Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "WaPo Desperate Smear: Bernie u0026 Trump Both Deny Climate Change" video.

@ExpertPowerScaler , these people drank the Bernie Kool-Aid. They will deny all that you said. I agree, Bernie points to the Nordic nations but fail to realize that outside of the welfare system they have he does not want to mimic those nations.
2
@anticorncob6 , he would not be fear mongering.
2
@skyblue9991 , it does. His fear mongering is anti science as scientists are not saying what he is saying. And his energy plan is not possible currently. The engineering does not work.
2
His bill does not fight climate change, it pushes for more government. Bernie does deny science.
2
I agree. Bernie does deny science. If he was truthful about climate change he would not support what he does.
1
@skyblue9991 , scientists are not saying climate change is a "global emergency". They are not saying, as from Bernie's site "that we have less than 11 years left to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, if we are going to leave this planet healthy and habitable for ourselves, our children, grandchildren, and future generations" Because there is so much doubt. Such hard talking points have been criticized by climate scientists such as Mike Hulme, who recently published a nature paper on the dangers of a climate deadline, and Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report Bernie points to. As for his plans, going to no fossil fuels in 11 years is not possible. Many people, especially in rural areas, will not switch to electric cars nor will have the capabilities to. Changing our buildings to be more energy efficient will not happen in 11 years as that radical changes in infrastructure takes a lot of time and will halt productivity. At my university they are redoing just one floor of the chemistry building. It is going to take 2 years and during the time many labs had to be moved and at times people simply have days they can't work because of construction.
1
@pengmaeda9908 , my point was that it is taking 2 years just to renovate one floor of a building. Now expand that to the entire nation and entire buildings. Think of the time it will take if we even have the man power which we don't.
1
@skyblue9991 Bioscience has an impact factor of around 5. Nature climate change has an impact factor of around 13. So it isn't about a single scientists. Popular Technology released a list of peer reviewed studies being skeptical of climate change. The title is "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" On your list, not all are scientist in the field of climate change. For example, one person was Alexander Ac, a post doc. Not a professor. Another one is a senior lecturer, not a researcher. There were PhD candidates listed. In all, that list of "scientists" is very vague. Some people did not have a title. Let me ask you, did you even read the list of signatures? One person, Andi Ahmad Yani, had no title. That can be the janitor for all I know. Not to be rude but I feel you are just posting something without reading it. No wonder this paper was published in a journal of low impact. I listed two scientists, one was the lead author of the IPCC report. The other published a paper in an higher impact journal. As for Bernie's plan, I can tell you it is not doable. Changing our infrastructure that much too soon is not possible.
1
@skyblue9991 , now you are on the defense. I read that part of the list. The point is that there is a lot of doubt on the issue. To call it an emergency is simply wrong. That is why research continues to be done. Your list have names of PhD candidates whose research is not even listed. I am a PhD candidate. "It is not a list of peer reviewed studies being skeptical of climate change. lol. " It is. If it wasn't than authors will have it retracted which they have had with one paper. The consensus is a myth. Science is based on doubt. There is a lot of doubt on climate change. You saying we needed to start yesterday is the criticism that Mike Hulme and Myles Allen has. Pushing such radical messages actually hurts the cause. It turns way moderates on the issue. There is a desire to do something about climate change and to advance to cleaner technology. We can't force it though. Forcing it will have negative effects on the economy and if things don't improve will cause even more doubts with moderates to where they are no longer on your side.
1
@skyblue9991 , you are on the defense because I provided way more sources than you did and the one you provided has a list of signatures with names that are questionable. The consensus is a myth. It was generated by cherry picked studies with a vague interpretation. You concept of science is also incorrect. Uh, taking massive climate action means drastically changing our current economy. That will cause a major recession. So say we do make massive changes and nothing improves in climate change. Now what? No we have a bad economy to deal with now. As for negotiations, the problem is that the far left is not budging here. If politicians budge a little bit the voters and their supporters will cry. People do want to change. Companies on their own are changing. Individuals are changing.
1
@skyblue9991 ,. that is 1350 papers, that is 1350 sources. That Pop Tech article was a list of those papers. The "consensus studies" are not based on science. They are vague interpretations of cherry picked papers. Also, none of the "studies" gave a hard conclusion, mainly on if climate change a current threat.
1
@skyblue9991 , you presented one paper with questionable signatures. I presented a list of over 1300 papers.
1
@themajesticspider-man6116 it isn't a lie. If he actually listened to the scientists he would not be pushing the narrative he does about climate change.
1
@andrewbrady6154 scientists are not fear mongering like Bernie is. They are also not saying to take radical actions now or the world is going to end
1
@keirfarnum6811 I mentioned them by name
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , you continue to b desperate. I cited two scientists in the field that is critical of the deadline argument on climate change. Who has Bernie cite? Read his GND policy, it is just an expansion of government. Again, I shove you in a corner and you have no actual argument.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 " and say the world is going to end because I said so." No, his own site says that.
1
@keirfarnum6811 , one scientist works for the IPCC and was one of the lead authors of the IPCC report. Another just published a paper in Nature Climate Change. They are well respected.
1
Evan Zuppardo , actually they don't. And if they did they would not get their work published in a peer reviewed paper. Mike Hulme just published a paper in Nature Climate Change, on of the most prestigious peer reviewed journals, entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous"
1
Evan Zuppardo https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0543-4.epdf?shared_access_token=IemqaDXjp59Xe4vx9SYpMtRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PHAItqILlRm_HHBm_TdKN2W4fclucYeFPP7FPSpe4YZCMx6e3jOvyKFNEN4tDVEsxhypkjCeaXw5HrYv5x1N4z6OOPAlKiCRowdURrPb_LMA%3D%3D
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I cite them by name and their sources. However, you ignore them. Bernie citing pollution levels (with no actual direct sources) does not mean anything. So why do you ignore my citations?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , someone who publishes in Nature Climate Change is well respected. But since you don't even know how the peer reviewed process works or impact factor, I am not surprised you made the comment you did. Tell me, why do you listen to Bernie Sanders on climate change as opposed to actual scientists?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I get it. You are so anti science that you rather listen to a politician as opposed to a scientists. Tell me, why do you deny climate change?
