Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump Picks Anti-Regulation Climate Denier To Lead The EPA" video.

  1. True. The same is with education. Federal programs like the EPA and Department of Ed just creates waste and bureaucracy. They are programs that need to go. I see this as a step in the right direction.
    2
  2. No state is going to allow their environment to be polluted. The only thing the federal government can do is prevent a state from polluting other state's environment. We have that covered in the constitution with the Commerce Clause. The EPA is a waste and just more bureaucracy. I needs to go.
    2
  3. thewanderandhiscomp Clinton was very corrupt.  But while she is making millions from donors you could have kept your SS and EPA under her.  Now think about that, who is really serving who here?
    2
  4. thewanderandhiscomp Uh, states have environmental laws and can enforce them just fine.  The EPA just creates waste and bureaucracy.
    2
  5. Because it is easy to cry and moan. Protesters rather do that than actually work. That is where the criticism lies.
    1
  6. Johngamer 1992 Developing skills that are actually worth something
    1
  7. Johngamer 1992 Nope.  But, what does Trump having four bankruptcies have to do with anything?
    1
  8. Johngamer 1992 Four bankruptcies is hardly a failure when compared to his multiple businesses.  I guess you never failed in life then. Successful people fail all the time. Coach Krzyzewski lost 2 national championship games.  I guess he was a bad coach according to your standards.
    1
  9. Not a Trump fan but the EPA is unconstitutional and does a lot of harm. Trump supporters and myself will support this.
    1
  10. Elite 1984 States can run environmental laws just fine and in reality better. The federal EPA is just a waste and layers of bureaucracy that hinders progress. 
    1
  11. Elite 1984 Not really.  New technology is more efficient and "greener" thus companies are implementing them.  That is progress.  I feel the EPA should be eliminated at the federal level.  This, to me, is a great step.
    1
  12. Elite 1984 And the goal of the Department of Education was to improve education. It hasn't.  When left alone the market will create new technology.  All the EPA does is waste tax dollars, picks favorites, and creates layers of bureaucracy which all hinders progress. What a state does is their business.  Even at that people saying "climate science denier" usually are people who do not understand science. 
    1
  13. Elite 1984 What Trump said was a talking point that every politician says. Bernie said climate change was going to start a war.  Considering how terrible the EPA is I support this as it is a step towards eliminating the EPA.
    1
  14. Marasma101 Show me where in the constitution the federal government is allowed to create an program like the EPA as it stands now?
    1
  15. Elite 1984 A lot of things cause war, climate change is just one of several factors and is a minor one.  What Bernie said is idiotic as well.  But I am more pissed that Bernie keeps misrepresenting science.
    1
  16. Elite 1984 Bernie is calling climate change a major problem and claims every scientists says that.  That is not true at all.  Trump is not making a claim based on what scientists are saying.  Bernie is.  Scientists are not saying what Bernie is.
    1
  17. Elite 1984 "the vast majority of scientists do agree with what Sanders is saying," Nope, not correct.
    1
  18. Elite 1984 http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#6bcd06227187
    1
  19. Elite 1984 The "consensus" has been debunked several times.  One was a poll of two vague questions that less than 1% of scientists actually responded to.  97% of 1% is less than 1%. 
    1
  20. Elite 1984 You cite NASA which is government funded.  You cite "thinkprogress" which is a regressive liberal site.  My citations showed how flawed and vague those "consensus" studies were.  There is no consensus.  What scientists are saying is no where near what Bernie is saying.  That is why Bernie and regressive liberals like Kyle do not give any names.  If Bernie were to start listing names those scientists will call him out.
    1
  21. Elite 1984 I am just saying the sources are weak because the findings have been shown to be weak.  That's the point.  There is no consensus.  Anyone who says there is clearly does not understand science or how scientific research is done or what scientists even say.  That is why so many professors are calling out Cook on his work or less than 1% of scientists even answered the vague poll questions.
    1
  22. Elite 1984 Let us look at the first source Cook: I covered that, other professors are calling him out Oreskes: Just looked at abstracts where a study in Nature (the top scientific journal) did an article about the flaws in doing that Doran: Less than 1% of scientists even answered the vague questions.  Anderegg: Cherry picked citations and does not even mention the dangers of climate change That is just scratching the surface. But go ahead and believe a catch phrase of "consensus". 
    1
  23. Elite 1984 NASA is government funded. They have an agenda.  Even at that they are still not making the same conclusion that Kyle, you and Bernie are.  How about Bernie and Kyle lists these so call scientists?
