No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.It could if there's an emergency.
“Global warming” is not an emergency. Alarmists say it is. They are wrong.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.It could if there's an emergency.
I'm talking about if we find a threat using science, like an asteroid hurtling towards us we can't stop or a deadly airborne virus.No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.
“Global warming” is not an emergency. Alarmists say it is. They are wrong.
Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.
Sure, why not? You frequently are dismissive of valid opinions of others which risk challenges to your misconceptions. But what you are not allowed to ignore are people’s rights and liberties. The rights of people will not be offered up on some altar to Global Warming alarmism and “Chicken Little” the-sky-is-falling fairy tales.So we can just ignore it then. Thanks. Good to know.
So? Science doesn’t decide policy on how to react to things. Policy is a question for the body politic. It takes into account science and other factors too.I'm talking about if we find a threat using science, like an asteroid hurtling towards us we can't stop or a deadly airborne virus.
Since I didn’t write anything like what you describe your post is irrelevant.So all of our understanding about ebola and how best to prevent contagion is not "real science"?
Should we let people infected with ebola roam free? Maybe take a plane or two and go on a holiday to get better somewhere nice?
Science has nothing to do with freedom, or liberalism.
Are you following me around? You have not given a valid opinion. You just posted your political alarmism. You are a misconception. I do not ignore rights and liberties. I recognize your right to be as alarmist, reckless and selfish as you want.Sure, why not? You frequently are dismissive of valid opinions of others which risk challenges to your misconceptions. But what you are not allowed to ignore are people’s rights and liberties. The rights of people will not be offered up on some altar to Global Warming alarmism and “Chicken Little” the-sky-is-falling fairy tales.
Since I didn’t write anything like what you describe your post is irrelevant.
Real science doesn’t require forcibly taking away personal liberties. That would be tyranny.
I didn't say it did.So? Science doesn’t decide policy on how to react to things. Policy is a question for the body politic. It takes into account science and other factors too.
Any anthropomorphic global warming is manageable and does not justify wholesale surrender of our personal liberties. AGW alarmism is a greater threat than AGW itself.
No. Because science should not be mixed with politics. Declaring an emergency is a political question.
“Global warming” is not an emergency. Alarmists say it is. They are wrong.
No, I didn’t. I never said anything about Ebola.Yes you did, it was quoted in the post.
Of course public policy is political.Sorry, but that makes no sense. If anything it should not be a political question.
And once again you demonstrate that you are not a skeptic. If you cannot show why they are "alarmists", once again when you put a label on someone you put the burden of proof upon yourself and cannot defend that claim you show that you are a denier and not a skeptic.