Comments by "whyamimrpink78" (@whyamimrpink78) on "Trudeau Sides With Trump Over Biden On Major Climate Policy" video.

What climate crisis? This guy says "listen to the science" but, as usual, cites no one. As for jobs, training for what? So someone in their 40s you expect them to just learn a new skill and get a new job? Wow, the left is insane.
1
Joe Biden is not the president elect. The media does not make that decision. Also, the Keystone pipeline will create competition in the energy that will actually lead to more advancement in alternative energy. In fact, Koch industry supports the Keystone pipeline even though it will harm their company financially. But they support it because it will help society as a whole. Once again the left is hindering progress.
1
@nunofoo8620 it will. More companies will be refining the oil thus companies will end up finding other ways to find a competitive edge. This happens often. Going with Koch Industry again. They have always been highly invested in oil. In fact, that is basically how they got started. They also invested in ethanol despite it being a direct competitor to oil. Why? Well, for two reasons. One, it is another form of energy that is cleaner and can improve society. If you read up on the history of Koch that is their drive. And two, it expands their company. With more people getting the oil oil prices will drop leading to potentially lower profits to where companies will also invest in other things like biofuels.
1
@nunofoo8620 Not a valid source. I know people who work in for Koch. Read Charles Koch's book "Good Profits". Again, the Keystone pipeline would actually harm their industry because competitors down south would have access to oil that right now only they have. So why would they do that? Because it helps society more. They invested in ethanol which can be used to produce hydrogen that can be used as a clean source of fuel and an alternative to oil. I suggest you do more research.
1
@nunofoo8620 right away your source is wrong. In the subtitle it claims Koch Industry buys up politics. They do not. In fact, they opposed something like the tax credits for investing in ethanol even though they invested in it.
1
@nunofoo8620 I read your source. It says it raised money for certain elections but never says how or to whom. So right away I can't trust it. Sure they donated money to the Tea Party, but they also donate money to the ACLU. They are one of the top donors of the ACLU. So is it a political purpose or for something else? Was it to promote any type of law? Is there quid pro quo? Saying "they raised money" while not saying to whom in particular it went to. This is once again another source that is saying "rich man bad". The book also cites all of their sources, including examples of many of their failed businesses. Where are the references of your source?
1
@nunofoo8620 from your source "they’ve cornered the market on Republican politics and are nakedly attempting to buy Congress and the White House. Their political network helped finance the Tea Party and powers today’s GOP. Koch-affiliated organizations raised some $400 million during the 2012 election, and aim to spend another $290 million to elect Republicans in this year’s midterms" Ok, source? And again, is there quid pro quo? This is really stretching here.
1
@nunofoo8620 that university is well known to endorse Marxism. Also, define pollution? That is vague. And to get to alternative energy we need fossil fuels. It is for two reasons, one, fossil fuels are still the cheapest for the general public and industry to keep the economy going. And two, we do not have the technology to have sufficient alternative energy yet, thus we use fossil fuels. How is refining oil bad for society? Fracking is helping the society. If you want to pay a lot of money for alternative energy than be my guest. What is so wrong with fossil fuels, oil and fracking anyway?
1
@nunofoo8620 tell me, what is "helping society as a whole" means to you?
1
@nunofoo8620 is rising energy prices so the economy suffers and regular people suffer helping society? Also, innovation happens in a free market, not through government force.
1
@nunofoo8620 listen to this video. This guy wants too shut down the oil industry with the GND and supposedly we can "retrain" workers in that field so easily, no matter how they feel. He said they can give those workers a wage for 5 years and have them go to college. What if they do not live in a college town? Now they have to move. Move their families, find a new home, etc. Is that helping society?
1
@nunofoo8620 University of Massachusetts Amherst, and yes, Marxism is bad. Define "adverse change". What ground water is being contaminated? Climate change? OK, we can discuss that. I recommend you read the book entitled "Why we Disagree About Climate Change" by Mike Hulme. Climate change is a complex issue that little is known about it. Fracking does not cause earthquakes. Canada has been doing it for years and has not experienced an increase in earthquakes. I recommend you study science.
1
@nunofoo8620 you bring up space. Why haven't we kept going to the moon? Why haven't we landed on Mars despite having technology to do it? Because landing on the moon was pushed by government, not the free market. There is not actual economic value in going there. If there were we would have landed on Mars. Is space exploration is all you have that is weak as space exploration has been declining for years. And the space race was driven more on our attack against USSR, an attack against communist.
1
@nunofoo8620 Koch Industry was praised by the EPA in 2015 (under Obama) for their actions to reduce pollution.
1
@nunofoo8620 there is economic value in satellites, which is why private companies launch their own satellites. You do not need the government for that.
1
@nunofoo8620 the Hubble telescope is, arguably a waste of money. As for people starving, is someone is hungry you can give them food so they can become a customer that pays you money. That is why in the US we have an obesity issue.
