Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "EPA Head Won't Say Climate Change Is A Threat 'In Any Way'" video.

Fossil fuels are still the best source of energy we have. We should move towards "green energy" but we have to let it happen gradually. We can't force it as there are many workers that still depend on fossil fuels, and at the industrial level fossil fuels is necessary. Calling "green economy" the next gold rush is false as the gold rush was a get quick rich scheme where many people failed as they did not strike gold. Green energy takes much more time and will benefit a lot more people, but it has to come gradually.
3
"Are you ever going to review videos from Potholer54 channels I referenced for you?" I have seen many potholer54's videos. He is a journalist, not a scientist. He has never published any scientific work in his life. He is not better qualified at presenting the issue then anyone else on Youtube. And his presentation in his videos displays that he 1. has a remedial understanding of science at best (he drew a CO2 molecule with single bonds instead of double bonds, very careless of him) 2. He is very condescending which makes it hard to take him serious 3. He goes after easy targets. When pressed about a video by Ivar Giaever his comment was "I'm interested to know why you are confused. This guy is an expert in electron tunneling in semiconductors, he has never published or even studied climatology in his life. If he said you can catch herpes from eating margarine would you believe him, simply because he's a Nobel laureate? People seem to have this belief that as soon as someone wins a Nobel prize he must be an expert in every branch of science he's never studied, and I don't know where they get that idea." What he did there was completely avoid discussion on the topic by pulling a logical fallacy. He criticized Steven Crowder for not wanting to debate him but when he is pressed himself he dodges the topic. While he does present many peer reviewed references in the end the issues with climate change are 1. How much is man playing a role? 2. Is it even bad? The references potholer54 gives don't even give definitive answers to those questions as you will be hard pressed to find a scientist to give definitive answers to those questions. potholer54 has become an annoyance in Youtube because alarmists are praising him when he, himself is not really an alarmist. But he rarely calls them out and goes after people he perceives to be deniers who are a dying breed at this point. Almost everyone accepts climate change and accepts that many is playing a role. The alarmists are the problems. "Why on earth would you reference Hollywood movies? (WTAF?) They aren't real. You do know movies aren't real-life, correct?" I know, it just displays that the fear mongering of climate change and global warming has been happening for decades. The fear mongering hinders progress. No different then how the religious right has stood in the way of progress because of their religious beliefs, fear mongering from the left on climate change is standing in the way of progress. "Who cares what Bernie personally knows about science? Bernie is a politician. " That misrepresents science but yet people follow him and believe the words he says. "Sheesh, always on about Bernie, Bernie, Bernie......can you talk about anything else?" Bernie is showing how radical the left has become. The fact that he won states in the primaries is scary for the democratic party as they are becoming extremists at this point. When the democrats were moderates they were great. Bill Clinton was a great president and he was a moderate. Here we are around 20 years later and we have people pushing Bernie to run again. In 1994 Herman Cain and Bill Clinton had a discussion on healthcare. During that discussion both Cain and Clinton ran through numbers. Clinton had his numbers, was respectful and at the very least pretended to seem to care about Cain's business. Even though I agreed with Cain in the end Clinton had an approach I can respect. During the Cruz vs Sanders debate Sanders was approach with a similar question from a hair salon owner. Sanders' response was simply "screw you, pay up". He showed no concern for the business owner nor had any facts or data to back up his ides. The fact that guy won states in the primaries is scary for the democrats. At this point he is not going away and the democrats need to just give it up in 2020 and run him so he can get beat, badly, to Trump showing people that no one wants socialism and then push for a more moderate candidate in 2024. Essentially, Bernie set the democrats 8 years. "At least Bernie understands what the word "consensus" means - How well do you think Trump understands science?? Or really anything for that mater?" Trump is a very intelligent individual. You don't have that much success in the private sector without being intelligent. People who view him as incompetent are projecting. He understands what he is doing. As far as the "consensus" is concerned that has been debunked long ago. It was based on selected publications with vague interpretations. But again, none of them are saying that climate change is a major threat to our planet. Bernie is making that claim, scientists aren't. " Trump was GIVEN $300 Million and is now over 1 BILLION in debt to Wall-street and couldn't find his way out of a paper-bag with out assistance from his wanton hoard of non-scientific and selfishly-motivated "Yes-Men" and WILL likely be going to jail." Trump is not in debt. "There is actual, real, tenable, verifiable evidence for you to learn, if you could just come off you high-horse and have a look around - even if just a little." I have seen the evidence.
3
MRM 70, fascists offer universal healthcare as a means to control the population, same with universal education. If the government controls those entities they essentially control you. That is not to say that government can't provide things, but the people have to be able to control the government. Right now we have a corrupt federal government but people still want to give it the power to control our healthcare and education. What makes you think it won't become more corrupt? Also, with this Paris Agreement this is even more fascist as it gives the president too much power. The president can change what they want which can change our economy.
