(06-29-2020 04:02 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (06-29-2020 03:49 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Quote:To be fair, Trump has backtracked on some of these (or said that he was joking after getting called out on it).
Since you feel the need to snark off on the comment, perhaps you can point us to comments that have not been backtracked, or such?
Or perhaps to some that have been said by other than the "Great Cheet-o Whom Is Everything Bad To Some"?
Seriously, you brought it up as though 'a complete hoax' is prevalent mindset. Much like your comment about 'systemic blahbitty blah blah blah'.
I will undoubtedly grant you the Orange Hair is a far from perfect steward for a variety of items. But yet you feel compelled to tag what could be construed as 'anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your Biblical theism of utter catastrophe, no questions asked' as such heretical creatures.
Funny that.
Has James Inhofe changed his tune since the snowball days and since he published a book titled "The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future"?
The Republican party for years (early to mid-2010s) was all about denying that climate change was real. Then, the rhetoric shifted to a more subtle, it is real, but we either don't know the contributions of man or we don't know if we can affect it, etc. And that subtle shift allows Republicans to at least avoid being outright deniers, but still not advocate for ANY legislation-based changes to address the issue.
Funny, if you had bothered to read Inhofe, you would have noted that he is mainly a skeptic of the scope of the AGW claims, not of its existence. And he is fierce proponent of actually weighing the effects of any AGW against the 'solutions'.
And yes, I have actually read the book. The book is a tome on such issues as the necessity of weighing the counter effects, questions on the scope of any change, a section dealing with the email scandal and the 'hide the effects' line, and the issues of scientists (like those in the email issue) who ostensibly place a political agenda in a co-equal stance with the pursuit of science.
Honestly, the book sucked. Lot of arm waving and lip flapping. Kind of reminds me of some places... Have you read it? What are *your* impressions of the book? Or, are you simply bootstrapping a title into an inference without ever bothering to read it? I will lay $200 ($100 to the Innocence Project, and $100 to the Tanq Beermaking Supplies Charitable Foundation) that the answer to the question is 'havent bothered to read it, I am simply flapping my arms.'
And funny, you fail to understand the 'nuance' of the title and immediately leap to the learned position that you do above. Good job.
As for your last two sentences, I guess your learned world cannot deal with the concept of 'gee, lets prove up the scope of it before we jump off a cliff'.' As opposed to your oh-so-cute distinction of, perhaps *any* skeptic, being one who "avoid[s] being outright deniers."
Seems like the heresy of being a skeptic is just as bad bad as being a 'denier'. Funny thing about theisms there, lad. Perhaps you might notice it in your own writings.
And, to be blunt, must of the outright 'it doesnt exist' types pretty much vanished by the turn into 2000. But I will excuse your timing consideration, because, quite bluntly I dont think you really followed the issue a score years ago to the level that you do now, in your mid 30's.
I suggest you get a refund on on that Climate Deniers in a Nutshell book you pulled most of the above from -- it really didnt help. Nor did it help when you did *precisely* what the Church of AGW promotes with the last part of your comment --- cannot be a denier, cannot be a skeptic. They are one and the same. Praise the Lord and Hallelujah!!!
