Pssst, Nicholas, preaching climate change won't stop hurricanes either. It won't even stop Liberals from flying coach and eating produce from Chile.
1
Utterly ridiculous column and unworthy of an otherwise thoughtful contributor to the NYT. I grew up in Florida and have witnessed many such storms and have read about others dating as far back as 1890 or so -- which is a blink of the eye in geologic time. God alone knows how many preceded our recorded history of a few hundred years. Hurricane Michael is among many such storms, and to point to any of them as evidence of climate change is absurd. When hurricanes disappear altogether or start forming year-round, I'll become less skeptical.
3
The people who are calling climate change a hoax are the ones making money off of it, and the fools that believe them.
10
It is absolutely savage to infer people deserve this because they don't align with your political preferences.
I can remember with absolute clarity that when Sandy hit the NE that exactly nobody in FL's first thought was "liberals deserve this because they aren't in my tribe" which is exactly what is going on here.
As for this silly notion that aligning with Nicholas Kristof's belief system is going to change our weather, here is the IPCC, AR5:
“Current datasets indicate no significant observed trends in global tropical cyclone frequency over the past century … No robust trends in annual numbers of tropical storms, hurricanes and major hurricanes counts have been identified over the past 100 years in the North Atlantic basin”
“In summary, confidence in large scale changes in the intensity of extreme extratropical cyclones since 1900 is low”
We went 11 years without a major hurricane landfall in the US from 2006 to 2017. That is the longest drought of Cat3+ landfalls by 6 years.
Go ahead, pat yourself on the back about how your superior politics would prevent natural disasters, meanwhile we will continue to cleanup our messes without your help, but we will also remember your self righteous moralizing about the weather.
1
Its like the old joke about the guy in the hurricane refusing to be rescued because he is sure that God will save him.
When millions of evangelicals begin showing up at the Pearly Gates, God will come out and ask them why they are here.
God will say "I showed you the melting ice caps, I showed you drought, forest fires, famines, I showed you strengthen hurricanes insane tornadoes, catastrophic flooding. Why didn't you heed my warnings?"
To which the evangelicals will say "but our elected politicians assured us that global climate change was a hoax."
God's answer: "Oy Vey! Okay then. Going Down...watch your heads."
16
i am appalled at the depths to which climate change “experts” will sink in order to push your agenda and a democratic candidate. I remember Hurricane Camille. Who caused that one?
1
Mr. Kristof (or anyone else) please explain the following fact in light of your premise in this article.
Number of major hurricanes (CAT 3+) to strike the U.S. in the last 100 years = 23
Number occurring between 1918-1968 = 14
Number occurring between 1968-2018 = 9
If dramatic increases in man made carbon emissions and subsequent increases in global air and sea temperatures increase frequency and or severity of hurricanes (and other natural disasters)... shouldn't the above stat of major hurricanes look significantly different? Why doesn't it???
1
"Yet in the following years Al Gore helped make climate change a Democratic issue ……."
Al Gore is a hypocrite who made lots and lots of money from the climate change issue, and like a lot of other celebrities who give lip service to conservation, had no qualms about spending it on several big houses, a house boat, and so on. It's easy to dismiss people like that, and claim their statements are phony and self-serving. A shame.
2
What crisis will cause the climate change deniers and other ignorant people to finally sit up and cry out for change?
I think the crisis will come when things like coffee, and chocolate, and bananas can no longer be grown or too expensive for anyone but the very wealthy. When global warming causes drastic disruptions to growing of our most favorite foods, then there will be a reckoning for the politicians. But I fear that by that time it will be too late to mend our planet.
2
The ones denying the climate urgency, are they the same dinosaurs who said "Don't worry about that asteroid"?
6
Don't you know that in the age of Trump where everything is upside down, the "greatest hoax" is the Paris Climate Agreement not the actual change in the world's climate and the corresponding unusual weather patterns.
3
The area just savaged by Hurricane Michael is home to the greatest concentration of climate=denying "conservative" Florida voters. Without Panhandle voters, Florida could have avoided the last two decades of abusive Republican state government and Hillary would have won the federal election.
5
Yesterday I went on Twitter and was met with an incomprehensible comment "Eye is fine...hurricane fear just more liberal fake news" . Today I saw airplane videos of Mexico Beach littered with matchsticks.
But on TV channels there are real estate shows filming young couples and retirees hankering to buy oceanfront property and lamenting that some house of interest is still not close enough to the shoreline. On-air profanity is not permitted. How can these snake oil advertisements continue onscreen?
5
One of the reasons I became religious in the last six months was, paradoxically, my terminal, absolute misanthropy. The election of 2016 and the depredations of the monied classes, GOP and Democrat and worldwide, convinced me that human beings were a plague on the planet, incapable of saving themselves for any number of reasons. My misanthropy has disappeared now. I have come to accept that the evil humans have done and continue to do is a result of their exercise of their own free will, to accept the blandishments of the powers of evil rather than the hopeful message of the Christian God in whom I now believe.
God created the earth, and it was good. And man as well. But man has the obligation of preserving that creation, and is failing, miserably. I now believe that compassion, justice, equality, democracy, all will disappear. My only hope, and the source of my optimism and happiness, is that by leading the best life I can, in pursuit of becoming as much like Christ as a mere human can, I and others like me will see a Judgment Day when those who have yielded to evil will receive their due reward, and those who refused to succumb, likewise. It is all that keeps me alive, really.
I had become an atheist, but the realization that meant the plutocrats, the criminals, the sadists would get the same reward/punishment as good people, meaning ashses and dust, led me to where I am today. Happy and hopeful and prayerful. It is a far better way to live. Sad the world is so tragic.
4
“Republicans are correct that all this is uncertain.”
97% of scientists with climate expertise disagree. Climate change IS certain. Enough with the wish-washy statements Nick!
7
Al Gore helped make the environment a national issue, not a partisan Democratic issue, with his 1992 book EARTH IN THE BALANCE. That was well before the Republicans decided climate change is a hoax.
9
Mr. Kristof, I disagree with you on only one thing. You wrote, "Climate change may be the most important issue we face. . ." No, climate change IS the most important issue we face. It is an existential threat to the ongoing habitability of our planet. We have waited so long to address it that it is distinctly possible that it is too late, that we are beyond the tipping point. However, if we don't try, we will surely fail, and go the way of the dinosaurs.
4
To greatly speed up the creation of carbon-free energy sources - we need a federal crash program to develop and build a new, much safer, generation of nuclear electric facilities.
Wind and solar have helped to cut carbon emissions, but the urgency of rapid climate change - as highlighted in the latest UN report - dictates that much more action will be needed in the near future.
The technology for safe nuclear power is already at our fingertips - using thorium based reactors or molten salt heat exchange techniques. Then the older, obsolete nuclear plants can be phased out - as well as carbon intensive fossil fuel facilities.
Time is running out and strong programs to promote safe nuclear is urgently needed to avoid catastrophic future consequences!
2
When these terrible storms hit the usual response of the politicians is that we will rebuild and our town will be better and more beautiful than ever.They never say- this is a warning we should heed and we will learn the lessons and build wiser and safer and keep our citizens safe.If people vote for these politician deniers they are doomed to a repeat of the destruction.Hurricane Michael may be a message from the universe right before the elections- only vote for politicians who put the problems of climate change high on their agendas.
7
Why does my insurance company continue to subsidize flood zone home insurance with my premiums? When the XYZ Insurance Co. refuses to insure high risk homes, they will be able to offer lower rates to the rest of us and I will switch.
Isn't the "market" supposed to regulate itself out of these situations? When land is not insurable for housing, there won't be houses on it.
10
The author calls out "climate change" in this article. This is a valid cause, based on the visible signals of ice and glacier melts, rising water levels, warmer ocean surface temperatures. But, I am curious to see "quantitative" anthropogenic (human caused) contribution to climate change. Is this contribution 1%, 5%, 50% or 80% ? This will allow us to isolate this contribution, and make a stronger case to reduce or eliminate human factors.
So, we admit that people are building in areas that shouldn't be built in because for centuries these areas were vulnerable to ....
"We also should curb the dysfunctional National Flood Insurance Program, which encourages people to live in low-lying areas. One Mississippi home flooded 34 times in 32 years, resulting in payouts totaling almost 10 times what the home was worth." Flooding 32 times in 34 years doesn't sound like climate change as much as it does building in the wrong place. Florida has built into the everglades, a swamp. So, when houses start flooding or sinking, that will be seen as a bad building decision too. Let's not tie everything to climate change as it weakens the credibility of climate change.
1
I guess I would argue that it's primarily massive 'contributions' by the Kochs and other petroleum interests that have made climate science a political issue. And forced Republicans, once again, into the arms of flat-earthers.
And while attribution of specific events is, in Nick's word, 'uncertain,' there is nothing uncertain anymore about the aggregate impact of carbon in our atmosphere. We would not have storms of the same intensity, wildfires of the same magnitude, or loss of sea ice, glaciers, and ice load on land but for the CO2 we have put into the atmosphere.
The uncertainty that remains relates to magnitude and rate of acceleration. And the reason those things remain uncertain is our propensity to underestimate them.
7
@Justin. You would argue correctly. There was a long article in this newspaper a few months ago providing the history of the politics of climate change. It makes for enlightening - and disturbing - reading. It's worth looking for.
I've been a teacher since 1966. During that time I've taught in two countries in Asia: Malaysia and China. I've seen how challenging the subjects - physics, biology, chemistry, calculus are in their schools. Countries like China and Malaysia are serious about trying to combat Global warming because their scientists - who all studied the above subjects in school - believe that global warming is a fact - they know the science. It's why, if you take a train from Beijing on the eastern border of China to the far western border, you will see many, many, many thousands of solar panels and windmills in their great western desert. The Chinese know you have to prepare for the future.
Most of my teaching has been in the USA. I know full well that the majority of American students never study the above subjects, and certainly not as strenuously as is required in modern Asian countries such as China and Malaysia. I graduated from a college - the Cooper Union - which required ALL students in the sciences to study science and math rigorously. Most college and high school students in the USA never study physics, advanced math, calculus, etc.
I have no doubt that most American politicians - especially those like the Donald - never studied calculus, physics and chemistry with vigor. They know little, if anything, about the science of Global warming. We're in for big trouble because of what we don't know. And our leaders don't even have a clue, especially the Donald. Pray!
9
When a hurricane hits, the homes and businesses of the rich are left standing. Most of them, therefore, do not care whether climate change is an issue because it never is to them.
2
It is good to see that the lighthouse standing up even after a direct hit by a monster hurricane. Somebody did that one right.
Let that be a symbol. We need more like that.
10
An argument employed by the anti-science crowd is that the climate change science is too uncertain to merit the societal changes needed to address the man-made contribution to climate change.
Meanwhile superstorms like Harvey, Florence and Michael are forcing localized societal changes.
Do we want forced change or managed change?
Nature always wins.
47
Suggestion for a new t-shirt—Mother Nature doesn’t give a hoot for your opinion.
44
@Norma Gauster.
I'd buy it. 'Science Doesn't Care What You Believe' is already in my closet.
3
Governor Rick Scott of Florida acted quickly, appropriately, and strongly in the face of this suddenly developing hurricane. Still, opinion-writers like Kristof try to use hurricanes to impugn the leadership of individuals like Scott.
It's the Emmanuel Effect: Never let a crisis go to waster.
1
@rcrigazio. Scott seemed perfectly fine for insurance companies and taxpayers to foot the bill for avoidable disasters. That includes your tax money for FEMA. What he and his fellows are doing is tantamount to having home insurance and leaving the front door unlocked when he goes on vacation. It's not his problem.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
6
Sorry, Nicholas, but the greatest hoax is that government--any government, U.S., U.N. or whatever--is a fit authority to deal with the climate. The devastation from Hurricane Michael looks ever so much like the devastation governments have so often wrought upon defenseless civilians. Compare the aerial photos of Port St. Joe or Mexico beach with the federal government of the United States did to Tokyo, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or in Iraq in its quest to exterminate ISIS.
The one and only *brilliant* idea government operatives have had to address climate change is to invoke massive tax increases, which will wreak more damage to the economy and the environment than the climate ever could. Denying governments' inherent, incurable ineptness won't do anything to stop global warming nor its effects. Your faith in coercive government is misplaced religious worship.
2
@Ned Netterville So you are saying that because we dropped A-bombs on Japan to bring WWII to an earlier end, making unnecessary the invasion of the Japanese homeland at the cost of millions of casualties, we should now do nothing about climate change? This is a highly eccentric argument to say the least. In fact, I think most people would agree that the U.S. government effort to win WWII was a major success. In case you haven't studied history, Ned, we won. Just fyi.
U.S. government efforts also won the Cold War, put men on the moon, and fostered a marketplace where the rule of law and proper regulation have encouraged innovation and investment leading to the most prosperous economy in history. The notion that government is "inherently and incurably inept" is simply a fantasy. The kind of fantasy, in fact, that leads to dictatorships. Not every government program has worked as it was intended. Some have failed miserably. But your belief that government cannot do anything about anything is also a religion. It's certainly not based in fact.
3
So much of what you Americans do baffles the rest of the world but we just point and laugh because it doesn't affect us.
However, while massive hurricanes regularly demolish your coasts, our Arctic ice melts and our forest burn in infernos that were unknown in my childhood. We cannot point and laugh at that.
Americans seem to believe that their god will save them from these catastrophes. Canadians believe that their god helps those who help themselves.
10
20 years ago, scientists began telling us that combating climate change was advisable.
10 years ago, they said it was becoming necessary.
Today, they tell us it is urgent.
10 years from today, they will tell us it is too late.
...
...
This sounds a heck of a lot like advisers telling us to save for retirement. Why do we - including Republicans - listen to them, but not to scientists warning us to plan for climate change?
7
Do you think any of those deniers of human-caused climate change have ever used (or known of) cloud seeding to help their crops? Is that God flying that airplane? Multiply that analogy by a billion or so.
From Wikipedia:
Cloud seeding is a type of weather modification that aims to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practised in airports, where harsh weather conditions are experienced.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding
My basic question is:
Why does trump have the last call on this climate change question?
Isn't he supposed to protect and defend the people of the United States. He sounds pretty impeachable to me.
5
Why does Kristoff always have to come up with a both sides are responsible argument? The fact that Al Gore warned us about climate change doesn't make him responsible for the Republican's intransigence.
6
@lou What has the National Democratic Party done? They had a filibuster proof majority at the beginning of Obama’s first term and did nothing with climate change. Democrats suffer from the same issue that Republicans. Democratic constituents are more open to climate change legislation but even their patience will be tested once the costs start to mount and their lifestyle changes.
3
The simplest way to tackle cliamte hoax is ro stop taxpayer funded flood insurance.
People are free to use their freedom to buy insurance cover from their respective state governments or private insurers.
7
Thanks, Nick for a very compelling argument that is backed-up bu some credible scientist.
But if the debaters are Rush Limbaugh and you (backed by those scientist), you are going to lose bin in Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Sadly, but not likely surprisingly to one from one of those states, when it comes to climate policy, stupidity is trumping science in hurricane alley.
4
Global Weirding is what it is. And it will kill US.
republicans beat their breasts and wail that some burden of debt might get handed down to our children (but only the burden of debt created by Democrats, debt they create is just and righteous) but they care not a fig that we will be leaving our children an uninhabitable planet.
When climate change unleashed a drought in Syria a massive refugee problem was born that has unleashed a wave of resentment from people those refugees went to for help.
Imagine when 80% of the 7 billion people on the planet have to move, becoming refugees, from the rising oceans.
If those being conned by republican deniers don't want to admit that humans have caused this I say OK. But humans are the only species on Earth with the technology and intellect to change it, mitigate it, and plan for a future that will entail some global changes.
The "Save the Earth" campaigns probably should have focused on a motto like: "Save the human race" instead of save the whales.
3
@Bob Laughlin
I think whales would do a better job of caring for earth and ocean than humans!
1
"Climate change may be the most important issue we face, reshaping our children’s world. At some point, those calling “hoax” will fade away and we’ll reach a new consensus about the perils. But by then, it may be too late."
May be too late?
The deniers will deny on their death beds.
It is too late now.
Carpe diem.
7
Not the time to talk about climate change, not the time to talk about gun control. Long on thoughts and prayers, short on courage to face reality.
10
Most of the arguments I have heard from those who say climate change is a hoax is that the weather goes in cycles.
My rebuttal is yes that is true, but man is causing these cycles to speed up, thus causing more and bigger problems.
Yet no one is willing to do anything about it in this country.
We have finally gotten people to recycle only to find out that we don't have a plan on what to do with the recycled items now that we can't send them off to China anymore.
People don't want wind farms off shore because it might ruin their view of the water, never mind that the view may be gone soon due to rising sea levels. The list goes on.
There are people who are trying to make a difference but they are few and far between and no one is encouraging that they spread their "green" processes with others.
It is all very depressing.
6
I am heartbroken to say that when I see a young woman with child I am sad for the unborn. No one asks to be born, and the world these Innocents are going to inherit might not nourish them with food, water, and shelter.
8
I've been told that if you tell a lie often and loudly enough that it eventually becomes the truth. If so, maybe President Trump's endless mendacity about climate change will prove itself to be the best tactic for stopping it.
3
The problem is that the valuation of the fossil fuel sector is based on "proven reserves". The net present value of what can be extracted in the future. If we suddenly decide that most of it can never be sold, then a staggering amount of wealth will simply disappear. So a game needs to be played as the stakes are higher than simply reduced profits. I'm not saying this is right, just looking at the lay of the land.
4
"At some point, those calling “hoax” will fade away and we’ll reach a new consensus about the perils."
That's precisely the tragedy. We don't have any more time to squander waiting for denialism to 'fade away', and for the deniers to "discover" that they were wrong. We need to frame the debate for what it is: incumbents trying to milk the last bits of profit for as long as possible versus chemistry and physics.
What Trump et al. are loosing sight of is that, rather than having to destroy capitalism to save the climate, we can harness capitalism to save the climate. It can and should be the greatest industrial mobilization (generating proportional profits) of the 21st century.
9
I get it when people don't understand the science that explains climate change. That science is hard stuff and to understand it takes a lot of thought and effort in researching the literature.
I get it when people are hostile to climate change scientists who predict catastrophe in ten years. That is scary stuff and I don't want to think about it either.
I get it when people are hostile to scientists who propose tough measures for reversing climate change. Those tough measures almost always impose greater burdens on the public than the public is ready to accept.
What I don't understand is why people choose to ignore the effects of climate change reported by ordinary people. These are people who are planning to navigate the seas above the Arctic circle. These are people who are studying polar bears and other Arctic wildlife. These are people who are helping Miami, New York and other costal cities deal with rising sea levels. These are people who are are trying to protect their homes in the Pacific islands because of rising sea levels. Their stories tell how global warming has affected the Earth over the past 20 years and in the next 20 years.
13
I don't think its fair to say Al Gore made climate change a democratic issue. He raised it after he left politics as a vitally important non partisan issue. Republicans responded by cynically helping the oil industry brand it as loony left wing conspiracy.
16
Hurricanes are much in the news recently. But the global impacts of human-assisted climate change are much broader. We may not actually be causing all of it, be we are definitely assisting and adding to whatever natural variability there might be, so denying it is not a rational or valid position at all. Climate change means more and stronger hurricanes. But it also means worse blizzards, stronger tornados, longer and more devastating heat waves. Climate change 'triple-magnifies' every part of our climate. The global impacts of this start with weather disasters, but they are more long-term and more impactful.
As climate changes, so does crop yields and livability of geographic areas. When sea levels rise, people will be displaced. When crops fail, people will face a choice of 'starve or move'. Global movements of displaced people will end up causing wars. Those who deny climate change, and persist in imagining that their lifestyles need not change, and that they can reap the profits of causing climate change while dodging any impacts with their wealth had best start factoring in the cost of the wars they will fight as those displaced and impacted by changing climates move to take over the comfortable utopias the climate change deniers occupy.
6
The only devastating effects from climate change that matter to President Trump are hidden from the American people in Trump's personal and family income tax returns and business records. After all Trump made a solemn sworn oath to preserve, protect and defend the assets of the Trump Organization.
3
Mr. Kristof states in his article that the GOP refuses to accept the latest warning on climate change because they assert that the predictions of dire effects from climate change are not certain and that he agrees with this statement. He expresses concern that our politicians are unwilling to debate the issues of climate change. Are would argue that climate change is a certainty, and we do not have time to debate the issue. We must immediately implement measures to reverse the effects of global warming, which include, but are not limited to- carbon capture, reducing methane emissions, eliminating all coal powered power plants, accelerating use of electric cars, expanding alternative energy use, and conducting limited tests of the use of geo-engineering methods to reverse the earth's temperature rise. The time for debate has long past. All nations of the world must now pull together to prevent the certain destruction of life on earth as we know it.
3
thank you, Mr. Kristof. Wish more columnist were writing about climate change. And why are reporters not asking Gov.Scott what his current opinions are on climate change? Every politician should be questioned right now and try to explain the fires, droughts, storms we have experienced just this year.
6
@Erika Shriner
People have been writing about climate change for DECADES. Over and over again the problems and the science have been laid out. Nothing happens. One of the best reviews of our current situation is Amitav Ghosh's 2016 "The Great Derangement, Climate Change and the Unthinkable." His comparison of the Paris Accord and Pope Francis's encyclical letter "Laudato Si" sends a chill down my spine.
2
Climate change denial is a condition of "belonging" in the conservative wacko world. It's part of the creed. As one told me recently, everybody knows Al Gore and his Harvard professor invented global warming to profit from carbon tax credits. OK, then. So, why not have people like this direct the EPA? What could happen, right?
Now that bad climate stuff keeps happening and Rush's mansion could easily be flooded or blown down, what will they do?
4
I think hurricanes have been around a lot longer than manmade global warming.
2
@myother1 Yes of course, but we did not get such severe hurricanes, one after another.
3
@myother1
Really? That’s your considered rebuttal to this article? A bit like saying water has always been wet . Unfortunately, that always wet water is now being dumped by those always been hurricanes in ever increasing quantities; the always been there winds are increasing in speed; the always expected storm surges are getting higher.
Climate change does not mean weather events change, it means weather events with more extremes.
A baby becomes a child becomes an adult;same human, bigger and stronger.
2
Science is not politics.
Or at least it should not be, in a rational world.
6
When 500 year storms occur every couple of years AND over 98% of scientists who study climate change say it is real, it is man-made, we CAN do something about, AND we MUST before it is too late to avoid the worst impacts, you must be either willing to turn a blind eye or are serving masters who only care for their own self interest and the short term.
9
The Koches, the Trumps, along with Inhofe, Scott, Pruitt, Zinke and a host of others in their pockets must think that their money will insulate them from natural disasters resulting from climate change. Maybe they believe their gold can be sandbagged against rising seawater, or something like that. They don’t care about the world they are leaving their children. Or do they really believe money will insulate or immunize them? They can build their castles in the air to escape the rains and floods? I really don’t get it.
Or maybe this is all part of “accepting God’s will?” I can see them thinking this last bit more than any other reasoning: Accept that Armageddon is imminent. Deny any sense of responsibility or self determination. Defile the earth and perish with it, that is our God-given right?
Unfortunately for the rest of us, we have to share the same earth, wind and fire with them. And the rising oceans.
6
Yet another example of why the Citizens United ruling is so destructive. As long as the fossil fuel industry keeps pouring money into politics, this will not change.
8
As long as Democrats use 'climate change' as a vehicle to implement leftist social engineering schemes skeptics will resist.
Most telling is the left's refusal to include nuclear power technology as part of the solution to drastically reduce carbon emissions worldwide in the next 30 yrs.
1
@Lane, the scientific definition of "skepticism" is an impartial attitude prior to investigation. Climate change deniers are the opposite of skeptics--they're true believers with no basis for their beliefs beyond loyalty to their tribe.
By "leftist social engineering schemes," I suspect you're talking about ideas like carbon taxes or carbon trading. These are market solutions to global warming, not socialist schemes.
3
@Lane
I am left of centre but I support modern nuclear technologies. I really don’t think this is a left right issue. Fear of nuclear has been deep seated in the human psyche since Hiroshima.
Chernobyl, Three Mile Island and even Fukushima were, ultimately, the result of human error and stupidity. If you run your car over a cliff do you blame the cliff?
2
One or two storms indicate climate change as much as a cold day in March down south; that is, not at all.
