Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "STUDY: 131 Degree 'Super Heat Waves' Are Coming" video.

Interesting point. AC requires energy which releases carbon dioxide which cools down our home. So in all these heat waves are either not an issue or the result of using AC.
3
Arya Stark, where is the collapse? I am not seeing it. You have to give me examples. Also, hundreds of species are not going extinct every day. However, thousands of species have gone extinct long before man was on earth.
2
MIchael Bennet, you have a few things wrong with you comments " For decades scientists have been telling policy makers to take action but it seems many politicians don't consider climate change a priority " That is not true. Scientists have been saying a lot of things. There is a disagreement on climate change. Not whether or not it is happening, but more of 1. how much is man playing a role 2. is it even bad 3. and if it is bad, what can we do The only thing scientists agree on is that 1. it is happening, it has been for over 4 billion years 2. man is contributing in some ways, that is basic thermodynamics particularly the 2nd law. 3. We need to do research in it just like anything else But the idea that scientists are saying that climate change is bad and must do something is simply not true. "You're also talking like right-wing people don't care about climate change, which is not true in many countries. After all, right-wingers are often the first to accuse the left of pampering to ideology rather than following the evidence. However, all experimental evidence leads to the conclusion that pollution is the biggest factor responsible for the measured increase in global average air temperature over the last 100 years, mostly due to the greenhouse effect." Both sides are concern, problem is that the left has made it political. The idea that the right, even in the US, are not concern is simply not true. Funding for science research went up under Bush. Also, on pollution and climate change, you mention data of 100 years. 100 years in a 4 billion year old earth is minute. That, again, is why there is disagreement. " the goal is to prevent the global average air temperature getting larger and larger, which is causing all sorts of undesirable effects like an increased frequency of extreme weather events, net increase in ice melted at the poles, more frequent droughts, etc. " Again, is that bad? Evolution happens because of things like that. "Climate as it is today is different from what it would be had the atmosphere not been polluted. " That is based on what? "By the way, the point of my original comment was to point out that even if clean energy had no effect at all on climate change mitigation, it's simply a sound investment from a financial perspective." Why? "Clean energy" is right now inefficient and expensive. We have made progress, but at the industrial level we still are not there. Also, with that inefficiencies you will hurt other research. For example, running Los Alamos National Laboratory requires a lot of energy that has to be reliable. "Why invest in expensive fossil fuels when clean energy has the potential to offer value for money and greater return on investment (ROI)? " Economically, fossil fuels are still the best we have. "Consequently, and fortunately, many US companies are already investing or are planning to invest in clean energy regardless of the current US government's lack of commitment on that front. After all, businesses want to make money." And I agree, we will get to a time where "clean energy" is better. But we are not there yet and thus we still have to use fossil fuels. If the government would stay out of it the private sector will change.
2
"The clean energy sector is a nascent sector that is growing, but slowly. It is growing slowly primarily because of the technical engineering challenges that are faced with the required whole-scale infrastructure change required and even if those challenges can be successfully addressed, many companies in the US lack the capital to make the initial investments to implement that infrastructure." I completely agree. However, there are government regulations as well. For example, it takes Lanthanides to build and advance solar cells. China has cornered the market in them simply because they can open mines easily. In the US it takes around 10 years to do that thus we can't mine minerals we need to produce solar cells. Our regulations designed to "save the environment" is holding us back. "You probably also have some misconceptions about healthcare funding systems, but we'll leave that for another thread. Just research the US, UK, French and Swedish health systems and compare standard metrics " This has been done and published in this book https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/-the-business-of-health_110115929760.pdf
2
"Hmmmm... I'll investigate." You should. "In my opinion, we shouldn't ban smoking or cars, but we should legislate to prevent deaths. " I agree. " I think the same should be true for environmental legislation, but I can't really comment specifically on US environmental legislation because I don't know what laws you have in place." It can't come at the expense of our economy. We have to find a balance. " I don't know anything about third-world industries. I think fracking should be banned in the UK because it does lead to problems that outweigh the benefits." Fracking is actually very safe. "I'll give it a go, but I'm not an academic anymore and am restricted by paywalls. :( By the way, do you know about this website?" I have read that site. That book I mentioned talks about that site as well. It has been debunked. By the way, I am not saying that book has all the answers. However, it is worth a read and gives counter points that they cite. The overall issue is not clear. When you hear the political left talk about climate change they never mention any scientists names nor have any scientists on stage with them discussing it. The politicians are being deceptive. I am all for progressing on the issue, I just feel that politicians are not the answer. That book mentions that at the very beginning. "Well, okay, but I think people understand enough about the limitations of renewable technologies to make contingency plans to prevent those kinds of issues (e.g. install backup storage). Sorry about your laser problem! What project are you working on?" I am developing methods to study structure and dynamics of biological materials using ultra fast spectroscopy.
