If I were a lawyer who had spent most of my earlier years as a community organizer before achieving high office, I doubt I would know too much about climate change. I doubt if as president I would have a whole lot of time to study it.
I would rely upon the scientists. Like the Director of NASA’s GISS, James Hansen. Like my science advisor, John Holdren. Like the NOAA. And the EPA. And if they all told me the same thing, I would act on their advice. And if their opinion was supported by the IPCC, well that would help convince me I was doing the right thing.
If I were a Latin American priest focused on improving the lives of the poor and helping the region recover some of the ground it has lost to civil unrest before achieving high office, I doubt if I would know too much about climate change. I doubt if as Holy Pontiff I would have a whole lot of time to study it.
I would rely upon the scientists. If they all told me the same thing, I would act on their advice.
If the skeptics that came into my field of vision were folk like Marc Morano and Viscount Monckton, that would actually reinforce my confidence in the scientists who gave me advice. Their history and hunger for publicity are painfully easy to see and they would not inspire confidence. If I never saw or read people like Richard Lindzen or Freeman Dyson, who would bring them to my attention?
Given that Steve McIntyre shocked a roomful of skeptics by saying he would rely on the IPCC version of the science, can we blame Barack Obama and Pope Francis for doing the same?
As a Lukewarmer I have a lot of natural sympathy for skeptics, in part because I get the same insults as they do, in part because the Konsensus is really creating an Orwellian framework that I believe will damage science for decades.
But really, skeptics. If you want to present an argument to public figures with busy agendas and no background in climate science, you need to up your game.