But at least the current string of we're-all-gonna-DIE warnings are talking twelve years from now. They used to all goout at least a century.
But for such classy geniuses they still can't tell me today if it'll snow on Christmas Eve.
Is there a way for the NY Times to discuss ANY issue without turning it into that day's version of ''the country needs to ome apart?'' The good propagandists has someone to attack in EVERY single story.
1
@L'osservatore, I think Kristoff's message is that the country needs to come together--not apart, as it now is on this issue.
Do you consider man-made climate change a real problem, or just propaganda?
6
@L'osservatore
Being contrarian is one thing, being willfully disingenuous is another. No scientist in the world can tell you what the weather will be accept in terms of probability.
AND YET, there are entire industries (such as agriculture and insurance) that are only possible due to the predictability of weather patterns.
Take the term, "flood zone." Are you in one? Well, that depends on the ODDS of a flood, doesn't it? And the costs of insuring that property are priced accordingly. And yet, no matter where you live, you cannot say for sure whether it will flood on any given day. All that matters is that there is an increased CHANCE of flooding.
Why do farmers consult almanacs? It's not like an almanac can tell them how much rain will fall on any given day. And yet a farm lives or dies by PROJECTIONS of things like temperature, rainfall, early/late frost. You must think them fools for thinking that they can rely on such abstract statistical analyses. That would make the commodities markets equally foolish for trading derivatives based on projected agricultural outputs.
And of course every single person who evacuates due to a hurricane warning falls into the fool category as well. Did you know Hurricane Michael was going to make landfall or how bad it would be? No. No one did. Yet it was wise to evacuate because the LIKELIHOOD of danger was apparent.
5
There are parking lots on Miami Beach where certain spaces are flooded every day at high tide. 20 years ago they were dry. Undeniable.
7
Can we please stop calling anyone who performs their job and doesn't work in an office a "hero?" It's incredibly patronizing both to the underpaid emergency workers and everyone else- you know, us non-heroes.
Used to be, in America, when you told someone they were a hero they'd say no, just doing their job. Now it's like we're living in some kind of Marvel universe or netherworld of semi-divine Greeks. Enough!
6
Throughout the history of that geographical area, there have been worse hurricanes before 'climate change'.
1
That’s the wonderful thing about Science: it does not conform to politics. The GOP decided to deny (man made) Global Warming for their greedy, shortsighted agenda. Well, Global Warming does not care and has the final word.
9
Doesn't anyone remember Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf? If that plus Michael haven't been enough to get people in the Panhandle to vote intelligently, there is little hope that they will ever wake up and smell the rot of politics controlled by corporate America. Having lived and worked as a reporter in this area, I can assure you that those few concerned with anything deeper than enjoying a pretty sunset during happy hour are precious and rare inhabitants.
7
Nick, re your words -- it already is too late.
3
Your article is a typical "balanced" article with all the safe statements like, "no particular storm can be attributed to climate change", which is true but why say it? The fact is - and you said it- the heat from climate change is intensifying weather causing the extreme event that we are experiencing. It diminishes the true emergency of the magnitude and urgency of climate change.
The IPCC even says, their is a possibility that humans may not prevail if we don't act now, so why diminish that urgency by placating the deniers with their rhetoric?
The media has an obligation to inform the public of the truth, so please don't water it down - tell it like it is!
Richard Whiteford is a climate change adviser for the World Information Transfer, and NGO at the United Nations
2
@Richard Whiteford
I hear you, but the qualifier must be said and placed in context to defend against spin. If it were NOT said, would seize upon it in the same way that Inhofe (an adult leader playing childish games) tried to seize upon a snow ball and a chilly day.
Still, I agree that it's frustrating, because people who should know better still seem to fall for such tactics. No one in their right mind would wager money in a poker game where they knew for a fact that their opponent will be holding two extra cards each hand. Which hands will be lost due solely to the extra cards? Hard to say for sure, but the probability of a catastrophic loss of chips is enormous. It is, as they say, a "Fool's Bet" on its face, no calculations necessary.
The same is true of the much more serious bet we are all making (or being compelled to make) right now with regard to the effects of climate change.
1
Forget about what Rush Limbaugh says.
How about the many scientists who don't believe climate change is caused by humans but is cyclical and are afraid of the bullying backlash of the left.
1
@james and how many of this group are not employed by fossil fuel marketing businesses?
5
@james, there are virtually no serious climate scientists who believe that humans aren't the driving force in climate change. Scientists don't bully other scientists; they follow the evidence where it leads.
Ninety-nine percent of the world's climate scientists believe that humans are responsible for the rise in global temperatures. Those in the public who identify as climate change deniers are unaware how broad the scientific consensus is.
2
@james
The "many" scientists?
Name ONE.
3
It's high time to cut federal disaster relief and possibly all ties to the red states. The rest of the country can go all in on funding research, promoting lifestyle changes and using science to move forward. We are doomed if the deniers dominate the discussion and distribution of tax dollars.
6
"Some folks will say this isn't the moment for politics."
That's the same thing NRA supporters say after the latest mass killing.
Let's hope these "folks" will suffer a massive defeat in next month's election. It seems as if the same people often have the same views on a variety of subjects--and these views are invariably bad for our country.
10
Here in Iowa many rivers have been flooding , causing some damage. The Cedar River in Cedar Rapids will soon be reaching flood stage for the fifth time since Labor Day; this is on top of a 2016 flood that saw the second-highest water level ever recorded (fortunately, thanks to flood controls and much of the area near the river not being rebuilt after the devastating flood of '08, damage wasn't too bad then ).
Here's the thing though: according to meteorologists, in the over 100 years that records have been kept, the Cedar NEVER flooded this time of year. At least, it never used to.
Tuesday evening Iowa also had a tornado outbreak; at least ten twisters confirmed, though fortunately many didn't touch ground and there wasn't much damage. But while a tornado in Iowa this time of year is not unheard of, until now there has NEVER been a tornado outbreak like this here in October. Something strange is going on.
7
@caryw
It's NOT a "tornado" unless it TOUCHES the ground.
Things have really lost the way when one party is actively rooting against the environment. Even better, many republican voters are poor, and they will be the ones directly impacted when food shortages begin. Weird. Then again, we live in a capitalistic society, and therefore most poor people are uneducated, so I wouldn't expect them to understand these extremely advanced concepts.
Also weird. Republican leadership has led an incredibly successful campaign against climate change science, pushing doubt into the equation. Now many constituents disbelieve in climate change or human effect on the climate, based on a lack of direct proof. Interestingly, these same people are absolutely sure that God and angels exist though, and exclaim that you don't need direct evidence to believe in that.
Truly fascinating times.
10
So the science is very clear that global warming is occurring. It is so interesting to me that one political group embraces the science behind global warming and yet will not accept the science behind vaccines. You are well traveled and see the devastation that diseases such as polio and measles cause. You should be writing every day about the facts that vaccines do not cause autism or dementia. Why should we ever listen to Robert DeNiro and other liberal non scientific people on this topic? If we are going to follow scientific principles then let us follow all of them. The double blind prospective studies on vaccines are solid and should be followed. Oh well maybe we need Taylor Swift to promote them.
1
@sailman9 Anti-vaxers are hardly the mainstream of the Democratic Party even though they are a public health danger in some liberal communities. There is no evidence of which I am aware that Democratic state or federal office holders have chosen public health officials sympathetic to that position. On the other hand, President Trump has embraced the anti-science crowd and appointed people like Mr. Pruitt. You're stuck in false equivalence and "whataboutism".
3
@sailman9 FYI, the vast majority of Liberals and Democrats do support vaccines and public health in general. I don't know where you are getting your info, but is incorrect.
4
I'd like to point out a clever linguistic trick that Republicans and other climate deniers use to sew doubt about the reality of climate change. As Nicholas points out here, they often say that climate change is "uncertain", or more typically that scientist's estimates are "inaccurate". Realize that nearly all members of congress and other politicians, are lawyers, adept at using ambiguous language to get you to believe what they want you to believe.
When they say that the science of climate change is "inaccurate", they are expecting that you will misinterpret that to mean we do not know whether or not it is happening. What they actually mean is something that climate scientists will not disagree with: although we know that climate change is happening, we do not know precisely how fast or how severe things like temperature increases and sea level rise will be at any particular date, but we do know that those things will increase within certain maximums and minimums.
So, its as if I suggested you not jump off the roof of a building. I tell you that the building is between 5 to 15 floors high, but I am not sure exactly how many. My estimate is inaccurate, because it is inexact. But it does not matter because I do know the range of the inaccuracy, and jumping off from 5 stories or 15 stories will be of little difference, either will probably kill you, and were certainly badly injure you.
Climate deniers are saying to go ahead and jump off a roof with them.
7
It is quite worrisome that almost half of this country is completely detached from reality and support a conspiracy spewing POTUS. Forget trying to understand science.
American greed and entitlement amongst the trumpets is destroying the future, but they don't care.
Saddest part is that our so called democracy is dead. The deregulation of environmental laws is not the will of the majority, it is the result of a coup that put a minority in power of all branches of government through gerrymandering.
12
Here is something else we can do to fight global warming: allow research in cold fusion (the Fleischmann-Pons effect). Great progress in this was made until the mid-1990s. The effect was replicated by over 180 major laboratories, and these replications were published in mainstream, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Temperatures and power density equivalent to a fission reactor core were achieved, in continuous reactions lasting weeks. These produced 10,000 to 100,000 times more energy than any chemical reaction.
Unfortunately, the research ended because of academic politics and opposition from the mainstream media, including the New York Times. Researchers were falsely accused of fraud and even "lunacy" by columnists in the Washington Post and elsewhere. Many of the researchers were distinguished experts, such Nobel laureates and the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission, so they were able to continue for a while despite the opposition, but they have all retired or died by now.
For more information on this, please see:
http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/McKubreMCHcoldfusionb.pdf
http://lenr-canr.org
2
Republicans are tone deaf to what is going on around them. Not naming things, ignoring what's staring them in the face won't make their problems go away. A president who doesn't read and two houses filled with a majority of people with their heads in the sand leaves me ill. Are they that ignorant?
8
We can thank "Red Tide" Rick Scott for many of Florida's ecological nightmares today.
He didn't buy the land as directed by voters to help fix the Lake Okeechobee levee problems. Not to mention it would have helped with the red tide and flesh-eating bacteria that flows down stream from it as well.
But "Big Sugar" has it's claws in dear "Red Tide" and as such he has followed their bidding.
It's time to change the guard, boot "Red Tide" out completely and bring in as many Democrats as we can. Without a massive change, there is little to hope for in our future.
13
Maybe the Trump administration will change its position on climate change the day a category 4/5 makes landfall at Mar-a-Lago.
But I wouldn't bet on it. More likely it will be see as just another plot on the behalf of the Clintons.
14
Mr. Kristof, If anyone says 'now is not the time to play politics,' the response is really simple: this is science and reality, not politics.
6
But we did celebrate heroic doctors rather than controlling smoking for 30 years
And we continue to support trauma centers (which, ironically, are otherwise less busy as safety improvements in cars have reduced blunt trauma injuries) instead of controlling civilian availability of lethal military weapons
Climate change seems to have a few more years to go, presumably at least until the Kochs either come to Jesus or go to Hades
3
Somewhere there is a world where Clinton was impeached, Gore became president and under his leadership global climate change was addressed, solved, and we all lived happily ever after.
7
@Jean and Gore heeded the NSA warnings and 911 never came to fruition.
1
The long tern natural warming trend that began 20,000 years ago continues, and will continue for some time. Then, it will reverse and we will inevitably head into another ice age, as has happened 4 times in the past 400,000 years.
Man's contribution to global warming may forestall the coming ice age for some period of time but it won't stop it.
The scale of the natural cycles dwarf any man made contribution.
If humans are still around at that time, they will pray for global warming.
In the meantime, those along the coast will whine about climate change.
Those in central continental regions will rejoice over longer growing seasons.
1
For all those that deny climate change, just imagine our coastlines and the Southeast in ten years, and 20 years from now.
We all have a choice on whom to vote for as President and Governors. Make it wisely. To choose a president who fabricates the truth and uses lies and falsehoods as governing policy is downright stupid and dangerous for each state and our country.
Get out and vote for people this November who believe in climate change with positive plans for the future including job expansion in the area of infrastructure building.
9
Ah, I remember the good old days, when watching gripping human drama on TV didn't mean you were tuned in to the Weather Channel. I'm feeling nostalgic for the times when "hundred year storms" didn't occur every hundred days, somewhere in the US. The scary thing is that without a significant effort to address climate change, these climate "events" are destined to become more frequent and/or more severe.
When an UNSUCCESSFUL shoe bomber attempted an attack, we made millions of airline passengers remove their shoes as a precaution. Now, when we are threatened with repeated devastation from storms & wildfires ...crickets.
5
In the United States the issue of climate change has certainly become a Republican v. Democrat issue. I think, though, the human race is generally more reactive than proactive in almost every element of our well being and survival. Rather than working toward bettering our lives and life on this planet - which we definitely have the ability to do - we continue to pretend that things like climate change isn't real, health care isn't a human right, education will only be for the rich, and on and on.
The good news is that we could likely turn this around, if we led the world in taking proactive steps to lessen the impact of humans on this earth. The bad news is that because of our lack of leadership, our general sense of entitlement, and disregard for the planet on which we live - more likely we will not act soon enough to make significant change.
Planet Earth will survive this and heal itself - but if we keep denying what is becoming more and more obvious, the human race may not.
2
It is striking, the level of ignorance displayed by Kristof here. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that suggests "climate change" - which is ill-defined at best - has anything to do with category 4 hurricanes striking southern Florida and the Gulf Coast, which has been happening for at least the 240+ years that the people with written records have been observing.
Want to bet about the wake up call? Democrats will be blamed for it; for not protecting borders and homes against floods, for not funding the military storm surveillance. For being against gun control that would allow storm ravaged areas to protect themselves against looters.
This is not a science issue, it is a tribal, authoritarian, winner take all issue. Facts are shaped to the goal of Republicans inflaming voter anger. Florida will flood, buy more guns, vote in more Republicans, and be flooded again.
5
The problem with Kristof using the opportunity of this hurricane as evidence of climate change, or global warming or whatever you want to call it is it isn't supported by the facts. Al Gore won an Academy Award and a Nobel for partially claiming the same after the 2004-2005 Hurricane seasons and Hurricane Katrina. What followed? A 12 year period, one of the longest in the last 130 years, without a single major hurricane striking the U.S. Not a single one.
Since 1880 there have been 29 Major Hurricanes (CAT 3+) to make landfall in the U.S. They occurred in 1886, 1893, 1898, 1900, 1915, 1921, 1926, 1932, 1933, 1935, 1945, 1948, 1949, 1954, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1964 (2), 1965, 1969, 1979, 1992, 1995, 1999, 2005 (2), 2017, 2018.
Do you see a trend here? Exactly Mr.s Kristof and Gore (et al)... there isn't one. Major hurricanes making landfall by decade 1880s (1), 1890s (2), 1900s (1), 1910s (1), 1920s (2), 1930s (3), 1940s (3), 1950s (3), 1960s (5), 1970s (1), 1980s (0), 1990s (3), 2000s (2), 2010s (2).
Reality is, by far the most active 30 year period for major hurricanes is 1940-1969 (11). Almost 1/2 of the major hurricanes in the last 138 years occurred 1930-1969. Since the 1st IPCC report was released 27 years ago predicting increase in frequency and severity of hurricanes and other disasters there have been 7 major hurricanes make landfall in the U.S.
So, for those that want to paint me as an unscientific denier... show me where my stats or my science is wrong.
1
According to the NOAA website, over the last 100 yrs, we had more hurricanes with higher force in the first 50 yrs. than the most recent 50 yrs.
Let us all pray that Mar-a-Lago and Trump’s other golf courses are decimated as a resultof climate change. Amen
3
2020 News:
The new "Air Force One" is going to be fitted with floats, at tax payer expense of course, so it can land at Mar a Lago Island in the future.
Mar a Lago Island will of course have been protected from the surrounding sea invasion , by the extension of "The Wall" which was authorized by The Senate in 2019 and built around it to prevent the Influx of "criminal immigrants" from Puerto Rico.
1
"Some folks will say this isn’t the moment for politics."
that's right. Science IS NOT POLITICAL.
it is a "systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."
2
I fail to understand how Americans fell for the Koch brothers purity test of climate change denial in order to be a Republican - as if being a Republican is one of life's greatest aspirations. The desperate need to belong to an abstract concept of political affiliation and turning a blind eye to the destruction in our communities and harm to our families seems a very high price to pay to line the pockets of those that benefit from this ruse.
I can only hope it's not too late to wake up and smell the brackish water and pervasive smoke.
4
That is exactly it. We all have to face the fact about climate change not just Trump or Congress.
We are a country addicted to our wheels so we need more hybrids or electric cars for one thing, then, we have to enforce everything Pruitt violated within existing federal laws under the previous watchdog or our EPA.
The EPA became a rabid dog under Trump and Pruitt who thought the agency budget was a private trust fund and who owes American taxpayers a couple of million dollars, which he can afford being a multi millionaire, for extra security costs as well as that 36K all in price of the 'superman' phone booth he personally used to hide in while perpetrating his dark deeds from public scrutiny.
All the rules and regs he abolished as far as clean air and clean water need to be reinstituted immediately if not sooner, and I think he abolished 24 to 36 of them during his Sherman's march through the EPA.
That UN report should galvanize us but under Trump and the GOP it won't as the one percent put (obscene) profits over people every time.
2
Thank you, Nicholas Kristof, for connecting the dots. It is past time for that, but better late than never.
With this criminal, science denying leadership in power, the sacrifices required of Americans to address climate change will never be understood or articulated. The future of both the country and the planet do not look hopeful.
2
This hoax is continually perpetrated by the ignorant Trump Administration and it's accolades. Also by our crooked governor. Wake up Floridians!
5
Stupidity is hard to measure but denying climate change is, on a scale of 1 to 10, one of the more stupid things you could do if you wanted to be at the top of the list.
4
Your most important statement comes nearly at the end of your commentary Mr. Kristof--we have largely and successfully pushed back against big tobacco, against cancer deaths and against underage smoking NOT by concentrating our efforts on, as you write, "heroic doctors treating patients in cancer wards." Exactly right. We MUST demand that ALL our politicians, from BOTH parties address this catastrophe in the making! How many of our most prosperous cities are in coastal areas? How many of our citizens live in harm's way? How many times are we going to subsidize the rebuilding of more homes that will likely become flooded again and again and again? The impact of climate change will affect both red and blue states, both red and blue and purple voters. We all need to make this a priority. Mother Nature does not play and She does not care whether foolish old men in power believe in her fury. That's the beauty of science--it occurs whether the skeptics want to believe or not. That is also our curse.
2
"Denying climate change doesn’t stop its devastating effects."
Oh well. I guess that's the end of that discussion...
2
@Eyes Wide Open
When your house is on fire do you have a discussion before calling the firefighters.
1
A common five letter word explains climate change denial: M-O-N-E-Y. The money worshipers, who are necessarily myopic, are more in charge than ever and their only concern is that their quarterly statements show a profit. After all, "if you're so smart why ain't you rich" is a pillar of popular wisdom in the USA. The famous renaissance Spanish poet Francisco de Quevedo has a famous poem that repeats the refrain: "Poderoso caballero es Don Dinero": (Sir Money is a powerful gentleman.) Let's hope that we're still around after the Trump and Koch era runs its course.
2
Columnist would increase his credibility among his readers if he stuck with 1 subject at a time and saw it through. Commendable to rivet public attention on injustices, whether on the cruelty of the Janjaweed militias in the Sudan, leprosy in Liberia, the unjust incarceration of Kevin Cooper in California, but strikes me as somewhat superficial to focus on the plight of Mr.Cooper in 1 column, w.o informing readers what his defense is, and where he was at the time of the slayings, and then give us a lecture on climate change.NK is not a meteorolgist, nor is there or ever has been consensus on the subject, so is this just not sensationalism?Focus of inmate Cooper, tell us about the defense or lack thereof, where he says he was at the time of the killings for which he has been accused!Give us in depth reporting if you please Mr.Kristof!
The problem here is that the climate change deniers don't see (won't see...) the relationship between increasingly intense storms and a changing climate. They are just strong storms, shrug. FEMA will come to the rescue and we the taxpayers will pay for them to rebuild. Again, and again and again.
3
It would take a nassive sacrifice by Americans to contribute anything of value to sliwing climate change. And Americans have zero interest in sacrifice.
Those worrying about the debt vote for politicians promising massive tax cuts that will make the deficit much worse
Liberals argue against tax increase on anyone but the super rich. But few are willing to sacrifice themselves. Republicans cut tax defuctions so as to hurt democratic states, while passing massive tax cut for republican supporters.
We can bareky keep our military staffed even after lowering standards substantially
We refuse to raise teacher salaries to a level that wouod attract better talent, or to demand programs that have any chance if closing the performance gap of black and Hispanic kids even as they become almost half of all K to 12 students. We use gambling receipts to aboid higher taxes
On and on. No way are we responsible enough to take on anything like climate change. So we deny it or make excuses. And seniors who totally dominate politics know they won’t be here anyway
We are nit up to this challenge. Just move on
2
President Trump is now quoted as saying in response to the new UN/IPCC report that "climate change may be fabulous". I trust the folks in the FLA Panhandle can appreciate this awful irony.
2
Another factor in the prevalence of climate change denial in English-speaking countries is psycho-linguistic practice. In English, we use the "I am whatever" (IAW) construction, which is generative of tribalism around profound issues. In France, Portugal, Germany and many other countries the more common form of self-revealing expression is "I have 'X emotion' now" (IHXEN), which is less generative of tribal ideologies.
1
Trump and most of the Senate are old men. They won’t be around to see the worst effect of climate change so they just plain don’t care.
4
Have we reached a point of no return?
There is too much humidity in the atmosphere. We are burning coal and oil like never before and producing steam in addition to carbon gas.
Take a look at www.flightradar24.com and www.marinetraffic.com.
And then there are all the factories and powerplants using oil or coal. All this add to the natural evaporation from the sea and lakes. Will it be possible to reduce anything? I doubt, because we are now close to 8 billion human beings and everybody wants a decent living. Thus it is impossible to return the climate change.
1
“Al Gore made climate change a Democratic issue.” Huh? Please explain.
2
@Jennifer If Gore or the Clintons embrace it, the republican's reflexively reject it.
1
Who benefits from the burning of fossil fuels? Who denies any of the visible truth or science behind climate change?
1. A huge portion of America's wealthiest including Koch Brothers, Betty DeVos, her brother Eric Prince, Rush Limbaugh, Australian Rupert Murdoch owner of Fox News and they all support Donald Trump.
2. Vladimir Putin, his Oligarch underlings, and their fossil fuel economy
3. Saudi Arabia, Jared Kushner's great friend crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman.
Is anyone seeing the connections?
6
Just this past weekend, I ventured down to Fort Morgan, Alabama with my family. It was sobering to see the massive oil rigs rising from both the Gulf and Mobile Bay. Looking out into the water from my beach chair, there were 16 visible rigs that dotted the horizon, some mere miles off of the coast. From the bay, over seven rigs were visible from the small view off the condo balcony.
Growing up visiting the Jersey Shore, I had never experienced the reality of oil production until Saturday. It broke my heart to see such a beautiful landscape polluted with oil rigs. Of course, it does not escape me the massive amounts of money oil production brings into the economy each year. I understand how reliant our way of life is on the stuff.
Lastly, my fiance works for a petroleum company (downstream). When he started, he was told it was a silent code to donate at least $10 of every paycheck to the company's 'action committee' (LOBBYISTS). It was hinted that if you don't donate, don't expect to see raises, promotions or job security. This is a huge part of the problem with climate deniers in government. We need to get the industry lobbyists out of politics. Nothing is going to change until we do.
FYI: My fiance refuses to be a member and does not donate a penny to the action committee (and believes in climate change / is a liberal... I understand he is a rare breed for that industry)
3
Gotta sent this article out into space in a time capsule with attendant footage of storms and how warming is affecting crop production, people migration, animal migration, increase of pests, melting sea ice, the freeing of permafrost methane etc.
You know for the record to be found by a planetary culture that might wonder what happened to an eden like planet ruled by stupid people.
Do you have children?
