Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "EPA Head Keeps Spitting In The Face Of Science" video.

  1. He said you can't measure what degree man and CO2 are playing in climate change. That is true. You will be hard pressed to find a source that give a quantitative value on how much man is playing a role. What Chris Wallace is doing is playing a game of words. One, saying it is a "major" contributor is something you can't say for sure. And also, what if people like Wallace is wrong? It goes both ways.
    7
  2. J Hijinks, I study science for a living. I am a physical chemistry PhD candidate. The experiment you described is essentially in a closed system and does not represent the earth and atmosphere. The ecosystem is very complex and we know little about it (we don't have an accurate model for water for example). Simply burning gas in a trapped system, in reality, does not show anything. So again, you will be hard pressed to find a peer reviewed article that give a hard figure on how much man is playing a role in climate change. I only want you to know more.
    3
  3. The fundamental core of science is being skeptical. I guess you did not do well in science.
    2
  4. Austin P, I am a scientist and I can tell you are not a scientist. No scientist will give you are quantitative value on how much man is playing a role. That is the point Pruitt is making. His approach is moderate and will fall in line with scientist. Your approach, along with the left, is radical. I suggest you read some science journals.
    2
  5. "The Earth is a large enclosed system." Yes and no. There are areas were gas can be trapped easily and areas where it won't. And areas where it will be transformed. It all depends on where you are at. "Purely ignoring the data is extremely negligent" I am not ignoring it, I am questioning it and the methods that were used.
    2
  6. Highland Chicken, what journals? Again, peer reviewed is what I am looking for. But I will break down each on 1. Does not mention man's role 2. Does not mention to what degree man is playing a role 4. I would like to see the journal, also " more than 100% of the warming observed", really, more than 100%? 5. Again, does not mention man 6. More than 100%, really? 7. IPCC is an unreliable source as it is not held under the same scrutiny as peer reviewed sources. Try again
    2
  7. Highland Chicken, I want titles and journals. At the very least you have to give names, dates and journals in scientific citations. https://pubs.acs.org/userimages/ContentEditor/1246030496632/chapter14.pdf That is what I use.
    2
  8. On the Nature paper I see no quantitative value. They say "leads to an even higher confidence about human influence dominating the observed temperature increase since pre-industrial times" Which is science talk for "we refuse to give a hard value as we will get called out for it, but we will give a vague conclusion instead". I am reading the other reports as well and I see nothing that gives a quantitative value in how much man is playing a role. That is my point. You are giving me sources saying man is playing a role which I agree. But we do not know to what degree.
    2
  9. Ashlee Beck I never denied climate change. Thanks for being part of the problem
    2
  10. J Hijinks, he made a great argument. Wallace was asking if CO2 is a "primary" contributor. That is vague and is not a quantitative value. The reason why he did not give a hard value is because you will be hard pressed to find a scientist that will give a hard value. Wallace then went on to ask "what if you are wrong?". Well, what is people like Wallace or the political left is wrong? Fact is we can't measure how much man is playing a role. Pruitt gave a great rebuttal to a man asking broad questions.
    2
  11. Under the Bush administration funding for science went up.
    2
  12. Pruitt is right here. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. This is a major difference between the left and the right. The right knows there is an issue and we should look in to it. But you can't make a definitive claim on climate change as you be hard pressed to find a scientist to make such definitive claims that the left are making. But the left is running around screaming that the world is on fire and acting like radicals here. That is the difference. In reality the left is being really anti-science on this issue.
    1
  13. J Hijinks, apparently you never read a peer reviewed study on this topic. No scientist is making the claim the left is. They will lean towards what Pruitt is saying.
    1
  14. J Hijinks, I want peer reviewed sources. Not government sources.
    1
  15. In the first source I am not seeing any quantitative value from the peer reviewed sources, which I considered to be more credible than the UCSUAA, an organization I never heard of.
    1
  16. ON the UCSUAA source, it took til citation 5 to get to a peer reviewed source. So immediately I question it. And from there (it is science which has a high impact factor) I can't see them giving a hard value on how much man is playing a role. Now the source you cited say 90%, which came from the IPCC a questionable source. I say questionable because the UN is not reliable as it is not held accountable in the scientific community. Peer reviewed sources are (for the most part, some crap slips through). The other science source talks about the ozone but does not give a set value on how much man is playing a role on anything. So again, i want a peer reviewed source. A source held under scrutiny.
