Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "What They Haven't Told You about Climate Change | 5 Minute Video" video.

  1. ***** There are liberal channels that are no accredited. So what is the difference?
    10
  2. Magnus Anthun To be fair there is a lot of questions regarding climate change. I know you have your sources but recently I read in a physics today magazine about the doubts of it. I say this because the first person who replied is correct, along with the video in how the climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. I would like for them to cite those sources but he is correct in that there is a high degree of certainty. And before you criticize me I am a scientist myself, I am pursuing my PhD in physical chemistry. I am not some Joe off the street.
    1
  3. Dooker Bewitt No, it is that I understand science and the issues involved in it. I see all these people with opinions on the issue of climate change and most of them don't even understand basic science. As a scientist I understand that the issue is complex and there isn't an easy answer. Also as a scientist I understand that the "solution" of going to more "green energy" isn't easy in that alternative forms of energy are not reliable. I have done research and work in a department that has a group that does research related to solar energy. You learn about other fields on top of your own.
    1
  4. Magnus Anthun I would never go around saying that anything is "wrong" in science. Science is driven by doubt, so one can't say something is "wrong" or "right". You have theories with stronger supporting evidence. The climate has been changing but for reasons we are not sure on. The uncertainty is great. You say that for the past couple centuries the change has been drastic, but 200 hundred yeas is a small sample size in a world that is 4.6 billion years old.
    1
  5. Dooker Bewitt You take a 2 million year time span and you will find points where the climate changes more drastically than other times. Take the current time now and go 1 million years back, and then wait 1 million years and look back to this time and see what you get. That is what I mean by 200 years is a small sample size. There will be little times of drastic change, but as a whole it means nothing. Yes I know that the temperature has been rising for decades, but once again this is a small sample size. We don't have a model that explains pretty much all the data. The conclusion is that we don't know how bad climate change is and if we can actually do anything. We should continue to look into it but we can't make drastic decisions that will hurt the economy, jobs and progress all together on something with a lot of doubt.
    1
  6. Magnus Anthun I did read the comment, I feel that he is not exactly correct.
    1
  7. 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
  8. Dooker Bewitt "The changes we see now are drastic enough that they require an explanation... And we do have one. In this case it's fairly clear." Drastic changes can be due to noise. My research deals with population decays that can last around 5 pico seconds. At times longer, at times shorter depending on the sample. I map out intensities as a function of time. I may get a point where at 0.8 ps it is higher than at 0.4 ps. But as a whole during the entire range we have a decay. Those blimp at 0.8 ps is due to noise. That is why I said that 200 years is a small sample size and means nothing unless compared to the larger scale. There is a lot of doubt. I am sorry, but in a 4.6 billion year old earth you can't convince me with a few decades of data, or even a 1000 years worth.
    1
  9. Magnus Anthun The problem with your source is that it is from the EPA. That has been criticize a lot in science. The EPA is ultimately ran by the government, not scientist. You can't rely on it. I have friends that work two floors above me whose research is related strongly on solar energy. It does effect me on how we get our energy and what sources we use. More solar energy means more money for them. At the same time it means my research will be limited. You mentioned that 97%, I have heard of that before. The pure fact is that those 97% agree on climate change happening due to man's involvement. What is also happening is that the causes of climate change, how much man is playing a role, and is it really bad is in question. Your comparison on evolution is also weak. All scientist accept evolution as the theory it is. There is do much more to it than what you realize. You are just scratching the surface on these issues as in, and on science as a whole. That is the problem, people making decisions like these don't understand science in itself, let alone these issues.
    1
  10. Magnus Anthun Once again, you are not looking at what those papers are saying. Man is effecting the climate, but by what degree and is it even bad are in question. Man is effecting the climate, but by how much? The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years, long before man was even on earth. That is the issue. It isn't if man is or is not effecting the climate, it is by how much, is it bad, and should we be doing anything. Why not get rid of all cars and electricity and go back to the times of the 1700, that will reduce emissions by a lot. But even some of the most radical of treehuggers won't push for that. They have a stopping point as well. What is your stopping point?
    1
  11. Magnus Anthun I have read it, once again small sample size and you can't compare it to a control. You need to learn some things about science, this is not an open and shut case, if it were we would be pushing for solutions more than we are. We are not because there is a lot of gray area.
    1