other standard we should look at besides science looking for something whether it s true or not. is there some other way to judge it besides the science. if there is, let me know what it is. i think the republicans i ve talked to about this, they say look, we know we ve got 7 billion people on this planet using more resources than 50 years ago. we ve got to make changes if we re going to sustain that. there s a lot of republicans that do believe in renewable energies. they don t buy into the total package that we re going into an apocalyptic point of view that warming is going to destroy the earth as we know it. i think that s what they re taking a gamble, making a gamble, they think there s a decent stake in not acting. i think some of them are acting. there s a lot of conservationists. the people you say it s not armageddon. okay, it s not apocalyptic. what basis do they have for saying that? what knowledge do they have that they present against the strike community and the
well accepted science? i m not a scientist. i m asking you, what s the other standard we should look at besides science looking for something whether it s true or not. is there some other way to judge it besides the science. i think the republicans i ve talked to about this, they say look, we know we ve got 7 billion on the patent using more resources. we ve got to make changes if we re going to sustain that. there s a lot of republicans that do believe in renewable energies. they don t buy into the total package that we re going into an apocalyptic point of view that warming is going to destroy the earth as we know it. they re taking a gamble, making a gamble, they think there s a decent stake in not acting. i think some of them are acting. there s a lot of conservationists. the people you say it s not armageddon. okay, it s not apocalyptic. what basis do they have for saying that? what knowledge do they have that they present against the strike
i think that s what they re taking a gamble, making a gamble, they think there s a decent stake in not acting. i think some of them are acting. there s a lot of conservationists. the people you say it s not armageddon. okay, it s not apocalyptic. what basis do they have for saying that? what knowledge do they have that they present against the strike community and the world to make a case it s not as serious as the scientists say it is? what evidence do they have? i m not sure i know of the evidence. what does it mean to say it. what i m talking. what is the foundation to the point. you re asking me from a political point of view. what is the foundation? i m asking for a political point of view. that s their political foundation to challenge the science, is it religion, the old testament, commerce, what is it. all of the above. some of it is is the economy. when you talk about cap in trade. they think that would wreck the economy as we know it. some of it is relig