Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "EPA Removes Page With Data On Climate Science" video.

  1. There is nothing wrong with the data. The problem is that climate change has been politicized which misrepresents the data for political gains There is nothing anti-science about this.
    2
  2. Data is the hard numbers and you cannot change those. But how you interpret them is different. You have the left saying that climate change is devastating and destroying our planet. Mainly the media and politicians. You have scientists who do not take a stance on the issue. The reality is that with climate change we do not know 1. How much is man playing a role 2. Is it even bad So the data is what it is. What it means is the issue.
    1
  3. OK, one what Nature paper is that? I would like to read it and see who the author is. What does what you write about Joseph Bast have to do with this issue? You are trying to smear the guy. You do know that some of the "consensus studies" were not even written by scientists? On the congress part, show me where the Heartland Institution denies climate change. I criticize the other side for calling them deniers. So they are funded by oil. So what? Again, show me where they denied climate change. You are pulling a lot of logical fallacy.
    1
  4. " In August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted President and CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility and reliability: "Mr. Joseph Bast, president and CEO of the Heartland Institute, testified for the Intervenors regarding the Texas Taxpayers’ Savings Grant Programs (“TTSGP”), a school voucher bill that failed in the 82nd Legislative Session. As a threshold matter, this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."" What does this have to do with climate change?
    1
  5. kc collette, you are trying to discredit a source with smear tactics as opposed to actually pointing out where they are wrong. Also, there are other scientists who are not associated with that group at all who do not buy into the liberal propaganda of climate change. It is why the only "scientists" the liberal media can get on their side to come talk about it is Bill Nye. The vast majority of scientists do not take a stance on the issue.
    1
  6. Dayne, the vast majority of scientists do not take a stance on the issue. Climate change is happening, has been for over 4 billion years. So has evolution. Or do you not support the theory of evolution?
    1
  7. Androxus, a driving force of evolution is climate change. Many things contribute to evolution, and climate change is one of them. You do know that the earth had 0% oxygen and through evolution life evolved to breath oxygen after the CO2 was converted to that. Also, read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming" And Steven Crowder recently had a scientist talk about climate change as well. There are other sources out there. The first one i mention covers your source. But again, the fact you feel climate change and evolution are not related show you are not up to speed on the issue.
    1
  8. What citation do you want me to give? The problem is that you can't give a citation to discredit something that does not exist. There is no consensus on the issue, period. Giving a citation is like giving a citation saying that the great flood and Noah's Ark never happened. It does not exist because the evidence for the story is from the Bible and some structure found in Turkey. The reality is that the vast majority of scientists do not even take a stance on the issue. I told you about how Steven Crowder has a scientist on his show talking about it. That is one right there.
    1
  9. Dayne, you can watch the Crowder video yourself as he posted it yesterday. I am not saying Crowder himself, I am saying he had a scientist. Just like the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming", it has multiple citations and other scientists contributing to it. The ecosystem is complex and evolution is not well known. We do not even know the physics behind photosynthesis. The issue of climate change is something we should look at and we should continue to progress just to benefit man in general. But to say climate change is a major problem, or that man is causing it to a high degree, or that it is bad are things we have to stop saying as the vast majority so scientists do not take as stance on it.
    1
  10. "Also, quit strawmanning "climate change" as the general changes the planet goes through. " I am not doing that. You are the one accusing me of that.
    1
  11. Dayne, read the book "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". Is showed how the vast majority of papers do not take a stance on the issue. Other "consensus" studies were based on polls that only around 30% of scientists responded to. That means that around 70% do not care. Steven Crowder interviewed Dr. Patrick Moore. He posted the video yesterday. You can watch it yourself.
    1
  12. Dayne, if so many scientists agree on climate change and have such a hard stance on it, than why can't the media and our politicians get scientists to actually talk about the issue of climate change to the public? Why is Bill Nye the only "scientist" they can get to talk about it?
    1
  13. The planet and ecosystem is fine. Ever heard of evolution?
    1
  14. Evolution has no time scale. It can take centuries or take a short amount of time. These are things we know little about when it comes to the ecosystem. This is why the issue is heavily debated and the vast majority of scientists do not take a stance.
    1
  15. This is good. Climate change is been politicized. There is nothing wrong with the data, how it is interpreted is the problem. There is nothing anti-science about this at all.
    1