Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Fox Business Segment Defecátes All Over Scientific Research" video.

  1. Eh, not really. potholer54 would just strawman.
    3
  2. G Kaiser, he cherry picks papers and goes after easy targets. When he went after a 14 year old girl in one video I was done. I am a scientist myself. I called him out on his actions and he eventually admitted that he does not understand the science and no one should trust what he says. I can give credit where credit is due, he was honest after we exchanged around 60 comments back and forth.
    2
  3. No one denies climate change. So please, stop lying.
    2
  4. TBO 84, I have not read the report. Why? Because I am too busy reading papers for my line of work. I do research where I study vibrational dynamics in molecular systems. I try to understand vibrations to expand our knowledge in chemical reactions, dipole coupling, solvent dynamics, etc. My opinion of climate change is derived from my experience in science. That being that we know very little in the universe. Taking my line of work I look at molecules that have 11 atoms, that's it. We do not understand the physical process behind photosynthesis. With us knowing so little I have a hard time jumping to a conclusion on this issue. Is it a threat? How can you say as the ecosystem has always evolved through climate change in the past. We do not know how the ecosystem will react to the current climate change. So I cannot support the idea that it is a major threat. As for how much is man playing a role? We have no control so no standard to compare it to. Climate change is happening, that is all we know.
    2
  5. No party denies science. They misrepresent it for political gain. Here with climate change democrats make end of the world predictions when scientists aren't. Politicians are politicians, not scientists. They don't deny science, they use it for political gain.
    1
  6. Uh, it is more than that. Grants mean tenure in academics.
    1
  7. Vulcano, in my field most journals you do not have to spend to publish. Agenwadete chemie you have to pay. But for journals like JACS, Chemical Science, JPCL, etc., it is free. Also, once you get tenure as a professor you are fine. No need to publish anymore. You have a job for life.
    1
  8. potholer54 is a fool.
    1
  9. Modeling is very difficult. Look at how many water models are used by theoretical chemist. In one of my papers we used two water models where many exists. Modeling, in many ways, is not accurate.
    1
  10. I support science, I don't believe in it. Science is not a religion.
    1
  11. Matthew Davis, same thing. I don't believe in science nor do I believe the science. I support it. I always have doubt as belief and faith are associated with religion. Doubt is associated with science.
    1
  12. Science is not a religion. But of course ultra leftists treat it like one. That is why I say the ultra left is anti-science.
    1
  13. What are Kyle's credentials? It goes both ways.
    1
  14. Zoey, I am not defending the guy on Fox. But you have to be fair here. Kyle is not a scientists either.
    1
  15. G Kaiser, responding to these comments do not take time. Also, lately, I have been responding less as this channel is dying. No one is buying into the ultra left anymore. Remember, TYT, 2% strong! Also, yes, Potholer54 goes after easy targets. People have brought up scientists who are global warming skeptics and the only one he went after was Patrick Moore. In doing so he kept going after bleach and cherry picked a video from PragerU in order to try to discredit them. The PragerU video was an opinion one dealing with religion and he used it to try to discredit PragerU as if to say that nothing they say is important as they have this video about religion. He later posted a study from the University of Nebraska. Universal of Nebraska has a religion degree. So I guess by potholer54's standard what comes out of that institution is not important. If you read the comments of that video many people called out potholer54 for misrepresenting what Dr. Moore said. The "consensus" study not science. One was a poll of select scientists with vague questions and a 30% response rate. Another was looking only at abstract. The "consensus" argument is brought up by people who have no idea how science is actually done. I accept the science behind climate change. It has been happening for over 4 billion years. Man does play a role. Again, the issues are 1. How much does man play a role? 2. Is it even a major threat? Point to me where in those "consensus studies" that they give a quantitative value in how much man is playing a role? I bet you dollars to doughnuts you have not even read them.
