You have answered my question to an extent, as I was wondering if you didnt believe the problem existed (i.e. global warming/climate change) or you had issues with the proposed solutions (wealth transfer consequences). Seems you have issues with both. The problem exists and anyone that argues otherwise I would suspect is either ignorant, misinformed or being disingenuous, as I am yet to see a single sound scientific evidence or argument to the contrary with the best being people trying to present variations as trends or exceptions as norms. As to the politicizing of the issue and solutions, that is an unavoidable fact of human society. The fact that some people profited economically from the abolition of slavery should not be an excuse to perpetuate slavery (something even Islam got right over a thousand years earlier)
You can say that unicorns and fairies are legitimate, that's your right, but that doesn't make it legit.
I'll just add this thought: I've heard some scientists (I assume they were) on the radio ranting and raving about "science deniers." This was on KUHF (yeah....I know). This one angry scientist was losing his *&^% over anyone that "denied the incontrovertible facts." And then I thought to myself: "Ok dude, let's say you're 100% correct in everything you say. You still have the problem of democracy." Which is to say, the majority of people might find the climate change studies to be sound science -- and still reject them. And the reason for that is they don't want to give up electricity or air conditioning or the freedom that their personal vehicle(s) give them, for plans that will reduce global warming by 2-3 degrees. So, what would a global warming/climate change scientist want in this scenario? (which is perhaps not very far fetched)...A dictatorship by the scientific community? And once again one sees the problem with democracy. The people don't always do what the "experts" think they should .....
What you see as the 'problem of democracy'democracy', I see as the 'problem with democracy' i.e. the majority is not always right. That majority may be willing to sacrifice the long term for short term benefits or comfort does not make it the right choice. This country was built on short term sacrifices for long term considerations.
So you are saying that justifies denying the truth, because people are afraid you'll take their A/C away???? The generators of CO2 are transportation and power. Many things can be done to help without causing mass economic problems - such as moving to nuclear power and pushing for electric vehicles. Investing in renewables and pushing for new technologies to remove co2 from the atmosphere. Heck even better teleconferencing for cheap can help reduce air travel. Point is, that once you get over being a denier, you can actually work on constructive solutions.
I may provides photos later to prove it, I was at 2500 ft altitude on a cessna, opened the window and touched a little gray cloud to what I thought it would be a magical moment, it was actually stinky puffs of chemical which ultimately might pour one day on someone's lettuce
Well, "of" and "with"....probably splitting hairs. And built on short-term sacrifices.....I'm not sure that's correct either. But we're probably on the verge of derailing this thread.
It's quite an interesting phenomenon. The entire southern hemisphere has much harsher UV rays due to the earth's tilt. Places like Australia and New Zealand are ravaged with skin cancer due to their super fair skin in a totally foreign UV environment compared to Northern Europe.
Yes, and the people advancing this agenda. See, this very recent example: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...n-12-years-if-we-dont-address-climate-change/ This is who you are lining up with. "The world is going to end in 12 years." If you're all right with that, I'm not sure what to say ….
I'm lining up with Cortez and Gore? That's what you got out of my last 2 comments????????? Of course, you did. Because that is what you want to see. I'm pretty sure I was actually lining up with science, not some freshman rep that is on a late night talk show. But hey cool, have fun in say whatever you want random breitbart thought fairyland.
I was speaking in general to anyone that finds common cause in the "climate change" agenda, not you in particular. But, if you are on that side, then yes, I was speaking to you as part of that group. BTW -- Breitbart is The Truth, The Way, and The Light. It's a torch and a lamp in a world of inky darkness. It publishes The Truth, The Whole Truth, and Nothing But The Truth.
After seeing OP’s name I was convinced it was an article on immigrants killing babies there or something
