"Project 2025" <X@Y.com> wrote in message
news:v7p8q0$1cf8n$3@dont-email.me...
> Project 2025, the sweeping right-wing blueprint for a new kind of U.S.
> presidency, would sabotage science-based policies that address climate
> change, the environment, abortion, health care access, technology and
> education.

Let's stop here. Science-based? If you were to actually talk to scientists
about the scientific consensus, that would be a different discussion that
what you are talking about.

For example, when asked if the temperature today is higher or lower than the
past, an actual scientist would ask "since when"? global temperatures go up.
they go down. and whether we are higher or lower than history all depends on
WHEN we start measuring. Now. It is claimed by some that CO2 is causing
global warming. The problem is that our recent increases in global
temperatures started LONG before the industrial revolution and the increase
of CO2.
Which sort of reverses the causality.. assuming a correlation is causality..
because temperature increases occurred BEFORE the CO2. thus if we were to
assume causality.. we could assert that Global Warming is what caused the
increase in CO2. Because Cause always predates the Effect.
Further we have the historical record of climate when man's activities
couldn't possibly have any significant impact of global temperatures.
As noted there were times the temperatures were higher, and times they were
lower... and we have NO idea WHY they occurred.
As such we have no hard evidence to prove that any current warming isn't the
result of a natural change.

So when you say science based.. on WHAT science is it based? Actual
scientific consensus, or select promoters who stand to benefit financially
from the grants, studies, and investigations to further explore their
allegations which of course, tend to be heavily biased towards supporting
the claims already made by the scientists performing the follow-up studies.

So, no, if we were actually talking real science, then you might have
something, but we're not. We can't even explain why temperatures changed in
the past, so we can hardly state why they are or aren't changing now.

That said.. reducing our emissions, would probably be a good thing overall,
but NOT at the cost of destroying our economy. Heck we would be far better
off spending the money planting trees and restoring ecosystems we have
damaged or all but destroyed.