ADVERTISEMENT

For The Christophobes Here

I disagree. With the appearance of design it points to a designer. Or at least it would one explainable solution as to how something got here and why it was the way it was.
You're doing it wrong, just like Doc. You can think the universe points to a designer. That's fine. I don't want to convince you otherwise. But your reasons for doing so are philosophical, not scientific. It is an inherently non-scientific inquiry.
 
I HONESTLY believe that there is a scientific answer to everything.
I'm an Atheist, not Agnostic. That's the difference.
I don't believe in fairies, pixies, ghosts, gods, angels or any of that nonsense....even if I can't PROVE they don't exist. I'd love someone to prove they DO exist.
Atheism is a belief system, and not a system of knowledge. Nor is it scientific. As Goat and Ranger have explained, the existence of god(s) is not testable and therefore we can't know whether any exist. Your belief (and that's what it is) that "there is a scientific answer to everything" is also unscientific. See, for example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which explains that even some things squarely in science's wheelhouse can't be known. Finally, your demand that theists prove the existence of God is incoherent. Of course they can't prove it, just as you can't disprove it.

The principled stance for someone who knows only what facts and reason can tell him is agnosticism, not atheism.
 
You're doing it wrong, just like Doc. You can think the universe points to a designer. That's fine. I don't want to convince you otherwise. But your reasons for doing so are philosophical, not scientific. It is an inherently non-scientific inquiry.
Religion seems to encourage people to engage in magical thinking outside the realm of faith. It's hard to keep that mode of thought inside the box.

Having said so, it's a brittle kind of faith that rests upon the literal truth of Scripture or the confidence that religious tenets are factually true. It's also an extremely damaging kind of faith, because when religion inevitably collides with reality, those so oriented must either cast aside their faith or deny reality. Way too many of the faithful overcome cognitive dissonance by denying reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: anon_mlxxvlbug9dpa
Religion seems to encourage people to engage in magical thinking outside the realm of faith. It's hard to keep that mode of thought inside the box.

Having said so, it's a brittle kind of faith that rests upon the literal truth of Scripture or the confidence that religious tenets are factually true. It's also an extremely damaging kind of faith, because when religion inevitably collides with reality, those so oriented must either cast aside their faith or deny reality. Way too many of the faithful overcome cognitive dissonance by denying reality.

I can't find the study at the moment, but I believe the researcher's name is Greg Paul. Anyways, he did a study on the correlation between religiosity and wealth. Basically he found that the poorer countries are more religious (which most of us knew that anyways), but more to the point found that fervent religiosity was more of a psychological coping mechanism rather than a result of a fear of death or going to hell. It was your "magical thinking" comment that reminded me of the study. It was pretty interesting. Not just about religion being a coping mechanism, but also how there was no example of a really religious society also being a socially successful society.
 
Religion seems to encourage people to engage in magical thinking outside the realm of faith. It's hard to keep that mode of thought inside the box.

Having said so, it's a brittle kind of faith that rests upon the literal truth of Scripture or the confidence that religious tenets are factually true. It's also an extremely damaging kind of faith, because when religion inevitably collides with reality, those so oriented must either cast aside their faith or deny reality. Way too many of the faithful overcome cognitive dissonance by denying reality.

A quibble: I could agree entirely with your post if in the second sentence of your second paragraph you had said ". . ., because when that style of religion inevitably collides with reality . . . ."

Not all religions, and not all styles of Christianity in particular, rest "upon the literal truth of Scripture of the confidence that religious tenets are factually true". There is no conflict between recognizing the factual limits of scripture and the tenets of one's religious beliefs and acknowledging/believing the philosophical/theological truths resident in scripture and those religious tenets.

In fact, the whole emphasis on insisting on the factual accuracy of scripture and religious tenets - by believers and critics alike - is what causes religious discussions here and elsewhere in this country generally to stray from productive discourse. So if instead of arguing about whether the serpent in the Adam and Eve story could talk, we were to focus on what the serpent said in the story, we'd be miles ahead in understanding what truths (instead of facts) the authors of scripture are trying to communicate to us.

