Come on, you are better than that. Scientists, physicists, engineers and all types of science related experts recognize the differences between data collection and actual physical observation. Hard science and soft science are two different things.
Obama can be President, the leader of the free world and that's ok, but Cruz can't run NASA. I'm not even slightly a Cruz fan, but has the entire world gone fkn crazy?
Goddamn right says me. So also says the consensus of climatologists. Then make your case. Better roll up your sleeves. I am damn sure prepared to argue this one, amiga.
Make your case. Double team me. I am ready for the science deniers. Start a new thread, or better yet find one of the dozen or so old ones on the topic so I don't have to shoot down political objections to scientific conclusions again and again.
I don't know who is right or who is wrong on the climate change debate but I look at it like this. If we act like there really is climate change and do something about the causes (pollution, burning fossil fuels, cutting down the rain forests, ect.) and it turns out that there is no global warming at least we have done something positive about the envirionment. If we act like there is no climate change and keep doing what he have been doing we could be fucked.
The best way to 'fight' climate change is to stop the fight, change the subject. At this point both sides are to invested in their arguments to relinquish any points. Stop trying to stop carbon production; instead develop solutions to make carbon based energy production more and more obsolete. Everyone can get on board that train. BUT, the administration of that program has to be removed from the political arena. It has to be science based and not political donation based. Which of course means we may as well light ourselves on fire and get it over with.
