I was watching the debate tonight and heard the questioning surrounding the science of global warming. Admittedly I’m biased, but it sounded to me like the moderators were laughing inside as they were questioning the candidates about global warming.
The questions were led with the fact that scientists overwhelmingly support the fact that mankind is contributing to the warming of the globe. Now, given that fact, do you reject that science?
It’s the Left’s trick question.
The words aren’t what they’re asking. What they are asking is: “Do you deny catastrophic anthropomorphic global warming?” But the questions are always phrased in such a way as to mask the true nature of the question.
For example, if I asked you this question, how would you respond?
If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of the ocean by higher than it would have been had you not decided to piss in the ocean?
Who can deny the science? When you add “water” to a body of water, can you argue that the volume of water actually decreased? Certainly not.
The question should be:
If you were to piss in the ocean, would the level of he ocean be higher by any meaningful measure?
If THAT question were asked, the answers would make more sense.
And so it is with global warming. Any reasonable person would argue that we DO contribute to the warming of the planet. However, the degree to which we contribute is not of such significance that we need to take the actions that the far-left would ask us to take.