Contrary to popular opinion, not all, or even most reputable scientists believe there is empirical data showing that there is demonstrable climate change. While short term evidence seems to show a warming of the earth, the fact is that, throughout recorded history there have been many fluctuations in the earth's temperature. I'm not saying this to dissuade anyone from trying to "save our planet". Nor am I suggesting we don't act responsibly by trying to reduce our carbon footprint. We definitely need to police ourselves as fellow citizens of this planet we call home.

But nature itself plays a great part in the heating and cooling of the earth. I can't remember where, but I have read that the eruption of Krakatoa sent more pollutants into the air than the first 100 years of the industrial revolution.

In other words, don't believe something just because certain sectors of political machinery say it's so. Many reports are authored by people who already are predisposed monetarily to have certain opinions. That goes for conservative, as well as liberal "facts".

climate issues are not as bad as the media makes it seem(its like the world is a smoker). the co2 levels were much higher 50000 years ago. plants every where will love you. ever grow indoor pot? we co2 boost all the time. but if you really want clean energy we have had a perfect answer since 1950. thorium salt reactors . we made the first one in the 50s but didn't use it because it cant be used for nuclear weapons. there design if inherently melt down proof. there the simplest, safest, cleanest, most efficient nuclear reactor ever built. so much it might be possible to makes cars from them.

We in America need to get away from the belief that all problems can and should be legislated away. This concept has led us to division as one group tries to take away the rights of others. We need to learn to mind our own business, and to use the law only to prevent actions that can be proven to negatively affect others. Laws that cannot be PROVEN to achieve their desired effect within a reasonable time after their implementation should be repealed.

The State has a place in protecting the safety of its Citizens, the Nation's territorial integrity and its borders, regulating financial practices, regulating environmental practices, protecting and managing public lands, etc.

Beyond the above functions, I subscribe to the concept that we all should be free to act in any way we see fit, UNLESS our actions can be proven to be deleterious to the environment (defined as everything all around us) or to the ability of someone else to exercise their own rights. For example:

* Pollution: The law should preclude discharging anything into a river that degrades water quality

* Birth Control/Terminating a pregnancy: If you don't like birth control, no one is forcing you to use it, you don't like abortion, don't get one. However; you should neither be able to restrain someone from having one, nor be able to exclude insurance coverage for the procedure.

* Right to bear arms: if you don't like weapons, don't have them. You are entitled to have a law that makes it illegal for me to use one to threaten, kill or wound someone, but ALL possession laws should be repealed.

* Drugs: I don't use them because I don't want to incur the consequences, but that is no reason for me to use the force of law to prevent you from using. The claim that "recreational" drugs cause crime is cynical: users would not be driven to crime if the drugs were not artificially expensive as a result of their illegality. ALL possession laws should be repealed, and quality-controlled drugs should be legally available to all adults. Manufacturing and dealing in illicit drugs, that is another matter that can be the basis of an entire discussion, since there are health issues associated with purity and dose control. Performance enhancing drugs effectively pollute the environment, since they provide an edge that puts non-users at a competitive disadvantage, so their use in sports should be illegal.

*GMOs: don't like them?, don't buy them or eat them. However: 1) releases of GMOs should be bonded to ensure that there is financial wherewithal to fix any damage that might be done by it, and 2) if, say, someone like Monsanto creates and releases a species that turns out to be invasive or wipes out an existing species, they should be held fully liable to anyone and everyone that suffers damages as a result.

Exactly. There are loads of things that are compromise-able. And there are also loads of things that aren't. We have to do a better job of navigated both of these categories within politics.

I agree with Skylar on the fact that when it comes to facts, cold hard facts, we do need to quit dancing around the situation and act on what is proven to be right.

If a plant needs to be watered, you give it water. You don't sit there and say "well, maybe it will grow better if I give it a potato chip." No, the damn plant needs water, water it and don't question it.

When it comes to if situations, debatable situations that don't really have significant evidence one way or another, then it is up to each one of us individually to make up our minds for the time being, all while pursuing knowledge and putting the needs of the greater good first.

I personally am pro-life all the way, but I fully respect people who are pro-choice because I know we all see things through different lenses and have different reasons for believing what we believe. It doesn't mean I'm right and this decision should be the one for everyone, but it is the stance I take as an individual.

Now, I will admit that there are things about which objective data is ambiguous. I, myself, am not very educated on both sides of being for or against gun control, and upon doing some Googling just now, I can see very obvious points that show that there are LOADS of cases where more guns = less crime. So, compromise on something like this is something I could see being a good idea.

The problem with trying to gain "middle ground" with each other is that, in many cases, you have to compromise things that should not be compromised. Climate change, for example, is a very pressing, important issue, and if you were to attempt to "find middle ground" in this particular area, you would only be lending to ignorance and the accelerated decline of our air quality and sustenance required for life in general. In this case, finding middle ground is purely, objectively, wrong. We must lend everything we have towards reconciling what the data and facts tell us with how we carry out legislation in this particular subject.

And it should be this way with all areas. Objective data states that abortion rates are much lower when teens are taught proper sex ed and are given access to contraceptives. Objective data states that being a homosexual is not a choice or"lifestyle." Objective data states that corporal punishment psychologically damages children far more than it helps instill discipline in them. Objective data states that the earth is round, that the world is getting warmer and that we are the cause, that vaccines don't cause autism and that everything you eat is a GMO and that everything is a chemical and that you don't need to "flush out toxins" unless your kidneys are failing. These are facts, and they should be adhered to without any sense of compromise.

People think compromise is a good idea because it gives people incentive to act towards things they wouldn't normally agree to. Personally, it's bull shit in my opinion. "If we change this policy regarding guns/abortion/climate change, what do we get out of it?" Seriously?

(And by the way, my attitude is not directed at you, it's at politics in general, sorry if you felt I was attacking you.)

I feel we must be stubbornly steadfast. Not because we have opinions or emotions or thoughts on these matters, but because we have FACTS that tell us how they ought to be handled. Too many people base policies on opinion and feelings. In fact, that's all they really base them on, especially now. There cannot be middle ground when being presented with facts.