Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bill Nye Hands Climate Science Denier His Buttøcks" video.

  1. The earth had way more CO2 in the atmosphere during the beginning of the earth's time and life thrived.
    8
  2. Nye is doing well with these debates. He is stroking his ego catering to the ignorant. Nye did nothing but deflect on this discussion.
    8
  3. I discredited Nye when he refused to discuss the topic. He did nothing but deflect. For example, he first started about the "speed" of climate change but then said "that aside" and went to talk about other issues. He then claimed Happer cherry picked data but then changed the topic to uncertainty. He never addressed the issue and kept changing the direction to the discussion to his talking points.
    5
  4. Piers, I am an actual scientists with more peer reviewed reports than Nye has.
    3
  5. boggisthecat, my point is that life and the ecosystem evolves. I love how the ultra left criticizes the right for being "anti-science" when in reality they are selective science. The ultra left picks and choose what science they want to use. A driving force of evolution is climate change and changes in the atmosphere. To think that the ecosystem won't evolve is being selective in what you support. You should stop reading blogs by ignoramuses and liars. Read about how life evolved alongside the changes in the climate on Earth. The ecosystem is complex. We do not even know the physical mechanism for photosynthesis for example. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7137/abs/nature05678.html There is a good paper to start on the issue of that. I pick it because it is in line with my research (ultrafast spectroscopy). I do not do in depth research on photosynthesis, my friend does. But he cites this paper in his work and I converse with him about it. But what it shows is the complexity of organisms and how we know very little about it. So jumping to conclusion on the issue is not a wise thing to do in science. This is why Bill Nye is the only "scientist" the left can get to talk about it.
    3
  6. " Do you think you have more knowledge about climate change than >97% climatologists?" That 97% is a deceptive state. It is based on selective publications and vague interpretations. Even at that climate change is a complex field. Do I know more than those scientists in their particular field? No. But I am sure they do not know physics as well as I do, or ultrafast spectroscopy as those are my areas of research. A lot of science has become specialized these days. On my end the ecosystem is complex and we know very little about it. To cherry pick data and interpretation of it is a very deceptive, and asinine thing to do. In reality the vast majority of scientists do not even take a stance on the issue. Polls there were conducted get around 30% response rates. In my line of work I do ultrafast spectroscopy. My friend does theoretical work on quantum biology. One project he is working on deals with the physical mechanism of photosynthesis, something we know little about. Him and I converse about our work because he cites this guy http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7137/abs/nature05678.html and thus there is overlap in our work (for the record, I do not know Dr. Fleming and co-worker's stance on climate change, I do not speak for them). When you see that you see that we know little about the ecosystem. Photosynthesis is a concept taught in grade school and we cannot explain the physics behind it with certainty. How many climate scientists will even understand quantum coherence? Look at the course work for climate courses in Berkeley http://vcresearch.berkeley.edu/energy/courses-related-energy-and-climate-research Nothing about quantum. https://nature.berkeley.edu/advising/majors/environmental-sciences You can find the course work there, I see nothing to suggest they learn about quantum entanglement. My point being is that the environment is complex and has evolved all throughout history. Making fear mongering claims, similar to what have been said in the past but have never happened, does not progress us. We should keep looking in to the issue of climate change. We should continue to progress in technology. But we have to stop the fear mongering for political gain.
    3
  7. And Bill Nye ran a kids show. That shows you the level of intellect the left has in this discussion.
    3
  8. Bill Nye ran a kids show. He does not understand specialized fields in science and is really the last guy I will want to talk to in a discussion beyond remedial science. If you watch this debate he deflects to talking points and does not discuss the issue at all.
    3
  9. megabeaver23, evolution can take as long as it is needed. There is no time table in place for it. "Climate change also affects our food industry" But yet food production continues to grow.
    2
  10. boyishdude1234, it happens. Someone accused me of not posting links. I can buy it. What I did after that was list the titles and authors instead. No one has done that even though I suggested it. I am all for reading different sources, but until someone posts the links so I can see them, or lists the titles and authors if I can't see them, then I can't believe you either.
    2
  11. Jonathan, and everyone else. Steven Crowder just released a video on climate change with Dr. Patrick Moore. Now it is your turn to go to the lion's den and see what will happen if you are so daring.
    2
  12. Kaycee K., read my previous comment. That "consensus" is from selected publications on vague interpretation of them and polls with only around a 30% response rate. The vast majority of scientists, including climate scientists, are not taking a stance on the issue. Also, science has many specialized fields on the issue. There are many thing climate scientists do not understand in many fields of science. Same with me. I understand spectroscopy well as i do my research in it. But I do not understand biology right now very well. I can learn it, but that will take time. So to put full trust in climate scientists is being rather foolish in my opinion. I do research on biological materials (studying structure of it), at the same time I will not be able to give you a detail explanation on genetic coding.
    2
  13. The consensus does not exist. When people bring it up they say one of two things. 1. 97% of all scientists...... Which is not true as those "consensus studies" only look at climate scientists. Thus 2. 97% of climate scientists....... Which at that point you are ignoring the physicists, chemists, biologists and other fields in science that do related work in the field. You are ignoring them and their studies involved in climate and environmental issues which is foolish.
    2
  14. "Nye is a public presenter of scientific knowledge. " Of remedial science. Fields in science are complex and specialized. Nye never took the time to become specialized in any field in science thus he has little understanding beyond remedial topics. This is why in the entire discussion he kept deflecting to talking points.
