Probably dreamt it up in his bath. There are many photos of receding glaciers which tend to suggest warming. Some of the deniers like Trump have economic and political considerations of their own. To mess up The Paris Accords is in my view criminal. Even if there is a faint possibility of true climate change then the politicians should act with caution. Not like Dump begging for coal miners' votes etc.
It's just baffling to me that someone would fabricate something that anyone could easily verify with their own eyes by looking at satellite photos over multiple years. How do these people manage to succeed in life with that level of intellectual laziness?
I doubt this. The economic argument is plainly false. I'd be inclined to believe it if the places pursuing the most stringent environmental restrictions were also those with the worst performing economies. But when the most environmentally constrained economies are also those that are growing fastest (almost without exception), and the least are growing the least or contracting (again, almost without exception), the economic argument is smoke and mirrors. I don't care what economic theory is applied to justify it--I'm more concerned with the evidence in front of me. As for political, I will grant that belief in the economic benefits of unrestricted pollution based solely on theory--even that contradicted by evidence--is political. But even the pretext of this is absent from recent opposition to environmental regulation. So, I don't consider the position to even be 'political' in any common understanding of the word. (I should caveat at this point that I don't consider vindictive malice to be political--just malice). That leaves me with absolutely no basis to understand the reasoning behind the vehemence with which this argument against environmental regulation is made. And in repeated challenges to anyone denying asking about their motives, I have never met anything but deflection and baiting.
Do you mean to insinuate that Trump is successful? I actually suspect that is the motivation behind his not wanting to release his tax returns. He's probably lost more money than Warren Buffet ever made, and exposing this would damage his ego.
I was referring to maxpi, since he's here making these assertions and would seem to be an otherwise rational and intelligent person. As I mentioned earlier, there are arguments that rational well meaning people do make to question parts of global climate change science and I welcome that. Maxip, on the other hand keeps repeating a complete falsehood that he could easily verify with his own two eyes, and that baffles me.
Ah, gotcha! Can you clarify (or expand) this: And do you mean climate science specifically, or climate science within the context of the 'political' question? It's the latter that I'm unaware of.
I think misterkel had a good example of a valid question about why temperatures weren't high during previous periods of high CO2 concentrations in the context of the actual science. That's a good question. It doesn't eliminate the validity of the rest of climate science in my mind, but it's certainly something that we should investigate further and that may change the currently accepted theories. There is a shocking lack of understanding of the scientific method in the U.S. and on this thread specifically. As a result, I think it's important to stress that those concerned about climate are not a bunch of "libtards" whose heads will explode when presented with evidence that contradicts the current hypotheses on climate change. In fact if actual evidence is presented, and misterkel is a good example of that, we'll be happy to hear it, thoughtfully address it and change our hypotheses as new evidence is found. That's the scientific method, and if I can convince maxpi and soes that it's a worthwhile way to look at the world than maybe we can have grownup adult conversations that I can learn from like we have with misterkel. Small ask, but baby steps at this point.
I agree with that completely. My question picks up where that explanation leaves off. How does that then twist into "any environmental regulation is a bad thing"? Because that's the construct that seems to underpin most science denial. My view on it is whether global warming is real or not completely misses the point. The point is, I'm still the beneficiary of a cleaner environment. And if Tampa or Midtown wouldn't have otherwise been around for me to visit but are because of environmental regulation, I get that as a freebie. And one more quote of this one--because it's just that true:
Comical to hear from the US Govt's own boffins on climate change. They put it at a 95 to 100% certainty. Will Chump take this into consideration ? Not a chance.