    1
  16. DAK4Blizzard, what's your point?
    1
  17. By the time....., watch the video he did on Patrick Moore. I responded to G Kaiser on how potholer54 tried to discredit PragerU on one cherry picked video. He picked a video PragerU did on religion, not climate change. Potholer54 made the comment of "It has dignified professors who look as if they are speaking quit knowledgeably...." That is what potholer54 does. He looks as if he is "speaking quit knowledgeably...." But read my comment to G Kaiser about the religion video and my comparison to the University of Nebraska. Extending to that, he says PragerU is not a university. I agree, they never claimed to be accredited. I can pull the same card on potholer54. He is not a scientist. He is a journalist. He has never done any research in the field of science in his life. So by his standard I can discredit him as well. This is less than 2 minutes in the video. Going into what Moore said about the climate has been changing, Moore is correct. Potholer54 misrepresented what Moore said by making a statement about bacteria and epidemic and earthquakes and plate tectonics. Moore never said that greenhouse gases do not cause climate change. Or that man does not cause climate change. Next, Moore talked about how there was an ice age and then it became warm. Potholer54 said it was because of CO2 levels. Moore's point was that there is evidence that man is not playing a role as there have been evidence of warming and cooling. Moore was making a connection between climate change and man and Potholer54 misrepresented what Moore said by bring up CO2. Moore did not bring up CO2. That is less than 4 minutes into the video. Now do I support Moore's stance on climate change? I cannot say for certain as I have not listened to him in detail. This is not to defend more but to show how potholer54 is selling you snake oil.
    1
  18. By the time....., it isn't so much that potholer54 is wrong. He is very deceptive which is bad in science. Yes, he presents good science. But he leaves a lot out, he goes after easy targets, and in the case of Dr. Moore he strawmans. He is doing more harm than good at this point as we have ignorant people like G Kaiser who buy into his material like gospel.
    1
  19. Mike Bond, I am not saying PragerU does not have flaws. But PragerU does have many informative videos. The issues I have with what potholer54 did was the topic was on climate change. potholer54 picked a PragerU video that discussed religion which is unrelated. He used that to try to discredit everything PragerU says. You can't do that. I pointed out how the University of Nebraska has a religion degree. Thus, by pohtoler54's standard, that paper he cited from the University of Nebraska should be discredited because that institution teaches religious topics much like PragerU does. He is pulling a logical fallacy when he criticizes PragerU. potholer54 has a double standard here. He is also fooling people. I feel potholer54 has presented important information, much like PragerU has as well. But people are siding with potholer54 as if what he said is gospel without realizing that he is fooling them. It isn't me siding with anyone. It is me calling out bullshit when I see it.
    1
  20. DAK4Blizzard, being a "skeptic" means having doubt. The doubt is this 1. How much is man playing a role? 2. Is it even a threat? On those two points climate change alarmists cannot provide a hard answer to either. So that is why the doubt arises. Here is an example. Say you believe big foot is real. I have doubt so I ask you to show me evidence of big foot. You give weak evidence, or move the goal posts to support your claim. Now you ask me for evidence big foot is not real. Well, I cannot do that. I cannot give evidence to a negative. Now apply that to climate change. Many people say man is playing a major role in that. I have my doubts. I say man plays a role but we cannot say how much. So I ask for evidence in saying man plays a major role. I get talking points of "consensus" studies don't actually say what people think, and that's it. No quantitative value. You ask me for evidence to support my claim. I cannot provide any based on the idea that I am basing my claim on lack of evidence on all sides. There is no evidence man plays a major role in climate change. Just like with big foot. There may be evidence of him, but it is weak. I say big foot does not exist, but I base that on lack of evidence. That is the logic behind that.
