Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "'Firenados' u0026 Other Nightmares Unleashed By Australian Wildfires" video.

A Nature paper entitled "Little change in global drought over the past 60 years" Kind of counters the climate change argument.
1
@gavinmaurer4943 , the "scientific consensus" has been debunked long ago. Read the Popular Technology article entitled "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism " And read Mike Hulme's book "Why We Disagree About Climate Change". Read what actual scientists say, not propagandists.
1
@thomasdendtler4077 , I cited 1350 papers. Nature is one of the top journals in science. Mike Hulme recently published a paper in Nature Climate Change. So yes, it does matter. If the work is not important it would not be published in such a high impact journal. How many peer reviewed papers have you read in your life? And do you know what I mean by a journal's impact factor?
1
@RingoYote "we have enough resources to put every homeless person in safe shelter or a full blown house" But for how long? For a few months, a year, a few years? People are homeless for a reason. If you put them in a shelter and they act in a way to make it unlivable you are dumping resources in a lost cause. Or if you are dumping resources that don't produce anything, you will eventually run out of resources.
1
@hughmiller6389 , the problem with climate change is that there are way too many variables involved to make a strong prediction. We don't now how much man plays a role. We don't know if current climate change is a threat. We don't know the exact route to go. " Want hear something, if the fossil fuel company go under, good" So you want jobs to be lost and higher energy prices?
1
@hughmiller6389 , I gave the popular technology source. You can find them. Every peer reviewed paper has to give their sources. The title of the article is entitled "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism " "Again Climate Change is in fact supported by not 98% of all scientist, and 97% of all paper." That is 100% deceptive. Every scientist agrees that climate change is happening. Beyond that several questions remain such as how much man plays a role, is climate change a threat, and what can we do? You keep pointing to the "consensus" argument when you don't even know what scientists are saying. You know why? Because you never actually read the studies. And you just pass ones that supposedly disagree with you are being corrupt. "Chemistry explaining how CO2 and Methane absorb heat. " As a scientist myself I will tell you that is physics via quantum mechanics. But why split hairs? "Study of glaciers showing that most glacier are shrinking, " Some areas have them growing some are shrinking. Even at that the question is why? And is it a threat? " study plants, animals, and the ecology showing movement, increase desertication in Africa and Austrila" As I pointed out in a Nature paper, droughts have no increased a significant amount. Do you know how high the impact factor of the journal Nature is? Also, there is so much that goes on in the ecosystem. You do know we don't even know how photosynthesis occurs physically? But maybe you know. How can an incoherent light source like the sun create a quantum coherence energy transport that is around 90% efficient?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , I am bringing peer reviewed sources. Why are you so anti-science that you don't even listen to the scientists?
1
@ugeofaltron5003 , and you know, this is one reason why I am holding off on calling Sam. I am giving actual peer reviewed papers by experts and you just name call and make excuses. How can I really have the feeling I will change your mind on anything? I can call Sam, and trust me, I will, and blow him away making him look foolish, and you will just agree with Sam when him and his crew point and laugh. Again, why are so you anti-science you don't read the peer reviewed papers on climate change and rather listen to propagandists?
1
@hughmiller6389 , dude, slavery forced people to work. That is an asinine comparison. You are forcing job loss which is just as bad. "ou see if you kill the fossil fuel company and build a green energy market, job lost is about net 0. Maybe some training will be require, but you see climate change will cost more jobs and lost of property. " So you are going to retrain people in their 30s and 40s to try to understand new technology and the complexity of renewable energy? Also, will they have to move? And what if they don't want to be retrained? Green technology is advanced technology. I was looking at a job in it recently and a PhD in Chemistry, Physics, Engineering or a related field was required. So you are saying a coal miner will be willing to do the level of work a PhD individual can? "More CO2 and Methane result in higher temperature" ' Isn't that straight forward. "which melt the glaciers which expose more land to raise the temperature little more since white glacier reflect light" Eh, a little more complex than that. People talk about methane and CO2 in absorbing IR to keep in heat. Now you are talking about reflection? Also, depending on the angle of light water allows light to transmit. Ever heard of Snell's law? Again, physics. "melting frozen methane " What? The melting point of methane is 90 K. Show me where, in nature, on earth, that Methane is a solid. If you think that there is naturally occurring solid methane one earth it is clear you don't understand science.
1
@hughmiller6389 , I agree. When did I ever say climate change was not real? I never did. But again, you feel solid methane exists naturally on earth.
1
@hughmiller6389 "Climate Change is over hundred fields that are coming to the same conclusion, and by 97% of paper dealing with climate change state it's real" do those say scientists say methane exists in the solid state naturally on earth?
1
Real American , Hugh Miller just told me there is solid methane that occurs naturally on earth. Methane freezes around -180 degrees C. On earth the coldest place is around -100 degrees C. In short, there is no place on earth that methane will be naturally solid. He does not understand science. He is just speaking out of his ass.
1
Real American , very true.
1
@hughmiller6389 , again, where does methane naturally occur in a solid state on earth? I know a lot about chemistry, I teach it to undergrads and I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. Do you know how much energy it takes to break a bond? I know the paper does not talk about climate change. But show me where, in all of my comments, did I ever deny climate change? I will wait. You deflect to flat earth shows you are desperate. I gave numerous sources. You have given zero sources. But again, show me where on earth does methane is in a solid state naturally.
1
@hughmiller6389 , they will hire skilled workers like me. Not unskilled workers like coal miners who does not understand the technology. But again, show me where methane in in a solid state, naturally, on earth.
1
@hughmiller6389 , again, you said methane existed in the solid state on earth naturally. You have yet to address that. Why? Supply of job means nothing if people don't have the skills, nor have the desire to obtain the skills, to fill them. Do you expect a bunch of 40 year old coal miners to try to understand non-linear optics? It isn't that straight forward. The sun is a incoherent source. Do you know what is the difference between a coherent and non-coherent source is? If you don't you are not fit for this discussion. Again, tell me how photosynthesis, a process that involves an incoherent source of light, can be around 90% efficient when it comes to quantum coherence? Until you answer me that question as well you are not fit for this discussion. You also don't know how photocells works.
1
@hughmiller6389 , your article does not cover solid methane bud.
1