3 ms·
I haven't been precise enough, sorry. They deny that drastic carbon reductions are needed as a result of climate change. In other words, they deny that climate
by aramanto 7y ago
I haven't been precise enough, sorry. They deny that drastic carbon reductions are needed as a result of climate change. In other words, they deny that climate change is the cause of carbon emissions, which to me is denying climate change.
https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/climate-change-reconsidered-ii-fossil-fuels---summary-for-policymakers https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publication...
In this new volume, 117 scientists, economists, and other experts address and refute IPCC’s claim that the impacts of climate change on human well-being and the natural environment justify dramatic reductions in the use of fossil fuels
- adamrezich 7y agoOnce you've overloaded the term "climate change" to exclusively have that specific meaning, how would you refer to any potential past, present, or future change in the planet's climate that doesn't fall into that narrow definition?
- tjansen 7y agoI agree that this paper, at least the 'summary for policymakers', is trash and comes pretty close to denying. It scratches on the surface of some good points, but doesn't follow through. But even then, I rather have someone offer a (stupid) counter-argument than no counter-argument at all.
- areyousure 7y ago> climate change is the cause of carbon emissions ?
- perl4ever 7y agoClimate change is the cause of carbon emissions? So what does that mean, we have to have an ice age to eliminate fossil fuels? How do we do that, lots of nuclear testing?