A Morning Joe panel got heated on Tuesday after conservative writer Noah Rothman argued for being skeptical when basing policy on long-term projections about climate change.
Outlining conservative positions on global warming, Rothman, an editor for Commentary, said: “that a projection of specific impacts is something that we should look on with skepticism.”
“Because it has been proven in the past that these projections of very specific impacts have failed to meet expectations,” he said, giving examples of environmental studies proven wrong.
“I would submit that’s a pretty big gamble to take,” Mike Barnicle said. He asked if Rothman is “willing to gamble” his children’s future. “Because they’re going to be either paying the bill for our fault for not dealing with this or they’re going to be living lives that are nowhere near the quality of life that we have.”
Rothman countered such a response to climate change “could produce hysteria.”
“Alternatively, it could produce government policy that tries to address this issue,” BBC anchor Katty Kay said. “You’re right that there are individual numbers that have been disputed and that should deserve scrutiny. But the overwhelming trajectory of the scientific evidence all points to the same thing, which is that the globe is warming, and that it is majority manmade, and that we have to do something urgently within the next decade or two decades to address it and bring down the rate of warming.”
“That is what is not happening,” she added.
“We base policy on projections all the time outside of climate,” Daily Beast politics editor Sam Stein said. “We do projections on military stuff, on health care costs, on economic matters all the time. And we base policy around that. So it’s not abnormal to do something like that.”
“And these aren’t just projections — there are data points already in the books,” he said. Citing U.S. response to the migrant caravan, Stein added, “Why can’t we take short-term steps to mitigate long-term losses is all that people are saying.”
Watch Rothman’s response above, via MSNBC.
Read more at Mediaite
Noah Rothman allows both the others to claim that global warming and rising seas are indisputable.
You libbies think the American People are completely stupid. Mankind has NO control on climate at all either way. Earth has never had a stable climate system and never will. We can’t control or affect sea level, sea ice, or sea temperature. CO2 is not the control knob for atmospheric temperature.
The Morning Joe crew have already drank the Kool-Aid and believe it’s their role to become inquisitors of all who do not practice the religion of fighting “climate change”. Rothman cannot debate the issue fairly with these true believers. Ultimately, they are willing to spend trillions of tax dollars to prevent perceived catastrophe based on bogus climate model data.
Well, I’m going to have to work a little harder today to regain the few IQ points I just lost by watching these imbeciles. I knew I shouldn’t have, but curiosity made me watch it.
I will state this again .. there is no such thing as a “greenhouse effect” .. it is impossible in this universe. It violates fundamental physical laws. I’m so tired of hearing these airheads regurgitate the the worn out talking points of “carbon emissions” BS …
I will remind, CO2 is the most widely used industrial coolant in the world. Almost every single skating rink in north America (and elsewhere) uses CO2 to freeze their skating rinks, to save them more than 40% in energy cost doing so. This has been done for decades!
These idiots on television these days are among the dumbest of the dumb. Talking and spouting off a bunch of crap they know absolutely nothing about, and doing so as if they are authorities on the subjects.
“Why can’t we take short-term steps to mitigate long-term losses is all that people are saying.” Closing down all coal-fired power plants is not a ‘short-term’ step. When it’s done it’s done, with no going back. Of course, there’s two major countries building new coal-powered plants as fast as they can. Does Europe, the USA and Australia have to close their plants on a one to one basis with the new installations? If the US want’s to do it’s part, then there had better be a whole bunch of approved applications for new nuclear plants.