1
@nunofoo8620 actually I do not ignore those sources. That book is written by an expert that recently published a paper in Science, one of the most respected peer reviewed journals out there. Climate change is complex. Consider how we do not even know how photosynthesis happens physically, as in how does an incoherent light sources, as in the sun, create a quantum coherence that is 90% efficient in energy transfer? If we do not now something as basic as that, how can we understand how the changing climate will influence the entire ecosystem? You do know a driving force of evolution for years was climate change. Or do you deny evolution?
1
@nunofoo8620 if you are the sexiest man alive we should meet up. I love to catch ;)
1
@nunofoo8620 eventually a private company would have done it. Again, why have we not gone to Mars? Sure, the government can stumble on some success, but most of the time they hinder progress.
1
@nunofoo8620 read the Popular Technology article entitled "1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism" As for your articles I will read them later. I have to log into my university account to read them. But reading the abstract of the second one, I agree. There is a risk of some species going extinct. You know what? That has been happening for centuries. The world is over 4 billion years old, the climate has been changing for that entire time. Many species have become extinct and many have evolved over that time. That is what makes this issue so complex. We do not know if current climate change is a major threat, how much man plays a role, and what our approach should be.
1
@nunofoo8620 "argumentum ad ignorantiam" What? At this point I have to ask, have you ever studied science? I do for a living. I have a friend who personally studied the physical nature of photosynthesis. That is why I know we know little about it, let alone the entire ecosystem.
1
@nunofoo8620 you example of shooting me in the head is poor as you are directly killing someone and no other factors are at play. The institutions you bring up are in doubt of how severe climate change is and if it is a major threat.
1
@nunofoo8620 "So did Carl Sagan, Isaac Azimov, Stephen Hawkins, Etc.. I trust them more than i trust a guy in the comment section of a youtube video " Except I am citing climate scientists. Did you not see the Popular Technology article I pointed you to? So you are going to ignore the over 1000 peer reviewed? "You know who else was a market fundamentalist that was a scientist? Margaret Tatcher and even her wouldn't let her ideological preconceptions get in the way of science like you do"' How am I getting in the way of science? "Did the permian-triassic climate change affect me personally? Or any other human? of course not! There were no humans on the planet at the time. Does that mean it won't affect humans now. Of course not." Again, we do not know how much man plays a role? We do not know if it is a major threat? Remember Al Gore's movie? We are supposed to be underwater by now, we aren't.
1
@nunofoo8620 all of Gore's predictions were wrong. Bullshit is not a counter argument. What lying? And who am I ignoring? I am literally citing experts as in Mike Hulme who worked for the IPCC. I can cite Myles Allen who works, currently, for the IPCC and he is critical of the fear mongering. Popular Technology literally cites the papers. It is not them, it is the papers. "And you expect me to go through 1000 per-reviewed paper in an hour? a day? a week? When you couldn't go through just 2 that i gave you from an actual reputable science journal" I went through one, nowhere are they making a hard claim that current climate change is a threat or how much man plays a role. Also, many have went through those papers already, that is the whole point of the article. So you give two, who do not even support your argument, and I give you over 1000.
1
@nunofoo8620 Going with Gore, it shows you guys do not even listen to scientists. You listen to people like Gore, AOC and a teenage girl. Meanwhile, I am giving actual names of scientists and numerous papers by scientists.
1
@nunofoo8620 ok, and? Is that really bad? The world changes. There is something called "creative destruction". That means even under destruction with creativity something else rises. Think about it with agriculture. The tractor destroyed many jobs, but also led to increase in food production. People just went to different jobs. So you are talking about an increase in temperature and agriculture, I see an opportunity to innovate leading to better technology, better jobs, and more productivity. So again, one cannot say if this is a major threat or not.
1
@nunofoo8620 while an exaggeration, what prediction did Gore get right? Also, again, why is your side even listening to people like Gore, AOC, a teenager etc. as opposed too actual scientists?
1
@nunofoo8620 again, this is a complex issue. Will rising temperature harm agriculture in developing areas? Maybe, I can accept that possibility. But then what is the solution? Going off of fossil fuels? Now you are hindering developing nations still. Many still rely on fossil fuels. Many cannot just put up a wind mill or a solar panel like we can in the US. And even in developed nations like the US. If energy prices go up many industries will have to cut back leading to low productivity. As I said with the tractor, it led to many jobs being lost. But it increased food productivity. You can't just focus on one area, you have to look at the entire picture. Also, the dependence on agriculture in all nations has been steadily declining. This is something we studied in my international business course. To let you know along with my PhD I am also pursuing my MBA. I am diverse, that is why I know so much.
1
We are not going to hit net zero for a long time. Besides, oil is used for other products and not just energy.
1