    1
  24. Elite, the data NASA produces are hard numbers. In science we refer to those as facts. How they are presented and analyzed is what separates a scientist like me to someone who is not a scientist like you. The issues with climate change are 1. how much is man playing a role 2. is it even bad As I said, in some of those "consensus" studies they did not even mention the dangers of climate change. No credible scientist is making the claim Bernie and Kyle are, period. No one is ignoring the data, they are criticizing how regressive liberals like Kyle and Bernie are presenting the data. So no, I am not questioning the data, I am questioning the politicians presentations of the data and interpretation, because it is now how a scientist will do it. As far as conflict of interest is concern, this reverts back to why I support smaller, more local government. You are all in support of the government running the EPA until a politician you don't like become in control. Now you are complaining. Maybe if the federal government did not have that kind of power this would not happen.
    1
  25. Elite, I am not questioning the data, they are measured numbers. I am criticizing the interpretation being done by the liberal politicians and talking heads. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. All NASA is showing with the numbers is that the climate is changing in a certain way. The issue with climate change are 1. how much is man playing a role 2. is it even bad. A driving force of evolution has been climate change. Or are you one of those who reject the theory of evolution? " NASA and their presentation of the data they analyzed leads them to the conclusion that climate change is both real and man made" Not really. As I said, climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. How much is man playing a role is in question. Is man playing a role? Of course. But how much is in question. And is it even bad? I am not discrediting anyone except for politicians who are misrepresenting science to gain in power.
    1
  26. An this highlights a problem. You are willing to elect a corrupt politician as long as they give you a program like the EPA. As long as government "serves" you politicians can make millions from special interest groups. Think about that.
    1
  27. Marasma101 Not really.  No state is going to allow their environment to be destroyed.  The same goes for education.  Education is ran and funded by the states and they set the standards. How many states are pushing to do away with education and/or make it indoctrination?  None.  The problem won't exist.
    1
  28. Does Kyle remember Bernie's climate change tweet last year?
    1
  29. http://hausrules.us/one-guys-response-to-bernie-sanders-climate-change-tweet-is-perfect
    1
  30. No one is denying climate change. They are criticizing the conclusion that democrats (who are not scientists) are making.
    1
  31. Nope, not new. Kyle is pretty ignorant when it comes to science. To him questioning the role of man in climate change means you are denying climate change.
    1
  32. That is all political talk. Look at how Bernie talks when it comes to climate change. He thinks it is going to start another war and that scientists are saying it is a big deal which is not what they are saying. It goes both ways. I over look what the politicians say, they are acting like politicians. The left has been really ignorant when it comes to climate change as well.
    1
  33. And you are denying the fact that the political left has said a lot of ignorant, radical things as well......good luck with that.
    1
  34. Zidneya What I am saying is that the left  is just as ignorant.  You are whining about the right when the left is just as bad.  Being ignorant about science from the left isn't up for debate either.  So who is really better?
    1
  35. Yep.
    1
  36. Depends. If the democrats become more moderate and stop pushing people like Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Bernie etc than they might. Moderates are scared of how radical democrats have become. And if Trump has success than the democrats might be screwed.
    1
  37. To be fair man can effect the climate. How much is the issue. And if what is happening is even bad is another issue. Climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. That is something liberals always tend to ignore.
    1
  38. Because these departments are unconstitutional and failures. They are hard to get rid of so might as well make them nonfunctional.
    1
  39. Martin Anderson Do you have an actual rebuttal?
    1
  40. Marasma101 Programs like these are ran better at the state and local level. While, initially they may be beneficial, over time this much power at the federal level leads to corruption and bureaucracy and thus waste.  As is they are not functional at all.  They need to go away but that is hard to do (at the state level it is much easier to change government, another advantage of state and local government).  This is a step in that direction.  
    1
  41. mtneves77, other countries have problems as well and are not more successful than the US. Also, they are countries with much smaller populations and cultures. You can't compare.
    1
  42. Doubtful. You have to consider that they are countries of much smaller populations and different cultures. It is like healthcare, so many people try to say the US has a terrible system. Two professors wrote a book explaining that the US system is not bad compared to other countries and that other countries have just as many, if not more problems. https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
    1
  43. Great. The next best thing is to get rid of the EPA. It does way more harm than good (if any good at all). Also, it is unconstitutional. Leave environmental laws to the states.
    1