I’d add that the GOP needs to get beyond its anti-science dogma.
Joe Essid

Truth and fact are based on repeating experiments and getting reproducible results. Some things, such as who was the 16th President, cannot be determined by an experiment. In such a situation, the evidence is examined. Human influence on the climate is an evidence-based case. Frankly, if you think the evidence is unanimous you haven’t taken time to examine the evidence.

Cons look at the evidence, see no cause and effect, and then rejected the calls for changes. The changes appear, to conservatives and libertarians, to promote an agenda. Unless you understand the politics you’ll never understand either side of the climate change debate.

If you think science is pure and separate from politics you just need to look back at history.

Politicians use science, war, disease, and all crisis for their own purposes. Look to find the gain each side is seeking before deciding one side is “pro-science” and one is “anti-science”.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.