A Thoughtful Article on Climate Change

[Onomea]

I am not a denier unless told it's the work of men...

I can understand that. It's where I was not too long ago. It's a reasonable position.

I also think whether one thinks climate change — specifically the speed at which the climate is changing — is anthropogenic or not, if one believes it is a problem, then one can support measures to mitigate the adverse effects. E.g., a return to nuclear power, or the discouraging of homeowners rebuilding on the seashore, or seawalls and better drainage for NYC and other coastal cities...

I think to say there is nothing we can do about climate change is akin to saying no need to build a roof because it's gonna rain anyway.

 

[Grayfox]

This is what I believe:
1. Yes, the climate is changing.
2. Yes, humans have made a mess of this planet.
3. No, we did not cause Climate Change. It is simply a normal function of the planets life cycle and happens every now and then.
4. No, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
5. All we can really do is try to adapt and roll with it.

 

[SMSgt]

"God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, courage to change the things I can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Lots of wisdom in that.

 

[ladder13]

I can understand that. It's where I was not too long ago. It's a reasonable position.

I also think whether one thinks climate change — specifically the speed at which the climate is changing — is anthropogenic or not, if one believes it is a problem, then one can support measures to mitigate the adverse effects. E.g., a return to nuclear power, or the discouraging of homeowners rebuilding on the seashore, or seawalls and better drainage for NYC and other coastal cities...

I think to say there is nothing we can do about climate change is akin to saying no need to build a roof because it's gonna rain anyway.

I'm down with nuclear.

 

[doublesharp]

For those who care to read the article, Stephens addresses a lot of — all? — the points that deniers/skeptics raise here in this thread.

Hmm. Log in info? That doesn't sound right.

You should just be able to click on it and read, and not have to give any info yourself. It is "gift" article, meaning one of ten freebies I can give away per month as a subscriber.

Maybe try again?

Here's another excerpt:

"...in April 2017, I wrote my first column for The Times, "Climate of Complete Certainty." The blowback was intense. Climate scientists denounced me in open letters; petitions were circulated demanding that I be fired. The response mainly hardened my conviction that climate activists were guilty of precisely what I charged them with: intellectual self-certainty that is often a prescription for disaster...".

___________________________________________________
Try again was the correct answer. This is the 1st page bottom banner and NYT says log in with a free account to continue exploring...

I took that as a requirement to continue, but on further review it is not a requirement - just click bait to pump up NYT falling subscriber numbers. A free account looks better on the balance sheet than dwindling subscribers.

*************

Shared with you by a Times subscriber.

You have access to this article thanks to someone you know.

Keep exploring The Times with a free account.

Log in or create account

************
I read the article using Evelyn Wood techniques and dismissed it as quickly. Author cites studies/books written in the climate change echo chamber - same kind of people who gave advice on how best to deal with the wuflu - close business, schools, churches, deny access to lifesaving treatments yet force citizens to take experimental vaccines as a condition of employment (anyone noticing how many healthy young people are just dropping dead these days). Same kind of people that want to throw tomato soup on a da Vinci, same kind of people who think lithium batteries will handle transportation. Wrong then and wrong now.

Whatever...as for me I'll continue buying oil and energy stocks, nice cars, boats and guns. The dividends/share gains/price appreciation have more than kept up with the economic destruction these arrogant wrong thinkers have caused. YMMV

 

[Onomea]

Same kind of people?

The article's cited views of the mining executive? Or the successful hedge fund manager? Or the Canadian author who suggests "we consider the necessity of fossil fuels in the production of nitrogen fertilizer, without which ... 'it would be impossible to feed at least 40 percent and up to 50 percent of today's nearly eight billion people'?"

Not much of a speed reader, myself. I can look for specific things, and find them, when I speed read or "skim," which can be useful, but I find I don't retain much other than what I am looking for when I do...

 

[len917]

The bone of contention being is mankind responsible. I say no.

If our creator made us in his image then maybe WE can't be responsible for world climate change.

 

[len917]

From the environment audience, it's "interesting" to witness so many records being smashed, simultaneously and repeatedly.
Seeing barge navigation limited on every major river of commerce, and the worldwide throttling of thermal and hydro power stations due to low water conditions, is unique.

Any y'all on the Mighty Mississippi seen it this low before?

Even Canada, our hydro powered neighbors, are dealing with a historically low St. Lawrence Seaway.
Whoda thunk?

The changing environment was a major consideration in our choice of retirement location. Won't control it in my lifetime, but will avoid fighting it in the little time I've got left.






Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk

I thought the polar ice caps were melting and we were all going to drown and now they tell us that the rivers are low. If I scratch my head any more I 'll get a splintet

 

[oldbrownhat]

They were talking about climate change when I was in grade school in the 60s. That would have been a good time to start looking at changing things.

Now the nut jobs want everything to fix everything overnight.

That's because we didn't take it seriously all those decades ago., when we could have eased ourselves into making some changes. But now of course we can't fix everything overnight, which puts the nut jobs in even more of a tizzy, causing some now to "protest" by trying to deface priceless works of art.

"Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here."

Thanks for the link, Onomea. I'll dig into it later this evening.

 

[outta_ammo]

It's not just a river in Egypt...

 

[biku324]

Gosh, I don't see how dumping a few billion tons of carbon at exponentially increasing rates into the atmosphere for a century or so could have effects on anything.

 

[robvious]

the one constant is change...
I accept that... and the fact that where I am right now has been the great American desert... a sea of prairie grass... it has also been the bottom of a great inland sea... as well as being buried under over a mile of glacial ice... so yes, climate change exists... just a bit...

 

[Mike SC Hunter]

They were talking about climate change when I was in grade school in the 60s. That would have been a good time to start looking at changing things.

Now the nut jobs want everything to fix everything overnight.


Yep...........It's all political bs...Study weather history..........MAN CANNOT alter the weather/day or night or the temperature. It's all about $$$$ and power over people.......China and India are the dirtiest polluters on the planet......YET no one says anything to or about them

........IF you believe we can alter climate then you probably believe Al Gore invented the internet.

 

[somorris]

hanks for allowing us to read the article on your dime, Onomea. And I just finished reading the entire article (for those deniers here who said no one here would read it! ).

There are a lot of things which impact our climate here on earth. It would be difficult to try to categorize all of them and how much impact each has. I think we are better at calling each other names (denier, etc.) than we are in actually listening to each other and trying to work togeher. Like some here, I think nuclear power is the immediate answer to reduce emissions, but "deniers" (permit deniers) and NIMBY folks don't want to hear that. Wind and solar are not the answer in their current forms in my mind. As a dyed in the wool capitalist, I agree with the author that the market is the best place to start addressing how we should proceed. Maybe we need to raise taxes for anyone who wants to live on the beach.

 

[smoothshooter]

I find it somewhat interesting that it is always us conservatives that are expected to change our minds, not the other side.
Don't get me wrong-I am not at all opposed to looking at a situation or subject from different perspectives, and will change my mind on a subject if presented with sound logic, not emotion.
But I can count on one hand with fingers left over the times that I have known of someone on the other end of the spectrum that has changed their mind on the climate issue, even when presented with factual evidence and the historical record.

 

[oldbrownhat]

...Yep...........It's all political bs...Study weather history..........MAN CANNOT alter the weather/day or night or the temperature. It's all about $$$$ and power over people.......China and India are the dirtiest polluters on the planet......YET no one says anything to or about them...

May I respectfully disagree? We certainly can't change the climate quickly, as many seem to be insisting that we "must" do now. But it seems entirely reasonable, as Biku pointed out in #31 above, that by pumping more and more pollutants into the atmosphere, we surely must be having an effect above and beyond what nature has been doing for millions of years before we came along. (And of course, before that, there was no one to care anyway! Nor will there be after our brief time - in geologcal terms - here.)

The big question, to me anyway, is how much of the change are we actually responsible for? That seems to be hard to figure out accurately. Not mining or burning coal seems a good idea. Fretting about methane from cows, maybe not so much.

Yes, India and China are major offenders. We do hear about them, but it also involves the nasty business of politics. China at least does seem to be making some strides on responsibility - they do have considerable expertise in recycling lithium batteries, for instance.

But "whatever"... We all have to just muddle along as best we can.

 

[ladder13]

It's not just a river in Egypt...

It's not, it also flows through or borders Burundi, Tanzania, Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kenya, Uganda, Sudan, Ethiopia, and South Sudan

 

[walkinghorse]

Wait until the magnetic poles swap as they have done in the past multiple times.I have read that this is overdue. What about the Yellowstone volcano being overdue or other geological events being out time based upon past history?
One thing for certain humans are sure dirtying up the planet, maybe the earth is correcting things for a restart?

 

[1BadSmith]

George's video hands down explains it better than any scientist or expert ever could! Spot on!! I wonder what he would say about his "carbon footprint"? I bet it would be rather colorful, with multiple "F" bombs and more. Lol

 

[schutz5]

This Swede is an excellent author and researcher.
He has blogs also.
He cuts the fog of political lies.

[ame]https://www.amazon.com/Skeptical-Environmentalist-Measuring-State-World/dp/0521010683[/ame]