4
How about a Save the Planet app that quantifies and compensates users for practicing environmental restraint?
A climate researcher was asked on the BBC how, assuming the long odds that governments will sufficiently approach the issue, an individual can do their part. She mentioned things like cutting out meat, not commuting by car, moving to a smaller home, and being more thoughtful with heat and air conditioning. Lifestyle choices that go beyond Priuses and recycling sound like New Years resolutions destined for failure. But what if there was an app that could quantify those things with the goal of incentivizing people to stick with it? And what if the user could opt in to sharing that data with the IRS and be compensated for it in the form of tax credits? Bicycle commuting, foregoing plastic bags, foregoing meat, all of this is data can be tracked and quantified. A panacea? No. But maybe sufficient to buoy the issue amid the crazy news cycle, and to give people a sense of agency.
2
Mr Kristof concludes that it may be too late. It is too late. Because of lags in the climate system the effects of today's concentrations of greenhouse gases won't be fully felt for decades. Meanwhile concentrations keep increasing. We are inevitably bound to suffer many more catastrophes.
1
OK, maybe climate change is a hoax . I am not a scientist and neither are the disclaimers of this myopic view. It is the politicians who are spouting this every election period. I only know the recent "natural" disasters here in Florida and in California where my children live are examples of something not seen in recent history..ever! What do we have to lose by disproving this denial with world wide actions and precautions? Nothing. Governments will need to spend less now by counteracting the denial/hoax with prevention than on disaster relief for the entire world, if it even exists in the next century. Spend and act now to save our planet.
2
Yes the climate is changing and the reason is global warming.
What has not been established is the why.
We know that there were climate changes in the past that resulted in the ice age.
There was no pollution caused by man so if pollution is the reason now than why did it change in the past.
Pollution may contribute to global warming but most likely not a lot.
Mr. Kristof does not make s case that the pollution causes this climate change.
He assumes if he could prove climate change than he doesn't have to prove the why and if someone like me states pollution is not the reason he would say I am denying Global warming.
I have read that the Magnetic North as we know it has in the past was in the South Pole and what we associate with the South Pole was in the North Pole and that there were no magnetic poles during the period these poles were switching
I have seen no definitive reason to explain why this has happened other than to say the magna in the center of the planet is somehow causing it
https://gisgeography.com/magnetic-north-vs-geographic-true-pole/
I have also read that when this change is made out atmosphere changes as well.
Our outer atmosphere becomes much thinner and with that the suns rays that reach our lower atmosphere is increased
and the climate changes
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/earth-magnetic-field-flip-po...
This is probably the reason we have global warming.
2
Hey Florida!
You have a great Democratic candidate running for governor, Andrew Gillum, who doesn't deny climate change and therefore can actually help to mitigate the potential for y'all to be under water within the next 25 years (unless that is what you want.....?). Admitting the problem is half the battle!
I also suggest sticking with Sen Nelson. Scott still thinks none of this is happening......or worse, he knows it's happening and doesn't care.
8
Nature cares not one whit for the opinions of climate change deniers - she will annihilate them as casually as everyone else. What really steams me, though, is the thought I have to die because of the stupidity, arrogance and willful ignorance of others.
8
Yes, those leaders and celebrities who have mocked and denied climate change may "fade away," when their disastrous lies become too obvious to everyone, but I propose we don't let the roles they played in our destruction disappear. We need to erect a monument at a location which will display each of the names of these self-serving luminaries and their most pithy anti-science quotes, to help us remember forever how they fought efforts to save ourselves.
A location in Florida would be apropos for the memorial, since a lot of expensive Florida real estate is going to submerged by the rising sea level. However, New York City might be another sad and eroded location that would work well.
1
To all the climate change deniers.
What if you’re wrong.
How will you explain your position to your grandchildren and great grandchildren.
Climate change is real, has the potential to cause catastrophic changes to civilization and is already having an effect on the planet. However, by asserting that climate change is responsible for any specific hurricane or flood or other disaster, Nicholas Kristoff is actually hurting the cause. Asserting causality for specific events, in this multi-causal world, must always be couched in probabilities. Even though cigarette smoking has been shown to be a very strong risk factor for lung cancer, we cannot say with certainty that smoking caused lung cancer in any individual person; we know this because even though current smokers are much more likely to develop lung cancer than never-smokers, approximately 20% of people who develop lung cancer have never smoked. (It would be correct that cigarette smoking was a highly probable cause of someone's lung cancer.) Similarly, an appropriate statement about climate change and disasters would say that climate change is increasing the probability of more frequent and more severe hurricanes; it's not appropriate, though, to say that the severity of Hurricane Michael or Hurricane Fran is *caused* by climate change. Why give the climate-change deniers ammunition by making assertions about individual events that are not supportable? Stand on the strong science that we have! Science does not need to be deterministic to be right and to spur action.
@Jeffrey,
I know you are trying to be rational but it really is appropriate to assign causality for increased intensity-- meaning more rain and stronger winds.
It's all about *energy*, as Mann pointed out, and the increase in climate system energy from CO2 is basically universal. So, it doesn't make sense to suggest that "some hurricanes are unaffected" by that energy increase. How would that work? They all pass over the same more energetic (warmer) ocean, and they all draw in the same more humid air.
So, the smoking analogy really doesn't apply.
2
@arty,
I know that you are trying to be rational but I believe you are wrong. There are many hurricanes now that are weak in intensity and there were many hurricanes 100 years ago that were strong in intensity. By your logic, all hurricanes, since they pass over the same warm water, would be strong (or at least are stronger than they would have been hundreds or thousands of years ago) yet that is simply not true. The correct language of science (even of climate science) is probability not determinism. That does not weaken the case for drastic action *now* to try to bend the curve on our warming planet. Trying to assert greater certainty than we have only plays into the hands of climate-change deniers because strong assertions about causality of individual events are easily refuted.
@Jeffrey,
Say we have 20 identical pots of water, sitting on 20 hotplates. Ten of the hotplates (group A) are set 20% higher than the other ten (group B).
One of the pots (Ax) in group A boils before any of the others.
To any physicist, Ax boiling before any of the pots in group B is *because* of the greater energy input.
This is the current situation-- we are not comparing this hurricane with some hypothetical hurricane in the past, we are comparing it with the hurricane that would have occurred on a "parallel Earth" where the climate system energy had not been increased by CO2.
You need to distinguish between random phenomena and chaotic phenomena. Chaotic phenomena are indeed deterministic, even if we can't make predictions about them with absolute certainty.
Yes, warmer water can supercharge hurricanes, and warmer air can hold more moisture and dump more rain, but another effect of climate change you didn't mention is persistent high pressure domes arising from rapid rates of arctic warming.
They create long heat waves and drive the Diablo and Santa Ana winds that drive devastating wildfires in California and the west, but they also keep hurricanes parked in place, as happened in Houston last year, so they dump rain in the same region for days on end instead of circulating north and spreading the rain over a wider area.
2
The GOP seems very willing to roll the dice on many issues, but like "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions, it seems like they are never really wagering their own money or future. It's like they're day-trading with pension funds.
If they are wrong, most climate change denying policy-makers, like Trump (72), McConnell (76), Inhofe (83), Scott (a newbie at 65), etc., are at no risk of sharing in the projected consequences of climate change. They reap the short term and politically expedient gains of reckless deregulation, misinformation and outright corruption, and mock the protests of generations who must pay the butcher's bill.
It's not much different from their billionaire tax cuts, exploding national debt and deficits over the next decade or so. But what do they care about long term consequences? The vast majority of the people who rammed the tax cut through will be WELL beyond the reach of any political consequences by then.
Or take SCOTUS. The architects of the Gorsuch and Kavanaugh appointments have the least long-term stake in SCOTUS. It's just a short-term political game to them. And again, they mock the protests of those who actually have to pay the bill for all their fun.
My point is not that the elderly have no place in government. That's patently ridiculous. My point is that I don't get the sense that I am seeing elderly wisdom from conservative leaders. For all their years and experience, they've never looked more short-sighted and juvenile.
3
The Koch brothers come from Kansas and have homes in many other high and dry areas around the world. When the waters reach their palace in the sky on the Upper East Side , why they'll just buy Morningside Heights. What's all the fuss about?
2
Climate Change is a nonissue for Republicans, the reason is money. Their largest donors are the major Corporations, such as fossil fuels and their hatred of regulations in regard to pollution. Fossil fuels and other big Corporations don't what to pay to clean-up their wastes that damage the environment, air, earth and water. The Republicans agree that these monies are better used to make their donors wealthier. The same model is used in regard to taxes as well and other issues that effect monies.
Therefore, it is unlikely that they will change their mantra of a hoax. Everything that effects their narrative is labeled a lie, so truth is ignored for profit or perpetuation of the party line. The question is if or when the Republican base we notice the truth. Certainly, as long as the clown car keeps the base distracted from the truth all is good.
2
"Stupid is as stupid does." - Forrest Gump's mama.
Miz Gump pretty much sums up the Republican Party's approach to climate change/global warming, abortion/women's rights, coal mining vs solar/wind power, pretty much any and everything that scientific research has revealed over the past 300 years.
Debating with these folks is much like banging your head against the wall. It feels so good when you stop. Eventually, you give up, even when you know you shouldn't.
3
US government leadership is needed to address any issue as large and impactful as Climate Change. The GOP under Trump has not even acknowledged that mankind has an impact on climate. Obama took the first steps toward encouraging a US move toward reducing atmospheric CO2, but all of that is being undone by Trump and his supporters, funded by the Koch brothers.
A November landslide by the Dems, fueled by a desire to turn this tide of inaction and science denial, will cause thinking Republicans to embrace scientific fact and insist on solutions. “If” must no longer be part of the policy dialog. For the GOP, votes drive their version of truth.
2
We all saw how much Trump cared last night.
He flew to Pennsylvania for a rally, because it “wouldn’t be fair to those who stood in line all day” to see him.
I am not suggesting that Trump should have flown to Florida, because he would just get in the way, but he should have spent the night monitoring the situation in Florida and ensuring that needed resources were supplied.
Instead he decided that he needed an ego massage. That his priority.
4
Why hasn’t the CO2 from the fossil fuels we never did run out of escaped the atmosphere through that hole the fluorocarbons were supposed to have burned in the ozone layer?
@Larry Because GHW Bush actually allowed the EPA to implement standards that severely cut back on the amount of CFC's released into the atmosphere. Thus the hole in the ozone layer closed up.
Funny how that works, eh?
1
Kristof makes the same mistake I do in thinking this has anything to do with climate. I’m a scientist, and my Republican neighbors are clear that the “hoax” position is defensive. They know that liberals like me will use any issue to push socialism and globalism. Letting climate change progress is the lesser of two evils.
1
Everything is a hoax. Global warming is a hoax so bad that you can't even use the term anymore. The whole Russia thing, collusion between Trump and Russia, that is a hoax. And all the allegations against Kavanaugh, that is a hoax too. Hoaxes, hoaxes everywhere, whose the real hoaxer?
1
Trump said the climate change issue is nothing more than a money making Industry.
Trump at a rally: https://www.msnbc.com/the-beat-with-ari-melber/watch/see-the-climate-rep...
Trump’s statement actually could be a great boon for Trump. Instead of pining for the good ole days of coal and fossil fuel, the government could subsidize and promote alternative energy sources. Thus creating new jobs for those lost in the coal and oil industries.
This is a time which is ripe for entrepreneurs (like those leaders in the 80s in the tech industry) to really build something for the future without submitting to the big $$$ buyouts by fossil fuel companies to quash the entrepreneurs.
It seems at this point responsible people need to look beyond politics and profits and build something sustainable to get us off fossil fuel.
Maybe first thing to consider is not jetting all over the world for your holidays. How about some beautiful spot in a neighbouring town or better yet, spend time with your family.
And lastly - enough with these SUV and mega tonne trucks. Remember in the 70s when after the oil crisis, little gas cars became the norm some getting 30-40 mpg.
In my book we need to phase out vehicles that run on fossil fuel, and fossil fuel should be used only in the transportation industry with a target date to replace all those engines too.
Lastly, humans need to stop having children. We need to attend to our Mother
1
I find the thumbs up or thumbs down feature on this page alarming, almost offensive. This is not Facebook, please don't stoop to this dumbing down level of critique.
If enough trolls click thumbs down, perhaps prompted to come to this page to do just that with a link on a Breitbart message board will you then publish less on climate change?
Or is Nicholas Kristof who has long published important essays on events and causes that question man's inhumanity to man suddenly responsible for proving his popularity? People will thumbs up good news. That's natural, but they still need to hear about issues like Female Genital Mutilation and Famine in Yemen fueled by our support for the Saudi Invasion there.
Please don't make the Times a thumbs up or down experience. There are better ways to survey readers interest.
2
Climate deniers like Limbaugh and the SCP are in the pay of capitalists whose one concern is profits. Anything that stops them from increasing profits is an enemy - climate science will, they fear, decrease profits. So .. they attack the science and peddle fantasy. And they pay millions of dollars in bribes, oh pardon me .. campaign contributions, to make sure that the Congress does nothing to stop them.
1
Major hurricanes strike the United States today at the same rate that they have over the past 100 years. The hoax is anyone attributing this storm to global warming. funny how you listen to the climate experts whenever they are alarmist, but ignore them when they say hurricane strikes and major hurricane strikes have not increased.
2
It is about time the oceans reclaim what was theirs. Sorry humans you are no longer required for the survival of the planet. You won't listen to science (that God made possible) or the Supreme
Being you listen only to money & greed. Time for a shift in power, extinction event, & restart with a clean planet.
2
You know what the right-wing evangelicals say... "the best trees are in heaven!"
When that's the kind of attitude one has toward the environment, hellish storms are just a stepping stone to paradise.
It really doesn't get much more stupid than that.
2
It's complicated, a lot more complicated than this column. Beware of anyone making an argument about sweeping climate change based on a single hurricane season, or a decade of temperature trends or a century of ice core readings. The early American colonists report massive hurricanes, which we believe were category 3 or 4, in 17th century New England! Global climate patterns cannot be seen in time intervals of a year, a decade or a century. Which is why all of the global climate catastrophes forecasted by Al Gore, M. Mann and others have been a bust. When humans guess--even well educated and certified humans--we are expressing bias.
1
There are too many people in the world chasing too few resources. Capitalism necessitates that economies keep expanding, that growth is much desired and we consumers demand the lowest-cost products available. All this means large corporations in the U.S., China, Europe and everywhere else look for the lowest cost of production. Carbon-based fuels, especially Trump's coal is as cheap as it gets. We are all 30 years too late. We can't even agree on a carbon tax structure in Canada. We are fiddling and the earth is burning. Baby boomers unwittingly decided we would take everything down with us.
1
Bringing the snowball into the Senate proves the point that winters still happen, and are still very cold. As long as I've heard about 'global warming' it's time for winters to start warming. Seriously, if the average temperature is rising, that should include winters. 'Open winters will definitely convince climate skeptics. (Sure it will be too late to do anything about it, but it will convince the skeptics.)
1
Last time I checked, no hurricane asked if we are Republicans or Democrats. A while back, top climate scientists had a problem. It was not if we were causing the problem. It was how to phrase the memo so that we understood the catastrophe that is unfolding. Of course we don't see it because it is similar to that hurricane that just hit. It begins slowly and then it is too late. These scientists have been telling us for decades and we have not been listening. For those over 40, ask yourself if politicians are rolling the dice with your kids and grandkids. For those who believe in climate change, ask what difference it would make if we did make the changes and the world's biggest polluter (China and rest of Asia), kept on building coal plants. I am sorry but it is not helpful to further divide us. We need nuclear power stations. (Let's see how that goes over.) We need infrastructure so that electric and hydrogen cars can recharge. We need incentives. We place serious tariffs based on carbon dumping. There are ways to do this but the will has to be there. Education is needed. No fake news from animal stations.
I keep hearing before it's too late. Might we already be too late. Not an excuse for doing nothing, but we keep saying there is little time left to avert catastrophe.
2
@Tomas O'Connor
I'm coming to the point of thinking the sooner humans are extinct, the better for this poor planet. Too bad we are going to take so many other fine species with us.
5
I would bet that many of these politicians who deny climate change simply don't want to work on fighting it. They would rather get rich, "play" politics, and let the climate do what it is going to do. I believe that they are of a mind that it's too far gone to fix, so they deny.
1
I agree with what you wrote, and it even made me laugh (in a sardonic way) in a few places. The trouble is, in this venue, you are basically preaching to the choir.
1
I hope someone is keeping a registry of climate deniers, name, occupation, employer, est. salary/remuneration and heirs.
1
I agree. And taking one point a bit further... Mr. Kristof say correctly that climate change "is uncertain." What almost always escapes the discussion is that scientists usually report their results by citing a precise number, and then framing it with a "confidence interval" much like political polls will announce their estimate "plus or minus" a few percentage points. The bottom line--republicans seize on the precise number scientists report, but we are just as likely to see worse outcomes as better.
2
Climate change deniers have looked at this issue for a long time and have decided that this is the world that they want their grandchildren and great grandchildren to live in. Greed kills.
5
"You can't fix Stupid" . . .
We just have to Out-Vote Them !
4
One Chinese hoax right after another.
3
If you live in Florida, are suffering from the effects of this latest hurricane, and you voted for Trump, I have absolutely no sympathy for you.
After all, you voluntarily supported an ignorant, mentally unfit man who denies the existence of climate change. You knew what he believed, and you knew he was lying when he said that climate change wasn't real, or that it was a Chinese hoax.
You weren't hoodwinked. You weren't feeling "left behind". You knew you were electing an ignorant buffoon who would do nothing but make living in this country much more dangerous for many millions of us -- whether it be from climate change, from hate crimes, or white males now given license to rape women.
So I have absolutely no concerns about your suffering. You brought this on yourselves. And worse, you brought all this on the rest of us. We knew your "president" was an ignorant man, wholly unfit for the office of presidency, and yet we are also paying the price for your willful ignorance, your bigotry, your xenophobia.
You made your bed. Now lie in it.
9
Republicans would deny the science that says viruses cause colds if the Koch Brothers gave them enough money to do so or it got them votes. As long as stupidity pays we will have to suffer stupid politicians.
6
Hell hath no fury like global warming scorned. Called a hoax or fake news, she musters winds and water from all corners of the earth and unleashes them. For her revenge, she stirs up tsunamis and cataclysms and sets them lose. But the fools still deny her until she buries them in Pompeian ash.
3
An op-ed writer is now a climate Ph.D. Hurricane frequency and intensity is now higher now than in the 1930's and tornado frequency this year is at a record low. Ongoing Times histrionics fill white space on screens and paper. They do nothing to advance science.
2
The morons are impossible to have a discussion with. I tried on social media and they shout and just do not reason. They are simply anti-brain and self destructive. At some point you cannot argue the person off of the tall building.
7
Denying climate science (or evolution for that matter), works nicely for these Red State voters -- low to no state taxes and a grossly disproportionate % of federal monies. They put their kids in danger; the first responders; their pets and livestock -- but they will do absolutely NOTHING but suck on the teat of the big gobmint, and complain about Hillary and the "elites".
4
On the news just now the president was asked if it’s appropriate for him to hold a rally tonight in Pennsylvania. He replied that he didn’t want to disappoint his crowd who’d been waiting all night and day to hear him speak. And there you have it: it’s about him, only him, no one else matters, storms be damned.
5
I don't have a spare planet, do you? #nospareplanet
3
I’ll tell you one thing about these Chinese Hoax’s they are getting good at it.
3
Well, I guess the people have to see it for themselves, and then they can put the screws to their elected officials.
Perhaps we should steal a title from a classic by Prince and alter it slightly. Let's party like its 2039. In 2040, at the current rate, we'll all be drowning or going up in flames. By then, all the idiots who did nothing to prevent this disaster will be dead....which will be reason enough to have one last good party.
The climate change deniers who refuse to help mitigate the effects of climate change by pretending that reality is, now, optional remind me of an old joke. A pastor at a church in Destin Florida is stranded on his front porch by the rising sea levels, when a rescue worker floats by on a canoe and offers to transplant him, the preacher tells him he is not worried God will provide for him. Two hours later another boat comes by with a similar offer but the pastor, now on the second floor in his house, tells them he is not afraid because God will provide for him. Three hours into the storm the pastor is on his roof and a helicopter is sent to retrieve him when he waves it off and tells the police not to worry God would provide for him. Needless to say the holy man dies in the flood and when he meets his maker he asks God why he didn't provide for him, to which God replies, "You idiot, I sent you two boats and a helicopter.". Anyone who denies Climate Change this late in the game, when the science is being proven in real time, is tempting the fates and the fates don't suffer fools well.
4
Or maybe God is trying to kill Trump and all of the members when they are at Mara Lago.
How much more pain do Floridians need to endure from Rick Scott before they finally give him the boot? This man has dragged Florida back several decades and is as ignorant as a pile of rocks. Now he wants to add to the Inhoffe caucus of idiot climate change deniers and supporters of the Koch Brothers fossil fuel empire.
Please, Florida voters, don't export this poisonous dolt to the national level where he will torture all the rest of us.
8
Not only is Trump's deliberate stupidity a crime against Americans, it is also a crime against the 7 billion other citizens of this planet.
It will be the worst thing this God-awful man left us with.
6
You just don't get it nor want to accept it.
Even if we succeeded in convincing the GOP about climate change and took actions to reduce it, there simply is no practical, realistic, serious solution to fix the problem nor the time nor the will. The realistic climate scientists deep down know this to be the case, and some have written about it.
Think of climate change as a giant oil tanker at sea increasing speed, and then you suddenly see land in front of you, but you cannot just stop it immediately it takes time, lots of time. Climate change is the hyper-worse-case scenario of this phenomena.
We are out of time, and all these climate models are too optimistic, that is why they are always adjusting them to shorten the time and increase the effects.
The "can do spirit" is not going to save our butts here. We should have seriously started this in the 1960's.
"We can try sustainable development and renewable energy, and we can try geoengineering to help the Earth self-regulate. We can do these things with the same certainty that our eighteenth-century ancestors had about the power of mercury, arsenic or blood-letting to cure their diseases. Just as they failed utterly, so I think we also are not yet clever enough to handle the planet-sized problem and stop the Earth from over-heating."
James Lovelock
As E.O. Wilson points out, “Darwins dice have rolled badly for Earth.”
2
I'm sure Trump will try to blame Hurricane Michael on the Democrats.
3
Clearly God's righteous wrath coming down on the supporters of an adulterous, draft-dodger who colludes with a Commie atheist.
Or it might just be what the scientists have been saying for the past 20 plus years.
Your choice trumpets...
3
With 3 weeks to go until the election, I hope Democrats will use these storms to alert voters of the Trump - Republican insanity!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." (Att. Jefferson, etc)
1
He should send a bill to the Chinese. They certainly caused this to perpetuate their climate change hoax.
2
@ Maurice Gatien... What the heck are you talking about?
Don’t have children. They will face a truly hellish future.
2
Hey Donald: I'm sure that you can provide comfort to your supporters in Florida by simply declaring Hurricane Michael "fake news".
3
There was no hurricane where I live, therefore FAKE NEWS! It's just lazy people looking for a handout!
1
The Chinese Hoax is NEITHER. “ Believe “ as you wish, but your House is still destroyed. Think about THAT.
2
I'm glad humanity wasn't too late 40 years ago when CFCs began to deplete the Ozone layer leaving humanity more exposed to radiation, especially in the southern hemisphere. We aren't too late now so long as people understand Republicans have become a party that embraces a Middle Age contempt for science with climate and a host of other issues.
3
Spread your intellect around and find some differing views on hurricane frequency, their causation and what you can do about them.
http://www.climatedepot.com/2018/09/13/new-science-says-hurricanes-are-d...
Democratics should go back to using the term pollution. Back in the sixties and seventies everyone was in agreement that we needed to make our water and air safe. Many Climate-Change ideas would also help with plane old pollution and most people get what pollution is.
3
Nicholas, you are correct about those that call climate change a hoax will fade away. As will most(all) of the rest of us!
Be kind to those you meet, and even those you despise...I don’t think you’ll have too many years with them. A BOE, which we will likely see in the next few years change everything. Climate/weather unpredictability will rip up everything we have built.
Try to love one another.
Very sloppy, Mr. Kristof. You of all people should know that there is no scientific way to link individual weather events to global climate change. This kind of essay fuels the denial movement.
