SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The New York Times has an article asking readers to select (from their list) what questions they'd like to ask the 2016 presidential candidates.
It's clear that both candidates haven't given specific answers to questions about issues which directly affect us. What questions would Soylentils ask the candidates (your choices, not mine as in the NYT article) to identify their positions on issues which matter to you?
Some of the questions I'd like to see answered are:
How would you work with a Congress which isn't aligned with the goals of your administration to actually get something accomplished?
Does money equal speech? If so/not so, why and how?
How will you rein in our intelligence agencies that are unconstitutionally spying on U.S. citizens?
What specific steps would you take (if any) to combat anthropogenic climate change?
Would you allow non-American foods to be cooked in the White House kitchen? If not, what steps will you take to reduce the obesity problem that will inevitably ensue?
What about the rest of you? What questions would you like to see answered by the candidates?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:50AM
ftfy
Instead of focusing so much on "anthropogenic climate change", which is just an abstracted long-term copout to justify spending more taxpayer dollars on Solyndra wannabe's, how about instead we focus on a tangible and immediate problem that is causing suffering and environmental degradation and which if tackled would also likely help fight the longer term climate consequences?
Pollutants such as NOx and SOx can be measured at their sources and tackled directly, and would have immediate health benefits to surrounding human populations and the environment.
As president, will you stop subsidizing coal and set stricter EPA limits (and actually enforce them)?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:16PM
> "anthropogenic climate change", which is just an abstracted long-term copout to justify spending more taxpayer dollars
begging the question, you are doing it
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @07:33PM
...and extra credit for your correct use of begging the question. [wikipedia.org]
Now, you could have taken the argument a bit further and mentioned the overlapping data sets [wikipedia.org] which all support the same conclusion.
You might have also mentioned that the people whose profession is analyzing climate have reviewed the analysis and have not come up with another explanation which is better than the currently-accepted explanation (human-caused increases of greenhouse gases have lead to an early version of the conditions which exist on Venus AKA a runaway greenhouse effect where the surface of the planet is hot enough to melt lead).
You might also have mentioned the evidence of which most living humans have personal experience:
The hottest $Specific_Month_Name in recorded history was the most recent $Specific_Month_Name.
...and to find the second-hottest, go back to the $Specific_Month_Name before that.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 24 2016, @11:00PM
Duh. There's no money in trying to change the mindset of the masses. Most research is driven by whatever gets the biggest budget.
If there was so much confidence among the scientific community in what you say about temperatures consistently increasing, "climate change" would still be "global warming" like it used to be.
The scientific method doesn't permit extrapolation. That's the job of the media, politics and armchair experts like yourself.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @02:51AM
If there was so much confidence among the scientific community in what you say about temperatures consistently increasing, "climate change" would still be "global warming" like it used to be.
The term "climate change" was cooked up by a republican strategist [theguardian.com] in order to make "global warming" seem less scary.
Its funny how, well over a decade later, you are still hewing to the party line described in that memo. Its really great how you can't think for yourself, not even one little bit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 25 2016, @12:35PM
funny that you jump to politics when science doesn't support your view
i'm not a republican. i'm not even american. but nice try
at least you've confirmed my suspicions about your political motives though
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Saturday September 24 2016, @03:48PM
I thought Nox and SOx were already reduced in order to combat acid rain.
CO2 is much more persistent in the atmosphere.
(Score: 3, Informative) by mcgrew on Saturday September 24 2016, @05:46PM
Indeed, compared to the filthy air that had not only those oxides but lead when I was a kid, the air is sparkling clean these days.
What about the mass extinction [wikipedia.org] that we seem to be on the brink of causing? [earthsky.org]
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org