Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "House Science Committee Tweets Unscientific Garbage On Climate Change" video.

  1. Kyle has a cousin who is a "scientist". As a scientist myself you can get really good grants if you know what you are doing. In academics it is a bit sketchy and I do see the point here on the conspiracy. I have seen really poor scientists get large grants due to politics. All this shows is that we need to get politics out of science.
    4
  2. None of them are climate scientists. And Bill Nye doesn't even have a doctorate. I am a scientist myself and I disagree with several liberals on climate change.
    1
  3. Hal Jordan Actually I am.
    1
  4. Hal Jordan For a university I am while I pursue my PhD in physical chemistry.
    1
  5. Kyle runs a propaganda show. He sells his product by present things in a very ultra liberal viewpoint. Kyle, like most ultra liberals don't understand much, including science (ultra conservatives are the same as well). So he will push the climate change propaganda to get views. If he were to do what you suggest his viewers will get lost and stop watching.
    1
  6. Cultural Marxist Kyle is a propagandist. He is extremely liberal and almost everything he says is basically incorrect, or very deceptive at least. Here with climate change he clearly has no clue what he is talking about.  No credible scientist will ever  make the definitive conclusion he is on climate change.  Also, what he said about scientists and grant money isn't exactly true either.  There is a lot of politics involved.
    1
  7. Cultural Marxist I told you.  I have seen several scientists who were not that great get grant money just because of political connections.  We have had this problem for years at my university where a research institution made a lot of money and produced nothing.  As soon as the senator of that state retired other politicians called them out and pulled funding.  But for years money was dumped into it with little results. 
    1
  8. Cultural Marxist What?
    1
  9. Cultural Marxist In academics it is amazing how you can have a group of intellectuals that are lazy.  This is very common but not surprising.  If you think how to earn a doctorate you essentially have to make your committee happy which in my university consists of 5 people.  To get tenure you have to make the tenured professors happy.  Just being friends with them is all you need.  Have seen several people get their PhD who did not publish one paper. This research institution got a lot of money and the graduate students along with the professors became lazy.  It ended up being wasted money as they produced basically nothing. 
    1
  10. Solonneysa The issues with climate change we are unsure about are 1. how much is man playing a role if at all 2. is it even bad I support doing research on it and progressing in technology.  I don't support politicians creating taxes and regulations on something so vague. 
    1
  11. Solonneysa No they aren't
    1
  12. Solonneysa I don't consider that to be a "reputable source".  I want something that is peer reviewed.
    1
  13. Solonneysa I have seen the information.  No credible scientist is making a definitive claim liberals are. You are no different giving me a vague, and unreliable source.  I have access to every paper for free being a graduate student.  As a scientist myself I know how scientists think and conclusions they come up with.  I work with them on a daily basis.  The issues of climate change are 1. how much is man playing a role, if at all 2. is it even bad No credible scientist can come up with a strong conclusion on that. My suggest is that you study science for a living like I do, and other climate scientists do so you know how they collect and present data.
    1
  14. In science facts are the data you collect. You don't deny that. The issue here is how you interpret them. With climate change the conclusion is not determined and is very vague. The political left and the liberal media have interpret the data incorrectly. I say incorrectly because they are coming up with a definite conclusion when no credible scientist will ever say what the political left is saying.
    1
  15. Freely Liberal, TheCreepyCow did not deny climate change. I agree with him, climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. Liberals see it as a way to gain power. They misrepresent science to gain power. Just like they exploit the poor, blacks, gays, women and other groups to gain power.
    1
  16. Johnny Spider No scientist is going to make the definitive claim on climate change that liberals are.  I have no problem with the science, I have a problem with liberals misrepresenting science for political gain. We have no control to compare what is happening to anything. I am not saying it isn't an issue. I am not saying we should not look into it.  The issue with climate change is 1. how much is man playing a role, if at all 2. is it even bad Liberals are running around saying the world is going to blow up and politicians on the left are using it as an excuse to regulate and tax us, basically control us. I see that as a problem on an issue with so much doubt.
