Politicians get paid by lobbyists to deny climate change or to simply look the other way. The rest of us will end up footing the bill. “Us” being every living thing. So this really is the lobbyists vs nature. Guess who wins that argument ?
The science behind climate change is simple high school physics: if you change the transparency of the atmosphere to infrared radiation, you trap heat. Methane and carbon dioxide make the atmosphere less transparent to the infrared radiation from the earth. So the more methane and carbon dioxide you put in the air, the warmer the earth gets. Of course, that assumes you took physics in high school. Or that you graduated from high school, which may not be the case for many of the current incumbent’s core constituents.
Politicians – at least the non-demented ones – no longer deny the physics involved, they just move the problem downstream – and quibble about the details of what, if anything to do about it. So first, we must get rid of the demented politicians. By any means necessary.
Tillerson can make statements like these because climate research is ongoing, and climate models are inherently imprecise.
According to Schmidt, “To say that science isn’t settled on things people are still researching is totally irrelevant. Does the earth orbit the sun? There’s no substantial ambiguity about the answer to that question, despite the fact that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of scientists working on gravity. There are lots of interesting things about gravity, it’s just that that is not one of them. There are lots of interesting things about climate change, and adaptation, and interactions between air pollution and clouds, but they’re just not relevant to the question, which is: Is what’s going on related to humans? And the answer is: Yes, it is.”
Despite overwhelming evidence, many conservatives are still willing to ignore scientific consensus and stall political action. But offering evidence that this rhetoric is out of step with science may not, in fact, matter when it comes to public perception. When the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology published a press release on February 5, alleging that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) “manipulated climate records,” scientists and journalists rushed to correct the statement and demonstrate how it was based on faulty information. But the damage was already done; uncertainty about NOAA and their data are now a part of the public dialogue around climate change.