Sam Harris describes himself as a liberal and supports Progressive taxes, which is Socialism. Progressive taxes create an enormous government, and really destroy a productive society. I will never support them, and I doubt I will ever see them obliterated during my lifetime. He has spent most of his time railing against organized religion... just like Bill Maher. He is a Progressive... no doubt about it.
Socialism is a little more than supporting progressive taxation...This is like saying that if you prefer low taxes, you must be a Libertarian! And the devil is always in the details, as it's not the same if someone wants to tax the rich +3% or +80%. Either way, a belief system doesn't hinge on a single position. Sam Harris, Mill Maher (much like myself) identify as Classical Liberals for the most part, and ironically get the most shit...from progressives. This is true to a point where at this time some argue that Classical Liberalism is a right-wing, or even conservative position. I know I would NEVER identify as a leftie. I also don't support progressive taxation for what it's worth.
Every 4 years we have an election for President, and every 4 years the President decides the energy policy for the USA. Barack Obama is a Progressive, and his energy policy was determined completely on climate change science. He appointed Gina McCarthy to Administrator of the EPA, because she's a zealot... therefore perfectly fit to implement Obama's energy policy.
Donald Trump is then elected, and has a totally opposite energy policy for the USA. He views the EPA and the Department of Energy as destructive to the US economy and appoints Pruitt and Perry to reign them in... enforcing the Trump energy policy. They are completely fit for those positions to enforce his policy. They are "completely unfit" if Barack Obama was still President... but he's not.
Nobody is debating that Trump's election was lawful, that's how Democracy works. But winning the popular vote doesn't mean the person is ACTUALLY good for the job. Exhibit A: The Trump presidency. Lot of dick waving and bravado, but actually very little getting done.
So, all you want is for people to "acknowledge climate change exists and driven largely by human activity". Forgive me, but it sounds like you want people to acknowledge that God exists and largely determines the fate of mankind.
Not really, because while there is not a iota of evidence for the existence of God, there is plenty of evidence (of the actual empirical kind) that climate change is happening and it's largely man-driven. If you're waiting for an absolute, conclusive, all-deciding piece of evidence, you will not get it, simply because science DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY. Scientific facts for the most part are very high probabilities, because there is always a small chance that due to some unforseen circumstance or factor, you will not get the predicted result. Nevertheless science by-and-large works and it's a bad gamble to go against it.
I've been around the block a few times, and whenever someone wants to sell me on an idea, my common sense tends to kick into high gear and I ask that ominous question... "Who will be destroyed by this idea... and who will benefit from this idea?" The USA is powered by energy, and energy is worth trillions of dollars. There are many people that want to dismantle our energy structure, and create a new one where they make the trillions. It will happen eventually on it's own, but they want it to happen now, and by force. What better way to force this change than by making it illegal to continue to supply energy that is not their way?
So what is preventing the US from switching gears turning into a green economy powerhouse? You have the brainpower, you have the money. What you lack is the will and foresight to do it. Besides, it's not like you would cut off "old energy" from one day to the next. Besides, it doeasn't matter if you save some money now if in a few decades you will have to spend it all (and then some) on continuous crisis mitigation
Oh so sorry, I forgot to throw in the timeline on the podcast talking about Climategate... it's between 1:20:35 and 1:23:47 exactly... but there are many weird topics he's glazing over in that area... Al Gore and his movie comes to mind... he's a whore.
So what exactly was the most discrediting piece of info that came from Climategate? That a few scientists exaggerated their conclusions a bit? Yes, that was stupid, and they shouldn't have done that, they staked their credibility and damages it. And yeah, Al Gore is an alarmist. But just because there is some dishonesty here and there (give me an example where there isn't), it doesn't automatically discredit every piece of climate science research findings out there.