    2
  15. Bill Nye looked like a fool here. One, Happer is a skeptic, not a denier. Next, Nye deflected and dodged the issue. Happer said why he supported what he did. Nye brought up the smoke screen of the "consensus", than mention investing in technology, and told Happer to "cut this out" which is politely telling him to "shut up". Nye started out mentioning the speed but then says "but that aside" because he did not want to discuss the issue. Nye looked like a fool here.
    2
  16. Having a PhD in physics debate Bill Nye, who ran a kids show, was not neutral. Nye looked like a fool with his deflection.
    2
  17. Pmawghrckque, read my comment to boggisthecat. Life is complex and we know little about it. That is why very few scientists are taking a stance on this issue. The 97% consensus was from selective publications with vague interpretation. When we do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis, a concept taught in grade school, that shows how complex the ecosystem is.
    1
  18. "Also, what publications do you have? Do you have any actual evidence to show you have published anything or are you just stating you have more?" Yes, because I am going to expose who I am to creeps on the internet. "No they do not, in fact scientists in the field are not "right" nor "left", they follow the scientific method to come to conclusions. You should know this by now...." I agree, which is why the vast majority of scientists do not take a stance on the issue. But those on the left, as in politicians, the media, and those who support them and do not study science, do pick the science they want to support. "Almost all scientific literature supports the idea of CO2 emissions cause global warming and there is substantial evidence demonstrating this phenomenon." Not true. Selected scientific literature says that. Read that book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". They go through the literature that was selected and not selected. It would help you to understand that the vast majority of the scientists do not even take as stance on the issue which is why those consensus "studies" selectively pick the publications they talk about. "That's exactly what scientists do, if you were in the field, you would know this. " I am in the field and I do know this. "The argument of global climate change has a large part to do with the impact that rising CO2 emissions has on the topic. The paper you posted had nothing to do with disproving most scientific literature posted with CO2 emissions which is what you should be linking. " The paper shows that we do not even understand the physics of photosynthesis. Plus, science does not prove anything. But I will get back to this issue. "If you are attempting to argue "there are many things we don't understand" that's obvious in every field of science. There are tons of pathways(that aren't quantum btw) that aren't fully understood. Simple example would be Alzhimers plaques and tangles, what causes them to accumulate and what they are truly for. Earlier studies had scientist believing that AB-42 was a toxin that accumulated over time that caused neuronal death. However more recent studies demonstrated that AB-42's that accumulate to form plaques may be AMP's that are used in our brain However over time mechanisms that clear the AB-42 oligomers fail to do so in efficient time which leads to neuronal death. Quite a difference in views, and this took experimentation to find and this is barely touching the surface of this disease. However the end result is still the same, while the mechanism is still not fully understood and there are tons of things more that are not understood, in the end, neurons do end up dying when incubated with AB-42 oligomers in vivo/vitro. " Funny you mention Alzheimer. One of my research projects is related to that. I study structure and dynamics of biological materials using ultrafast spectroscopy. Through that we monitor changes in biological materials using IR probes such as Amide I in the protein backbone. Diseases such as Alzheimer are being looked with with the techniques I use because proteins and RNA fold on themselves in the sub-picosecond time range making linear IR and NMR techniques limited. With ultrafast techniques you can take snapshots of the protein and RNA folding. "There are still many things we don't understand BUT that doesn't mean we can't understand anything either which is what you are attempting to argue with this idiotic comparisons. " It is not an idiotic comparison. Science has many fields that are specialized. When people talk about the "consensus" they say one of two things. 1. 97% of scientists........ Which is applying all scientists when none of those consensus "studies" does that, they look at climate scientists. So others say 2. 97% of climate scientists..... But at that point you are just limiting yourself to climate scientists. You eliminate physicists, chemists, and biologists who also do related studies in the field. Just because someone is a physicist does not mean they do some work in the field. I am a physical chemist myself but I work with proteins and RNA nucleotides. But believe me, you will never mistaken me for a biologist as I know way more physics and chemistry than biology. Science is a complex field, and eliminating other branches of it and just trusting climate scientists is foolish. Also, you said so yourself "There are tons of pathways(that aren't quantum btw) that aren't fully understood" There are many things in science we do not fully know. What makes you think that the ecosystem won't evolve? What makes you think that a large portion of this is not natural? You are just going off of climate scientists' (a minority of them mind you) word. Nothing else. You are ignoring other variables in the field. That was the point of the photosynthesis paper. How many climate scientists will understand that topic of quantum entanglement? Not many, but it is clearly related to their field. This is not to say that we do not have some idea on the issue, nor that we should not look into it and study it. We should. But he fear mongering from the anti-science left really needs to stop. If this was such a big deal they would get someone from the field, one of the 97% to come talk about it. "Scientific literature that is published does not do this at all, and so far the papers published have not jumped to conclusions. What you are speaking about are people who are not in the field(people such as yourself)." Scientists are not jumping to conclusion which is why most scientists, even climate scientists, do not take a stance on the issue. "No Bill Nye is the scientist that appears on TV, if you speak about actual scientisits, you just need to cite literature. " Bill Nye ran a kids show explaining remedial science to kids. He did not specialize in any field, he never published a peer reviewed paper, nor has he ever done any research on the topic. He deflected this entire video. I will never go to Bill Nye for any information beyond remedial science. Of course, considering how I have a degree in physics and a degree in chemistry I do not have to go to him at all.
    1
  19. boggisthecat, evolution is not well known and takes different paths and different rates. This has been seen over time with many species. "Animals and plants that are cold-adapted will simply die out." Many species has died off during time, I do not see this as a problem. " Deserts will expand even more rapidly, displacing other environments. " This has happened before as well, again, I do not see this as a problem. You are talking about changes that might happen. And if they do they have happened before in the past, but yet life still thrives. We should look into it and be aware, but to call it a major concern is a stretch.
