6 thoughts on “Wow… The Economist calls Sen. Inhofe an idiot over global warming”

  1. Regarding this subject, add The Economist to the low information crowd, or – they might speak against their better judgment!

  2. The key point the anti-alarmists need to make is that, while the avg temp from 1880 to 2015 may have increased by a degree or two F, that does NOT prove that the avg temp in 1880 is the PERFECT temp for humans to thrive on planet earth.

    Yes, the snowball is no argument at all. Being silly there. But as I concede that, the alarmists are put on notice that they cannot point to one summer heat-wave and claim that proves catastrophe. Because if they do, the January snowballs are coming back!!!

  3. Economists cannot, and certainly have not, correctly predicted economic changes.

    If CO2 and Hydrogen were the fuel, instead of the waste products discarded from automobiles and stars, economists might be able to predict climate changes on a water-covered planet situated exactly 1 AU (astronomical unit) away from our pulsar-centered Sun.

  4. The Economist seems to have overlooked 2 things in the entire debate:

    1) The question is not whether humans cause climate change – because there’s nobody who can argue reasonably that we do not have some affect on it. The question is whether such changes are ever going to be “catastrophic,” whatever THAT means?

    2) LIFE likes WARMER. This is why rain-forests form in the tropics, and not at the poles.

  5. ‘Ad hominem’s – they are always emotionally gratifying to the user, even when they utterly fail to persuade anybody of anything and functionally weaken the user’s position.

Comments are closed.