Have to go the Russians to get an Italian view of Eco-nuts!

https://www.rt.com/news/533759-italy-climate-change-minister/

Why is that?
 

The Italian makes sense.  A concept antithetical to many USA citizens.
 

I agree with the premise:  people who turned Climate Change into a religion requiring "belief" and/or tied the problem to economics and used it to enrich themselves (Al Gore) have hurt any rational scientific solutions that might address the situation. 

People telling us to get rid of gas guzzling cars continue to use SUVs and private jets themselves.

The messengers are anything but credible.

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

Sent from my SM-A102U using Tapatalk

joe biden probably thinks the constitution is a new ice cream flavor at Baskin Robbins.

And kamala would only laugh.

I agree with the premise:  people who turned Climate Change into a religion requiring "belief" and/or tied the problem to economics and used it to enrich themselves (Al Gore) have hurt any rational scientific solutions that might address the situation. 

Problem is that both sides politicized it. Even then the mere fact that a politician takes up an issue necessarily makes it "political". If I were a senator and I read scientific reports that something was bad so I decided to write a bill am I then guilty of politicizing it? Maybe a company lobbyist convinces my opponent to take an opposing issue and I am accused of politics instead of just following the science. People on the other side of the political aisle will take an opposing stance for no other reason than to be opposing. People point out people like Al Gore with his financial interests yet ignore the fossil fuel industry lobbyist pumping money in opposition. Both sides politicize issues and accuse the other sides of politicizing issues. Then no one wants to believe that maybe the lawmaker just supports an issue because of the science, they inherently find some other motive.

Problem is that both sides politicized it. Even then the mere fact that a politician takes up an issue necessarily makes it "political". If I were a senator and I read scientific reports that something was bad so I decided to write a bill am I then guilty of politicizing it? Maybe a company lobbyist convinces my opponent to take an opposing issue and I am accused of politics instead of just following the science. People on the other side of the political aisle will take an opposing stance for no other reason than to be opposing. People point out people like Al Gore with his financial interests yet ignore the fossil fuel industry lobbyist pumping money in opposition. Both sides politicize issues and accuse the other sides of politicizing issues. Then no one wants to believe that maybe the lawmaker just supports an issue because of the science, they inherently find some other motive.

If you think reading a few science reports (in an area you have no real experience or training in) makes you qualified to write legislation on the problem, you need to seek help. The only way to describe what you're doing is taking a political stance based on something you read.  This is why Congress holds hearings for programs and bills, so those writing and voting on the bills have a chance to hear from qualified experts both for and against the new law.

Politicizing is where you create an "us vs. them" situation because you want to gain support of your constituents or damage support for your opponent.  You're using a potentially real problem to divide the voters.  Lots of examples out there to name  (COVID is just that most recent and largest).

Since most Congress Critters vote with their party leadership, it's more common to see issues politicized than being debated honestly.  The facts rarely support both sides.  Whichever side finds themselves fact deficient will often resort to politicizing the issue.

You didn’t add “in my opinion”. 

You didn’t add “in my opinion”. 

#AholeTroll
#DoYouNeedAttention?

If you think reading a few science reports (in an area you have no real experience or training in) makes you qualified to write legislation on the problem, you need to seek help. The only way to describe what you're doing is taking a political stance based on something you read.  This is why Congress holds hearings for programs and bills, so those writing and voting on the bills have a chance to hear from qualified experts both for and against the new law.

Politicizing is where you create an "us vs. them" situation because you want to gain support of your constituents or damage support for your opponent.  You're using a potentially real problem to divide the voters.  Lots of examples out there to name  (COVID is just that most recent and largest).

Since most Congress Critters vote with their party leadership, it's more common to see issues politicized than being debated honestly.  The facts rarely support both sides.  Whichever side finds themselves fact deficient will often resort to politicizing the issue.

I could own a hamburger restaurant and like making hamburgers but the instant hamburgers became political people would start claiming I was just being political and assume the worst motive. They would accuse me of just making hamburgers because President X likes hamburgers. They do this against the scientists and people wanting to invest in green tech too. They assume that the person is only pushing environmental protection because they own green tech and just want to make money without considering that maybe the person invested in green tech because they believed in protecting the environment.

No one wants to consider that maybe a party came to a position because of what the data actually shows, they just get accused of politicizing stuff. This has happened many times before. Congress fought seatbelt proposals in the 1980s and it just goes from data showing seatbelt regulations would save lives to politicization.