2
I hate big govt,oh wait come save me with those big govt resources.
3
For all God-fearing folks looking for a sign from God to guide us, what bigger sign does it take to make us listen to Him? He's sent one after the other of more and more destructive heat fueled massive storms to warn us of our sins . . . storms combining to yield destruction on a biblical scale around the globe.
He doesn't make it complicated science for us to understand. If we fill the air with more and more carbon from cars to smokestacks it'll trap the sun's heat just like the glass does in a greenhouse. And, there's more carbon in the air now than there has been since human beings first walked the earth. We're sinfully putting it there and giving each new storm more and more heat energy to destroy us for that sin.
The bible is clear. God helps those who help themselves. What are all of us doing to say to our politicians to stop playing games with us by telling us "oh, don't worry. Just vote for me and I'll collect your tax money to pay me to say things like 'The weather's always changing'" to make us feel better. Of course it is. But, this not the kind of hot one day, cold the next forecast. This is the total world's climate that's getting hotter and hotter.
We all need to follow God's signs for us . . . help stop destroying our world, and particularly everyone's grandchildren's world, by, as always, not wasting more, but putting less and less carbon into the air from where we live, work, and play and taking more and more out with everything we build or plant.
148
@Max from Mass
"The bible is clear. God helps those who help themselves. What are all of us doing to say to our politicians to stop playing games with us by telling us "oh, don't worry. Just vote for me and I'll collect your tax money to pay me to say things like 'The weather's always changing'" to make us feel better. "
Max, what you do is support and vote for the politicians who are campaigning on the platform of urgently and seriously dealing with climate change. It's that simple.
2
@Sheila C
I agree! That's the "bottom line" for speaking to our politicians. And, I'll add, we should help our fellow citizens understand the reality and cast their ballots.
1
@Max from Mass I appreciate your faith, but how did the "Intelligent Designer" fail to factor humans into "his" plans for Earth? Unless this is another one of those "Free Will" deals used to bridge the gap between fairy tales and reality.
If people who deny climate change could read, they should read a history of lead in paint and how absolutely derelict both government and industry were before the lead was removed from paints. The same story is happening now with the burning of fossil fuels...the consequences far greater.
8
Mr. Kristof's style of skewed thinking would have been appropriate to the staff of advisors employed by the legendary King Canute.......who marched to the coastline and commanded the tides to stop. Such is Mr. Kristof's narrow concept of the universe. He seems to advocate that we freeze our society in the weather of yesteryear, pretending that climates never change,,,,if we just try hard enough we can maintain the weather and the climate exactly as we have always known it. OK, the climate is changing because of humans.....DUH. Sorry, thats the only sane answer to Mr. Kristofs insane accusation....of course the climate is changing because of human development....beavers cause changes to the climate too......so do insects, so do all the creatures of the unverse!! That doesnt mean we stop all human development. Instead, we should be working on new ways to ADAPT to the changes we create. Mr. Kristof is stuck in a time warp that is destructive.....not constructive.
3
@Wherever Hugo
Yes humans as well as other animals and natural phenomena affect climate change. That observation is not helpful to the discussion. Given that there are a number of factors, the fact remains that we are the only species on this planet that can do anything about it. And reducing carbon emissions is the clearest, most direct method to reduce the consequences of a warming planet. Adaptation is a lovely thought until you realize that humans cannot exist as a species outside of a very specific temperature range. As the temperature rises crop lands will cease to produce food, millions will be displaced, natural disasters from hurricanes to wild fires will increase, perversely while there will be more water in the atmosphere large areas will be turned into desserts. As we speak Cape Town South Africa has a date in the near future where they will run out of water. California has been through years of drought. When these changes become wide spread mass migration and wars over food and water will exist. Mass extinction will occur. Is this your idea of adaptation? If we take measures now we can change this course. In your idea we are heading toward a cliff and we should just keep going and grow wings on the way down. Sorry...I’d,rather put on the breaks and try to change course...because humans can’t adapt that quickly.
1
@Wherever Hugo may be so but it is at the expense of millions who will perish.
1
@Wherever Hugo
Astounding logic! Twisted and self-defeating, but astounding!
What you are basically saying is that we should NOT stop the devastation after having identified the cause for it AND having in hand all the economy- and prosperity-growing solutions to stop and reverse it, but instead prepare for living with the catastrophe, lower living standards, war and disease. Because the latter will follow the climate catastrophe as surely as night is following day.
Boggles my mind, really.....
3
The deniers will not change their positions. They will just find something they oppose (judge) to blame it on & call it god's wrath & they will be believed by far too many ignorant, gullible people. Trashing the environment is just too profitable & nitwit potus is making it more so on an almost daily basis. The only hope for bringing Florida around is the total weather-related ruination of their citrus & tourism industries. That might get their attention. Let's just hope it's not already too late.
3
The Red Tide which engulfed Florida’s coasts and wetlands seriously affected Florida tourism this year. Hopefully, the citizens of Florida will remember that Governor Rick Scott earlier had slashed funding for environmental protections and water management by $700 million, as Scott is now running against incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson for Senator. Senator Bill Nelson had implored Scott to take action for years to prevent an environmental disaster.
Unfortunately, in Trumpian fashion, Scott and Trump are now blaming Nelson, even though it is Scott and the Republicans in Tallahassee who control Florida’s budget. Will Florida voters believe Trump and “Red Tide Rick” and vote out Nelson? I guess we will know on November 7th.
2
Burn coal today and bail water tomorrow. Ask those poor residence of Mexico Beach, FL about clean coal and they might explain that it stained the water to a dark putrid color up to my chest in our living room. And, what was these forecasters thinking?, "extremely well organized hurricane crossing the shallow hot waters of the Gulf of Mexico" four days ago and not screaming: "this sucker storm will intensify substantially before landfall". The track of this Michael (Bullet) intersected the warmer currents nearest the shallow, warmer water and injected that moisture like a fuel injector and cyclonic turbocharger. And, what was these Florida officials thinking: "stay if you like because we know you're stubborn". Residence should have got on a bus to Erie, PA and donned their MAGA hats and attended the Trump rally. They could have discovered a place as redneck as the Panhandle (and stayed there) and gained employment in the Clean Coal industry.
2
I guess Trump even the day after, believes that "Michael" decimating part of Florida is a "hoax" otherwise he would be in Florida within 24 hrs and not babbling in Erie, PA incoherently. What a delusion.
5
And the Republicans and Trump don’t care.
4
Our 'stable genius' continually hits himself in the head and only slowly wonders why it hurts so much...
This is the GOP's approach to climate change and the American people are suffering for it...
The willful ignorance, nay STUPIDITY, of the GOP is hastening disasters like Florence & Michael...
But the GOP doesn't care ... and so it goes...
Vote on November 6th, Vote for the Common Good, Vote for the constitution of knowledge, Vote against the self-serving liars...
4
Florida's future:
When our South and south of the border
are no longer fit for human kind,
when the seas engulf our coasts,
Florida's peaks fathoms deep
or tiny hopeful islets,
we will look to Trump's Tomb,
a golden pyramid atop Trump Tower,
waves licking at the umpteenth floor.
8
If the link between cigarette smoking and lung cancer were first emerging now, what would the Trump administration position be on this issue?
Denial. A hoax. Proof lacking.
7
Well that’s too bad....the citizens of the great state of Florida have helped elect two of the worst global warming deniers into the office of the president. So you reap what you sow....or in this case, you swim in what you sow. Thanks Florida!
5
Republicans treat hurricane tragedies like gun violence tragedies. They’re quick with “Thoughts and prayers” and with “Now is not the time to talk about global warming.”
In the words of our noble leader, “Sad.”
Vote, vote, vote in November!
3
Don’t confuse Floridians with facts. As homes flood and blow away, people are dug in with their MAGA caps while anxiously waiting for the power to come back so they can tune in Rush and his hate-filled rants. Trump is supposed to be on his way to Florida and will no doubt blame the storm on Mexicans and the lefties rioting in the streets. No blaming global warming. And so the blinders will not be coming off anytime soon, if ever.
5
A tradgedy for sure for all those in the path of this hurricane. The Florida panhandle is deep, deep, red Trumpland. Southwest Georgia not quite as red. Perhaps King MAGA can explain the Chinese hoax, aka climate change, when he holds a paper towel throwing rally to his adoring voters in Florida next week.
5
Ok Nicholas. You've convinced me.
Now, what is it you want from me?
Let me guess....just one. Money.
Am I right? You need more of my money.
That's what liberals want to combat all of their perceived issues. More money. Tell me exactly how you will cool the planet with my money and perhaps I will give you some. Otherwise stop the whining.
By the way. Do you drive a car Nicholas? Shame on you.
@Jerome
Yes Jerome, in the short term it will cost us money.
Yes, we'll need to use more fuel efficient vehicles (nothing wrong with saving money on fuel is there?), at the same time reducing carbon emissions and saving petroleum for future generations.
Not bad, three wins with one action.
Now, let's stop using fossil fuels to generate electricity, hydraulic, nuclear, photo-voltaic and wind can all replace coal and natural gas for power generation.
Cleaner air, lower carbon emissions, and more job creation if we're smart enough to get on the band wagon now and develop and sell our technology to other countries.
Now, let's also consider fuel for heating buildings, how about reducing losses by insulation, window and door replacement and stricter building codes.....Gee, now we can save fuel, reduce pollution, create more jobs for low E building products and installation service, as well as export our better building products to other countries.
You see Jerome, reducing fossil fuel consumption should be the Conservative mantra because of all the benefits and economic opportunities. Unfortunately, many Conservatives fail to see the forest for the trees, locked in a myopic "woe is me" and "I can't think of anything to do" mentality.
Time to put the thinking cap on, as well as the work gloves and get started building the future.
4
When Sandy hit New York City, those God-Fearing Christian Evangelicals claimed it was God's wrath wreaked on Sin City.
Where are they now, after Houston, North Carolina and Florida all got hammered by hurricanes and epic floods? Is this God's Wrath on those state that helped elect the Orange Travesty?
Of course it isn't.
But human-induced climate change?
Nah----it must be that George Soros paid for these hurricanes! Yeah, that's the ticket...
7
Yeah, because Florida has never been hit by a hurricane before.
2
Climate science is not a liberal conspiracy.
2
It sounds like these southern climate-deniers would be pretty lucky to find a dry patch of sand to bury their heads in.
3
The attack against climate change denial simply has not been loud enough, the idiocy of climate change skeptics has not been made plain enough, and the graft of political corruption that has maintained this foolhardy charade of disavowal has not been denounced harshly enough. Idiot like Jim Inhofe are allowed to chair the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. The Kochs spend hundreds of millions to disinform the public and undermine the political process with dark money in the name of pure greed. Trump happily plays Nero while the planet burns.
Simply, we either rip this house of entrenched foolishness down by all means necessary, or the planet dies.
3
La-La-La-La they can't hear you!!! Not in Florida, not in Texas, not anywhere in Trumpland!!! Harris County was flooded throughout, but we're Houston Strong and Heaven forbid we should limit development on our (former) floodplains, worry about the rising temperatures in the Gulf or, oh horror, raise taxes for flood control.
5
Almost no state is as vulnerable to the environmental changes wrought by climate change than Florida. Yet the idiots who live there continue to elect politicians who claim its a hoax. Also, because of steal tariffs it will probably be more expensive to rebuild this time. My empathy is wearing thin.
4
In my experience, yes, the dreaded anecdote, those I know who deny climate change are the stupidest. Without exception.
Yes, climate change is natural, but the man made component is accelerating the changes. Lugnuts just can’t understand the difference between velocity and acceleration.
2
I have reflected on your column and I really wonder which side I’m on
In the 1960’s (yes 1960s) my mom who had hiked in the Swiss Alps said she was worried the glaciers were melting and had heard reports to that fact. My family ignored her — she can be eccentric
In the 1980s she worried that everyone driving was causing pollution. We went on driving
In the 1990s she thought we all should switch to solar — we thought it was too expensive and too much of a hassle
She’s 93 now and doesn’t talk about climate and the environment any more. That silence is frightening—it’s like you say I think we thought that by ignoring her the problems would go away. Now her warnings are gone but we still have the problems.
9
@Hopeful
Great comment, thanks for posting.
Your mother was a wise woman and I'm betting a very positive influence on your life, and those around her.
I wish I had been lucky enough to know her, hope you're now carrying the torch.
1
We obviously have an immoral and moronic leadership right now (president, congress, and supreme court), but at some point, hopefully, intelligent people will finally take back the reins of government.
At that point, I want the people who cynically supported climate deniers to fill their own pockets while destroying the planet and indirectly massacring thousands or millions, to be held accountable. I want our future government going after the heirs of the Koch brothers and strip them from all their ill-gotten wealth to be used to (ever so slightly) mitigate the disastrous consequences of their ancestors' mendacity. We don't allow Nazi descendants to keep Jewish art their grandparents pilfered. Likewise, we should take away any of the wealth accumulated by the Koch brothers, the bought and paid for climate denying politicians, and those coal robber barons. Oh, and the Trump family of course!
4
Hey Red States: keep voting for the party that says global warming is a hoax. Same party that says evolution is a hoax. Same states who have the worst educational scores. Who to believe: 1000 'left-wing, egg-head scientists', or Rush Limbaugh?
9
The latest messages from the Oval Office:
Break out the $300 champagne. We've past the tipping point. It's too late to do anything about global warming. Let us all who can afford it enjoy ourselves while we can.
Nihilism joins Bannon/Evola facism as wisping about in the Oval Office ether.
1
Even the proverbial frog that finds itself in water being gradually brought to a boil will, as it turns out, eventually jump out before it cooks. The question is, will we?
3
Tornadoes are down, hurricanes are down, temperatures are lower!
Biomass is up, crop yields are up, biodiversity is up!
Climate change is a crazy concocted hoax created by the left to take over energy, therefore the means of production.
The back door to socialism!
Why is it so hard for some Republicans to believe that climate change is real and caused by human beings?!
I read recently (probably in this NYTimes) that we knew about as much of climate science in the 1970s as we know now. In other words, we've been fighting this climate science DENIAL for over 40 years! Why??!!
Since when has science become a democratic issue? Just like most of what the GOP pushes out-- white fragility, misogyny, indifference to sexual abusers, and so on-- they push their opposition to science!
2
Hurricane Michael was a hoax.
The Standard White House Reply to an inconvenient truth is a lie so "colossal" that no one would believe that someone "could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously" (as someone once said... I forget. Was it maybe Huckabee-Sanders?)
3
Florida Panhandle citizens voted for Trump in 2016, and will likely vote for Republican Rick Scott who is running against incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson for Senator. You can be sure that Trump will have FEMA helping the citizens affected by Hurricane Michael, at least until November 6th.
5
@Katherine McGilvray
There was no Hurricane Michael. But if there was, you can be sure Bill Nelson's response to it was shameful and inadequate, and he actually prevented FEMA from helping. But FEMA did a terrific job. Only one death!!
"Climate change may be the most important issue we face, reshaping our children’s world."
You know what could greatly alleviate that statement? Stop having children! Suppress your hardwired drive to procreate and leave a better world for those creatures (including fellow humans) who live in that world.
1
Okay, all your climate change deniers, no more cell phones or computers or modern medical interventions for you.
Not to mention motor vehicles or kitchen appliances. Walk to your next destination and wash those dishes in the nearest unpolluted river you can find.
After all, if you deny science in the discussion about climate, should you, to be logically consistent, deny science in every other part of your life.
Yeah, thought you'd say that. (Hypocrites.)
3
"Climate change may be the most important issue we face, reshaping our children’s world." May? May? Children left alone on the freeway may get run over. You got another planet in mind?
2
Look where the hurricane originated:
Castro's Communist Cuba.
It thrives on hot air: Nelson and Cullim exude tons per day.
It cannot be due to the deity: he loves America.
It is clear that it has been supported by George Soros and the Pelosi/Feinstein/Waters/Warren Dims.
My sympathies to the victims, I rebuilt after Hurrincan Iniki (9/11/92). The area will be flooded with with insurance company adjusters looking to settle NOW without viable bids and estimates for repairs. Get yourself a generator.....it may be awhile before power is restored. At least the area is not located in the middle of big water from an ocean perspective.
1
"Tribalism took over, and climate skepticism became part of the Republican creed."
That's all you really need to know. The current GOP is evil. Vote.
4
Those pesky Chinese. Seriously, the inconvenience of flooding, fires, etc. doesn't begin to scratch the surface of the devastation we are unleashing as we continue to ignore this issue. I would think even the most selfish and narcissistic among us would still care about their children's and grandchildren's futures. Apparently I am mistaken.
4
The heart of the matter is Democrats believe in science and when 99 percent of credentialed scientists tell us climate change is real and accelerating, Democrats choose to listen.
On the other side are Republicans for sale, Evangelical Christians who happily want the End of Days sooner than later, CEO's of polluting industries, CEO's who favor gasoline engines, CEO's of coal mines, CEO's of oil companies.
Some of these people don't believe in science, they have their religious myths and believe Jesus will either end mankind in a ball of fire while saving the believers, or save the planet out of mercy. Either way they can't be bothered with climate change.
Some of these people actually believe in science. They depend on science to maximize their profits and for that reason they choose to ignore science when it tells them their pursuit of profit is causing irreversible harm. They have the Trump "me first" attitude, which also extends to not only not caring for others but includes not caring for their children's children.
I've heard it said by others and I am beginning to believe that we as a nation must stop funding FEMA (Republicans, think how much we can and will save in the federal budget!!) and stop raising charitable funds to bail out disaster survivors who are climate change naysayers.
I know, that sounds pretty harsh. But tough love may be what climate change naysayers need more than the government rebuilding their homes.
3
Has to bother Rick Scott now, if Bill Nelson makes it clear that Rick purged the words referring to climate change from official Florida vocabularies.
2
4 Sunny days in the past 4 months in the Northeast and yet the GOP Big Muddy says to push on
1
I'm just curious as to how many of these holier-than-thou climate crusaders like Mr. Kristof have actually taken the first step and removed themselves from the evil carbon-based power grid. Have you given up your cars? Quit riding on airplanes? Stopped charging you cell phones? No? Well...then you--not Donald Trump--are actually making the problem worse.
1
Don't believe in an afterlife but still wish there were some way to force the Limbaugh types and their followers to realize their selfish willful ignorance,
To borrow a phrase from the National Rifle Association, my thoughts and prayers are with all of the Republicans victims of Hurricane Michael who have expressed the belief that man-made climate change is a hoax.
4
Certain Republicans can call Climate Change a hoax or use junk science to support their ridiculous theories to keep the attention of a minority of Americans.
Mother Nature has a way of focusing ones attention on the problem at hand. She’s trying quite hard to focus our attention right now.
So while certain Republicans are proclaiming “nothing to see here move along,” most people realize there are changes underway in our climate.
As the climate grows warmer and warmer certain Republicans will be reduced to the character played by Kevin Bacon in Animal House. As the situation devolves into more dire circumstances one can almost imagine them running through the chaos caused by climate change wringing their hands and imploring everyone to remain calm.
But by then it will probably be too late.
Poo Tee Weet!
3
In the 1948 movie "Key Largo", Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall are held prisoner by a gangster, Edward G. Robinson, in a hotel during a hurricane. Robinson is a sadistic thug but when the storm really starts howling and rattling the shutters he betrays a sudden panic. "You don't like it, do you Rocco, the storm? Show it your gun, why don't you? If it doesn't stop, shoot it." taunts Bogart's character. I think of this scene when I imagine what many of the well-heeled deniers would do when placed in such a situation. When these events occur, they are always at some safe remove from which to proclaim their skepticism. Eventually, there will be no escape, not even for them, and they will be wetting their pants, waving their guns at the storm.
5
@stan continople "...they will be wetting their pants, waving their guns at the storm." from the parapets of Mar a Logo and Trump Tower.
1
You can't fix stupid - especially if you vote for it.
To make a serious start on addressing climate change, the first step is to remove the Republican Party from power at every level down to dogcatcher. Vote them out, while you still can.
For those who are afraid we can't afford to do something about climate change, a recent paper in Nature estimates the US experiences $250 billion in social costs from carbon a year. Killing the Trump tax cuts would be a good start on finding the money to do what we must do or face collapse.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-018-0282-y
6
‘There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know’ - John Heywood, 1546
I grew up in the halcyon days of the 1950's when the expectation was simply that your children would have a better life than you had. This time is over.
Now, we see a hollowing out of the middle class with people eating the proverbial seed corn. Investment in our future is down, income inequality is way up, lifespan is dropping. People turn to drugs in a search for relief of any kind.
The world we claim to love is turning on us because we continue to disrespect it. Here's a newsflash: you cannot "throw anything away". That six pack plastic ring joins the flotilla of plastic waste killing our sea life. The sewage we produces fertilizes the algae giving us red tide. The CO2 we increasingly spew out will cook us all and then drown any coastal survivors.
The tagline of an old ad still applies: "It's not nice to fool Mother Nature". She bats last.
3
These are not 'natural' disasters. They are 'manmade'.
While coal is high I would bet that it is being hocked for all it is now worth, to be walked away from by the hucksters with protection in bankruptcy.
The suckers holding the paper will be the ultimate climate change deniers.
Improvise
Adapt
Overcome
Darwin’s theory applies to all species; humans are not an exception.
Time to party like it’s 1999.
Here we go again - yet another piece in the liberal MSM about “climate change”, aka “global warming”.
I am NOT a climate change “denier”, the usual PC crowd slander to discredit anyone who disagrees with their fanatical beliefs as they pray at the cult church of climate change. (BTW - just ignore millions starving around the world.)
No, I am a skeptic of HUMAN MADE climate change being the SOLE cause of on-going climate transformation.
There was a time when there were no polar ice caps. There was a time during various ice ages when snow mass covered the earth down as far as here in NYC. So taking readings from the last 100 years or so for a planet that has been morphing for millions of years is pure nonsense - and completely non-scientific, as is the wont with human hubris.
There are a lot of things we can do to improve and confront our man-made conditions in the face of climate change, such as eliminating flood insurance, moving inland, being smarter in our design of homes and building, using an adaptive mix of renewable and fossil fuels, etc.
Yet, the biggest impact we can have is never mentioned. That is - we need to reduce humankind’s global presence massively, that is from 7+ billion humans to under 1 billion. How we get there - population control, plague, massive deaths from coastal flooding - is irrelevant. But, until we do that, every other effort is delusional and hubris.
2
“One Mississippi home flooded 34 times in 32 years, resulting in payouts totaling almost 10 times what the home was worth.”
Let me guess, Trump voter who hates welfare owns that house.
3
Glad to see Mr. Smart Mouth is back at it. Glass houses - glass houses.
They are not denying that the climate is changing; they just don't care. Christian conservatives believe that climate change is God's will. It fits into their end-of-times eschatology. They go to church; their pastor tells them they will be saved; and climate scientists don't believe; so what they say doesn't matter. We are being taken over a cliff by religious zealots.
2
the Tyrannical Tribe will never admit they're wrong, not even if the Republican Senate Caucus were standing on the roof of the Capital, hanging onto the Statue of Freedom, while awaiting helicopter rescue from the rising floodwaters
1
Let’s just remember that we need this planet way more than it needs us. Mother Nature can shed us like a snake outgrows its old skin.
1
There is an answer, we can all take lessons from the Amish. They know how to make it work.
1
For those who actually look at evidence as compared to spouting leftist propaganda... google The largest Hurricane study ongoing by the NOAA
To ecofreaks... go ahead... I dare you.
Hurricanes actually show a slight downward trend since 1900 for both number and intensity Quote...
The evidence for an upward trend is even weaker if we look at U.S. landfalling hurricanes, which even show a slight negative trend beginning from 1900 or from the late 1800s (Figure 3, blue curve). Hurricane landfalling frequency is much less common than basin-wide occurrence, meaning that the U.S. landfalling hurricane record, while more reliable than the basin-wide record, suffers from degraded signal-to-noise characteristics for assessing trends.
1
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims. But out of respect for the victims it is too early to discuss this topic.
3
Look, everybody knows man made climate change is real, but we are still going to burn all the oil, and all the coal. In 500 years if not 100. The Chinese or the Russians if not us. I own an oil company (not really) and I plan to reap as much profit, for as long as possible from fossil fuels. Go ahead and buy a Prius if it makes you feel better. You can slow us down a little, but not enough to matter.
