To Give or Not to Give
During a recent Zogby Interactive survey of adults nationwide, respondents were asked whether they agree that the US should give money to help less developed countries combat climate change. About 30% of the sample agreed with the statement compared to 57% who disagreed. Another 13% chose “not sure.”
Groups more likely to be in favor of providing the financial aid are liberals (59%), Democrats (52%), union members (41%), respondents who see themselves as residents of the planet earth (60%), those who never shop at Walmart (52%), those who never attend religious services (45%) and those who are single (40%).
Groups that are more likely to be against the idea include Republicans (91%), conservatives (89%), respondents who consider themselves residents of their city or town (69%), those who themelves or whose family are members of the Armed Forces (75%), NASCAR fans (74%), members of investor class (70%) and people who shop at Wal-Mart at least a few times a month (67%).
What do you think? Do you think that the US should give money to less developed countries to help them with their efforts to combat climate change?
Loading ...
No. Every penny spent on combating global “warming” is wasted.
I’m confused. I thought the major offenders to global warming were the industrial countries who can well afford to take care of their own environmental issues (if they weren’t so greedy). What about helping our own people?
Well here is where my pendulum swings the other way. There are developing countries, and then there are developing countries. I believe China has the where with all, if they had the will, so no dollars for them. However, I am not opposed to lending technical expertise to help small nations, especially if we are exacerbating their problems by buying their products.
I suspect that most government aid money ends up in Swiss banks.
Kevin, this time you are right. If “global warming” was scientifically provable, scientists who promote “global warming” wouldn’t have to hide their real data, and discuss redefining which publications they consider to be reliable professional publications, which is what they are doing.
@Arlene
Arlene, we already had the debate on the scientific method a few weeks back. Science is not a “thing”, but instead a process. All science, even the “cute, fuzzy” science, has knock down drag out fights, usually out of the mainstream – that seems to go with the territory. And those professional publications, you better believe that they need to be the “peer reviewed” ones. It is just that the general public is unacquainted with this side of science, so they find it unsettling. But tabloid worthy, please.. I chalk that up to news “journalists” desperate to keep a job in the current environment.