The graphic could be more informative. Maybe the article will be.
http://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows...-issue-388983?source=email-story?source=email
Where the Candidates Stand on Climate Change
- Thread starter What Would Jesus Do?
- Start date
The graphic could be more informative. Maybe the article will be.
http://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows...-issue-388983?source=email-story?source=email
How did the rejection of science become a thing in the Republicans party?
Newsweek doesn't bother to include the probable Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, who (as you might expect) has a well-defined position on this subject.
[I see this originated with Mother Jones. Even more disappointing that they dropped the ball on Jill.]
[I see this originated with Mother Jones. Even more disappointing that they dropped the ball on Jill.]
Quite likely none. And even if they did, the Republicans would make sure to block it.
How big of an issue do you think this is going to be to the majority of voters? Serious question, I just don't think most people are going to base their vote on climate change stance of the candidates.
The graphic could be more informative. Maybe the article will be.
http://www.newsweek.com/chart-shows...-issue-388983?source=email-story?source=email
More so in the primaries but when it comes to the general it will be a minor issue IMHO.
For this election, it probably won't be that big. But for future ones, it might. Either way, denying Climate Change will make a candidate a dinosaur. It will be an easy litmus test for the voter to weed out undesirable candidates.
The dinosaurs are just going to go with the "sure climate is changing but we have bigger problems".
But the dinosaurs will also die off. And the younger mammals will replace them who will see Climate Change as a bigger issue. Will it ever be the dominate issue? Who knows? But it will certainly grow larger which means that any candidate who opposes it will do so at their own risk.
Who really cares? Climate change has been debunked soo many times. For those of you who believe it chew on this for awhile "nothing the U.S. does will have the slightest effect versus what China, Russia and others do to pollute the planet on an hourly basis".
I stopped reading after you said that Climate Change has been debunked. Clearly you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to science, so why should we believe anything else you say?
So the science started showing that the earth was warming up. The liberals in the USA made a huge mistake when they looked at it as a redistribution of wealth. The carbon tax push fell flat. It just looked like a big money grab. It turned off a lot of people.
There are a lot of common sense choices that can be made to make the USA better without major lifestyle changes.
There are a lot of common sense choices that can be made to make the USA better without major lifestyle changes.
Hard to find enough details to pin that down. But we have plenty of clues who's serious and who isn't. Here are a few promises to help sort the field.
Jill Stein - 100% green by 2030
O'Malley - 100% green by 2050
Hillary - 33% green by 2027
Sanders - favors a carbon tax
Some consider Bernie close to Jill Stein in conviction, but light on details. He gets points for identifying climate change as the top threat to national security, he has voted correctly on all the issues, and he favors a carbon tax - which even Exxon belatedly says is right way to go.
O'Malley seems fully on board but not aggressive enough.
Hard to know with Hillary. It feels like she's tacking to the green side, but who knows if she actually plans to act? My guess is that she will go with what her science advisers say, so she'll be serious about it when in office. But will she be aggressive enough?
Needless to say, none of the rest can be considered serious on this issue. Graham and Pataki have shown that they accept the science, but they don't seem to accept the urgency.
It clearly is NOT getting the attention it deserves. If the press were doing their job, it would be a top issue, if not THE top issue.
Renewables don't generate enough energy currently. You absolutely need coal and and natural gas in some substantial quantity for the foreseeable future.
I'm guessing this is why a realist sees the need for a carbon tax instead of saying "100% green by year blah blah blah"
I'm guessing this is why a realist sees the need for a carbon tax instead of saying "100% green by year blah blah blah"
Religion is my guess. Religion forced all R candidates to reject evolution which basically means you no longer believe in biology or geology. After you cross that bridge into magical thinking you might as well believe some spirit controls the weather and football too.
I'm guessing there's not a monumental profit margin that can be exploited from renewable/clean energy sources. Probably not something that can be scavenged or taken from a certain part of the world that has an abundance of a resource of some kind. Basically, it doesn't translate into a priority when your society is so profit-driven.
You give religion way too much credit in your answer.
This is a great issue for you guys - you get an issue you love and get to attack religion at the same time. A win win for your side.
That is fun. But what other reason do you point to for the R rejection of evolution other that religion?
On target.
Sunlight is free. Wind is free. What's even more to the point for the fossil energy industry, you can't control them, and you can't make contracts with countries or land owners that gives you exclusive rights to them.
There is definitely plenty of money to be made in green energy. But the rules - and the profit margins - are different and unclear. Plus, if you have $billions tied up in fossil fuel infrastructure, and loans to pay, and shareholders to satisfy, going green can be scary at any pace; but it's especially scary at the aggressive pace that the science suggests we need to be moving.
But I think that's where it starts. Take a guy like Ben. He has undoubtedly had more exposure to biology than most. His expertise is based on it. Yet for religious reasons, he is forced to reject the core basis of his medical field in order to selfishly save his internal understandings of a soul. After a person deludes themselves on that front, it becomes easy to believe that aloe vera gel cures cancer and brings a nice pay check. As does denying GW. Rs made a pact with the religious right. That's the core reason they reject science, reasoning, data and empirical evidence.
How is model making a science, since you cannot ever hope to actually test your hypothesis in order validate, adjust and retest your assumptions?
I'd like to think you believe this and are just unaware. That leaves you in the rational and persuadable camp, but you'll need to vote for a D to prove this true.
Titanic moron says something hugely stupid. There's something wrong in every sentence you wrote. You even kind of contradict yourself.
That's how modeling works. What would you have them do, create another planet to test different climate strategies?
How did the rejection of the constitution become a thing in the Democrat's party, much less the Republicans?
The inspiration: Mark Vanderloo. (because how often to I get to post male hotness in context).
Actually, the arguing about what the constitution says goes all the way back to Jefferson and Madison.
So it is the D's fault. GOP my ass. More like GYP which fits better for a number of reasons.
Latest posts
-
-
COMMIT: Iowa Lands 2026 Iowa City West, Three-Star OL Colin Whitters
- Latest: clayborn_94
-
-