    1
  17. platypuss619, yes. How much is man playing a role as is it even bad? That is the issue and you will be hard pressed to find peer reviewed sources that will give a definitive answer to any one of those questions.
    1
  18. It is true. Pruitt is being the moderate here and the left is screaming bloody murder at him.
    1
  19. Isaiah, what did I say that was wrong?
    1
  20. When Wallace said "major" he gives no quantitative value because in reality no scientist has.
    1
  21. Violent Rose in The Dark, Pruitt admitted that temperatures are rising. Now why? And how much is man contributing to that?
    1
  22. J Hijinks, you will be hard pressed to find a scientist that will give a hard value on how much man is playing a role. I suggest you read some peer reviewed studies on it.
    1
  23. Highland Chicken, in your source where is the quantitative value of how much man is playing a role in climate change? You can't find it because no scientist will make that claim. "Yes we can (to an extent where nothing other than pure mathematics can be 100% proven) when 97% of the peer reviewed literature supports the claim" None of those peer reviewed sources give a hard number. I suggest you read them.
    1
  24. Ragnarok Sora, correlation does not equal causation. That is why no scientist is making the claim the political left is.
    1
  25. J Hijinks, why do you see a lot of smog in LA? Because it is basically in a bowl. In my hometown in the midwest we have flat land, so we don't smog check our cars as it is not a problem.
    1
  26. Heat and Serve, again, what degree is man playing a role in climate change. "main factor" is not a quantitative value. Is that 60% and the rest are 40%? That is what I mean. Also, where is your source.
    1
  27. Highland Chicken, I use ACS citation methods.
    1
  28. Ok, now how much is man playing a role?
    1
  29. Again, to what degree is man playing a role in climate change? That does not answer the question.
    1
  30. None of them said to what degree man is playing though.
    1
  31. I agree, how did Obama get in charge? Glad to see a logical man like Pruitt now in charge.
    1
  32. "instead of conservapedia go seek out the abstract portions of peer revewed analytics on the matter as well as metadata on the matter" I actually study science for a living and from the peer reviewed journals I read I have yet to see any that gives a quantitative value on how much man is playing a role.
    1
  33. BericD, I have read the peer reviewed sources. I have yet to see one give a quantitative value on how much man is playing a role. "The most basic of journals, articles, or basic web searches all provide quantitative values " No they don't. No scientist will put their neck out like that.
    1
  34. I don't read blogs, I read peer reviewed sources like PNAS for example.
    1
  35. Your first source is a government site, not peer reviewed. The second source I never heard of, I suggest you stop looking at blogs. None of those PNAS sources give the degree of which man is playing in climate change. You need to try again. And again, don't look at blogs. You clearly never read a single peer reviewed journal. By the way, I have three papers published in peer reviewed journals.
    1
  36. I really don't want to give out who I am on the internet. But one is in RSC, one is in JPCB, and one is in Physic Review A.
    1
  37. Rusty, I am a PhD candidate. " Established scientists have dozens of publications and credible scientists typically have over 100." Depends on the research. I have friends who do research in plasma and they have limited publications because they have limited access to instrumentation. At times when they get time on it it does not always work. So there is more to it than what you clearly know.
    1
  38. BericD, NASA is a government source that has been known not to be held up to the scrutiny of a peer reviewed journal. Also, the IPCC is even worse. I trust NASA over IPCC and even at that I question NASA. Their data is reliable, their interpretation is not always sound though. But a little suggestion for you, IPCC is not reliable at all as it it not peer reviewed and not scrutinized. "Yet again you don't seem to grasp the concept of how to check the references and view the data show therein." Yes I do as I do it for a living. How about you quote some of those sources for me to show me what I am missing. "So you've never heard of the American Association for the Advancement of Science?" Nope. Not relevant to my line of work.
