FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
David Koch's exhibit at the Smithsonian

David Koch's exhibit at the Smithsonian

(6:35) Physicist and climate expert Joe Romm explores and fact checks David Koch's exhibit at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History in Washington DC. Oil billionaire David Koch funds leading climate change denial groups.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Buster Gasket (1449 days ago)
Impossible to follow with so much background noise drowning out Romm's commentary. I gave up at 1/3rd through. Maybe this could be re-edited by dropping the original audio and adding Romm's commentary as a voice-over.
ReplyVote up (145)down (151)
Original comment
Impossible to follow with so much background noise drowning out Romm's commentary. I gave up at 1/3rd through. Maybe this could be re-edited by dropping the original audio and adding Romm's commentary as a voice-over.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1450 days ago)
He asks what we are going to do as the population increases from 7 to 10 billion. No problem, those people that cannot adapt to warmer temperatures will die off. The remaining people will continue to propagate. We call this survival of the fittest.
ReplyVote up (136)down (158)
Original comment
He asks what we are going to do as the population increases from 7 to 10 billion. No problem, those people that cannot adapt to warmer temperatures will die off. The remaining people will continue to propagate. We call this survival of the fittest.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1449 days ago)
Actually, that is more often called "Junk Science"
ReplyVote up (155)down (143)
Original comment
Actually, that is more often called "Junk Science"
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
Survival of the fittest is one of the aspects of the Theory of Evolution. It's already a Theory. You cannot get a better scientific certification than a theory. So where are you getting that this is junk science?
ReplyVote up (157)down (130)
Original comment
Survival of the fittest is one of the aspects of the Theory of Evolution. It's already a Theory. You cannot get a better scientific certification than a theory. So where are you getting that this is junk science?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
Evolution plays out over hundreds, thousands or even millions of years. Climate change is playing out over decades.
ReplyVote up (148)down (135)
Original comment
Evolution plays out over hundreds, thousands or even millions of years. Climate change is playing out over decades.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
Not true. That's what the guy in the video was trying to make you believe but it's simply false. It has been proven that people are black in Africa and people were white in Europe due to the climate differences. If you took a group of black people and put them in Europe and let them mate among themselves, they will turn white within 20,000 years. That's a huge difference but I see subtle changes in people now from the people of the 70's. If you think evolution involves creating a new species then that could take a long time but we aren't talking about creating new species and are talking about our current species adapting to the environment.
ReplyVote up (142)down (141)
Original comment
Not true. That's what the guy in the video was trying to make you believe but it's simply false. It has been proven that people are black in Africa and people were white in Europe due to the climate differences. If you took a group of black people and put them in Europe and let them mate among themselves, they will turn white within 20,000 years. That's a huge difference but I see subtle changes in people now from the people of the 70's. If you think evolution involves creating a new species then that could take a long time but we aren't talking about creating new species and are talking about our current species adapting to the environment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1449 days ago)
Walter is subtly saying you're as thick as shit.
ReplyVote up (141)down (152)
Original comment
Walter is subtly saying you're as thick as shit.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thorny Prick (1449 days ago)
i concur with your assessment.
ReplyVote up (125)down (157)
Original comment
i concur with your assessment.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
What subtle changes do you think we need to enjoy 50C heat waves every summer? And 52C heat waves every summer a decade later. And 54C every summer a decade after that. And 56C… A much smarter way is to turn off the oil. We need to use our brains - after all, that's what got us here in the first place.
ReplyVote up (126)down (154)
Original comment
What subtle changes do you think we need to enjoy 50C heat waves every summer? And 52C heat waves every summer a decade later. And 54C every summer a decade after that. And 56C… A much smarter way is to turn off the oil. We need to use our brains - after all, that's what got us here in the first place.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
If what you think is true, it's already too late so you better start adapting or you will be one of the ones to die off.
ReplyVote up (148)down (133)
Original comment
If what you think is true, it's already too late so you better start adapting or you will be one of the ones to die off.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
I just made those numbers up, but predictions don't make for comfortable reading. LINK Point is, unless we change, temperatures will keep on rising year after year. We should turn off the oil now. That is the smart thing to do.
ReplyVote up (139)down (145)
Original comment
I just made those numbers up, but predictions don't make for comfortable reading. LINK Point is, unless we change, temperatures will keep on rising year after year. We should turn off the oil now. That is the smart thing to do.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
I thought you said it was already too late and we are going to experience runaway global warming. If we cannot adapt then we are all doing to die. So why not enjoy the little time we have.
