What is your opinion on this article by the New York Times?
What is your opinion on this article by the New York Times?
Global climate change is one of the biggest issues I have with the Republican Party (which I’m a member of).
Climate change (global warming) IS being caused by man.
It drives me crazy as a voter that the party which is anti-abortion also takes too many pro-corporate policies and the party that is supposed to be for the people (the Dems) are pro-abortion
Makes no sense to me… We need a political party in the USA which is more in-line with all Catholic teachings. I’m sure that Jesus would NOT approve of who we are dumping chemicals into the atmosphere or destroying our God-given natural environment.
When the climate quits changing we are all in trouble.
The topic is what we think about the article, not what we think about Republicans.
I don’t think much of the article. It touts a publication by a class of students who, under the direction of their non-scientist professor, assembled a bunch of computer models created by others in order to reach a conclusion. In other words, it’s totally derivative, based on selected conclusions, without their having so much as a bowing acquaintance with any real data, and no actual research. In other words, at least double hearsay if not triple or more. From the article:
“The Mora paper is a rarity: a class project that turned into a high-profile article in one of the world’s most prestigious scientific journals. Dr. Mora is not a climate scientist; rather he is a specialist in using large sets of data to illuminate environmental issues. He assigned a class of graduate students to analyze forecasts produced by 39 of the world’s foremost climate models.”
And this product is a “high-profile article” in one of the “world’s most prestigious scientific journals”? What a sad commentary on scientific journalism nowadays.
Also, the conclusion seems to be that if we massively reduce emissions starting now (never mind that doing it in the U.S. alone would not affect anything) we will put off doomsday by 20 to 25 years, but only put it off. We’ll fry all the same, just later.
I wonder whether any South Dakotans have read this; they who are seeing a repeat of the 1888 blizzard in 2013. I wonder if they are convinced that unprecedented temperature increases have ratcheted up so that “the coldest year they’re likely to experience in the future is equivalent to the warmest year they have experienced heretofore”.
I have my doubts.
“we” are dumping what? We aren’t doing anything. Rich industrialists will not pay for off the shelf technology that will cut smokestack emissions. China wants to burn as much coal as possible. The oil companies do not want to go out of business. Renewable energy will cut, and is already cutting, the most important thing in the world, profits. So anyone reading this who is not part of the oil business or owns a factory complex can only do what we can. Buy a hybrid or an electric car. Yes, it will need electricity but solar cells are gaining in conversion capacity. And the steel industry is concerned as well.
The global warming delusion is ludicrously unsubstantiated.
As soon as our mini ice age arrives I hope all the warming fanatics realize their mistake, and don’t insist it’s just a “stage” to global warming.
I’ve never been a big believer in Global Warming. I’m sure we’re doing something, and I’d imagine it’s not good (we haven’t exactly been great stewards of God’s planet); but I’ve never really bought into the hype. We’ll see what happens, and I could very well be wrong; but scientists seem to latch on to one of these ideas every twenty years or so and run with it…
Hyperbole does not constitute substantiation of your statement either.
Last believable report that I saw said that the temperatures fro the last 17 years have actually gone down.
In so far as the corporations just dumping everything everywhere it is just not so. I live in the steel belt and there are plenty of mills that the government put out of business. Just about the time the mills met the latest standard the standard was changed in leaps and bounds. There was no way they could keep up. In our small community of 30,000 people 12,000 people were out of jobs. And now those jobs are in foreign countries where they don’t have a fraction of the government controls.
The dirty air around here used to be called prosperity. Not just for the corporation but for the employees who made a great living.
Global warming? The globe is constantly going through changes. None of which is because of man. Global warming you will notice is no longer called “Man made global warming” because almost everybody knows that isn’t true.
I have gotten so tired of proving that “global warming” is a falsehood to so many people that now I generally just respond sarcastically and wait for them to figure it out themselves.
Just wait. You’ll see.
You’re right but that means all those “carbon tax, carbon credit and let’s make a lot of money off this” will be gone, and a new soon-to-be-a-catastrophe-to-make-money-from will have to be invented. I mean all those investors in “elaborate ways to make money off global warming” will be so disappointed…
Maybe we should just go along with it all so those poor guys get to keep making money…
I question scientists claims regarding the climate because of things that have been said by scientists in the past.
Professor Wieslaw Maslowski said in 2007 that by 2013 summer in the Arctic would be ‘ice free’
Summer in the arctic is from June to end of september and Arctic is not ice free this year.
From 2012 to 2013, an increase of 1 million miles of ice was reported in the Arctic.
In the 1970s there were scientists, scientific journals and news reporting that there be a global cooling and even some predicting of an ice age
Science news vol 107 -
The unusually beneficial climate of the past few decades may be denigrating, facing humanity with a new challenge to survival
by John H. Douglas
When meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe, they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.
One would be making a mistake to think that rich industrialists aren’t also into “alternative energy”. The last number I saw for their investment is $200 billion. That’s a lot of money, and they mean to make money off it.
The Russians are also predicting global cooling. Apparently they’re quite concerned about it, and reasonably so.
A few offices down from me, a co-worker is powering a device with a small solar cell sitting on his window ledge. No need to plug it into a wall or buy a battery. And once power storage systems are made available to consumers, there will be power available for those cloudy days as well as at night. That’s what I think investors are concerned about. And those heavy solar panels are disappearing for large-scale applications.
No need to repeat your argument. Just give a link to where to did it best in the past.
That is not surprising if you consider a report “believable” only if it agrees with your pre-conceived notion.
Abyssina in this very thread actually gave you a very complete answer. Please answer it and tell us all why it’s wrong.
The 2013 prediction was the earliest date anyone predicted, it probably wasn’t going to be true, most of the predictions have a date of 2050-2100
and the 1970’s global cooling thing, wasn’t actually supported by most scientists even at the time, it was based on the theory that aerosols would cool the planet.