    1
  20. Jonathan, you are the same person who I asked for citations for studies you mentioned in another comment thread but you provided none. You are also the same person who claims to be studying to be a doctor but also said you want cheaper healthcare for all. Meanwhile you will not be willing to work for a lower salary, just for a "living wage". If done right that can be very low, as in around $10,000 a year. So are you willing to work for that low?
    1
  21. "Science does not prove anything? Did you just state this? " Yes http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php#b10 http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof Science does not prove anything. I is not shocking that did not know this.
    1
  22. "Good to know, but that is known with anyone who has ever worked in a lab with spectroscopy. This was taught in my undergrad biochemistry lab, again not useful telling me this information. " Should be considering how spectroscopy used in biochem lab is remedial compared to a physical chemistry or an analytical lab. Also, you just showed me you lack understanding of science by saying science proves things.
    1
  23. Oh, and Jonathon, I am still waiting for those "studies" in the other comment thread.
    1
  24. "If the argument is "There is still a lot more to know", that is true but the studies at the moment demonstrate the affects of CO2 being pumped out is affecting our climate and multiple models have demonstrated this." They show a correlation, but in a complex ecosystem you cannot make a definitive claim that you, and those on the left (the media, politicians and their supporters) are making. The 97% stat comes from selected publications and ignores other fields in science. For example, one ignored astrophysics studies of solar patterns which play a role as well. When you ignore one variable in something it is easy to come up with a conclusion you want. But again, you are the one who thinks science can prove things.
    1
  25. "Scientific literature is not fear mongering," I agree 100%, which is why I go off of that. Based on that it is clear that climate change is not a major issue. I have no problem with the science involving climate change. You are coming at me thinking I have a problem with the science. I don't. I support the science. I have a problem with the politicians, media, and the supporters on the left who misrepresent it and create fear mongering. You have people thinking the world and life are going to die unless we do something major, and that we need the government to act now. But in reality the issue of climate change is not that severe. We should continue looking into it, but for now the fear mongering needs to stop.
    1
  26. Jonathan, I support science. I have a problem with politicians and media on the left creating horror story scenarios that they have little to no evidence of ever happening. And those same politicians and special interest groups are using those stories to push for more power in their hands. In the case of politicians more taxes and regulations. But what am I saying, you feel science prove things.
    1
  27. Daniel, not every one of those studies were used. They selected from those ones they wanted to present.
    1
  28. "More deflection, I did provide links in multiple comments we've spoken about healthcare." No you did not. "You really need to learn to read and think about it for a second. I agreed to have a lower wage, all I said was, it has to be a living wage. That is, something I can survive off. That is, if you asked me, can I work for 1 dollar a year, I would starve and be homeless so that's impossible." Now you showed your complete lack of understanding of economics. A "living wage" is deceptive. Can you live off of $1/hr? Yes. If you had roommates or someone else living in your home that earns more money. The "living wage" is subjective in that it depends on your situation. My girlfriend bought a $10,000 car on a $8.25/hr job. She was able to do so because I earned enough too pay for rent and the other bills for both of us. Here wage was a "luxury wage". So by my standard you can work as a doctor for $8.25/hr. "You really need to read the own sources you just linked. They stated science does not provide absolute proof which is 100% correct. I never stated it did," Yes you did. When you say "prove" you mean without a doubt. As Richard Feynman said "Science is a culture of doubt...." "However science does work off of proving hypothesis(explanations) through experimentation. " No, it accepts or rejects a hypothesis, never proves. You clearly have never done work in theoretical studies. " Never once did I say absolute proof, never once did I say it was 100% correct. Never once did I say any of that, and then you link a blog to psychology?" More than you have ever linked. You never give any sources at all. But now you are back pedaling because I linked Oregon St. and Berkeley. "Not really, most techniques you learn in undergrad are used in grad school. Almost every TA was a PhD candidate and all of them used the exact same point. Just dependent on what topic they choose to work with." Depends. FTIR and NMR are remedial. Same with UV-Vis. Ultrafast spectroscopy and 2D NMR are more advanced and usually not covered until grad school. "Science is used to prove hypothesis through experimentation." Nope, accept or reject hypothesis. "No one is making an absolute claim, " Yes they are. The media, politicians, and supporters of the left are. That is the problem. They are misrepresenting science in doing so. That is my issue. Scientists, for the most part, do not take a stance on the climate change issue that the media and politicians are. "What I am saying is, the evidence at the moment demonstrates that and you are stating it is useless since things are more complex. If we worked with that mentality in science, nothing would be studied or used in practical standards." Not true. I am saying do not jump to conclusion. With how complex issues are in science that means we keep doing research to advance our knowledge and progress. At the same time we take what we know and proceed with that as well. With climate change there is a lot we do not know, thus we can't take drastic actions that will ruin our economy in the process. We should keep doing research, we should keep using new technology that is more efficient. But we can't just go around increases taxes and regulations and spending on frivolous things (like Solyndra) on an issue that has so much doubt. You feel that my stance is to do nothing. That is 100% wrong. My stance is not to go to the extreme which is what the political left is trying to do. "You keep citing this even though I am not using this argument. That 97% consensus is useless and I never argued it was useful " I am proud you do that. Others do though which is a problem. "You keep stating this yet you come up with no examples of scientific literature that contradicts the previous notions. All I am stating is, if you are arguing that a certain community goes against 1 idea(chemist, physicists, biologists), then link me those scientific literature papers. There doesn't seem to be many that argue this notion through experimentation. " What am I trying to contradict? The only thing I am trying to contradict is the 97% stat that everyone brings up. The issue is that consensus does not exist. So how to you contradict it? It has been debunked with other literature (Read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming") really easily, so why spend much time on it. "You are arguing in the case of absolute proof and I never stated science was for that method. " Yes you did, now you are back pedaling. "Where did I state that it was doomsday if the government doesn't intervene? Where are you getting any of this from? " That is what other people are saying which is a problem. "You stated this same point 5 times, and every time you look like an incompetent highschooler that has 11th grade reading comprehension skills. Science is experimentation and providing evidence for hypothesis that leads to a theory. Never once did I say it was absolute(as obvious by my example