil fuels right now still, especially after talking to engineers. Energy prices are going up in Germany. So they may be lowering emissions, but at what cost? Poor people will suffer and can't run their AC in the summer leading to possible deaths. This is not a cut and dry solution.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi The science is not clear though. There is still a lot of doubt mainly in 1. how much is man playing a role, if at all 2. is it even bad If the science were more clear than we will be pushing for action. But the doubt makes it so we can't.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi The science isn't clear because the data we have collected in minute compared to a 4.6 billion year old earth. That mixed in with the fact we have no control.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi Less than a couple hundred years is not far enough to make a definitive conclusion, especially with no control to compare it to. No credible scientist who isn't seeking money is saying what the politicians and media are saying. Where do I get my info? As a scientists I get it from other scientists.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi I read plenty of journals. Scientists make broad conclusions in several areas of the field, climate change including. When you say the earth is warming that is data, that is hard to argue against. But the cause and meaning is. That is the issue. There is no definitive answer on what is responsible and is it even bad. There is no control. Read the peer review journals and you will not see the definitive conclusion that politicians and the media are making.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi Politicians don't influence international journals, I never said they did. What I am saying is that scientists say one thing and politicians say something completely different. Journals I read are PCCP, RSC, JPC A,B,C and Let, (mostly B since it is more directed towards my research), Biochemistry, Chem. Phys., JACS, those are the ones off of the top of my head.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi There is always uncertainty in science. As Richard Feynman said, we have levels of certainty, but we are not completely sure on anything, and many things we know nothing about. Climate change is one area we are not that certain on. I am not saying it is a non-issue. It is a very important issue and we should continue to look into it. The problem is that politicians are using this to gain power. You are talking about politicians that are bought out by coal companies, but what about the ones using climate change as an excuse to just raise taxes and gain more power?
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi The earth warming is data, the cause is what we are not certain about.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi You will never find a single paper making a definitive claim that the politicians and media are making. You won't find a paper calling something into question because no scientist is making a definitive claim to begin with. That's my whole point.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi They don't make a definite claim, that is my argument and falls in line with the idea that science does not deal with certainties. You are giving a certainty that scientists have not given. Also, science is not based off of conscience, and the "conscience" that is brought up is actually meaningless and is not cited at all by any scientist but only by the media. Your paper simply looks at abstracts which are essentially a back of the book summary of the paper. If you actually read the papers they are citing they don't make a definitive claim the conclusions. I have read that paper you are citing and I know all about it. With my background of science I, and others know the error they made. So again, the "consensus" you are bringing up is meaningless.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi Again, science is not determine on consensus. This is an election. Also, that "consensus" is from simply a handful of abstracts from papers and a poll of two broad questions of a minute amount of scientists. " You're confusing "consensus" with "conscience." I can only assume that English is not your first language." Nope, not confusing anything. Just pointing out that you are confused on what people are saying when they bring up the "consensus" and that they are simply wrong. "As for your point: nobody is making the claim that the science is based on consensus." You just did. "The science had been done and the data has caused the scientists to all agree on the fact of anthropogenic global warming." Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years, we are highly certain about that. That isn't the issue. "You claim to know the error they're making." They are looking at abstracts as opposed to the conclusions of the papers. Look up how a scientific paper is written and what each section represents.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi I am not denying the data. The issue is what does that data mean? That is where you are confused. Abstracts are just that, summaries. They don't get into details of the findings.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi It is not that they disagree with their findings. It is that they get into details on their findings. Abstracts are broad and at times don't reveal the full story because it gives away the ending giving the reader no reason to even read the paper. That is how scientific writing works.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi Again, abstracts are summaries. There are enough details to lower that number. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9#page-1 http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi So you are just going to pull a logical fallacy instead of criticizing what they wrote? You see, I criticized your source by pointing out why abstracts are brief and don't get into details where the conclusion does. You just say "it is bias" but don't get into details how. What I find to be funny is that you are now using Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. You are being bias yourself. http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html Oh look, several scientists are rejecting Cook's claim and saying they are misrepresenting their paper. But I guess they must be bias as well. http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/2/#637b529726d6
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi I think you need to find some more impartial sources.
1
sdrawkcabgnipytmi Actually one of my sources was from a peer reviewed source as well. Another interviewed the authors of the papers (who are also peer reviewed) that Cook cited where they states he misrepresents them. As I said, Cook just looked at abstracts. The authors of the papers Cook looks at essentially called him out and basically did the equivalent of discrediting his work. You've got nothing here. Just a bunch of willful ignorance and bullshit.
1