Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Candace Owens On Climate Change: 'I Don't Believe This, Like, At All'" video.

  1. I am pursing PhD in physical chemistry right now. The opportunities in the US are amazing. I find the OP to be rather foolish.
    5
  2. Uh, how much are we influencing climate change? That is one question. We are simply by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but by how much is in question. Next, is it even a serious threat? That is the next question. If it is then is government the solution? Or what is the solution?
    4
  3. Ehtan, have you even read those "consensus" studies? I doubt it. To start, yes, man plays a role. Beyond that there is doubt. The doubt is how much and is it even a threat? Next, those consensus studies were either of cherry picked sources where they were misrepresented (such as looking at the abstract only) or polls with cherry picked participates that around 1/3 of the responded. What is 1/3 of 97%? I will allow you to do the math.
    4
  4. Ethan, saying that humans are the "main cause" is a statement you should not make. We have no control to compare with to make the claim that humans are the main cause. That is why there is so much doubt in the issue.
    2
  5. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. It is highly questionable if it is an issue or not to be concerned about.
    2
  6. Ethan, care to post those studies? Saying that it is a fact is a huge leap to make in science as if someone finds conflicting evidence it makes you look foolish. That is why scientists rarely make solid statements like that. Again, not saying that man does not play a role, we do. But in comparison of what? What is the control? How were the studies done? The same holds for climate change being a threat. The ecosystem has evolved for billions of years, what makes you think it will stop? If you look at political issues you usually have experts on both sides in the public and in the media having a strong stance on something. Climate change isn't it. You are not seeing scientists on stage with the political left preaching the same things they are. Why? Because in science we do not go off of strong conclusions like you are.
    1
  7. God is a freak....., your understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics is very flawed. The universe can be the closed system and entropy is always increasing. This involves an area of physics where two things can happen as time reaches infinity. One is that entropy reaches its max, and two is that we reach completely equilibrium. On the second part why is your body at 98 degrees F in a room that is 70 degrees F? Because your body does something chemically to keep your warmer. However, over time, if you do not feed yourself you will die and eventually reach 70 degrees F. However, over time the entire universe should read an equilibrium. Some refer to this as "heat death of the universe". Your misunderstanding of science is staggering.
    1
  8. God is a freak...., google "max entropy of universe" and "universe equilibrium" as a starting point. This is a deep topic and there is a lot of great material on it. But considering you lack of understanding of science I will start you there.
    1
  9. ShadowStormX_98, scientists would not come to that conclusion because we know very little about the issue. Also, we have no control to compare to. That is why you are not seeing a major uproar by scientists on this issue.
    1
  10. Ethan, I read that source and it is the "go to" source for leftists in this topic. Not saying it doesn't hold value as it does, but the issue is far more complex than that. That NASA source is only scratching the surface of the issue. As for my second point, scientists can rally with politicians. Why weren't they with Bernie in this issue? He was vocal about it. The reason why is because no credible scientists is going to put themselves in that position. Also, science does not prove or disprove anything.
    1
  11. trier, please explain. How do I not understand the difference between enthalpy and entropy?
    1
  12. trier, earth can be considered a closed system as well. No system is completely closed in all reality.
    1
  13. trier, to answer you question on "climate change on earth", my overall point is this. Us, as man, are adding entropy to the earth. So yes, we are changing the climate by simply being on earth. How much is the question. But is man changing the climate? By the 2nd law of thermodynamics we are as we are adding entropy.
    1
  14. Ethan, I have read it. I know it has multiple sources. But still, they are just scratching the surface. Do they cover evolution or the physics behind it? No. Do they cover the multiple models of water that exist like the Onsager model or an explicit model of water? No. Science is much deeper than what is presented there.
    1
  15. trier, I agree in different pockets of the universe that entropy could decrease. My comment on entropy was directed to the person who said entropy involved a closed system. I was pointing out how that is not true. But again, please explain to me how I confused enthalpy to entropy. This would be interesting.
    1
  16. trier, how does life decrease entropy? I can increase it and decrease it. It depends. I start a fire in the forest and I have just increased entropy. I think you are jumping into the middle of a conversation and you are confused. My point on entropy is that us, as man, influence the climate in some way. You are now changing to greenhouse gases which is a different topic in itself. So to answer your question, yes, us being alive influences the climate.
    1
  17. trier, earth can be a closed system depending on the limits you set. You bringing up the universe is different all together. Yes, for all intents and purposes that is a closed system as that is the extreme case, that no matter what happens in a close system the entropy of the universe will go up. So the universe can be seen as the overall system as opposed to a closed system. Or you can see it as a closed system as well. Your choice.
    1
  18. trier, to add, you can consider earth to be a closed system in matter exchange but not so much in energy exchange. Again, it depends on what you set your definitions and standards as. Now is that common? As a whole, no as you have the canonical function where energy is transferred and you have the grand canonical function where both energy and matter are transferred. So I can admit that I am, for the most part, wrong in saying that earth is a closed system. But one can split hairs and look at it in a case where it is by ignoring energy exchange. It just doesn't follow basic statistical mechanics processes.
    1
  19. trier, the limits can be only considering the change of matter. Energy is exchanged via the sun. But again, it does not follow the conventional standard of the micro canonical, canonical, and grand canonical functions. But take, for example, a forest fire. It burns up a forest and puts smoke in the air that is trapped in the atmosphere. That has increased the entropy of the earth. The earth has a case where entropy can be reversed due to energy of the sun creating life and so on. So the limits are essentially isolated areas and isolated instances.
