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

whyamimrpink78
Secular Talk
comments

Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump: "I Don't Believe" Scientific Climate Change Report" video.

He is not wrong, we are very clean theses days compared to the past. De-regulations is not going to increase pollution. Increase technology is because of that and that is from the free market. Also, the Paris agreement is a joke.
5
As a scientist I agree with Trump.
3
Leftists here won't tell you. They just scream that climate change is a major threat and then play mental games in justifying why. You bring up a good point, what is the "ideal temperature" and why? One of my counter points in this climate change discussion is that the ecosystem will evolve and then leftists will say it won't, or that the rate of climate change is faster than the rate of evolution. I then ask them for the rate of evolution to which they provide not answer. Point being is that on this issue we know very little about it. We can't go into mass hysteria on something we know very little about.
2
Ken Sol, how so? The Paris Agreement is a UN agreement, no different than NATO. How many nations follow that?
2
People on the left don't make a scientific argument for the issues of climate change, it goes both ways. The left says climate change is a major threat but provides no scientific argument for it.
1
Ruben, climate science is a broad field. What is your standard for "climate scientist"?
1
@jojoboko6990 , why? I do research that can be used to understand biological materials and how they react to changes in the environment. You clearly don't understand science or how complex it is. Studying the climate involves all fields of science. It isn't a defined issue like plasma physics or ultra cold physics. Tell me, why do you hate science?
1
@jojoboko6990 , it is easy to verify you don't understand science based on the comments you write.
1
@user-be8ep2zd6r , I am a scientist, not a mathematician. I know a lot of math but not at the expert level. While conversing with a professor from Michigan at a conference he said that people like me and him are more skilled at math than 95% of the nation. The issue is that those in the 5% are very elite and can do things that very few people can ever dream of doing. But the same applies for my field. Very few can do what I do. How about you align a UV laser in both time and space.
1
@jojoboko6990 Ok, do it. Solve that integral. I did answer the question. I challenge you to answer it. The reality is that you get a gamma function. It isn't a type of integral I solved before. Now it if was a Gaussian integral that is one thing, and a basic one. But you do know there are integrals that have on solutions and there are integrals and areas of math that most scientists don't study. That is outside of my area of expertise. But if it is so basic than you solve it. I can do a Taylor series on it and solve for that, is that what you want? I love how you rip on me but provide no actual argument.
1
@jojoboko6990 Climate science is a vague field that involves biology, physics, chemistry, engineering, etc. It isn't as specific as plasma physics. The more physical you get in science the more specific you get. The more you go to life science the more vague it gets. Can a "climate scientist" describe to me the process of photosynthesis in relation to quantum coherence? Can they then explain it to me at different pH and temperature levels? No. You have science because you literally said that climatology does not involve all fields of science when it does.
1
@jojoboko6990 , also, my field is physical chemistry. I use ultra fast spectroscopy to study the biological materials. You don't even know what goes on in the different fields of science. Environmental scientists do not study what I do.
1
@jojoboko6990 If it is "baby math" than solve it. Give me the steps. BTW, a gamma function is a topic taught in advanced calculus courses where usually only math majors see it. But I guess that is "baby math" to you.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you were reasonable in the past, why are you becoming a far leftist now?
1
@jojoboko6990 , you got that from an integral calculator. Now can you explain it to me? And why do you feel that is "baby math"?
1
@jojoboko6990 , you googled all of that. You have never took an advanced math course. I can tell because I googled that integral and looked deep in it. Also, multi variant calculus is a 2nd year course after you take calc 1 and calc 2. I have a degree in physics, we don't use gamma functions. We do use Sinh and Cosh functions in stat mech. In my entire time of studying physics I have never used this function.
1
@jojoboko6990 Climate science is vague. But of course, you feel that a gamma function is "baby math". Plasma physics is specific as it involves only physics. It does not involve life science or chemistry. However, climate science does. For example, how will photosynthesis take place with the change in the climate? Well, you have to first understand the physics of photosynthesis. Or how will chemical reactions in nature occur with changes in the climate? That is also another physics related question. The fact is you lack understand of math and science but yet you feel the need to have a strong opinion on it. I study a lot of what climate scientists study as they do study statistics, stat mech, thermodynamics, etc.