    1
  39. BericD, again, how about you quote me some data and numbers from those PNAS papers.
    1
  40. Rusty, it is not a peer reviewed journal. It is not a source for grant money. It is simply an organization that really is not my concern. There are many organizations dedicated towards science but are not held up to any scrutiny. I have never heard of that organization by any of my colleagues or professors. Maybe I am too concerned about studying and researching science, on top of having a life outside of it that I don't care about frivolous organizations.
    1
  41. Rusty, I am starting to think you are reaching here. Have you ever done research in science yourself? Have you ever tried to publish in a peer reviewed journal? I doubt it.
    1
  42. Rusty I never heard of the "Journal of Science". Now if you mean Science, than yes, that is a prestige source. But I guarantee you they do not give a quantitative value on how much man is playing a role in climate change as Science will never publish such conclusions. Again, there are many science organizations. I get letters to join ACS all the time, I don't as I don't care. I do my research and move on. I have never heard of AAAS and I never heard of any of my professors or colleagues talk about it meaning it is irrelevant. Next time you try to pretend to be something you aren't online, pretend to be something that you actually have at least some basic knowledge of. "Journal of Science", really? Who calls it that? I looked up Journal of Science in google, it has an impact factor of 4.6. So it does exist, but it is not that prestige. 4.6 is OK, but Science has an impact factor of 34.6 to put it in perspective. So I will admit, Journal of Science does exist, but it is also a source I never heard of as I do not cite from it nor will publish in it. And it is not the "second most prestige scientific journal on the fucking planet" as you put it.
    1
  43. "Well if you do it for a living, how about you show that you understand how to click on a simple link and click on a simple reference as well" I do, I want peer reviewed sources. In what you quoted it does not say how much man is playing a role in climate change. That is the whole point. You have numbers but none of them says how much man is playing a role. You are coming at me like I am a climate change denier just because I don't buy into the whole green energy policies and I feel there are other factors involved in climate change and that man is just one of many variables. In reality I am the moderate one here that says man is playing a role, we just do not know to what degree thus we should not destroy our economy for something we are so unsure of. You say your provided evidence but it is all evidence I have read. I am not denying what you provided, I have read a lot. But I have yet to see a peer reviewed source that gives a quantitative value saying to what degree man is playing a role climate change. Until you do that I am the one that is correct in this argument.
    1
  44. I never heard of the AAAS. I get letters from ACS all the time but never heard of the AAAS from anyone. I suggest you study science some more. You cannot even answer my basic question, how much is man playing a role in climate change? You have yet to provide a source for that.
    1
  45. "When this obvious fraud said the AAAS was a "frivolous organization" I literally almost pissed myself laughing. " Never heard of it. Maybe I should ask around to day at work. But by reading your comments it is clear you two have a bias. Here is the issue, you are so set on that idea that man is having a large impact on the climate that you become perturbed when someone suggests that is not the case. You care coming at me with the thought that I feel man is not playing a role at all when I reality I said they are. The issue is to what degree are they impacting the climate? I asked for peer reviewed sources that give a quantitative value to what degree man is impacting climate change and you have not provided anything. Also, with more research the AAAS does publish in Science, not the Journal of Science. I about pissed myself laughing at the fact that you can't even call the journals by their proper name? With more research they are associated with Science, so they are not a frivolous organization. I just never got involved as I have no reason to. I suggest you learn the actual journal names first. Maybe that is why there is a disconnect between me wanting peer reviewed sources and you not providing them.
    1
  46. Rusty, here is the fact. You called Science the Journal of Science. I doubt you ever heard of the AAAS before yesterday. I have heard of Science. I have an issue from Science on my desk right now. So I immediately know you are just googling things when I know the actual journals of where to look. This conversation is over the second you called Science the Journal of Science.
    1
  47. It does say that. So what's your point?
    1
  48. I am still waiting for quantitative values on how much man is playing a role in climate change.
    1
  49. BericD, you are trying to discredit me as a scientist because you refuse to answer my question. Where is the quantitative value showing what degree man is playing in climate change?
    1
  50. " even though you claim to read their publications. " I read numerous books, I don't read who publishes them.
