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.
No matter how many conspiracy theories you dream up, the science is actually perfectly fine... it's public opinion that is poisoned. Historically, the uninformed public has been much easier to manipulate than professionals who know their field.
The problem is that this is a situation where policy will determine our future quality of life, and the GOP is deliberately lying to voters in order to secure funding for their election campaigns.
This is just another myth perpetuated by AGW deniers...
Human beings do exhale almost 3 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually, but the carbon we exhale is the same carbon that was "inhaled" from the atmosphere by the plants we consume. (When we eat meat, we're still eating the same carbon, except that it passes through livestock on its way into our mouths and out into the atmosphere.) The only way to add to the carbon in the atmosphere is to take it from a sequestered source like fossil fuels—
Where, in any of what you tried to say, did I imply, infer, or insinuate that we are not introducing more carbon? Terrible attempt to refute. You are normally much better at it.
No matter how many conspiracy theories you dream up, the science is actually perfectly fine... it's public opinion that is poisoned. Historically, the uninformed public has been much easier to manipulate than professionals who know their field.
The problem is that this is a situation where policy will determine our future quality of life, and the GOP is deliberately lying to voters in order to secure funding for their election campaigns.
No matter how many conspiracy theories you dream up, the science is actually perfectly fine... it's public opinion that is poisoned. Historically, the uninformed public has been much easier to manipulate than professionals who know their field.
The problem is that this is a situation where policy will determine our future quality of life, and the GOP is deliberately lying to voters in order to secure funding for their election campaigns.
Also, how can it be a 'conspiracy' if it's an open bill in the most populace state? You are smarter than that.
I wasn't talking about the bill, I was talking about all of the anti-government/anti-scientist paranoia that runs rampant on this forum, especially among the old-timers who grew up hating commies and worshipping Reagan.
The bill is about punishing people who deliberately spread misinformation to further their financial or political interests. It's something I obviously support... mostly because I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis and don't automatically panic and slip into 'muh free speech' mode every time something like this comes to my attention.
I wasn't talking about the bill, I was talking about all of the anti-government/anti-scientist paranoia that runs rampant on this forum, especially among the old-timers who grew up hating commies and worshipping Reagan.
The bill is about punishing people who deliberately spread misinformation to further their financial or political interests. It's something I obviously support... mostly because I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis and don't automatically panic and slip into 'muh free speech' mode every time something like this comes to my attention.
Free speech is the key. You, as one who adheres to science, should champion that. We differ on the current subject but science CANT be furthered if dissent is, no pun, stymied.
And I still say sequestration is better than anything besides bc's solution which can't be applied globally because then it gets into 'conspiracy' aspects.
I wasn't talking about the bill, I was talking about all of the anti-government/anti-scientist paranoia that runs rampant on this forum, especially among the old-timers who grew up hating commies and worshipping Reagan.
The bill is about punishing people who deliberately spread misinformation to further their financial or political interests. It's something I obviously support... mostly because I evaluate these things on a case-by-case basis and don't automatically panic and slip into 'muh free speech' mode every time something like this comes to my attention.
Besides, f... This forum. It's the net. Take it for what it is. Some will agree, some won't. Kind of like cap America civil war: which side was right? Iron man? Cap?
I'm pretty sure that debates have rules about being intentionally dishonest about the way you're presenting your information.
Not when it's "politics"
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.