1
@jojoboko6990 , so tell me, why do you think calc 3 is "baby math" ? Do you also feel differential equations is "baby math"? Or linear algebra? Or discreet math? Also, when will you use a gamma function in physics? Also, tell me when you will use a sinh function? When will you use a gaussian function? How about you explain to me the quantum coherence involved in photosynthesis? You challenged me to answer a question, now I am giving you questions to answer to prove your knowledge.
1
@jojoboko6990 Ever heard of the saying that "all science is stamp collecting and physics"? Now where would you place climate science? And why?
1
@jojoboko6990 , also, how about you explained to me Chirped Pulsed Amplification if you are so smart in the ways of science. And please, be detailed.
1
@jojoboko6990 You said "baby math" which would suggest high school level math, not college and surely not advanced math. In advanced physics we learn Green's Functions, or Contour Integrals. In fact, I will make it easy. I will grab my Mathematics from Physicists book by Susan M. Lea off my shelf. Chapter 1: We learn vectors and scalars and Helmholtz Theorem Chapter 2: Complex Variables. In section 2.9 is the Gamma Function, but we never covered it because we are limited in time and have to cover other topics such as Fourier series in Chapter 4 or Green's function in Optional Topic C. So is it covered in advanced physics? It depends on the instructor. My instructor never has and I never had to use it because my research does not require it. There are a plethora of topics you can cover in math, that was not one of them. I never had to use a gamma function so I never had to take the time to learn it. Just like one of my colleagues never had to understand chirped pulse amplification in lasers. He is also a physicist but in a different field. He is a theorist so he never took the time to learn CPA. Meanwhile I am writing up about it in my dissertation because the laser system I use does CPA to produces 4 watts of power out of the amplifier. So if you are going to rip on me for not knowing one function in math and make your conclusion of my knowledge in science based on that than that is very shallow and it shows you clearly have no idea how complex the field of science really is.
1
@jojoboko6990 So you don't understand plasma physics, so I guess you don't understand science based on your standard. Also, yes, a lot of people who study climate science deal with large scale systems. However, a lot of quantum mechanical effects have to be understood as well. That is the challenge in at that level so little is understood. My university has a strong atmospheric department and all of the grad students there have to take both semester of quantum mechanics for that reason. I specialize in understanding vibrational states at the molecular level where I use a lot of quantum properties. My research is trying to understand those properties at different temperature and environments. That can be expanded to when the climate change changes how will chemical reactions change in nature. We don't know. That is why we can't say climate change is a major threat because we don't know.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you don't understand science very well at all. You just have what you read on blogs. You don't know about plasma physics and you thought learning the gamma function was "baby math". You also then went onto saying it is a special integral you just memorize. You should never just "memorize it" but understand how it is derived. Just like the Gaussian integral. You can memorize it or understand how it is derived.
1
@polka , not every instructor teaches gamma functions. Does every instructor teaches Green's functions? No. Does every instructor teaches Fourier transforms? No. Just like in classical mechanics. Every instructor teaches Lagrangian mechanics, but not every one teaches Hamiltonian mechanics. The reason why is because you don't really gain anything new in how to solve physical systems, but learning Hamiltonian mechanics does connect the Newtonian world to the quantum world. So there is value there.
1
@polka , I don't deny climate change. It has been happening for over 4 billion years. My point is that we don't know how much man is playing a role. Many is playing a role, but we don't know how much. We don't know if it is a threat or not. And if it is a threat, we don't have a real solution. The climate and ecosystem is very complex, there are a ton of moving parts. To make a strong conclusion that humans are the main cause of it and it is a major threat is, in my opinion, foolish considering how complex the issue it. It isn't just one source and we don't know if it is a threat. The ecosystem has evolved for billions of years through other times of change, including with the climate. Climate change is something we should look at, but we shouldn't be running around saying the world is on fire.
