General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "House Republicans Turn To Infowars Guest For Science Expertise" video.

Is he a climate change denier or skeptical of alarmist? That is the issue. There is doubt on this issue as the science is not settled.
2
Except, that isn't what the scientists are saying.
1
@jeremiahbarnes6313 , here is what I feel (I don't believe in anything) 1. Climate change has been happening for years. Yes, man plays a role, but how much is the question 2. Is it even a threat? 3. If it is what is the solution?
1
@jeremiahbarnes6313 , considering how the ecosystem has evolved for years I feel it isn't a threat.
1
@jeremiahbarnes6313 , studies in climate change itself? I don't study that field. I study vibrational states in molecular systems. My experience is that we know very little in science. I look at small systems to progress us in modeling biological systems and chemical reactions. I won't tell you my name by here is a paper similar to what I do https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp502062p Look at how small the system is they are looking at. They are looking at IVR in a molecular system and dependence in temperature. IVR influences how biological systems move (such as fold on itself) and how chemical reactions take place. Now expand that to large systems all interacting together in the ecosystem. You can't predict what will happen. I can go farther but the reality is that we know very little in science and hardly scratch the surface on these issues.
1
@jeremiahbarnes6313 , because this is a far left channel and I bring a moderate viewpoint to the discussion. To them anyone who is a moderate is a "right winger". They also feel I simply want to stir the pot when in reality I want an intellectual discussion with people here to bring them more to the middle. Essentially, people here don't like being challenged.
1
@jeremiahbarnes6313 , true. The problem we have in this nation is that we don't have enough discussions. Both sides have legit ideas, the answer is typically in the middle.
1
@hughmiller6389 , we don't know how the ecosystem evolves. It can occur in many ways.
1
Because the science behind climate change is far from settled. The problem is that the far left has politicized the issue and use it as an excuse to push for more government.
1
@polka , who is saying that climate change isn't real? Also, the science is far from settled. As a scientist myself I know this first hand.
1
@polka , read this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Disagree_About_Climate_Change
1
Same in why the left look towards politicians like Bernie or entertainers like Bill Nye on this issue. When you talk to actual scientists you find out that the surface of the climate change issue is hardly being scratched.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , Bill Nye isn't a scientist. He received a Mechanical Engineering degree but he has never done formal work in science. Zero publications and zero research experience. The consensus you keep pointing to has been debunked. One, they never say it is a threat. Two, they cherry pick their sources whom they claim are "experts" in the field and ignore other scientists with valid opinions. That "consensus" study was them looking for something to suit their needs and fit a narrative. You guys need to learn how science and stats work.
1
@hughmiller6389 , except the studies are not saying it is a major threat nor give the amount humans are contributing.
1
@hughmiller6389 , the studies don't say that. I suggest you read this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Disagree_About_Climate_Change
1
1. No 2. No I have done research and I have doubt on this issue. I am all for progressing on it but we can't be alarmists.
1
@thepoo1234 , I have read those studies and they are flawed. One just looked at abstracts and another the person was embarrassed by their methods and refused to publish it. As for studies questioning if it is a threat, read this book https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Disagree_About_Climate_Change The author of that book is quoted in saying this “What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.” That guy, Mike Hulme, has a PhD in applied climatology and worked for the IPCC.
1
@thepoo1234 "Whenever I've seen deniers mention studies that support their views, almost every time it turns out that they've just looked at a few figures or the abstract and completely ignored the rest of the paper or it's conclusions." Funny considering that is exactly what Doran and Zimmerman did in their "consensus study".
1
@jccgold , they won't. Just like drought has not changed in the past 60 years https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11575
1
@thepoo1234 , people have claimed that Doran misrepresented their studies. They simply looked at abstracts. How about you read that book I suggested? It is buy an expert.
