Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "ANOTHER Poll Finds Bernie Sanders Is Everyone's Favorite" video.

  1. How many socialist does it take to screw in a light bulb? None, as there won't be any to screw in.
    2
  2. "Global Warming Skeptic is a global warming skeptic. That alone should tell us how smart he is (or rather isn't)." A driving force science is being skeptical. Despite what those on the political left think science is not a religion. There is doubt and uncertainty. When you talk about global warming and climate change in general there is a lot of uncertainty.
    2
  3. Luke, look at the trend for those senators. They come from small states by population, that have a large percentage of white people, with low crime. There is a reason why Bernie lost. Outside his little bubble in VT no one likes him.
    1
  4. Another reason why Bernie did well in open primary states is because republican voters voted for him as he would have been the easier candidate to beat. That is a strategy that is practiced at times.
    1
  5. "Your name alone tells me that I probably shouldn't take your opinion seriously." The driving force of science is being skeptical. Science is not a religion.
    1
  6. "For example, you posit that the global climate patterns remain stable. " I never said that. On climate change the issues are 1. How much is man playing a role 2. Is it even bad One can get into details but consider this, we do not even know the physics of photosynthesis.
    1
  7. Grant Ray, I am a doctorate candidate in chemical physics, so I know a lot about science. Science does two things, explain national occurrences and gives future predictions all through models. You analogy is flawed as the models are based on experimental evidence, so we are not drunk. And if we can't find the key under the light we explore other areas with theoretical models until technology improves to do experimental work. So we will go to the other side of the street.
    1
  8. " You seemed to be implying that because we do not understand the physics of photosynthesis, we cannot know anything of global climate science. " I am not saying that. What I am saying is that we can't make the conclusion on climate change that the ultra left is making. They are running around saying that climate change is going to destroy the environment and lead to disastrous results. And when I say they I do not mean scientists, I mean the politicians and media. The reality, though, is that scientists are not making the definitive claims as they understand science. We should keep doing research in climate change, but the media and politicians need to stop misrepresenting science. " while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." I can easily say that about you as you clearly do not understand my comments and made up your own ignorant conclusion.
    1
  9. " "We don't understand the physics of photosynthesis" LOL! What year are you living in?" 2017. Describe how sunlight, which is not coherent and gives plants a small amount of energy. Is able to produce a quantum coherence between two excited states and then in the order of the femtosecond time scale is able to reach a reaction site at high probability in a complex system in the plant. I will provide you with a couple of sources I have read to help you along http://www.nature.com/nphys/journal/v6/n6/full/nphys1652.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7137/full/nature05678.html
    1
  10. Dan Mason, those two sources are to start you out. You can search for more if you want. Those sources are actually in line with my research and one of my friends does theoretical research that is similar to this. The reality is that we know very little about the environment, and the photosynthesis example is just one example.
    1
  11. "No claim a scientist makes is ever definitive. You know that in science there is no such thing." I agree. So when people go with what the media and politicians say on issues related science it does become frustrating. " We do however have significant evidence, both experimental and theoretical, of the environmental effects of a change in the climate at the predicted rate." No we don't. The fact that you feel we do shows how little you know about the topic and what scientists are saying. When the oil wells were set on fire in Iraq Carl Sagan and Fred Singer both made predictions that ended up being incorrect. The climate change been changing for over 4 billion years. The environment has evolved. Or are you one of those people who do not support the theory of evolution? "As for your pointless ad hominem, and mockery of the nature of understanding" I find that ironic since you did the attack first. I am all for having a civil conversation, but when you start with the mockery I have no problem showing you your ignorance and than repeating what you said. Let me ask you, why do you not support the theory of evolution?
    1
  12. Grant, going back to your previous comment you never did make an attack on me, and I apologize for that. I misread this "while our ignorance must necessarily be infinite." Where I thought you were saying my ignorance was infinite. My mistake. "The environment has the ability to adapt at the rate of evolutionary change, " Which is what? Evolution can sometimes be chaotic and fast. There is no known rate of change in evolution. It can be fast or slow. It can be smooth or chaotic. It can be destructive at first and then progressive. That is why there is so much doubt in the issue of climate change.
    1
  13. If you were to look at the senators with the highest disapproval rating you will probably see a trend as well. For example, 5 are in swing states. There was a trend for the highest approval rating. People need to look for things like that to get a better picture on the data. This data does not prove Bernie would have won.
    1