ReplyVote up (143)down (147)
Original comment
I thought you said it was already too late and we are going to experience runaway global warming. If we cannot adapt then we are all doing to die. So why not enjoy the little time we have.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
No I didn't say that. Scientists don't know for sure when runaway global warming will kick in - possibly at 2C above pre-industrial revolution times, almost certainly at 6C. According to NASA: "Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century." LINK The smart move is to turn off the oil now and get our shit together. The benefits are huge. We could have a green industrial revolution that would kickstart the global economy. And we'd get a more stable climate into the bargain. The only thing stopping us are those greedy selfish corporatists in control, spending their billions to maintain the status quo simply because it makes them richer. It's sickening.
ReplyVote up (153)down (142)
Original comment
No I didn't say that. Scientists don't know for sure when runaway global warming will kick in - possibly at 2C above pre-industrial revolution times, almost certainly at 6C. According to NASA: "Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century." LINK The smart move is to turn off the oil now and get our shit together. The benefits are huge. We could have a green industrial revolution that would kickstart the global economy. And we'd get a more stable climate into the bargain. The only thing stopping us are those greedy selfish corporatists in control, spending their billions to maintain the status quo simply because it makes them richer. It's sickening.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
So what is preventing you from stopping your oil consumption. You're a hypocrite because you want us all to quit but you keep driving a car or using public transportation. You still heat and cool your house using your electric company. Until you practice what you preach, why should we listen to you?
ReplyVote up (163)down (141)
Original comment
So what is preventing you from stopping your oil consumption. You're a hypocrite because you want us all to quit but you keep driving a car or using public transportation. You still heat and cool your house using your electric company. Until you practice what you preach, why should we listen to you?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thorny Prick (1449 days ago)
you're a fu*king idiot so shut the fu*k up!
ReplyVote up (155)down (134)
Original comment
you're a fu*king idiot so shut the fu*k up!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
Acting individually doesn't work. It's like one striker striking every day. The whole workforce has to come out on the same day to have any effect. If we had a Green Spring, where people all around the world religiously use their spending power to support green products and services, I think/hope the market would do the rest. If millions of people vowed that their next car would not be fossil fuelled, I think car companies would move very quickly to develop better cheaper electric cars, and the market for fossil fuelled cars would crash. Smoking went from cool to socially unacceptable thanks to relentless anti-smoking campaigns. Today we have much more effective social networks. The same could happen to oil. If we burn all the oil first, then we are definitely going for 6C by 2100, and therefore runaway global warming. That would be really bad.
ReplyVote up (161)down (154)
Original comment
Acting individually doesn't work. It's like one striker striking every day. The whole workforce has to come out on the same day to have any effect. If we had a Green Spring, where people all around the world religiously use their spending power to support green products and services, I think/hope the market would do the rest. If millions of people vowed that their next car would not be fossil fuelled, I think car companies would move very quickly to develop better cheaper electric cars, and the market for fossil fuelled cars would crash. Smoking went from cool to socially unacceptable thanks to relentless anti-smoking campaigns. Today we have much more effective social networks. The same could happen to oil. If we burn all the oil first, then we are definitely going for 6C by 2100, and therefore runaway global warming. That would be really bad.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
It has to start with each individual and you're not willing to change but you want the rest of us to change. That's exactly what a hypocrite is. Until you walk the talk, I have no reason to listen to you. And you obviously don't see the big picture. The reason we still burn fossil fuels is because there is no affordable replacement. If there were, we would happily change. Nobody wants to pay $50,000 for a solar home and walk or ride their bicycle 20 miles to work. Until you invent a cheap alternative, I have no incentive to modify my behavior and apparently neither do you.
ReplyVote up (136)down (114)
Original comment
It has to start with each individual and you're not willing to change but you want the rest of us to change. That's exactly what a hypocrite is. Until you walk the talk, I have no reason to listen to you. And you obviously don't see the big picture. The reason we still burn fossil fuels is because there is no affordable replacement. If there were, we would happily change. Nobody wants to pay $50,000 for a solar home and walk or ride their bicycle 20 miles to work. Until you invent a cheap alternative, I have no incentive to modify my behavior and apparently neither do you.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1449 days ago)
I do modify my behaviour, but it doesn't make any measurable difference. It's only mass coordinated action that will make a difference. Anyway, at least you've come round to accepting there is a problem.
