Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Last 12 Months Are The Hottest On Record" video.

  1. Yeah, and..........? What is the solution, if there is even a problem? Remember, climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years.
    1
  2. +Gales99 Yeah, I know, like regressive liberals who deny how for over 4 billion years there have been climate change.
    1
  3. +Blair C "If you can deny evolution, " Ironic you say that considering how a driving force of evolution is climate change.
    1
  4. +Greg Vinson The whole climate change thing is science being politicized. In short the jury is still out on the climate change issue. Not if it is happening or not, it is and has been for over 4 billion years. The issue is whether it is bad or not, how much do humans play a role, and what should we do? The political left, and mainly the regressive left, have politicized it to make an excuse to create another tax or attack evil corporations.
    1
  5. +izryanhougland That 97% number that gets thrown around is very deceptive. For example, it makes conclusions off of the abstract instead of the actual paper itself. So when you use that stat you are showing a high level of ignorance.
    1
  6. +Beeftender What what?
    1
  7. +pete sampson "Climate change of the rapidity and severity we are currently observing is, historically, closely connected to mass extinction events. " Yeah, and....? We can adjust, and life has before in the past. "That's a really bad thing for us humans because, historically, mass extinctions hit the top of the food chain the hardest." Except no other species are as advanced as us. "The only proposed cause of the current warming is human emissions. " Nope, 100% false.
    1
  8. +Jeremy Chase We produce too much food as is, we do have an obesity problem. We do have the ability to adjust and produce food in a different manner. " But the human activities of burning fossil fuels, while simultaneously cutting down millions of acres of forests is the main contributor to global warming." Is it global warming or is it climate change? People keep changing their words. That right there shows how ignorant people are on the issue, including you.
    1
  9. +pete sampson 1. I know the definition 2. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years
    1
  10. +Hal Jordan "Climate change has not been happening this fast for the last 4 billion years." You clearly don't understand the issue.
    1
  11. +Jeremy Chase "If temperatures are rising, isn't that a change in the climate?" Depends on the time scale. Over a long period of time, as in years, then yes. "I don't know if you're really that stupid, or just attempting to trigger people. Therefore, I'm done with you." Yep, run to your safe zone.
    1
  12. +Greg Vinson "Your hubris is stunning: you actually believe that the fact that "no other species are as advanced" means that humans don't need a hospitable climate suited to our fragile bodies, to survive? " Us, as a species, have developed technology and advanced in science to develop food at high amounts. " Our big brains" Brain size is irrelevant. The sperm whale and elephant have much larger brains than us, I don't see them building computers though. Mass extinctions have occurred on Earth for millennia but life still seems to exist. " We are among the more fragile species" Not really. Even though we are high up on the food chain we can eat a lot compared to other animals.
    1
  13. +pete sampson 1. The US is an advanced nation that produces too much food, we are pretty much immune to famine. 2. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The questions that exist are 1. Is it even bad 2. How much do human play a role 3. If we do, what can we do You have to understand that the most accurate data we have measured is less than 200 years old. While that may seem like a long time to you since that is over 2 lifespans, it is minute compared to 4 billion years. We can't make drastic decisions with such large doubt of what is going on and what is actually happening. We need to continue doing research in it and continue our progression on technology that is more energy efficient. But what we can't do is 1. make drastic actions that hurt the economy 2. allow this to get political Let us look at both cases, starting with the latter of the two. The issue of climate change is political to where the political left is wanting to create a new tax to have more money to waste. They are also pushing policy that will hurt the job outlook. On point one, say we do drastic changes to our energy usage whiich will hurt our economy due to higher energy prices, less jobs, and less production and things don't change in the trend of climate change. Now what? Now we have another problem to deal with. You have to realize that the drastic changes being proposed by politics will hurt other sectors of the market, including research in other fields. Take Los Alamos National Labs, they use a lot of energy. They need an efficient source of energy that is affordable (it is already expensive enough). Same with my research I do in my lab. I need a reliable source of energy to run my LASER set up to do my research which involves studying biological materials that can aid in diabetes and cancer research. We see similar problems with this in solar energy research and lanthanides. Due to the strict regulations in the US it takes around 10 years to open new mines thus we can't mine lanthanides as much like the Chinese can. As a result the Chinese has cornered the market on lanthanides raising the price hindering research in them in the US where they can be used in solar cells. But environmentalists don't realize that and want to prevent mines from opening up because they are "yucky". So the issue isn't as clear as you make it out to be. I suggest you do some more research on it before jumping to conclusions.