3
I don't want to use federal funds to subsidize fossil fuels or renewable energy.
2
kickinitwithmydawg, what you said is intelligent. I wonder why so many liberals support the Paris Agreement when they essentially have zero say in what is in it. To me it gives the president too much power as the current president and future president can back out of it or join at any time changing our economy.
2
Blake Miller, with ultra liberals at that point that is what it is. People who support the idea that climate change is happening but feel it is not a major threat or will create a catastrophe is the same as denying it. The ultra left has become that extreme because they are running out of policies to win support. Their economic policies are a failure so they run on social policies that do not exist. In the past we had people who denied climate change, and they were a problem. Those people are the extreme minority as the majority on the right understands climate change is happening, an that man is contributing. But do not accept that it is a major threat. It is the same with racism and sexism. In the past they were a problem, but now actual racists and sexist are the extreme minority to where democrats can't run on that issue anymore. It has gone to the point of when you opposed Obama you are a racist or when Trump talks about how he does not find women with small tits attractive then he is a sexist. With climate change, if you feel it is a not a threat, which essentially no scientist says it is, then you are considered anti-science.
2
Son Goku, what makes you think climate change is that much of a threat? What evidence do you see? What is so out of the norm that there seems to be a threat right now? I see nothing right now. People have been pushing for decades saying that we need to stop polluting or the earth will fall apart. Ever seen Independence Day? Jeff Goldblum's character was freaking out about recycling and saving the earth. Ever seen Waterworld? It was based on the icecaps melting. Ever seen the kid's show Dinosaurs in the early 90s? Their last episode was about changing nature and destroying the planet. What about Captain Planet? In all of that I just mentioned it has always been about fear mongering and how the world is on fire and we are all going to die unless we do something extreme. But in the end we have been fine. Can we pollute the earth to death? Yes. But as of right now we aren't. There has always been droughts. There has always been floods. There has always been extreme cases of weather. The climate has been changing for over 4 billion years but yet we continue to be fine and life continues to flourish. Also, Bernie Sanders has admitted to not doing well in science. And the only "scientist" he has had to talk to him about the issue of climate change is Bill Nye. I would not point to Bernie as a source on this issue.
1
Ttocs Drow, you did not read my entire comment. potholer54 is what he is, a journalist. So right away you have to question him. Not saying that what he says can't be true or correct. But he is not an expert in his field. No considering the facts that I listed, as in him being condescending and going after easy targets. And when pressed he dodges the issue, I can't take him seriously. He rips on Steven Crowder but when Crowder had an actual scientist on his show potholer54 is nowhere to be seen. potholer54 is a journalist, not a scientist. He is also not an educator. You have to be cautious about how you get information from.
1
Ttocs Drow, at times I can't see comments for reasons I am too busy to care about. I saw part of your comment in the email and that's it. The part I saw had you acting in a somewhat arrogant way. But I see your new comment in its entirety. "Why? Why must he be questioned? Please demonstrate where any data, outside what can only be described as simple clerical error, is incorrect empirically please." I never denied the data. The point is that alarmists point to him as some sort of expert when in the end he is a journalist. Also, he does not call out alarmists who are the real problem right now with climate change. You will be hard pressed to find a scientist argue that climate change is a major catastrophe and a threat to this planet. "That guy has close to 200 videos, amounting to something like 1000 hrs. most on climate change and causation which are data based, including the religious whom believe a "god" will fix everything, and the best you can do is find him guilty of not drawing carbon correctly and "avoiding" the literal comedian Ivar Giaever??" Calling out people who claim that God will fix everything is pointless because climate change deniers are a dying breed. Many on the right, including Pruitt and potholer54's favorite boy Steven Crowder admits it is happening, and that man is contributing. Just basic thermodynamics says that. The issues remain are how much is man contributing and is it even bad? But, potholer54 is doing the equivalent of a all state high school basketball player playing basketball with a midget. That all state player is pretty good, probably not good enough to go to college. But he will dominate against a midget. potholer54 is going after easy targets. However, Crowder has had an actual scientist on his show and potholer54 is no where to be seen. Also, Ivar Giaever is not a "comedian", he has a PhD and works in physics. If I am going to take you seriously you have to at the very least respect his credentials. But with potholer54 he avoids challenging individuals that are actual scientists as he would not be able to match wits with them. Thus he acts in a condescending way in order to mask his inabilities. "Why dont you rip on Giaever? You quote has potholer saying (Correctly) that he is a physicist and is unlearned on climate change." That quote was from potholer54. So based on his reasoning potholer54 is a journalist and thus is unlearned on climate change. Now to answer your question I am not concerned about Dr. Giaever as the discussion is about potholer54 and his inabilities. And when pressed on the issues when actual scientists give their opinions he dodges the issue. "Do you believe Giaever should be given a chance to argue his case with