Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Bernie: Spend Money On Fighting Climate Change, Not Endless War!" video.

  1. It won't end
    5
  2. Kyle talks about lying to go to war but ignores how Bernie is lying about climate change
    3
  3. Bernie is clearly anti science and anti worker
    2
  4. Because scientists are not saying what Bernie is saying.
    2
  5.  @punctuationman334  , easy. Read the book entitled "Why We Disagree About Climate Change" by prof. Mike Hulme. He is well respected in the field where he recently published a paper in Nature Climate Change. Also read the popular technology article entitled "350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism " They link all the papers. BTW, in any peer reviewed work you have to post your funds. They are not being funded by fossil fuel companies.
    2
  6. Sure, but typically it is the left that wants to prevent change and force the world to be a certain way. The political right wants the world to change naturally without force.
    1
  7.  @LinkRocks  , easy. Bernie is pushing the idea that climate change is a major threat. Meanwhile, Myles Allen wrote in The Conversation, an article entitled "Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric" the following "My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading." He also wrote "So please stop saying something globally bad is going to happen in 2030. Bad stuff is already happening and every half a degree of warming matters, but the IPCC does not draw a “planetary boundary” at 1.5°C beyond which lie climate dragons." Prof. Mike Hulme in a Nature Climate Change article entitled "Why setting a climate deadline is dangerous" Broke down how using the rhetoric that things are bad and we need at act now is not great. Scientists are not saying what Bernie is saying. Yes, we should look into climate change. But to call it a major threat and that we must act now in a radical way is simply not what scientists are saying.
    1
  8.  @EE-gv9wt  , the fact that his programs will be pushed that fast is an issue. Drastically changing the economy that quickly will destroy it causing major harm.
    1
  9.  Evan Zuppardo  , uh, when you publish a peer reviewed paper you have to list all your funding sources. Nowhere does it show that Mike Hulme was funded by a big corporation. Myles Allen literally works for the IPCC. How much more do you need?
    1
  10.  @EE-gv9wt  , how does M4A control healthcare costs? What will happen if healthcare providers just decide to raise prices?
    1
  11.  @EE-gv9wt  , what did Reagan do?
    1
  12.  @EE-gv9wt  , ok, so if they can't raise prices what will prevent them from limiting access? As now the US offers more MRIs and CT scans per capita. What is going to stop them from simply limiting access to healthcare? If you place a cap on how much one can earn they will simply provide less. So answer me this, what will stop them from limiting how much healthcare they offer? With Reagan, what radical things did he do?
    1
  13.  @whyispinkysoinsane7898  uh I literally cite scientists and what they say. Why are you anti science?
    1
  14.  @EE-gv9wt  so you are going to ignore my question?
    1
  15.  @whyispinkysoinsane7898  , why are you so anti science? Bernie is out there saying climate change is a major threat and that is the message from scientist. However, I literally quoted scientists saying that such messages are misleading. But with you being anti science you don't care. You rather listen to a politician, who admitted struggled with science, as opposed to actual scientists.
    1
  16.  @Mirda1983  , One, how will the government negotiate prices? Next, so you are saying that healthcare providers will be willing to take on more customers increasing demand, while at the same time taking in less money and still provide the same level of care? Let me give you a scenario. Bernie said under his plan you can see any doctor (despite there being a portion that doctors can opt out). What if everyone wants to see the same doctor? Dr. James Andrews is one of the best surgeon in the world. What if everyone wants to see him? He will have to refuse patients. Then what?
    1
  17.  @Mirda1983  "If a pharmaceutical company is making less money per prescription of a certain drug because we forced em to in order to be able to afford said drug, wouldn't the logical action for that company be to produce more of that drug so they can move a higher volume to compensate for the loss of revenue per item that they've incurred?" How do they produce more when they have less resources? Plus, your logic is flawed. It is the same in saying "well someone earns less money due to a lower wage so all they have to do is work more". You are supporting a policy at this point that forces people to work more for less. So with your mindset why support a min. wage increase. People can just work more........
    1
  18.  @punctuationman334  , actually there is a lot of doubt in how we are affecting the climate.
