Oct.9, 2016--the debates are finally clearly just arguments between rich old white people.

[arkirk]

Tonight's debate focused on the idiosyncrasies of overprivileged white people and how rotten each has been. These are old, ugly people with agendas of personal wealth...their personal wealth...not yours. The questioners and the audience averaged about half the age of the debaters and none of the debaters addressed global warming, income inequality, or any new diplomatic attempt to stop the raging desctruction in the middle east. We are set up for some very hard times with either of this duo in the drivers seat.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Tonight's debate focused on the idiosyncrasies of overprivileged white people and how rotten each has been. These are old, ugly people with agendas of personal wealth...their personal wealth...not yours. The questioners and the audience averaged about half the age of the debaters and none of the debaters addressed global warming, income inequality, or any new diplomatic attempt to stop the raging desctruction in the middle east. We are set up for some very hard times with either of this duo in the drivers seat.

True. They attacked each other and not the issues.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Arkirk is in California which will go for Hillary. He can vote against her and it won't matter. Write in Sanders and feel good about your vote.

 

[arkirk]

Arkirk is in California which will go for Hillary. He can vote against her and it won't matter. Write in Sanders and feel good about your vote.

I'll do one better. I am voting for Jill Stein. Actually, Hillary has a powerful attraction to war that makes her a somewhat dangerous person to trust with the presidency...you know like Dubbiya...and her close friend, Henry Kissinger. Which Philosophy is right...there was actually NO POLICY DEBATED.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Well, there's a larger issue to address; that being the fitness to hold the office of President of the United States. If your first concern is (and my first concern is) Donald Trump's fitness to hold the office, policy position takes a backseat. I mean really at this stage of the game and given how the game is playing out, who the fuck cares about Donald's policy positions?

 

[whichphilosophy]

Well, there's a larger issue to address; that being the fitness to hold the office of President of the United States. If your first concern is (and my first concern is) Donald Trump's fitness to hold the office, policy position takes a backseat. I mean really at this stage of the game and given how the game is playing out, who the fuck cares about Donald's policy positions?

Fitness to hold office are reflected on policies and strategies on how to achieve them regardless of who it is.

 

[fromderinside]

I don't know bout you but I'm not ready to concede the stage to whipper snappers yet.

I accept that one is intellectually inert and the other has too many scars. But that doesn't mean the wisdom of one be sacrificed into the swamp hole of the other's incompetence and crudity.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Arkirk is in California which will go for Hillary. He can vote against her and it won't matter. Write in Sanders and feel good about your vote.

I'll do one better. I am voting for Jill Stein. Actually, Hillary has a powerful attraction to war that makes her a somewhat dangerous person to trust with the presidency...you know like Dubbiya...and her close friend, Henry Kissinger. Which Philosophy is right...there was actually NO POLICY DEBATED.

According to today's CNN poll, the Crystal Lady's support is down to 2%. Johnson is at 9%.

 

[Jayjay]

They should take tips from young black debating champions:



Having Trump and Clinton frantically rap and pant their way for 90 minutes straight would certainly be more entertaining, and probably no less informative.

 

[arkirk]

I'll do one better. I am voting for Jill Stein. Actually, Hillary has a powerful attraction to war that makes her a somewhat dangerous person to trust with the presidency...you know like Dubbiya...and her close friend, Henry Kissinger. Which Philosophy is right...there was actually NO POLICY DEBATED.

According to today's CNN poll, the Crystal Lady's support is down to 2%. Johnson is at 9%.

Mr. Bosch your kind of democracy is about silencing people..disappearing them from the scene even though there is supposed to be an election going on. If you approve of this crappy debate format, you are PART OF THE PROBLEM. I frankly think you are part of the problem. Your reference to Jill as the "Crystal Lady" is some sort of attempt at a derogatory remark. Why do you resist the truth of these times? The old model of repressed environmental concern and blatant domineering of the media with money is not working. These TWO candidates cannot even manage their personal lives and are too crooked and cynical to be trusted with public policy. We survived Dubbiya and the latest Assassin in Chief Obama. Why do you want to add another insult and injury to our world? Do you actually feel a whole hearted support for either of these blithering politicians?