    1
  21. By the time...., Potholer54 has an undergrad degree geology. "Climate change" is a very broad field covering all sciences including physics. Dr. Patrick Moore has a degree in ecology that is also related to climate change. Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physics, that is related to climate change as well. He did a video for PragerU. As for presenting data. Anyone can present data. But that is only the beginning. Look at Bloom's Taxonomy. If you studied that you would learn that at the very you have "knowledge". That is learning about the data. In Kindergarten that is learning sight words. In science, my field, that can be learning the atom and the parts of it. As you move up in Bloom's Taxonomy you learn how to "synthesize" and "evaluate". The progress in words is sight words, than understanding what the words mean, then forming sentences, then essays, books, arguments, etc. In science you learn the atom, then the parts of it, then the functions, then you learn about the quantum properties of it and and then doing research with them. Just presenting data is at around level 2 of Bloom's Taxonomy, that is comprehension. As you move up in Bloom's Taxonomy you need more experience. If not you end up applying that knowledge incorrectly and presenting false ideas and opinions. So yes, a science degree is important here. On Moore's point, Moore was saying climate changed with no influence of humans in the past. Potholer54 said it is true that climate has changed in the past, but it was due to CO2. I have no clue why potholer54 brought up CO2. Moore said nothing about CO2, potholer54 did. So potholer54 does not debunk Moore, he actually ends up supporting Moore that the climate has changed in the past without the influence of humans. When Moore said there are other factors at play besides CO2, he is correct. There are many factors at play. Moore does not say CO2 does not play a role, many factors play a role along with CO2. Looking at just CO2 and temperature is simply seeing a correlation where one thing you learn in science is that correlation does not equal causation. Just like when it rains worms show up. It does not mean that it rains worms.
    1
  22. DAK4Blizzard, CO2 is a contributor. What's your point?
    1
  23. G Kaiser, you saying it is "commonly accepted" does not make it true. I have no political reason for why I feel the way I do. Science is apolitical. I am a scientist. I understand that in science it is not settled and there is a lot we do not know. We do not have a solid theoretical model for water. We do not understand the physics of photosynthesis.
    1
  24. G Kaiser, PragerU never said they were an accredited university. They do have people who speak for them that do have credentials. I listed two professors who have spoken for PragerU. Potholer54's criticism of PragerU is easily dismissed. That is why no one listens to him.
    1
  25. By the time..., So in the end what potholer54 says is irrelevant compared to Dr. Patrick Moore as neither of them has done the research. Would you agree? I would admit I do not do research in climate change directly. I base my opinion the fact that we know very little in science. I am currently writing a paper where we are looking a molecule with only 11 atoms. That's it. We are pushing it in a journal with an impact factor of 8. You think with only 11 atoms we would know a lot about it, but we don't. The same is with climate change. We know very little about it. So when I hear Dr. Moore's opinion on it I see it as him talking as a scientist who understands we know very little about the topic, and there is a lot at play, thus we do not know. Same with Dr. Lindzen. But if you want to go down the route of they have not done research in climate change, than you need to hold the same standard to potholer54. So what both of them say is irrelevant. People can present data in numerous ways. That is the issue. Potholer54 is not doing any favors by presenting a few papers and only a few set of data points on this complex issue. Also, you say he has a degree. Dr. Moore and Dr. Lindzen do as well. Why are you holding them to different standards? I have a physics and chemistry degree, so I can understand literature in science as well. I have different opinions based on my background in physics and my current research. Why do you dismiss me or hold me to a different standard? Many factors are at play besides CO2. The sun, increases in population, level of moisture, a species destroying vegetation over time, etc. There are other factors. The CO2 to temperature correlation is important, but is only one factor. Also, is it even bad? That is another point. The ecosystem has evolved for millions of years. This is the part where I get annoyed with the ultra left about. They rip on others for not supporting evolution (supposedly), but when it comes to climate change they all of a sudden ignore evolution themselves. Even if CO2 is the main driving force in climate change, and man is the driving force. Why won't they ecosystem system?
    1
  26. By the time...., You need to hold potholer54 to the same standard as you hold everyone else.
    1
  27. G Kaiser, physicists thought the science was settled in the mid 1800s and that everything was Newtonian based. Then we were able to study the atom. Sorry, but science is very dynamic. I suggest you leave science to the scientists.