A politician picks up an issue and the sheep line up ready to support or oppose it as instructed, the data often doesn't matter, no one cares whether the politician had a genuine interest, the sheep just line up. Its nearly impossible to try and pass a law without it being political. A senator could bring in dozens of experts testifying what should be done to address an environmental problem and someone will oppose it, claiming they just politicized the issue.

I could own a hamburger restaurant and like making hamburgers but the instant hamburgers became political people would start claiming I was just being political and assume the worst motive. They would accuse me of just making hamburgers because President X likes hamburgers. They do this against the scientists and people wanting to invest in green tech too. They assume that the person is only pushing environmental protection because they own green tech and just want to make money without considering that maybe the person invested in green tech because they believed in protecting the environment.

No one wants to consider that maybe a party came to a position because of what the data actually shows, they just get accused of politicizing stuff. This has happened many times before. Congress fought seatbelt proposals in the 1980s and it just goes from data showing seatbelt regulations would save lives to politicization.

A politician picks up an issue and the sheep line up ready to support or oppose it as instructed, the data often doesn't matter, no one cares whether the politician had a genuine interest, the sheep just line up. Its nearly impossible to try and pass a law without it being political. A senator could bring in dozens of experts testifying what should be done to address an environmental problem and someone will oppose it, claiming they just politicized the issue.

Your lengthy and analogy riddled comment encapsulates the reason that even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be grounds for recusal from a vote or removal from office.

If politicians did this every time they should, then there would be little to no validity to accusations of politicizing issues.  At that point, opinions on issues would be based on actual verifiable data.  That's where the media fails.  Conflict is much more sexy than facts.

I could own a hamburger restaurant and like making hamburgers but the instant hamburgers became political people would start claiming I was just being political and assume the worst motive. They would accuse me of just making hamburgers because President X likes hamburgers. They do this against the scientists and people wanting to invest in green tech too. They assume that the person is only pushing environmental protection because they own green tech and just want to make money without considering that maybe the person invested in green tech because they believed in protecting the environment.

No one wants to consider that maybe a party came to a position because of what the data actually shows, they just get accused of politicizing stuff. This has happened many times before. Congress fought seatbelt proposals in the 1980s and it just goes from data showing seatbelt regulations would save lives to politicization.

A politician picks up an issue and the sheep line up ready to support or oppose it as instructed, the data often doesn't matter, no one cares whether the politician had a genuine interest, the sheep just line up. Its nearly impossible to try and pass a law without it being political. A senator could bring in dozens of experts testifying what should be done to address an environmental problem and someone will oppose it, claiming they just politicized the issue.

You like many people really miss the point.
It is one of Granularity.
Only the States have the legal right to regulated the health, safety,
and morals of its citizens.
The Federal government under the Constitution AS WRITTEN does not.
As "Interpreted" like reading tea leaves it suddenly has all these new powers.
Heath, education, Domestics public safety, et al, something only states should be doing.
547 "bubble"people( congress, president and supreme court, I think that count is pretty close!)
now control the lives of 330+ million people.
That is WRONG!

I wear a helmet because I choose to, I've seen what happens when you don't.
I use seat belts because I've seen what happens to people ejected from vehicles.
I'll use a concealed weapon to protect myself, because I've seen what happens when you don't.
I don't need the Federal Nanny state Democrats and RINOs to tell me what to do!
My state Nannies are bad enough!

11SEP01  The day freedom died in the USA.

 

Your lengthy and analogy riddled comment encapsulates the reason that even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be grounds for recusal from a vote or removal from office.

If politicians did this every time they should, then there would be little to no validity to accusations of politicizing issues.  At that point, opinions on issues would be based on actual verifiable data.  That's where the media fails.  Conflict is much more sexy than facts.

I am not against that but what politicians haven't taken money from some lobbyist representing an interest group? Don't get me wrong I agree the safest thing to do is just avoid as many possible conflicts of interest possible.

If a senator accepted a donation from the NRA should that senator recuse themselves from a vote on a gun regultion issue?

But lets take Al Gore for example, if he truly believes in green energy then it makes perfect sense for him to invest in green technology. Not that I trust him or take him as an authority by any means, but I can see that at least does make sense that he would take up the issue as a private citizen.

But would it really make a difference if the senator were an expert? If a climate scientist only followed the science and then ran for office and proposed a law to help the environment, I still think they would be accused of just being political by anyone opposing the law.