My vote is simply based on policy analysis. Stein has a policy and it was widely debated within the Green Party. Meanwhile the Democrats and Republicans were busy chasing corporate money and cutting each other's poltical throat, and didn't have time to discuss policy. The Boeings and Lockheed Martins, the banks, the pharmas and the health insurers sure sponsored one hell of a bash each other contest Sunday night. It was just a couple of very rich, very ugly, old white people acting their disgusting worst, promising we will let our country plunge over the edge on things like climate change, wealth disparity, health issues. Trump sounded like the idiot he is. Clinton sounded like the calculating liar she is. All went as planned and we just sit around and say...."I will pick the least of the evils." We will probably live through one of these clowns becoming our next esteemed leader...and it will be just like Bush or Obama. I have a hunch it will be stormy weather when the next election after this one comes around. I am still voting for the best candidate.

By the way, CNN polls and in fact all mainstream polls write their questions to skew the results. This is a known fact. They all have skin in the game. Don't fool yourself. I am not fooling myself that my candidate will not win. It is just a matter of integrity on my part when I vote. You ought to do the same. Don't worry...I know you won't Mr. Bosch.

 

[bilby]

Jill Stein represents the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

The only reason that Stein's failure to use reality as the basis for policy is less dangerous than Trump's, is that Stein has less chance of actually influencing the political position of the USA.

Clinton has only a vague grasp of science, but at least she doesn't completely reject it as a basis for policy making, unlike the other three. She seems to at least be prepared to (occasionally) listen to advisors who use science as a basis for policy.

There is an increasing and dangerous trend worldwide for reality to be treated by politicians as something that can be discarded in favour of ideology. Sadly, reality continues to exist whether or not one takes account of it when determining one's political platform. No amount of popularity nor deeply held belief will make "Organic" food a viable way to feed the world; nor can it make climate change disappear, render vaccines less effective than "alternative" medicine, or cause a national economy to precisely resemble a household economy.

We need politicians who respond to the complex and messy real world, not idiots who simply pretend that the world is as simple and neat as their belief systems would like it to be.

 

[arkirk]

Jill Stein represents the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

The only reason that Stein's failure to use reality as the basis for policy is less dangerous than Trump's, is that Stein has less chance of actually influencing the political position of the USA.

Clinton has only a vague grasp of science, but at least she doesn't completely reject it as a basis for policy making, unlike the other three. She seems to at least be prepared to (occasionally) listen to advisors who use science as a basis for policy.

There is an increasing and dangerous trend worldwide for reality to be treated by politicians as something that can be discarded in favour of ideology. Sadly, reality continues to exist whether or not one takes account of it when determining one's political platform. No amount of popularity nor deeply held belief will make "Organic" food a viable way to feed the world; nor can it make climate change disappear, render vaccines less effective than "alternative" medicine, or cause a national economy to precisely resemble a household economy.

We need politicians who respond to the complex and messy real world, not idiots who simply pretend that the world is as simple and neat as their belief systems would like it to be.

Bilby...your post seems like something we would expect coming from a country like Australia, where the citizens still swear their fealty to the friggin queen. Your post is preposterous...Stein is the only candidate whose policy aligns with science. You are talking through your hat and really don't have a clue what you are talking about.You have impressed me over time as a person who fits the description you project onto Stein which is completely without merit...it is you who simply pretends the world is as simple and neat as your belief system would like it to be." Are you also a climate change denier? Don't rant about science if you are one.

What "anti-science" view points are you talking about.? Explain your preposterous position...if you can.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Jill Stein represents the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

The only reason that Stein's failure to use reality as the basis for policy is less dangerous than Trump's, is that Stein has less chance of actually influencing the political position of the USA.

Clinton has only a vague grasp of science, but at least she doesn't completely reject it as a basis for policy making, unlike the other three. She seems to at least be prepared to (occasionally) listen to advisors who use science as a basis for policy.

There is an increasing and dangerous trend worldwide for reality to be treated by politicians as something that can be discarded in favour of ideology. Sadly, reality continues to exist whether or not one takes account of it when determining one's political platform. No amount of popularity nor deeply held belief will make "Organic" food a viable way to feed the world; nor can it make climate change disappear, render vaccines less effective than "alternative" medicine, or cause a national economy to precisely resemble a household economy.

We need politicians who respond to the complex and messy real world, not idiots who simply pretend that the world is as simple and neat as their belief systems would like it to be.