    1
  20. trier, I never said the earth would lose heat. We do not know how much humans are influencing the climate, that is the reality. We do not have a control to compare it to. To your last point I said with limits and standards. You added another component in my forest fire one. If you want to go that route then there is no such thing as a closed system besides the universe. Thus teaching the idea of closed systems in physics classes is pointless.
    1
  21. Erik, I get paid to go to college. I have healthcare, vacation, flexible scheduling and a lot of opportunities for research.
    1
  22. One, who in the hell is Candace Owens? Next, the issue of climate change is complex. The main problem is that politicians have taken a hold of it and used it for political gains. There are many questionings about it still and we need to leave it with scientists, not politicians and political commentators like Kyle, Rogan or Owens who are all ignorant in science.
    1
  23. Bernie Sanders did the same thing.
    1
  24. I never heard of her.
    1
  25. Keith, define "expertise in the field". Climate science is very broad.
    1
  26. Hobo, a jump from 300 ppm to 400 ppm, considering the overall size of the atmosphere and the increase in population growth, is nothing to me.
    1
  27. Keith, again, read those reports closely, I have. They are cherry picked papers that were misrepresented and the polls had low response rates and had cherry picked scientists to begin with. Climate science is a very broad field.
    1
  28. Hobo, CO2 concentration is still very small to being with. To give a comparison, if you lost 50 pounds is that a lot? If you went from 150 pounds to 100 pounds then yes. But if you went from 500 pounds to 450 pounds you are still obese. You can't just throw numbers out there, you need to place them to a standard. As for me "muddying the water", welcome to my world of science.
    1
  29. sprybug, how is your link relevant? Also, I do study science for a living. I get my ideas from my many years of studying science.
    1
  30. sprybug, climate science is a broad field. If you want to play that game then I do in many ways. My research can aid in understanding chemical reactions and biological dynamics which can aid in understanding how the ecosystem reacts in different environments, such as changes in climates. I did watch the video, those polls are polls of cherry picked scientists with low response rates. What is 1/3 of 87%? I will let you do the math.
    1
  31. sprybug, I read the methods. You should as well. Climate science involves many areas of science such as physics, spectroscopy, atmospheric science, etc. all that are not included on that list. I have watched potholer54 and have called him out on his actions. He is not a scientist, he is a journalist.
    1
  32. sprybug, to give you an example of how flawed those polls are they will poll geologists. However, they will not poll physicists or people in my field as they do not directly study climate. However, I have colleagues who study quantum coherence in photosynthesis to try to understand it better. I study biological dynamics. Both of those fields can factor in the influence of climate change on the ecosystem. We have little knowledge in how evolution, photosynthesis, or other biological processes occur. Thus when people say that climate change is a "threat" they are making things up. The reason why is because we do not know how the ecosystem is going to evolve to these changes. Someone like potholer54, who goes after easy targets, will not bring that up. He is selling you snake oil by pretending to be knowledgeable by posting a few studies while ignoring the plethora of variables out there. With him it is the "forest for the trees" issue.
    1
  33. sprybug, potholer54 picks easy targets and pulls wool over people's eyes. Crowder does not deny anything and has said numerous times that climate change is real. Did he misrepresent some sources? Yes, I agree, but so did potholer54 and I called him out on it. For example,on the ice caps, both Crowder and potholer54 were deceptive. Potholer54 said that the overall ice caps are disappearing and people who look at the whole body realize that. I called him out saying that the reality is that people who look at the whole body look at the ice caps as a whole and individual ice caps. Why are the ones in the south growing? That is an interesting point to look at. However, potholer54 does not address that. On the debate it was a settled issue. Potholer54 even moved on from it saying Crowder is not to blame. Besides that, I do not speak for Crowder nor Shapiro. So why are you changing the topic?
    1
  34. Keith, I do not deny the influence of CO2 on climate. What makes you think I did?
    1
  35. Hobo, a third more of CO2 in the atmosphere is minute when it was not much to begin with.
    1
  36. Keith, I am talking about the polls. Those polls leave out numerous fields.
    1
  37. Keith, I told you. The issues with climate change are 1. How much is man playing a role? Yes, many plays a role, but how much? 2. Is it even a threat? 3. If it is a threat, what is the solution? I never said that man does not influence the climate, we do. But we cannot say by how much.
    1
  38. Hobo, throwing an ice cube in the ocean technically lowers the temperature of it. Does it a lot? No. Same with CO2. Yes, CO2 does acidify water. But the ocean is large bud.
    1
  39. Erik, yes I am as I am talking about the overall volume of it. CO2 increases have not been that large overall. I know what greenhouse gasses are. What am I denying? Please tell me that.
    1
  40. Erik, I highly question if climate change is a threat. Sorry, but considering how the ecosystem has been evolving for billions of years I do not see why it will all of a sudden stop.
    1
  41. I ask my doctors many questions before I proceed with things. Being skeptical does not mean denying everything. I am being prescribed a medication here soon and I am going to talk to my doctor about it in length. I am also going to do my own research and ask others in the medical field as well whom I am friends with. It is good to be skeptical. If you just believe everything that people told you than you are setting yourself up for failure.
    1