Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change | 5 Minute Video" video.
-
10
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Magnus Anthun I understand it completely. The problem with your source is that it comes from a federal government cite. Now I am not one of those "you can't trust the government" person. Government sources are fine for obtaining data, but beyond that you can't take everything they say as completely true. This is similar to when someone gave me a source from the government on the min. wage that did nothing but show support for the min. wage without giving one counter point (or proper citation).
On you EPA source, it doesn't give one counter source. It says everything it lists as "facts" but why are you so quick to trust that? To cite Upton Sinclair who was also cited by Al Gore "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on not understanding it!".
That rings with the EPA. They don't have to understand climate change, they have to convince a broad population in the US that the existence of the EPA is crucial to keep it as the jobs program it is at the federal level (I remind you, I am not an anti-government radical, I support an EPA at the state level not the federal, a different topic though). You can't take everything they say as being true.
Take a look at a couple things they say. One was that the decade of 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record..........so. That is ten years. My research involves looking at population decay of samples I excite. For example in 5 picoseconds I get a decay. Now I may gets points say at 200 femtoseconds or 800 fs that show an increase in population, but over the entire 5 picoseconds there is a decade.
Those points, like that 10 year span can be from several things. In my case it is from noise. Noise can be a contributing factor.
I also don't like the word "prove" they use. Science doesn't prove anything. That shows their lack of understanding of the subject. The EPA source is not strong. The government isn't supposed to be partisan but here it is and thus should be taken with a grain of salt.
In all I am not dismissing the idea of us looking at climate change and us making changes in our energy practices. What I am saying is that there is a lot of doubt. We can't destroy our economy, people's jobs, people's lives and so on due to something with a large amount of doubt. As I said, my job depends on a reliable energy source. If I don't get it I can't do research and I don't get my PhD and money that I desire. Plus my research is related to finding ways in battling cancer and diabetes.
This isn't an easy solution if it is even a problem.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1