Show of HandsShow of Hands

VirtualCongress June 5th, 2017 1:46am

Director of National Intelligence BertGoldberg (NF-NY) proposes Climate for Space Act

0 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

hrieniets Nashville
06/05/17 1:46 pm

This would be a death sentence to the human race.

Reply
Senate101 San Diego
06/05/17 12:36 pm

This must look great to new VC recruits.

ReligiousCommie No Longer Active
06/05/17 7:24 am

Nay. Take the money out of something that doesn't need it instead.

Reply
skinner Wisconsin
06/05/17 6:57 am

Nay, why would we stop researching the threat posed by climate change?

Reply
Liberty 4,032,064
06/05/17 3:48 am

Just cut it. Don't go wasting it elsewhere.

Reply
tipsyindian
06/05/17 12:11 am

I'd rather cut it. But it's important to privatize climate research. Leaving it in the hands of the government increases the likelihood of politicization, rather than scientifically rigorous research to determine what change is actually happening.

Reply
TheSpookyGhost paleoconservative
06/05/17 1:57 am

But who would fund climate change research? Such research is really only profitable for renewable energy companies and oil companies. Neither are exactly unbiased.

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
06/04/17 10:29 pm

👍 Great bill. Huge yea!

Reply
Wonderess Louisiana
06/04/17 10:19 pm

I most vote nay for the sake of moderation. Such a swing of funds could be distablizing to both causes.

RagingMystic covfefe
06/04/17 7:14 pm

Nay. Firstly, we need climate research, and research can't be effectively handled by the market unless there's a direct profit motivation. Secondly, climate research is under NASA purview.

Reply
Jkllink VC President
06/04/17 7:03 pm

Nay, just give the spending back to the American taxpayers.

Reply
ranger13 Texas
06/04/17 6:59 pm

Nay. The deficit is too large and the debt just keeps growing more. I would support cutting the EPA budget without diverting the money to NASA.

Reply
johonmilla Monroe, nc
06/04/17 6:56 pm

As much as I love NASA, climate change research should increase if anything. Sorry, nay.

Reply
chance Sirnotappearinginthisfilm
06/04/17 7:20 pm

Sure, let's just keep pouring money into junk science

johonmilla Monroe, nc
06/04/17 7:26 pm

97% science supporting the point that human caused change and that we need action, i wouldn't call it "junk science". I'll choose environment and the future over economic gain any day.

SatansSon God forcibly raped Mary.
06/05/17 1:14 am

Just because 97% of scientists say a phenomenon occurs doesn't mean that what they're saying is true. That is an ad Populum fallacy. In addition, no scientific theory can be 100% accurate. The climate could just naturally be changing like it has for the last 4.5 billion years of its existence.

musicotic Michigan
06/05/17 10:32 am

It's just that the EXPERTS are more knowledgeable. Pragmatism my friends.

AndrewGVN VC Lib Whip TX
06/04/17 6:53 pm

Cut it, don't divert it.

Reply
iceberg124
06/04/17 6:54 pm

Once we get to lunar mining, we will have an extremely valuable economy, this expedites that.

bower8899 ...
06/04/17 6:50 pm

Great Idea! This way when earth is drowned we can just move to Mars!

Reply
VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
06/04/17 6:47 pm

1. Climate change research will come to a complete standstill and the money spent on climate change research will be diverted 100% to NASA.

*Climate Change research will be something that the private industry can handle.