I listened to 2 Rubin Report podcasts on climate change during my 3 day, 1,600 mile travel to Montana and back.
I found the Epstein interview more interesting and compelling.
The Mann interview was also interesting, but I found it lacking in substance. If the science is so well known, then why can't there be consensus as to what level of CO2 is acceptable? It seems too convenient that "science" says humans are capable of adapting to natural climate change, but incapable of adapting quickly enough to the small portion that is attributable to human activity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeilBlanchard
You shouldn't believe the FUD. There is no data manipulation. The science is strong and as certain as we can be.
Read "Merchants of Doubt" - and follow the money. Fossil fuel companies are desperate to keep earning record profits.
Exxon knew in 1978 that humans are causing climate change.
|
What science is strong? That the earth has been warmer than it is today for most of history?
What does a business wanting to remain profitable have to do with a facts truthfulness?
Humans do not cause climate change; not even close. They affect it, but do not change it. If we had the ability to change climate, we would engineer rain in the deserts to increase productivity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xist
Neil, did you completely ignore Forbes saying Daily Mail may have a point?
|
That was among the worst articles I've read lately. In all those words, it said nothing. It alluded to damning Daily Mail accusations, but never mentioned what those accusations were. Then it went off the rails suggesting that biased people are incapable of finding truth. Nonsense. Everyone has biases.