Your article about climate change is pedantic misrepresentation.
It may be. But the POINT is that Pruitt was asked a binary (is CO2 the primary driver or not) and the fact that you spent over 400 words refuting Tracinski proves that point: Pruitt’s answer was debatable, controversial, but reasonable considering how the question was asked.
Occams Razor applies here. The simplest explanation is that the history of the climate change debate started with outright denial, then when this became an untenable argument, it turned to acceptance of the fact but denial of human involvement.
It’s simpler than that. I believe that if you line up all the political deniers and get enough scotch in them, they’ll all admit that they accept the premise of anthropomorphic climate change. Their “denialism” is based on their utter rejection that solutioning the problem must involve higher levels of taxation and increasingly suffocating government control over the economic environment.
I have no issue with the climate change science. I have a HUGE problem with bigger government and higher taxation as a solution. If the green-leaning factions in the political arena really want to address climate change, they could do a lot worse than sitting down with Jim Inhofe and saying “OK, Jim, suppose we’re right and you’re wrong. What sort of solutions would you find acceptable?”
I think you’d be surprised by the answer.