1
@Matt_Fields_29 , read my response to him, he did not slaughter me. He is selective in what he says and refused to answer my question. But he criticized me for not answering a different person's question. I was never taught gamma functions. I bet he was never taught Green's function. People are taught different things and have different skills. Science is a very broad field, that is my overall point.
1
@brian2440 , actually no. I study biological materials reacting to changes to their environment, that makes me a physical chemist to more of a physicist. Why? Because I use ultra fast spectroscopy to study the dynamics and structure of proteins and RNA. As of now people only studied small systems so I studied up to a 3 residue peptide and an RNA nucleoside. Only one group has looked at a larger system where they looked at a human eye. The reason why larger systems have not been viewed is because all the natural IR probes (such as the amide I modes) overlap causing congestion in the spectrum, and non-natural probes end up having small transition dipole strengths making them hard to detect. I use a femtosecond laser to study these systems using non-linear spectroscopic techniques. So no, I am not a biologist. I have been published 4 times and I am working on my 5th paper. But my work is very heavily based on physics. I don't synthesize anything, I use my knowledge of physics to study the dynamics and structures of these materials and write it as such. I agree with Trump because science is very complex and broad. We can't make strong conclusions on the issue of climate change like many on the left are because we don't know.
1
@Vulcano7965 , actually I have been here when ClimateSkeptic was. They are a completely different person. But no matter what I say you won't believe me anyway, so it doesn't matter.
1
@mahal3680 , I live 1500 miles away from my parents. And if anyone is an armchair scientist, it is people like Kyle and his fans.
1
@Vulcano7965 , all scientists are trained in a specific field. I understand how complex science is and that you can't make a strong conclusion on something like climate change. Many factors outside of CO2 influence the change in the climate. Read up on the Lake Nyos disaster.
1
@jojoboko6990 , that never gets old to you because you have not counter arguments to anything I say, so you just mock me instead. Keep doing it, it makes me look like the intelligent one.
1
@jojoboko6990 Multivariable calculus is not "baby math". It is an advanced course. Yes, I took it. It is a required course for all physics majors. Did I learn about that topic? No. There is a lot to learn and limited time. Or maybe I did but haven't used it in years so it is something I am very rusty on and will have to read up on it. Either way, me not knowing that integral does not change the fact that I do study science for a living. It does not take away what I accomplished in the field nor my knowledge in it. If you want to use that as a standard than you are going to have to discredit a lot of scientists, including the ones who study the climate that you worship right now. But the fact is there is so much material that is out there to learn that one does not know everything. Look back at my example of classical mechanics in how some professors don't teach Hamiltonian mechanics. Also, the reality is that we don't know. The science is not settled. In my work I my current paper I am looking at a molecule of 17 atoms and another of only 14 atoms. I am looking at how the energy flows through that molecule and we are pushing it into a journal of an impact factor of 14. The paper where I studied a 3 residue peptide is published in a journal with an impact factor of 14 as well. They are very small systems overall that we know very little about. What makes you think we know about something as large and complex and the ecosystem and the climate? This is why I say you don't understand science. You don't understand the complexity of it or how little we know.
1
@brian2440 , I never said that my research is related to climatology. I said one could argue it can be and it can, to a degree be used in it. My overall point is that there is so little we know about the ecosystem and the climate. I see papers published on very small systems. To give an example here is one I am thinking of right now https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jp4120546 Look at how small that system is but that became a paper. Other work has been published on it as well. Something that small we know very little about. Now what makes you think we know so much about the ecosystem and the climate? Trump's claim has been do more research. He is getting government out of science which is what a lot of scientists want. Minus grants scientists don't want the bureaucracy of government in science. Trump is removing politics from science. In science we provide supporting evidence to a theory, but there is always doubt. Nothing is ever settled in science. People on the far left who push this climate change issue do so saying that the science is settled when in reality it is far from settled.
