coffee, i could have that discussion, i could say, hey, here s the facts, here s the data. what happens is it s immediately emotional and i ve turned against the family, i m a traitor to the country, i m being paid by george soros, i m a democratic operative, i m a secret democrat, i was always sort of a trojan horse that was going to the republican party, i was trying to change the sexual orientation of children. i mean, and those things, i m a pedophile because i m against qanon. what do i have hidden in my closet? how grotesque is that? this this pushback i get. it s not like, oh, it s okay, denver, we just don t agree with you. it s, you re going to hell. i take a drink and, i don t know, i hope not. and if i do, well, it s going to be hot. you can t reason with them, is what you re saying. yes. and when you have that religious bent to it, and i was raised very religiously, somebody said that god will heal me. i m like, isn t science from god? that makes people angry.
the atmosphere. that s a big oversimplification of the real situation. tucker: but isn t that theea opposite of science? isn t science allowing the data to form your conclusions rather than try to superimpose your conclusions on the data? well, nature has conducted the experiment for us. since about 1850, carbon dioxide has increased by 40% and during that same time, temperatures have warmed by about 2 degrees fahrenheit, and if you look at that data and combine it with what we know about other climatic factors, the result we obtained is that the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide is significantly smaller than what the climate models are telling us.
change is driven solely by how much carbon dioxide we emit into the atmosphere. that s a big oversimplification of the real situation. tucker: but isn t that the opposite of science? isn t science allowing the data to form your conclusions rather than try to superimpose your conclusions on the data? nature has conducted the experiment for us since about 1e has increased by 40% and during that same time, temperatures have warmed by about 2 degrees fahrenheit, and if you look at that data and combine it with what we know about other climatic factors, the result we obtained is that the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide is about significantly smaller than
decided. we also shouldn t act as if polls are final. the polls have been getting increasingly inaccurate. they had our democrat winning our governor s race in the last week by five points, and the republican won by eight points. so they were 13 points off in the last week. i would hate to think that we are basing who s either in debates or who can be covered, or who can run for president on something that really isn t science. but because it has numbers, some people mistake it for math. i guess the final question i have for you, there s some conventional wisdom out there that says, as this has become more of a terrorism campaign, national security focused, that it hurts you, because your libertarian views are at odds with some of the security positions that other republicans have. what do you say to that criticism? i would argue the opposite. i think people like hillary clinton and marco rubio, who
there s an adverse event you run over and say, see, this is just what we expect with global warming. global warming said this is consistent with their models, they have a zillion models that can explain everything except the lack of warming in the past 15 years. so suddenly you d like to pick the 15-year period suddenly even though there s been a trend that compares the last 15 years shows a huge increase in heat the last eight of the nine hottest years have been in the last eight years. according to some people. that s debatable. at some point this is the problem. this isn t science any more. this is politics. right? when the national academy of science, the ipcc, when 11 countries national academy of sciences all say it will result in more tornadoes, more droughts, more wildfires, you re not bringing back science. the science we need is just numbers, all right? we ve had the warming that you all say is not only man-made but it s significant and you point