That would explain my Radeon Graphics card I never managed to get working properly. It arbitrarily froze. I was told that it did that for Linux and that it was guaranteed to work on Windows. But when I tried it on Windows, it did the exact same thing. They were unresponsive.
Does the state need to encourage charitable giving, though?
Would a person stop donating $1000 of their expendable wealth to their favorite cause (e.g., hunger, cancer, cloning hitler, whatever) if that $1000 donation no longer reduced their taxes by $200 (for example)? If so, what kind of person would do that? Probably not the kind of person who ever donates to anything in the first place.
Worst case, if there were no more tax-deductible charities: that person would pay the $200 taxes and only donate $800 (instead of $1000) to their favorite cause. Best case: Megawealthy would no longer leave $20 billion to their favorite cause (be that their dog, the LDS church, their love of oil drilling, or whatever), but would pay $5 in estate taxes and only have $15 billion leftover for their love of oil drilling (or whatever be their whim).
They did reference satellite data. However, I do not know to what extent satellite data can show turbulence. The article implied a total cause, but I suspect its a bit more complex. Not sure how you would tell if its more common. I remember people complaining about turbulence for as long as I can remember. Maybe people's expectations about flight safety are just higher now, because planes offer a better experience.
Corporate marketing departments have been pretty adept at promoting their products on the backs of this science. They are far from unintelligent. Populists, for all their deficiencies, are fairly adept at eventually detecting marketing ploys and gimmicks.
Plus the solutions are narrow in scope. For instance, we are led to believe that it will be solved if only we all buy electric cars. It might help for certain areas, but it is far from a complete solution. It comes off as a corporate grift.
This kind of framing also keeps us from imaginative solutions, because only one solution is implied to the exclusion of all others. Hence, the suspicion is that it is merely another political agenda. I think its probably why nuclear energy - which is a clear solution with the least disruption to our lives - is less prioritized. It also allows certain corporate interests to make even more profit off their preferred solution.
Perhaps that 20-25% portion that you disagree with them on is actually a lot larger than you think. These differences of opinion are not exactly minor. They are fundamental to the other 75-80%!
Woohoo! I can now retire!