1
@thepoo1234 , also, you have this http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html " There are various papers on the list that explicitly argue against consensus, such as: Schulte (2008), Legates et al. (2013) and Tol (2014). While all of the "97% consensus" studies have been refuted by peer-review. "
1
@thepoo1234 http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html
1
To start, is he a denier or a skeptic? The left has gone so far left on this issue that anyone who raises questions are called a denier. I don't know this guy so I can't make an honest opinion on it. As for climate change, there are the issues 1. It is happening, but how much man plays a role we don't know 2. We don't know if it is a threat. Considering how the ecosystem has evolved in the past I don't see reason why it won't continue to do so 3. If it is a threat what is the solution? I feel that the market filled with engineers are best to solve this problem as opposed to politicians that don't know how a garbage disposal works.
1
@kyle9401 , how is current climate change bad? Lay it down for me. I explained to you how little we know in science. I literally cited peer reviewed work in the field I study showing how little we know and how small of systems we look at. Considering how we don't know how small systems react to changes in environment what makes you think we can predict how the entire ecosystem works? We have poor models when it comes to modeling water. For example, you have the CPCM model and the Onsager model to name two off of the top of my head. There is an entire book entitled "The Structure and Properties of Water". We can't even model water correctly, what makes you think we can predict how current climate change will influence the ecosystem?
1
@sprybug , I literally just said two water models off of the top of my head and a book related to water published Oxford University Press. But yeah, I know nothing about science.
1
How about you defend Kyle's comments, or Bernie Sanders how he consults Bill Nye on the issue of climate change.
1
@edwardorendon606 , what does this have to do with holocaust denying? The holocaust has a ton of evidence behind it. The issue with climate change is that we know very little about the ecosystem so we don't know what will happen. That is where alarmists are in the wrong.
1
@edwardorendon606 , alarmists like Kyle are just as bad as straight up deniers.
1
@edwardorendon606 , I am not saying we shouldn't do anything or look at the issue. We should. I oppose the radical ideas on the left bring up that will harm our economy. Go the other route. Say we do what Kyle wants or even what AOC wants which completely transform our economy and leads us to a recession. Say we do that and nothing changes in current climate change. Now what? Now we have two problems. To me I have seen technology advance and I feel we are doing just fine and can easily adjust. I see no reason to become hysterical.
1
@kyle9401 , ok, they die. Species die. What's your point? That is a part of evolution.
1
@sprybug , the "scientific consensus" argument has been debunked long ago. I have watched Potholer54, he isn't even a scientist. Zero peer reviewed papers and zero research in science. But you seem to trust him for some reason? I go to sources as well. I pointed to you to an entire book just now. I can point you to peer reviewed papers showing how little we know in science. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp502062p Look at the system they are looking it, it is small. But yet it led to a peer reviewed paper. It is temperature dependence related to IVR. IVR is important in that chemical reactions are influenced IVR. I know this as I am currently working to submit a paper related to IVR. Now expand that to a large system with many interactions. How will the temperature change in the environment change the IVR in a system thus the chemical reactions thus how a system evolves and so on? We don't know. That is why you can't make strong conclusions on this issue. I can give you more examples on how little we know in science if you want. The reality is that I work in science and thus know how little we know in the field.
1
@edwardorendon606 , they didn't say the same thing. Even if they were that doesn't mean what I am saying is wrong. If an oil company endorsed brushing your teeth are you going to promote tooth decay as a result? You are also talking about one regulation. The left is pushing for radical ones such as zero emissions with the Green New Deal and saying if we don't act now the world is going to end. That is where my problem lies.
1
@edwardorendon606 , actually Germany saw emissions go up when they pushed to use more green energy. What AOC is proposing is literally communism by centralizing the economy. Tell me where does the gender pay gap fall in the climate change discussion.
1
@kyle9401 , species die, welcome to evolution and survival of the fittest. Species die and new species take their place. That has happened for millennia, or do you deny evolution? I am all for improving our technology and going to more "green" forms of energy. I just feel that the market/private sector with engineers are better at doing it than politicians on a power trip. Consider this, Exxon help fund win farms in CA. I care, that is why I do research in science. What do you do for a living?