Bilby...your post seems like something we would expect coming from a country like Australia, where the citizens still swear their fealty to the friggin queen. Your post is preposterous...Stein is the only candidate whose policy aligns with science. You are talking through your hat and really don't have a clue what you are talking about.You have impressed me over time as a person who fits the description you project onto Stein which is completely without merit...it is you who simply pretends the world is as simple and neat as your belief system would like it to be." Are you also a climate change denier? Don't rant about science if you are one.

What "anti-science" view points are you talking about.? Explain your preposterous position...if you can.

Buddy: she's a quack. Just do some research. She's anti vaccine, GMO, and western science. She's even anti-WIFI! I'm sorry, but there aren't enough crystals to heal everyone!

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Jill Stein is so far from being elected she is irrelevant. Trump is a climate change denialist, and that makes his possible election dangerous. The large number of GOP Senators and Representatives that are climate change denialists makes the down ballot votes important, far more so than arguing about Stein.

Vote as if your planet depends on your vote. It does.

 

[bilby]

Jill Stein represents the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

The only reason that Stein's failure to use reality as the basis for policy is less dangerous than Trump's, is that Stein has less chance of actually influencing the political position of the USA.

Clinton has only a vague grasp of science, but at least she doesn't completely reject it as a basis for policy making, unlike the other three. She seems to at least be prepared to (occasionally) listen to advisors who use science as a basis for policy.

There is an increasing and dangerous trend worldwide for reality to be treated by politicians as something that can be discarded in favour of ideology. Sadly, reality continues to exist whether or not one takes account of it when determining one's political platform. No amount of popularity nor deeply held belief will make "Organic" food a viable way to feed the world; nor can it make climate change disappear, render vaccines less effective than "alternative" medicine, or cause a national economy to precisely resemble a household economy.

We need politicians who respond to the complex and messy real world, not idiots who simply pretend that the world is as simple and neat as their belief systems would like it to be.

Bilby...your post seems like something we would expect coming from a country like Australia, where the citizens still swear their fealty to the friggin queen.

I see; so your reasoned response here is the combine an ad-hominem (I presume that you don't see swearing fealty to the queen as a positive trait, but I am unsure of how it would render my comments about Jill Stein false if I were to do that - which I don't) with a poor attempt at tu-quoque (I say that a leader you support is less than perfect, so you try to imply that I too support an imperfect leader).

You are wrong here on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start - Not only do I not swear fealty to the Queen, but if I did, it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on what I said - Jill Stein would remain a representative of the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

Still, I guess we can put this first sentence of yours down to an over emotional response to a perceived attack on your values; Let's pretend for a moment that you didn't make a MASSIVE fool of yourself here, and look at what else you have to say:

Your post is preposterous...Stein is the only candidate whose policy aligns with science. You are talking through your hat and really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No, I am making a simple and accurate observation. Stein is opposed to science where it doesn't fit with her ideological position - and in this respect, she is just like Trump. They differ only in their choice of ideology.

Stein opposes GMOs ...

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe

(source; my bold).
... holding them to a ridiculous standard that no other breeding technique is required to meet.

And she stands in the way of the most promising technology we have to fight climate change.

End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines.

(same source as above)
one of these things is not like the others.

Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.

(source)

Nuclear power is the only way to make a significant impact on climate change, and despite the hypothetical and hysterical response to it by the Greens, it is now a mature technology that is demonstrably safer than any other technology that has ever been in widespread use. To deny this is the epitome of 'anti-science'; The only reason people oppose nuclear power is because they are emotionally invested in doing so - they are scared of it. Being scared of something that is known to be safe is not rational. It is understandable, but that's not good enough in a politician. Would you support a politician who wanted to ban air travel on safety grounds because she was scared of flying?

You have impressed me over time as a person who fits the description you project onto Stein which is completely without merit...it is you who simply pretends the world is as simple and neat as your belief system would like it to be."

Clearly you haven't read many of my posts then

Are you also a climate change denier? Don't rant about science if you are one.

...aaaand there's the proof. It would be a simple matter for you to find out my oft stated position on this issue - but instead of finding out the facts, you choose to believe that which supports your emotional needs. A word to the wise - when accusing someone of anything, it's a good idea to check first that they are not easily able to show you up as a fool or a liar.