    1
  51. "You also lack the knowledge about how to check any of the links I've provided or their footnotes." I checked them, I have read them. I still am not receiving the answer I want because it does not exist, period. Climate change is real. Man is playing a role. Now the questions are how much is man playing a role and is it even bad? You will never find definitive answers to those questions. That is why this conversation is over because you, like most ultra liberals, do not understand the question nor science and you labeled me as being a climate change denier or someone who does not read up on science when I do for a living. Guess what? Scientists do not act like radicals like you and the ultra left does on these issues.
    1
  52. Jonathan, the fact is that I am not a fraud, I do study science for a living and I do understand it more than others on this comment page. One person called Science the Journal of Science. They do not even know the name of the journals. They are jumping up and down that I did not know the AAAS, which is one of many organizations out there. Bu they did not know any journals. " Again if you are asking for 100% concrete answers in science, you aren't going to get them" I agree, and that is my point. Climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. There is so much in doubt when it comes to climate change as in how is man playing a role and is it even bad? Wallace asked Pruitt what if he was wrong? I ask the same question to the left. What if we do their clean energy plan which will hinder economic growth and kill jobs. And afterwards there is not improvement in the environment? Now what? Now we have a bad economy on top of our problems. I am all for doing research in green energy and using it more and more, and we are doing that. I have friends who do research in it. The issue is that we can't force it which is what the left is trying to do. Pruitt admits that man is playing a role, and in reality the political right supports science research in the area. They don't want to force the issue when so much doubt exists. "The reality is, in the scientific field, we are extremely limited because while we attempt to control for as many variables as possible, we can never control all of them" I agree,I fall into the same problem with my research. "So most likely, we will never have a 100% concrete answer to the answer you are asking." I am not looking for the 100% concrete answer. I wanting people to understand that scientists are not saying what the political left is. The political left is giving definite answers where scientists aren't. "As a person in the medical field who actually knows something about science, I have to ask when I see you in videos. Why do you pretend to be something you aren't? It's evident that you know nothing of scientific literature, yet you continue to act like you have expertise in it. Is it to make yourself feel better? Does claiming to be a PhD candidate make yourself feel like someone who should have the right to an opinion? " Because the fact is that I am a PhD candidate in physical chemistry. I read scientific literature on a daily basis and have three papers that are published and I am working on three more. You claim that I am a fraud but have no proof for that. I like to educate people, the problem is they are so bias they become resistant. I have a degree in physics, one in chemistry. I have taken advanced courses in inorganic chemistry, quantum mechanics, optics, stat mech, E&M, and so on. I have passed my qualification exams. Fact is that I do study science for a living and if you are a scientist yourself you will side with me and Pruitt's opinion. He is not saying we should not go after green energy, neither am I. He is not saying we should ignore climate change, neither am I. The political left, though, and simply because of politics, have become extreme on the issue where scientists are not extreme on the issue at all. That is the reality. "I always try to warn people that you are a fake but looking up at the comments," Where you have no proof that I am. " I won't really post to you anymore, but it's rather sad that you keep trying to keep this facade up. I don't know who you are, but I hope one day, you get past this fake personality."" Nope, in about a year I will defend and earn my PhD. I will find a nice paying job. In 8 years under Trump the economy will boom and in around 60 years the environment will be fine and the whole climate change scare, for those who remember it, will be a joke. But, politicians 60 years from now will continue to push the issue for political gain. That is the reality.
    1
  53. But yeah, as a whole I am done. Getting a PhD is challenging. I will be gone for the week on a business trip. After 8 years under Trump when the economy is booming I want people to remember this. And after 60 years when the environment is fine I want people to remember this as well. Now excuse me while I continue my research.
    1
  54. I do have time off. But yeah, I do have a busy month in April, so I will be taking some time off from youtube. I have three papers to work on, a laser set up to re-align, and I have to get one project done before I go to the TRVS 2017 this summer in the UK to present it. I also plan on writing my thesis this summer into next fall. And considering how success Trump is becoming, and how the while climate change thing is being dramatized by the left and in 60 years things will be fine (I will be in my 80s), there is no more reason to debate here. I said what I need to said, now time will show I was right.