1
@edwardorendon606 , I never said zero emissions will harm me. I am saying that it is literally an unrealistic goal right now. It isn't going to happen in our lifetime. To force it will destroy the economy. Many people, like myself, will not give up our gas power cars, especially in rural areas.
1
@edwardorendon606 , we need realistic goals.
1
@kyle9401 , species have been dying for millennia. Politicians are the ones dictating what technology is created. They are dictating what direction the research and economy will go. That is the problem. The free market is great. Because of the free market we are seeing much better technology. The free market gave you smart phones.
1
@edwardorendon606 , to me the federal government need to stay out of this. Let the states and the free market handle it. Without force people in the midwest switched light bulbs to CFL Being from the midwest the small company I worked for in a rural town, on their own free will, switched to CFL because they saved energy and lasted longer. There was no need to use government force . As technology improves people will use it.
1
@kyle9401 , the free market made smart phones what they are today, just like the free market made the internet what it is today. Just like the free market led to over night shipping forcing the Post Office to follow suit. Innovation comes from the private sector.
1
@David-uc4hc , it is impossible to model large systems as there are way too many variables interacting with each other. That is why there is more than one model for water.
1
@David-uc4hc , motion of galaxies is classical, I am taking about quantum and how they influence an ecosystem. I agree, science isn't an absolute, and that is my point.
1
@David-uc4hc , but it isn't. Chemical reactions are quantum and they drive how an ecosystem evolves.
1
@mrjollyguy25 1. What did I defend? I said I don't know this guy so I can't make an honest opinion. 2. So just because he receives money from a source (supposedly) you cannot take his word for it? But you can trust Kyle and politicians like Bernie? Gotcha 3. I do look at this objectively and I understand that the science is far from settled.
1
@brothersandsistersofvalhalla , actually people don't float in space, they are in a free fall. How photosynthesis works is not known. That is why you have people like University of Chicago professor Greg Engel and Berkeley Prof. Graham Fleming doing research in it with 2D ES. Fleming, BTW, has a Nature paper published on his work related to it. But what do I know.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , Kyle seeks out viewers who have a far left mindset, so he has an incentive to say far left things. He does that on all issues. Take healthcare for example. He literally said there is no arguments against M4A when there are experts who do argue against it. Bernie, like most politicians, takes advantage of useful idiots to gain votes and remain in office to receive a government check. What "talking points" do I have? As for your source, the lead author John Cook isn't even a scientist. The consensus argument has been debunked many times as it does not say what the far left thinks. They cherry pick sources and label them as "experts" and ignore other scientists in other fields. The paper you linked uses vague questions such as "who stated a position agreed that anthropogenic greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the dominant driver of recent global warming", define "dominate". Or "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures". What quantifies as "significant". Sorry, as a physical chemist myself I need quantitative values and reasoning behind it. Also, nowhere in that paper does it say that current climate change is a threat. I suggest you do more research on it.
1
@brothersandsistersofvalhalla , ok, now explain to me how it occurs through quantum coherence and how photosynthesis is on efficient even though theoretical models predict it to be much less efficient. Here, I even will give you a paper to help you start https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/acs.jpclett.6b00037
1
@David-uc4hc , chemical reactions are explain through quantum mechanics. With water there are many different models because it is hard to model the hydrogen bonding along with the polarity of water. The CPCM model just models water as dipoles where the Onsager treats water as a sphere of equal dielectric with polarity and has the solute in that sphere. But neither considers hydrogen bonding where water can have four hydrogen bonds (it is why water expands when it freezes) as doing so will increase computation tie by a lot. There are other models where they have advantages and disadvantages where some are way off of the melting point of water (one at 145 K). http://cacharro.quim.ucm.es/publicaciones/JCP_122_114507_2005.pdf But again, chemical reactions are explained by quantum effects, not classical. In fact, using a classical picture is hand waving for chemists and biologists and students who don't understand quantum. But the details are in quantum, period.