1
@brian2440 , my ideas align with Trump in that we need to stop politicizing this issue and leave it to scientists. The left wants to politicize this issue where politics poison everything in my opinions. Politics leads to bureaucracy, corruption, special interest groups, etc. Politicians look to get elected so they will do what they want to get elected. While some politicians may be there to better our situation, a lot will look at short term goals to get elected. One can be investing in "green energy" to cater to far left environmentalists even if it is not the best solution. This is why SC justices are not elected and why the Federal Reserve is not elected. They make tough decisions that are unpopular but best for the long run. I want to get politics out of science and leave science to the scientist. I look at this issue of climate change and I see a bunch of scientific illiterate people making strong opinions for political gains. And if you are someone who disagrees with the left you become a climate change denier even though I have said many times that climate change is happening. Also, the left feels that the only solution is from government where in reality the free market can help this. A lot of "green energy" solutions save money in which the free market has pushed for. We have cars with better gas mileage. We have better insulation in homes. As for government funding being non-bias, I will argue that is not true. I feel they are bias in some ways. I have seen people get grants for producing nothing but get them for political reasons. As for Trump cutting funding, we are a nation in deep debt. We need to cut funding. That is the reality. That is how we get the economy back on track. I am not going to be bias here and say "we should cut funding except for research in science", I will say that we need to cut funding everywhere. Overall, I want limited government involved in science. The issue of climate change is complex, we can't make strong conclusions and we must do more research, and we need to allow the free market to improve technology like it always has. That is my stance on this issue.
1
@jojoboko6990 , human entropy could play a role. Human movement can as well. The Mall of America has no central heating system despite being in one of the coldest states in the union. How does it stay warm? One reason is because of human traffic generating more body heat. So yes, more humans moving around can create an increase in temperature. But hey, believe what you want to believe, and deny what you want to deny. Whatever supports your firmly held, religious like belief.
1
@brian2440 , the free market has led to better technology that is more energy efficient. Better technology has always been derived from the private sector and hardly government.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you feel that with climate change it comes from one source and only one source which is incredibly foolish. There are many factors at play. You deny that though which is why I claim you don't support science. There are many factors involved in climate change, not just one. Sorry you can't accept that but it is try. You don't have to go easy on my, but you actually are when you mock me. When you mock me as opposed to giving a counter argument you are going incredibly easy on me because it reveals you have no desire to discuss the issue making me the intelligent and making any discussion with you short.
1
@jojoboko6990 , 1. Says who? 2. Ok, where? 3. Yes, the entire globe with more people moving around. More people driving cars where cars generate thermal energy. More people running machines that generate thermal energy. It isn't just human movement but also the machines they run. That plays a role as well in the entire globe. But whatever, just claim that it is one factor and only one factor that contributes to climate change. No different than our healthcare discussion where you felt that overall life expectancy is influence purely on the healthcare system.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I also find it ironic how you end up talking about the entire globe but still reduce climate change to just one factor. This entire time my argument is that the entire globe and ecosystem is large and complex making the issue of climate change difficult to fully access. That is why I feel the way I do about it. You are literally contradicting everything you are saying now.
1
@jojoboko6990 Ok, what three sources and why?
1
@jojoboko6990 So now there are four sources? Also, how do you know without a control to compare to? That is what makes this difficult to study. I agree that solar accounts for most of the earth's energy, but we are talking about the warming of the earth. What is causing it? The sun has always been hitting the earth, so what is causing the increase in temperature? Sure green house gases could play a role, but increases in CO2 has been small as well. So other factors are at play. Also, again, there is a correlation between earth temperature increase and increase in human population. Also, human activity is more active due to increase in technology. For example, we never flew until recently.
1
@jojoboko6990 , you are not debunking anything. That is the issue. You are just mocking me which makes you look foolish.