Actually, it's better if I just deny climate change is real, and then we can argue about science instead of you yelling at me about how greedy and shameless I am. Which is to say: denying climate change is simply a way to make you waste your time trying to convince me, rather than spending your time chasing me with a pitchfork.
2
This country is in real trouble. Somehow, we have a country full of citizen's who simply have not learned to critically think. That is, they are incapable of determining truth from spin, hoax from fact. These people feel free to cherry pick from the tree of science. Eat the fruits that benefit them, yet cast away anything that does not directly benefit them. Energy Industry money has confused these poor folks. So clearly a scam. Brace for impact.
2
The good news is: global warming is caused by human activity and if we act without much more delay we can totally stop the emissions of carbon dioxide and methane by shifting the energy required for the growing population to electricity generated by solar, wind, hydroelectric geothermal and nuclear. The energy from these sources will probably be more expensive than coal and natural gas and oil and will be difficult to succeed in market competition.
There is one concept put forward by Dr. James Powell that will generate very cheap electricity at less than half that of coal-fired or natural gas plants. That concept is to Maglev launch solar generators to geosynchronous orbit and then beam solar energy (24/7) to receiving antennae fields connected to population serving grids. Powell is the inventor of superconducting Maglev (www.magneticglide.com) and he uses Maglev to launch payload by propelling vehicles in vacuum tubes, similar to the Collider at Cern.
Designing and building this very cheap and environmentally clean system is easy but the problem is finding jobs and productive futures for the millions of fossil fuel--oil, natural gas, tarsands, and coal technology workers. We can't just let them rot in the streets. Clearly, capitalists know their ROI is in jeopardy and will make the shift.
We are in a race to stop the Earth's warming before we trigger the runaway release of greenhouse gas from the thawing Arctic permafrost. When that starts, civilization is cooked.
No one was listening in 1800 when Alexander von Humboldt (1769-1859) wrote about climate change and few are listening now. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we fry.
1
"So polls show that today climate denial is far greater in the United States, home to the greatest scientific research in the world, than in just about any other major country."
----------------------------------------------------------------
The belief that deities control all aspects of life and can be wooed via prayer is far greater in the United States, home to the greatest scientific research in the world, than in just about any other major country.
Is it coincidence?
2
"The way to tackle lung cancer wasn’t to celebrate heroic doctors treating patients in the cancer ward, while ignoring cigarette smoking, but rather to reduce cigarette use."
Not all may be aware that some of the same "scientists*" that worked for the tobacco industry arguging against the the medically certain correlation between smoking and cancer, were co-opted by the Koch brothers and their ilk to write papers denying the validity of climate science. Of course none of them are climatologists and none of those papers were ever published in a peer reviewed journal. That didn't stop the GOP and Fox from citing them over and over again. I think it is time to have the deniers put up or shut up. I propose that any and all public or poitical figures that spout lies and nonsense about climate change be required to purchase homes in low lying costal zones and spend hurricane season enjoying the hoax.
* Dr. Fred Singer Dr. Frederick Seitz
4
I discussed this subject yesterday with a Trumpster who explained to me that we’ve had periods of global warming throughtout the earth’s history, as if that explained the hoax theory. Then I realized that this black and white thinking is all he needs to feel safe again. “Well yes we have . . .,” I said, “But the warming now is moving much faster than ever.” He rebutted, “You can’t proved that it’s caused by humans.” I made one more attempt, “But it’s emperiling our lives.” He just laughed at me and said, “I have a friend who’s a climate scientist, who drills core samples from arctic ice and he tells me we’ve always had periods of global warming.” These circular arguments are because the climate deny-ers are black and white thinkers who only recognize right and wrong; no in between. They feel safe in their primitive thinking. Safety is paramount for them. Donald Trump makes them feel safe in their white privilege too. It matters not that he can’t deliver, or that he changes his story to suit the moment. He makes them feel safe. Who else can do that except a psychopath? God. But Relying on God and our ability to sacrifice everything to do the right thing — well thst is too much work for Trumpsters.
And yesterday, in Erie, PA, while campaigning for a Republican senatorial candidate, our president raved on about PENNSYLVANIA CLEAN COAL.
Clearly, he doesn't know that coal, even our excellent Pennsylvania coal, is not clean. More likely, he has friends in the coal industry, as he has friends in another fossil fuel industry. And he must continue to deny climate change and carbon emissions to keep them happy and in his thrall.
Of course, his (incredibly ignorant) supporters in Erie cheered this new and seriously inaccurate pronouncement. Are they as clueless as he is???
3
Intelligent and reasonably well-educated people have difficulty understanding how an average increase of 1 or 2 degrees Celsius can have such a huge impact on climate, unless they are the sort of people who believe everything they read in New York Times!
You overlooked the Florida county commissioner who protested at a South Florida regional sea level rise conference a few years ago, "The Lord told us there would be only one flood! You people need to read your Bible!"
Make America Safe for Intelligence Again.
3
Trump is our generation's demagogue to defeat. The Greatest Generation had to contend with Nazis and Fascist dictators that tried to destroy and subjugate the free world through now debunked racial and economic theories. Now we must prevent the destruction of the free world through ignorant anti-scientific theories about global warming, health care policy and mis-managing historic worker displacement brought about by technological advances. The damage Trump may cause all of humanity by implementing the policies he has championed, from burning more coal to igniting zero sum trade wars is no less a potential threat now as the policies of the Axis powers were during the last century.
2
Deniers: You can't put out a fire by throwing gasoline on it.
It’s already too late. Too many people, and very few if any will give up one single creature comfort. Not one denier of science will read your opinion Nicholas, there is a Trump rally to attend. Hear no evil, see no evil but plenty of evil coming out of the devils mouth,
Al Gore and liberal Democrats are the folks who politicized the issue of climate change. Then it became a surrogate issue for evolution, which is the surrogate issue for hatred of people in the South. We haven't seen an increase in the number or severity of storms in recent years compared to those in the early 20th century.
Let's hope the issue is de-politicized before it's too late, but people like Kristof need something to write about. Besides, what better subject to feature beneath a photograph of a wind- and water- damaged church? Only a really stupid bigot could reject climate change when his church steeple has been blown over by a hurricane. And reminding folks that the really stupid bigots are the "other", not themselves, is what keeps a news organization's loyal readers loyal.
1
You’re right about the next several days’ worth of “heroic” rescues of people, animals, and sad stories. You’re also right about the fact that no one wants to face the larger issue. This planet is in trouble, and NO ONE wants to face it, least of all politicians who either don’t want to believe it, or haven’t the gumption to say and do anything about it.
That would take way too much hard work and sacrifice on everyone’s part. It would mean taking responsibility for how we got to this point. With that despicable man in the WH and the GOP saying it’s Cina’s fault, or climate change doesn’t exist, it’s easy for people to stick their heads in the sand.
And they will, until it’s too late.
You haven't received the latest memo. It is not climate change, it is the Democrats. They are responsible for anything that is wrong. I wish you would keep up.
2
There are none so blind as they who will not see.
2
Don't Republicans ever get overwhelmed with keeping track of all the hoaxes they see everywhere? Climate change is a hoax, the media is a hoax, protesters are hoaxes, Blue Wave is a hoax, Me Too is a hoax, collusion is a hoax, Obama's birth certificate is a hoax, etc., etc.
5
@concerned citizen if only we could declare that the entire GOP is a hoax! Alas, we cannot. But perhaps we could send them out during one of the fake hurricanes and see how well they do.
2
Ignoring climate change, refusing to do anything about it, or worse, actively helping the polluters are crimes against humanity. Trump should be hauled before The Hague and stand trial for these crimes. Our grandchildren will wonder why we didn't do just that and curse us for our wilfull ignorance.
History - if anyone is left to read it - will write us (especially the U.S. us) as moronic to have ignored so much for so long.
What angers me the most is that the devastation will impact those least responsible for its continuation.
2
OK, Nick. All good.
The people in Florida like Trump, the climate killer. They voted for him. So did a lot of other folks who will lose their homes (and hopefully not also their lives) and still do not "believe" climate change is real or is something we can do anything about.
The Koch Brothers are very very powerful. Much of the disaster foisted on us by the Tea Party is supported by them. No government at all is what they want. Trump is perfect. Easily manipulated by telling him how smart, sexy and important he is. He smiles his self-congratulatory way. Trump cares about Trump.
I truly believe that absolutely nothing will change no matter how many reports are issued because, as many here have noted, everything sits on making more money. The people who already have a ridiculous amount just want more. Sicko stuff, but rampant. Propaganda spewed constantly by FOX and Sinclair, fueled by billionaires and so-called "christian" ideology as 24/7 "news". It's working.
The planet is ill and we are also ill -- mentally, emotionally and physically (literally) if we just ignore the mess we have made and continue to make. If Trump should leave tomorrow we'd have Pence. Better? Naw.
Evil is the result of ignorance. An uninformed populace is easy to manipulate. Keeping people dumb allows them to be frightened and agitated. Old techniques, working well today.
I cringe every day to hear what awful stuff DJT has come up with. If not for your column, I would lose hope. Thanks.
2
Asking a GOP politician or cult member to change would be like asking a rabid dog to quit slobbering and foaming at the mouth. (no insult meant to rabid dogs) I am sorry, the cognitive dissonance from the cult is incredibly strong, like a force field or tractor beam from a Star Wars Movie. They can't escape. Don't stand too close, you might get captured too.
1
If science denying fundamentalists still believe in an interventionist God do they think that Florence and Michael evidence some displeasure on his or her part with the South?
1
Republicans-
The party that confuses science with politics and religion with science.
3
When are we in the rational states going to not be forced to repeatedly bail out -- with billions of our own hard-earned tax dollars -- the arrogant red state climate change deniers who have been telling us to bug off for years and years now?
Shouldn't they bootsrap themselves back up out of the mire?
I'm tired of paying to rebuild for people who get to live in more clement areas of the country AND privatize the benefits while they socialize the risk to the rest of us. And then give us the finger at the voting booth, to boot.
3
Actually, a hurricane struck Florida. Hurricanes strike Florida regularly, as far back as history has been recorded. To pretend otherwise is to ignore reality or simply espouse propaganda.
Ah yes, the continued human dilemma of granting oneself the power to believe (use less word)w
Does this mean that we shouldn't try to leave the planet in better shape than it was when we found it? If it's a hoax does that mean it's fine to pollute the water we need to drink, to help our food supply? Does climate change being a hoax excuse us from being good stewards of the planet we live on, from not destroying forests, forcing more fauna and flora into extinction? Being decent to the planet that gave us life seems, to this reader, to be common sense. There is, as of now, no alternate Earth for us to emigrate to.
Trump, the GOP, and their various climate change deniers are wrong. So are the people who think that there are no consequences for ignoring the obvious. But ignorance is a powerful soporific; it means that nothing needs to be done until it's too late. Pathetic but true. One can only hope that the dog bites them first.
1
People want definitive proof of climate change before taking action. That will never happen. If you wake up on a sunny morning and turn on the morning weather and hear it's going to rain or snow a conservative person would take a raincoat or snow gear to work. It's the smart thing to do based on what scientists are predicting the weather is going to do. Sometimes the weathermen are wrong (usually not) but that's not reason not to take precautions.
Same with climate change. Weathermen are predicting severe weather consequences ahead. We should take the recommended precautions.
You can't prove the future but you can influence it and be prepared.
1
Democrats should say it every day: We will deal with climate change, AND we’ll create millions of well-paid new jobs along the way. (Upgrading infrastructure, repairing buildings that waste energy, doing science and engineering, training scientists and engineers, installing solar panels, etc.). Republicans will lie and deny while hurricanes and fires kill and destroy.
What’s more important anyway, a gun in every public school, or preserving the planet for our children? Some will find this a difficult choice, but I trust that most of my fellow Americans will not.
291
Here is a quote from one of the commenters, Ellen...
"When people say they 'don't believe in' climate change, I think they are really saying they don't believe in scientific methods, or science at all. I think the war on science waged by extreme fundamentalist Christians, and by politicians owned by the oil industry and the Koch brothers has been effective."
The Koch brothers and other corporate entities have used people's deep religious beliefs, especially Christian beliefs, to encourage the denial of climate change and the denial of science more broadly. After all, how can you believe that god impregnated a woman who then gave birth to Jesus who is the son of god? Science and these beliefs don't match up. So clearly if you want to cling to such beliefs, you have to believe that science is wrong and climate change is a hoax. If Christians and other religious people face reality, they have to let go of a world view that has sustained them for centuries. So its no wonder that the Koch brothers and other corporate entities are so successful in gaining the support of these groups who will do anything to hold on to the realities they have depended on for so long. I don't know what the answer is because I live among these groups and have seen the panicked nature of their clinging despite the reality they see every day.
3
Fla politicians have guided us into a complex miasma of environmental & climate breakdown troubles. And the disingenuous, self-serving Rick Scott now has the chutzpah to claim that he's an 'environmentalist'. Voters should not allow Rick Scott/GOP legislature to squirm out of responsibility for the consequences of rejecting man-caused climate breakdown in Fla. Part of the madness of this moment is that while Scott denies his role , his policies in Fla. for 8 years boldly own it. Scott met with the 'Kingpins of man-made climate change denial', brothers Charles & David Koch soon after being elected, & all of a sudden Fla’s environmental laws began being gutted. Rick Scott has never stopped avoiding, rationalizing, denying obvious & genuine signs of dangers.
Fla voters won't forget the fact that Rick Scott spent 2 gubernatorial terms gutting Fla's Department of Environmental Regulation, loading up Fla's regional water boards with pro-development political allies & cronies, cut money for purchase of conservation lands, red tide research & eliminated “climate change” terminology from official state vocabulary. While the Deepwater Horizon was still contaminating the Gulf with millions of gallons of crude oil, he opposed a moratorium & constitutional ban on coastal oil drilling.
In Nov., vote for candidates who are strong on enforcing Fla. & US environmental laws. Reject those who exploit the environment for their own personal/corporate gain at the expense of the community.
4
When right wing politicians denounce climate change as a hoax they often preface their comments by pointing out that they are not scientist. Despite that fact they then continue on to "explain" the situation to their base.
If the world is ever going to get a handle of this problem more people will need to start listening to actual scientists and not to people who are being funded by the fossil fuel industry. The real problem is a gullible and ill-informed electorate, not unprincipled politicians who have sold out our future for their short term gain.
3
Of course climate change is responsible for more severe hurricanes that now occur more often. The oceans are warmer hence more evaporation and hence more rail. To deny this is to deny simple logic. I have to think Trump and company are not stupid and understand the reality of climate change. But they don't care. All he cares about are the accolades from his CEO friends in the oil and coal business. And most importantly, denying climate change appeals to his base supporters and hence feeds his ego and quest for power.
148
Do the people of the United States of America really have to wait for Donald Trump to come to his senses before they take action to address their own survival? If that is the case, I'm not sure we are really worthy of survival. Nature will find a better way than us to further its purpose.
Or we can do what we can do both individually and collectively to conform to the laws of nature. Stop these behaviors, and start those. Google all those behaviors if you don't know what they are. In one way or another they amount to what and how you consume things from kilowatts to steak.
As for the development of new technologies and markets, are we really going to wait for Congress to allocate funds for R&D? That doesn't conform with their strategy to let 99% of us drop dead.
How about the Go Fund Me model if our Congress is too greedy or stupid to direct some of our collective resources towards that end? I'd be happy to spend some of my coffee, beer, netflix, and comcast on a regular basis to jump start the mass production of affordable solar panels, for example.
I'd also be happy for someone with more knowledge than me ( that should be easy ) to tell me if I'm talking out of my you know what; I only ask that you suggest something better after you do so.
In the meantime, I'll continue doing what I can on my own, and that includes voting every Republican from dog catcher to president out of office. If I come up with anything else, I'll let you know.
3
Over 500 hurricanes have hit Florida since the 1500s. The strongest was the the Labor Day Hurricane all the way back in 1935. Recent global warming is definitely factual. But to suggest that Hurricane Michael is the result is not factual.
2
Climate change requires action on behalf of the collective interest, but increasingly self-interest rules people's actions. And we are bribable. The promise of financial gains causes many people to turn a blind eye to scientific findings. If you are an oil company, you have big profits at stake, so you lie. Another word for it is hoax. Corporations and governments fool people long enough to lead them into a deadly trap while they take the money and run. But the same pertains to the general population: A gas tax to make people use less oil and gas is "unpopular". Don't these people have children? Yes, but the children get blocked out like the scientists. Environmental protection is rejected in favor of the financial rewards of destroying it, while the future health and survival of the human race are not counted. Everywhere, environmental protection is treated as a side issue in politics and media, when it is really the most central and important issue: it's what corporations most want to destroy. It's why most of them fight most to control governmental policies. It's where they mine the most money. The environment is their private dumping ground and cash cow, so it is essential to most corporate interests to deny that the human race has an interest in it. It's their Ring of Power and, as Frodo said, "The Ring is MINE!" And too many citizens go along with it.
2
Once again the Lib does not understand correlation and causation. Like banning some types of weapons would have stopped said incident. No it might have just stopped it with such a weapon and still would've happened with another as all guns including 22lr are deadly. As if somehow a carbon tax law was passed and in effect 10 years ago such an event like this wouldn't have happened also. Maybe it wouldn't the butterfly effect could be true but there is no proof etherway. Maybe it would have happened but in a different area like New Orleans and cause more devastation, again! If this was some effect of CO2 and more worse hurricanes then it would be a steady and consistent increase where this year Florida almost didn't get hit at all and wasn't in the usual places ether. The fact that one year can multiple storms like in 2005 going past the name list to Storm Zeta to this year going to Michael is a lot of believe to still believe man made any of these storms or has the power to alter them.
@Sense Offender ...... "Once again the Lib does not understand correlation and causation.".......So tell us what happens when you trap heat that would otherwise be irradiated into space? Does it cause the earths temperature to increase? Do higher temperatures cause more glacier ice to melt making sea levels rise and coastal damage from hurricanes worse? Does warming the ocean cause more water to evaporate providing more fuel for storms? Seems to me those things are direct cause and effect.
2
@W.A. Spitzer You can't fix stupid
Don't you find it interesting that in the 21st century, a creature with our level of consciousness (brought here to this place BY SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR) can still be willfully ignorant enough to believe things in and out of existence? Including the very SCIENCE that---let's see....
...facilitates a longer, never more carefree/disease-free life; has transformed technologies and economies from agrarian roots, to Industrial-to-Digital Ages in less than 2 centuries, increased farming technologies/methodology that facilitates feeding a human population quadruple what it was just a century ago; makes it possible to get anywhere in the world in hours, can now peer billions of human-years back in time at the birth of the universe, as well as send probes and humans into space, and have connected the entire planet with personal hand-held digital portals to the world...
...but now, when that same science reminds us of the consquences of unabated growth in a finite world, then conveniently, science isn't to be trusted. If the dissenters were all Amish or Mennonites, that would be understandable, though this human dilemma is precisely why they've adopted the life they have. When the dissent comes from---and I can hardly make myself even type it--- a PC/handheld, lamenting how scientific discovery is wrong, that's a plunge into human self-indulgence, hypocrisy, and stupidity that even the most clever can't spin their way out of.
2
How do you stop climate change? There are a few things that most Democrats can do immediately to mitigate climate change: (1) don't use electricity, (2) don't drive, (3) move to a less resource-intensive country, like Kenya.
Those three things will set the Earth back on the right path.
Remember, you are the change that the world needs.
1
Science denial and blindness to impending disaster are embedded in the memory of all of us who’ve had any contact with the Superman of DC Comics. When I was 10, I read of Kal El’s Dad, a prominent if somewhat mavericky scientist. Jor El predicted the imminent natural destruction of planet Krypton, to the Trumpian disdain of his global political sops.
We know what happened. That warning entered my brain as a child and has remained. I’ve never really trusted the “authorities” to get it right, to do whatever it takes to preserve our and their species.
Jor El again sounds the alarm. Our president has better things to do than listen to a hysterical hoax monger.
Jor El will be proven right, I’m sure. This time there is no tiny rocket capable of saving even one of us. We leave to our grandchildren the most horrible legacy possible.
It's already too late. Wake up! It's analogous to nicotine, but in this instance....everyone dies.
If these climate deniers had a serious recurring medical problem and nearly all the doctors stated that it was due to the lifestyle of the denier,would they ignore it?
2
Our problem lies in that space behind the eyes.
Climate Change!
Only pockets of human concern come to the surface. What care I; most of us say? All of that is too far away, out of my vision. The pleasures of this life are all that matter.
The result; threats to our continued existence on this planet remain hidden away, buried in the depths of that dysfunctional mass of nerves. Many simply ignore the whole thing and go about their business. For others, when the harsh ecological facts are revealed, narratives are cleverly fashioned to remove fact from reality.
So for most of humanity life goes on in a perpetual “Disney World” kind of existence. Tomorrow will take care of itself. Or my God will take care of it. And for some there will be an Apocalypse after which everything, at least for the faithful, will be OK.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Gravity is a hoax, at best only a theory. One day, when I toss an apple in the air, it will not fall to earth but will continue on to be roasted and crisped by the sun
4
I find it odd that we haven't heard anything from recovery efforts conducted by the Navy Base in Pensacola but are hearing about the volunteer "Cajun Navy" getting to work this morning in that area.
Is Trump still basking in that stand-up comedy routine he held last night in Pennsylvania with his stale "Pocahontas" and "Lock Her Up" routines when it comes to female senators who intimidate him?
I wonder if the Naval Base is still awaiting some sort of chain of command before they themselves can act upon the disaster that just occurred in Florida.
2
Climate change is real and deadly. My family lived in Florida for over 150 years, the hurricanes and flooding is getting worse than ever. It is madness to think you can control and hold back the ocean in these storms. People need to relocate because rebuilding is fruitless and too costly in the long run to maintain. Insurers are not willing to write policies they know will cost them. I no longer live in Florida--beautiful, it is too hot and too many storms.
2
I can see by the devastation caused in the states just pummeled by this past few weeks hurricanes that they will all call on FEMA for monetary assistance. Is it possible to keep track of individuals who call it a “hoax” that our carbon pollution has accelerated climate changes and deny them any federal money? Is that fair you ask? I say why not? Those “hoax” believers have no interested in helping the rest of us clean up our country’s pollutions that contribute. Carbon taxes are needed and need to be enforced. You don’t want to help the rest of us decrease our nation’s contribution to this global problem? Fine, then don’t expect the rest of us to bail you out when your cities go under water and your towns get scorched by wildfires.
114
@Homer, do send your message to Governor Scott of Florida. When he ordered that climate change could not be mentioned in any state communications, with fish already swimming in the streets of Miami, wondered how long Marco Rubio would have a state to represent. Florida should be the first state to be refused aid. It would quickly change the vote there.
1
@Homer, while your proposal is tempting, I'd rather name & shame politicians unwilling to support a carbon tax. Starting with Rick Scott, DeSantis, djt and a host of others who are paid to deny climate change.
@Homer -- maybe we need to fund FEMA from the carbon tax. No carbon tax now = no funds for FEMA. Perhaps the deniers would come around. After all, a carbon tax is a "market based solution". Along with this new funding source, we need to make sure FEMA doesn't pay to rebuild houses in the same flood plains over and over. Why rebuild a house (or a city) in a flood zone, when the waters are rising? I couldn't quite believe New Orleans spent billions of tax dollars rebuilding, all below sea level...?! How long before they are flooded out again, and come back once again for our tax money? When we taxpayers rebuild, we need to demand it is smarter. Or those who put themselves in peril a second time should be on their own if they get hit again. Once, we'll help. Rebuild in the same dangerous low spots, and you're on your own the second time, Florida, South Carolina, North Carolina. Pay for flood insurance yourself - or build someplace you don't need it.
1
Warmer water "should make more intense hurricanes possible," but Michael and Florence weren't that "intense."
Florence had a 6' storm surge. It was slowed by high pressure to its west and north: hence the abnormal hurricane flooding. Did climate change cause the high-pressure: its location, speed, movement, and effects on Florence? You must answer that question if you say climate change made Florence dump so much rain. Nobody has even asked it.
Michael wasn't moving very fast at landfall: 10-11 mph. It hit a low-population area. I watched the Weather "Hyperbole" Channel. Reports said highest storm surge was 6'; strongest sustained wind was CAT 3.
Since 1965, we've had eight of the highest and lowest hurricane-producing years on record.