1
@XHALE303 , so the government created my smart phone that I can watch porn on almost anywhere? So the government created Youtube where I can watch stupid cat videos?
1
@kyle9401 , what is the source material? I have watched Kyle a lot and I see him disregard a lot of evidence and studies. Kyle also wants to attract a far left audience, so he has an incentive to say far left talking points. Bernie, like most politicians, want to take advantage of useful idiots, so it is in his best interest to keep the general public uninformed.
1
@David-uc4hc , you can create models that get us in the ball park, but we don't know what will the end results will be. That is especially true for biological systems. We don't know how the ecosystem will evolve. Even down to the micro organism level we don't know how they evolve or the driving forces behind them. We can model weather patterns pretty well but there is still error. But the issue is with the ecosystem and biological level. Consider simply that we discover new species every year. We don't even know all of the species out there that exist. That is my point. We know so little about the ecosystem thus we don't know how it will react to current climate change. Should we monitor climate change? Yes, absolutely. Should we push for "greener" forms of energy? Yes, absolutely. But what we can't do is freak out about it and go radical with these approaches. I feel we need to get the federal government out of this issue and let the states and private sector handle it.
1
@XHALE303 , so my tax dollars are running around generating things?
1
@franklance9167 , the green new deal is not feasible. Consider the idea of transferring to all electric vehicles. Are there electric trucks with enough power to transport heavy loads up a mountain? Or how are you going to install charging stations at every parking spot? Consider rural areas where in many places there are no defined parking spots as is. It is not feasible. Also, where does the gender pay gap fall in the climate change discussion? As for congress "fixing" the solution by a time frame, when does that ever happen?
1
@franklance9167 , sure, but we don't know how the ecosystem will react. That is the point.
1
@XHALE303 , what?
1
@XHALE303 , I did. What makes you think I want people to get cancer?
1
@franklance9167 , so one engineer out of many? Take the high speed rail for example. Look at CA and how that project failed. Consider how a high speed rail will increase travel time across the country. How do you propose that? But let us break down the points. 1. Trucks: I am talking about trucks through mountains. There is a reason why they are ran on diesel and not gas. You get more power. 2. Charging stations. Many people in the city park their cars on the street even where they live. In rural areas good luck getting people to switch to electric cars. Many people do commute long distances to where they work so they will need charging stations. 3. Why does it mention the gender pay gap? 4. Ecosystem. You did not give a counter argument. We don't know how the ecosystem will react as we know very little about it. Consider the fact that we still discover new species every year.
1
@franklance9167 1. Yes, one. Do you have other engineers? Also, I like how you bring up one where there are plenty of scientists who are skeptical about climate change, including me. But now one is enough for you? That is a double standard. 2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FpYA_Nk-G4&t=2s Again, failed in CA. What makes you think it will work in the US? 3. I am talking about big rigs. 4. Extension cords? Really? 5. Uh yes, use a bus because screw autonomy. Force people to all take public transit. Also, buses are slower and good luck finding a bus to commute 45 miles. My dad does that daily where no buses go that route. Charging takes longer than filling a car with gas. 6. You didn't explain why it is in there. 7. I did. How will the ecosystem evolve? WE don't know. 8. It shows how little we know
1
@franklance9167 1. Ok, two. Do you have more? From what I read engineers haven't really looked into it because it is pie in the sky and the idea won't pass, so why bother? Most scientists are skeptical on the issue of climate change as in if it is even a threat, how much man plays a role, and what is the solution. Also, when did I ever deny climate change? 2. Underfunded in CA? It ended up costing more than projected. Also, China is a completely different country with different laws. To install a bullet train in the US you have take away properties from people which is illegal. Also, as I said, the bullet train will increase travel time. A bullet train is 200 mph. NYC and LA are around 2800 miles apart. Assuming that you can build a straight line of track from NYC to LA it will take around 13 hours to travel via train. It takes around 6 hours via plane. Congrats, you just doubled travel time. And again, that is assuming if you build a straight line of track. You can't when you consider the mountain ranges and the private property you will have to go around. It is clear you did not watch that video, but I will give you this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaf6baEu0_w 3. Ok, now what about cost and life time? That was actually brought up in that article. Will a company be willing to invest in that? You are making this seem way too simple. Again, trucks use diesel for a reason. 