For the moment, let's say you are right and the scientists are wrong. Shouldn't we proceed with caution rather than abandonment? Shouldn't we make environmental changes? Shouldn't we be actively vigilant--guarded--prepared?The favorite tactic of the alarmist: a charge of climate heresy.
Yes, I'm aware of the fossil fuel industry's strategy: cast doubt on the peer reviewed consensus, but sometimes it backfires:There's a difference between denying something and questioning it, something you absolutists consistently fail to understand.
The questions come in on the ... degree of effect that absorption has.
It was noted in an obscure oilfield newsletter I get via email that it appears that David Koch was the big denier and super-Republican. Since he died, his brother Charles who is now effectively the big boss is different. On top of everything else, Koch Industries are actively developing green energy now.Yes, I'm aware of the fossil fuel industry's strategy: cast doubt on the peer reviewed consensus, but sometimes it backfires:
|The Arctic may have crossed key threshold in a long-dreaded climate feedback||Current Events|
|Climate alarmists are making "arbitrary" adjustments to sea level data||Current Events|
|Climate Alarmist Indicted for Fraud||Current Events|
|Warming Alarmists Need Lesson On History Of Climate||Current Events|