New York Times defangs global warming

[brenthutch 444]

From Andrew Revkin's Dot Earth

"[T]here have now been several recent papers showing much the same – numerous factors including: the increase in positive forcing (CO2 and the recent work on black carbon), decrease in estimated negative forcing (aerosols), combined with the stubborn refusal of the planet to warm as had been predicted over the last decade, all makes a high climate sensitivity increasingly untenable. A value (slightly) under 2 is certainly looking a whole lot more plausible than anything above 4.5."

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/a-closer-look-at-moderating-views-of-climate-sensitivity/

[brenthutch 444]

I will assume that silence equals acquiescence (or more appropriately, capitulation). I am glad that Bill V, Quade, and Kallend are all on board with the "keep calm, carry on" solution to the non-problem of AGW. It has taken a half of a decade but they have finally come around. We can all be thankful that a doubling of co2 will result in a less than two degree increase in global temperatures in the next hundred years. This is a great thing! Let us go all in with fracking, natural gas, tar sands, oil shale, and coal. In 50 years we will have fusion power and the promise of clean energy that is too cheap to meter will have finally be realized. We have to invest in co2 today to realize the promise of green energy tomorrow!

[wmw999 2,589]

It's an opinion piece. Also, do I take it from your posting this that global warming is real, if not as significant as some might say?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[quade 4]

Quote

I will assume that silence equals acquiescence (or more appropriately, capitulation).

You assume too much. I could be that, for instance in my case, I just don't give a shit about how you've taken an opinion piece about global warming and twisted it into a "defanging" by the New York Times. You're simply wrong about it.

Here's the salient quote from the article which occurs fairly early on;

Quote

There’s still plenty of global warming and centuries of coastal retreats in the pipeline, so this is hardly a “benign” situation, as some have cast it.

Hardly a defanging.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

"I could be that, for instance in my case, I just don't give a shit about how you've taken an opinion piece about global warming and twisted it into a "defanging" by the New York Times. You're simply wrong about it."


What the hell are you talking about? (grammar check) Sober up and try once more.

I will give you some help. When a warmist like Revkin is now having second thoughts, you might want to reconsider.

That said, how am I wrong? No warming? No accelerating sea level rise? No polar bear decline? No increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados? Break it down for me governor.

[quade 4]

Quote

When a warmist like Revkin is now having second thoughts, you might want to reconsider.

That said, how am I wrong? No warming? No accelerating sea level rise? No polar bear decline? No increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados? Break it down for me governor.

What he's saying is there is a range of possibilities from "we've fucked ourselves" to "WE'VE FUCKED OURSELVES!"

What he's saying is maybe the all caps isn't required, but we've still fucked ourselves.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

Quote

When a warmist like Revkin is now having second thoughts, you might want to reconsider.

That said, how am I wrong? No warming? No accelerating sea level rise? No polar bear decline? No increase in floods, droughts, hurricanes, tornados? Break it down for me governor.

What he's saying is there is a range of possibilities from "we've fucked ourselves" to "WE'VE FUCKED OURSELVES!"

What he's saying is maybe the all caps isn't required, but we've still fucked ourselves.

So if we are living in a house, and the house's thermostat is set on 68, and then, over the period of a century we rise the temperature to 72, we are all fucked? Is there something wrong with your brain? Sorry that was a rhetorical question. Little dog, stay on the porch.

[billvon 3,120]

>So if we are living in a house, and the house's thermostat is set on 68, and then,
>over the period of a century we rise the temperature to 72, we are all fucked?

If you grow all your food in that house, and depend on that house for everything for your oxygen to your fuel to your water to your sewage treatment, and all that depends on it being 68F - then yes, you might be very badly fucked indeed.

If it's just one house, though, and you can go outside to an environment that's not significantly changed by your thermostat - then you're fine.

[wmw999 2,589]

He's got an air conditioner -- what's the problem?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,120]

>He's got an air conditioner -- what's the problem?

And if that doesn't cool it down enough he can just leave his fridge open.

[brenthutch 444]

Cool, I was starting to worry that the whole planet was the same temperature. I have to give you credit Bill, I never thought you had the intellect to evolve to the fact based position. Congratulations and welcome to the club!

[lawrocket 3]

What Revkin is saying is that there is an increasing amount of controversy indicating that the science is not settled. As Revkin stated, the predictions are off. The predictions of temperature increase are in excess of what has been recorded.

There's even research now being put out there saying that perhaps the sun is a bigger factor than was previously thought.

Lots of things going on now. We've had a couple of decades of dominance of thought - a paradigm. We've seen that the results aren't matching the predictions. Despite the frequent "It's getting worse" statements being made so often, well, it isn't.

I think that now we're approaching the stage where the zealots on both sides are being viewed with mistrust and the more middle ground, reasonable, "here's what the evidence is" folks are starting to predominate.

It's a good thing. Once the focus is made on the science versus advocacy we start seeing results. Climate science has been inseparable from climate politics. They are adjuncts for each other. I hope that is ending

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

What Revkin is saying is that there is an increasing amount of controversy indicating that the science is not settled. As Revkin stated, the predictions are off. The predictions of temperature increase are in excess of what has been recorded.

There's even research now being put out there saying that perhaps the sun is a bigger factor than was previously thought.

Lots of things going on now. We've had a couple of decades of dominance of thought - a paradigm. We've seen that the results aren't matching the predictions. Despite the frequent "It's getting worse" statements being made so often, well, it isn't.

"Getting worse" depends on whether you're watching the function itself, its first derivative or its second derivative.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Quote

It's an opinion piece. Also, do I take it from your posting this that global warming is real, if not as significant as some might say?

Wendy P.

How do you define "opinion piece"? The quote I cited was from a climate scientist, not the reporter. What you should take from the posting is that global warming is real, and insignificant. I don't understand why everyone is not more positive about this new discovery. It means that we can "drill baby drill", get rid of the bird and bat slaughtering windmills that are polluting our skylines, and reap the benefits of cheap, carbon based fuels.

[quade 4]

Quote

How do you define "opinion piece"?

When a piece appears in a newspaper section labeled "The Opinion Pages."





(That was almost too easy.)

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

How do you define "opinion piece"?

When a piece appears in a newspaper section labeled "The Opinion Pages."





(That was almost too easy.)

Easy? You have to remember to whom you are replying.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[brenthutch 444]

Yes the NYT did move its climate coverage from science to opinion. It is a tacit acknowledgement t that AGW no longer is based in science. That said these are the findings of the warmist crowd. It must feel lonely when All Gore and James Hansen turn on you.