1
@jojoboko6990 , show me the math. For years the sun has been hitting the earth but temperatures have not been rising. Also, use of fossil fuels is that human activity I am talking about. So based on what you said the math is there. As for green houses the increase in CO2 has been around 40% since the 1700s where the increase in population has been over 300% since the 1950s.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I agree, solar energy is the main source of the earth's energy. But we are talking about an increase in temperature. Where is that coming from? An increase of a of 1 degree Celsius since the late 1800s can be from many sources. 1 degree Celsius over 130+ years is small and many factors can contribute to that. One being green house gases trapping in the heat, another can be increased human activity. You are bouncing back and forth here in your argument. Your argument is that human activity, such as human motions or the motion the machines they create, cannot be contributing to the increase in the earth's temperature because they are not the main source of energy. I agree the sun is the main source of energy. But we are talking about the increase in the temperature. Increasing the population by 300% can play a role, especially since we are talking about 1 degree Celsius in an around 100 year time frame. That is the point. The argument is what is causing the earth's temperature to rise. Not what it is the main source of energy for the earth. Please try to understand the argument.
1
@jojoboko6990 , I never argued that human activity is the main source of energy. My argument is that there is a correlation between the increase in temperature in the earth and the increase in population. Just like some point to the correlation between the increase in CO2 and the increase in temperature in the earth. Please try to understand the argument. Maybe if you did then you can actually argue against it as opposed to mocking me.
1
@jojoboko6990 1 degree Celsius can be from many sources. You cay it is from CO2. One can argue it can be from human activity. Why is the latter not proposed by the left? Because that would mean limiting population and thus limiting how many kids people have. My problem is not a scale problem. The world population increased 300% since the 50s. Also, mix in the fact that technology has made movement greater. People are flying, driving and are far more active now. You can't ignore that issue. You choose too because you choose to remain myopic and believe what others have told you and refuse to look outside the box. Also, there is plenty of papers published on population growth and its relation to the environment. You are not looking hard enough. For example, read the following paper "The Long-Term Relationship between Population Growth and Vegetation Cover: An Empirical Analysis Based on the Panel Data of 21 Cities in Guangdon Province, China" It looks at population growth and vegetation and came up with interesting results. Overall, people are looking at population growth and climate change. You just refuse to look deeper in to the issue and decided to go with what far leftists will say. Why? Because you are myopic. But go ahead and mock me, it makes me look like the intelligent one.
1
@jojoboko6990 , and here you go. Instead of developing a counter argument you just mock me. You say that the earth's population can grow 1000% and the heat produced will not increase the temperature by 0.01 degree Celsius. Where do you based that off of? There are questions in what is causing the increase in the earth's temperature. The main points of climate change are 1. How much is man playing a role and in what ways? 2. Is it even a threat? 3. If it is what is the solution? Now you are this attitude that the science is settled when it is far from settled. You are all over the place in your argument. When I made the point about the Mall of America you said that was a mall where we are talking about the entire earth. So you are acknowledging the fact that the earth is large and complex making this entire issue complex. But now you are saying that the science is settled, that we know the reasoning and we can reduce it down to one factor. So what is it? Is this issue complex or not? You can't just change your stance to suit your narrative. I am being consistent here. For that paper I cited, it came from a quick google search. The point is that people do study population growth and the influence on the ecosystem, one can be climate change. In that case it was vegetation (where vegetation helps reduce CO2). The point being is that an increase in population does influence the ecosystem in a measurable way where people do studies on it. You claimed they didn't when they clearly do. But whatever. Just mock me and change your stance on an issue when it suits your narrative. You have never heard this side of the argument because your understanding of climate change stems from what the far left says who have a very myopic viewpoint of it. Their viewpoint is that 1. Man is the main contributor 2. It is a major threat 3. The government needs to push policies to reduce carbon emissions There are other studies that show that population growth is a concern when it comes to climate change. You just don't look for them. You only know of what the far left says on this issue. Why? Because you have not studied it and refuse to. To you the science is settled which is a very dangerous way to approach this.
1
What facts does he deny?
1
@pb_7002 , that is true. Almost everyone supports the idea of climate change. Where the disagreement comes in is that if it is even a threat and if it is what is the solution? Is government really the solution? When you bring that up to an ultra leftist they call you a denier because they have no argument to support their points.
1
@Matt_Fields_29 , ever thought we don't have to deal with climate change? Or ever thought that the free market was a better solution?
1
Their relaxed regulations are a reason for that. The environmentalists in the US who want strict regulations are actually hindering development in renewable energy.
