He’s literally just giving his opinion. There’s nothing to argue against. He doesn’t provide much if any evidence for his claims and heavily relies on his “authority” on the subject to present them. Climate science largely disagrees.
One of the funnier points in this word salad is when he casually dismisses AMOC collapse without giving any real reason why then “trust me bro.”
Perhaps I read it wrong, but isn’t he basically suggesting that he will be relying more on the observed effects of climate change as compared to predicted rather than just adopting the theoretical predictions as his driving POV? That’s literally the definition of pragmatism.
> Climate science largely disagree
Climate scientists may largely disagree, but not all do. Shame that it also apparently needs to be stated here that science isn’t a democracy that is subject to popular vote. When observed effects don’t match the predicted effects, it really doesn’t matter much if climate scientists disagree with the observed effects. Actual data is actual data and should be considered even if it doesn’t match your model.
One of the funnier points in this word salad is when he casually dismisses AMOC collapse without giving any real reason why then “trust me bro.”
What pragmatism?