    1
  55. Johnny Spider and others, this is the last comment by me as I have a business trip to go to tomorrow. Also, I have three papers to work on (one I hope to publish in JACS), I have the TRVS 2017 conference to prepare for (as in I have to have my data analyzed to present), and in all honesty Trump won and he is having success. And the whole climate change thing will be shown to be asinine decades from now. "if you think climate change is a hoax" Never said that as climate change has been happening for over 4 billion years. What is unique, though, is that several of my colleagues recently got a new book in their mailbox called "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". Now I know some myopic people (like my colleagues) will get all perturbed with that title. But here is the issue I have with climate change relating to that book. When that book showed up in people's mailboxes people automatically dismissed it as a book that denies climate change and refused to read it. That is not the case though. When you read it they do not deny climate change at all. They say it is happening. The issue is what I have been saying, we cannot say how much an is playing a role or how bad it is. They cite all of their sources where at least one being from Nature (who has a higher impact factor than Science). My colleagues dismissed the book without even reading it. I read it and felt it had good information as a book that is written by three individuals with PhDs and they cite their sources. It is perfect? No. But it has great points and worth a read. From that book, and from that reaction by my colleagues, and from the reaction from the people on this comment thread it really highlights the three main problems with climate change. 1. People are so bias that they refuse to consider the other side. The left is the worse on this. The second my colleagues read that title they dismissed it as it being a climate change denier. Even you, Johnny Spider, felt that I think climate change is a hoax even though I never said it was. Others called me a fraud even though I am a doctorate candidate that has peer reviewed papers that are published and I am working on three more. That is how bias the left has become. They dismiss the other side so much they are becoming worse than the extreme religious right on these issues who feel that something is "God's way". They almost turned science into a religion. 2. The media, who is there to entertain, not inform (including the "news"), has pushed the propaganda to the extreme on this issue. And people with limited science background become ignorant on the issue. Look at Kyle for example. He has not formal study on science but he talks about it as if he knows as much as Richard Feynman. 3. The politicians, on both sides, have politicized it. You have Jim Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress and Bernie Sanders (who admitted to struggling with science) preaching about climate change on the extreme ends of the spectrum. Politicians are there to buy votes from their supporting base so they will say ridiculous things, but it does not help to inform the people. The left is using climate change for their political advantage to find an excuse to create more taxes and regulations and donate to "green energy" companies. There has been reports of how 80% of DOE loans went to companies that supported Obama. So much for money in politics. Politics create a barrier in progress, especially in science. And the people become ignorant as well. There is a great video by Neil deGrasse Tyson where he talks about politicians support in science. It is entitled "Who's More Pro-Science, Republicans or Democrats?-Neil deGrasse Tyson" What he explains is that politicians will say what they say to go with what their supportive base wants. In Republicans case it is religious fundamentalists. But under Bush they increased funding in science. Also, Jack Kingston on Bill Maher said that we need to get science out of Washington DC and let it stay in the laboratory, which I agree with as that will increase progress. But the problem is that politics have become involved in science politicizing it for their own gain which is a disgrace to science. (BTW, I feel Kingston is a fool when he talks science which is more of a reason why I want it out of DC). Because of those three reason progress in the climate change issue is hindered. I am all for researching it and progressing in alternative forms of energy and sustainability. And so is most of the country. But people, especially the left, have made the issue radical and are saying things that scientists are not saying. "Do you think 97% of scientists " And that right there is part of the problem. One of those "consensus" reports was a poll published in PNAS where only 29% of the climate scientists polled actually responded to it. So what about the other 71%? To me I see that as scientists are not making a huge deal about it compared to the media (there to entertain and get views and make money), and the politicians (there to buy votes). You are jumping up and down about the consensus (which has been debunked several times) but fail to question things. Let me ask you this, why don't any of these politicians get any of these scientists to speak in front of congress or during elections? Why didn't Bernie get any scientist besides Bill Nye to speak with him on the issue of climate change? To me the answer is simple, they do not want to be associated with those radicals. So people can say what they want about me. But I am the one that wants progress. You on the left, with being radical, and calling others stupid and frauds for even questioning your hard set belief (which is what it has become making it essentially a religion, I refuse to say the work "believe" in any of my work as belief is associated with religion) is hindering progress. I suggest you become more moderate on the issue or prepare to see more of what Trump and Pruitt doing what they are going to do.
    1
  56. Just fine
    1