January 2015:

First, how likely is it that the world will undergo dramatic temperature rise over the foreseeable future?

That depends on what you mean by 'dramatic'. If we instead ask about 'harmful' temperature rise, the answer is 'almost certain'.

Second, how likely is it that it will result in dramatic climate change?

Given that this is the same question as your first, the answer is the same. You can try to pretend that there are multiple uncertainties here, but you are not fooling anyone - these first two of your points do not describe two uncertainties, they are two ways of looking at one 'very likely indeedity'.

Third Second, how likely is it that it will cause substantive net harm, rather than being a 'wash', or even beneficial?

Very likely indeed. Google is your friend; if you don't know what the scientific consensus is, you must be living under a rock; and if you think there is a better epistemology than scientific consensus to arrive at an answer, you are a fool.

Four Third, how likely is it that we know how to fix it, and if it is worth it?

100% certain. We can fix it by replacing coal, oil and gas power with nuclear, solar, and wind. The only obstacles to this are political, not technical.

Last, how likely is it that it is going to be solved given international politics?

Very unlikely, as long as people like you are lobbying against the idea that there is a problem, and people like your political opponents are actively lobbying against the biggest part of the solution.

When you have a bipartisan system, and both sides are hell-bent on doing the wrong thing (albeit for different reasons), then it is time for the non-partisan masses to rise up and tell the political game-players to fuck off.

It takes a special kind of stupid to characterize this as the post of a "climate change denier".

Or this from February 2015:

And if anyone in the US North East reckons that the current cold weather means that there is no global warming, show them this article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-weather-autumn-brings-heatwave-to-city-20150301-13sa80.html and point out that for every unusually cold day they have seen this winter, we have seen an abnormally hot day - and it has also been unusually warm in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, for those who refuse to believe in the existence of places outside the USA.

and finally, from June 2015:

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

What "anti-science" view points are you talking about.? Explain your preposterous position...if you can.

I can, and have. Your preposterous denial of the facts is unsurprising - most people respond with emotion rather than reason when selecting a political candidate to support - but it is, nevertheless, disappointing.

Jill Stein is anti-science; But you give her a pass on this, because she is anti- the science you too would like to deny.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is economics. Half of the nuclear reactors in America are money losing operations.

https://thinkprogress.org/nuclear-p...t-an-astonishing-rate-e9473d62acc5#.dqwb8qck9

Half of existing nuclear power plants are no longer profitable. The New York Times and others have tried to blame renewable energy for this, but the admittedly astounding price drops of renewables aren’t the primary cause of the industry’s woes — cheap fracked gas is.
The point of blaming renewables, which currently receive significant government subsidies, is apparently to argue that existing nukes deserve some sort of additional subsidy to keep running — beyond the staggering $100+ billion in subsidies the nuclear industry has received over the decades. But a major reason solar and wind energy receive federal subsidies — which are being phased out over the next few years — is because they are emerging technologies whose prices are still rapidly coming down the learning curve, whereas nuclear is an incumbent technology with a negative learning curve.

 

[bilby]

The biggest problem with nuclear power is economics. Half of the nuclear reactors in America are money losing operations.

https://thinkprogress.org/nuclear-p...t-an-astonishing-rate-e9473d62acc5#.dqwb8qck9

Half of existing nuclear power plants are no longer profitable. The New York Times and others have tried to blame renewable energy for this, but the admittedly astounding price drops of renewables aren’t the primary cause of the industry’s woes — cheap fracked gas is.
The point of blaming renewables, which currently receive significant government subsidies, is apparently to argue that existing nukes deserve some sort of additional subsidy to keep running — beyond the staggering $100+ billion in subsidies the nuclear industry has received over the decades. But a major reason solar and wind energy receive federal subsidies — which are being phased out over the next few years — is because they are emerging technologies whose prices are still rapidly coming down the learning curve, whereas nuclear is an incumbent technology with a negative learning curve.

Of course nuclear power is more expensive than other generation methods - there isn't a level playing field.

If other methods were required to be equally safe, and/or required such long-winded approvals processes, then they would be hugely expensive too. Indeed, if just the cost of the climate change resulting from the burning of fossil fuels was (as it should be) charged to the coal and gas power plants, then they would be the uneconomic technology, even before the cost of increasing safety to nuclear industry levels was factored in. Any technology that externalizes a huge fraction of its real costs is bound to outcompete technologies that are not allowed to do this.