2
How so? Is what happening even bad? That is the issue and that is where scientists disagree.
1
Harry, the world changes, it has been changing for over 4 billion years. Evolution happens. So, are you a young earth creationist or do you deny evolution?
1
Harry, the ecosystem evolves. Humans are not going to be burned alive in 130 degrees Fahrenheit. At this point you are either a denier of evolution as you feel the ecosystem will not evolve, or you are a young earth creationist as you feel climate change is something new and not something that has been happening for over 4 billion years.
1
celvester, evolution has not time scale. It is occurring now as we speak. The idea that it takes "millions of years" is based off of nothing. There are a reason why diseases become resistant to certain drugs and new species are being found basically daily. By the way, I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry, I understands science very well. So next time you try to to use science to back up your argument, at least make sure you know the science that you are referencing.
1
Katherine, you can't ask 320+ million people to switch over. They simply won't. We are stuck with it. I support the metric system as well and use it all the time as a scientist. However, I understand that we have people in society that cannot even count back change, let alone convert units.
1
Celsius came before Kelvin and it was based off of water freezing and water boiling. At the time that was the standard to us. Kelvin came later to establish a base so that zero is zero. Some equations still use Celsius such as any dealing with specific heat as it is a change in temperature. But with ideal gas you use Kelvin.
1
Julian, the "right" in the US support many ideas that so call "democratic socialists" support. The difference is that the "right" support smaller, more local government. They are against centralizing these programs like healthcare and education because in the US this makes them worse off and infringes on our freedoms. The problem is in the US is that when the right questions the federal government the left claims that they do not like education or poor people. That is simply not true. They just feel that the federal government is not the solution. A great example is how many on the left start naming off government programs such as the fire department, police, schools, roads, etc. However, those are ran and funded locally.
1
"I disagree. There is consensus in the scientific community because there is clear evidence that the carbon in our atmosphere has come from the burning of fossil fuels by people and not natural sources or processes. Times have changed from the time when the initial hockey stick graph appeared." There is no consensus. The "consensus" has been debunked many times. Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". They break down the consensus on the issue. Even at that, when you read the consensus none of them are saying it is a threat. They are just saying that it is happening and that man is contributing. Now again, is that bad? We cannot say. "Yes, I think those phenomena are bad because they lead to human suffering. Call me crazy but I think human suffering is bad." Human suffering happens from many things. 35,000 die a year in car accidents, so should we ban cars? People suffer from smoking. Should we ban smoking? Also, humans in developing nations are suffering due to lack of industry. Pushing for laws to prevent them from growing means they will suffer. The industrial revolution led to our society being strong and making us well off. Not allowing other nations to do it makes those citizens suffer. "It is based on evidence. The current massive increase in temperature is definitely not due to the continuation of natural processes that affect carbon distribution on Earth. There are many journal papers on the subject." Which papers? I would read them as I do have experience in reading and understand science literature. Also, I, and others, do not deny the trend in temperature increase. A few things. Again, is it bad. Next, that data I have seen is around 100 years old. 100 years may sound like a lot to you as it is a lifetime, but the world is over 4 billion years old. In that perspective it is minute. You have to consider that which is why there is a disagreement on the issue. "We're basically at the tipping point right now. Clean energy is starting to get cheaper than fossil fuels because the price of clean energy has dropped dramatically. " I agree, but we are not there yet. We can't force it. Forcing it leads to an economic decline causing more problems. It will happen. Companies are investing in "clean energy". I support that move. I just don't want it forced. "Clean energy is already here and even if you choose not to agree with me, it is simply true that there are companies making a huge amount of money right now from clean energy technology." I fully agree with you. I am just saying we can't force it. Forcing it