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.
Except no warming has been measured for 20 years. Ooops!
So you can insist on upgrading infrastructure which will help green our environment.Even if you buy into the claim that unless we stop burning fossil fuels we're all going to die in 12 years, the so-called "Green New Deal" is still nothing but a fast-track to the destruction of the USA.
Most sources agree that the USA accounts for 15% of fossil fuels burned worldwide. So even if the USA eliminates their use completely, 85% of the alleged pollution production will remain.
No one claims a 15% reduction will be enough to stop the "catastrophe", yet most Democrats now support this clearly worthless "Green New Deal".
Why?
Sayin it don't make it true. Sayin it twice doesn't even make it truer the first timeIf the "settled science" guys take nothing else from this thread, consider these two points:
1. Science is almost NEVER "settled". The very essence of science is to learn more, not to reach iron-clad conclusions. Research "scientific method" if you doubt this claim.
2. Science and politics are absolutely inseparable. Scientists are not altruistic gurus on a mountain top, they are looking for the same pay raise as you. Dollars drive science, and fields that generate dollars pay the best. Twenty years ago there was no such thing as a "climate scientist" and now they not only exist, it's become a very lucrative field. If you think scientists only provide the absolute truth, you're either incredibly naive or science is actually your religion.
Since we are discussing a proposal set forth by an elected official I would say it's already happening.Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.
Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?
Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.
However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.
Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?
By that logic you'd have no problem with businesses dropping toxic waste in your back yard? Nice to know.Because government has a different purpose than a business.
I tend to believe what Calvin said ...
Wouldn't trying to stop it and trying to mitigate the damage not be the same thing? After all mitigating the damage still would entail cutting down on the emissions.The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.
Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.
The Science is long settled.
Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.
Also, a debate that we should be having is whether our time and resources are better spent trying to stop what is likely too late to stop or do we mitigate the effect it has on we humans in general, and Americans specifically.
By that logic you'd have no problem with businesses dropping toxic waste in your back yard? Nice to know.Because government has a different purpose than a business.
I tend to believe what Calvin said ...
Since the US already has more ICBM's than they need to destroy the world nothing would change. And there are alternatives to the internal combustion engine even now. So how do you mean. America would surely fall?Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.
Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.
Since we are discussing a proposal set forth by an elected official I would say it's already happening.Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.
Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?
Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.
However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.
Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?
Disposing toxic waste in your back yard is cheaper to business than disposing it properly. You said the government should not constrain business. So I understand perfectly fine what the implications would be.By that logic you'd have no problem with businesses dropping toxic waste in your back yard? Nice to know.Because government has a different purpose than a business.
I tend to believe what Calvin said ...
So, you don't understand how business works then?
Maybe because she felt the issue is now popular enough to get her votes?Since we are discussing a proposal set forth by an elected official I would say it's already happening.Because government has a different purpose than a business. A business has making money as an objective. A government has the general well being as a purpose. If the one objective is harming the other objective. The government needs to step in and put the interest of the populace ahead of the interest of the companies.No I'm saying that it is being actively discouraged by this administration.
Why should the political administration be a factor in economic decisions of individuals and businesses? Unless this is a political issue?
Does the general populace believe we are at imminent risk due to Climate Change? Are they asking the government to 'step in and save them'? Polls would indicate that is not the case. Generally, Climate Change ranks very low on American concerns where it is included among other potential concerns in a poll.
However, if you believe the polls are wrong, that Americans are greatly interested in having the government re-work our economy to save us all from impending doom, run candidates who are passionate on the issue and see how well they do politically.
Traditionally, how well do Green Party candidates do in US elections?
Great ... let's see how popular it will be with the voters.
I have to notice, however, that she didn't actually come out with her Green Manifesto until AFTER she was elected. Can you think of any reason why that is?
Wouldn't trying to stop it and trying to mitigate the damage not be the same thing? After all mitigating the damage still would entail cutting down on the emissions.The ONLY thing debatable regarding Climate Change is the politics...because of people like you.Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.
Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.
The Science is long settled.
Science is never settled. I hate it when dumb people say that.
Also, a debate that we should be having is whether our time and resources are better spent trying to stop what is likely too late to stop or do we mitigate the effect it has on we humans in general, and Americans specifically.
Converting to "100% renewable energy sources" in 12 years is patently impossible, and it would also be impossible to maintain our current military force without fossil fuels. But oddly the Dems make no mention of this whatsoever... National Defense is not even in their agenda, and it should be rather obvious why.Since the US already has more ICBM's than they need to destroy the world nothing would change. And there are alternatives to the internal combustion engine even now. So how do you mean. America would surely fall?Certainly this is both a scientific and a political issue. The science side may be debatable, but the political side is NOT. If the goals of the GND are met, you can be certain that the USA will fall to a foreign power, probably China.
Or maybe not... We could develop solar powered ICBMs and pedal tanks.