Now, anyone from New York can tell you that this fails the basic rules of logic. So riddle me this. If you present someone with a chart of global temperatures for the last 40 years, or better yet, a chart showing the damages from those increases, what do they naturally conclude about the future path in that chart? OK, assume that someone is a member of the alarmosphere? OK, assume that person is a member of the actual deniosphere?
Keep those answers in mind.
Now riddle me this. How would each side respond if instead of a climate-related chart, you showed them a chart of federal spending or of the federal debt held by the public? Would each side conclude that the future as predicted in the first scenario would be replicated in the second? Hardly. I am pretty sure that the alarmosphere would be coming up with all kinds of Herbert Steinian explanations for why the debt problem is not a problem despite the clear evidence, and 100% scientific consensus that the trend lines are pointing in the wrong direction. And what of the deniosphere? Well, I would argue that they are going to get all fire and brimstone-y about the unsustainability of debt, how we are taking away from our children’s future, and so on – by projecting current trends forward.
Ya see the problem here?