jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (41 posts)

31 science organizations tell GOP senators that global warming is real

  1. promisem profile image91
    promisemposted 17 months ago

    What do our GOP senators know that 31 science organizations do not?

    http://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files … etter1.pdf

    1. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

      The GOP and conservatives are oftentime anti-intellectual. Scientists are effete liberal snobs? They ignore the science and opt for their world of fantasy instead. The truth is not what they want to hear, they would rather listen to the esteemed scientist Rush Limbaugh, instead. They become tools of corporate power that will stop at nothing to rape the earth for profit.

      1. ahorseback profile image81
        ahorsebackposted 17 months agoin reply to this

        What liberals have to learn is that science cannot determine a policy in ten or fifteen years  based on   millions   of  years in history , Is there global  warming sure !  Is it going to destroy the world as we know it in ten years ...............really !

        I believe in climate change , winter ,spring ,summer and  fall .

        I believe we need a science class that really matters for activists to actually have to pass in their learning grades  !

        1. Credence2 profile image81
          Credence2posted 17 months agoin reply to this

          And since when do you know more than the vast majority of the world's scientific experts on the topic?
          What makes you so sure that YOU are right and all the experts are wrong?

          Nobody says that the world will be destroyed in 10 years, but the trend is clear for anyone that wants to look.

          Is it no wonder that Trump says he adores the 'lesser educated'?

          1. ahorseback profile image81
            ahorsebackposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            31 scientists  cry out "global warming "    what about all the rest ?     If I  got a constant monetary drivel from  D.C.   in  $  study grants , I too could create a hugely  debatable issue to keep receiving that Government Subsidy money Too  and receive it for decades to come  .   Why do liberals so willingly destroy  the character of corporate America for receiving subsidized  welfare  yet  never admit  the very same hypocrisy for scientists studying the  color of frogs  eye's ? 

            How many tax dollars go to study something so scientifically  debatable as global  warming  ?   Any outcry from liberals there? .......................................Only crickets once  again!

    2. Onusonus profile image80
      Onusonusposted 17 months agoin reply to this
      1. promisem profile image91
        promisemposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        Are you saying we should believe one person rather than 31 science organizations?

        1. Onusonus profile image80
          Onusonusposted 16 months agoin reply to this

          If you are saying it is only one person then you obviously didn't watch the video.

          1. promisem profile image91
            promisemposted 16 months agoin reply to this

            I did until I got bored with him saying the same basic thing over and over again.

            Should I then believe several people over 31 science organizations representing tens of thousands of scientists?

            1. Credence2 profile image81
              Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

              That PragerU is not a university but a rightwing advocacy group. I would take anything said by them with a grain of salt, a matter of fact, many grains of salt.

              1. promisem profile image91
                promisemposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                For some people, a right-wing advocacy group is much more credible than 31 science organizations.

            2. Onusonus profile image80
              Onusonusposted 16 months agoin reply to this

              Of course you did. Why listen to a scientist who does not share your deeply held apocalyptic religious beliefs? Depends on who pays their salaries. UN's IPCC.

              1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                PrettyPantherposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                If 10 cardiologists diagnosed you with a heart condition and said you needed surgery or you would die within a year, and 2 cardiologists agreed you had the condition but that no action was required because the condition was just a naturally occuring cycle in your life, would you forego the surgery in favor of the minority?

                1. promisem profile image91
                  promisemposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Well said.

                2. Onusonus profile image80
                  Onusonusposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                  Sorry to tell you but you are comparing apples to oranges. All cardiologists have the same understanding about how the heart works and what it is made of, there is zero debate on the way it functions.

                  1. PrettyPanther profile image83
                    PrettyPantherposted 16 months agoin reply to this

                    Figures.  You all are so predictable.

                    Yes, there is plenty of debate about how the heart functions:  what makes it function best, what damages it, what is the best treatment for atherosclerosis, etc.  There is, however, consensus around certain treatments and best scenarios for prevention, just like there is with climate change.

    3. RJ Schwartz profile image94
      RJ Schwartzposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      When NASA and most of the world science body warned of an ice age in the 1970's what happened?  Other than the fact that they were all wrong

    4. Credence2 profile image81
      Credence2posted 16 months agoin reply to this

      I have to ask the Conservatives why the difficulty in understanding the concept of climate change? Are they dupes for those greedy corporate types who want to regard the planet with its fragile ecosystem and finite resources as their own personal toilet, at the expense of the rest of us who have to live here?

      1. RJ Schwartz profile image94
        RJ Schwartzposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        The climate changes constantly - it's called weather.  We understand it happens as it's always happened - man isn't influencing it as much as your team thinks so.  There is the difference.

  2. Onusonus profile image80
    Onusonusposted 17 months ago
  3. profile image62
    Kenagainposted 16 months ago

    Hard to say scientist can be bought to I imagine

  4. Live to Learn profile image79
    Live to Learnposted 16 months ago

    I read an article on the article about the 'global climate emergency' that wasn't really. It quoted several scientists in debunking the original article. One scientist stated that he liked to attribute changes in climate to human activity. I found that interesting. He liked. It doesn't sound very scientific to me.

  5. profile image59
    Amiya Tottenposted 16 months ago

    This is not Tru because not doctors add belief about different subject

  6. colorfulone profile image86
    colorfuloneposted 16 months ago

    Global Cooling?  No wait, its Global Warming? 
    Umm, nope!  Let me think...
    Its Climate Change (PC), and it has the same political agenda as GC and GW for global government.

    1. RJ Schwartz profile image94
      RJ Schwartzposted 16 months agoin reply to this

      Follow the money / it's all about control of energy, shifting huge profits from those who have it now (oil and gas) to those who want it (solar, etc)

      1. colorfulone profile image86
        colorfuloneposted 16 months agoin reply to this

        The shadow government has been around since like 1947 (?).  This is just crazy that's going on. Look at Drudge Report daily.

  7. willmcwryter profile image65
    willmcwryterposted 16 months ago

    wow science is stupid anyone can be a sciencetist.

 
working