Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Explain again to me how my paying more to heat my house and run my automobile and by making the obscenely rich even richer will make the planet stop getting warm if it is which isn't certain.
Explain again to me how my paying more to heat my house and run my automobile and by making the obscenely rich even richer will make the planet stop getting warm if it is which isn't certain.
I support making the world cleaner. I support a continued investment into cleaner technologies. I would support subsidies for cleaner technologies. I support things like higher fuel ratings for cars.
I am stuck arguing with my friends that want the same that things like carbon credits or a carbon tax is NOT how one goes about that. Those are indeed nothing more than a tax upon the poor.
You do not make things better by allowing Wall Street to control something.
Explain again to me how my paying more to heat my house and run my automobile and by making the obscenely rich even richer will make the planet stop getting warm if it is which isn't certain.
The science of climate change has nothing to do with money.
The politics of climate change has everything to do with money.
Very, very few people are capable of separating the two.
The science of climate change has nothing to do with money.
Of course it does. Everything does. You still need funding to do your research. I'm more than happy to end that problem by removing the constant need to search for funding.
Quote:
The politics of climate change has everything to do with money.
Very, very few people are capable of separating the two.
The politics make it difficult to address the problem. One side resorts to hyperbole and the other then wants nothing to do with the issue even where it makes sense.
Of course it does. Everything does. You still need funding to do your research. I'm more than happy to end that problem by removing the constant need to search for funding.
The politics make it difficult to address the problem. One side resorts to hyperbole and the other then wants nothing to do with the issue even where it makes sense.
You yourself are not even capable of separating science and money/politics.
Science was around well before there was anything known as money, my friend.
I am not talking about research. I am talking about science. Science has been with us since the Big Bang.
What you are doing is skipping over the science, and trying to bring solutions (like money for research) into the discussion too soon.
That is putting the cart before the horse, because in our politically-charged, scientifically-challenged world, people cannot even agree on the science to begin with. Politics is too blinding, and science is too hard. Any money for research is considered corrupt. The results from research are considered tainted anyway. Politics trumps science every time.
I restate: Very, very few people are capable of separating science from money/politics. You have been a perfect example.
I am not talking about research. I am talking about science. Science has been with us since the Big Bang.
What you are doing is skipping over the science, and trying to bring solutions into the discussion too soon.
That is putting the cart before the horse, because in our politically-charged, scientifically-challenged world, people cannot even agree on the science to begin with. Politics is too blinding, and science is too hard. Any money for research is considered corrupt. Politics trumps science every time.
I restate: Very, very few people are capable of separating science from money/politics. You have been a perfect example of it.
You like so many want to argue something that doesn't actually exist. It's like those who argue we would all come together and pool our money to freely build roads. We would not.
Science once argued that the world was flat. Was it because science believed it was flat or because of other reasons? Sure you can point to Aristotle and say "that is science" but science doesn't belong just to the scientists that get it right. Even after a strong argument by Aristotle, science still disagreed in large numbers.
You are arguing the theory of science. All well and fine but it holds little relevance in reality.
If Exxon scientists decide something concerning global warming are you going to accept that because they are "scientists"?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