    1
  28. G Kaiser, evolution is far from settled. Research is still being done in it. Gravity is only "settled" on the idea that it is macroscopic. But why gravity exists isn't. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issues are 1. How much man plays a role 2. Is it even a major threat The science is not settled, that is why we still do research on it.
    1
  29. By the time...., potholer54 presents data, and that is where he needs to stop. In his video about Moore Dr. Moore made the claim that climate was changing before man had an influence on it. Potholer54 then presents data and relating it to CO2. That is irrelevant to what Moore is saying as Moore never mentioned CO2. Also, if potholer54 is going to present data, he needs to encourage people to look deeper. He hardly does that. He shows a correlation between CO2 and temperature and goes from there. His audience then follows him blindly without thinking about what papers he is sourcing, the methods behind the studies, the actual conclusion, and any other studies related to it. As a whole potholer54 is hardly scratching the surface of this complex issue which is a disservice to the field. It isn't a false equivocation. My research helps understanding chemical reactions, and molecular dynamics in different environment, that includes temperature. This leads to one of my points of how we do not know if climate change is a threat. We hardly understand how chemical reactions work. We hardly understand how biological materials move in different conditions. We do not know what will happen in the ecosystem during current climate change. I am writing a paper on a molecule with 11 atoms. We are not even close to do this kind of work on a much larger system. In comparison, I read a paper on a 6 residue peptide. Do you know how many residues are in a peptide? A lot more than 6. Right now we are still trying to understand how one with 6 residues act in different environments. My point is that we know very little in science. So for potholer54 to make strong claims is doing science a disservice. The same is with man made climate change. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. How much is man playing a role in it? We do not know. Yes, man is playing a role, but we have no control to compare to. As for papers who "disagrees with him". That is not how science works. It isn't one person says one thing and another person disagrees. In science we leave a lot of ideas open. We present data, give an explanation, but hardly give strong certainty. The reason why is because the science is not settled. potholer54 is presenting data as if the science is settled. I cannot present a paper that disagrees with him for two reasons 1. The data is the data and that cannot be disputed 2. What the data means is up for interpretation, but the conclusion is not certain. potholer54 presents it as if it is. I am saying that is not how science works. I cannot prove a negative. Compare it to this. potholer54 is saying big foot is real. I say I have doubt. potholer54 presents blurry pictures and a footprint for his evidence and has strong certainty. I say that is not enough evidence so I have doubt. potholer54 asks for my evidence for my doubt. I cannot do that as my reasoning is lack of evidence. In connection to climate change, my reasoning for my stance is lack of evidence, as in a control. Also, it is based on my experience that science is very dynamic and we know very little. You are holding people to different standards. You are supporting potholer54 while dismissing the professors who created PragerU videos. Yes, the sun's intensity does fluctuate. It is one of many factors that contribute to climate change. I am not saying it is just the sun. I am not saying CO2 does not play a role. It is many parts playing a role. Higher population means entropy increases at a higher rate. It means more movement thus greater generation of thermal energy, that can mean higher temperature. The world's population has gone up around 5 times since 1900. There is a correlation between earth population and temperature anomaly. I haven't overlapped the graphs but they seem to be going up exponentially starting at 1900. Species destroying vegetation means increase levels of CO2 or different moisture level. There are many things at play. I am not denying man's contribution. I am just saying there is no quantitative number you can give to say how much man is playing a role. I am also saying that current climate change could be fine and not a threat. I support looking into the issue, I just get irritated and people like potholer54 doing more harm than good and people blindly following him.
    1
  30. G Kaiser, so you deny evolution and think the world is only 4000 years old. I get it.
    1
  31. G Kaiser, you don't accept science. You feel the science is settled which is anti-science. You don't accept evolution because you feel current climate change is bad because ecosystem will never evolve, thus you deny evolution.
    1
  32. G Kaiser, I am trying to explain things to you. It isn't about getting more evidence to support evolution. The process of evolution is unclear in many ways. Tell me how does evolution occur? Be specific and connect it to the molecular level. According to you the science is settled so you should have no problem telling me these things.