    1
  17. Johnny Spider "I believe 97% of scientists..." That 97% number has been debunked several times where the scientists who were cited came out and said their findings were misrepresented.  In short, that number is bogus. "Again, please explain how these liberals are misrepresenting the science for political gain" Climate change is a complicated issue that is not defined. But yet politicians want to raise taxes and create regulations based off of it.  Politicians, not scientists.  They have a lot to gain from this, mainly power.  No different than when liberals exploit women, gays, minorities, the poor and other groups. "I'd say 100%..." So all of that climate change before man was even on earth did not happen? A driving force of evolution was climate change.  It has been happening for over 4 billion years, unless you support the young earth idea and don't support the theory or evolution. "Well, yeah. One thing we don't know is how bad..." With today's technology I don't see why it is even a problem.  Could it be a problem?  Yes.  But how do we know?  You can't say.  At this point all we can do is continue to research it and continue to advance in technology. "So, if the leftist politicians are using global warming to regulate and tax us, why do 97% of scientists agree that man-made climate change is occurring?" Again, that 97% number is bogus. "If the right-wing accepted climate-change as factual" For the most part they accept climate change as it has been happening for over 4 billion years.  "and appropriately regulated and taxed you on it, would you oppose it" I would oppose it.  With that part of the comment you are labeling me as a "right winger" when I am a moderate.  This is a pure case of where democrats, to me, are anti-science.  Neither republicans or democrats are scientists.  They are politicians.  Republicans are smart enough to understand that and leave science with scientists.  Democrats use it for political gain. They politicize science.
    1
  18. Freely Liberal The "consensus" has bee debunked several times.  And yes, I am smart enough to challenge these guys because I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry.  But, I won't have to challenge them because that "consensus" was not made by any of those scientist.  http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136
    1
  19. Johnny Spider http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136 "You're just missing the point. If the scientists do not stand to gain anything from making up climate change data, why are you not accepting it as factual" That data is there. The issue is how it is interpreted.  As that WSJ article I linked you, that 97% stat is vague based off of vague questions and vague interpretations.  In science you collect data.  Those are facts.  How you interpret them is the challenging part and no credible scientist is going to make a definitive conclusion that liberals are making. I collected data and published it.  I make vague conclusions like everyone else in my field does.  You don't want to make a definitive conclusion because you could look bad and very little of the universe has been tapped into. "Yes, the climate flucuates in a minute way over time. That doesn't explain the rapid, abnormal fluctuations we're seeing today, nor does it explain the ancillary effects of industrialization like pollution, ocean acidification, etc. which you still haven't addressed. And if you support the theory of evolution, why deny climate change? You have nothing to gain from denying it. You're going to pay taxes regardless of anything, and what's the problem with environmental regulations? Should corporations just be allowed to turn our planet into a giant sewer?" Well, is this change rapid and abnormal? What can you compare it to? You have nothing to compare it to.   Also, who is denying climate change?  Basically nobody.  It has been happening for over 4 billion years.  I am criticizing you because you are being selective in what science you support.  And what does this have to do with corporations turning something into a sewer?  Who said anything about that? "So far it seems technology has done nothing to combat the problem, or at least very little. The temperature continues to rise; when is this magic technology you speak of coming out?" Why change the climate when you can adjust.  You are looking at changing the climate.  I am talking about adjusting our lifestyle to adopt to the changing climate. "But they're not accepting it as it's been happening in the last two hundred years, which is highly abnormal, much more rapid than usual, and due entirely to carbon emissions from industrialization." And 2 hundred years is the only time frame where we have actual data we collected.  The time before that is modeling. "So democrats are anti-science because they accept the scientific data" It isn't about accepting the data, it is how you represent it.  They are misrepresenting it for political gain.  That makes them anti-science.  Conservatives are not denying data either, they want scientists to interpret it and their conclusion is far different than democrats' conclusion. "Also, I think being politically moderate is stupid, since conservatives seem to be wrong on most issues" Such as.....? Also, I am getting a PhD. You don't have to believe me because I am. 
