Have you seen recent pictures of Antarctica😩😩 it's growing moss
Yeah I read it in National Geographic, it’s really terrifying stuff. Rising temperatures seem to be the cause, and the fact that phenomenon like this doesn’t scare people into taking more action just baffles me.
Do you have a specific position on global warming/climate change? If so, what is it?
Unlike seemingly everybody these days, I am not a climate scientist. You might as well ask me my opinion on which translation of The Divine Comedy is more accurate. I’ve never read the book and I can’t read italian. From what I can tell the chain of claims goes something like this:
Carbon Dioxide caused by human activity increases global temperature
Current human carbon dioxide output is causing increasing global temperatures and will continue to do so in the future
This increase in global temperatures will be catastrophic
Therefore, we need government policy X
I don’t know if claims 1 and 2 are true. I have no way of knowing. I don’t have any of the relevant scientific understanding. Claim 3 I am skeptical of because my understanding is that it is based on climate models projecting into the future, and I don’t trust such models. However, even if claim 3 were also true, I think that claim 4 is absurd on it’s face. There is no catastrophe so bad that interventionist state policies can’t make it worse. I honestly don’t know if human beings are causing the temperature to go up, I don’t know if the temperature going up is necessarily a bad thing, I don’t know that it will be a catastrophe, I don’t know that the answer must be to stop the temperature increase rather than to use those resources to focus on adapting to future temperatures, and I don’t know that the people who claim to know these things are being honest and indeed know as much as they think they do. However I am as certain as I can get on anything that putting governments in charge of economies will lead to massive poverty, sickness, misery, and death, and I am just as certain that putting governments in charge of central planning the “climate” itself will inevitably create a result that is worse than the alleged “catastrophe” they were charged with saving us from.
The city of Chicago this weekend added a new climate-change page
to its website, and if it sounds familiar it’s because the information
on it comes from the climate page the Environmental Protection Agency used to have — until the Trump administration deleted it last week.
“While this information may not be readily available on the agency’s webpage right now, here in Chicago we know climate change is real and we will continue to take action to fight it,” the page reads. Read more (5/8/17)
As an Arctic researcher, I’m used to gaps in data. Just over 1% of US Arctic waters have been surveyed to modern standards. In truth, some of the maps we use today haven’t been updated since the second world war. Navigating uncharted waters can prove difficult, but it comes with the territory of working in such a remote part of the world.
Over the past two months though, I’ve been navigating a different type of uncharted territory: the deleting of what little data we have by the Trump administration.
At first, the distress flare of lost data came as a surge of defunct links on 21 January. The US National Strategy for the Arctic, the Implementation Plan for the Strategy, and the report on our progress all gone within a matter of minutes. As I watched more and more links turned red, I frantically combed the internet for archived versions of our country’s most important polar policies.
I had no idea then that this disappearing act had just begun.
Since January, the surge has transformed into a slow, incessant march of deleting datasets, webpages and policies about the Arctic. I now come to expect a weekly email request to replace invalid citations, hoping that someone had the foresight to download statistics about Arctic permafrost thaw or renewable energy in advance of the purge.
Newly hired New York Times columnist
Bret Stephens’ controversial first column is going over like a lead
balloon with the paper’s progressive readers — some of whom are
furiously pledging to unsubscribe.
the column, Stephens cautions readers that even though the data pointed
to Hillary Clinton winning the election, that’s not
what ended up happening. “There’s a lesson here” about climate change,
“We live in a world in which data
convey authority. But authority has a way of descending to certitude,
and certitude begets hubris,” Stephens wrote.
“Claiming total certainty about the science traduces the spirit of
science and creates openings for doubt whenever a climate claim proves
Stephens’ skepticism incensed scores
of readers, many of whom claimed on Twitter to be in the process of
cancelling their subscriptions. Read more (5/1/17)