How important is science to you in choosing a candidate?

I see you've quoted that same AIP paper a dozen times in 2 weeks -- but still don't want to discuss specifics in it.. Pardon me for pointing out that it DOESN'T RESOLVE any real issues on Global Warming -- and is in fact loaded with misconceptions and deflections that are not even accurate like :::



Back to the regularly scheduled topic of why politics mangles science... Largely because science does a constant mangling of the topic themselves..

In the whole issue of global warming, I do see a role of the United States in encouraging study of the issue. I cannot condone U.S. policy that puts U.S. citizens at a disadvantage however, when it is obvious it will accomplish little or nothing overall whether or not global warming is a serious issue. And I cannot condone any U.S. government giving up American soverignty and ability to chart our own course of action in anything.

That is one of the worst parts about the AGW crowd and their constant fear mongering this issue. The solutions that are proposed end up changing almost nothing. They talk about measures that will have a MASSIVE impact on the economy but will reduce world wide carbon emissions by a percentage point or 2. That is asinine as it will generate zero real effect on the problem even if everything they believe is totally correct.

The fraud becomes obvious when you see the international community giving a pass to countries like China and India and others who contain enormous percentages of the world's populations but are the worst polluters if we accept CO2 as a pollutant. At the same time they want to tighten the controls on those countries that have done a good job controlling industrial emissions and that promote clean energy. And that would include the U.S.A.

It seems to me that it is obvious that the motives have little or nothing to do with addressing global warming and everything to do with power and control for whatever reason.

So I don't really care whether a Presidential candidate believes AGW or naturally occurring global warming is a problem or not. I just want him to understand the consequences and probable results of whatever actions are taken, and to promote or allow policy that does not put the U.S.A. as a distinct advantage and/or compromises our freedoms and opportunities.

If a President promotes cap and trade he won't get my vote.
 
If a president promotes policies based on global warming he wouldn't get my vote.
 
Assuming we candidates for higher office, it's not a huge factor in my decision. However, I would question the judgment of a candidate who clings to a worldview that is irrational.
 
I want my President to be reasonably well educated, but more importantly I want my President to be qualified in the art of critical thinking and not bound to indoctrinated positions on anything. Amelia mentioned in the OP that she couldn't vote for somebody who thought the Earth was less than 10,l000 years old. I'll have to admit it would be really hard for me to do that either. Unless the only other choice was somebody indoctrinated in and committed to a philosophy that would end life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as we know it.

There are far more sinister things than screwy or errant concepts of science.
 

Forum List

Back
Top