Replies

If we have to use complex arguments like this to oppose the Democrats’ agenda, however true the argument may be, we might as well quit and go home. The best argument is the simplest one — that man-made climate change has never been proved and that the burden of proof is on them.

Actually, the best argument to oppose the climate change agenda is to quote the words of the UN's Chief Climate Official in 2015:

"This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.

"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 - you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation."
--Christiane Fugueres, Executive Secretary of UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change)

Why these words aren't shouted from the rooftops regularly to debunk the phony climate agenda is a complete mystery to me.

Asking liars and cheats for proof is a waste of time. Besides, El Nino is coming back right now and it will give them ammo this summer. They have no clue whatsoever as to what El Nino is, what it does and why we are destined to have quite a few the next few years. It is beyond their comprehension capabilities to grasp the mechanisms involved. In that scenario, you just have to ignore em, press forward and prepare for war.

The best argument is the simplest one — that man-made climate change has never been proved and that the burden of proof is on them.

Scott Adams points out How Leonardo DiCaprio Can Persuade Me on Climate Change that the AGW issue has two parts:

Is the phenomenon real? and

Is the phenomenon serious?
He goes on to say that until the climate scientists are willing to settle on a single “good enough” model and to stand or fall on the accuracy of that model over the succeeding five years - rather than merely continually tweaking multiple models to fit retrospectively, attempted persuasion of the reality of AGW is futile because that looks exactly like they are promoting a hoax (Adams insists that he does not claim that it is a hoax - only that, from a persuasion POV, that is exactly what it looks like).
As to the question of whether the phenomenon - if real - is serious, that relates to the discount rate topic of this thread, and is an economics question. Adams - who says he has a degree and experience in economics - asserts that it is essentially impossible to convince him of the validity of an economics model, period. And that persuasion about the seriousness of AGW (even if real) is therefore next to impossible.
Again, it looks like the discount rate is a finagle factor of the sort that makes any claim of the seriousness of AGW so deeply suspect.