Kids don’t have a choice. They are stuck where their parents are stuck, often because that is where the job is.
Besides, as you said, several states are moving in the same direction. It would be amusing, if it wasn’t so tragic, that pols are sometimes taking a path opposite of what the majority of voters want. As one “thought leader” complained recently, words to the effect “elections don’t work for us anymore”.
Steve
That is totally up to you.
JimA
Your over use of this non-scientific term is getting tiresome.
There is no such thing as settled science. There is a currently accepted state of science - a state that can always be challenged with new data. Of course, that new data needs to be reproducible by other scientists to be accepted as valid data.
So do you have some new data to add to the climate science discussion? You seem to be very interested in the subject, as you have successfully derailed the OP’s link about the passing of a key scientist in the area of plate tectonics.
—Peter
Not college kids. In fact, I would argue that going to college should always be a significant distance from the parental estate.
Certainly our family did that. I mean, who wants to live near their parents when you’re in college?
Money.
Meaning instate tuition is less expensive.
In Ireland people live at home with their parents while in school. That is one reason EU university students are not nearly in as much debt.
But Irish parents drink much more heavily with their kids.
Even as CIA I find that side of my family fun and funny.
I hate it when one of my posts becomes so polluted that I have to ignore it. This is one.
Are the parental pockets deep enough to pay out-of-state tuition so Jr can receive a factual education, vs a “traditional family values” education in Ohio (or Texas, or Florida)?
Steve
It is symptomatic of the current conflict in the US, where massive pressure exists to ignore the best scientific thought, in favor of whatever is familiar, comfortable, or profitable.
Steve
It is like eating a Swanson TV Dinner and disregarding the salt content. Why change now?
i use the Mute Tracker a lot lately. Light pollution has made it harder to see the stars. So does word pollution.
The Captain
Now I’m beginning to wonder if gravity is settled science…
I don’t know about gravity, but gravy, yes. Yum!
Pete
First it was a force, then the curvature of space, now they detected gravitational waves…
Most unsettling! 
The Captain
The climate change observation that human-cause greenhouse gas emissions are significantly changing the earth’s climate is settled science in the same way that the belief that exercise will improve one’s health is settled science.
Both are supported by such a preponderance of evidence that there is general agreement in the scientific community that the assertions are true. That doesn’t mean either can’t be wrong, just that the probability of that is very low.
IMO, it is almost always better to make policy in agreement with stuff that is settled science. For example, I would be very hesitant to be the first passenger in an airplane designed on the assumption that the rules of aerodynamics are “fake news”. Similarly, if the community of mycologists are in consensus that a particular mushroom is poisonous, I wouldn’t eat it.
But that’s just me.
No it is not. It is just constantly stated s such. Also, I noticed the flag words an marketing techniques in there.
AFA exercise. Always and everywhere exertion and “fitness” are wrongly conflated with health. That used to be a known fact until they invented the fitness/exercise industry.
As far as human activity affecting the climate. So what? I’ll grant, and contemplated this even as a child after watching Unchained Goddess, that human activity on a systemic scale could alter the weather. So what? What does it mean? My major exception to all this unscientific blather and quite frankly enforced ignorance, is it is marketed as: we’re all gonna die, yes definitely unless we adopt various political positions. (and always sooner than we thought the last time! ) Yes, to a thinking person that is always how the pro-warmers come across. It’s all professional STFU-ism. Nothing else. Makes a thinking person very suspicious.
You and the system can claim and believe whatever you want and choose your evidence whether it is real or not. (Latest studies show…) You call it like you see it. I’ll call it the way the data and people presenting it compel me.
The problem is not Climate Change. The problem is the weaponizing of Climate Change for political purposes. Nor much different than Kellogg inventing cornflakes to match diet to his church’s dogma.
The methods? FUD like brimstone and hellfire to keep you devout.
The Captain
Your fundamental error is that you consider science in the same way as philosophy or economics. That there are different ways of looking at things that are all equal in subjective “truth”. Quantum mechanics aside, there is a real world out there, an objective reality. In the real world, some things are true and some things aren’t.
The central question is whether humans are changing the climate in ways that will be increasingly harmful to human society. The general consensus of the scientific community is that this is occurring. It is only a question of when the negative events will begin to occur. I know this consensus directly because I am part of that scientific community.
I’ve spoken to many who believe the way you do and have come to the conclusion based on that experience that your position cannot be scientifically defended. It may be based on a lot of things, but it is not based on valid science.
You certainly have a right to believe whatever you wish and if you want to believe in stuff that you cannot defend with evidence, that’s up to you. Don’t know why you would want to but whatever.
But if you want to test your beliefs, well this is what these discussion forums are designed to accomplish. But if all you are going to do is ridicule “settled science” without making clear what it is you disagree with and why, then all you are is the monkey in the zoo throwing poop at the crowd. Certainly entertaining but ultimately meaningless.
You keep making these allegations but when challenged you often get all huffy and run away. What’s the point?
Who is weaponizing what? Give at least one specific example. Maybe we will all agree with you.
Greta? 9876543210
The Captain
So advocating for a position which is supported by a rather broad scientific consensus is “weaponizing”? I guess Ben Franklin was “weaponizing” when he insisted that tall buildings put lightning rods up because they seemed to be hit more often and catch fire a lot. The church disagreed and accused him of trying to interfere with God. Luckily for all of us, I guess, science won out.
And then there were the health care practices where doctors didn’t bother to wash up between patients and carried cross infections all around the hospital? They refused to change, even when the data clearly demonstrated that disinfecting and washing saved lives. Shame on those (mostly) women, who “weaponized” the data - and luckily for the rest of us, carried the day.
I’m not sure why taking a scientific consensus and voicing it in the face of obstinate and obdurate refusal is such a thing. I suppose it could be wrong, occasionally, but when it’s right it’s right, and that’s how humanity progresses. Climactic warming is a generally accepted hypothesis, and there are measures that we can take without much effort to minimize the effects. That might not be enough, but then if the effects turn out to be significant, shouldn’t we then take the serious steps to change out behaviors and avoid what could be a planet wide ecological catastrophe?
Put this way, if you see people marching over a cliff, maybe it’s worth listening to the one saying “Hey, stop for a second!”, even if they seem a bit strident. Or, as FDR put it, “The only thing we have to fear … is really stupid people who won’t accept facts.”