I think David Roberts does a great job in this lengthy article at Vox, with plenty of links, that covers a great deal of nuanced ground regarding the issue of climate change and its contributions to floods and hurricanes.
I reckon Jason should read it on the mitigation/adaptation issue too.
10 comments:
vox not atlantic both good though.
LOl
1) Harvey is not centrally about climate change
Talking about climate change during a disaster always runs the risk of insensitivity. The story that most matters about Harvey right now is the effect it’s having on lives and land in Texas and the efforts underway to prevent more suffering.
Oh okay, but.....
3) Yes, climate change made Harvey worse
Thanks to the recent profusion of great climate journalists and communicators, this story has been well told already. Probably the best source is this Facebook post from climate scientist Michael Mann, but also see Chris Mooney, Robinson Meyer, John Schwartz, and Emily Atkin.
Yea right. Mooney who has a ungrad in English lit and Mann the fraudster are two of the experts discussing the storm and climate change.
You know the storm... the one that isn't centrally about gerbil warming and vwe should talk about it....
JC, you are a complete dill when it comes to climate change.
JC I know you do nor understand english but Saying Harvey is not centrally about global warming and saying global warming made it worse is not inconsistent.
you think Mann is a fraudster because a fraudster who has no qualifications in climate science said so.
Very consistent.
JC, you are a complete dill when it comes to climate change.
It's a hoax and Michael Mann is a bald dishonest little twerp.
Shut up Paxton.
JC you're just a lazy windvane on the topic. Years ago, you said you had spoken to someone who thought credible and reliable and he thought AGW was going to be a serious issue, and you thought he was probably right. Then you read David Friedman - an economist of libertarian mind and decided it wasn't a serious issue after all. (What a surprise - given that libertarians love to count money and resent any potential intervention with the amount they can accumulate.) Today you quote Roy Spencer, a religiously motivated lukewarmer whose satellite record is the most adjusted and inherently unreliable measurement of temperatures, whose "but it will all stop soon" mantra is starting to fall away even under his own dubious satellite measurements. How embarrassing for him.
But yeah, he's the most credible, right? Delingpole, Monckton (is he OK, haven't seen him for a while) and Steyn all think so, and being scientists of the highest order and not Right wing culture warriors who believe massive conspiracies on a global scale, they're probably right, hey?
It is such a hoax temperatures continue to rise.
Funny how JC prefers to believe Fraudster Mark Steyn who knows bugger all over climate science over Michael Mann who knows quite al ot. not surprising at all
Stepford
I'm not a scientist and have a limited knowledge of climate science. I therefore can't really judge who's right or wrong on the subject.
I can however figure out that people like Michael Mann is a short, bald dishonest sack of shit.
And yes, I read Friedman who's conclusions are what I generally believe too.
The science is actually the easy part. How we organize ourselves if it is indeed occurring is far , far more important.
How about adding the benefits in a warmer world? How about counting the trade offs with heavy duty mitigation.
The most likely path is what Friedman has been suggesting. Observe and adapt accordingly. Adaptation in a 100 year time span may not prove as costly.
It is such a hoax temperatures continue to rise.
Funny how JC prefers to believe Fraudster Mark Steyn who knows bugger all over climate science over Michael Mann who knows quite al ot. not surprising at all
Speaking in tongues again, Paxton, you nonce.
yes english tongues, so sorry you cannot understand.
Post a Comment