the issue isn't agreeing on is being man made, thats agreed upon but anyone with a brain. the issue is understanding the scope of the problem objectively, what will work to best offset it, and the best way to implements those changes. until we have scientists that agree more specifically to bring the spectrum a bit more in focus we'll have people that claim we don't need to act and hurt the economy because we don't understand the specifics of the issue enough to act.

keep in mind a lot of the same people would gladly have no car insurance if they were able. or health insurance if they wanted to risk it. these are people who don't worry about eliminating the worse risks if it hits their wallet and they feel save by the law of averages.



dont be silly cam. im saying if the scientists proved we had a world risking issue would you be in favor or whatever it takes. my guess was even in an apocalyptic consensus you'd be kicking and screaming muh taxes. this reactionary reflex helps me keep that thought.



i didnt even mention the government, i just asked for a way for way to bring science together to get an actual answer. i would think such a stark anti-government solution advocate would have a way that doesn't amount to "just wait for the dust to settle" in the face of potentially serious problems like the world ending.



ya large conferences to bring scientists together to present models, pick them apart, and flush it out. nuclear im fine with and fully support

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jan 25 2017 07:47am

https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/5pxfef/what_are_the_repercussions_of_the_trump/



Ignorance is Strength.

It's not new though, Bush did it too.

http://ncac.org/resource/congressional-hearings-expose-censorship-of-science

This post was edited by balrog66 on Jan 25 2017 07:41am

No?

The tweet is right there look http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38740205

Haha #fakenews

agreed for once, trump is taking the easiest way to create jobs and profit by bloating the energy sector with a fossil fuels comeback

aside from the issues with climate change, which still is a debated long term topic, you dont even have to go that far
these projects will destroy ecosystems and entire landscapes in a short time, not to mention the dangers of technologies like fracking, which also will ruin peoples lives eventually

i have never known americans to be very eco-friendly people in general, but i did have the impression that things were getting better

You are living in an alternate reality and now refusing to recognize logic and facts in addition to your previous lying.

Recognizing that the reports say he sold his stock is not "without proof". I didn't say he sold them 100%.
Making note of that fact, and noting that you excluded it, doesn't somehow support your claim.
'No way of verifying 100%' does not prove he still has it, yet you made the claim anyways.

Rather than recognizing your falsehoods you try to paint me as a trump apologist believing anything he says. Another lousy illegitimate tactic.



Right so ignore my what I actually say and my posting history and just make up accusations.
At least you are consistent.

Not buying into your lies on parts of one issue that lines up with trump is not the same thing as being a trump shill.
People who have respect for truth can make a point without being a fanboy of a person in question.

Are you going to continue to make up shit about me or are you going to debate like an adult?



I was making a point that not everything it does is great, not saying you said those exact words.
Nor was it "in order to reject any criticism of trump's executive order"
another falsehood.. im sensing a trend here.

You continue to double down on the evil businessman talking point rather than facing the reality of what we are arguing.
Yes there is a bigger government push for green energy in some other countries. Thats not inherently a good thing either.
I already discussed your jobs talking point without a response from you, although we can get into economic calculation and efficient allocation of resources more if you prefer.

This post was edited by cambovenzi on Jan 25 2017 07:53am

you really don't understand that simple logic? i'm a bit disappointed to be honest. you said my claim that he holds stock in the company was a LIE - you didn't say it's unverified until trump gets transparent about his business ties, you didn't say that's just the last objectively provable status (which it is) and could have changed, you said it was a LIE. that IS implying he sold them 100%, otherwise it couldn't be a lie. so much for your "alternative reality"...

btw, nice dodge on my question concerning your opinion of the fact that the public just doesn't know if he actually sold his stock, that we have to take his word for it (which you did btw to call me a liar, so much for not being a trump supporter - any really objective person would know that his word on such a matter is basically worth nothing).

it's outright hilarious to see you trying to act like you're the one who stays on topic after spending most of your effort on semantics and avoiding comment on the issue for the longest time, dodging clarification after making unverifiable claim about "half-truths", and not just in this thread ( http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=75844276&f=119&p=512855945 )...

but ok, just continue to act offended when ppl point out what you clearly and falsely IMPLIED (not "said those exact words") without clarifying what you actually meant if they are so wrong and you're just a poor, misunderstood adult who definitely doesn't make shit up, i certainly am seeing a trend there.

cute. but i'm sure you're well aware that his astonishment did not concern your ability to read a tweet, but you being oblivious to the fact that we can indeed make scientifically relevant statements about the co2 concentrations in the atmosphere that many years ago.
i'm not a climate scientist, i don't pretend to know how exactly they do that, but i think they can determine it analysing ice cores...

Very interesting. Not quite sure how they do that either but I guess we'll take their word for it.

Thanks for explaining!

Transitioning off fossil fuel is very simple but the benefits aren't in $$, it's in energy stability and the market doesn't care about stability. Fossil fuel is vast and the infrastructure is there and the wealth is predicated on it.

Ideally we should expand nuclear energy vastly, set up construction for wind energy all along the east coast. We can power the entire grid with pretty much all nuclear and wind now , but doubtful it ever gets started because fossil fuel is already able to fit the needs of consumption.

The biggest factor in the future for alternative energy sources to really take off is having more efficient batteries. The better we can store energy, the more efficient solar becomes.