>>1019502This doesn't address whether it's scientifically true or not. It's basically a cui bono plus appeal to consequences.
In fact, all of these boil down to that simplistic view:
>>1015982>>1015987>>1015989>>1016177>>1016446>>1018418>>1018480>>1018555>>1019305>>1019333>>1019392The problem with humans is that very few of them evaluate truth claims based only on the data. Most of them understand things and form their views from within a framework of stories and human emotions/motivations.
None of that decides what is actually, scientifically true. The data decides that. Even if you reject the data coming from NOAA and NASA, you can personally go out and collect your own data that will vindicate their findings. People have already done this independently:
>>1019824Saying "People I don't like stand to gain from this, so it must be a hoax" isn't data. Saying "Leftists are why I can't call black co-workers niggers without being fired, so they aren't allowed to be right about anything important" isn't data.
None of these people ever even considered, for one split second, that it makes more sense to base a wealth redistribution scheme like cap and trade on an actual, scientifically verifiable phenomenon than on a fabricated one.
This way, opponents of your proposed solution (cap and trade) assume it's a hoax and make fools of themselves by attacking it, when it's your solution that they should be attacking, because there are alternatives like nuclear power and geoengineering.
