You suppose that because science reaches a conclusion about something, the power of government should THEREFORE be used to enforce the opinions of scientists. That's not the way it works.Perhaps there is a price to be paid for ignoring the predicitons of scientists, but PEOPLE are entitled to ignore that price and enforce their biases upon government policy.Even AlGore did that with thye Kyoto treaty --- giving China, India and the 3rd world a pass on doing anything about global warming in order to get his much ballyhooed treaty. The simple fact is that global warming IS no doubt happening. Few governments are willing to pay the economic price that would be necessary to stop it.So--- wring your hands all you like, but get ready for global climate change. It's what's happening!That's incorrect. The issue is that Republicans don't like what the data are telling us, so the Republicans want to eliminate the data. As you say, policy is a different thing than data, but it nonsensical to Analogy would be if a smoker knew smoking was bad for his health, but decided he was willing to to smoke anyway. As opposed to a smoker trying to eliminate sources of data that might make him uncomfortable with his habit.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra