It’s human nature to ponder what-ifs and worse-case scenarios. Every time I board a flight, I think about the plane going down. But I know the statistical likelihood of that happening is near nil. And I certainly don’t go around spreading misinformation about how unsafe planes are.Climate alarmists, however, see things differently. They want the world to share their concerns and seem willing to say “whatever it takes” to get people on board. But propagating improbabilities isn’t science. It’s irresponsible and does a disservice to the climate discussion broadly.
Nicolas (Nick) Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental, and regulatory issues as the Deputy Director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies and Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation ... Before joining Heritage in 2007, Loris was an associate at the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, immersing himself for a year in a market-based management program.
The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[72] The Heritage Foundation is one of many climate change denial organization that has been funded by ExxonMobil.[72][73]
https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/latest-climate-report-feeds-alarmist-fearmongeringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heritage_FoundationSo... we are suppose to believe an Economist (not a Scientist) who has ties with the Koch Brothers and is writing an article for a right wing/conservative think tank which takes money from ExxonMobil? seems legit...
I would argue to my dying breath that getting different points of view cannot hurt anyone’s understanding of a subject. That being said I just did the exact same thing you did, and found said article, and looked up the author as well.But do you think his background invalidates his points? For instance just the point regarding how a specific study assumed the worst possible outcome of pop growth, coal burning increasing,gdp stalling, and lacking tech dev seems a bit extreme to me at least.I also appreciate the fact you’re not throwing around insults, but just pointing out facts/citing the article GB quoted.
I'm a skeptic, I just tend to trust Scientists over Economists... that's just me though... one can do/believe whatever they want, it's a free country. There's no point to "throwing around insults" or personal attacks, they don't accomplish anything. And yes, pointing out facts and citing articles (thank you) is all i'm trying to do here. Don't believe every op-ed you read, a lot are full of crap. But to answer your question, no I don't think his background automatically invalidates his points.But hey, by doing some basic research after copy/pasting GasBlaster's word-for-word text, I learned something new, that is Trump's trade war is costing American consumers significantly more per year than the 2009 cap-and-trade bill! (American Clean Energy and Security Act)
Civil conversation around these topics is something that is sorely lacking.
🐄💨. 🐄💨. 🐄💨. Cow farts are killing the planet !!??!
Methane (which is in Cow farts) traps heat in the atmosphere, much more so than CO2. These are facts.OMG