Is it getting warmer? The first 1/3 of October has averaged a few degrees warmer than usual in S FL, but last summer averaged a few degrees cooler (90-91) than summers I recall in the 1970s (93-94). Nights averaged a few degrees warmer, but is that climate change or a (roughly) 700% population jump since 1970? Outside the city, nights are cooler.
In winter 2009, 2010, and 2011 we had hard freezes.
I agree; Nat'l Flood Ins. is stupid. Privatize it, 100%.
The climate's always changing--that's why Goths left Scandinavia for Central Europe 1,500 years ago--and it still is, but Florence and Michael aren't proof.
@Andy H......CO2 is a green house gas and traps heat on earth that would otherwise be irradiated into space. When you continually add more CO2 to the atmosphere what do you think is going to happen?
3
To those who say climate change has always been part of earth's history (denying the science and forecasts of our heating up) I answer true, but never with 7 billion people on board. The disruption that is caused by relocating 100's of millions of people, the change in where and what food will be grown, and the fighting over disappearing resources will bring us to an uninhabitable place or at least most difficult place to live within a generation. That might take care of the population issues but probably not fast enough.
We have a buffoon in the WH who spins around like the tasmanian devil and a non functioning government, along with a few other crazies around the world who, collectively, will do us all in. Why or how anyone believes those who are so ignorant and dangerous vs. science and scientists (who have been sounding the alarm for decades) is beyond comprehension.
We can debate, discuss, hand wring ad infinitum but the bottom line is we have run out of time.
4
Republicans use scare-fear tactics all the time. The Democrats will take away your guns; raise taxes; take away your doctor of choice, etc. You would think such extreme weather would frighten Republicans, but apparently not.
So, fear doesn’t work and facts don’t seem to matter either. My argument in recent years is that use of new energy technologies often save money (change your bulbs!), and renewable energy provides cleaner air and water - both should be treasured by everyone. But, even arguing for better air or water quality seems to have no influence as coal particulate matter is allowed to increase and mercury and coal sludge emptied into streams and methane release less controlled. I’m angry with the President and all the Republican legislators for not attempting in anyway to protect our land. They are condoning the rape of Mother Earth. And nature will react in violent ways that will cause harm to all life. Republicans don’t care about all of us and nature. Vote!
3
Trump thinks he's saving money by EPA deregulation, never mind the consequences. Kinda like the money you save by eating cheap fast food and ending up in the emergency room paying for a heart attack or bypass. The GOP seriously lacks foresight for the greater good.
4
I fear that you're right in saying that tribalism has taken over. The Koch brothers, and others who make lots of money from fossil fuels, have made denial a litmus test, and now a great number of Republicans are too heavily invested in it ever to admit they were wrong. That would be giving in to the elite Know-it-alls of the coasts. Besides, won't God make everything right in the end? Send thoughts and prayers to the most recent victims. Real action will have to wait for a new generation, and by then it will be too late (But the Kochs will die rich and smug).
3
As long as people don’t see the connection between their separate actions, replicated by hundred of millions in a country such as the US, nothing will be achieved concerning climate change. As long as Americans buy outsized cars, which are left running for hours, while they eat and see movies in chilled malls, go back to huge houses which need to be cooled down and heat up, buy huge amounts of things that fill up landfills with no thought of recycling, support industries which destroy environment and vote for politicians who think climate change is a hoax - nothing will change. What will change will be the ability of their children and grandchildren to enjoy a normal life and a normal environment. This is truly shameful and sad.
137
@Ini
Sadder yet is that their own children and grandchildren will not suffer nearly as much as the children and grandchildren of poorer folks --- those who ironically don't contribute massively to climate change as do these selfish deniers.
The pain of another is always easier to bear than one's own. The masses of people whose homes and villages become uninhabitable will have nowhere to go. The rising xenophobic and racist right wing in the U.S. and Europe will bar refugees from areas that become too hot for survival.
Jared Diamond predicted the masses of refugees toward temperate climates and functioning economies. Since the refugees will be mostly brown-skinned, they will be easy to turn away. Disingenuous racists will use rationales of "cultural" concerns to insulate their countries from all but other whites.
Meanwhile, the deniers are doing nothing now to prevent the desperation that will drive these waves of people. They will put all their capital and effort into policing and walls. They won't reduce the size of their SUVs by a single inch.
2
It all political. The GOP are just going after everything the Democrats stand behind. Nothing more and nothing less.
2
Trump's denial of climate change presents yet another example of the self-destructive tendencies of the human species chalked up to the belief system. In the near future, we will program the human mind in a computer, and this will be based on a "survival" algorithm, which will provide irrefutable proof of how we trick the mind with our ridiculous beliefs about just what is suppose to survive - producing de facto minds programmed for our destruction. When we see this, we will begin the long trek back to reason and sanity.
See RevolutionOfReason.com
2
I expect people and organizations who profit from polluting and destroying the planet - to act rationally. I.e., act to protect their self-interests. But it is our fault, collectively, for letting republicans live dangerously and without consequences.
All the republican states with rugged individuals hurt by hurricanes want free money from federal coffers (while telling Puerto Rico to take a hike).
Our sociopolitics and our economy produces no adverse consequences for voting republican while seeking benefit from every social program. Koch and others - will get their bailouts, subsidies, and free money after the hurricanes.
But something dramatically more effective is underfoot. First, republicans successfully criminalized being a minority. Cops can kill on camera. No consequences. If you are remotely threatening, you will be hounded as a criminal (i.e., lock up Hillary).
But, if you are one of them and are a dangerous criminal, you will be reframed as a victim of left-wing conspiracy. And elected or appointed to high office.
The same forces are now criminalizing expressions of concern about global warming. The words will be stricken off all legislation, all text books. Global warming plain does not exist.
I respect the power of the republican party which can say: 'there is no global warming, now give me your money to support my high life so I will let you live' and remain in power for ever everywhere. Remarkable.
If the Republican donors could only figure out how to make money on climate change, the playing field will tilt.
I can just hear Dishonest Donald stating unequivocally that he has always believed climate science and that The Clintons were behind the dastardly plot to melt the polar caps.
3
Gee, if Al Gore is responsible for all this climate hoax stuff... what an inhumanitarian! And couldn't he have made money in a far less sensationalist manner? But, seriously, do people seriously so underestimate human beings impact on the world, the ability to conquer nature? That some ancients rode over oceans in canoes, figured out how to inoculate against diseases, sent men to the moon? Then how is it not possible that human beings have also influenced the course of nature? For even just that, look to how farming has managed to feed millions and billions. Let's not end up victims of our own doings including successes that have helped us figure stuff out any number of times over. People are capable of great bad and great good. Some of that is choice.
1
Your smart phone is built from sand, oil and rocks. Sand for glass and chips, oil for the plastic and the right shiny rocks for copper, gold and rare earth minerals.
It has Einstein in it, without special and general relativity the nice lady who tells you where to go will get you lost.
It has quantum physics built into it. Science and some engineering, technology, marketing and design.
And still you have people pulling out their smart phones and sending out tweets and posting on internet threads that scientists don't know what they are talking about.
Try giving a bunch of congressmen some sand, oil and rocks and ask them to make a smart phone and monkeys would type Shakespeare before you got the phone.
1
Evangelical Christian beliefs— that God will never flood the earth again, and that the End Times will play out exactly as described in Revelation— play a huge part in climate science denial. I’m religious but I frequently point out that while God promised Noah that He would never bring another great Flood, He said nothing about stopping humans from doing it to ourselves.
1
I hate to bring religion into this, but have you noticed, Mr. Kristof, that a great many climate change deniers are evangelicals? These are the same people waiting for the End of Days, when Jesus will return to the Earth. It seems like they actually would welcome destruction of the Earth through climate change, as it may be a sign to them of the Second Coming. This makes sense in the context of their common response, which is either that climate change doesn’t exist (“climate is always changing”) or Mother Nature is in charge and man cannot do anything about it.
If your religion teaches you that the end of the world is what you are hoping for because your Lord and Savior will return for you, why would you want to do anything to alter that course of events?
3
"I am sure human activity plays some role, but I don't think the science is clear on how much is man-made and how much is natural. What I do know is that the United States should not follow the path of the global warming alarmists like the Obama administration who wants us to unilaterally handicap...industry with over-burdensome EPA regulations."
- Neal Dunn, Panama City's Republican Congressman
4
@Jim S......Countries that develop alternate energy sources that are renewable will control their future. Countries that do not develop alternate energy sources that are renewable will continue to be dependent on Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, and Russia. Your choice.
2
Everything you write in this essay is true, Mr. Kristof, and your reasoning is impeccable. But I, for one, have stopped trying to explain climate change to the deniers. Reason does not work to sway them. They will lose their houses, their churches, and their schools to the next big hurricane or tornado and then they will go to a Trump rally and scream "fake news," and "lock her up," with gusto. It is so much easier to blame someone else for one's misfortunes than to examine one's own complicity in circumstances.
You don't try to reason with a biting dog; you leash it and you put a muzzle on it if necessary. We will not see substantive change in this country on the urgent issue of climate change until the Republican party is brought to heel.
VOTE THEM OUT.
2
The US European Chinese and Indian leaders must convene a planetary climate emergency task force and drive immediate solutions to end fossil fuels and exponentially expand and implement clean energy technologies. Of this doesn’t happen anarchy awaits...
1
(South) Florida has the strictest building codes in the country, many designed to withstand Cat 5 force winds.
We’ve been living with hurricanes for hundreds of years here. It’s dangerous, homes are expensive and insurance is insane but if it comes to paying more and living on a beach with crystal blue water and sandbars to dick the boat on or moving to Tennessee or, god forbid, the mid west, I’ll pay my premiums and take my chances here......
Life is uncertain, there are no guarantees but I’m not going to tip toe around s a red of everything,
This will all end soon enough.
It's more than frustrating that southern states vote for a dope who refuses to acknowledge climate change--and then expect the rest of us to pick up the tab when the next inevitable killer hurricane bulldozes their land. All this while the thief and traitor in the White House continues to mock us.
The federal portion of Hurricane Harvey's Texas dew-step alone was over $50 billion. That would have been enough to build the New York/New Jersey "Gateway Tunnel" project and have $20 billion left over for other infrastructure projects. How long are we going to doom ourselves to foregoing infrastructure repairs so we can pay for the damage done by the next hurricane...and the next?
If we're willing to take bold and decisive action, we might be able to save ourselves. The blue states of the west coast and the northeast must break away from Red America and start a new, sensible life.
But then how do we influence the reds to end their fossil fuel ways? Let's borrow a move from Trump's playbook--tariffs. For every so many tons of coal mined from, say, West Virginia, blue states would impose an additional 5% tariff on any goods imported from that state. The more coal that's mined, the higher the tariff.
You may be thinking: "That's an awfully extreme measure to take." Are you kidding me? Compared to what's going on right now?
Hate to say this but it’s already too late. We just need to decide who will turn the lights out as we depart.
2
Short term profits trump long term outlooks. Sigh.
3
The economy, stock market, and jobs are all doing well, so "It's the economy, stupid" won't work for Democrats this time around. Instead, they need to stay focused on the glaring gaps in the GOP agenda. They need to talk about protecting Social Security and Medicare, establishing robust health care for all, nurturing solid public education, and promoting local and national infrastructure projects. Everyone is interested in these things, so they never get old.
I wish we lived in a country where candidates could get elected mainly on platforms dealing with combating global warming and climate change, but we don't live there yet. Despite the ferocity of these storms, they are sufficiently few and far between that most of us do not feel the pain. We remain self-absorbed with our own consumerism, many of us existing paycheck-to-paycheck, exhausted at the end of each day.
Democrats, the only rational choice if we want to make any serious effort to mitigate and reverse climate change, need to run forcefully on the policies that can get them elected. Climate change then comes along for the ride with them.
If Democrats can spend enough time in office, maybe we will avoid the worst that this climate-change calamity has to offer. Unfortunately, right now that's looking like a big "if."
We need to overcome our own inherent greed and selfishness and take a long view of the future, for the sake of our children. Whether or not we will be able to overcome ourselves is anyone's guess.
3
Dear Nicholas,
Climate change is not uncertain. It is happening. And probabilities are not uncertainties. This is playing with words from cynical republicans for their dishonest or under-educated constituency.
3
@B. DdV Bingo! The gotta be true believers of the current Republican Party cannot rely on things like statistical analysis or CO2 build up. If it ain't in the bible or Fox News, it ain't true.
1
I completely agree with this excellent opinion piece.
I would add one aspect: those who deny climate change are also those who want smaller government and lower taxes. They are the same people who are now, because of climate change, depending upon and demanding more from the federal government. They are utterly dependent upon government payouts and loans to compensate them for the damage exacerbated by climate change. And they have the gall to complain about government benefits for the poor.
Do they want the government to stay out of flood insurance and rescues, just as they want the government to stay out of their Medicare? When will they see the massive hypocrisy of their views?
I am afraid that they won't. They are blind to climate change, the poor, and their own lack of empathy. To say nothing of blind to the truth.
215
@Barbara8101
About 65 million years ago a climate changing object from space slammed into the Yucatan Peninsula creating a chance for some and a disaster for others. Science has no partisan political bias.
@Barbara8101 -- "those who deny climate change are also those who want smaller government and lower taxes. "
And they are the same people who come running to that smaller government with lower revenues asking for a handout when they get wiped out by disaster. No empathy - and no shame either.
@Barbara8101 Exactly!
What people don't seem to realize about this 'in 10 years it will be too late' message from the UN. Is that its probably too late now. Sorry kids, even if we could switch to something that would provide the energy we need, and be clean and reliable, like nuclear power, the projects are for continued warming. All the Solar/Renewables we could produce, would not even slow the RATE of increase in warming by much.
3
This kid of commentary and messaging has been rehashed again and again. Seems time to recognize that while somewhat informative it seems to be grossly ineffective in actually changing how the very real and clearly impending disaster of global warming is actually not being credibly addressed.
Factual debate about workable solutions sounds reasonable, especially when presented in lieu of myopic denial and the disingenuous impeachment of a massive body of contrary scientific data and analysis.
In fact the time for endless debate on best countermeasures and methods has already passed. Every year without a massive shift in political awareness and support for aggressive and sustained action invites reaching a point of no return at which human actions will be largely ineffective. The notion that a decade can be wasted in fruitless debate is horribly delusional and massively dangerous to the human population as a whole.
1
A huge mistake was made in creating the term "Global Warming", when in fact "Climate Change," or more realistically, "Climate Destruction", is more appropriate. And in fact the media, news outlets, journalists and speakers on the issue should strip that term from their lexicon and use the latter terms to describe what is happening on our planet. It is happening now, and it will reach catastrophic degrees in my lifetime. Alas, humans are incapable as a society to respond proactively, instead we will act when it is too late to affect any real change. I mourn for the helpless, hapless animals that will perish as a result of our complacency and greed. And I directly blame the Republicans for most of it.
"Republicans are correct that all this is uncertain" : what does that mean Mr Kristof, beyond lending a semblance of rationality to a Republican motto based on denial rather than in reason? Assessing risk is one key human capability. By denying climate change a rational basis and painting it as fuzzy, you just take part in that denial. What's your agenda here?
Well I'm assuming that people affected by this event who consider themselves republican won't apply for federal aid to rebuild because they wouldn't want tax payers to fund something that was the result of a hoax. Right?
3
Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House. Leading by example and the Republicans said yes. Trump takes white -out to the words climate change. Leading by example and the Republicans said yes.
Mitigating the impacts of climate change will take a massive national effort and everybody has to "buy in", literally. If we can pull this off we will still have to play a major role in a multi-lateral, global effort. Everyday that Trump holds the reins is another day lost and another day of damage.
2
You make me laugh out loud Mr. Kristof, Hurricane Michael a "wake-up call"? Doubtful. The myopic climate change deniers have been lulled into a stupor by their radical pastors, pundits and politicians. They will either hunker down as the sky literally falls or flee only to return to a life in ruins. They will then expect the governments (local, state and federal) they are loath to fund by paying taxes of any kind to save them. If their local officials are seriously short of funds perhaps FEMA (or what remains of it) will come to the rescue with tax money generated in the prosperous urban (blue) areas of the country. So the end result will be the shipment of truckloads of relief supplies to mostly poor Southern states, supplies funded by mostly Northern and Western states. I certainly don't begrudge my tax money being used to assist my fellow citizens but the endless cycle is wearing a little thin. Especially in light of the obliviousness of the recipients and their non-stop debasement of those who finance their rescue time and again. And their refusal to fund their own local and state governments. Hrrumph.
3
I don't have a problem with people who deny climate change. Free exercise of religion is a beautiful thing.
However, I do have a problem paying for rebuilding their houses, on a floodplain, for the 5th time.
If you haven't learned after the 3rd time, I encourage you to find a source of financing other than my tax money.
5
1824 Fourier says the surface of the Earth is warmer than it should be, it must be doing something like a greenhouse.
1859 Tyndall says, hmmm, CO2 is doing it.
1896 Arrhenius says hey if we burn fossil fuels we're raising CO2, we're going to warm the Earth and this is how much and he was pretty close.
1940s the modern quantum version with the US Air Force right after WWII. They weren't doing global warming, they wanted sensors on heat-seeking missiles to shoot down Soviet bombers before they incinerated their cities.
The CO2 absorbs infrared whether its coming from the engine of an enemy bomber or the Sun warmed Earth. The idea scientists don't know what they are talking about is completely absurd.
1
The bitter irony is that in the age of the Internet, information everywhere, there are too many who don't want to know.
Worse, they are proud of their ignorance, placed right next to the giant chips on their shoulders, and worn on their sleeves as a badge of "honor."
If they ever ask for help in the future, I will happily
tell them no.
You see, my liberalism left the building on election day---- and hasn't returned.
1
That "climate change" is considered a hoax by Republicans shows the rigidity and irrationality of Republicans. They mouth the silliness of party orthodoxy with no regard for truth or sense. At most, one might say that climate change is not caused by man. To completely agree with the loudmouth Limbaugh ---"preposterous hoax"--is like saying the world is flat. We see and feel climate change all about us. There are areas where honest dissent is reasonable. Take, for example, religion , government, or education: God's existence vs. atheism, democratic capitalism (USA) vs. democratic socialism (Scandinavian countries. Socialism is not the same as repressive Communism.), public schools vs. charter schools. In all such two-sided concerns, it is not more rational to favor one side over the other. The intelligent person will follow one approach but should retain some degree of doubt about his/her preference. But when faced with a situation that might be deadly--e.g., a question of whether a dangerous medical procedure should be undertaken where all specialists say that without it the patient will soon die---the rational person would follow what the doctors say. Climate scientists universally agree that man is aggravating climate change by using fossil fuels and that very soon (UN report) it will be impossible to slow it down--- bringing hunger (destroyed land that can no longer be farmed), fierce destructive weather, rising water levels,and intolerable deadly heat.
3
While I feel sorry for the hurricane victims in Trumpland, I must point out that denying climate science comes at a cost. One wonders how much more disaster relief will have to cost before the Republican Party finally admits the threat is real and starts trying to do something about it.
1
"Climate change may be the most important issue we face, reshaping our children’s world."
No, climate change IS the most important issue we face. Period. There can be no equivocating on this reality. It is a global existential threat. We are the dinosaurs waiting for the meteor.
We need have a Democratic presidential candidate (no Republican will have the spine) to run for office based on climate change mitigation being their #1 top priority.
In lieu of or in addition to that, we need people in the streets protesting inaction.
We can't let tragic history be written before our very eyes.
4
"It is difficult for a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
3
The worst wouldn't be a major city being wiped out by a cat 5 tropical cyclone. The worst would be if we spent billions of dollars on a coastal defense, then built a lot of expensive infrastructure behind that defense under the mistaken impression that we can hold back the ocean.
“Today, we’re struggling with 3 millimeters [0.1 inch] per year [of sea level rise],” says Robert DeConto at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, co-author of one of the more sobering new studies. “We’re talking about centimeters per year. That’s really tough. At that point your engineering can’t keep up; you’re down to demolition and rebuilding.”
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/abrupt_sea_level_rise_realistic_greenland_a...
With around 6m of sea level rise already in the pipeline, a large fraction of which could arrive within 100 years, we need to start thinking about an efficient retreat from increasingly dangerous coastal areas.
1
Here we go again.....time to start DEALING WITH REALITY instead of wringing our hands and thinking we will go back to the past. The climate is changing, for whatever reason, and we are not going to be able to turn back that clock, so we ought to start dealing with the increased sea levels instead of thinking we can make the sea go back down. We will be a lot more productive looking forward to accomodation of the new realities.
2
Their denial is undeniable, but it is more an aspect of tribalism that ignorance; the most educated Republicans are the strongest climate denialists. That said, things are changing, regardless of the cause, and that means that we need to prepare them to handle what are obvious environmental challenges. Fighting them won't get them to believe, but nudging them to take action is maybe the first step persuading them.
1
Perhaps my analogy is inexact, but I compare the link between climate change and hurricanes to drunk driving: you can't always definitely say that a particular accident was caused by someone being intoxicated while driving, but intoxication greatly increases the likelihood and severity of a crash.
4
The take-away from Kavanaugh: they don't care.
The take away-from Sandy Hook and Parkland: ditto
The take-away from Houston, Katrina, Micheal, Maria, the wildfires, the plastic buildup in the oceans the demise of coral reefs, the mass migration and starvation that has begun?
They simply do not care. What kind of man is Mitch McConnell to let every initiative of Obama, Clinton, Bush and Nixon fall into the Reagan abyss of denial?
3
"Denying climate change doesn’t stop its devastating effects."
And blaming any severe weather event on "climate change" doesn't make the claim true.
1
Michael is cutting a swathe through deeply conservative, even reactionary places. It'll be interesting to see if partisan animosity clouds their vision, after this dismal catastrophe.
But those who understand climate threats need to take a deep breath. First, there's enough carbon in the atmosphere already to drive storms much more severe. Second, everyone contributes to global warming. Third, there's an obvious need to mitigate the problem, using something like stratospheric reflective particles, the so-called Pinatubo effect. But environmentalists won't discuss this, because they believe it's a 'get out of jail free' card. So they're denialists too, of a minor sort.
Perhaps enough pain will go around that tempers will cool and better decisions be made.
Global warming is an issue which has considerable complexity.
Yes, Donald Trump is in denial regarding global warming. But Democrats are in denial regarding the cause of global warming.
Which is worse? Perhaps Trump is worse, but that still allows the possibility that Democrats are oversimplifying a complex issue.
Global warming is a long term problem. It is partly due to greenhouse gases caused by the internal combustion engine. But there are many causes. An even more important cause is the doubling of world population since 1972.
And population growth has other consequences which destroy the environment. Turning deserts into farms for solar panels has environmental effects, for example.
Population growth also causes shortages of water. LA and other cities drain the Colorado River dry and it doesn't reach the ocean for example.
In the third world, population growth contributes to genocide in places like Rwanda, civil war in the Congo, AIDS epidemics in Zimbabwe, corrupt governments in places like South Africa, and starvation in the South Sudan and elsewhere.
Remarkably, the NY Times NEVER runs op-eds on the need to stem population growth, by say providing family planning to third world countries.
Illegal immigration is a symptom of overpopulation. It destroys the safety net that we would like to construct for America's poor.
Resources are limited. That is part of the complexity of the illegal immigration issue that is never discussed.
1
@Jake Wagner In all the places blames for "population growth" you conveniently ignore the hand of foreign interests in cornering certain populations to gain control of natural resources in an area, and providing plenty of means, though technical support and weapons sales, for more devastating warfare.
I went door to door to campaign for George McGovern in Appleton Wisconsin, home of Joe McCarthy. The divide was as clear then as it is now. Tree hugger vs blue collar. To get the blue collar worker to endorse climate issues is like asking them to drink tea with their pinky in the air. So much more than just tribal identity. More like an existential core. I cringe when the media engages in ridicule or sarcasm, thinking that they are undermining and exposing bad thinking of the right. Peer pressure is enormous. With the near death of the union there was no longer a safe place for the white blue collar to stand and engage progressive notions, like climate which currently belongs to G-d and the right.
All this rain is hurting the crops as far north as Iowa. Well, the hurricane season is still in full swing, so there's still at least a chance one will come along and flood out Mar a Lago.