Whether one believes those truths would be of course up to the individual . . . but focusing on the facts instead of the meaning precludes understanding the message enough to decide whether to believe in, or even to have respect for belief in, religion. That's the real problem today.
 
A quibble: I could agree entirely with your post if in the second sentence of your second paragraph you had said ". . ., because when that style of religion inevitably collides with reality . . . ."

Not all religions, and not all styles of Christianity in particular, rest "upon the literal truth of Scripture of the confidence that religious tenets are factually true". There is no conflict between recognizing the factual limits of scripture and the tenets of one's religious beliefs and acknowledging/believing the philosophical/theological truths resident in scripture and those religious tenets.

In fact, the whole emphasis on insisting on the factual accuracy of scripture and religious tenets - by believers and critics alike - is what causes religious discussions here and elsewhere in this country generally to stray from productive discourse. So if instead of arguing about whether the serpent in the Adam and Eve story could talk, we were to focus on what the serpent said in the story, we'd be miles ahead in understanding what truths (instead of facts) the authors of scripture are trying to communicate to us.

Whether one believes those truths would be of course up to the individual . . . but focusing on the facts instead of the meaning precludes understanding the message enough to decide whether to believe in, or even to have respect for belief in, religion. That's the real problem today.
I accept and endorse your revision of that sentence. As you say, there's nothing inevitable about "that style of religion." For example, I recently listened to an interview with a guy who's been teaching cosmology to Buddhist monks -- because the Dalai Lama wants it that way.
 
Atheism is a belief system, and not a system of knowledge. Nor is it scientific. As Goat and Ranger have explained, the existence of god(s) is not testable and therefore we can't know whether any exist. Your belief (and that's what it is) that "there is a scientific answer to everything" is also unscientific. See, for example, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, which explains that even some things squarely in science's wheelhouse can't be known. Finally, your demand that theists prove the existence of God is incoherent. Of course they can't prove it, just as you can't disprove it.

The principled stance for someone who knows only what facts and reason can tell him is agnosticism, not atheism.
I never said atheism was scientific. Belief or non-belief in fairies, pixies, trolls, gods, angels, ghosts, etc. are un-testable. So is disbelief. But the fact that gods need to be included into an explanation of a physical event is bizarre. Why is it that if one thing isn't correct, God is the answer?

It's just dumb. The fact that supernatural things aren't "testable" doesn't mean they need to be in the discussion. Let's put it this way, when people say "the other side" of the evolution debate is "creationism" is a perfect example.
 
I never said atheism was scientific. Belief or non-belief in fairies, pixies, trolls, gods, angels, ghosts, etc. are un-testable. So is disbelief. But the fact that gods need to be included into an explanation of a physical event is bizarre. Why is it that if one thing isn't correct, God is the answer?

It's just dumb. The fact that supernatural things aren't "testable" doesn't mean they need to be in the discussion. Let's put it this way, when people say "the other side" of the evolution debate is "creationism" is a perfect example.
When I tried to explain that atheism wasn't scientific, and that the question of God was entirely outside the realm of science, you called my post "stupid" and "nonsense." And now, that's the theme you're resting on? Get bent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mike41703
When I tried to explain that atheism wasn't scientific, and that the question of God was entirely outside the realm of science, you called my post "stupid" and "nonsense." And now, that's the theme you're resting on? Get bent.
Link it up and I'll comment on it.
 
I never said atheism was scientific. Belief or non-belief in fairies, pixies, trolls, gods, angels, ghosts, etc. are un-testable. So is disbelief. But the fact that gods need to be included into an explanation of a physical event is bizarre. Why is it that if one thing isn't correct, God is the answer?