above with Alzhimers), never once did I say it was un-proveable, never once did I state anything like that. " Yes you did. I simply stated at the beginning that science does not prove anything. You said it does. Now you are back pedaling after I gave you a link from Oregon St. and Berkeley (BTW, this again shows how I provide you sources and you provide nothing to me). You looked like a fool now you are squirming trying not to. Now you are trying to discredit me by calling me a highschooler, a tactic used by those who are are not doing well in any argument. You have done this in the past which is why I continue to win these debates and you disappear in the ether. "The scientific method demonstrates observations that go to a question that arrives at an explanation and we provide experimentation and evidence for it. This is how science works and it is meant to be provable, something with evidence. " It is met to be supported, not provable. So let go through the Jonathan check list 1. Makes accusations toward me.....check 2. Does not give any any sources.......check 3. Backpedals when shown to be a fool......check 4. Tries to shame me by calling me a highschooler or being from a rich family......check 5. Showed how he is incompetent in another field, this time economics with citing "living wage"......check Another great attempt by Jonathon
    1
  29. jag10, the left has turned science into a religion. It is really sad.
    1
  30. Daniel, if it makes you feel good to think like that than fine.
    1
  31. Jonathan, I do not have time to play your games today. My laser is out of line so I have to fix it. It is an IR laser so you can't see the beam making ti challenging. I have to align multiple beams in both time an space (it is a femtosecond laser). I will say this, the second you said "living wage" I knew you were also an economic illiterate. And if you really were studying to be a doctor you will not have time to send these massive comments. I hardly have time as is with my PhD program. I have friends in med school and they have no time at all. But I will bring up this "Again I am open to this and the wages in other countries are far lower(still decent) than the US, usually around 100,000 dollars a year. I will take less if needed," How much less? Mind you I live off of $23,000 a year. Also, I see you have zero links again in your comment. Again, if you are studying to be a doctor with the time you spend here you are going to fail med school.
    1
  32. " and I do not care what they say. I am speaking about the scientific literature and you keep deflecting to people out of the field." What is your point in arguing here? We seem to be on the same page here. But again, you said science proves things and you feel you understand economics better than me but you brought up "living wage" which is subjective. "Read a few books, " Ah, the old 'read a book" argument. Which ones? The Bible, Mein Kampf, The Communist Manifesto, Little House on a the Prairie? Simply saying "read a book" is more deflection. Just like you say "studies" but yet do not provide any studies to me. What books should I read? But again, for a med student you seem to have a lot of time. Please tell me what state you live in so I do not go to any hospitals there.
    1
  33. Jonathan, you are making this too easy for me now.
    1
  34. "When we say "living wage" it is a short hand way of saying a wage where someone can live on, the bare minimum that they can live off on. " Which is what? What is the standard? Living alone or living with three roommates in a studio (I know people who do that). I worked with a guy who during his time in law school in Berkeley he live in a two bedroom apartment with three other people in order to save money. Their "living wage" is lower compared to someone who lives in a one bedroom alone. It is completely subjective and thus does not mean anything. People who use it do so to appeal to emotions. "Also Jonathon linked you multiple sources" He has only done it once in all of our debates. He talks about "studies" but does not link any. He tells me to "read a book" but does not say which ones. He has nothing but talking points which is why he uses phrases such as "living wage". I actually get into details on the issues.
    1
  35. "please tell me where you live so i can avoid your ignorant ass." California, it is a really big state, so good luck.
    1
  36. "As long as people have Universal healthcare, then it is fine if the amount has to be lower. Links for amounts cost in other countries? " What is your point? Doctors get paid well? So what? Ever thought that if you made more money you can help people out more? I have a friend who was an EMT and helped people out that way. They have since changed jobs so they are making much more and have started charities to help out those in need. If you earn a lot you can do charities. At the same time if you want to work for a low income then fine, but actions speak louder than words. You say you are from MO. Great, I was raised there. My dad earned $47,000 a year. He owns a home and recently bought more land. If you really want to be helpful than work, for a low income, in a rural town as they lack medical professionals. But $47,000 was enough for him to buy a home and raise three kids, two of which have their MBA and one who is pursuing their PhD. I see that you have finally given me links. It has been long enough. "Say the same about you with your ridiculously long responses. But I just got home from classes, and am eating. Small break " Earning a PhD has more flexibility in scheduling. I am finished with my classes and qualification exams. Now I just have research and writing. With two papers already I am in good shape so far. I have three other projects I am working on to be first author and four others that I will be a second author on (one we are hoping to publish in Nature). I am fine overall as I do manage my time well. Plus, I know what I am doing which makes it easier. "My point is, why do you keep bringing it up? I am not asking for this stat, I have asked you for the literature of CO2 emissions that contradicts current scientific literature. You mentioned other fields and we should recognize them, I 100% agreed and asked for their papers in CO2 emissions affect on climate change. You never responded to that point...." My point? I do not deny that CO2 levels are increasing nor am I denying that the climate is changing. My issue is that 1. We do not know to what degree man is playing in climate change. 2. We do not know if it is even bad. That is my point. But the ultra left is running around like the world is on fire and we are all going to die. They are saying that climate change is a major concern when in reality it isn't. The media and politicians are misrepresenting science. That is my issue. I support doing more research on climate change. I support progressing in technology. What I do not support is the politicizing of issues in science, in this case climate change. Politics poison what they touch. "I would recommend philosophical text, it was quite a useful way to help critical thinking and analyzation. Again a big part of the MCAT was analyzing text from multiple different authors and types of writing." For the GRE and grad school I to have critical thinking skills and analyze materials. I read plenty of books. But what do you suggest I read? If you are going to say "read a book" you have to give me a list. "Took me 5 mins to respond and I am a med student in Missouri!. However once I finish, I will possibly move. So you may never escape me as a doctor :)" I am pretty good at seeing if someone is ignorant. My girlfriend has a rather sub par doctor and I could tell when I first met him. I suggested that she should change and eventually she did. After that the new doctor helped her out a lot more. My girlfriend suffered with psychological issues and the old one prescribed her with multiple medications. The new one weened her off of it and gave her therapy and improved her life. But as a whole I can tell the original one was not very good. So chances are if I were to meet you I would tell immediately not to go to you.
