Obama is currently a ‘lame duck’ president with a hostile senate, and approval rating that suggests a likely hood the next US president may well
The climate is always changing.
The good news has been that Earth's surface went from molten rock to now supporting the bloom of visible life we see today as the Phanerozoic Eon, but the bad news is the bloom, and current wonderful conditions are just a brief moment, as the surface will naturally return to being too hot for any life to survive. Plus, as watching a volcano shows, things have cooled little inside Earth and while Earth currently has a relatively cool thin crust, relatively no thicker than an eggshell, it is still almost entirely a very hot planet.
And yes, environment and climate are always changing.
Even though we are creating quite a mess right now, realistically it's nature and natural environment and climate changes, not us humans, that will end all life one Earth. This look at the big picture of the history of environment and climate reveals while "Mother Earth" does seem quite nurturing right now, this planet is normally hostile to all life beyond "just slime" made up of microbes like those we kill we must kill to sterilize medical equipment. What we are enjoying is the equivalent of the brief bloom of life in the desert after rain.
Yes, our technology brings risks and may "poke the bear", but without technology, when that "grizzly bear of natural climate change" wakes from its current short hibernation, we, and the species we cherish could perish. Following "the flip" not just us but all other complex life and even the microbes, eventually are doomed. For us humans, the threat is real and immediate.
Or is it that, natural changes to climate, like "bears", are part of nature and nature would never harm us?
What are these competing ideologies, and why do they clash?
This page is the exploration of the what and the why of the left and the right. I expect to keep revisiting and updating this topic, as it seems too deep to fully analysis in one attempt.
In particular interest to me is the question: why are the things people champion grouped, when they can be so diverse? Why do so many people seem to choose almost all of the left policies, or all of the right policies, rather than varying mixes of each?