1
@niklashansen5432 , that is because of how few regulations they have. For example, China cornered the market in the f-elements which are used in solar cells. The reason why is because in China you can open a mind with little regulation barriers. In the US it can take up to 10 years to open one up. Thus China has cornered the research market on solar cells essentially.
1
Creating a straw man and trying to be relevant.
1
@Bmanritchie , I have. He goes after easy targets and strawmans a lot. Also, he cherry picks a lot of information.
1
@GR-ym8po , I was watching one video where he went after a 12 year old girl. Or the Patrick Moore video where he never countered anything Moore said and kept referring back to bleach. Or the one where he criticizes PragerU for having a religious video but then cited a study from the University of Nebraska which that university also has a religious department. That is a double standard. Potholer54 is a hack.
1
@xXAscendingPhoenixXx , I actually don't go on potholer's video, so right away you are lying. Potholer and I had a discussion to which he ran away from. I called him out on his actions are being selective in what he says and going after easy targets. He even criticized a Nobel prize winning scientist by saying that just because someone wins a Nobel prize does not mean what they say is always correct. So I called him out on his credential to which he just jumped around the issue and left. And that point it was shown how much of a hack Potholer is. But again, I don't go to his video, so you are lying.
1
Flint is a local issue that is due to poor piping, not pollution.
1
Kyle is not a scientist, he has never worked in the field nor done research in it, and he has never been through the peer reviewed process. Pretty what he says on this issue is crap.
1
The left misrepresents facts and science.
1
Every politician says something foolish. Obama was preaching about "common sense gun laws". The issue is that there is a debate to begin with so they aren't "common sense". Or you have Bernie not knowing what collateral is.
1
potholer54 is not a scientist. The fact you rip on other scientists and claim they should not have an opinion but support potholer54 makes you a hypocrite. Also, climate science is a very broad field that involves essentially all of the sciences. It isn't something specialized like plasma physics.
1
@OvarosX , I read scientific journals as well. Potholer54 cherry picks a lot of information and goes after easy targets. He is a hack.
1
@OvarosX , he isn't a scientist in that he has never done formal research in the field. He has no published papers in any field of science. He has never been scrutinized by others in the field.
1
@OvarosX , what is a "climate scientist journal"? Can you list some?
1
@Black Star , I read a plethora of journals such as Journal of Physical Chemistry A and B (sometimes C), Chemical Science, Chemical Physics, JACS, PNAS, etc. There are a ton.
1
@OvarosX , I have challenged Potholer and he just jumped around the topic and tried to bait me into calling him names. At one point he said "and this is the time where you call me a dumb schmuck" to which I didn't. He didn't know how to respond so he just stopped replying. He is a complete hack.
1
@OvarosX You just linked me to an open access journal with no impact factor. That is not credible.
1
Selarom Ogeid , sorry you can't read
1
Flint is a local issue, not a federal one.
1
Flint is an issue of poor pipes, not pollution.
1
@mrs.witchyperfect9846 , replacing pipes for an entire city is very expensive and will slow down productivity. It isn't was easy as "fixing them". You have to dig them up which means tearing apart streets, redirecting traffic which slows it down, replace them which means many people will be without water for awhile, and fixing the streets. Also, it isn't just about the money but also finding the people to do it.
1
@mrs.witchyperfect9846 ,you have to train the people and they have to be willing to work. Are you willing to do that?
1
@mrs.witchyperfect9846 1. So you are not willing to learn that kind of work? But you expect others to do it? 2. So you are not willing to move to Flint, but you expect others to do it? This is very typical of the far left. You scream about how government should provides things but fail to realize that someone has to provide it. Government does not have a magic wand. But you are not willing to do work yourselves. Just like with healthcare. You want "Medicare for all" but you are not willing to do the effort to work in the healthcare industry.
1
@mrs.witchyperfect9846 , so the government has a magic wand? Is that what you are saying?
1
@mrs.witchyperfect9846 , ok, now who is going to work those jobs? How are they going to be trained?
1