ReplyVote up (133)down (143)
Original comment
I do modify my behaviour, but it doesn't make any measurable difference. It's only mass coordinated action that will make a difference. Anyway, at least you've come round to accepting there is a problem.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1449 days ago)
I am not saying there is a problem. I'm pointing out that if what you say is true and there was a problem, you're the one causing it.
ReplyVote up (159)down (142)
Original comment
I am not saying there is a problem. I'm pointing out that if what you say is true and there was a problem, you're the one causing it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1448 days ago)
I think you've turned but don't know how to accept it yet. But that's cool. There's no shame in realising that maybe climate scientists are actually good at their job, and do know what they are talking about, and do genuinely worry about the fate of our planet - at least for the most part.
ReplyVote up (147)down (157)
Original comment
I think you've turned but don't know how to accept it yet. But that's cool. There's no shame in realising that maybe climate scientists are actually good at their job, and do know what they are talking about, and do genuinely worry about the fate of our planet - at least for the most part.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1448 days ago)
I've always maintained the position that the scientists might be right but I need proof just like I need proof to believe in the abominable snowman and the loch ness monster. Especially when the temperature of this planet has been higher in the past even when humans were not on this planet, it's highly plausible that this warming is a natural occurrence.
ReplyVote up (135)down (137)
Original comment
I've always maintained the position that the scientists might be right but I need proof just like I need proof to believe in the abominable snowman and the loch ness monster. Especially when the temperature of this planet has been higher in the past even when humans were not on this planet, it's highly plausible that this warming is a natural occurrence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: NotPaidByLobbyists (1447 days ago)
there is more evidence, and more scientific consensus, for man made global warming than almost any other scientific theory, including evolution. Do you really think that our industrial activity all over the planet is having no effect whatsoever
ReplyVote up (118)down (140)
Original comment
there is more evidence, and more scientific consensus, for man made global warming than almost any other scientific theory, including evolution. Do you really think that our industrial activity all over the planet is having no effect whatsoever
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1447 days ago)
First, anthropological global warming is not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. So it is more accurate to say there is more scientific evidence to support evolution than there is global warming. You stated the exact opposite. AGW wishes it was a theory. Besides, a consensus does not make something factual. More people believe in a religion than are atheists but there is no proof of a god either.
ReplyVote up (127)down (131)
Original comment
First, anthropological global warming is not a theory, it's a hypothesis. Evolution is a theory. So it is more accurate to say there is more scientific evidence to support evolution than there is global warming. You stated the exact opposite. AGW wishes it was a theory. Besides, a consensus does not make something factual. More people believe in a religion than are atheists but there is no proof of a god either.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
What proof would satisfy you? In the case of the Loch Ness Monster, it would make sense to demand some sort of physical evidence. But climate change is different. You can't get physical evidence for a prediction, unless you just wait to see if the prediction comes true. AGW is a fact in the sense that even burning just 1 gallon of petrol warms the planet to some degree, because it adds CO2 to the atmosphere which would otherwise be 'locked up' underground. There's no debate about whether or not greenhouse gases trap heat - what scientists are working on is what happens when we add 30 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, while also removing swathes of CO2 absorbing rainforests. We have to be smart, look at what the science is saying, and act accordingly. I think you use 'lack of proof' as an excuse to hide an agenda. Maybe you just don't like the idea of regulating corporations, or maybe you just don't like hippies.
ReplyVote up (142)down (135)
Original comment
What proof would satisfy you? In the case of the Loch Ness Monster, it would make sense to demand some sort of physical evidence. But climate change is different. You can't get physical evidence for a prediction, unless you just wait to see if the prediction comes true. AGW is a fact in the sense that even burning just 1 gallon of petrol warms the planet to some degree, because it adds CO2 to the atmosphere which would otherwise be 'locked up' underground. There's no debate about whether or not greenhouse gases trap heat - what scientists are working on is what happens when we add 30 billion metric tons of CO2 to the atmosphere every year, while also removing swathes of CO2 absorbing rainforests. We have to be smart, look at what the science is saying, and act accordingly. I think you use 'lack of proof' as an excuse to hide an agenda. Maybe you just don't like the idea of regulating corporations, or maybe you just don't like hippies.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1447 days ago)
If AGW was a fact, then it would have reached theory level but it didn't so it's not a fact. Until it becomes at least a theory, I will have to put it in the same category as big foot, loch ness monster and god. Do you believe aliens are here doing anal probing on humans and cow mutilations? If not, you should because there are witnesses that you can go speak to and they will tell you their story. There are groups of people that claim to have been abducted, but with all that evidence, we are still looking for extraterrestrial life. Weird how science needs proof isn't it?