    1
  14. +pete sampson The political left, mainly regressive liberals have politicized the issue. They are the ones pushing for more taxes on the issue and regulations which hurts jobs and progress all together. The political right wants to get politics out of science and let science do its duty. It was Neil deGrasse Tyson that said politics is the barrier between where you are and where you want to be. He also said that no republican wants to die poor which is why republicans have a tendency to fund science research more. Having a career in science this was a conversation one time with colleagues how the right fund science and then stay out of it, but the left fund it in a way to push for more policy and more government thus creating a barrier. Ah, Al Gore. How about you look up the comparison of Al Gore's house to George Bush's house. " Of course; I have studied the actual science involved and have even collected some of the data myself whereas it seems everything you have to say on the subject is a simple regurgitation of what you hear from right-wing politicians and commentators. " So you studied data of the past 40 to 50 years? Great. That is nothing in a Earth that is 4 billion years old. Also, I don't listen to right wing politicians and commentators on the issue, I did my own research and based off of the science, and my experience in science, I made the conclusion I did. "My degree may be in chemical engineering" And I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry. I have friends who do research in plasma physics, specifically in fusion and would benefit from someone pushing "green" energy. I have friends who do research in solar cells and would benefit as well. I work in science for a living, I clearly have a deeper understanding of the issue than you do considering how you point towards Al Gore and consider him an "expert".
    1
  15. +pete sampson Gore was a hypocrite. Like I said, look up the comparison of Al Gore's house to that of George Bush's. Gore politicized the issue and make bank on it. That is the major problem. I agree we should end subsidizes for fossil fuels, but we can't just turn around and invest in "alternative energy". Doing so is 1. unconstitutional 2. a high risk investment that can lead to a poor economy We don't have a revenue problem. In reality we need to cut federal taxes and cut federal spending, but that is another topic in itself. But, predictably, you attacked defense spending when that is only around 4% of our GDP, and less than 20% of our federal budget despite it being constitutional. The idea that defense spending is high in the US is mostly a myth. Wind and solar is making strides, but they are only a small part of our energy source. They are still unreliable in industry and thus can't be used. The harm in the economy will be in industry in places that need a reliable energy source at a low price, like scientific research for example (like Los Alamos National Lab). I will not be able to power my research on wind and solar, and I live in a state where a lot of sun. My LASER set up simply won't function. Nuclear power plants are extremely safe and well regulated. Fusion is the holy grail but fission, right now, is really safe. The pure fact is that fossil fuels are the most efficient and affordable source of energy we have. With so much doubt surrounding the climate issue we can't make radical decisions that will destroy the economy when we don't have guaranteed results. We are progressing just fine in alternative energy, we just need to get politics out of the issue. Problem is that democrats feel the need to control everything which is why everything they touch breaks.
    1
  16. +pete sampson " In practical science we study why it's happening and what can and/or should be done about it. In engineering we study how to accomplish it." I agree, and we are taking actions. In engineering you also have to work with a budget (which is why engineering is the most common major of CEOs). But we are taking actions to alleviate our usage of fossil fuels. Anyone who feels that we aren't clearly have no clue what they are talking about. Rock Port, MO was the first town to be completely ran off of wind, but you need to understand that Rock Port has essentially no industry thus it does not need an energy source as reliable as fossil fuel. " A massive investment in wind, solar, water, and geothermal energy is the best, first, step. Neither the notions nor the technology are beyond our current capabilities. And yet? The scientific community meets nothing but resistance; with "it will ruin the economy" being the most popular reasons given for said resistance." Making drastic changes to the economy will ruin it. We can't do that if we don't know the end result. Say we make the drastic changes you want and nothing changes in the trends of the climate, now what? Now we have a bad economy. How do you fix that? The most reliable data we have is temperature measurements that are less than 200 years old. That is minute compared to a 4 billion year old earth. You also have to realize that we have no control in this experiment to compare the data we currently have. Other planets in the solar system have climate change. The issue is not clear.
    1
  17. +Jeremy Chase "We live in the only country on earth where people even believe this subject is debatable" No we don't, it is clear you don't understand science. " We've also seen election fraud on a massive scale" Where? "still have people believing we live in a free and open democracy. " Actually we don't live in a democracy.
    1
  18. +Greg Vinson Ah, so when you have no intelligent rebuttal you just call me names and run to your safe zone. How nice.
    1
  19. Remember folks, fracking also caused Pangaea to break apart.
    1