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 i literally cited the scientists.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 I have quoted them often. You just ignore those parts of my comments. Just like how i gave evidence that most spending in education is state and local and you ignored that
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 no scientist is saying nothing should be done. When did I ever say that? Now you are going to extremes. Either take a radical approach or do nothing. No middle ground. That is your current thought process. And please learn what appeal to authority means. You clearly don't know what it means.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 what appeal to authority is is when someone cites someone saying they have some high honor, say a PhD. Say someone cites a quote who has a PhD in Physics on an issue related to economics. That is an appeal to authority as their specialty is physics, not economics. Just because they have a PhD does not mean they know more about economics than some random dude on the street. Many people do that in quoting MLKJ on economic issues. When I cite a scientist on an issue related to science that is their field, thus their opinion has a lot more weight to it where you need to consider it and if not you better have a strong rebuttal. Next, you claim that I said scientists are saying do nothing. I never said that. You are making that up. I have said many times we need to continue to look into the issue of climate change and continue to progress to alternative forms of energy. I just don't support this fear mongering that we need to act now drastically by completely transforming our economy. But you are so extreme that if I have some concerns about the far left plan on climate change you feel I am saying "do nothing". It is no different then when I have skeptical about some of the talking points by the far left I get called a denier even though I never once denied climate change. You are anti science because you don't listen to the scientists nor do you do the science route and look at the entire issue. You are focused on one thing and that is the extreme case.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , so you want me to quote the as opposed to you reading the source and coming up with your own opinion? I can see why you are a far leftist. You need someone to hold your hand and think for you. Thanks for admitting that.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I have given the names and I have given the title of the papers and sources. You can read them all you like. On Mike Hulme's paper it is entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" It is in Nature Climate Change. You can read it all you want. At this point it is clear you need someone to constantly hold your hand. It is rather sad at this point.
1
@whyispinkysoinsane7898 , I gave you the source bud. You can read it yourself. Why do you refuse to read it?
1
The GND is about climate change. It is about pushing for communism.
1
@haruhirogrimgar6047 , no, it is about communis.
1
@comingviking , not true. There is a lot of doubt in what will actually happen because of climate change.
1
@comingviking there isn't a consensus
1
@comingviking , the consensus argument has long been debunked. But please list those studies.
1
@comingviking , tell me, how many peer reviewed papers have you read in your life?
1
@comingviking , I doubt that. I have 5 peer reviewed papers published as is. If you have read actual papers on scientific issues you would understand that scientists don't make hard claims to create a consensus. The consensus argument has long been debunked. People who bring it up don't actually read peer reviewed papers.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , it is communist.
1
@YTsupportsZionaziGenocide , the GND is communist. It is a command economy approach similar to what was done in East Germany and the USSR. And yes, the consensus argument on climate change has been debunked.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , they were communist.
1
@comingviking , ok, on the theory of evolution, it is what it is, a theory. In science we say that because unlike a religion when more information is given we can make changes. On evolution there is a lot of supporting evidence for it, but it is still a theory. But funny how you bring up evolution. To me those who say climate change is a major threat deny evolution. Why? Because climate change is a driving force in evolution. People who say climate change is a major threat don't seem to realize that the ecosystem can evolve. So why do you deny evolution? Reality is that we know very little at this point. For example, we don't even know how photosynthesis works. How does a non coherent light source, as in the sun, causes a coherence in the plant and causes an energy transfer that should be less than 50% efficient but is really around 90% efficient? And you expect us to predict how climate change will lead to? Being blunt, those fear mongering over climate change are anti science.
1
@comingviking , I am poorly educated? A theory is a model to describe an observable. The theory with the most evidence is what we go with. Theories can change or no longer be used. A great example was the theory of the luminiferous aether and E&M radiation. The Michelson-Morley experiment showed that theory was inadequate and thus new theories were developed. Science allows for change. As Richard Feynman said, religion is a culture of faith, science is a culture of doubt. There is so much in science we don't know. I go back to photosynthesis. A professor spoke at my university who does 2D ES to study photosynthesis. He posted a picture of photosynthesis from a 7th grade text book to show that the idea is basic, but so much is unknown physically. Again, how can an non coherent light source, as in the sun, cause a quantum coherence leading to energy transfer that is around 90% efficient when it is theoretically less than 50% efficient? With that, how ca we predict how current climate change will change the ecosystem? And you claim I am not educated? I am pursuing a PhD in physical chemistry, I know more science than you do.
1
@comingviking , you clearly don't know what a theory is. Many things in science are challenged often. While some broader theories like evolution aren't as they are broad and cover a wide range of concepts, many finer ideas are challenged often. Do scientific research for a while and try publishing in peer reviewed journals and you will see.
1
@thepolishlatinofromphilly9709 , there is a lot not known about evolution, mainly in how does it occur? This is where you get what science really is, physics and stamp collecting. Observing evolution is stamp collecting, the physics behind it is largely unknown. Same with photosynthesis. And when did I ever dismiss anything? When did I ever dismiss evolution? What I see here is your lack of understanding of science. As I said, evolution is a very broad theory that covers a lot. The finer details are largely unknown.
1
Bernie does deny science though. That is an issue.
1
The GND is not about climate but about pushing for communism.
1