1
Population is a major contributor but yesterday the Pope issued a condemnation against abortion and birth control, both seen as asserting the rights of others (aka women) over a fetus and its potential. No mention of what happens when there are too many mouths and a world short of resources but not short of suffering. Imagine that crisis on an increasing global scale and then think about conservation and carbon.
1
I'll say this again, because it bears repeating (endlessly): human caused climate change has NOTHING to do with politics! It is proven SCIENCE. It is politicians who are beholden to the oil and gas giants who have politicized this issue for their own corrupt reasons and THEY are responsible for all those lost lives and homes and billions of dollars in damage!
1
Why do we expect a sane vision to come from a nation representing 5% of the world population and using 25% of the world's resources? Any leader who might devise such a vision would have his head handed to him from his own citizens. The US has to fulfill the imperative for growth and it will not negotiate away its model to the world for living large. We are not the shining city on the hill when it comes to learning to live sustainable on earth.
We were on the edge of over 25 years ago. We be over folks.
2
I wonder for the Americans that support all the denial of global warming: will there be a storm or drought or wild fire that causes them to cry uncle? I see no evidence that will occur. It is similar to the mass murders that are committed. Instead of dealing with guns, we just try to create barriers to those guns and allow more and more to be set loose in the society. Every time there is an atrocity there is : never again. Las Vegas didn't do it, Parkland didn't. All the workplace murders don't. And it doesn't matter how many hurricaines there are, doesn't matter there are more devastating ones closer together, doesn't matter wildfires don't have a "season" any more. It may be horrific at the time, but good old Uncle Sam is there to help rebuild, so we can do it again a year or two down the road. How about we say, as a nation, we either embrace efforts to prevent global warming or we refuse to pay for these rebuilds if they are in the same areas. We no longer wish to "give food to able bodied Americans who don't work". But we will rebuild houses for able bodied Americans who insist on living in a flood plain. Look at Tangier, the Virginia island, losing more and more land mass to the sea. Not rising seas, residents say. They want a wall to save them. They will lose everything and still stand by their ignorant views.
113
One thing we did to protect ourselves was to move from the South Carolina coast to New Hampshire after a trial period in Maine. NH is a purple state with wonderful people and a stunningly beautiful environment. I live less than a mile from the state capital building and yet less than one mile the other direction I am in farm country. We still have wildlife close by but at least it is not snakes and alligators. And, like Maine, we have lots and lots of lakes, ponds and ground water so we won't be suffering from desertification or salt infiltration any time soon.
4
@Julie Carter
I did the same. Left Florida for Western Pennsylvania. Love it. No hurricanes, fires or earthquakes!
@Julie Carter Well, yes, but all those desperate folks from the South (and NYC, which will be under water) will be swarming NH soon...you can run, but you can't hide.
1
Attention to climate change depends on those in power: generally Republicans. They are the less-educated ones; those maintaining the most big and small businesses; those who want to oppose the scientists/Al Gores/Democrats who plump for climate action. Change the power/business structure and we'll get something done for the worst examples.
Norfolk at the Navy base is already awash as lowland, but can be ignored under Democratic governors. Miami suffers the same challenge but is dominated by Latinos and Florida by Republicans. Hence no problem to leaders. Extreme weather happens anyway in earthquakes, tornados, hurricanes, wildfires, flooding. So it can be minimized.
Answers include changing to Democratic leadership in office, emphasizing empirical data everywhere from schools to the presidency, showing economic jeopardy to negligent businesses and providing private-government consortiums to alleviate the economic impacts of change. Our kids get it.
@BillLemoine -- "Republicans. They are the less-educated ones; those maintaining the most big and small businesses"
They are not less educated. To maintain the success of most big and small businesses, they demonstrate real ability.
They disagree with you. That does not make them stupid or uneducated. That just means in this case that they are wrong.
Those distinctions are important, because they suggest a path forward. We don't lack smart people, and we don't lack general education. What we lack is agreement.
What happened when the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor? Sudden complete total agreement among almost all Americans. Just the day before, we were deeply divided on those questions. We all had the same smarts and background as we'd had the day before. What we gained was united purpose.
That was not just from being attacked. That could have been taken differently. It was good leadership that made it a "Day of Infamy" that made us "pass the ammunition." I mean more than one speech too. It was an attitude conveyed and agreed.
We need the unity that comes from good leadership. We've just had a monster hurricane from out of nowhere created in two days time. That is a fact, like Pearl Harbor was a fact, a sharp slap in the face.
How we react to it makes the difference. Will be fall into division and name calling? Insist that the other guy is stupid and his business ought to be ruined?
Come on people, we've done better than this.
1
@BillLemoine Somehow getting rid of "Democratic leadership" is the answer to climate change. I'll move on to the next comment.
"The ‘Greatest Hoax’ Strikes Florida"
Headlines like this just fuel climate-skepticism. You can't pin any one hurricane on climate change because hurricanes have been around forever.
Nor can you say there are more hurricanes than in the past. In the 2000's there were 25 hurricanes that affected the United States. In the 1940s there were 26. In the 1880s there were 25. So far this decade? 16.
Denying climate change doesn't stop it's devastating effects, but that doesn't mean that every devastating storm can be attributed to climate change, and doing so just feeds the skeptics.
@Roger
It's not the number of storms that matters, it's the increased intensity due to warmer waters that has us worried. Why have the water temperatures increased?
1
@Roger Anything anyone says, scientific or not, can feed the skeptics. The point of the article is that is has become an issue where debate does not consider ovservations, analysis from people who have the discipline and training to track facts and document trends. The trends are documented by scientists. They have reached similar conclusions across many studies. We can't say that about politicians or casual commenters. The scientists have done their job. There is however much doubt that the politicians that we are entrusting with the care of our country, and the preparation of its environment for future generations of Americans ( not to even say of the world), will do their best and most responsible job on this issue.
@Roger -- Such a monster storm in so little time is unprecedented. It hasn't happened at all in the past. That is what makes it a wake up moment.
3
We actually have three problems to solve with respect to climate change: one, as noted in this article, is denial that the problem exists. The second is that, while accepting the reality of climate change, believers refuse to attribute it to human activity. The third is those who accept climate change and human responsibility while denying any possibility of changing the human behavior producing the problem.
3
On one hand we have folks in the oil sector who make a LOT of money from that oil. They did not go to school to study meteorology or earth science. These are business people who wish to sell and refine more oil. And make money.
On the other hand, we have the vast majority of scientists, folks who make predictions based on hard data. They are probably smart enough to succeed in business like the oil people, but choose to use their knowledge in less self serving pursuits.
If you are concerned about the health of our planet and how it might affect your offspring, who would you put your stock in?
22
Long term answer: follow the money! When municipal bond ratings in vulnerable areas are lowered, the ability of those cities to raise funds will be hamstrung by higher borrowing costs.
Also, as reported, the tremendous waste in FEMA is unsustainable. Rebuilding funded by FEMA in vulnerable places can't continue in the long run.
And finally, costs of fighting wild fires in the West will reach a limit.
It might be cheaper just to help everyone buy an electric car, similar to the trend in Norway!
11
I am tired of the rest of the country funding the cycle of flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild, flood, rebuild for those very people who deny climate change and deny the legitimacy of science. At some point the rest of us have to say enough.
34
Nick -- high marks are usual. But let's not pin the politicization of climate change on Al Gore -- it is the Republicans who put their heads in the sand, as they have on every other front: gun safety, healthcare, international diplomacy, etc. What today's Republicans are not seeing is that every crisis also has an inherent opportunity. The only (possible) way out of this is to lead -- in cleaner energy, and greater efficiencies. By leading, we can create the profitable businesses that will be necessary anyway. But that is precisely what we are not doing.
23
Max Planck sums up the denial of climate change tersely:
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
It would be preferable if that new generation could grow up, though.
17
A hurricane is not a political problem. First-level solutions to the the rising potential for catastrophic hurricanes requires individual and municipal/state action. But it appears that we are living in an era ruled by widespread acceptance of those risks, coupled with rejection of new taxes. In that environment, the voting majority appears to favor the idea of wait-and-see, and manage-evacuations-better.
3
Al Gore did not make climate change a Democratic issue. He made it an issue for all Americans and Republicans decided that it was a hoax and they would oppose all efforts to lessen the threat we face from it.
35
I couldn't agree more with the point of your article! We in Houston have had our share of major storms (e.g. Harvey), but I still find it hard to be sorry for the climate deniers being battered by Michael this week.
Maybe their "you lie" leaders will double down on their lies, but I wonder if eventually it might sink into a few ill-educated heads that maybe some sort of change is happening.
Needless to say, we'll hear the anti-gov'mint locals demanding more and more federal aid to rescue them from this situation.
32
Many of the posters descry the effects of climate change on their children. Perhaps others, those who are older, imagine the difficulties, trials and tribulations, faced by their grandchildren. However, we know from past experience that history, future history, is not 20 or even 50 years coming. It extends indefinitely. Currently there is no known mechanism whereby the Earth and its anticipated overabundance of carbon dioxide will "right" itself naturally in a few years, by which I mean one hundred. In fact the apple cart will not be righted for tens of millions of years...or more. We have more to think about than our easily imagined descendants. It is now time to contemplate the future of man on this planet. Indeed. Life on Earth as we know it is at stake.
7
@John -- True, we are not. But we could. We even know what to do. We just aren't doing it.
2
@John The planet will be better off when humans are gone from it.
Excellent piece. I especially appreciate your calling out the media for focusing on rescue heroics instead of the cause of these climate tragedies. Your blanket condemnation of Florida Republicans is not appropriate, however. Florida is where one is most likely to find climate-aware Republicans. At least one Florida Republican, Congressman Carlos Curbelo, deserves credit for being a climate hero. Curbelo, along with Florida Democrat Ted Deutch, founded the Climate Solutions Caucus in 2016. Curbelo has been consistent and forceful in his public statements that climate change is real and must be addressed, and he recently introduced an infrastructure bill funded by a carbon tax called the Market Choice Act. Some progress - not enough, but some - has been made among Republicans, and omitting to recognize this only feeds the tribalism you abhor.
6
@Theresa Quain. There may be, somewhere, some Republicans who appreciate that climate change is real. But, for the most part, Republicans are anti-science and anti-fact. No amount of pointing out exception to the rule can alter that simple fact.
And that is yet one more reason why, everywhere across the land, Republicans deserve electoral defeat in November.
31
@Native Tarheel
I am terrified about the climate, and I think you are correct that electoral defeat is a lesson the Republican Party as a whole needs. But about half the country is Republican, and I thought Mr. Kristoff could have done a better job of getting reasonable Republican readers to support effective climate policy. Thanks for your comment.
@Theresa Quain. I appreciate your sentiment. I find the Republicans around my own area are so tribal that nothing in the New York Times is considered factual by them. I wish I knew some reasonable Republicans; I used to have many friends who were moderate Republicans who understood science. Sadly, they’re gone.
Climate change is a dilemma that contains its own solution. It will kill a few billion humans, through weather, starvation, lack of water, and this will in turn make more of the threatened resources available to the survivors. Science may alleviate or delay nature’s solution to the problem, but planet. earth will provide the true comeuppance.
11
The last 3 years were not the warmest on record. That distinction belongs to 2014, 2015, and 2016. Last year was merely the warmest non-El Nino year on record. The climate has already changed and will continue to get worse until we stop using the atmosphere as our garbage pit for greenhouse gases.
22
By now we all can see that climate deniers are deniers solely for their own money/power interests.
In the political sphere it is corruption in the form of campaign cash. In industry it is those wedded to a business that reaps massive profit only if the poison it produces can be dumped into the atmosphere at no cost to their bottom line.
Those in the general public that support being the victims of these scams?
That leaves me shaking my head.
But they are clearly drawn to one party.
20
This is a cultural issue. What are the circulation numbers of Scientific American, or Science, or National Geographic, or Smithsonian magazines compared with the numbers for People and Sports Illustrated magazines? What are the attendance figures for our great Natural History museums compared to, say, NFL games (including TV). The vast majority of Americans seems to be so shallow and thoughtless, interested far more in being entertained than educated. The highly vocal climate deniers are few. The oblivious are many.
39
@Edward C Weber
Well said!!!! Couldn't agree more.
1
Bread and circuses, though centuries pass.
Mr. Kristof, your column ignores the most significant issue regarding climate change...population growth. I'm not sure why but while overpopulation was a major environmental issue in the 1960's and 70's, it is no longer a concern. Since 1950, the population of the U.S. has more than doubled and has nearly tripled worldwide. I remember visiting Miami Beach in the early 70's. The motel I stayed at consisted of two floors, with similar structures and parks lining Lincoln Road. I hadn't gone back until 2015 and now Lincoln Road as well as much of Dade/Broward counties are a series of 40-50 story apartment buildings with traffic in continual gridlock (sound familiar to NYC residents). This is due to the influx of millions of people. Irrespective of global warming, this construction has destroyed any available space for water runoff. Please explain to me, using the existing technology we have, how you would minimize the growth of greenhouse gases while the U.S.population is growing by leaps and bounds. FWIW, I'm all for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, I just don't think either party is dealing with the root cause.
33
@Gary "how you would minimize the growth of greenhouse gases while the U.S.population is growing by leaps and bounds"
The GOP is guilty of ignoring much, including the rapid increase in our population, and the world's for that matter as well. Underpinning all of this is the fact that the GOP panders to the religious right by fighting, among other things, the concept of 'planned parenthood'. And then the Pope states to the world that those that perform abortions are "murderers". "God gave us spirituality, the Devil gave us religion" (D. Chopra)
Climate change, if not reversed, may make all this moot though. And, I am asking Pat Robertson to check with his GOD to find out why the Carolina's need more rain.
3
@Gary Population growth. And which major political party is against birth control, sex education, abortion? The Republicans, of course. Anti-science, dumbing down education. People -- throw the rascals out! Vote for Democrats!
4
of course not. And we have a 'president'
in thrall to an evil part of christianity that wants women to reproduce until they are dead.
2
Well eventually everyone will get it because it is real and it its happening in the lifetime of many of us, I won't be around myself to hear what the laggards say, or to observe the most devastating effects that will surely come. But I definitely feel a great sadness for our children. I know my brothers children cannot see bringing children into a world that is bound be full of strife and hardship.
In my lifetime set was first the work of Rachel Carson inSilent Spring who raised the issues of the impact of DDT on the environment. Gradually through the writings and musings of many others we began to understand how we were affecting our ecosystems--I remember when the word suddenly emerged in my own consciousness. Anyway everyone will get the obvious truth that you have to be careful of what you consume and how you impact the environment that supports life itself. Hopefully this awareness will come before we kill off to many more species including ourselves. Losing the birds and the large mammals is going to be sad and tragic for most of us.
If we do that I have no doubt evolution will start again with what is left, but I hope humanity does not need to go there. It can be different if we wake up sooner rather than later.
11
I wonder why those who are most skeptical of climate change are also the ones most affected by it.
13
Because they are stupid in many ways.
2
"Republicans are correct that all this is uncertain." A blooper by Kristof in an otherwise on point column. No, "all this" is actually certain, not uncertain. It's happening, in myriad adverse events and trends around the world. It's past time to give any credence to assertions by climate skeptics that we really don't know what's happening, or how dire the threats are.
14
The other stories that will inevitably capture the news cycle following Michael will consist of heartfelt, tear-filled interviews about "rebuilding", "not leaving", "this is our home", and so on, as cited in this paper's recent story on the endless and wasteful cycle of FEMA spending following major storms and as Mr. Kristof points out about the home that was rebuilt multiple times at a final cost 10 times its worth.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/08/us/fema-disaster-recovery-climate-cha...
Where I live you see the homes of today's wealthy built right up to the water--enormous homes that in many cases are only used a few weeks a year. In many cases, they require sea walls that due to natural wave action wash all the sand away from neighboring beaches, thereby decreasing a natural buffer and increasing risk of flooding.
Where do you find the homes of the 19th century wealthy, the sea captains? They were all built well inland from the coast, along the major roads and byways of Cape Cod. They wanted nothing to do with storm surges, flooding, and sea water coming into their parlors. They saw enough sea water when they were at sea.
25
Mr. Kristof, the inclusion of the following paragraph should be avoided, because it gives comfort to the climate change deniers. Like smokers generations ago, who denied smoking causes cancer, deniers will cling to the slightest issue to support their political ideology.
"It’s true that we can’t definitively link the damage from any one hurricane (or drought or forest fire) to rising carbon emissions. But think of it as playing with loaded dice: A double six might have occurred anyway, but much less often."
7
@Robert Pryor Exactly. It's not about "proof," it's about feelings. We liberals believe climate change is happening and that's it's caused by humans. Anybody who denies our feelings is a "denier" and hence mistaken at best and evil at worst.
"The way to tackle lung cancer wasn’t to celebrate heroic doctors treating patients in the cancer ward, while ignoring cigarette smoking, but rather to reduce cigarette use."
The above simply sums up the great climate change vs. "climate change hoax"
better than any other paragraph I've read on the subject.
A self-serving team of arch conservatives and energy magnates--the Koch Brothers--has done more to damage this country than any other special interest group.
Because who elected the Koch Brothers to make climate change denial their hallmark issue? Not only do the Kochs buy elections thanks to Citizens United, they buy environmental law de-regulation.
Even a comatose person can look out the window and see that our climate is changing dramatically with bigger storms, more intense storms, more damage, more costs.
It's unconscionable that folks can keep building, and keep receiving compensation for, homes built in flood zones.
Climate change denial is the gift that keeps on giving--from the Kochs to us, and right back at them.
Thanks Republicans! You own this one.
44
Climate change legislation will come when homeowners start receiving huge increases in premiums and deductions on their insurance policies. As floods and fires increase in number and intensity, people who live in areas that were already at risk will soon see their rates skyrocket, while those who once lived in areas where these disasters were rare will have to add fire and/or flood insurance to their plans. Businesses will need protection from work loss while they remain closed during repairs. When rates rise beyond tolerance, homeowners will demand their politicians do something to bring them down. Perhaps then, our Congress will face reality.
16
@Dr. OutreAmour. I doubt that raising rates will be a call to action. The very wealthy can afford the rate increases, and ordinary people will have to forgo insurance and, eventually their homes. The intent of our current Congress seems to be to punish everyone who is not part of the .01% wealth club. The Republicans are pushing most of the citizenry into misery, so that they can rule over us like tzars over serfs.
2
@Dr. OutreAmour -- no, they'll just reauthorize NFIP -- force the public as a whole to pay for those living in harm's way.
FEMA + NFIP's losses were over 300 B$ last year.
@Dr. OutreAmour Yes, insurance companies are not "faith-based"; but Republicans will promise to subsidize their own tribe against their losses and will definitely blame Democrats for the increases.
1
The anti science conservative will hold their beliefs even while cowering in the shelters, bailing out their basement or chain sawing downed trees. The problem with climate change is it's very slow and incremental and for people who cannot think further than next month, they cannot see the end game and have no comprehension of science and models. Politicians cannot see further than the next election. A potent confluence of willful ignorance.
22
When people say they 'don't believe in' climate change, I think they are really saying they don't believe in scientific methods, or science at all. I think the war on science waged by extreme fundamentalist Christians, and by politicians owned by the oil industry and the Koch brothers has been effective.
I also think it is too late. Within the next 40 years it is projected by scientists it will all accelerate and we will see even greater problems than we are seeing now with super storms, sea level rise, storm surges and flooding, famines, droughts, forest fires, etcetera.
I hope the anti science people (including the current president) come to their senses in time to at least begin planning how to mitigate these disastrous effects of climate change.
Perhaps if we stop talking about whether they 'believe in' climate change and ask them why they don't 'believe in' science it would help them get beyond their primitive thinking style and into reality.
Just a thought.
23
@Ellen
Hi Ellen, thanks for your comments, however I don't think it's a denial of science that is the problem.
For Conservatives the issue is that mitigating some of the effects of climate change will require government policies and initiatives that will change how society lives.
It will also require countries to come together with an integrated plan to reduce carbon emissions.
Conservatives simply can't stomach the fact that it will be the government, and world co-operation that's required to prevent catastrophic damage to the world and society, you see, unless they're getting a cheque from FEMA for their demolished house, they don't believe in government or society.
11
@Ellen
Hi Ellen, I don't think it's that they don't believe in science, it's that they don't believe in government.
Climate change will require us to change our lifestyle based upon decisions and directions supplied by national governments as well as global agreements between countries.
That's what Conservatives can't stomach, first that it will require the government, whom they hate except when FEMA is cutting them a cheque for their flooded house.
Secondly, it would mean that all those dastardly Liberals were not only correct, it would mean you require a "Socialist" approach to solving the problem.
They're quite willing to let the planet crumble before they'll agree to a "socialist" solution to anything.
1
Don't you find it interesting that in the 21st century, a creature with our level of consciousness (brought here to this place BY SCIENTIFIC ENDEAVOR) can still be willfully ignorant enough to believe things in and out of existence? Including the very SCIENCE that---let's see....
...facilitates a longer, never more carefree/disease-free life; has transformed technologies and economies from agrarian roots, to Industrial-to-Digital Ages in less than 2 centuries, increased farming technologies/methodology that facilitates feeding a human population quadruple what it was just a century ago; makes it possible to get anywhere in the world in hours, can now peer billions of human-years back in time at the birth of the universe, as well as send probes and humans into space, and have connected the entire planet with personal hand-held digital portals to the world...
...but now, when that same science reminds us of the consquences of unabated growth in a finite world, then conveniently, science isn't to be trusted.
If the dissenters were all Amish or Mennonites, that would be understandable, though this human dilemma is precisely why they've adopted the life they have. When the dissent comes from---and I can hardly make myself even type it--- a PC/handheld, lamenting how scientific discovery is wrong, that's a plunge into human self-indulgence, hypocrisy, and stupidity that even the most clever can't spin their way out of.
2
Thank you for once again writing a column dealing with the very important topic of climate change and global warming. Unfortunately, no matter how strong the science supporting global warming, no matter how frequent and destructive the weather events like hurricane Michael and no matter how many columns you and others write about it, nothing will be done about global warming as long as right-wing Republicans are in charge of our government. Not until Democrats are in full control in Washington are we likely to see progress in correcting the causes of global warming. Now is the time to start. Get out and vote for Democrats.
25
I have lost all empathy for those who live in areas negatively affected by weather crises. For me that's probably the greatest effect of the "climate change" hoax that they so adamantly claim!
7
Except that our tax dollars continue to keep them propped up: Fema continues rebuilding anything affected by natural disasters.
@vincentgaglione Super storm Sandy hit NYC. Before you cast stones consider that you may be one of those people.
1
I’m confident that capitalism will eventually win out, the flip side to this is it will be slow and very messy getting there. When Banks and Wall Street will no longer write mortgages for costal property and insurers run for the hills the game will be over. Most of the current crop of Republican deniers will be dead and buried but nothing will change the outcome.
4
@Chris that is already happening. Some oceanfront property on Cape Cod has vastly decreased in value due to the larger storms which have destroyed the dunes the house were built upon. We regularly witness houses falling onto beaches here. A beautiful home with speracular ocean views can be bought on the cheap if you are willing to take the chance.
4
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
10
Of course in fighting global warming through the drastic reduction of fossil fuel use, we will at the same time improve the quality of our air, our water, our health and the health of future generations of every species. Maybe we should just rebrand the effort the new "iclimate" -sign on a few celebs, start a Go Fund Me for the earth, and print up some cool tees with soy ink.
7
@diggerand then chip in $54 trillion to save the UN nations.
The choice is continued withdrawal into a circle the wagons America first policy, or reach out to the rest of the world to work together to solve this and other global issues. November is the critical turning point to determine who we are as a Nation.
27
The US had the highest rate of emissions decline last year. What did the rest of the world do? Europe and Asia had increased emissions. Despite how Trump feels, coal isn’t making a comeback. It was replaced by cheaper, lower polluting natural gas. The vast majority of new energy coming online in the US is renewable. We are already making the changes needed to reduce our carbon footprint. What doesn’t please people is that we are making these changes without upending our society. That was the great hope of the climate alarmists. They wanted a reason to remake America to fit their vision.
1
@John
Actually, because of all the leakage between the fracking fields and the power plant, gas is no less dangerous than coal. And our "highest rate of emissions decline" may be true, but you have to bear in mind that our per capita energy use is by far the largest in the world, and the Trump administration is doing everything in its power to keep it that way.
21
@John -- you are correct that European emissions went up in 2017, look here for data:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/8869789/8-04052018-BP-EN...