4. So we need extension cords that are 40 miles long? 5. Many people commute far to work. And fuck my autonomy? At this point I can see why you support the GND as it is a communist piece of legislation. You hate freedom. 6. Why is it called the "Green New Deal"? It is being pushed to combat climate change. So where does the gender pay gap play in? 7. In evolution some species die. I don't see a problem with that. 8. New species come up from evolution. Do you deny evolution? I feel you do. You do know that climate change is a driving force of evolution? I doubt it because you deny evolution. Also, species move. You ever heard of Pangaea? I bet you feel man caused the continents to split up.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , actually I support many ideas on the left. You just refuse to pick my brain. Medical doctors publish their findings. What talking points do I have? My points are legit. The reality is that the science is far from settled and democrats have politicized science. John Cook is not even a scientist. The polls are looking for an answer, that is the problem with them. They cherry pick who they ask and are trying to establish something. How am I putting politics before objective reality? And what do you mean by "Christian Evangelicals"? I am not even religious.
1
@franklance9167 , hey, why do you deny evolution? And how do I deny climate change?
1
@mrjollyguy25 , I argue the conservative side all the time? You really don't know me then. I disagree with Kyle because him and his fans are shallow. He has nothing but talking points and he completely dismisses the other side, that is a problem. Stephen Michael Douglas acknowledges that let wing ideas can work, and I do as well. Kyle and his fans literally say that there are no arguments from the right which is simply not true. Take healthcare for example, I have said there is a desire for government to provide healthcare to poor people, I just feel it should be the state or local governments doing it. But Kyle and his fan base push for M4A which bans private insurance and goes to centralized government. And when I suggest that would be a bad idea or have flaws I get called a right winger like what you do. I work in science for a living and I know what scientists say. The issues with climate are 1. How much does man play a role? 2. Is it even a threat? 3. If it is than what is the solution? Both sides politicize science, the difference is that Republicans want to leave science to the scientists. Also, the left continues to call Republican "anti science" to simply silence then when a lot of evidence exists that they are pro science https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk&t=2s That is the problem the left has. If you disagree with them in any way they simply name call and label you in order to silence you. You call me a denier when I never denied climate change. I question if it is a major threat as I feel the ecosystem will evolve and I feel the private sector is better suited at progressing us and not centralized government led by people who don't know what a garbage disposal is. Politicians receive donations from people who align with their political beliefs, congrats. That has always happened. And fossil fuel companies are not all bad, Exxon helped fund wind farms https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/exxon-reportedly-eyeing-clean-energy-contracts#gs.efojjj Oil companies do invest in a lot of research to limit waste. You are acting like if they are all bad when they aren't. They hire engineers to increase sustainability. I was talking to an engineer from BP the other day and his job is to find a use for a lot of left over oil after it goes through the refinery. They push to use it as opposed to wasting it. To make the argument of "oil companies bad" and "those politicians receive money from them" is over simplified. Ted Cruz is from TX, of course he receives money from oil companies. I do know. One of the "consensus studies" simply looked at the abstracts and not the actual paper where abstracts leave out a lot of information. Other scientists were critical of Cook in that they said he misrepresented their work. Scientists such as Craig Idso and Nicola Scafetta. So you don't trust those scientists? Mike Hulme is quoted in saying in 2009 “What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.” Do you not trust him?