    1
  37. "If you want a simple standard I am referencing too. A wage that allows you to sustain yourself by yourself in a studio apartment(so place to live) and allows you to pay the bills and eat. That is all, that is a living wage in my opinion since it is subjective." That is the point, it is subjective. Saying the term "living wage" shows economic illiteracy. You may say that you want to earn enough to live off of by your lifestyle choices and that is fine. But you can't say "living wage". "Again arguing semantics, it's irrelevant, I would take a lower salary to get Universal healthcare. That is the question you asked and I answered. " But will other doctors? That is the issue. If you are than just charge your customers less to begin with. Work in a small community and provide low cost healthcare. You want others to live by your lifestyle which is a problem. "I've done it in all the debates" No you have not. If it is a problem with links not showing up you can name the studies or sources. "Oh sure, some books I read for difficult language to practice for the MCAT was Richard 3 and as you like it was difficult for me, by William shake spear. Another book(that was one of my passages for practice MCAT) was Villette by Charlotte Bronte. I read like 4-5 more for practice but most of my reading for the MCAT was done online passages(Around 120 I read) for the MCAT CARS section. Be my guest if you would like to read them, all quite interest articles, and you must be able to analyze them. You can get the practice MCAT test for free on many websites." Thanks. I am planning on taking the MCAT after grad school if I do not land a job I want. Earning a PhD can hurt you in the job market as businesses do not hire doctorates because 1. They are hard to train 2. Can't work well with others 3. Lack social skills 4. If you put a bunch of them in a room all they do is argue and get nothing done. There are other reasons why but those are some qualities of doctorates. I have seen them first hand. I push to not have those qualities as I do other activities (such as be an official for sports both at high school and college). But still, if I cannot get a job I feel that I can move up in and earn a high salary eventually I will go to med school because I know what I am worth. And before you call me someone who is greedy I want to earn more money so I can do what I want with it to help others as in donate. My friend has a charity and I will help them out with it. "Not really, in fact, you usually just start arguing semantics and never actually cite information that is useful to the debate. You kept citing things to the 97% consensus argument even though that had nothing to do with the argument for me." I bring up the 97% because that is the major issue I have with climate change. If you do not support that 97% stat than I really do not have a problem at that point. But when you attack me and my other comments are concerning the 97% stat it does give the allusion that you are supporting that data as well.
    1
  38. Piers, I do not see the links. Sometimes they do not post. At that point they should list titles. " If the majority of the american people can survive at the bare minimum, as in own a one bedroom apartment and are able to afford the very basics without having to rely on food stamps or other government programs or multiple jobs, then that is the wage we should be striving for. " Why do you think people should live on their own? You do not get what you want. Sometimes you have to get roommates. I earn $23,000 a year. A $15/hr min. wage is around $30,000 a year, before taxes. That is plenty to live off of if you play your cards right.
    1
  39. Ro, you feel he kicked ass because you already agree with him in the beginning. I have had many debates with Jonathan and he never gives sources, he goes to childish insults (he calls me a high schooler), and he backpedals on his claims. And if you really think he is a doctor than you are crazy.
    1
  40. zwerie256, Exxon is doing a lot of PR with that first comment. "Going green" is the popular thing for many so that is how they are advertising. It wasn't in the past but it is now with the new generation becoming adults. The generation from the 90s grew up watching shows like Captain Planet and being taught about pollution being bad and global warming being dangerous. This is why we have people acting like radicals on the issue. The reality is that private companies know investing in technology is the future, they always felt like that. Exxon helped fund the San Gorgonio wind pass. To think that "big oil" is all about polluting and is against progress is asinine. They are a company there to make money and to do so they will invest in the future. But they will do so in a way that won't hurt their company at the same time. The government, on the other hand, has not profit motive and thus they are not as conscientious in what they do and will, at times, cater to their special interest groups. That is the problem we have no with government being involve in this issue. They are using it now to create an excuse to raise taxes and regulations. But as a whole to think that businesses and "big oil" do not care about the issue or do not care about progress is asinine. They do. They just have a more strategic way in handling it which is what we need.
    1
  41. Yes. Many companies do this. "Green energy" is the thing these days and oil has been the enemy after the BP spill. It is to make Exxon look good. They agree that we should progress, but it is a balance of looking good and progressing without going radical and destroying the economy and market.