    1
  19.  @krabs-xh5qx  , the problem with these end of the world rhetoric being pushed by the young, as Myles Allen said, how will these young people feel when after 10 years nothing bad has happened? Now you have a generation with such large doubt that they will do nothing with climate change.
    1
  20. @Rake the Forest when has he denied evolution?
    1
  21. @Rake the Forest so a guy who recently published in Nature does not do science?
    1
  22. @Rake the Forest he is the corresponding author. Do you even know how peer reviewed papers work? At this point you clearly don't. Thus it us clear you don't know science
    1
  23. @Rake the Forest , I will explain to you how scientific, peer reviewed articles work. The last author is referred to as the "corresponding author" who is the PI, the "principle investigator". They are the professor who leads the research that gets published. A few make themselves first author but they a dicks and as a grad student or under grad you don't want to work for them. The other authors are typically grad students, under grads or post docs. You may have other professors on the author list if they are collaborating with the corresponding author. Using me as an example as I have peer reviewed papers. I just published a paper where I, and two other groups collaborated. I was the first author as the grad student as I did the bulk of the research. The second author did a lot as well but they did not have the original idea. They were a grad student as well. The third author is a grad student who helped with the experiments. The fourth author is an undergrad who synthesis the molecules. The last four authors are all professors who led each respective group. The last of the authors is my professor who is the corresponding author. So the last author on the author list of a peer reviewed paper is typically the one who knows the most. Also, they are the one who has their email listed on the paper. Again, you not knowing how the peer reviewed process works in science and paper writing shows you don't understand science. Not to be rude but you should try to understand science more before you have a strong opinion on it.
    1
  24. @Rake the Forest , so you are going to ignore my comment in how you have no clue how the peer reviewed process works?
    1
  25. @Rake the Forest , it is a peer reviewed paper in one of the more prestigious journals you can publish in. Again, when you don't understand how science work, or how the peer reviewed system works, you can't have a strong opinion on this issue. At this point any opinion you have related to science is irrelevant.
    1
  26. @Rake the Forest , I love how when I revealed to you that you have no clue what you are talking about you just name call.
    1
  27. @Rake the Forest , Nature is one of the best journals one can publish in. You have no argument at this point and thus are anti science.
    1
  28. @Rake the Forest , I study science myself. You have no clue how the peer reviewed process works or how the authorship works. That is why you call me a troll.
    1
  29. @Rake the Forest , again, Nature is one of the most prestigious journals to publish in. You have no clue what you are talking about
    1
  30. Kyle gives one fact and then goes on an appeal to emotion rant showing he has no clue what he is talking about.
    1
  31.  @johnthedonplays6576  , you can use emotions, but the problem with Kyle, and the far left in general, is that is all they use are emotions. At that point you lose sight of objective reality and you dismiss the other side of the argument. What Stephen Michael Davis's video entitled "Kyle Kulinski DESTROYED with FACTS and LOGIC!!" He breaks down how Kyle contradicts himself so many times. With Kyle he feels that if you oppose the ideas he does than you are corrupt or ignorant and are voting against your best interest. As for this issue on climate change, scientists are not saying what he is saying. Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report wrote and article in The Conversation entitled "Why protesters should be wary of ‘12 years to climate breakdown’ rhetoric" Where he says "My biggest concern is with the much-touted line that “the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) says we have 12 years” before triggering an irreversible slide into climate chaos. Slogan writers are vague on whether they mean climate chaos will happen after 12 years, or if we have 12 years to avert it. But both are misleading." Now if you were to say that to Kyle his excuse would be that Prof. Allen surely is being paid by some big oil company (he isn't). Kyle has no clue what he is talking about.
    1
  32.  @johnthedonplays6576  , as for being on the side of the people, the video I pointed you to shows how Kyle is a hypocrite on that. He rips on politicians for voting on the Iraq war in the early 2000s. However, polls showed it was popular. Kyle is all about polls and doing the will of the people. So by Kyle's standard all they were doing is the will of the people. He should have praised that decision.
    1
  33.  @anzaca1  , he is. Myles Allen, one of the lead authors of the IPCC report was critical of the rhetoric that things are in a dire situation.
    1