UHND.com - Notre Dame Football, Basketball, & Recruiting

That is just an ad hominem attack. Logical fallacies are used to support arguments that cannot be supported with logic. You show weakness when you say that.

We disagree on expected harm, magnitude of expected harm, urgency of need for action, and what types of action are warranted. None of those things are dictated by science as fact. I can disagree with your entire policy, without "denying climate change."

Policy makers use science as an input to the decision process. We elect policy makers who weigh the inputs, and decide the policies. That's the way it should be for climate change. That's the way it should be for pandemics. You guys always try to denigrate and diminish your opponent by saying your opponents deny science, when, of course, they are not denying science at all, they are just disagreeing with you on policies. Science does not dictate government action.

So far, the policies I see implemented just benefit Dem donors and gin up the Dem voters with fears, while not solving the global problem. When you have a global solution, come talk to me. When you are counseling for government austerity, I will know you are serious. I have said many times I would cut every government program 20% on day one, and reduce further. Once we get our financial house in order, we can do something...but only if other nations follow, and of course, they will not. So, we should just work on adaptation, not tilting at windmills like you want us to do.

Fossil fuels will run low eventually. Until then, we should work on will replace them. I support nuclear, of course. It is the cleanest energy production we have (although, we need to use reactors that won't meltdown if electricity gets cut to them suddenly, like Fukushima, and almost every reactor in the US.