    1
  33. This guy is correct for the most part. Now the scientists are not the problem, the media is. But there is a fear mongering going on here. Kyle has an Alex Jones level of conspiracy theory here.
    1
  34. Watch the Neil deGrasse Tyson video about how republicans support science. It is enlightening.
    1
  35. No one denies that humans play a role in climate change. The issues are 1. How much is man playing a role 2. Is it even a threat
    1
  36. jim bob, exxon donated money to build a wind farm. Also, Betsy DeVos has little control over education.
    1
  37. Neither does Kyle. What's your point?
    1
  38. jimmybeez81, what makes you think Kyle's viewpoint is driven off of science? Not giving Morano a pass, but Kyle is not any better.
    1
  39. che zus, science is not ran on consensus. Those "consensus" studies is not science. That is not how science works.
    1
  40. It isn't denying science. I haven't read the book, and I doubt you haven't either. But the problem here is that politicians and the media are completely misrepresenting science. That includes Kyle. Scientists are not making these end of the world predictions and pushing for more government. People like Kyle are. Sorry, but Kyle and you deny science.
    1
  41. Mckenzie .Latham, they are not saying that. I have read the consensus studies, you haven't. Also, there isn't a field called "climate science". Climate studies is broad. I can argue that my research is a part of climate science. A project I am working on now studies energy transfer through a molecule. That plays a role in chemical reactions. Chemical reactions occur in the ecosystem. A driving force in chemical reactions is the climate. Please actually study science for years, like I have, before you comment on it.
    1
  42. TBO 84, the issues regarding climate change are these 1. How much is man playing a role? Man is playing a role simply by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But by how much is the question 2. Is it even a threat? The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years. The ecosystem seemed to have evolved just fine. 3. If it is a threat, what do we do? The "consensus" argument is the worse argument to ever enter this issue. For one, they are not saying what people think they are saying. Also, they are poorly done and is not science.
    1
  43. TBO 84, I have seen that website. That is the source I am talking about. For example, one "consensus" study looked at only abstracts. Another was a Masters Thesis that is not peer reviewed outside of the student's committee. Another was a poll with an around 30% response rate. Also, none of them are saying climate change is a major threat and none of them are giving a quantitative value in how much man is playing a role. For the record, I study science for a living. So I know who scientists act an think.
    1
  44. TBO 84, that is a very vague questions. I work with theorist and I can tell you their values are constantly off. To give you an example, a paper I read recently entitled "Theoretical study of internal vibrational relaxation and energy transport in polyatomic molecules" The numbers obtain from theory were off from experiment, which is the norm. These situations are hard to model because, as one theorist told me, we work with "dirty experiments". So we cannot just go off of the models and make radical changes. I am all for going to renewable energy, but we cannot do it drastically as it would harm the economy. I will ask you this? Say we get off of fossil fuels before we are ready and we do so drastically. That will harm the economy. Say we do that and nothing changes in the issue of climate change. Now what? Now we have a poor economy. What is your solution?
    1
  45. TBO 84, technology improving has always happened. That happens in the free market. There is no need to push for it. It will naturally happen over time.
    1
  46. YY, watch the video with Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about how republicans support science. He put it well. No republican wants to die poor. That is why they invest in science knowing that technological advances come from science.
    1
  47. MMT economics is crap. Saying the government can control inflation with taxation is crap. That is why it is not taught anywhere.
    1
  48. Bernie Bros like Kyle just want the excuse to create an oppressive government. You have one video where he wants businesses to serve against ideas they disagree with. Now you have this where Kyle, a non-scientist, wants to use give government more power to somehow control climate change when it has been happening for over 4 billion years. Sandwiched between these two videos he rips on a corrupt politician that will most likely win re-election. The irony with Bernie Bros is amazing.
    1
  49. David, so you admit you want to oppress others.
    1
  50. Skepticism is a part of science.
    1
  51. Tim, the whole story is why is one ice cap growing where another shrinking?
    1