It's just dumb. The fact that supernatural things aren't "testable" doesn't mean they need to be in the discussion. Let's put it this way, when people say "the other side" of the evolution debate is "creationism" is a perfect example.

I still think we're miscommunicating. I'm not saying that Gods are the reason for things happening. I'm saying that you can't prove that God doesn't exist and that science has no part in that conversation.

I think you're still stuck on not being able to disassociate your lack of belief in the Abrahamic God with the logical / philosophical question of whether or not there is a God. Perhaps I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.
 
No......I'm with you 100%. I just think it's a crazy thing to have something that no one CAN prove exists...for thousands of years....is included in a conversation. Let's give another example, Republicans (I'd say it was both parties, but I'm not aware of anyone in the Democratic Party who believes this) that global warming won't happen because God won't let it happen. Why do we have God in the picture and not trolls or aliens? That's what I find absolutely bizarre.
 
Link it up and I'll comment on it.

Seriously? Here you go...

DrHoops makes the argument from evil:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-483699

I point out the argument from evil is flawed and based on a specific deity:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-483717

You replied that the whole conversation was a complete waste of time and you were above considering such things:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-483816

When I explained the philosophical arguments for discussing such a thing:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-483855

You denied it was even worthwhile:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-483879

You claimed that you don't believe in evil:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-485565

So I pointed out that if you don't believe in evil, you can't use it as an argument against the existence of God:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-485619

You denied doing that very thing:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-485670

So I pointed out that you did it:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-485679

You doubled down in the meantime, by denying "with certainty" that there is a God:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-485685

I pointed out that you are conflating your criticisms of the Christian God with the idea of God generally:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-486048

You claimed that you weren't debating philosphy, but "scientific fact:"
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-486063

I pointed out that the issue of God's existence isn't a scientific issue:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-4#post-486072

I also reminded you that science and philosophy study two different aspects of existence:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-486477

You set them against each other by claiming that you will always believe science and ignore other modes of knowledge:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-486480

After a disagreement, I explained how science differs from other modes of knowledge:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488019

You responded by displaying an ignorance of how science works that can only be matched by creationists, and by misrepresenting my argument beyond all comprehension:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488070

I responded by restating my argument in the simplest terms possible:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488085

You responded by calling me stupid:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488115

Despite your insulting response, I tried to explain my point yet again:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488124

You eventually made it clear that you thought I was a dumbass, and you'd prove it by talking to other Smart People:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488193

I tried to explain to you that by denying the existence of God, you were directly addressing the question of his existence:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488205

And that's when you began to deny all the things you'd spent so much effort saying:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488217

I tried to explain to you the difference between the study of the physical universe and the study of the supernatural, and why they can't be done together:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488220

You explained why you weren't interested one bit:
http://indiana.forums.rivals.com/threads/for-the-christophobes-here.42231/page-5#post-488223

You're a fool, Doc. You have tried to make yourself look smart in this thread, but you've only revealed your own biases. You should quit now, not while you're ahead, which you're not, but before you fall behind any further.
 
No......I'm with you 100%. I just think it's a crazy thing to have something that no one CAN prove exists...for thousands of years....is included in a conversation. Let's give another example, Republicans (I'd say it was both parties, but I'm not aware of anyone in the Democratic Party who believes this) that global warming won't happen because God won't let it happen. Why do we have God in the picture and not trolls or aliens? That's what I find absolutely bizarre.
The idea that God will prevent global warming IS ludicrous, and using such an idea for policy decisions is so far beyond stupid that it's barely comprehensible that such people have the ability to breathe. But that doesn't change the fact that you don't get to take your policy ideas and use them to define what is and isn't reasonable from a philosophical perspective. Just because some folks' ideas of God are stupid doesn't mean there is no God. It just means that their own particular God isn't very likely.
 