    1
  42. Piers, I do not see the link. Some times they do not show up for some people. I have stated that and he acknowledge it. At that point he can give me the title and authors of the sources. . I have looked on two computers, one at home and one at my work (a university lab). If you look at my other comment threads I have acknowledge sources and at times quoted from them if others gave them to me. So I am not ignoring anything. How about you tell me the titles and authors of the sources.
    1
  43. zweirgie256, it isn't so much that anyone is lying. It is how they are presenting it. The political left sees climate change as a way to gain a political edge with fear. And through that they are buying votes and using it as an excuse to raise taxes and regulations. Scientists are presenting data and in reality the vast majority of them are not taking a stance which is why Bill Nye is the only "scientist" the left can get to talk about it in the media. The liberal media is trying to grow in ratings. Exxon is trying to sell a product and progress as a company. The radical left as in politicians and media try to paint "big oil" as being bad. In reality Exxon, like other oil companies, push to conserve resources. I was talking to an environmental engineer who works for BP in Louisiana and he told me a part of his job is to use every drop of oil they extract from the ground in some way as oppose to just throwing away what was once perceived as waste. The idea that "big oil" just wants to pollute the water and air is a myth. They want to grow and conserve resources. But the liberal media and politicians do not present it that way. So Exxon has to release what they do on the website to cater to the tree huggers on the coast. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. The issues are 1. How much is man playing a role? 2. Is it even bad? Exxon and most scientists realize that so they push for progress without destroying the economy or market. Politicians and the media are not pushing for that though as they have nothing to lose. So Exxon does what they do strictly for PR.
    1
  44. TheHealthPhysicist, it depends on topic. If it is healthcare "big pharma" pays me by letter. In climate change "big oil" pays me by comment. On gun debates the NRA pays me by word. I have many contracts from radical right winger support groups who main job is to destroy mankind and the earth.
    1
  45. Daniel, I realize that and I do not support it. That is one reason why I many supported Trump as he brought that up as well and how it is a problem. Money in politics is another topic in itself we can discuss if we want.
    1
  46. I support higher education as I work in a university. I want more people to go to the STEM fields and develop more skills.
    1
  47. List of courses I passed Physics: Undergrad Classical Mechanics Optics Quantum E&M Electronics Modern Physics Computational Phyics Grad: Quantum I&II E&M I&II Stat Mech Classical Mechanics Math Methods Chemistry: Undergrad P. Chem I&II O-Chem I&II Inorganic Analytical Grad: P.Chem The F-elements Spectroscopy Kinetics I am pretty knowledgeable when it comes to science. I am sure climatology is a course I can teach myself if needed.
    1
  48. I have an abundant amount of science courses under my belt and experience in it. If needed I can study climatology and work in that field if needed. "the basic philosophy is that the scientific consensus must be overturned with peer reviewed evidence" That is not how it works.
    1
  49. When you get to grad school there comes a point in time where you no longer take courses and do research. One reason why is because you should be able to teach yourself without a guide as you would need in a course.
    1
  50. Piers, I see the links. What are you concluding here? Reading the Columbia and do not see what you are trying to show me? The one from 1955 talks about CO2 and how it can contribute to the warming of the earth, something that no one denies. The one from John Hopkins says that "human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century." And says the warming trend will take several centuries. That is from the abstract alone. Reading the paper it gives an ever more vague interpretation as says the issue is complex. I can't read the other two as for some reason I cannot log into Web of Science in my home computer. I will read them at work as I can access anything from my work computer (it is on a university). But again, what is your point?
    1
  51. "That's NOT conservation, that's profit maximization. " I know, but a part of that is limiting waste. Consider this, even is they had waste, why would they just dump it into the river as many on the left claim? That will hurt the local environment which will hurt business. Disposing of waste in a way that will not hurt the area around them is a way businesses practice. "You think Exxon is trying to sell progress as a company? Did you actually just say that? If they were interested in progress they would be channeling all their R&D into renewable energy, " They have. They help fund the San Gorgonio wind farm. " Germany is well on it's way to making renewables viable, profitable, " They have actually increased emission as a result as they went too radical. "and when that happens people like you will be left with their mouths gaping open while the US is left in the economic dust as they sell the technology to the rest of the world. " If we fall behind it is because of too many government regulations. For example, to create solar cells you need elements from mines such as the f-elements since they can do up and down conversion of light. But it takes years to open a mine in the US so we can't get them. In China, though, with limited regulations they have cornered the market of f-elements and thus do a lot of research in it. The exact same regulations that are designed to "save the earth" are hurting production in terms of research and innovation. To develop these alternative forms of energy we need to use fossil fuels. "Once again you failed to comment on the FACT that Exxon knew since the 70s about anthropomorphic climate change and engaged in a massive disinformation campaign - COMMENT ON THAT!!!" That was from the 70s. I am concerned what is happening now. I cannot speak for Exxon from the 70s nor do I care. Why do you want to live in the past?
    1
  52. Piers, at times links do not show up. I have provided links to some and others claim they have not seen them. You provided the link and I saw them. And when I saw them I read them and acknowledge them. "Actually its pretty clear that man-made climate change may be one of the biggest contributers. " That paper says "may" and says the issue is complex.
    1
  53. "The extra CO, released into the atmosphere by industrial processes and other human activities may have caused the temperature rise during the present century. In contrast with other theories of climate, the CO, theory predicts that this warming trend will continue, at least for several centuries." " The factors that influence the CO, balance are so complex that the CO, amount must have varied over a wide range through geological history. The problem is to be able to determine the atmospheric CO, concentration for past geological periods. We would then know one of the most important factors that determined the climate of that epoch. " http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/epdf You need to read your own sources.
