• 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!

Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

  • Yes

    Votes: 28 45.9%

  • No

    Votes: 32 52.5%

  • No Opinion

    Votes: 1 1.6%
  • Total voters
    61
Media_Truth said:
Nice try, but highly educated scientists that have been studying an issue for many years, are a little different than a fad diet. Again, we're not talking a small majority, or an electoral college win over a popular vote. We're talking about 97%. Here is another article:

https://www.theguardian.com/environ.../may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

Based on our abstract ratings, we found that just over 4,000 papers took a position on the cause of global warming, 97.1% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. In the scientist self-ratings, nearly 1,400 papers were rated as taking a position, 97.2% of which endorsed human-caused global warming. Many papers captured in our literature search simply investigated an issue related to climate change without taking a position on its cause.

Our survey found that the consensus has grown slowly over time, and reached about 98% as of 2011. Our results are also consistent with several previous surveys finding a 97% consensus amongst climate experts on the human cause of global warming.

Notice also the intercepted email from communications strategist, Fred Luntz, advising Republicans, referenced in the article:

"Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate"

It doesn't make any difference if the number is 95%, 97%, 99% or 100%, the Fossil Fuel Industry is going to pump big dollars to continue to sway your opinion. But like the tobacco lies of the '60s, the data is simply too overwhelming, and they will lose this battle.
Click to expand...

The Guardian? That's your proof? They are as partisan as you can get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom