If the whole world agreed on finding a cure for Cancer, would that be a better avenue for the world to take than what they have now on Climate Control? Just a thought.
sort by best latest
I think there is no argument in the scientific community that cancer is indeed real. The reality of the other one is still being debated by scientists and others.
It will take a non profit approach to make any cures, imo
In the scientific community Climate change is real. Only for people who believe in alternative facts Climate Change does not exists.
Climate Change is just as real as cancer.
There is no proof that the scientific community agrees that it is real. It is like actors in Hllywd if they want to work they side with Democrats. If a scientist wants funding they have to say they believe in climate change.
Excellent answer, Lisa.
Brad, think global, not local. If a Norwegian scientist is studying Climate change he/she is not interested in the views of the American Democratic or Republican Party.
Science is objective. Or is gravity a hoax too?
There's no incentive to find the "cure" for the many diseases we call cancer, because treating it is so lucrative. One look at my oncologist's swanky new offices will tell you there's big money to be made off people who have cancer.
Lisa, hard to believe but I totally agree with you.
Poppy, The goal of a business is to maximize profits. Medical patents for ex. protect R&D costs but they impede progress in cures because other research can't use that protected advance.
I imagine if a cure existed, which it doesn't according to my sister who is a pharmacologist living with breast cancer for 20 years, the pharmaceutical company that discovered it would make billions from the patented rights to manufacture the drug.
Based on my experience it is far more likely the Pharmas push doctors to use their drugs. Pharma does not make money on visits. My inkling is to agree with you Glenis. We might have to make a payment plan but would pay 1,000s extra for a cure for me.
That's more than a theory, but it is half the story, one has to research how the corporations, food industry, and big pharma, control the FDA, CDC, ACA, etc. to understand the very ugly and frightening bigger picture.
There is no reason to believe that climate control is even definable much less solvable. When has man ever been able to do better by trying to make changes. It is possible that any change made by man to alter the environment will make it worst.
People can change and they do. People can stop smoking, knowing that it causes cancer (thanks to scientific research). People can stop slavery if laws are made.
There are lots of world wide changes possible with knowledge and laws.
Dean. We have made a major medical cure in the last 60 plus years. It was difficult getting a man on the moon with low technology, but we did it. All the medical industry has done on cancer is to increase the number of cancer specialties. imo Thx
"Climate change on the other hand may not have as many components to consider." You are right Dean, we have NO control over the intensity of the Sun's magnetic field, or solar flares, or the earth's tilt, or shifting magnetic field.
That's an old argument that had been debunked as a misinterpretation of data. While the suns growth may cause warming over a period of time, it doesn't account for the rapid acceleration in the last 200 years. I suggest more on magnetic poles.
So what is your view towards Climate change? You forgot that part.
I work in media, spent most of my career in senior management, know hundreds of people at dozens of outlets and have never heard of any "agenda".
Except from Fox News and Breitbart.
Thank you Peter... my views on so called "Climate Change" have already been aired in response to another question on this site - "Is Global Warming Fact or Hoax?" The key is to carry out thorough independent research using many alternative sources an
Ralph, That wasn't my point because that already exists in the medical industry. My comparison was to the unification of the issue that the world would focus on in unison. Certainly, not in the mechanism employed by the Climate Change org. Thx
Maybe the "climate change crowd" fits their narrative and politicians certainly do. Scientists don't as there is always another scientist who will point the error.
That's why science is objective. And if there is a huge consensus about climate chang
6 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Show
6 answers hidden due to negative feedback. Hide