Why do we need a climate change bullshit bogey man to get politicians to stop blocking natural progress?
You keep using that word. I do not thing that it means what you think it means.
If you are going to do business in America, then you need to hire Americans. Otherwise don't expect the benefit of doing business in our economy. Don't reap the rewards of safety and US government sponsorship if you aren't going to contribute to our economy by hiring local. Stop being leeches.
Stopping talking like freakin' liberal, ya crybaby.
You see, hiring Americans is un-American because this is 'murican free enterprise at it's finest, making glorious profits for anyone "willing to work hard to get ahead" (TM).
If the federal government cannot keep up, then farm it out to private firms who are then audited by the Federal Government.
Yeah. Look how well that's worked out for the pharmaceutical industry.
I don't suggest doing nothing. I suggest more research and more experimentation. I suggest public policy that encourages more nuclear power and addresses the dangerous build up of temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel, trading a risk of local toxicity for the proven regional air pollution and possible global impact.
What I -don't- suggest is that we rush it. Let change evolve slowly on a low-cost vector until the science is good enough to support more radical action.
So you suggest doing nothing to arrest the carbon emissions that appear to be fueling the climate change. That is, in effect, nothing. "Slowly evolving change" will not get it done. Certainly, some scenarios indicate that we've already passed the tipping point. And yet you advocate "caution". Like I said, insane.
Can I get you to concede that there are climate scientists unworthy of the title?
TFTFY. And yes, I will happily stipulate as much if you will admit that the vast majority of the tiny minority of "climate" scientists who still deny the overwhelming evidence have dubious credentials or have an interest in preventing meaningful change in energy policy, or both.
Wait for it..., wait for it... Yep. Crickets.
"97 percent of climate scientists believe human activities are causing global warming."
That's not a scientific statement, it's a political one.
Actually, it is neither. It just is. As in "just is" a fact, readily observable and incontrovertible. Now, the suggestion that it is something else is, itself, a highly "political" statement clearly aimed at diminishing the weight of the fact that an overwhelming majority of those best equipped to assess the data have arrived at the same conclusion. No, the matter is not "settled". No scientist worthy of the title would even suggest as much, but the constantly repeated meme that we should thus do nothing until it is "settled" is simply insane.
I beg to differ. The whole idea of social networks is to con the sheep into providing personal details that can be sold to those willing to pay for it.
Your Telecom Corporate Overlords
That only shows how bad and harmful such regulations are, and the best way to get done with them is to put it in competition the regulated service with something non regulated and let people vote with their wallets about what they prefer.
A more ignorant reply I can not remember seeing here on