irrelevant experience and without the proper body of knowledge from a completely unrelated field required in order to properly portray?" Again, potholer54 does not have experience in the field either. He is a journalist. He has zero publications. You wanting to not take Dr. Giaever's opinion seriously because you feel he is "unlearned" in the issue but take potholer54's opinion seriously is a double standard on your part. "Do you think he may be entitled to an error or two?" Everyone can make errors. "So why have you not bothered to have him make a correction? " Because doing so will be a waste of time. Based on how he responded to that other person's comment it is clear that he is a person who will avoid a deep discussion on the topic and that he lacks knowledge of science beyond remedial courses. I can gather plenty of information and tear him apart, but at that point what is it worth? Even if I change his opinion that is just one guy and I gain nothing in the end. To me it is clear who he is and how his followers are ignorant beyond repair. "Please ask him a question and get back to me. He has responded to me on clarifications." Ask him what? I am a doctoral candidate in physical chemistry. I have a deeper understand of science then him. I am just pointing out double standards. I have responded to that comment he made about Dr. Giaever and he did not respond to me. I clearly saw his flaws and he ran away. He much rather take on people he feel are inferior to him as opposed to challenging himself. "So far, you have cited two things, easy targets upon one individual and another being condescending. These things are not contributors to him being unable to communicate with accuracy on his life-body of work." Again, he is a journalist, not a scientist. His "life-body of work" is regurgitating information that he reads. He hasn't done any actual research on climate change beyond reading some papers. " You also "believe" he dodged on an single issue but I can prove you have taken that out of context." He did dodge the issue. He is so set on going after deniers but he will not make a video about other scientists giving their opinions. "You cannot take him seriously because it would simply have you adjusting your narrative, which just shows again, you have no room for growth or betterment, in this area and are truly stuck in the mud, I kno those like you, unable to adjust old thinking, in the face of new evidence, really are the problem with the world." What is my narrative? Tell me. I am interested in hearing what you feel I am thinking. This would be interesting. "Again, he is accurately compiling facts from a vast body of knowledge difficult for the layman to compile as an individual." Interpreting facts is challenging and something he is OK at. But again, attacking deniers is an easy target. "He is an expert at climate change science journalism, which is what he does professionally and reports to others like you and I, except at a much higher government level audience." He is a journalist with a limited background in science. Climate science expands many fields beyond geology (his field of study). It expands over physics, chemistry, astronomy and so on. Subjects I am sure he has essentially no understanding of compared to people in those fields. Can he describe photosynthesis using quantum coherence? I doubt it. "But this is not good enough for you, because YOU somehow know the "truth", don'cha? Your truth is that C.C is "its no big deal". How very scientific minded indeed..........(HA!) I"m sorry to say sir, but you are wrong. " How am I wrong? What makes you think that climate change is a major catastrophe? What makes you think that the current climate change is a threat? You do know that the ecosystem can evolve, right? "On the other hand, you believe in a man whom cannot tell the truth in almost any way imaginable. " Who? "He didn't even realize it would be a hard job! " If you are talking about Trump that is every president. Ever noticed how every president comes in young and energetic and leaves beaten down? That is because they go in expecting a somewhat easy (subjectively) job but find out how stressful it is. You really don't know how hard something is until you do it. The fact he admits it shows how honest he is and why he won. He is not afraid to speak his mind. "He has already take more vacations at a far higher cost than other presidents" I am a firm believer that no president takes a vacation. "Even in the wake if last nights terror attack, only one tweet was presidential, saying the US will stand-by ready with aid if needed," Because we had one a couple weeks ago. Responding to every terror attack will get old real quick. How about the UK fix their own problems?
1
But again, potholer54 is not a scientist. He has never done research in the field of science nor has he ever published any peer reviewed sources. His understanding of science is remedial. You have to take that into account. And Dr. Giaever is not a "comedian". If you can't respect his credentials I can't take you serious.
1
" If almost every scientist believes it is real do you think they don't believe it is a threat? " I don't like to use the word "believe" in science, but scientists feel that fertilizer is good for plant growth. Does that mean it is a threat? The earth revolves around the sun, I guess that is a threat as well. Brushing your teeth reduces the chances for cavities. I supposed that is a threat as well. Just because something exist doesn't mean it is a threat.
1
Because you can't say that climate change is a threat as no scientist will ever make that definitive claim. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years, and a driving force in evolution is climate change. The ecosystem is complex and we know very little about it. It has gone through changes for billions of years. What makes people think it will all of a sudden stop evolving?
1
Regia, Carl Sagan died over 20 years ago. Also, Sagan said that the Kuwait oil fires would lead to agriculture failures when it didn't. "but about altering the environment in a way it wouldn't have happened suddenly (natural)." What's natural? And what makes you think that the ecosystem can't adjust?