will lead to problems. My research, for example, requires a reliable energy source to run my LASER set up. Without it my set up can get destroyed, and it has happened because of an unreliable source. Mirrors that cost thousands of dollars along with waveplates that cost that much are damaged. And that is minor. The pump laser can get destroyed if we have unreliable sources of power. If that goes out I am screwed on my research as that can cost, at least, $80,000. That does not even include getting the guy in to replace it. That is why we have to use fossil fuels at the industrial level for now until "clean energy" becomes fully reliable. "Clean energy" is fine at the small level. Rockport, MO is ran fully on windmills. But that town has almost nothing in terms of industry. I fully support going to "clean energy". However, we can't force it.
1
Bruce, that book is written by three individuals with their PhDs. They cite all of their sources. Now let me break down your link before I get to that fool Potholer54, who, by the way, is not a scientists. "On the other hand, perhaps the intended audience isn’t scientists are even people who closely follow the science. Perhaps their intended audience is legislators, teachers, and others who have influence over society?" Yes, the same as other resources like Potholer54 or SkepticalScience. Their target audience is not scientists. "With this as a backdrop, I received a copy of a humorous report from an elected official in the USA." Calling it "humorous" is immediately trying to discredit it. Unnecessary statement where I question the validity of this article and the maturity of the author. "As a scientist, when I read any manuscript I ask a number of questions." I am a scientist as well. The author does not describe what field. I will. I study physical chemistry. "Who wrote it and what is their expertise in the field?" The authors and sources are listed and easy to look up. But the author of this article does not list their credentials. " When statements and conclusions are made, what is the evidence? How do these conclusions fit into prior work in the field? Is the new study confirming prior work or in conflict with it? If there is conflict, why?" Those answers are in the book. "The authors of this manuscript are Craig Idso, the late Robert Carter, and Fred Singer. These three are not exactly (or even nearly) a trio of reputable climate scientists." "Climate science" is a broad field. You will be hard pressed to find "climate science" as an actual degree of study. Climate science involves fields in physics, astronomy, ecology, biology, chemistry, etc. I would not trust and ecologist to explain the me the quantum mechanics of photosynthesis, in which we know little about. " According to a literature search performed using the search engine SCOPUS, neither Idso nor Singer published a credible paper on global climate change or its implications in years." Research in "climate change" is broad. One can study quantum coherence and it can, technically, but related to climate change. "One way to measure the authors’ impact is by counting how many people have read and cited their work. For both of these authors, the number of people who have cited them is shockingly low. " There is some truth there. But also, how much work have they produced lately? Many incredible scientists simply do not do work in academics or write papers anymore. A main reason why is because they do not pick up students as they are working on other things. Also, Fred Singer works in physics. Physics is a field that is challenging to publish in. Physics journals usually have low impact factors because of that compared to biology journals. But more importantly, he says "shockingly low" but does not give a quantitative value to compare to. He mentions another scientists but does not mention their field or research. He is hiding things. "The measurements have been done many different ways, all leading to the same conclusion – the consensus is strong. " The "consensus" is that climate change is happening in which that book does not refute. They refute on whether it is a threat and how much man is playing a role. The book tears about the consensus that this author seemed to have missed. "you have about 3% of the less-talented scientists in dissent." What makes them "less talented"? Skip some stuff because the book broke down those studies. "I could go on, but you get the point. " Oh please go on as you left a lot out of what is written in the book. "While I won’t spend too much time on the scientifically incorrect or misleading statements in the Heartland report," You won't because in doing so you will have to actually list what they say showing that how much of a fraud the author is. "This is what happens when you have a fossil fuel-funded political organization parade a document as a scientific publication. You get nonsense and non-science. " They actually cite sources, where is this author's sources? You have been taken for a fool.