The idea that God will prevent global warming IS ludicrous, and using such an idea for policy decisions is so far beyond stupid that it's barely comprehensible that such people have the ability to breathe. But that doesn't change the fact that you don't get to take your policy ideas and use them to define what is and isn't reasonable from a philosophical perspective. Just because some folks' ideas of God are stupid doesn't mean there is no God. It just means that their own particular God isn't very likely.
This is a new one for me. I've never heard this argument from any Republican.
 
For emphasis, that is the Chair of the Senate Environment Committee talking. The same guy who "disproved" global warming by bringing a snowball into the Senate during winter. Take that, eggheads.

And for additional emphasis, it's not so much scary that a guy like that is in office and is chairing the Environmental Committee. It's far scarier that he keeps getting elected. His constituents are either: dumb and/or in agreement with him on this issue and several others in which he cites the bible as his basis for his political belief.

He's the poster boy for why religion in politics is catastrophic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
This is a new one for me. I've never heard this argument from any Republican.
You won't hear it on Fox News, so I'm not surprised. Links:

James Inhoff CHAIRMAN of the Senate Environmental Committee! Seems like the right guy for the job:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...inhofe-says-only-god-can-cause-climate-change

Congressman (R) John Shimkus:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ays-God-will-save-us-from-climate-change.html

And, this one just gave me a chuckle.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sc6mpp/the-republicans--inspiring-climate-change-message

Here's a snarky one by Wonkette:

http://wonkette.com/583562/obama-celebrates-earth-day-by-trolling-dumb-florida-republicans

Just use the old Google and you'll find plenty.
 
You won't hear it on Fox News, so I'm not surprised. Links:

James Inhoff CHAIRMAN of the Senate Environmental Committee! Seems like the right guy for the job:

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/...inhofe-says-only-god-can-cause-climate-change

Congressman (R) John Shimkus:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ays-God-will-save-us-from-climate-change.html

And, this one just gave me a chuckle.

http://thecolbertreport.cc.com/videos/sc6mpp/the-republicans--inspiring-climate-change-message

Here's a snarky one by Wonkette:

http://wonkette.com/583562/obama-celebrates-earth-day-by-trolling-dumb-florida-republicans

Just use the old Google and you'll find plenty.
What is it with the moonbats and Fox News? I'm no more of a Fox News viewer than you are. Though I have nothing to do with Inhofe's elections and I'm no fan of his on this particular issue, I'm more than happy to have him representing his state rather than any loony moonbat you'd support.
 
What is it with the moonbats and Fox News? I'm no more of a Fox News viewer than you are. Though I have nothing to do with Inhofe's elections and I'm no fan of his on this particular issue, I'm more than happy to have him representing his state rather than any loony moonbat you'd support.

Way to double down on the stupid, Aloha.

After you start with something like "This is a new one for me. I've never heard this argument from any Republican." and then that is offered in response coming from the Republican chair of the Senate environmental committee, someone who is the level-headed moderate that you claim to be might want to express disappointment to hear what they "never heard" and avoid the ironic rant about "moonbats" on the other side.

Inhofe is as big of a joke as Hoops, but only one of them is the chair of the Senate committee on the environment.
 
Way to double down on the stupid, Aloha.

After you start with something like "This is a new one for me. I've never heard this argument from any Republican." and then that is offered in response coming from the Republican chair of the Senate environmental committee, someone who is the level-headed moderate that you claim to be might want to express disappointment to hear what they "never heard" and avoid the ironic rant about "moonbats" on the other side.

Inhofe is as big of a joke as Hoops, but only one of them is the chair of the Senate committee on the environment.

Thanks a lot, Hoos! :(
 
Way to double down on the stupid, Aloha.

After you start with something like "This is a new one for me. I've never heard this argument from any Republican." and then that is offered in response coming from the Republican chair of the Senate environmental committee, someone who is the level-headed moderate that you claim to be might want to express disappointment to hear what they "never heard" and avoid the ironic rant about "moonbats" on the other side.

