Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna
Seems like there's enough science to satisfy both sides of this debate. I choose to accept the "global warming is happening" side. No sense going into anymore durm and strang on the subject. It wouldn't do any good. Just mark me down as one concerned about warming and it's effects.
I wonder how different how things might have been if the actual winner of the 2000 popular vote wound up in the White House? It surely couldn't have been worse.
|
Global warming (or as it has been renamed, Climate Change) has taken on the status of religion, both pro and con. For all practical purposes, it cannot be discussed and debated. Any points contrary to the accepted dogma is rejected out of hand. Rational discussion at even the most scientific level is almost impossible.
On the last point, there was no popular vote count in 2000. Never was, never is. Hundred of thousands, if not millions of votes are never counted. An exact tally is never a requirement.
An aside ~ in Oct, 2000, the DNC expected Al Gore to wine the electoral vote but quite possibly get fewer votes nationwide than George Bush. They had prepared a media onslaught stressing the validity of the electoral college and denigrating any importance of a "popular vote."