Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Zero. Wind and solar are far less expensive, and do not have the dangers inherent in the nuclear reactors. Old and useless tech in todays world.Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.
So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.
It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?
It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence.
I agree. How many nuclear reactors should we build to stop climate change?
Zero. Wind and solar are far less expensive, and do not have the dangers inherent in the nuclear reactors. Old and useless tech in todays world.Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.
So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.
It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?
It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence.
I agree. How many nuclear reactors should we build to stop climate change?
Zero. Wind and solar are far less expensive, and do not have the dangers inherent in the nuclear reactors. Old and useless tech in todays world.Trump and his followers are not fans of science and scientists, especially the ones affirming climate change and the fact that much of it is caused by human action. In fact, you could really call the Trump administration's actions in this regard as a war on science.
So, consider the recent success of science and scientists landing a spacecraft on Mars. The voyage took six months. The total distance traveled was 300 million miles. The planet was moving in its orbit at nearly 54,000 miles per hour. It was rotating on it's axis at 540 miles per hour. The target on Mars or landing site in the plane Elysium Planita is an ellipse 81 miles long by 17 miles wide. And, the spacecraft did in fact land in the target area.
It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence. Besides, Trump is a realtor. What does he know about science?
It seems to me that science and scientists pulled off an amazing feat, and therefore scientific notions about man assisted climate change should be listened to and given credence.
I agree. How many nuclear reactors should we build to stop climate change?
And As Inefficient And Heavily SubsidizedOld Rocks said:Wind and solar are far less expensive.
Show UsAnd how much wildlife was killed by the pollution produced by the fossil fuel plants they replaced?
Man-made global warming isn't "science" True scientists don't manipulate data to make the results conform to an ideology.
Man-made global warming isn't "science" True scientists don't manipulate data to make the results conform to an ideology.
There's a reason you deniers can only peddle such weepy conspiracy babble. All the hard data says that the claims of your political/religious cult are wrong. However, your cult commands that you're absolutely forbidden to admit that even the smallest part of your cult's sacred dogma is wrong. You're required to parrot cult dogma verbatim, else you'd be banished from the cult, which would be like a death sentence to cult sheeple. Since all the hard data says your cult is lying, the only option you see open to you is denying the hard data.
This is yet another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. No matter what the topic is, we simply point to reality and "win". And then there's your cult, which has to retreat into a series of bizzarro alternate universes to explain why the reality that we live in always contradicts their claims.
We on the rational side have gotten everything right for over 40 years now. That's why we have so much credibility; we've earned it. Your pack of clowns and frauds has failed at everything for 40 years running now. If you want credibility, you have to earn it the hard way too, like we have. You won't even try. Instead of trying to do actual science, you can only whimper about how the facts have to be a liberal conspiracy, being that they contradict your cult's holy scripture.
Man-made global warming isn't "science" True scientists don't manipulate data to make the results conform to an ideology.
There's a reason you deniers can only peddle such weepy conspiracy babble. All the hard data says that the claims of your political/religious cult are wrong. However, your cult commands that you're absolutely forbidden to admit that even the smallest part of your cult's sacred dogma is wrong. You're required to parrot cult dogma verbatim, else you'd be banished from the cult, which would be like a death sentence to cult sheeple. Since all the hard data says your cult is lying, the only option you see open to you is denying the hard data.
This is yet another reason why it's so good to be on the rational side. No matter what the topic is, we simply point to reality and "win". And then there's your cult, which has to retreat into a series of bizzarro alternate universes to explain why the reality that we live in always contradicts their claims.
We on the rational side have gotten everything right for over 40 years now. That's why we have so much credibility; we've earned it. Your pack of clowns and frauds has failed at everything for 40 years running now. If you want credibility, you have to earn it the hard way too, like we have. You won't even try. Instead of trying to do actual science, you can only whimper about how the facts have to be a liberal conspiracy, being that they contradict your cult's holy scripture.
We on the rational side..."
And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.
And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.
What does that have to we with us getting all the science right for the past 40 years?
That's not fear mongering. That's reality.
And that's why the French are rioting over Macron's planet saving gasoline tax.
What does that have to we with us getting all the science right for the past 40 years?
Your fear-mongering use of science hasn't trumped the economics of the people.