Logical in its assessment that climate change is not an issue, and that atmospheric CO2 levels are at over 300ppm? (which started to rise at the time of the industrial revolution)
It's logical to think that our planet is an infinite resource and can maintain all of the waste that's being forced upon it? From plastics in landfills to carbon emissions and general pollution? This guy is essentially anti environment for the first several paragraphs of this article, and then would rather face something based on "faith" (see: what helps people sleep at night), rather than reality. It's not like being environmentally conscious is difficult either, this guy just seems to be oblivious to the benefits of having a clean planet.
Lets pull some quotes into the mix:
“[T]his bill could prevent continued production of automobiles . . . [and] is a threat to the entire American economy and to every person in America.”
—
Lee Iacocca, executive vice president of Ford Motor Company, in 1970, on why the government shouldn’t regulate airborne contaminants that are hazardous to human health
“Woman suffrage would give to the wives and daughters of the poor a new opportunity to gratify their envy and mistrust of the rich. Meantime these new voters would become either the purchased or cajoled victims of plausible political manipulators, or the intimidated and helpless voting vassals of imperious employers.”
—Former President Grover Cleveland, in 1905, on why women shouldn’t be able to vote
The "right" has it's own doomsday scenarios, as I just stated. There are also many more. This is an easy argument to make for the right or the left. Jeeze, what if Grover really had his way and women still didn't have any rights? What would our country be like today? What if there was never an effort to cut down on carbon emissions? Is it so far fetched to think we'd be worse off than we are now?
On top of that, the end of the world has been 'predicted' or 'prophesied' to end on several occasions by different denominations of the Christian faith. Never once has any of them actually been accurate, because it's pretty clear we're all still here. You can make this argument about any group of people I'd imagine. You could make the argument that the religious 'right' has been wrong about much more than the scientific 'left'.
The one thing that the scientific side does, is try to understand what's around us, and it's always changing. Religion is the same old bull**** every time you pick up the "holy book". No desire to understand, just a desire to have believe in something (anything).