The climate debate is a lot like the abortion debate. "Teams" line up on each side and are WAY more concerned about proving the other "team" wrong than finding any real solutions. Nearly everyone would agree that we need less abortion. Nearly everyone would agree finding alternative energy is a good thing. The problem is that some people are way too concerned about winning some sort of debate than actually limiting abortion or finding alternative energy. Another reason why our two party system sucks.
You should be able to gamble your families future right now. If you believe in protecting the environment, climate change, the EPA etc.. you get to sign a form that in the future you and your children will be provided the (yet to be invented) breathing mask that will allow you to live past the age of 20 in the toxic environment that will be our atmosphere, or guarantees you your ticket on Elysium. If you do not believe in climate change, the environment etc.. you don't sign and forfeit the right to said future you are helping to create.
These scientists weren't getting together to do anything other than ascertain how much humans were causing global warming. Conservatives for the most part don't feel like humans cause global warming so they don't worry about making sure it doesn't happen. I don't think that this is like abortion at all. That topic can be framed multiple ways - womens' rights vs. murder, etc., while this topic just has people debating over facts. There aren't really any moral questions or implications here, the point that OP was making I believe is that people (mainly conservatives) will say "oh it's only 95%, I don't believe it" and continue on their merry way debating facts.
The climate debate is a lot like the abortion debate. "Teams" line up on each side and are WAY more concerned about proving the other "team" wrong than finding any real solutions. Nearly everyone would agree that we need less abortion. Nearly everyone would agree finding alternative energy is a good thing. The problem is that some people are way too concerned about winning some sort of debate than actually limiting abortion or finding alternative energy. Another reason why our two party system sucks.
so science doesn't matter to you. It's about "teams" to you. Wow!
Sometimes I wonder how you function in real life.
Yea, I'm not seeing Skins' point. Environmentalists have tons of solutions for reducing our impact on the environment. It's kind of what they do. The other side just wants the status quo because "climate change" just happens.
I always wonder that about you. Of you choose me rather than the others who hold the same position regarding your post as I do.
You see my name and have a Pavolovian response.
I guess I should have been more clear. The opponents of abortion and the opponents of climate change science act similar. They never really look for solutions they look to win a debate. Fringe pro lifers don't really want less abortion...if they did they would be behind sex education and contraception. Only the fringe of the climate deniers would say that alternative energy sources is a bad thing. However, because "conservatives" (strange title for this issue) think they are on the team of anti-climate change they think they should be anti-alternative energy sources.
You're talking about the politicians, not the scientists.
it's pretty unlikely that anybody in the future requires gas masks simply to exist on earth.
The reason the dogs salivated is because he rang the bell. Your ridiculous responses are like the bell ringing so your analogy is correct.
Your responses to anything I post have been Pavlovian for over a decade.
The politicians and their minions.