    1
  54. Piers, your own sources are not making the claim you are.
    1
  55. zwergie256, that was in the 70s, I care about now. https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/german-carbon-emissions-rise-2016-despite-coal-use-drop
    1
  56. "No I believe the scientific literature agrees with me, and that's all I cited and was arguing. " And I am not seeing the links. Piers sent me links and I acknowledge them, even quoted from them. If I see them I will acknowledge them and showed it. "and you only gave 1 source which was that single economic study which didn't even study healthcare" It is a collection of sources that you can read for yourself. And it discussed healthcare as it ran through the numbers. You have yet to explain how it does not study healthcare. It ran through the cost of healthcare and the outcomes of those varying countries. "I called you a fraud because you made numerous mistakes throughout simple concepts." Nope, never have. " Read back to the articles we argued, you didn't even understand proportion" Nope, I fully understand it. "Never did, you had poor reading comprehension skills when reading. Again practice that, you are going to need it if you want to stand a chance with the MCAT." Pretty sure I will do fine on the MCAT as I did well on the GRE and my grad studies and I have three peer reviewed papers. And I will be soon working on my thesis. "Studying to be a physician, and of course call him crazy! The person who listed clear arguments with clear evidence that everyone understands is obviously the one not in science. The person who lists arguments that has no relevance in the scientific fields obviously is the one who is telling the truth. " What are you talking about? You have presented little to show that you understand science. You said science proves things. And when I showed you that was not the case you backpedaled. And you claim to list sources but I do not see them, even though I see them from other people. And I have said that if the link is not showing than you list the titles and authors which you have not done. I also mentioned spectroscopy and felt that what is taught in biochemistry courses is sufficient in spectroscopy when it isn't (there is a reason why there are grad level courses on the issue). I have a feeling your reading comprehension skills are poor. But keep pretending that you are going to be a doctor. You cannot even give me titles and authors of your sources.
    1
  57. JK Clark, in order for a company to succeed they have to push for the greater good of the people, especially in the internet days. To think that "big oil" will just pollute the environment is ignorant. Look at the backlash that happened to BP after the spill there. There stock took a massive hit and they still haven't recovered yet. It might help you to do a little research.
    1
  58. John, a company has to attract customers and keep them coming back. If they don't they will fail. For as bad as you think "big oil" or Walmart are, I have never seen any of them use a gun to force you to give them your money and use their services. Government does. Government is also around $20 trillion in debt. What company is allowed to do that? It isn't my fault that you failed as a person.
    1
  59. zwergie256, how many tobacco companies force their customers to use their product? All they do is give people what they want.
    1
  60. People now that smoking is bad. People know that drinking Pepsi is bad. Drew Brees sponsored Pepsi. If I drink it does that mean that I will be an NFL hall of fame QB? Or maybe I should know better and know that Pepsi is not healthy for me? Oh, I forgot. You crazy liberals need the government to tell you everything as you can't think for yourself.
    1
  61. Jonathan, you are on an roll tonight. I just realized another flaw with you. You stick to your echo chamber where I am willing to go into hostile grounds. You are really falling apart here. What you did in your last comment by calling me a fake and saying others (on a liberal video BTW) agree with you is deflect again. Why can't you form an intelligent argument? And why can't you accept reality? Trump won. "Popular" Bernie rallied against Trump but Trump won.
    1
  62. boyishdude1234, here is your argument in short: You called me stupid without justification and you tell me to leave meaning you can't handle what I say as it goes against your firmly held belief.
    1
  63. The actual min. wage is $0. You are paid based on what you produce. It is up to you to find a way to make a living.
    1
  64. boyishdude1234, if you know the history between Jonathan and myself he has made many ad homonym attacks towards me by claiming I am a high schooler (I am not), claiming I do not want to help poor people, or claiming I was rich (I am not). So it goes both ways. But when you use terms to display economic illiteracy then yes, calling them that is justified. No different then when Bernie Sanders showed he does not understand collateral in comparing student loans to home loans. " As for minimum wage is $0, that argument makes no sense. Its not exactly a minimum wage if you are not getting money. All jobs in this country have to pay you something," Not true. Ever heard of unpaid internships? You do not get paid money in that.
    1
  65. My other point is that climate scientists do not fully understand every area of science. Same goes for physicists, chemists, biologist, etc. Putting full trust in climate scientists alone is rather foolish.
    1
  66. Hermes, what have I said that was wrong?
    1
  67. The issue I see here is when he is put on the spot he cannot defend himself mainly because he knows little on the topic. Nye ran a career by working on a scripted TV show. Here he deflected to his talking points. This is why Nye has not gone beyond scripted TV as opposed to Happer who has a PhD. AS a doctorate candidate myself I know that I have to be on my toes and be fully aware of the issues related to my field as I can be asked anything and should be able to speak about it on a drop of a hat. Nye clearly does not understand the issue of climate change beyond talking points.