    1
  20. Johnny Spider Ok, let me add than. That 97% comes from a survey that less than 1% of scientists even bothered to answer.  97% of 1% is less than 1%.  Congrats, less than 1% of scientists agree with you. "How are scientists misinterpreting the data? Explain." Scientists aren't. Liberals are.  Scientists are fine which is why less than 1% decided to answer questions on a bogus survey. "You can compare it to the pre-industrialized era, where evidence amply shows there was no coral reef bleaching, no pollution, no ozone layer damage, the carbon levels were below 400 ppm. You can compare it to the dinosaur era, when much of the Earth was a tropical rainforest." 200 years in a 4 billion year old earth is minute.  Again, you can't compare it to anything. "Will you be able to adjust your lifestyle when agriculture collapses due to increased heat and dustbowl conditions? What about when the land becomes unsuitable to grow crops due to pesticide and petroleum-based fertilizers? Plants and crops do not migrate." None of that is happening for a very long time, if ever.  As is we produce too much food.  "You previously stated that the (liberal) politicians were misrepresenting the data to raise taxes and impose environmental regulations, not the scientists, who you stated were neutral on the matter and only went with the data. What do scientists have to gain politically by denying global warming?" Scientists are not denying anything.  They are the ones who are not making definitive conclusions.  They are also not pushing for the same things politicians are.  So why do you keep misrepresenting scientists? "Well, global warming, for one" Uh, is it global warming or climate change?  Make up your mind. "Many conservative political positions are incoherent and meaningless, such as abortion and gay marriage." On abortion, arguments on both sides are good but also bad.  One can easily argue that abortion is murder.  It is killing a living thing (hurray science). I do see the counter argument for it.  With me abortion should strictly be a state law, period. Nothing is in the constitution about it.  So democrats are wrong on that as well. Also, abortion is not a misogynistic stance.  You saying that shows your ignorance on the topic. With marriage, there is no such thing as a right to get married.  Marriage is a state law.  Now states have to follow the 14th amendment, but as a whole marriage is as state law. "Many conservative positions are simply racist, sexist, bigoted, classist (against the poor), homophobic, etc" Not true at all. The fact that you say that also shows your ignorance.  To democrats it is always about race or sex.  They exploit groups to gain an advantage to where if any party is sexist, racist, etc. it is the democrats.  "I never said I don't believe you. I'm sure they give PhD's to lots of stupid people" Says the person who does not understand science.
    1
  21. Freely Liberal Science doesn't prove anything.  That fact you don't understand that is all I need.
    1
  22. Johnny Spider Science doesn't prove anything.  What science does is develop theories which are models to 1. explain natural occurrences 2. give future predictions Theories are supported, never proven.  That is because to prove something means without a doubt.  There is always doubt in science and theoretical models have been shown to not hold up in certain situation. For example, one theory I use is called Transition Dipole Coupling (TDC).  It is a model that shows that when two transitions occur you can measure the angle and distance between them based on the ratio of those transitions if they couple together through space.  That model works well with modes such as Amide I in peptides. But has shown to not do well when the dipoles are close together.  With that you need to go to higher order and at times you can get a more accurate result. There is work being done to develop a new model.  Not what doesn't "prove" TDC is wrong or that the other model is correct.  It just shows it give poor predictions in certain cases. In the end science does not prove anything.
    1
  23. Freely Liberal Can you explain TDC to me?
    1
  24. Freely Liberal Science doesn't prove anything. But if you want to play that game then provide the "proof" that climate change is strongly influenced by man.  I am not saying influence, I am saying strongly influenced. Also, what accounted for the climate change before man was on earth?
    1
  25. Johnny Spider Why have we exceeded that?  That is a good question.  There is really no definitive answer.  And is this even bad? We don't know.
    1