ReplyVote up (126)down (144)
Original comment
If AGW was a fact, then it would have reached theory level but it didn't so it's not a fact. Until it becomes at least a theory, I will have to put it in the same category as big foot, loch ness monster and god. Do you believe aliens are here doing anal probing on humans and cow mutilations? If not, you should because there are witnesses that you can go speak to and they will tell you their story. There are groups of people that claim to have been abducted, but with all that evidence, we are still looking for extraterrestrial life. Weird how science needs proof isn't it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
Did you even understand what I wrote?
ReplyVote up (131)down (154)
Original comment
Did you even understand what I wrote?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1447 days ago)
Yes. But you're trying to confuse everyone by telling us we cannot get evidence for a prediction. What you failed to realize is that we do have a historical record and scientists are not able to match the CO2 levels with our historical temperature record. Predictions have been made in the past and when those years came and gone, they were wrong with their predictions. I would call that evidence in the favor that the scientists do not know what is causing the temperature changes. Their models simply do not work. You didn't answer my question about the aliens.
ReplyVote up (125)down (137)
Original comment
Yes. But you're trying to confuse everyone by telling us we cannot get evidence for a prediction. What you failed to realize is that we do have a historical record and scientists are not able to match the CO2 levels with our historical temperature record. Predictions have been made in the past and when those years came and gone, they were wrong with their predictions. I would call that evidence in the favor that the scientists do not know what is causing the temperature changes. Their models simply do not work. You didn't answer my question about the aliens.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
Looking for ET is not about predicting the future. I'll keep it really simple. 1. Does CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere? Yes. 2. Do humans release CO2 'trapped' in oil, thereby ADDING CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes. Therefore AGW is a fact - the question is, how much are we warming the planet and what are the consequences.
ReplyVote up (146)down (147)
Original comment
Looking for ET is not about predicting the future. I'll keep it really simple. 1. Does CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere? Yes. 2. Do humans release CO2 'trapped' in oil, thereby ADDING CO2 to the atmosphere? Yes. Therefore AGW is a fact - the question is, how much are we warming the planet and what are the consequences.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1447 days ago)
Are there any other causes of warming? Yes. Is there any natural things that create CO2? Yes. Has the earth ever been warmer when humans were not on this planet? Yes. Did you avoid my Alien question a second time? Yes.
ReplyVote up (165)down (118)
Original comment
Are there any other causes of warming? Yes. Is there any natural things that create CO2? Yes. Has the earth ever been warmer when humans were not on this planet? Yes. Did you avoid my Alien question a second time? Yes.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
I did not avoid your alien question. I said looking for ET is not about predicting the future. How the weather will be in 50 years time is about predicting the future. How difficult is that to understand? And of course there are natural causes of warming, but we're not talking about those - we are talking about AGW, please keep up. We're talking about what humans ADD to the natural processes. The question is - is our contribution of 30 billion metric tons of CO2 a year significant, not whether or not we are contributing. Why are you so resistant to the bleeding obvious? What's your agenda?
ReplyVote up (123)down (142)
Original comment
I did not avoid your alien question. I said looking for ET is not about predicting the future. How the weather will be in 50 years time is about predicting the future. How difficult is that to understand? And of course there are natural causes of warming, but we're not talking about those - we are talking about AGW, please keep up. We're talking about what humans ADD to the natural processes. The question is - is our contribution of 30 billion metric tons of CO2 a year significant, not whether or not we are contributing. Why are you so resistant to the bleeding obvious? What's your agenda?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
guest123456789 guest123456789 (1447 days ago)
I don't have an agenda other than not believing anything without proof. With all that CO2 production, you do realize that a large portion of that gets absorbed in the oceans, right? It has also been proven that water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is and there's more water vapor in our atmosphere. Deforestation is also a huge cause of global warming. Regarding aliens, you're avoiding that question because you realize it will make you look like an idiot. There's no scientific evidence of aliens even though thousands of people have claimed to have been abducted by them. So you believe the media hype even though there isn't enough scientific evidence to make it a theory. You obviously pick and choose what you believe in based on blind faith and not science.
