Nah, I don't think Trump does.

We also have the situation in climate science that virtually all of people who know things are on one side, while when it comes to business regulations, their is not scientific evidence as conclusive, so there is far more room for reasonable people to disagree.

See, here's the deal, if the Republicans want to have a reasonable discussion on global warming, they have to concede A first. Instead they stick their fingers in their ears and go oh yeah, but what about the global cooling everyone was talking about in the '70s, and what about the ice age? Checkmate libtard. So you've set up a nice strawman here, but the left isn't raging about the Republicans having a difference of opinion on the cost/benefit of proposed regulations to combat global warming, they're raging because half of the Republican's base believes that the earth is 5,000 years old and global warming is just a conspiracy dreamed up by the coastal elites because they get off on seeing coal miners out of work

Raging over those people is stupid. Focus on the other half.

It was hard to pick which woody or thayer post to hit this with from the last 24 hours but...

Sadly he's such a buffoon you just might be right. I meant it more in a 'assume he knows what he should, at least about business' way.

as to the rest you realize I'm neither a skeptic nor a denier, right? So you're telling me the fix is your way or the highway and there's no room for disagreement? C'mon man.

Who hurt you

yeah, Im coming at it from a different perspective than the two "sides". I guess believing the science but not the cult of Al Gore having all the answers puts me in group 3, a Dempublican.

The only reason I chimed in was that the Thayer thread from earlier reminded me of some stuff I had read about more efficient solutions to MMCC. That's not the angle he was arguing from but I felt like it should have been. Anyways my position is fringe enough to have been nothing more than a derail, carry on.

Wasn't your location #MAGA for a while?

FTR I'm down with this, as long as they keep doing good reporting I don't particularly give a **** (never really have) what's on their opinion page.

That Stephens piece is still really, really bad tho. I can't believe how much of this pages-long derail is skipping over the amazing fact that Stephens argued conservatives will come to the table to have a "reasoned conversation" about climate change if only liberals dialed down their certainty about it a little. Who the ****, besides Bret Stephens apparently, is stupid enough to believe that???

I mean, that's like the standard position of the Republican party. We're not talking about Ron Paul and the gold standard, we're talking about the president, the speaker of the house, the senate majority leader, just to name a few. You sort of have to focus on them. Evan McMuffin might be tweeting some very reasonable stuff on twitter (but maybe not, would not shock me if even the #nevertrump third party conservative held up as the reasonable one denies climate change, that's how ingrained it is on the right), but the people in control of everything want to bury their heads in the sand and take part in actively indoctrinating their half of the country to dismiss any counter argument as libtard conspiracies

Stevens was hired by NYT because he was widely seen as the "reasonable"
Conservative following a few negative columns about Trump. Hopefully this whole episode makes clear that "reasonable Republican"
Is an oxymoron.

sorely needed...

Right. Let's not forget that it was basically 2 years ago that a sitting US Senator brought a snowball onto the Senate Floor to "disprove" climate change. And his own party did not laugh him out of the room.

Nominate and elect better people then. Run better candidates. Not hard.

lol

Nah, I think that it isn't worth listening to the opinion of someone who is proudly and militantly uninformed about an issue. You don't deserve a place in the conversation. There may be room for reasonable and informed people to disagree, but we have yet to find one of those who disagrees.

'I don't deny climate change, I just don't think we should ever do anything about it, because Al Gore is lame, and international treaties are stupid, and I don't want to be on the same side as crusty liberals who care about things.'

This, and basically everything posted by Thayer, is just embarrassing. You're not in group 3. You want to think you're in a group 3 because you think you're too cool for group 1. If you think MMCC is real, and think literally anything should be done to prevent it or slow it down, you're in group 1, with all the rest of us, and Al Gore, and the crusty libtard environmentalists.

The reason the discussion of what to actually do about MMCC never moves forward in America is because half the country won't even accept the premise.

Having established that nobody here actually denies climate change, why don't you guys suggest what you actually think should be done, beyond 'more efficiency' and 'whiny libtard tactics aren't working'?

At least wooderson had enough balls to actually take a position, even if the position was 'let all the poors in hot countries die because I have air conditioning'.

This is a state of mind known as "Hating the republicans for literally forcing me to vote for the democrats." It is not that rare.

It kind of mimics the R stance on health care. Invited to a fault, practically begged, to participate in designing the thing. Settled on a firm "Noooooooooo!!!!!" as their most reasonable position, and fought tooth and nail ever since for nothing but to "do away" with the thing. Arriving at their current, "We got nothing and now people are yelling at us" plan.

It is clear their only answer to global warming is to pretend it doesn't exist and attack anything intended to combat it--purely out of principal. They have no purpose other than battling liberals and calling it "business friendly". And it is not just global warming, it's pretty much anything protecting the environment at all. Compared to these dip****s, the cult of Al Gore (as annoying as it can certainly be) is *fine*. It's not like they get to run around playing out their wish list anyway, even when their "side" is in power.

Reverse cargo cult. There is no real science. It's all just different shills with different funding sources yelling at each other. Lol at you for naively thinking otherwise. Clever people know it is all a lie.

I dunno guys, I think it's less Thayer is dumb and more the Democratic party is awfully incompetent, incapable of beating an obviously awful on its face party in elections. This was a good discussion though.

I think people will eventually get it though and realize how dumb they are and no longer support the party that panders to them, they'll realize how stupid they are and vote for the party that tells them they're smarter than them. Just gotta keep whittling away at the bad party and not think about who you're actually supporting. No chance someone like Donald Trump would be elected with this fool proof strategy.

Bernie would have won

The real key is that Bernie is a good person, but of course he would have won.

But they ARE stupid as evidenced by the party not even goddamned pandering so much as bamboozling them (remember step 1 was "disband congressional ethics office"). Why don't the stupids have to think about who they're actually supporting instead of needling away at the "they think they're better than us" party? Why the **** is it all on me? You're so goddamned knowledgeable about these greenhorns why don't you explain how to talk to them?

Two goddamned days ago I had to watch some idiot tell me "everything will be taken care of in North Korea" (and not in a Woody-preferred apocalypse kind of way) because Trump is real serious and means what he says--what ****ing planet can he be on?