Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "" video.

@ony583 this channel does have a cult following. Really sad that people will follow someone like Mike so strongly whose main argument against people he disagrees with is to call them stupid.
2
@ony583 this is typical of many left wing channels. I go to David Pakman and he says the same thing, along with his fans. He just call others stupid. Some other phrases are "many studies say" while providing none. Or "experts agree" while ignoring many times experts disagree. Or "someone is a fascist" or name calling. There are others but those are ones I see a lot. And their fans just blindly follow.
2
How many climate scientists actually speak on the behalf of the left? If you listen to climate scientists they will align more on what Jordan says or show that what Jordan is saying is right. Listen to the whole thing, Jordan has a great point.
1
Peterson is correct. One, there are many things the models cannot account for. One is evolution. Climate change has been a driving force for evolution for years. What makes people think that the ecosystem won't evolve anymore? That brings up the question on if current climate change is bad. Another is how much does man play a role. With no control you can't say. He also brought up the poor in that it is difficult to progress on climate change when many poor people care more about getting their next mean over the larger issue of climate change. Banning gas powered cars will mean many poor people can lose out on being able to go to work and thus no food. With climate change there are a lot connected to it. A great book in that is Mike Hulme's book Why We Disagree About Climate Change.
1
@tokenetta8070 accelerated how? Aren't humans a part of nature? And won't evolve faster? What do you base that off of? As for the TX freeze, you are talking about a rare freak incident where situations like that happened in the past many times. Such as an F5 tornado. They are rare incidents and not the norm. I live in TX now, this past winter was fine.
1
@notconvinced what obvious disaster? For decades climate change alarmists were saying we needed to act now or the world will end. In fact, if they were correct the world will be on fire, under water and iced over by now.
1
@tokenetta8070 do I think it can change climate drastically? I do not know as there is now control to compare to. And yes, humans and the ecosystem will evolve. And where do you get your 100 year data from? Besides that, where were we at 100 years ago? In 100 years we discovered nuclear energy, expanded on quantum mechanics, put a man on the moon, develop cell phones with more computing power than what put a man on the moon, developed high speed internet, etc. The TX freeze is a very rare event, not the norm. You blame capitalism but that would happen no matter what system. Almost no one could have predicted the TX freeze, and even if one could, again, it is such a rare event that why go down the route do deal with it? Compare it to driving. 40,000 people die a year in traffic accidents. We can make that number to be zero if we cap speed limits to 15 mph, or make cars as sturdy as tanks so any traffic accidents will lead to no harm. But the drawbacks will cause more damage. So we accept 40,000 dying a year in traffic accidents knowing the route we are doing now is better overall. So with the TX freeze, sure TX could have manage their grid for that once in a lifetime freeze. It would have cost a lot of money though causing more damage. And this is the crux of the climate change argument. Sure, we can make drastic changes to our way of using energy, but at what cost? And at what reward?
1
@tokenetta8070 ok, now how drastically? Again, no control to compare to. Also, again, the ecosystem can evolve. The earth was much hotter at different points in time in the past. "Evolution is a process that can take millions of years. " There is no evidence of that. Evolution can take millions of years or in a short amount of time. Case in point, look at covid and how it mutated many times in 2 years. People in the northeast are without power due to snow. What is their excuse? They deal with winter every year. Also, why winterize equipment in TX when winter hardly leads to snow? That will lead to an expensive route to take for something that hardly happens. "Your example to using car accidents isn't relevant " It very much is. I guess you do not care about 40,000 dying a year in traffic accidents. Why?
1
@tokenetta8070 overall, you have nothing. You are making statements about evolution that are simply not true. You want to drastically change our economy to maybe solve a problem that might exist. Ok, say we were to push for green energy and do so in a radical way. It will surely destroy our economy. Now say that we do and nothing improves in the climate? Now what?
1
@tokenetta8070 what data? What effects? And you saying "common sense" is a poor argument. There is a strong debate to begin with. This is why the left have a hard time getting actual scientists to speak on their behalf.
1
@tokenetta8070 it isn't common sense as there is a debate to begin with. As I said, read Mike Hulme's book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change". I have done the research. Climate alarmists can only get a teenage girl and an ex bartender to speak on their behalf, not actual scientists. For example, Myles Allen said "My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading." As a reason why he did not want to speak at a climate strike at Oxford. He is concerned about the radical approach. "The overwhelming majority of scientists agree that climate change is a real threat in the near future, so what scientist are you listening too?" I gave you two, what scientists are you listening to? Besides that, what you said about the overwhelming majority of scientists is not true. They all feel climate change is a thing, there is doubt beyond that. One doubt is if it is a threat. But who are you listening two? I gave two names of scientists.
1
@tokenetta8070 Myles Allen wrote that IPCC report people cite when saying 12 years. When one of the authors disagrees with the message by alarmists that says something
1
@tokenetta8070 yeah, and Myles Allen and Mike Hulme oppose to such talking points. Read the paper entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" He essentially states, and Myles Allen agrees, that such radical talking points turns people off. In 12 years when nothing happens, what do people like you do now? You want to attract moderates towards your cause. Being radical does not do that. It turns people away.
1
@tokenetta8070 "I shouldn't have to argue with a person that can't even agree that the earth gets warmer every year." Who said I deny the earth is getting warmer in recent times?
1
@tokenetta8070 "On top of this, the alarming message conveyed by deadline-ism will only ever resonate with particular social groups, mostly those that are already predisposed to heightened concern about climate change. To others, the message can be alarmist and polarizing, alienating them and restricting the possibility for crafting enduring bipartisan solutions. Climate change is a ‘wicked social problem’, one that must be resolved and renegotiated, over and over again22. Deadline-ism is at once both ineffectual and self-defeating." From Mike Hulmes paper.
1
Listen to the whole thing, he brings up a lot of great points. One, on all the variables, I don't see many on the left pushing the climate change fear bring up evolution. The ecosystem can evolve and has in the past in previous climate change. Next, we do not know how much man plays a role. He also brings up the fact that those pushing climate change do not care about the poor. To improve the issue of green energy we need to get poor people rich. Not doing that is creating hurdles. Why? Because poor people do not care about the wider picture. They care about putting food on the table that night. Those pushing for climate change policy will hurt productivity and the poor economically.
1