1
@franklance9167 , here what is funny. You gave an example of Tesla, a private company, expanding electric vehicles when they did not need government force to do so. That is the stance I take. I support private companies leading us in technology development and not top down government.
1
@mrjollyguy25 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Disagree_About_Climate_Change I suggest you read that book. The author there is an expert in the field. This is my exact point. Kyle and his fans literally say there is no argument on the issue of climate change despite there being books by experts on the topic. The same is with other issues he discusses, like healthcare. Kyle claims our healthcare outcomes are terrible but Stanford professor Scott Atlas would disagree and he wrote a book on that entitled "In Excellent Health". These issues are complex and to just dismiss the other side like Kyle does is foolish.
1
@thepoo1234 , I actually mentioned Oreskes. That person was the one who looked at abstracts as opposed to the actual paper. So no, I haven't ignored other studies. I have actually looked at them and understand they are flawed. Also, why are you ignoring the book by Hulme who worked in the IPCC and has a PhD in applied Climatology?
1
@thepoo1234 , also, science does not prove anything.
1
@franklance9167 , you missed my point. The companies are better at producing the technology.
1
@franklance9167 , the private sector is what led to over night shipping, not the post office. The private sector is what gave you better cars, smart phones, etc.
1
@thepoo1234 , because those papers are not saying that climate change is a major threat nor are they giving a quantitative value in how much man plays a role. Alarmists completely misrepresent what climate scientists are actually saying. That is why I suggest you read Hulme's book. That is what scientists actually feel about the issue of climate change, there is still so much in doubt.
1
@thepoo1234 , it is politicians and far left commentators like Kyle that are making these dooms day predictions and comments. Notice how no scientists are out there making the comments?
1
@thepoo1234 , on the other "studies" Zimmerman was simply a two question online survey with a response rate of 5%, that's it. On Anderegg's study they cherry picked papers and researchers and the questions they asked were vague. Saying "very likely" is vague and his paper does not mention anything about the outcomes of current climate change. Verheggen had a response rate of 29%. Plus, his findings were so poor that he hid them from the public for years until he was called out on it.
1
@mrjollyguy25 , I don't give Kyle credit because he refuses to acknowledge that there are experts on both sides of the aisle that disagree and have legit points. The man Kyle is talking about in this video had a small debate with Bill Nye and cited this paper https://www.nature.com/articles/nature11575 Droughts have not change in 60 years on this planet. That guy, Marc Morano, cited that so it does seem that he has done research on the issue. But Kyle simply dismisses him because he worked for infowars. On M4A Kyle, at the very least, wants the federal government to force states to have it which is no different than having the federal government run it. Also, Bernie's M4A bill does ban private insurance which he does not say. Kyle claims supplemental insurance will exist for "chin surgery" when in reality insurance will not cover that. Also, "elective surgery" is just cosmetic surgery, it can also include neurosurgery like it does in Australia https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/3323daca-3c97-411c-8de0-610502649b6b/ah16-6-10-elective-surgery.pdf.aspx I told you left wing ideas I agree with. I agree with a lot like government run healthcare, push for increasing our infrastructure, or regulations on businesses. I just want them managed at the state level. I see the argument and desire for them, I just want the states to manage it.
1
@thepoo1234 , so much support you have to cite a website that uses "disprove" when science does not prove anything. Not some academic source or peer reviewed source, some random website.
1
@thepoo1234 , here is what Mike Hulme said “What is causing climate change? By how much is warming likely to accelerate? What level of warming is dangerous? - represent just three of a number of contested or uncertain areas of knowledge about climate change.” Again, he worked for the IPCC, he has a PhD in applied climatology, and he wrote many books on it. And as I said, Marc, in his debate against Nye, cited papers, one from Nature. It seems like he does know some things.
1
@thepoo1234 , one, how do I deny climate change? Next, there is this http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html What are your remarks to that?
1
@thepoo1234 , the fact that you call me a denier really says a lot though. Nowhere have I ever denied climate change.
1