"Wharfie, the problem is that you dogmatists who believe in sAiNt gReTa tHe tHeOlOgIaN"
That's your toxic ideology talking, not an argument about the science.
==
"want to push solutions that have never been proven to be effective nor workable"
The solution is for the world to transition away from using fossil fuels. We appear to be doing that, and so are other countries. Other proposals, like CCS, favored by the purveyors of fossil fuels, and spraying SO2 in the air, do appear to be unworkable, and ineffective.
|
==
"Where's the 'scientific process' behind Brandon's policies that discourage fossil fuel production?"
His policies are political science, not science science. The scientific process underlying the political process goes something like Fourier discovers greenhouse gases, Foote and Tyndall discover the identities of those gases, Arrhenius figures out the sensitivity of CO2 (how much we'll warm if CO2 doubles), Keeling starts measuring CO2 and weather bureaus collect temperature data, and then determining if the data upholds the theory, which it does.
--
"Where's the 'scientific process' in giving a bunch of elitists the power to dictate how we should live our lives?"
Once again, that's the political science process, not the science science process. In Calif, the process goes something like Raygun created CARB and CEC, fellow Californian Nixon gave us authority to be cleaner than the EPA standards, and Arnold gave us the ability to regulate greenhouse gases.
--
"Where's the 'scientific process' in keeping all of the energy in the ground"
We aren't keeping all the energy in the ground; just the fossil energy. In fact, geothermal is taking energy out of the ground. There's also a lot of energy in the sun, wind, and water.
==
"And we are not allowed to question that"
You can certainly question the political science, but you should be honest about it; "I'm a sociopath, so I don't want to do anything about the observed warming."
--
--
"because to question the dogma is to question science itself."
Your dogma is to question the messenger, not the science. |
