Quote
acting like the only two options are either trump's approach to LOOSEN restrictions and regulations for the fossil fuel industry that aim to protect the environment, cut back co2 emissions, and promote a shift towards renewable energy, or to "urgently COMPLETELY ELIMINATE the use of fossil fuels", implying that ANYONE even proposed that in a manner that would threaten people's access to affordable energy.
what a completely dishonest "argument" and misrepresentation of what's actually happening. even the "greenest" approaches in europe (scandinavia, germany, netherlands) did NOT do that, but i guess you have to make up such bs scenarios to make trump's approach look somewhat justifiable...
When did I do this?
I did explicitly the opposite by talking about how its more nuanced.
I stated my view. Saying the exact opposite is the only alternate option is nowhere in my post.
but you will stretch for anything, assume the worst, fail at reading comprehension and lie to denounce my posts. nothing new there.
Quote
again, the overwhelming majority of scientists ARE open to opposing ideas and findings. it's NOT about jailing dissenters for dissenting, that's just an alternative argument, a pathetic misrepresentation.
what they DO oppose are scientists DELIBERATELY MISLEADING the public with dishonest statements, often funded by interest groups that have an economic interest in misrepresenting certain issues.
a shame that in your attempt to discredit the vast majority of scientists (not their findings or their conclusions, there's your right wing hypocrisy again) that oppose your own politicised view, you can't seem to see the difference.
when did I say anything terrible about the vast majority of scientists?
I am differentiating between the politicized march and scientists/science.
Something some people seem incapable of doing.
This post was edited by cambovenzi on Apr 24 2017 07:09pm