Nice summary, thank you. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a nice opinion piece from James Freeman called "A more honest climate science." He concluded that "Even if one believes pessimistic scenarios on the course of world temperatures, it does not immediately follow that the most costly responses currently recommended by activists will be the most sensible and effective."
The Michigan AD is trolling for votes, and taking her eye off the ball. "Warming" isn't criminal; drugs are.
Exactly, the climate change extreme are engaging in the "Politician's syllogism:" a logical fallacy that goes something like, "We have to do something to stop problem X! I'm suggesting that we do Y. Y is something, therefore we must do Y."
And I'm heading over to the WSJ to read that op-ed. Thanks!
Nice summary, thank you. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal had a nice opinion piece from James Freeman called "A more honest climate science." He concluded that "Even if one believes pessimistic scenarios on the course of world temperatures, it does not immediately follow that the most costly responses currently recommended by activists will be the most sensible and effective."
The Michigan AD is trolling for votes, and taking her eye off the ball. "Warming" isn't criminal; drugs are.
Keep up the good work, please
Exactly, the climate change extreme are engaging in the "Politician's syllogism:" a logical fallacy that goes something like, "We have to do something to stop problem X! I'm suggesting that we do Y. Y is something, therefore we must do Y."
And I'm heading over to the WSJ to read that op-ed. Thanks!
you may get paywalled. let me know, and I can do a work around
Not a problem. I have a WSJ subscription. It's the one newspaper that is worth paying for.
Yes, it is