The 90% consensus of experts in a given field of science is not really relevant to the political implications of that consensus and what political policies are appropriate to address those implications. One could just as easily use the "90% consensus on climate change" to justify a political policy to address climate change that voters would rightly reject as monstrous, such as we should reduce the Earth's population by 99%. That would likely "fix" the problem of climate change but would be strongly objected to the voters in that 99% portion who were scheduled to be culled.
That's sorta how science would be useful here. Given a scientific consensus of "climate is changing due to greenhouse gases," the voters would first decide "is this is a problem we should address?" If they vote yes, then the scientists' expertise could be called on to say "we're thinking of implementing Policy A, how does that compare to Policy B in achieving political goal X?" Scientists and other experts could then say "A has these pros and these cons in meeting Objective X, and B has these different sets of pros and cons." The voters would then take that information and vote on A, B, some other policy C through K, or do nothing at all. That's how democracy works; not "scientists agree that Plan A is the best so screw what the voters choose because they're wrong."
Wow you have very mobile goal posts.
Meanwhile, that is what scientists have been doing for 20 years now. The problem is there has been a manufactured controversy over the consensus itself. And you know that. If corporate propaganda intended to obfuscate the very problem itself is what is standing in the way of addressing the problem, you and your mobile goal posts are moot.
But keep being obtuse as you slide your goal posts all over the field.
Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
I guess you didn't notice how those guys won bigly in November, which is why you guys are desperately scrambling to reframe the narrative with utter horseshit like the OP's.Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
That's how democracy works; not "scientists agree that Plan A is the best so screw what the voters choose because they're wrong."
Sure, the same problem medicine had with politics for 40 years with tobacco.
But keep thinking science and policy is a pissing match or popularity contest. Congrats. You're killing people.
Addressing the problem of you guys losing at the ballot box?
It’s simply par for the course at the ever increasing skill intelligent rationalizing will develop to deny reality as one bubble after another is successfully challenged. The wise have been aware of this for centuries: A fool convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.Ya know...
I think the GOP is having a talking point crisis.
After losing the last elections, they are attempting to reframe the discourse from they themselves being anti-science luddite Nazis to their opposition being anti-science luddite Nazis.
Let me know how that works for y'all outside your base, cause damn. That's a bold move there skippy.
It’s a very weird to argue in favor of pleasure island because despite the fact that all the children are turning into donkeys to be sold into slavery they seem to really like the drinking and cigars.
Sure, the same problem medicine had with politics for 40 years with tobacco.
But keep thinking science and policy is a pissing match or popularity contest. Congrats. You're killing people.
Off topic
Yeah that’s an inconvenient truth eh?
Slow claims Libs are anti-science at which point Glenn tells us that science doesn't matter to conservatives, that truth isn't truth when it comes to voting.
I don't think he knows how right he is.
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
It's led to the adoption of a lot more clean energy & growing awareness of the problem despite conservatives' innate disregard for science, something you seem to defend.
The answer is "growing awareness"
<beep>
What is "how much Democrats have achieved on climate change in the last 30 years"
<ding ding>
I'll close out the category with "Things political losers say" for $1,000, Alex.
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
The answer is "growing awareness"
<beep>
What is "how much Democrats have achieved on climate change in the last 30 years"
<ding ding>
I'll close out the category with "Things political losers say" for $1,000, Alex.
Using science to flog political policies for climate change has worked about as well as using religion to flog political policies for the right has been in stopping divorce, gays, and abortion.
Yeh, Dems were bigtime losers in 2018. The way it's shaping up under Trump's leadership you should expect more of the same in 2020.