And while PWRs may be an incumbent technology, more modern designs (such as molten salt reactors tat can run on uranium, or thorium, or even on 'waste' from PWRs) are on the table that are superior in many ways.

Wind and solar are great - up to a point (although as South Australia recently discovered, a grid that relies on too much asynchronous generation is dangerously unstable). I have no problem with using as much solar and wind power as is practicable; but there is no question that advanced nuclear power plant designs are at least as deserving of subsidy as other renewables. Particularly where the purpose of such subsidy is to prevent future CO₂ emissions.

The only low carbon technologies for large scale synchronous base-load generation are nuclear, geothermal and hydro - and of these only nuclear power has sufficient numbers of suitable sites available.

 

[zorq]

It's not surprising that many of the Nuclear plants in the US are less profitable these days. All of them were originally built with technology from the 70s or older.

The last two power plants to be built in the US were the Watts Bar plant, which began construction in 1973, was completed in 1990, and didn't begin commercial operation until 1996, and the River Bend plant, which was built in 1977 and went online in 1986.

Nuclear power has been severely stifled in the US.

 

[bilby]

It's not surprising that many of the Nuclear plants in the US are less profitable these days. All of them were originally built with technology from the 70s or older.

The last two power plants to be built in the US were the Watts Bar plant, which began construction in 1973, was completed in 1990, and didn't begin commercial operation until 1996, and the River Bend plant, which was built in 1977 and went online in 1986.

Nuclear power has been severely stifled in the US.

Indeed; The problem is political - The right like coal and oil, and deny Climate Change. So they oppose nuclear power as it seems to be unnecessary. The left are terrified of the 'N' word, and having nailed their colours to the mast in the 1960s and 70s, are unwilling to change now lest they be accused of hypocrisy.

Both sides are happy to put in place regulations that render nuclear power unaffordable; and then to point to that unaffordability as a reason to oppose nuclear power. It is basically impossible in a two party system to introduce something that is disliked by both parties. In places where this nonsense doesn't happen, such as France (and more recently, India and China), nuclear power is perfectly viable, thus demonstrating that the problems are political rather than technical.

But that's enough of this derail. Even if you ignore her stance on nuclear power, Jill Stein's position on GMOs, and her wishy-washy pandering to the Anti-Vaccination movement, are sufficient to demonstrate that she is not averse to policies that fly in the face of scientific consensus. She is also apparently unable to bring herself to condemn homeopathy, which frankly is unacceptable from a physician; and her party platform says: "Chronic conditions are often best cured by alternative medicine. We support the teaching, funding and practice of holistic health approaches and, as appropriate, the use of complementary and alternative therapies such as herbal medicines, homeopathy, naturopathy, traditional Chinese medicine and other healing approaches".

Left-wing woo bullshit is no less stupid than right-wing bullshit such as climate change denial. Both have no place in the platform of a political party in the information age, and are only able to persist because general education is so woefully poor.

 

[arkirk]

Bilby...your post seems like something we would expect coming from a country like Australia, where the citizens still swear their fealty to the friggin queen.

I see; so your reasoned response here is the combine an ad-hominem (I presume that you don't see swearing fealty to the queen as a positive trait, but I am unsure of how it would render my comments about Jill Stein false if I were to do that - which I don't) with a poor attempt at tu-quoque (I say that a leader you support is less than perfect, so you try to imply that I too support an imperfect leader).

You are wrong here on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start - Not only do I not swear fealty to the Queen, but if I did, it wouldn't have the slightest bearing on what I said - Jill Stein would remain a representative of the anti-science viewpoints of the left wing, just as Trump and Johnson represent the anti-science viewpoints of the right wing.

Still, I guess we can put this first sentence of yours down to an over emotional response to a perceived attack on your values; Let's pretend for a moment that you didn't make a MASSIVE fool of yourself here, and look at what else you have to say:

Your post is preposterous...Stein is the only candidate whose policy aligns with science. You are talking through your hat and really don't have a clue what you are talking about.

No, I am making a simple and accurate observation. Stein is opposed to science where it doesn't fit with her ideological position - and in this respect, she is just like Trump. They differ only in their choice of ideology.

Stein opposes GMOs ...

