Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Elizabeth Warren Reframes The Climate Change Debate Correctly" video.

@hitmangfx7162 , they have no plan. All they say is "scientists say this" but never name one nor give an actual peer reviewed source. They say we need to invest in alternative energy but don't understand that we don't have the technology nor the infrastructure yet. They have not plan. The climate change fear mongering is them pushing for a larger federal government.
2
@hitmangfx7162 , to be honest Bernie getting the nomination would be best for this nation. His fans literally feel his ideas are popular and feel that Bernie is popular. The extreme left of the Bernie crowd is dividing the democratic part and our nation in general. There is value to come from the left, but like with the right, there should be a moderate approach, not an extreme one. If Bernie ran against Trump Bernie would get destroyed in record numbers which will cause far leftists to realize their ideas are not popular making them more moderate.
2
The whole climate change town hall showed how ignorant the left is on this issue. Stop fear mongering about climate change.
1
@robertchungus4824 , are they polluting at massive scales? Also, it is debatable if climate change is really a threat. With that I don't want the federal government basically running out economy on an issue with so much doubt.
1
@MorelloZzT7 , it is a concern, but it isn't that major. There is a lot of doubt about if climate change is a threat.
1
@robertchungus4824 , there is doubt in the scientific community as well http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research--commentary-the-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus?source=policybot "Even prominent “alarmists” in the climate change debate admit there is no consensus. Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, when asked if the debate on climate change is over, told the BBC, “I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view.” Mike Hulme, also a professor at the University of East Anglia and a contributor to IPCC reports, wrote 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.”" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4
1
I agree one should be educated, but the left has been displaying a high level of ignorance on this topic. The fear mongering of climate change needs to stop.
1
@klwthe3rd https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4
1
@klwthe3rd , the fear mongering is not based on facts, just emotions.
1
You need to listen to actual scientists and experts on this issue, not politicians and talking heads.
1
@klwthe3rd , did you even read the nature paper I referenced? That is from an actual expert on the issue.
1
@klwthe3rd https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/research--commentary-the-myth-of-a-global-warming-consensus?source=policybot As for the paper it is in Nature Climate Change, a peer reviewed journal. By law they have to show where their funding comes from. I see nothing by the Koch Brothers.
1
@alphabah49 , in the sources what was wrong in what they say? Also, one of my sources is a Nature paper. This is why people consider the left to be a joke. As opposed to have an actual argument with sources they just dismiss people.
1
@judedesaubin9956 , uh, I posted a Nature paper. Nature requires you to show funding. Nowhere in the funding does it talk about the oil industry or the Koch Brothers. Are you guys really that dense?
1
@judedesaubin9956 , really, you should get information from experts, not politicians and talking heads like Kyle.
1
@judedesaubin9956 , I literally cited a Nature paper and you dismissed me. That is all I need to know about how ignorant you are.
1
@alphabah49 , you are dismissing me. You have no actual argument against me dispute my peer reviewed sources.
1
@alphabah49 , if you want to go off of credentials what are Kyle's credentials? What are Warren credentials? Also, I cited a Nature paper.
1
@Unclejamsarmy , no, I read the paper. I have access to Nature articles through the university that I work at. And yes, you have to disclosure funding for those journals. I have read the articles on climate change, apparently you haven't as you don't have access to them like I do. You just admitted to it. Nature is one of the most prestigious journals one can publish in. I love how people who don't understand science or the peer reviewed process or the publishing process have a strong opinion on it. It makes them look foolish.
1
@Unclejamsarmy http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html Here is a list of more peer reviewed papers. But I know you don't have access to them. This just shows you don't even study science.
1
@judedesaubin9956 , but the ones I cite are not linked to any for profit entities.
1
@alphabah49 , for this group of people I know they won't pay for two reasons. One, they don't want to be informed, and two, they rather other people pay. This shows how ignorant this crowd is. Instead of reading actual peer reviewed articles they rather go off of what some politician or what some talking head says. You are not even reading what the experts are saying. That is a problem. I offer you resources and you refuse to read them. Here, maybe you will read this https://mikehulme.org/ Search, you can find the resources on this issue. At this point it is clear that you are not informed enough to have a strong opinion on this topic. I am literally citing peer reviewed papers that I read. You refuse to find a way to have access to them meaning you haven't even read up on this issue. You are just going off of what Kyle or some politician said. I am going off of what scientists are saying.
1
This is what is disturbing about all this. People on the far left have strong opinions about this issue but they are not even reading what the scientists, the experts, are saying about this. I post a peer reviewed article and people dismiss it in saying the person must be working for a for profit entity or there is a paywall. They don't even understand how the peer reviewed process or how the journals function. But yet they have a strong opinion on this topic.
1
@UCrjif9cv_BMt61Wq8QvXN6w , you can't even read the peer reviewed articles. At this point it is clear that you are not informed enough to have a solid opinion on this issue. That is my point. People like you are getting your information on climate change from people like Kyle and politicians with a strong bias. You are not getting your information from experts in the field. Your criticism of the Heartland article I cited is poor. What was wrong with what they said? You dismissing it is not an argument. You need to point out what was wrong with what they said and explain that to me. You not doing so means you are not informed enough on this topic to have an actual opinion on it.
1
This is also the time people run away when they realize they can't argue their point anymore as they are not informed enough on the issue. Serious question, why do you people seek out talking heads like Kyle for information as opposed to actual experts?
1
The left is hindering progress on the issue of climate change with their fear mongering. They don't have serious proposals. They are using climate change as an excuse to gain power and control our economy.
1
@MorelloZzT7 , it isn't. We don't know how much of a threat climate change is, but the left pushes this propaganda that it is a major threat and we need to give more power to the federal government.
1
@TheChiefsfan88 , keep running with the Andrew Neil thing, that is all you have against Shapiro. He even admitted in being in the wrong. That town hall showed how ignorant the left is on science. Zero citations of actual scientists.
1
@TheChiefsfan88 , here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4 An actual citation by an expert in the field. The left is abusing science. "Despite good intentions, the rhetoric of a 2030 deadline is the political (mis)use of science for setting an artificial deadline" From that article. The left is misusing science.
1
@hitmangfx7162 , I listened to Bernie and here him say things like "we will ask you to stop driving your gas car" is pathetic. First, he won't ask. Second, people cheered him on pushing the idea of changing our lives.
1
@TheChiefsfan88 http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html There is a list of other studies as well. Again, no citations from the left. Why? They want you to remain ignorant so they can control you.
1
@hitmangfx7162 , seems like Kyle P is afraid to counter my argument with my citations.
1