A top science question the candidates for president should answer is:

What evidence would actually convince you, if it surfaced, that mitigating global warming must be a top priority?

One candidate denies the reality of global warming, the other agrees it's important but not top priority. I want them to specify what would have to happen or what would they have to find out that would make them realize it is top priority. If no amount of evidence would do it, then they need to admit this, because that would mean that they place short term political gain over even the most enormous tragedy.

222 votes
Vote
Sign in
Check!
(thinking…)
Reset
or sign in with
  • facebook
  • google
    Password icon
    I agree to the terms of service
    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    AnonymousAnonymous shared this idea  ·   ·  Flag idea as inappropriate…  ·  Admin →

    2 comments

    Sign in
    Check!
    (thinking…)
    Reset
    or sign in with
    • facebook
    • google
      Password icon
      I agree to the terms of service
      Signed in as (Sign out)
      Submitting...
      • AnonymousAnonymous commented  ·   ·  Flag as inappropriate

        Very good point. Force them into either a concession that they will never consider the evidence no matter what, so as to please their corporate masters, or name a level where we could actually expect some action.

      Feedback and Knowledge Base