Inhofe is as big of a joke as Hoops, but only one of them is the chair of the Senate committee on the environment.
Well, I never had heard that argument before. I agree that it's pretty ludicrous. It also doesn't change my mind that I'd rather have Inhofe be elected in his state than ANY loony moonbat that Hoops would support. While I believe that global warming is happening and that man has some responsibility, the global warning alarmists and their proposed policies to address it generally scare me more than a guy that opposes those policies, no matter how dumb his reasons are - and a loony moonbat like Hoops would prefer would have all sorts of other policies I'd oppose. And, by the way, my views on global warming and the more common sense proposals to address it are the moderate position on the issue.

We agree that Hoops is a joke. ;)
 
Well, I never had heard that argument before. I agree that it's pretty ludicrous. It also doesn't change my mind that I'd rather have Inhofe be elected in his state than ANY loony moonbat that Hoops would support. While I believe that global warming is happening and that man has some responsibility, the global warning alarmists and their proposed policies to address it generally scare me more than a guy that opposes those policies, no matter how dumb his reasons are - and a loony moonbat like Hoops would prefer would have all sorts of other policies I'd oppose. And, by the way, my views on global warming and the more common sense proposals to address it are the moderate position on the issue.

We agree that Hoops is a joke. ;)
Aloha, you should have started this post with: "I'm not a scientist, but..." That's usually how anti-science people begin sentences regarding climate change.
 
Well, I never had heard that argument before. I agree that it's pretty ludicrous. It also doesn't change my mind that I'd rather have Inhofe be elected in his state than ANY loony moonbat that Hoops would support. While I believe that global warming is happening and that man has some responsibility, the global warning alarmists and their proposed policies to address it generally scare me more than a guy that opposes those policies, no matter how dumb his reasons are - and a loony moonbat like Hoops would prefer would have all sorts of other policies I'd oppose. And, by the way, my views on global warming and the more common sense proposals to address it are the moderate position on the issue.

We agree that Hoops is a joke. ;)
There was famously an oil exec in the 80s (Exxon, IIRC) who responded to concerns for diminishing supply with the believe that God would simply create more. There are good reasons why we should base our public policy on science. Mostly because if we ignore science in favor of faith, we give ourselves the opportunity to support whatever we want, facts be damned.

BTW, this oil exec got in a bit of trouble because, if voters are gullible, shareholders aren't. He had to do some damage control after that.
 
Aloha, you should have started this post with: "I'm not a scientist, but..." That's usually how anti-science people begin sentences regarding climate change.
That wouldn't make sense because I'm not at all anti-science. I'm anti-moonbat hysterical nonsense overreaction to climate change.
 
There was famously an oil exec in the 80s (Exxon, IIRC) who responded to concerns for diminishing supply with the believe that God would simply create more. There are good reasons why we should base our public policy on science. Mostly because if we ignore science in favor of faith, we give ourselves the opportunity to support whatever we want, facts be damned.

BTW, this oil exec got in a bit of trouble because, if voters are gullible, shareholders aren't. He had to do some damage control after that.
I'm for it basing policies on science. I'm against bad policies proposed by politicians who claim these policies are required . . . because science.
 
I'm for it basing policies on science. I'm against bad policies proposed by politicians who claim these policies are required . . . because science.
Yeah, I know, but when you say you're against those policies so much that you'd rather have one of the anti-science nuts in office, well, what's really the difference? You become an anti-science nut yourself, if not in practice, then in effect.
 
No, I'm a realist. I'll never agree with a politician on every issue. I'd disagree with a liberal Democrat replacement for him far more often and on issues I care more about as well.
 
Yeah, I know, but when you say you're against those policies so much that you'd rather have one of the anti-science nuts in office, well, what's really the difference? You become an anti-science nut yourself, if not in practice, then in effect.
So you're a big supporter of late term abortion? Do you support abortion until the entire baby passes through the birth canal? I don't think you do, but that's the effect of supporting pro-choice Democratic politicians that oppose any and all restrictions on abortion - even just prior to birth. The extremists on both sides tend to cancel each other out and, for the most part, we end up with more moderate policies. I sometimes count on that for positions on my side of which I disagree. I would guess that I'm not alone. I haven't found a politician which I agree with on every issue. Have you?
 