1
Maximum X, climate change, like evolution, has no set time scale. It can happen in a short amount of time or over millennia. I suggest you study some more science.
1
Maximum X, the entire world has been changing for over 4 billion years. Are you a young earth theorist or something?
1
Zucchina, scientists don't make definitive claims. Science allows for change. It isn't a religion.
1
Maximum, species have died off. Islands have disappear. That is apart of the changing ecosystem. Why don't you support the theory of evolution? Why are you so anti-science?
1
Maximum, I told you already I am a doctoral student in physical chemistry.
1
Answering questions with a simple yes or no is what a child does. In elementary schools they teach you to justify your answer with specifics and complete sentences. Pruitt does that, and what does Kyle proceed to do in criticizing Pruitt? he makes childish farting noises.
1
Karen, answering with just yes or no does not get into specifics. You ask me those questions I will answer the same way. You look at the issue of the Paris Agreement many know that climate change is happening, they just feel the agreement is bad economically. So if you were to ask one of those people "Do you think climate change is happening?" And they say yes, you can't just assume they support the Paris Agreement. Just like if you were to ask "Do you support the Paris Agreement?" And they said no does not mean they do not think climate change is happening. People who feel that those questions only requires a yes or no answer are, and this is not be rude, ignorant.
1
"You realize that you can say yes or no and then elaborate on an answer, right? " I depends. There are times it is a loaded question. Take the one you just wrote. If Pruitt says no then the left will rip him apart saying he is against the Paris Agreement simply because he does not believe in climate change. If Pruitt says yes then the left will say that Trump wants to destroy the earth or that he is dumb for going against the Paris Agreement. Simple minds think in simple terms. Right now people like Kyle and you are simple minded. Answering with yes or no will be used against Trump and Pruitt, so he found a creative way to correctly answer the question.
1
Karen, in politics you have loaded questions. In realty when you move up in anything in life there are loaded questions to play psychological mind games with people. It goes beyond politics. I see it in my doctoral work and as a sports official moving up to the Division I level and hopefully (this is a dream) the pro level I see it as well. People ask loaded questions that if you answer either yes or no both answer can be used against you. In politics you have a camera on you with a lot of scrutiny from both sides coming at you. You have to answer your questions carefully or people will use it against you. Someone like Kyle wanted a yes or no answer as it would have been easier for him to rip on Pruitt. But even at that he still found a way to rip on him.
1
Maximum X, read my most recent comment to Karen. Answer yes or now can be used against in either way. Someone like Kyle wanted a yes or no answer as it would have made it easier to rip on Pruitt. Pruitt answered the questions in an intelligent way and Kyle's only criticism was that "all he needed was a yes or no answer". He does not dissect the answer, he just ripped on Pruitt for not answer the way he wanted. "You support science deniers " I am actually a doctoral student in physical chemistry. I will link you the book I am reading right now. It is safe to say I do not deny science.
1
http://fulviofrisone.com/attachments/article/404/Boyd%20Nonlinear%20Optics,%20Third%20Edition.pdf Maximum, there is the book I have been reading lately.
1
Just rape itself? The answer is yes. But there are some laws were rape is legal in a sense, such as between two married people. That is when you have to elaborate. There are some questions that a simple yes or no is all you needed. If you were to ask me if jumping off of the Sears Tower with no way of resisting my fall (as in a parachute for example) will kill me the answer will be yes. But there are many questions that require an elaboration. As I showed you with your rape question example, there is a case it is legal which requires an elaboration.
1
Peter, rape can be subjective in some ways as there are gray areas. Married people can engage in what may be consensual at the beginning but a couple years later wasn't during a divorce settlement. That is why in some states there is no legal way someone can rape their spouse. " as for this question in particular pruit didnt answer it he was asked if climate change was a threat in any way" Again, it was a loaded question. If he said yes then people will question why they don't agree with the Paris Agreement. If he said no then people will feel they are against the Paris Agreement based on that alone. If he said yes he would have to break down how he does not feel it is that large of a threat. Whether climate change is a threat is a vague question to ask as there is no definitive answer. Anyone jumping to a conclusion on the issue is foolish as a whole.
1
Peter, Pruitt said climate change is happening.
1
Maximum X, it is a loaded question. Let me answer the question: A: We need to monitor pollution in the environment and do so in a way that does not hurt our economy. We have made great progress for the past many years and will push to do so. We can't become extreme on this issue though. In my answer I accept the fact that we need to push for a clean environment. If we pollute too much it will have terrible results. But to simply say that climate change is a "threat" is a poor question to ask. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years but yet life and flourished during that time. What makes you think that the current situation is a threat? Can it become a threat? Maybe. But as of now we don't know. You are looking for a clear, definitive answer for a question that doesn't have one.
1