Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trump: It's Cold Out So Global Warming Isn't Real" video.
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Heat and Serve, I am a scientist and I understand how scientists think and act.
"and been overwhelmed with information that by far would have proven you wrong and yet you persist in spreading false information. "
What information I have spread has been false?
"Scientific consensus right now is that man contributes a surplus of carbon dioxide which contributes to an increased greenhouse effect."
I have never read that. Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and it does influence our climate. But to what degree is the issue. Remember, the climate has changed for over 4 billion years. And by the 2nd law of thermodynamics man plays a role. But again, to what degree? You will not see hard numbers on those questions.
"It's almost undoubtedly bad. "
So change and evolution are bad? So when the dinosaurs died off and mammals took over that was bad? For dinosaurs it was. But evolution happens.
"But on the other hand floods and droughts "
Have been happening for centuries.
"As regular, small-minded humans we could be a bit more aware of our carbon footprint and try to minimize it. Use public transport if possible, don't buy electricity from companies that invest heavily in fossil fuel, etc, etc"
Public transportation is inefficient for many people. Fossil fuels are the best source we have. With electricity, many areas of science research need a reliable source of energy. How do you think they power Los Alamos National Laboratory? Or even my lab with my laser system, I need reliable energy. If you push for other forms of energy you will hinder scientific research in other fields.
The solution is not that simple. But besides that. When you say
1. Man is a main contributor
I question if you are a young earth theorist or not as you are ignoring climate change prior to man's time on earth
When you say
2. It is bad
I question if you accept evolution as you are saying the ecosystem will not evolve to the changes like it always has.
I am all for doing research on the issue and looking farther in it. But as a scientist I understand the uncertainty on the issue.
1
-
1
-
1
-
"Yes, we've heard you're a scientist. Are you trying your hand at
Argumentum ad verecundiam? Well, I'll have you know that I'm a mentally
challenged janitor at a public high school. So deconstruct my arguments
based on that."
No, I am saying I understand how scientists think and how they approach an issue. There is a reason why people like Kyle and Bernie Sanders make the claims of "X percent of scientists say this" while not being able to list any of these scientist or get them to make a comment. Bernie had Bill Nye, that's it. Why? Because scientists are not making the jump to conclusion claim that Kyle, Bernie and other ultra leftists are as doing so will be suicide for their career.
"It makes it difficult to formulate a proper response when you're trying to deconstruct ever little sentence."
I do so to show you that I do read what you write and analyze it.
"Your first, and really only mistake, in your line of questioning is that
you're ignoring common and well-known facts. Scientific finds that are
shared with the public. There's even been scientific studies of the published scientific studies
just to prove that a majority of published papers treat climate change
as a reality, as a negative and that man contributes a surplus of
greenhouse gases that affects the climate. "
A couple things here. One, "facts" in science are observables. It is the data that is collected. What it means is what ends up being discussed and debated. As for "prove", science does not "prove" anything, period.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php
Also, you write
" that a majority of published papers treat climate change
as a reality, as a negative and that man contributes a surplus of..."
Again, what papers? Care to link them? As of now you are making a claim with no support and that claim is very vague.
"There is plenty of hard data on this, would you chose to actually take part of it. "
I do take a part of the data and accept it.
"Scientists have managed to quantify the anthropogenic contributions
using empirical observation and good ole physics such as conservation of
energy."
Physics cannot explain photosynthesis. Why do I say that? We cannot explain a very basic concept taught in middle school showing how little we know about the ecosystem.
"Fossil fuels are by far not our "best" (most efficient?) source of energy. "
They are.
"Hydroelectric power plants have a conversion efficiency upwards 95% for large installations."
Great, I do not live near water. I live in a desert.
"Even wind turbines, peaking at 45% conversion efficiency, beat coal
power plants which usually operate at between 32 % to 42 % conversion
efficiency. "
What? You are making this up. Windmills can power small towns. Rockport, MO was the first town powered only by windmills. But that requires a lot of space and......wait for it......wind. In many areas, such as larger cities, you lack wind and space.
"Solar panels are also becoming more efficient and cheaper."
You finally said one thing that was correct. At the industrial level solar, wind and water are not good sources of energies. Again, I need a consistent source of energy to power my laser. But do not look at me, look at Los Alamos National Labs and how they are not going off of those energy sources.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1