1
Now on to Potholer54. He is a journalist, not a scientist. Here is what he does. He attacks people who are easy targets. He hears someone say something about climate change and then he google counter points and does a condescending video on it. However, when someone like Steven Crowder has a scientist on his show Potholer54 is no where to be seen. In one video someone commented asking about Ivar Giaever. Here was Potholer54's response "I'm interested to know why you are confused. This guy is an expert in electron tunneling in semiconductors, he has never published or even studied climatology in his life. If he said you can catch herpes from eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel laureate? People seem to have this belief that as soon as someone wins a Nobel prize he must be an expert in every branch of science he's never studied, and I don't know where they get that idea." Way to dodge the question. So what makes Potholer54 reliable? He does not even study science? Going off of the article you linked me Potholer54 has zero citations. He does not do formal research in any scientific field. But yet you are so quick to trust him? Bruce you have been taken for a fool. Congrats.
1
Emperor, that is how leftists act. They do not care about anyone but themselves. I don't see leftists working on drastically changing their life, they rather see other people do it. It is similar to how in leftist areas they do not want windmills. They want them placed elsewhere away from them.
1
Leinja, potholer54, who is a journalist by the way, not a scientist, does not want a debate with Crowder. If you read the emails you will see that potholer54 wants Crowder to release all of his information on what he is going to talk about and his sources. That way potholer54 has time to Google some counter points. That is how potholer54 works, he sees what Crowder has to say and then Google some counter points and makes a condescending video on it. If you notice potholer54 has never attempted to try to debunk information that scientists give. Crowder had a video with a scientist and potholer54 was nowhere to be seen. Crowder didn't pussy out, he is too intelligent to fall for potholer54's game.
1
sprybug, that is unrelated to this topic. However, my point still stands. Both sides were violent to where someone got killed. To me it is no different than if someone died in a gang war. Answer this, David Duke has never committed any crime, so by the law he is innocent. If he would have been killed in that rally would you have cared? With those radicals the best thing to do is to ignore them. Going to their rally and antagonizing them and increasing violence leads to someone eventually getting killed. You look for trouble then you get trouble. People die all the time for tragic things that I feel bad for. But in this case I don't. But please, answer my question. If David Duke was killed in that rally, would you have cared? Or to you it doesn't mean jack shit?
1
Andrew Mildenberg, how am I an apologist? I said both sides were guilty. If a Nazi or KKK member was killed I would feel the same way. Both groups were guilty. Both groups pushed the situation that far until someone snapped and killed someone. I am a PhD candidate in my late 20s. I am not a child. But if you want to think that you can. I understand how the world works. I understand there is bad in it and both sides contribute. However, I try my best to look at things through an objective lens. In the case of Charlottesville both sides were violent, both sides were in the wrong, both sides pushed the envelope until someone died. Now if you have examples of where I am wrong I will listen and discuss. But by simply saying I am a child, and that I need to stop only says to me you do not have any examples.
1
Gurvinder, in those countries you have a dry heat because they are a desert. Swamp coolers work better. But ACs work well with humidity.
1
Gurvinder, good point. I live in a desert and swamp coolers work better here.
1
sprybug, I will also take your lack of response as an indicator that you would like to see David Duke dead making you a hypocrite.
1
B-Bunny Gaming, what is your standard for "occurring more frequently"? Is it happening for a few years? A few decades? A few centuries? Remember, the earth is over 4 billion years old.
1
And? Again, is this even bad? And what is the cause? You are ignoring that side of it.
1