Because he was the only one being honest, and the only one i can believe would do as he said in light of the obvious compromises that the role involves (or any role that involves working with others). The black guy and one other guy seemed like decent people as well. The others were talking empty rhetoric - saying what the audience wanted despite knowing they couldn't act on it. edit: just to make it clear, i'm putting myself in an american right wingers place when i say this.
Science is NOT a democracy!!!!! I don't like the blind faith inherent in your answer. Just share 5-10 links that highlight what can be done to save the human race. I am NOT asking you to solve the problem. Just link it up sir.
You only know the name of 1 Republican candidate... Le sigh. Dr. Ben Carson ("the black guy") is much more conservative than Trump in many regards. And "one other guy" does not give me enough to work with. I would love to engage further. It is probably not nearly as much empty rhetoric as you think. I could be wrong, of course. But this election feels like an insurgency gaining steam. Buckle in my friend, even if yonder in Europe. You guys are being flooded with peeps that will NOT assimilate. Lo siento mucho.
A. You're right, it is not a Democracy. Science is a search for facts, there is no voting on them, you either prove them or you don't. Climate Change being caused by humans has been proven. Science is already past that stage, and now it's up to the politicians to pay attention. P.S. Faith is not involved in any way, shape, or form. B. Do you not know how Google Works? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=solutions+for+climate+change
you seem to misunderstand how american politics works /sarcasm if real experience counted, that nobody republican guy on the left who was in all those whatevers that (senator of ohio too or something? cant' remember, did budget of some state) and some federal state thingy. Unfortunately for him, however qualified he may be, he lacks charisma and fame. He's never going to be elected in an American election for president ever. I agree that Jeb bush seems like a capable guy, and the premise that the others are mostly speculating on how good they would be. ( I mean chris christie with his whole sabotage thing, cutting school budget but giving a stadium to the sports team). Christie knows he ain't got a story to tell, so he just rambles on about how the government steals from him and how bad Hilary is. Unfortunately, this seems to please an average American voter. They don't seem to care much for track records. Still mindblowing to me, as someone who did scummy stuff like that in the past would be completely compromised.
I am unfamiliar with the US system, but following UK politics gives you a nose for bullshit. For instance a government will say it will cut immigration to x% per year. It says this because it knows its voters hate immigrants, but it also knows that both the people who fund it, and the economy on which it will be judged depend on an influx of low pay workers at the bottom. Thus, it says one thing to win the voters, it makes some headline grabbing policies that penelise a tiny section of migrants and thus give the impression it is 'anti immigration', but not disrupt the greater trend towards migration on which it depends. What i just watched was not even a slight covering of cat litter over the crap. They know they cannot do what they say (or at least i hope they do), but they say it anyway.
A) Climate change has been occurring for 100s of millions of years. Humans have a huge impact on the planet. So do worms, and cows, and trees, and... What percentage of climate change is caused by human activity right now? In 2014? In 2010? May 24, 2006? 1492? 1000? 33 AD? 999 BC? And so on. B) Once again, tough to take you seriously. Can YOU even share 1 link that YOU find valid? Or gonna stoop to more ad hominem? Fair enough.
Fair enough. Did your nose smell the BS 6 years ago too? Cause I was sickened by the lot of them, and refused to vote for business as usual. Big gov was gonna win with McCain or Obama, so a lot of people decided to make history by voting for an inexperienced charmer with a fantastic tan. At least Obama fights for his beliefs.
Right, climate change does happen naturally, and that natural change happens over millions of years. The problem is that a process that normally takes millions of years has been compressed into the last 100 years (or so), and has actually increased in even just the last 15 years. This isn't magic, we can track carbon emissions, methane emissions, the temperature of the water, historical samples from tested Ice Cores, etc. Scientists have all the data to back it up. Like I said earlier, the testing and confirming stage of science is done. We know human activity is causing the current climate change. So, to more directly answer your question; Almost all of it. To put it simply "I already did." I've provided you with a whole Google search's worth of links. If you don't want to read them, that's up to you, but I've done my job. The burden is on you to actually read them, it's hard to take YOU seriously if you can't do at least that much. This started with me pointing out that the Republicans failed to address important issues. You're the one that made it strangely personal. The first thing you typed when quoting me was literally "Tough to take you seriously when..." You fired the first volley there. You can't start a conversation on the offensive, and then when someone argues back you start crying about them making ad hominem attacks. C'mon man, have a little self-awareness. But I'm a nice Skeleton, I'll graciously accept your apology.
A) To clarify, when it comes to climate change you believe "almost all of it" is because of human activity? B) I have read many links r/t climate change over the years. For the 3rd time, can you point me to 1 source you find very compelling? C) Curious that me saying "tough to take you seriously when..." hurt your feelings, and is magically equivalent to your inference that I am an idiot.
No. I don't "believe" it is. I know it is. Belief is the state of mind in which a person thinks something to be the case, with or without there being empirical evidence to prove that something is the case with factual certainty. As I've said repeatedly. We're past that stage. It's been proven. It is a factual certainty. Done. Now it's time for the politicians of both parties to step up to the plate and get to work on fixing it.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...ing-is-due-to-human-causes-vs-natural-causes/ http://www.theguardian.com/environm...-3-how-much-global-warming-are-humans-causing http://grist.org/news/climate-scientists-are-95-percent-sure-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming/ Climatologist, Michael Mann, says the primary cause of global warming is the burning of fossil fuels. How much does humanity need to reduce fossil fuel use to make a statistically significant impact?
Id rather have one that's out of gradeschool and therefore past all foodfights. But I fully understand why you'd say what you did.
lol half u plebs aint even from murica why bother urself with our presidents also voting trump bcuz he's going to make our kuntry great again
The climate change we have now is an issue of social fairness. Rich countries will be able to deal with the immediate changes, whereas third world countries will mostly suffer the consequences. This is, at least, the short term impact of climate change. The major issue is that the climate change and human invention greatly reduces biodiversity all over the world. It is widely believed that we may be heading towards the sixth big mass extinction event, or that we already are in it. This is a tricky issue: The massive loss of biodiversity we are currently experiencing has no immediate or direct consequences. That does not imply there are no consequences at all; there may be some butterfly effects which may lead to global chaos, or there may be not. With our current understanding of nature and the inherent complexity of ecosystems, there is just no way of simulating the outcome of the current processes. Those two points make it easy to ignore climate change for many of us. The threat is abstract, and nobody can say for certain or even with a satisfying amount of certainty what will happen. And for now, all that will happen will most likely only affect the poor.
