"If you do not believe in climate change, you should not be allowed to hold public office"

twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus.

Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics.

We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies."

Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming

"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources."

-NASA
Click to expand...

It's like trying to convert a Jehovah's Witness. Dude, I've read a Watchtower, not for me.
 
C

Catfish1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
"Politicians who don't believe in climate change should not hold public office, said actor Leonardo DiCaprio Monday at the White House before the screening of his new climate documentary.

"The scientific consensus is in and the argument is now over," DiCaprio said at the White House's South By South Lawn event.

"If you do not believe in climate change, you do not believe in facts, or in science or empirical truths and therefore, in my humble opinion, should not be allowed to hold public office."

DiCaprio screened his film "Before the Flood," a documentary about climate change. Ahead of the screening, he spoke on a panel with President Obama.

Obama called for the development of new technologies to address climate change, but stressed changes in policy and attitudes wouldn't happen overnight.

"Climate change is almost perversely designed to be really hard to solve politically. It is a problem that creeps up on you," Obama said.

"The political system in every country is not well designed to do something tough now to solve a problem that people will really feel the impact of in the future."

In the film, DeCaprio travels to Greenland, the Pacific Islands, Sumatra and industrial regions of China to show the impacts of climate change.

DiCaprio, and the film's director, Fisher Stevens, hope to use it in the run-up to next month's presidential and Senate elections, according to The Guardian.

They plan to show it on college campuses and across swing states. It will be released via National Geographic later this month."


The Hill


Click to expand...
Because DiCaprio is a Nobel winning scientist.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
The VOTERS should decide who holds public office Pada.

Each member of every science panel should have a vote, but no more than one apiece.

The right of people to choose their own representation should not have any influence by any scientific panel, aside from advice. The voters choose to believe the advice, or reject it. Which is currently guaranteed by law. With no approval from any fucking scientists required. Whether they're right or wrong in their theories.

The will of the public must decide who holds office. Otherwise, we all lose our rights.
Click to expand...
That's fine, that's basically what's already happening. You can pretty much guarantee these are the last few cycles of politicians with such polarizing positions on things like climate change

I would support a measure requiring politicians to accept empirical scientific evidence when performing the duties their job requires
 
RickyBobby26

RickyBobby26

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
That's fine, that's basically what's already happening. You can pretty much guarantee these are the last few cycles of politicians with such polarizing positions on things like climate change

I would support a measure requiring politicians to accept empirical scientific evidence when performing the duties their job requires
Click to expand...
And who decides what empirical data is the "gold standard"?

Voters should always be the deciding factor.

And the voting public is getting more educated on climate change all the time.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
It's like trying to convert a Jehovah's Witness. Dude, I've read a Watchtower, not for me.
Click to expand...
It's a fact whether or not you believe it

But that's OK, you're not a politician

If you were a politician, there would be a problem, because it's real and if we don't do anything about it, it will only get worse. That's also a scientific fact based on empirical evidence. Kind of like how if you don't do anything about cancer it'll only get worse, the earlier you do something about it, the more likely it will be that you will fix it. Not to mention the economic benefits of a renewable energy revolution just like the industrial revolution
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
And who decides what empirical data is the "gold standard"?

Voters should always be the deciding factor.

And the voting public is getting more educated on climate change all the time.
Click to expand...
Science isn't a democracy, voting has nothing to do with it

Scientific matters should be decided on by a community of scientists who study them and publish their evidence in research journals for other scientists within said community to independently verify


Voters have voted to keep marijuana illegal across the country for decades, science tells us it has many medicinal purposes and that using it recreationally is less harmful than alcohol. You're arguing in support of the system that keeps it illegal, I'm arguing in support of the system that would legally allow it. Does that make much sense to you after it's put in that light?
 
twostrokenut

twostrokenut

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
It's a fact whether or not you believe it

But that's OK, you're not a politician

If you were a politician, there would be a problem, because it's real and if we don't do anything about it, it will only get worse. That's also a scientific fact based on empirical evidence. Kind of like how if you don't do anything about cancer it'll only get worse, the earlier you do something about it, the more likely it will be that you will fix it. Not to mention the economic benefits of a renewable energy revolution just like the industrial revolution
Click to expand...
I keep it simpler. If anyone in Congress does not know what fractional reserve banking is then fuck them. That's actually their Constitutional duty to know. Same for state and municipal level as we all use the same Legal Tender.

I'm right there with yall on alt energy sources but those advancements will happen in the private sector. I see no reference to American energy consumption in the Constitution. When thin, cheap flexible sticky mount solar panels and cheap, safe and efficient batteries (LiFepo)are available to the masses enabling independent energy production at the home level it will not be government that provided that option.
 
RickyBobby26

RickyBobby26

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Science isn't a democracy, voting has nothing to do with it

Scientific matters should be decided on by a community of scientists who study them and publish their evidence in research journals for other scientists within said community to independently verify


Voters have voted to keep marijuana illegal across the country for decades, science tells us it has many medicinal purposes and that using it recreationally is less harmful than alcohol. You're arguing in support of the system that keeps it illegal, I'm arguing in support of the system that would legally allow it. Does that make much sense to you after it's put in that light?
Click to expand...
Scientists are very valuable. I happen to be one myself. I'm a man of science, as I've told everyone I know, at one time or another. And the public should have reasonable access to scientific theories and data.

But no scientist, or group of scientists, should be empowered to deny anyone otherwise lawfully qualified to hold office, from holding office.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
RickyBobby26 said:
Scientists are very valuable. I happen to be one myself. I'm a man of science, as I've told everyone I know, at one time or another. And the public should have reasonable access to scientific theories and data.

But no scientist, or group of scientists, should be empowered to deny anyone otherwise lawfully qualified to hold office, from holding office.
Click to expand...
Denying empirical scientific evidence renders you unqualified to hold public office
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
twostrokenut said:
I keep it simpler. If anyone in Congress does not know what fractional reserve banking is then fuck them. That's actually their Constitutional duty to know. Same for state and municipal level as we all use the same Legal Tender.

I'm right there with yall on alt energy sources but those advancements will happen in the private sector. I see no reference to American energy consumption in the Constitution. When thin, cheap flexible sticky mount solar panels and cheap, safe and efficient batteries (LiFepo)are available to the masses enabling independent energy production at the home level it will not be government that provided that option.
Click to expand...
Powerful special interests inhibit progress in the political arena. It could already be done, the problem is our political system is bought and controlled by business interests that legally bribe American politicians
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top