3 ms·

The distressing thing about this goes way beyond whether or not climate change is human caused, or a natural cycle of the earth. I'm distressed that we would le

The distressing thing about this goes way beyond whether or not climate change is human caused, or a natural cycle of the earth. I'm distressed that we would leave an agreement that would bring prosperity to future generations. Like it or not, we have to all still live here and keep this planet alive. How the hell did science ever become a political issue?

celticninja 9y ago
Trump thinks of the future as next week or next month, he doesnt think on a timeline longer than his own (or even that of his children).
rco8786 9y ago
Science has always been a political issue. Generally at odds with religion, which is also a political issue.
- hackeraccount 9y ago
  Both get used for political ends but I don't think either is inherently political. People enjoy using science and religion as a sort of "Open Sesame" to get political ends. I think it does neither any good.
coldpie 9y ago
> How the hell did science ever become a political issue? When it interfered with corporate profits. It's beneficial in the short term for American corporations to pretend climate change doesn't exist, so they do. The Republican party represents big corporate interests, so the Republican party follows suit in pretending it isn't real.
hackeraccount 9y ago
It's not the science that's politicized. It's the response to the science. Politics is, in my opinion, all about helping your friends and hurting your enemies. If the response is one that will do the opposite then your oppose it. It might happen that the best opposition is to deny the science but that's a consequence not a cause.
VLM 9y ago
"an agreement that would bring prosperity to future generations" That seems a very optimistic interpretation.
jcranmer 9y ago
Science is often far more equivocal than people believe. People on all sides of the spectrum want to use scientific results to bolster their case, and ignore the equivocations and stretch the evidence. There is also the tendency to cherry-pick the evidence that supports your views, and respond to countervailing studies with accusations of malfeasance.
- polotics 9y ago
  You wrote: "Science is often far more equivocal than people believe." In the context of the very real climate disruption now ongoing, I call bullshit. Can you show us your hand?
- mikeash 9y ago
  Which makes it all the more telling that the denier side cites essentially no scientific results.
meowface 9y ago
And even if you say, purely for the sake of argument, that climate change not only isn't human-caused but doesn't exist: there's still the matter of insane levels of pollution. Dead plants and animals, destroyed ecosystems, toxic and carcinogenic particulates circulating through people's lungs every day... These are visible problems that affect many areas of the world today and will reduce the lifespans of our children and grandchildren. Why wouldn't people want to mitigate this?

celticninja 9y ago

Trump thinks of the future as next week or next month, he doesnt think on a timeline longer than his own (or even that of his children).

rco8786 9y ago

Science has always been a political issue. Generally at odds with religion, which is also a political issue.

hackeraccount 9y ago
Both get used for political ends but I don't think either is inherently political. People enjoy using science and religion as a sort of "Open Sesame" to get political ends. I think it does neither any good.

coldpie 9y ago

> How the hell did science ever become a political issue? When it interfered with corporate profits. It's beneficial in the short term for American corporations to pretend climate change doesn't exist, so they do. The Republican party represents big corporate interests, so the Republican party follows suit in pretending it isn't real.

hackeraccount 9y ago

It's not the science that's politicized. It's the response to the science. Politics is, in my opinion, all about helping your friends and hurting your enemies. If the response is one that will do the opposite then your oppose it. It might happen that the best opposition is to deny the science but that's a consequence not a cause.

VLM 9y ago

"an agreement that would bring prosperity to future generations" That seems a very optimistic interpretation.

jcranmer 9y ago

Science is often far more equivocal than people believe. People on all sides of the spectrum want to use scientific results to bolster their case, and ignore the equivocations and stretch the evidence. There is also the tendency to cherry-pick the evidence that supports your views, and respond to countervailing studies with accusations of malfeasance.

polotics 9y ago
You wrote: "Science is often far more equivocal than people believe." In the context of the very real climate disruption now ongoing, I call bullshit. Can you show us your hand?
mikeash 9y ago
Which makes it all the more telling that the denier side cites essentially no scientific results.

meowface 9y ago

And even if you say, purely for the sake of argument, that climate change not only isn't human-caused but doesn't exist: there's still the matter of insane levels of pollution. Dead plants and animals, destroyed ecosystems, toxic and carcinogenic particulates circulating through people's lungs every day... These are visible problems that affect many areas of the world today and will reduce the lifespans of our children and grandchildren. Why wouldn't people want to mitigate this?