Label GMOs, and put a moratorium on GMOs and pesticides until they are proven safe

(source; my bold).
... holding them to a ridiculous standard that no other breeding technique is required to meet.

And she stands in the way of the most promising technology we have to fight climate change.

End destructive energy extraction: fracking, tar sands, offshore drilling, oil trains, mountaintop removal, and uranium mines.

(same source as above)
one of these things is not like the others.

Phase out nuclear power and end nuclear subsidies.

(source)

Nuclear power is the only way to make a significant impact on climate change, and despite the hypothetical and hysterical response to it by the Greens, it is now a mature technology that is demonstrably safer than any other technology that has ever been in widespread use. To deny this is the epitome of 'anti-science'; The only reason people oppose nuclear power is because they are emotionally invested in doing so - they are scared of it. Being scared of something that is known to be safe is not rational. It is understandable, but that's not good enough in a politician. Would you support a politician who wanted to ban air travel on safety grounds because she was scared of flying?

You have impressed me over time as a person who fits the description you project onto Stein which is completely without merit...it is you who simply pretends the world is as simple and neat as your belief system would like it to be."

Clearly you haven't read many of my posts then

Are you also a climate change denier? Don't rant about science if you are one.

...aaaand there's the proof. It would be a simple matter for you to find out my oft stated position on this issue - but instead of finding out the facts, you choose to believe that which supports your emotional needs. A word to the wise - when accusing someone of anything, it's a good idea to check first that they are not easily able to show you up as a fool or a liar.

January 2015:

First, how likely is it that the world will undergo dramatic temperature rise over the foreseeable future?

That depends on what you mean by 'dramatic'. If we instead ask about 'harmful' temperature rise, the answer is 'almost certain'.

Second, how likely is it that it will result in dramatic climate change?

Given that this is the same question as your first, the answer is the same. You can try to pretend that there are multiple uncertainties here, but you are not fooling anyone - these first two of your points do not describe two uncertainties, they are two ways of looking at one 'very likely indeedity'.

Third Second, how likely is it that it will cause substantive net harm, rather than being a 'wash', or even beneficial?

Very likely indeed. Google is your friend; if you don't know what the scientific consensus is, you must be living under a rock; and if you think there is a better epistemology than scientific consensus to arrive at an answer, you are a fool.

Four Third, how likely is it that we know how to fix it, and if it is worth it?

100% certain. We can fix it by replacing coal, oil and gas power with nuclear, solar, and wind. The only obstacles to this are political, not technical.

Last, how likely is it that it is going to be solved given international politics?

Very unlikely, as long as people like you are lobbying against the idea that there is a problem, and people like your political opponents are actively lobbying against the biggest part of the solution.

When you have a bipartisan system, and both sides are hell-bent on doing the wrong thing (albeit for different reasons), then it is time for the non-partisan masses to rise up and tell the political game-players to fuck off.

It takes a special kind of stupid to characterize this as the post of a "climate change denier".

Or this from February 2015:

And if anyone in the US North East reckons that the current cold weather means that there is no global warming, show them this article: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/brisbane-weather-autumn-brings-heatwave-to-city-20150301-13sa80.html and point out that for every unusually cold day they have seen this winter, we have seen an abnormally hot day - and it has also been unusually warm in Alaska and the Pacific Northwest, for those who refuse to believe in the existence of places outside the USA.

and finally, from June 2015:

Compare the energy mix of any other OECD nation with that of France, and it becomes VERY clear - opposition to nuclear power IS SUPPORT FOR COAL, whether or not you understand that that is what you are doing.

What "anti-science" view points are you talking about.? Explain your preposterous position...if you can.

I can, and have. Your preposterous denial of the facts is unsurprising - most people respond with emotion rather than reason when selecting a political candidate to support - but it is, nevertheless, disappointing.

Jill Stein is anti-science; But you give her a pass on this, because she is anti- the science you too would like to deny.

Jill Stein is a Harvard educated Medical Doctor and, contrary to what you think in the outback, she is not opposed to vaccines and her take on the necessity of dealing with climate change can hardly be characterized ad "anti-science." What do you think science is? Just something that produces bulldozers and strip mines? That is just something you believe in like a religion. Stein is not opposed to vaccines. She is opposed to your idea of what science is. That is to her credit. You are anti environmental science yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WiQWhJj-3yQ