• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil deGrasse Tyson Under Investigation for Rape

LMAO, a clear admission that understanding science is not something the right feels necessary to adhere to :doh

I admitting no such thing. How do you come to the conclusion that me stating Neil deGrasse Tyson pushes issues like global warming in a way that shows he's Left-leaning means that I am stating the Right doesn't feel it's necessary to adhere to science? That logic simply does not follow. As an Independent, you don't seem to find it necessary to adhere to logic.
 
I admitting no such thing. How do you come to the conclusion that me stating Neil deGrasse Tyson pushes issues like global warming in a way that shows he's Left-leaning means that I am stating the Right doesn't feel it's necessary to adhere to science? That logic simply does not follow. As an Independent, you don't seem to find it necessary to adhere to logic.

My guess is because going against the science of climate change is denying science.

From the folks who put us on the Moon and just landed another robot on Mars: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg
 
My guess is because going against the science of climate change is denying science.

From the folks who put us on the Moon and just landed another robot on Mars: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
203_co2-graph-021116.jpeg

What science does it go against to say that we should take a more natural approach to energy than forcing an artificial switch to solar and wind quickly?
 
What science does it go against to say that we should take a more natural approach to energy than forcing an artificial switch to solar and wind quickly?

I'm going with the one that burning all the cheap hydrocarbons will strand us on the earth.
 
I'm going with the one that burning all the cheap hydrocarbons will strand us on the earth.

The ironic thing is that using only renewables would literally strand us on Earth, because renewables aren't powerful enough to get us off the planet according to Elon Musk. Why not use a variety of energy, and continue to develop renewables so that they can compete? Each type of energy has it's own pros and cons, so having a diversity of energy types makes the most sense.
 
What science does it go against to say that we should take a more natural approach to energy than forcing an artificial switch to solar and wind quickly?

Please rephrase your sentence because it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm going with the one that burning all the cheap hydrocarbons will strand us on the earth.

Sorry, but that one also seems nonsensical. Why do you think burning hydrocarbons would strand us?
 
Please rephrase your sentence because it doesn't make sense to me.

We can force a switch to solar and wind energy or we can attack global warming in another way. If I want to attack global warming in another way, what science am is my strategy contradicting?
 
We can force a switch to solar and wind energy or we can attack global warming in another way. If I want to attack global warming in another way, what science am is my strategy contradicting?

Solar and wind energy, along with thermal energy, is "free" for the taking. Space exploration can't use wind, but it certainly can use the greatest source of energy in our solar system; the Sun.

While I think fusion tech or other unproved/unknown sources could become the best, I think wind, solar and battery tech are the best options for now. What do you think?
 
Solar and wind energy, along with thermal energy, is "free" for the taking. Space exploration can't use wind, but it certainly can use the greatest source of energy in our solar system; the Sun.

While I think fusion tech or other unproved/unknown sources could become the best, I think wind, solar and battery tech are the best options for now. What do you think?

Solar can't create the power necessary to get off the planet Earth, at least right now and likely into the distant future. That's why NASA, Space X, and foreign government programs all use rockets. Nuclear fusion is the easiest answer.

We have the technology now, it is one of the cleanest energy sources, and we can mass produce it quite easily. Nuclear fission could help in the future. There are still major benefits to fossil fuels, though, and we don't need to stop using fossil fuels, we just need to cut down. Cutting down on fossil fuels will naturally happen as we try to find ways to cut down on pollution. Solar is great bust still expensive and wind is trash and unreliable.
 
The ironic thing is that using only renewables would literally strand us on Earth, because renewables aren't powerful enough to get us off the planet according to Elon Musk. Why not use a variety of energy, and continue to develop renewables so that they can compete? Each type of energy has it's own pros and cons, so having a diversity of energy types makes the most sense.

The cheap hydrocarbons are what we need to get off the planet.
 
Solar can't create the power necessary to get off the planet Earth, at least right now and likely into the distant future. That's why NASA, Space X, and foreign government programs all use rockets. Nuclear fusion is the easiest answer.

We have the technology now, it is one of the cleanest energy sources, and we can mass produce it quite easily. Nuclear fission could help in the future. There are still major benefits to fossil fuels, though, and we don't need to stop using fossil fuels, we just need to cut down. Cutting down on fossil fuels will naturally happen as we try to find ways to cut down on pollution. Solar is great bust still expensive and wind is trash and unreliable.

You might want to reconsider your use of the terms fusion and fission.
 
You are free to be wrong.
You first. ;)

Do a search for “are liberals smarter?” and you will be presented with a plethora of studies/articles from prestigious institutions and highly respected researchers. Do a search for “are conservatives smarter” and you get mostly crickets chirping.

Many of the world’s greatest inventors, scientists, artists, and musicians have/had high IQ’s and are/were known for their liberal views and lifestyles. Einstein, DaVinci, Darwin, Hawking, Jobs, Franklin, the list is long.
 
You first. ;)

Do a search for “are liberals smarter?” and you will be presented with a plethora of studies/articles from prestigious institutions and highly respected researchers. Do a search for “are conservatives smarter” and you get mostly crickets chirping.

Many of the world’s greatest inventors, scientists, artists, and musicians have/had high IQ’s and are/were known for their liberal views and lifestyles. Einstein, DaVinci, Darwin, Hawking, Jobs, Franklin, the list is long.

How many modern liberals were polled from the 1500s?
 
How many modern liberals were polled from the 1500s?
Polling isn’t necessary. There is enough information about DaVinci’s perspectives and beliefs to support the liberal label.
 
Exactly.
As I read what seems like the weekly rape charges against someone famous I am beginning to feel like a Saint. And I believe most of my friends are Saints too now unless there is a woman out there who hasn't came forth about them.


I mean what the hell is going on? Am still waiting to open the newspaper someday and see accusations against Fred Rogers to come out.

Puppets never talk.
 
Polling isn’t necessary. There is enough information about DaVinci’s perspectives and beliefs to support the liberal label.

So you were just referencing polls and now they aren't necessary? lol
 
The ironic thing is that using only renewables would literally strand us on Earth, because renewables aren't powerful enough to get us off the planet according to Elon Musk. Why not use a variety of energy, and continue to develop renewables so that they can compete? Each type of energy has it's own pros and cons, so having a diversity of energy types makes the most sense.

Musk is part Circus ring master and part charlatan.
Clearly, launching a rocket into outer space takes chemical fuels which are not appropriate for your morning coffee and toast. Batteries will get your small vehicle to work and back as long as work isn't too far away. Each energy source available to us has its best use. People who are trained/educated in physics and chemistry find it easy to dupe lesser educated investors.
 
Back
Top Bottom