• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"Americans don't have a right to a climate capable of sustaining human life"

There is no unanimous consensus.

Every single scientific organization on the entire planet, including the scientists working for ExxonMobile and the Trump organization, have put out formal statements saying that global warming is real, mostly man-made, and potentially dangerous enough that something should be done for it. If you know of any which have said the contrary, let me know.

""The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
-American Association for the Advancement of Science


" Further just because there is a consensus does not make that consensus accurate enough to be essentially correct."

It does. The science is now as well established as the science which keeps airplanes up in the air.

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard': scientists - Reuters
 
I am not sure what you are talking about. I did not mention anything about any single formal study.

Yeah. What's your expertise on the subject?
 
Every single scientific organization on the entire planet, including the scientists working for ExxonMobile and the Trump organization, have put out formal statements saying that global warming is real, mostly man-made, and potentially dangerous enough that something should be done for it. If you know of any which have said the contrary, let me know.

""The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."
-American Association for the Advancement of Science


" Further just because there is a consensus does not make that consensus accurate enough to be essentially correct."

It does. The science is now as well established as the science which keeps airplanes up in the air.

Evidence for man-made global warming hits 'gold standard': scientists - Reuters

I think those studies would have a really hard time proving man is the man or only causer of climate change...that is unless there's politics involved.
 
Yeah. What's your expertise on the subject?

None. I am giving you the science from the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization which specializes in and has expertise in the subject. That's how it works in science. But you knew that, right?
 
If you have the right to elect whom you want to govern you, you're exercising a democratic principle and the most fundamental tenet of democracy. That your leaders prefer to ignore your wishes isn't your fault.

If those congresscritters and presidents make decisions for you, that's a republic principle.
 
I think those studies would have a really hard time proving man is the man or only causer of climate change...that is unless there's politics involved.

You have been misinformed.

American Association for the Advancement of Science
"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

American Chemical Society
"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."


American Geophysical Union
"Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes."

American Medical Association
"Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant."

American Meteorological Society
"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

American Physical Society
"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)8

The Geological Society of America
"The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s."
 
None. I am giving you the science from the unanimous consensus of every single scientific organization which specializes in and has expertise in the subject. That's how it works in science. But you knew that, right?

Experts like this guy???
He stays in his lane. Like any scientist.....



rofl
 
Probably not most? The EPA had become quite a powerful agency. Why?

What's wrong with an agency designed to protect your environment, and ensuring you have clean air and water, having the power to do so? Of course you could disband it and allow industry to pollute unhindered by pesky regulations; after all what's wrong with smog, acid rain, poisoned rivers and oceans filled with plastic waste?
 
This is no excuse to deny science or not pursue sound policy.

Denying science and pursuing good environmental policy both require political will. Most Americans are either indifferent to the issue of climate change or don't think it's as much of a crisis as scientists have been telling us. That's changing, but we are still re-electing representatives who deny the science and claim it's a hoax perpetrated by people who are making money on cap and trade policies. And some of these morons sit on the Science, Space, and Technology committee.

Inhofe brings snowball on Senate floor as evidence globe is not warming - CNNPolitics

Until we vote guys like Inhofe out of congress, expect this lack of will to continue.
 
Experts like this guy???

He is an educator and popularizer of science, not an expert. He tries to educate the public. Apparently not successfully enough, though, it seems.

If he tries to get too technical, it goes over your head. If he tries to dumb it down, you dismiss him. Just can't win.

Ignorance is not hard to fix. Stubborn, spiteful, willful ignorance, on the other hand, is a far more intractable and difficult problem.
 
What's wrong with an agency designed to protect your environment, and ensuring you have clean air and water, having the power to do so? Of course you could disband it and allow industry to pollute unhindered by pesky regulations; after all what's wrong with smog, acid rain, poisoned rivers and oceans filled with plastic waste?

The unintended of your ultra regulation is disruption of the economy, for example.
 
Probably not most? The EPA had become quite a powerful agency. Why?

I would think that the majority of what the EPA does is necessary. They have become quite powerful because so too have Corporations.
 
I would think that the majority of what the EPA does is necessary. They have become quite powerful because so too have Corporations.

While the economy suffers.
 
Punch the triangle on the video and figure it out. His message is fear mongering.

Fear mongering is when you are trying to create fear where there is no threat. It's NOT fear mongering to yell "fire" when you see a fire.

Trust me. We have plenty to be afraid of.
 
The unintended of your ultra regulation is disruption of the economy, for example.

Supply and Demand.

Demand for green technologies, better climate policy will boost the economy.

Fighting that demand by subsidizing oil (picking a winner) so it can keep green technologies out of the market with fixed prices is bad for the economy. Giving regional monopolies to energy providers is bad for the economy.

free market good. restricted market bad.

The only disruption to the economy there will be, is cleaning out the rot and the gunk from decades of reaganomics trying to turn us into an oligarchy.
 
Fear mongering is when you are trying to create fear where there is no threat. It's NOT fear mongering to yell "fire" when you see a fire.

Trust me. We have plenty to be afraid of.

Then take Nye's message to heart.:D
 
While the economy suffers.

Life is full of compromises. Every hour you are not at work is your personal economy suffering. You want to stay at work 24/7 and never sleep?
 
I didn't know there were "absolutes" in science?

There aren't.

Science is not based on absolutes–Richard Dawkins proves that

"The whole scientific process is based upon criticism, open-mindedness and accumulation of new data. It’s not based on “ok, we’re done, we’ve answered all of the questions.” Science evolves over times, because it simply isn’t dogmatic."

"Science is all about the evidence. That’s all. Evidence is gathered that either supports or nullifies the principles, hypotheses and theories of the natural universe."

Don't mistake the absence of absolutes as a weakness in any scientific findings. The lack of absolutes merely indicates the honesty of the scientists, it does not indicate uncertainty.
 
Supply and Demand.

Demand for green technologies, better climate policy will boost the economy.

Fighting that demand by subsidizing oil (picking a winner) so it can keep green technologies out of the market with fixed prices is bad for the economy. Giving regional monopolies to energy providers is bad for the economy.

free market good. restricted market bad.

The only disruption to the economy there will be, is cleaning out the rot and the gunk from decades of reaganomics trying to turn us into an oligarchy.

Your philosophy is more socialism (and social 'morals') than capitalism.
 
Back
Top Bottom