    1
  68. "You're putting an odd amount of focus on just one part of Bill's career when he's done much more than just that" I teach at a university as well. Teaching remedial science is not that challenging. That is the level of expertise of Nye though. He never specialized in any field at all. He is a good source to go to for remedial science, but beyond that you should go someplace else. "as well as point out how the topic they were bringing up in the debate could be better and more properly shown to their viewers by actually interviewing the main people studying the field instead of making it yet another debate?" Like Bill Nye? Oh......wait. He does not study the field. Fact is that Nye deflects because he wants to get to his talking points. People support investing in new technology and progressing our future. I have seen nothing that indicates that people do not support that. People just want to go away from the climate change scare. Invest in science and technology that progresses society, not another Solyndra. "While the Host here is making it clear that when something gets proven wrong, it shouldn't keep coming back to a debatable issue but something to expose and examine as is to deal with it to make it right." One, science does not prove anything. Next, the is still a debate on climate change. The issue is not settled as the vast majority of scientists do not take a position on it. Anyone who cites the 97% stat, like Nye did, is deflecting from the actual discussion.
    1
  69. "I highly doubt you teach anywhere" I teach physics and chemistry at a university. Does not matter if you doubt that, my paycheck comes to me for that reason. ", go look at the thousands of peer reviewed and published case studies surrounding the points Nye will and has made. Go look at other debates where he does go into detail about the topic of climate change and continue to call it remedial. " Which ones? Maybe you can point them out to me. " I guarantee his study in this field would run laps around the level of reading you have done in the arena." I have three peer reviewed papers, three more than he has. " I think you enjoy arguing to a fault and hold little interest in any sort progress." I support progress. Nye support stroking his ego.
    1
  70. "You are completely capable of finding these yourself," So you refuse to give me any reference at all. Maybe I should look at the Steven Crowder video where he criticized Nye on the gender spectrum. Or maybe it is the fact that they do not exist since you can't find them.
    1
  71. ""One, science does not prove anything." ... You being serious? I know there's a process to go with it, but this comes off as a poor choice of words when you claim to teach physics and chemistry yourself." http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html I am done with you.
    1
  72. "Call it what you will...But a teacher at a university should have no problem finding information pertaining to the issue at hand here. I certainly had no trouble, but then again, I have no issue using google...Maybe you are not familiar with the search engine. Its actually really easy to use!! " The fact is that you say there are many sources to look at. If you make that claim you should be able to give a better response than "look it up". My Steven Crowder example was to show that if I were to just look it up I can find resources that discredit and rip on Bill Nye going against what you are saying. The simple fact that you cannot give me links or titles to look up shows that you lack credibility. "Certainly among intellectual thinkers will this line of reasoning get you laughed out of the room," Actual intellectual thinkers will give you names and reference to look at. They will not just say "look it up". "ude seriously though, go read about it before you talk, " Read what? The Bible? A report by Fox News? Pat Robertson's website? What should I read? If you are an intellectual as you claim you should immediately know a handful of sources to look at. When I have discussion with my colleagues and I tell them to look up something I give them names and title of references or books. I do not tell them to "look it up". I give them what to look up. You are really projecting with your comment.
    1
  73. "Guy attacks Bill Nye for not being a climate change denier." I attacked him for deflecting and going to his talking points as opposed to sticking to the topic at hand. Nye has spent a career working on scripted shows. When he is placed in a debate like this he resorts to pre-planned talking points. "Guy claims to be a physics and chemistry teacher at university." Yes, I taught both subjects. Right now I teach physics. "Guy claims to be a "doctorate candidate" [sic!] despite having obvious difficulties with English grammar and spelling." Writing is my weakest skill. My adviser and committee members know it. I plan on spending the next year working on my writing skills and presenting skills. My research skills is near the top in my field and my knowledge is above average. My writing skills is what I will work on next. You may criticize my grammar but can you explain how an ultrafast laser works? Or quantum entanglement? Or quantum coherence? I focused my talents elsewhere. "Guy also mentions that he is watching Steve Crowder." I watch multiple sources. You watch Secular Talk. Kyle refuses to debate Steve. I disagree with many things Crowder days, but at least he is willing to debate people and not work in his echo chamber. "Who could blame me for laughing out loud?" Whatever makes you feel good.
    1
  74. Why would I cite where I work? So you can stalk me?
    1
  75. May the Science be with You, the political left has gone insane. It is rather fun to watch them go down in flames and show how stupid they are like how you just acted. You got triggered by my comment and you are telling me to "get lost". How liberal of you.
    1
  76. Here is how the political left has gone insane. They call everything they disagree with a racist, bigot, homophobe, science denier, or many other names. They refuse to have any actual intelligent conversation but instead just name call if you disagree with their firmly held belief. Take science for example. The left is calling the right "anti-science" when the left supports 1. The gender spectrum (but also calls gender a social construct) 2. GMO 3. anti-vaxxers On on climate change, if you question them in anyway they call you anti-science. The left feels that the government is the sole answer to solving climate change when many on the right do not. But if you feel that the government is not the solution to the problem you get called a science denier which makes zero sense. People called Trump a sexist and racist, the same person who allowed a black woman to live in one of his hotels for free to protect her after her family was murdered. And look at the radical protests and Berkeley. I am a moderate, and as a moderate I have seen that when both sides get down into details on the issues the left mainly appeals to emotions and the right gives facts, data, statistical analysis, and gives all their sources and methods for you to read and criticize. The left does not due that nearly as often. And if you do criticize them they do what you do, tell them to "get lost". Yes, the left has become radical. You need to pull a page from the Clinton years, a time when Democrats worked with others and stop the sinking ship now. Please, I support many policies on the left, but I cannot support the group when they are full of ignorant fools.
    1
  77. Also a) Kyle is a radical. Anyone who supports Bernie is either a radical or just ignorant. And there is a correlation between intelligence and income. Those with more income typically vote republican. And if you know anything about politics you would know that you have to win by attracting moderates. There is a reason why democrats lost a lot, they have become to radical. b) I find this ironic considering the 97% consensus is purely cherry picked.
    1