Last edited:
So you're a big supporter of late term abortion? Do you support abortion until the entire baby passes through the birth canal? I don't think you do, but that's the effect of supporting pro-choice Democratic politicians that oppose any and all restrictions on abortion - even just prior to birth. The extremists on both sides tend to be cancel each other out and, for the most part, we end up with more moderate policies. I sometimes count on that for positions on my side of which I disagree. I would guess that I'm not alone. I haven't found a politician which I agree with on every issue. Have you?

Your argument in response to criticism of the creationist Chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee's position regarding global warming is to shift the discussion to late term abortion?

Step up to the mirror Aloha, and see what "moonbat hysterical" looks like.
 
Your argument in response to criticism of the creationist Chairman of the Senate Environmental Committee's position regarding global warming is to shift the discussion to late term abortion?

Step up to the mirror Aloha, and see what "moonbat hysterical" looks like.
Obviously you missed the point. It was hard to miss, but you did it. Congrats.
 
Last edited:
So you're a big supporter of late term abortion? Do you support abortion until the entire baby passes through the birth canal? I don't think you do, but that's the effect of supporting pro-choice Democratic politicians that oppose any and all restrictions on abortion - even just prior to birth. The extremists on both sides tend to be cancel each other out and, for the most part, we end up with more moderate policies. I sometimes count on that for positions on my side of which I disagree. I would guess that I'm not alone. I haven't found a politician which I agree with on every issue. Have you?
That would be fine if you said "My guy is an idiot on this point, but other things are more important." But instead you said, "Yeah but I don't really buy the AGW thing, plus other things are more important, anyway." You're claiming to do an equation, but can't talk about it without off-handedly disparaging the climate change folks and implicitly defending the science deniers.

The thing is, if you disagree with the response some democrats want to take to climate change, fine. But at least admit they are responding to reality, while Inhofe, et al. are responding to fantasy.
 
That would be fine if you said "My guy is an idiot on this point, but other things are more important." But instead you said, "Yeah but I don't really buy the AGW thing, plus other things are more important, anyway." You're claiming to do an equation, but can't talk about it without off-handedly disparaging the climate change folks and implicitly defending the science deniers.
If it makes you feel better, Inhofe is wrong on the science and I do believe other things are more important. Once again I'm with the majority of Americans on that point.
 
Last edited:
Aloha, you should have started this post with: "I'm not a scientist, but..." That's usually how anti-science people begin sentences regarding climate change.

No, they aren't scientists. They aren't gynecologists either, but that never stopped them from trying to control women's reproductive rights.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DrHoops
If it makes you feel better Inhofe's is wron on the science and I definitely do believe other things are more important. Once again I'm with the majority of Americans on that point.
I do feel better, thanks. :D I didn't like how I was reading your response, but I thought it might have been who and what you were responding to.

I happen to think very few things are as important as environmental protection. I'm perfectly willing to trade economic development for a cleaner healthier planet. I think it's far more important than abortion, for example.
 
I do feel better, thanks. :D I didn't like how I was reading your response, but I thought it might have been who and what you were responding to.

I happen to think very few things are as important as environmental protection. I'm perfectly willing to trade economic development for a cleaner healthier planet. I think it's far more important than abortion, for example.
It's after the economy and before abortion on my list. However, I'd prefer economic growth without harming the environment. I like clean air and water and a nice climate as much as anyone. On the other hand policies that purportedly and very marginally help the environment while harming the economy are not those that I'll favor. For example, opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline does nothing at all to help the environment and prevents at least a temporary benefit to the economy.
 
ADVERTISEMENT