ReplyVote up (144)down (138)
Original comment
I don't have an agenda other than not believing anything without proof. With all that CO2 production, you do realize that a large portion of that gets absorbed in the oceans, right? It has also been proven that water vapor is more of a greenhouse gas than CO2 is and there's more water vapor in our atmosphere. Deforestation is also a huge cause of global warming. Regarding aliens, you're avoiding that question because you realize it will make you look like an idiot. There's no scientific evidence of aliens even though thousands of people have claimed to have been abducted by them. So you believe the media hype even though there isn't enough scientific evidence to make it a theory. You obviously pick and choose what you believe in based on blind faith and not science.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WellHungarian WellHungarian (1446 days ago)
Latest comment: You either have an agenda, or you're really thick. Which is it?
ReplyVote up (135)down (130)
Original comment
Latest comment: You either have an agenda, or you're really thick. Which is it?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1447 days ago)
You really don't get it do you. There is a natural balance between CO2 absorbing things (like plants and oceans), and CO2 creating things (like animals and volcanos). When we burn oil, we are adding CO2 that would normally remain 'locked up' underground, to a naturally balanced system. The important word is "ADDING". Therefore, we are changing that natural balance. You said "deforestation is also a huge cause of global warming", and for once you are right. Deforestation is a part of AGW because it is a human activity. Deforestation reduces nature's ability to absorb CO2. So at one end we are ADDING 30 billion tons of CO2 every year, and at the other end we are reducing nature's capacity to absorb CO2 by cutting down trees.
ReplyVote up (121)down (118)
Original comment
You really don't get it do you. There is a natural balance between CO2 absorbing things (like plants and oceans), and CO2 creating things (like animals and volcanos). When we burn oil, we are adding CO2 that would normally remain 'locked up' underground, to a naturally balanced system. The important word is "ADDING". Therefore, we are changing that natural balance. You said "deforestation is also a huge cause of global warming", and for once you are right. Deforestation is a part of AGW because it is a human activity. Deforestation reduces nature's ability to absorb CO2. So at one end we are ADDING 30 billion tons of CO2 every year, and at the other end we are reducing nature's capacity to absorb CO2 by cutting down trees.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thorny Prick (1450 days ago)
actually, the "alleged" catastrophic effects of climate change on humans would open new money making opportunities. So in that sense, climate change would be a blessing for some, even though it would be disastrous for the majority, and it's those "some" who are motivated to downplay the gravity of the possible changes we face. It makes sense, but i just don't like it, seeing that I'm part of the majority and not part of the rich minority who stands to make money off of disastrous situations., eg. world war 1 and 2, the 2008 crash, etc.
ReplyVote up (96)down (134)
Original comment
actually, the "alleged" catastrophic effects of climate change on humans would open new money making opportunities. So in that sense, climate change would be a blessing for some, even though it would be disastrous for the majority, and it's those "some" who are motivated to downplay the gravity of the possible changes we face. It makes sense, but i just don't like it, seeing that I'm part of the majority and not part of the rich minority who stands to make money off of disastrous situations., eg. world war 1 and 2, the 2008 crash, etc.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: (1450 days ago)
D'accord. Perhaps we need to pull them away from their investments, political whores, lawyers and palace guards...then cook and eat them.
ReplyVote up (91)down (116)
Original comment
D'accord. Perhaps we need to pull them away from their investments, political whores, lawyers and palace guards...then cook and eat them.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: Thorny Prick (1450 days ago)
there are other ways. Electoral reform, making the transition to a direct democracy similar to Switzerland (but with all the kinks ironed out) and ensuring that "bribery" (legal or illegal) can't corrupt politicians would do the trick, i think. But what you said sounds nice too. However, the electoral reform might not work in the states, which is why a 28th amendment is required to ensure that money can't influence politics. That being said... it's a bit late to do much about climate change... so might as well get used to it and "evolve".
ReplyVote up (112)down (116)
Original comment
there are other ways. Electoral reform, making the transition to a direct democracy similar to Switzerland (but with all the kinks ironed out) and ensuring that "bribery" (legal or illegal) can't corrupt politicians would do the trick, i think. But what you said sounds nice too. However, the electoral reform might not work in the states, which is why a 28th amendment is required to ensure that money can't influence politics. That being said... it's a bit late to do much about climate change... so might as well get used to it and "evolve".
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Who lied most, Trump or Obama?
Who lied most, Trump or Obama?
Donald Trump lists his friends
Donald Trump lists his friends
TYT - You won't believe how much TV Trump watches
TYT - You won't believe how much TV Trump watches
Things that go
Things that go "bing" in the mind of Donald Trump
Democracy Now! - The dangerous case of Donald Trump
Democracy Now! - The dangerous case of Donald Trump