"Largest falls in CO2 emissions in Finland and Denmark, highest increases in Malta and Estonia
According to Eurostat estimates, CO2 emissions rose in 2017 in a majority of EU Member States, with the highest
increase being recorded in Malta (+12.8%), followed by Estonia (+11.3%), Bulgaria (+8.3%) Spain (+7.4%) and
Portugal (+7.3%). Decreases were registered in seven Member States: Finland (-5.9%), Denmark (-5.8%), the
United Kingdom (-3.2%), Ireland (-2.9%), Belgium (-2.4%), Latvia (-0.7%) and Germany (-0.2%)."
This was a small upward blip on a downward trend better than that of the USA.
Malta is too small to matter. Estonia and Bulgaria shifted back toward coal due to increased prices from Russia. Spain and Portugal experienced prolonged heat waves, with high demand they supplied with coal.
2
@jdWhat's wrong with using the most energy?What's wrong with being the most comfortable, civilized, responsible country on the planet?
One of the largest impacts of climate change is and will be mass human migrations. Places become increasingly inhabitable, social and political forces make them more unstable because local governments cannot manage the problems. Civil wars and insurrections follow. People migrate to secure a sustainable economic livelihood and to escape political instability. And Presidents just want to build walls.
13
Seen from space reveals the Earth for what it is. A dynamic, closed loop terrarium enlivened by energy inputs from the sun, as well as from internal (to the terrarium) sources. All of its dynamic systems strives for one thing; balance. Energy inputted into the equations of that system ultimately yields balance as its output. We call the answer to these equations Nature.
But balance is part of a dynamic, ever changing state. It is not a static system; it will vary as the energy inputs do. And that is what we are doing. Our carbon addicted civilization is pumping massive amounts of energy into Earth's systems.
Those systems work on time frames we can barely perceive, but they are immensely powerful forces that can (and do) reshape planets. All that we do, are doing, is adding energy which is even now rippling through them. The result is our terrarium is beginning to grind its way to a new balance.
By the force of sheer numbers; ignorance and rapacious lifestyles we have set wheels in motion folks. Wheels which, in seeking to redress the imbalances we have created, will mercilessly grind us down. The world is setting up to change; we'd do best to understand this and adapt (as humans always do). Adapt, change our habits, or die. Such is the implacable aspect of Natures equations.
John~
American Net'Zen
15
@John Well said, John. But remember, death itself is an essential, a fundamental, ineluctable aspect of Nature's equations, our human aversion to it notwithstanding. Existence as we know it is finite -- nothing lasts (organic or inorganic, earthly or cosmic), all is in constant flux, life feeds on and so needs death. We don't know why it is so arranged, but that's the fact of finite existence. Our efforts to make the finite infinite may be the ultimate futility (in a philosophic sense), but even those efforts are also no lesser function of the "Nature equations". Death is "natural" and so is avoiding it. So to me the Buddhist goal of "ending suffering" -- or perhaps more practicable: reducing suffering -- is a more realistic endeavor than avoiding death itself. And it's something we CAN do. I know your advice is good; reality-based adaptation (we are intelligent creatures, after all) is the best way to minimize the sum total of suffering inherent in life. If only tribal identification and the resulting politics allowed it.
If you want to know what is real ask scientists. When 99% of the climatologists agree, I am going to take their word for it. Here is why: I know nothing about the climate, but I was a scientist. I can tell you for sure that one thing scientists do not typically do is make up evidence. They are actually a fairly conservative group usually preferring to wait for more evidence. When 99% say the same thing, its real.
56
One ought not (as this column unfortunately does) to conflate skepticism with denial. The scientists who figured out the human influence on climate (between the 1890s and the 1980s) were skeptical. Deniers of climate science, johnny-come-latelys to the "discussion," are anything but skeptical. They hate science or love to lie about it or both, but expend little reason, objectivity or critical analysis in the process. This can be readily seen in the absurdly inconsistent pretenses and deceptions they make: climate change doesn't exist, or exists but is all natural, or is man-made but that is good... somehow all at the same time.
8
The market will solve the climate problem, if that's what it is. As soon as somebody figures a way to make a buck out of it we're headed for climate nirvana--and you can be sure somebody will because, where there's a will, there's a way. In fact, if planetary cooling becomes profitable we're headed for an ice age! The market is your friend, trust it.
2
@Ronald B. Duke
As has been written *many* times by many experts, the "market" is broken because it has externalized the costs of climate change and has incentivized "growth" regardless of the actual quality of life value of the growth or the fact that endless growth is impossible on a finite planet.
I'm all for markets. Markets are a very clever way to provide decision making in the face of deep uncertainty.
However, unregulated markets will *not* get us out of this problem. What you're hearing from science is that we *must* modify our markets by including the costs of climate change via some sort of "carbon tax" or "carbon dividend" or whatever language lets conservatives sleep at night. We must also stop chasing the false god of endless growth and decouple human progress from consumerism.
Markets also depend on informed and engaged consumers or the market becomes little more then a rigged con game.
We have already delayed several decades too long to avoid some rather unpleasant outcomes. Continued dithering and "waiting for the markets" can, of course, turn "quite bad" into " apocalyptic".
Obviously, this sort of systemic transformation is *very* hard. However, our system *will* transform one way or another. Either we manage a rationale transformation or we collapse. Those are the choices remaining. Status quo, and "waiting for Godot", is just a path to collapse at this point.
12
@Ronald B. Duke -- "Defying Gravity" is a fabulous show tune -- love it. There's no way to do it, no matter how much "will" you have.
Ditto the laws of quantum mechanics that give CO2 & methane their absorption spectra.
Ditto the laws of chemical thermodynamics.
The only way to stop the warming is to greatly reduce CO2 and methane emissions.
4
And 'markets' are easily corrupted.
Donald J. Trump is indifferent to the longer term implications of climate change for one reason: He won't be here.
It's frightening to have to assess the president of the United States in such stark and simple terms, but Donald Trump is a very simple man.
20
@Alan R Brock It can't happen soon enough
1
And an entirely selfish man.
3
A good book,"The End of the World and Other Catastrophes," looks at many possible (and mythical) ends, but it identifies climate change as the one that is already in progress.
4
We are headed for a huge population crash (which is what happens when a species multiplies to the point where it damages its environment and reduces its carrying capacity). Some countries and some parts of countries are in better shape to avoid the worst of the crash than others, but they may be overwhelmed by refugees from areas that become more and more unlivable. Our ethical and theological systems will be stressed and undergo changes we do not want to think about. They could help us deal with the crash but are unlikely to do so.
12
As a New Yorker transplanted here 5 years ago, I can attest that this is the most corrupt state in the US. A state government that has not only ignored climate changes led by a governor who forbids the use of such terminology yet continues to develop coastal cities, like Miami, that in 10 years,or less might just be submerged.
In many ways this is a State divided-the more socially, environmentally conscious South vs. the more red-leaning north and panhandle.It's jut hopeful that Scott loses the Senate seat and that the Democrats take the Governor's position. It is the only hope that there might be some less greed and more responsibe leadership for this state.
37
@Edward Calabrese -- Miami will not be submerged in 10 years -- but the lowest areas already experience "sunny day flooding" ... and expensive measures will only be stopgaps
https://www.businessinsider.com/miami-floods-sea-level-rise-solutions-20...
Many of these measures are being opposed and stopped by locals too
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/...
50 years from now much of Miami will be valueless -- nature will be reclaiming it with mangrove swamps.
4
@Edward Calabrese Actually your coastal S Florida area only exists because of drainage of the Everglades and landfill which create a host of ecological problems. Low lying landfill communities like Palm Beach are not sustainable naturally. And as a newcomer you may not realise the tremendous power to finance political actions that corporate S FL interests in league with republicans and red politicians based in the Miami area, Palm Beach County, Ft Lauderdale exercise. https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140530-everglades-resto...
http://discover.pbcgov.org/publicsafety/dem/Flood/Types-Causes-Flooding....
1
Just as three storms colliding make for a more devastating impact as evidenced by the Perfect Storm, so to does the collision of three damaging political tenets, each a lie and each individually damaging, but combined, the potential of annihilation not just devastation.
The denial of both fact and science is the first storm, unreasoned yet accepted by the believers as fact in itself. To what end can only be surmised though political and economic greed seems a good place to start, but if the other side believes in science, our side must not just silently disagree but act as quickly and irrationally as possible to undo policy and regulation based on it.
Secondly, globalism becomes the bogeyman that justifies the outdated and dangerous tribalism we call nationalism. We must protect our borders and our workers and our industries and so on. Our very identity depends on it and ours is the only identity worth identifying with, sound the alarmist pols as if a line drawn on the ground will be respected by nature of any kind.
The third storm, intellectual apathy, both bolsters the first two but separately cedes individual thought and ultimately, individual and societal control to those who should not have it by reason of ineptitude or motivation. The examples are myriad and the end-state always consistently devastating.
The solution requires acceptance of reality, understanding the global nature of the problem and solution and most importantly, the will act.
24
@Medium Rare Sushi "... our very identity depends on..."
There's the core problem: humans have a need to "identify" themselves, to "be somebody", and that need expresses in an infinite, albeit arbitrary, spectrum of self-conceptions, some of which are relatively benign but most of which are skewed in ways poisonous to the health of the individual and by extension the larger group (all of us together, mankind).
Just as the Constitution has inherent, structural flaws that may prove fatal (e.g. the Electoral College), so the human person has a built-in flaw, a compulsion to identify, that is also possibly fatal on a global scale.
We need to outgrow that flaw, but in fact we inflame it via mass media and so are vulnerable to demagogues who exploit it.
I hope Kristof is not the lone voice this hurricane season warning about global warming. The press needs to drive this issue home every day until more people are as 'woke' to a planet in peril as a result of human made footprints as they are to issues of race and gender. The UN report that came out last week was clear: Now is the time to act.
It seems to me that the issues around Climate Change are in need of a great PR job that can remove it from being the political football outlined by Kristof that it's been for the last two decades. Give it a new name; distill the complexity to simple steps we can take, and most importantly, create a new Environmental movement, the way we saw in the 70s and 80s that led to recycling, etc. We can do this. We must do this. Even the Bible thumpers like their parks and their seasons, and if you explain that our pollution is harming Nature in a way God most certainly did not intend, we should be able to fight the Koch brothers menacing onslaught that persuades people that global warming is a "hoax." We can't keep kicking this can down for the next generation to deal with -- the time is now, and the place to start is with the press. Gov. Scott of Florida and Trump should be inundated with questions from the press: is the intensity of Michael a result of climate change?
6
Whether or not you believe in Climate Change, the fact that climate is changing is real.
Instead of arguing whether it’s a natural phenomenon or man made the priority should be on tackling the issues that worsen the symptoms of climate change, next to adhering to the Paris Agreement.
A deadly climate doesn’t discriminate between rich and poor. Every one and every thing will perish sooner or later given the circumstances.
13
Unfortunately, when it comes to climate change science, the results of extrapolations of measurable observations over time do not seem to sway most people. The data are too abstract and change too slow for most to feel directly threatened. Witness recent hurricanes ravaging the states with the strongest political opposition to acknowledging climate change risks.
It has not helped that much of the climate change argument is over how much change may be occurring naturally and how much change is due to mankind's activities on Earth. Likewise, powerful economic interests such as those that supply the carbon we consume, are likely to oppose change if it affects their bottom lines. So, they throw up alternative scenarios to confuse the issue because they know that science can never be perfect - it can't be because humans aren't. So do we let profit margins dictate the fate of our species instead of relying on science?
Regardless of whether climate change is mostly natural or mostly man-made, the speed at which it is occurring is the key thing; that's because its pace far exceeds our ability to adapt to the effects of higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Mankind will be just as extinct regardless of how much or how little climate change is from human activities. Are we really so arrogant that we are willing to gamble that our species can survive an ever-increasing amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide? Are we feeling lucky today?
2
The first step is to stop looking for new sources of fossil fuels. If we burn just the ones we've found we'd melt the entire Antarctic Ice Sheet, raising sea levels 57 meters from there alone.
It would take awhile, but for the first millennium sea levels would rise on average about 3 meters per century.
There's a paper on that
"Combustion of available fossil fuel resources sufficient to eliminate the Antarctic Ice Sheet"
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/8/e1500589
6
We are people of science. Science says we can't say a hurricane is caused by or made worse by climate change. But we say so anyway because it serves our policy goal. We are people of science.
3
@Alan
Tropical cyclones derive their strength from warm water and much of the resulting damage is due to storm surge. Add heat to the system and a higher base sea level and you get more destructive storms.
I don’t think one can say that global warming caused Hurricane Sandy, but ocean temperatures were several degrees above normal for both Sandy and typhoon Haiyan and sea levels were higher than before the Industrial Revolution, so global warming exacerbated the storms.
The extra foot or so of sea level rise on the US East Coast caused Hurricane Sandy to flood an additional 25 square miles. (one foot of sea level rise, averaged globally moves the shoreline inland 300 feet, it’s worse in places like S Florida and Bangladesh).
Another interesting thing about Sandy. Changes in the northern polar jet stream, perhaps due to Arctic ice decline, allowed Sandy to follow an unusual, and unusually damaging course; directly into land with the dangerous semi-circle of the storm piling water ashore.
As if that weren’t enough, these systems are slowing down and holding more moisture so we’re seeing unusually large amounts of rain in storms like Harvey last year in Houston and Florence this year in the Carolinas.
Katrina and Sandy didn’t spur us to action and Katrina killed 1,836 people. If we wait to act until a category 6 hurricane plows through NYC or Miami on top of 1-2m of sea level rise it will be a little late.
25
@Alan
"Science says we can't say a hurricane is caused by or made worse by climate change"
Science does *not* say this. As a person of science I am telling you we *can* determine if a hurricane was made worse by climate change and that is exactly what Professor Emanuel is saying. Climate change is making severe weather, hurricanes included, more severe.
I don't really expect to change your mind because I'm sure you find your quip exceedingly clever. Unfortunately, since I have been teaching earth systems for several decades now, sometimes I just can't stop my fingers from typing.
9
A fine example of a climate denier’s lie, hidden in lucid and non-hyperbolic language. The fact is that science can link greater occurrences of hurricanes and their increasing devastation to climate change. We are people of science. Accept the facts.
2
‘President Trump dismissed climate change as a hoax.’ A politician sees politics in every thing. He cannot rise above so as to understand the implications of scientific findings. Consistent denial of climate change only aggravates environment as the days pass by.
12
I worked in documentary films in the late sixties when the environment was becoming a popular topic. We interviewed scientists who predicted the very thing that is happening now if we did not change our ways. We did nothing then and now that we see the results we are still doing nothing. I wonder what those men of science would think now with the President of the United States calling climate change a hoax while Hurricane Michael is ripping through the South.
19
@Robert
When Maria hit Puerto Rico Trump seemed most concerned with insulting San Juan's mayor, who happens to be a woman.
Typical behavior for him considering his misogyny.
2
Climate change is implicated in ALL of the past major extinction events. If there are skeptics out there-and nobody credible who really understands the science is skeptical-my question for you is this: given the catastrophe that awaits us if you are wrong, how do you justify not trying to prevent this? It's crazy to me that this gets pushed into the background, while what takes center stage are things like the NFL protest, the wall, immigration, etc. Am I the only one who sees this craziness?
26
@Leo
Coal was linked to Earth’s worst extinction, the end-Permian event which turned Earth into basically a lifeless rock for millions of years.
From a paper in the journal Geology: "Massive release of hydrogen sulfide to the surface ocean and atmosphere during intervals of oceanic anoxia"
Abstract
"Simple calculations show that if deep-water H2S concentrations increased beyond a critical threshold during oceanic anoxic intervals of Earth history, the chemocline separating sulfidic deep waters from oxygenated surface waters could have risen abruptly to the ocean surface (a chemocline upward excursion).
Atmospheric photochemical modeling indicates that resulting fluxes of H2S to the atmosphere (>2000 times the small modern flux from volcanoes) would likely have led to toxic levels of H2S in the atmosphere.
Moreover, the ozone shield would have been destroyed, and methane levels would have risen to >100 ppm. We thus propose (1) chemocline upward excursion as a kill mechanism during the end-Permian, Late Devonian, and Cenomanian–Turonian extinctions, and (2) persistently high atmospheric H2S levels as a factor that impeded evolution of eukaryotic life on land during the Proterozoic."
https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/gsa/geology/article-abstract/33/5/397/2...
4
Everyone knows that now is not the time to be discussing climate change - it's much more important to send Thoughts and Prayers.
25
Denying Climate Change is not understanding science, is rejecting the results of countless projects and research programs pointing to the warming of the Earth, is not being able to fathom the catastrophic consequences of climate change and finally it is shear ignorance of a Nation that is at war with science, Knowledge, Evidence & Reason but at peace with Dogma!
9
Something to think about as we further warm a planet where our food is already stressed by heat. A population of a few million human hunter-gatherers was apparently beyond the carrying capacity of the planet as many places where we showed up the megafauna disappeared.
Agriculture, which developed around 10-12,000 years ago when large climate oscillations settled down, allowed us to double our population many times into the billions.
But agriculture faces big challenges if we don’t change our ways soon (1), as do our fisheries, and if they both decline significantly, forcing us back to being largely hunter-gatherers, history tells us that out of every 1000 people you see maybe one survives.
1 IPCC Western N America drought 1900-2100
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/drought-western-us-1900-2100.png
Except this time it won’t be meat on the hoof with Mastadons and large, flightless birds and picking up lobsters off of New England beaches.
Going back to hunting and gathering during the current 6th mass extinction is poor timing, so the one in a thousand could prove wildly optimistic.
6
Please don't use the term "uncertain" when it comes to climate change. The devastation is certain, and it's happening now. Scientific progress is certain. All of those who have suffered directly know the reality, but unfortunately, societies always depend on the wealthy few in power to make a difference. We will need to work on this within the larger population, with the help of scientists, but it's really an international/global problem. It's time to think outside the box, because relying on politicians is getting us nowhere. Scientists, keep stepping up.
18
In the last week, we have learned that climate change estimates are as wrong as wrong can be, and the earth is heating far faster than we have known. That tells us that our projections are anything but accurate.
If the earth could be heating twice as fast as we thought, it could be heating twice as slow as we thought -- the margin of error is huge. Our estimates are way too rough and those who profess certainty are way too confident, plain and simple.
2
@michjas
"In the last week, we have learned that climate change estimates are as wrong as wrong can be"
No. As predicted the Earth is warming rapidly, ice is melting and sea level is rising.
Consensus science tends towards the conservative, so it's not a big surprise to see the Earth responding faster than we thought it might.
47
@michjas -- no, we have NOT " learned that climate change estimates are as wrong as wrong can be, and the earth is heating far faster than we have known."
Read what the IPCC report SAYS by actually reading it, not what some silly blog site you follow says:
https://www.ipcc.ch/scripts/_session_template.php?page=_48ipcc.htm
It says that it will be extremely difficult to limit the increase to 1.5 °C , that much greater effort would be required than the world is making now. This is "world of duh."
Your "could be" argument is silly. If your car is broken and won't run, arguing that it "could be going 120 mph" is witless ... unless you fix it.
3
@Erik Frederiksen
According to the NYT, on October 7, "The report “is quite a shock, and quite concerning,”
Contrary to your statement, the new information defies expectations and IS a big surprise.
If you're taking this as a routine change in common understanding, you are simply wrong. A huge acceleration in global warming is not something any thinking person takes for granted.
There is a very good, but unfortunate reason, for the campaign against science and the acceptance of climate change: the oil in the ground would be worth a lot less if we stop using it so much. Right now, we use oil like a dying man would use water in a desert. Anything we can get, we gulp down. If climate change is proven, or accepted as proven, then there will be a lot fewer billionaires like the Koch brothers. They HAVE TO BELIEVE that it is a hoax because they would suddenly lose a lot of their net worth. Even though they are both old and bound to not be around all that much longer, their money matters more than anything else to them.
This same sort of thing happened behind the scenes when AT&T was one company and conspiring to hold up the introduction of fiber optics in the US. (You didn't know that happened? It did and it was the main reason the old AT&T was broken into pieces.) AT&T didn't want fiber optics to come along because it would, first, devalue the company and its massive holdings of copper wire, one of the main assets of the company. Then, they pushed back against fiber by saying that, hey, if fiber can handle 10,000 long distance phone calls at once, then the charge should be the same as one call on the old system times 10,000. They intentionally made it too expensive to use as long as possible
People don't get rich by being dumb, usually. The Koch brothers will be long gone from earth by the time change is really felt, so what do they care?
28
The critical issue of our times is climate change. It is absolutely incredible to me that trump can completely ignore this danger, even as Florida sinks into oblivion because of it. Gov. Scott bought into this view and I wonder if he's changed his mind yet, as he sees families displaced and homes and communities destroyed. What's it going to take, I wonder. Even the furious voice of Mother Nature seems to be diminished in this world of disbelieving republicans.
7
We’ve been seeing numerous impacts catching many scientists by surprise with how soon they are occurring. In 2014 two independent teams of scientists reported that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is likely irreversibly retreating. 3.3 meters of sea level rise equivalent of ice there is being destabilized by warming oceans and energy is going into the net melting of ice all over the planet.
Corals may not survive this century of warming and acidifying oceans, and droughts and floods linked to global warming—and conflict linked to those droughts—have already caused four countries to face famine.
Because of the decades to millennial long lag between a climate forcing and our feeling the effect, due to the thermal inertia of the ocean and response time of the ice sheets, the effects we are feeling now are largely just the beginning of the result of emissions from the 20th century. And emissions have been increasing steadily for decades.
We are also seeing numerous amplifying feedbacks: loss of albedo (heat reflectivity) from ice melt, permafrost melt, methane release and massive wildfires; the Earth is starting to wrest any possible further human control of the climate away.
We're about out of time on this, if not already, and leaders are not only still acting as if this is not a planetary emergency, but some are acting as if there isn’t a problem at all.
16
I disagree that "all this is uncertain". I am a chemist and graduate environmental scientist who devoted my career to environmental protection. Any chemist who looks at the infrared absorbance spectrum of CO2 and methane would conclude that the higher the concentrations of those molecules that are in the atmosphere would cause it to trap more heat. This is basic undergraduate science. I appreciate your efforts and hope they have some effect. I fear the people who should hear them are not there. They are tuned out to whatever their pleasure for news they agree with.
38
@David
The basics of the science are well understood, but we are still working out the speed and amplitude of coming impacts.
And uncertainty is not our friend as the most respected glaciologist in the US explained here. From a conversation held a few months ago with Michael Mann and Richard Alley. A few comments by Alley below.
"If we don’t change our ways we’re expecting something like 3 feet of sea level rise in the next century, and it could be 2 and it could be 4 and it could be 20.
The chance that we will cross thresholds that commit us to loss of big chunks of West Antarctica and huge sea level rise is real.
So when you start doing “Well you’re not sure,” but there’s a chance of really bad things and the uncertainties are mostly on the bad side, could be a little better or a little worse or a lot worse, but we’ll be breaking things."
https://youtu.be/l2yclMcDroQ?t=47m4s
The same may be said about most impacts from global warming, could be a little better than we think, a little worse, or a lot worse.
There’s no a lot better.
13
"Climate change may be the most important issue we face, reshaping our children’s world."
There's no "may" about it.
34
Senator Inhofe has likened belief in climate change and global warming to heresy against his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, asserting that the "arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."
That's the level of thinking from the then Chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, a no-nothing installed by the Republican Senate majority mainly to poke a stick in President Obama's eye. Hell of a job, Jimmy.
118
@Mark Hugh Miller
I would have said that Imofe is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the US Senate. After watching the Kavanaugh hearings, I am no longer sure about the rankings. But he is still in the top ten. Shame on Oklahoma.
3
@Mark Hugh Miller
That a pea brain like that is a Senator puts our Nation to shame.
2
"...don’t we have a responsibility to mitigate the next disaster?" A responsibility yes but probably not a solution. However what we do have and no one really talks about is our responsibility to mitigate disasters 50, 100 years from now. This train apparently won't turn around soon but why can't we feel for our grandchildren and their grandchildren. I do and daily feel terrible about what they most likely will experience.
19
I'm 67 and hope to be around for more than a few years and with a little luck I'll be checking out as the environment deteriorates to almost unlivable conditions according to the recent UN study. Shouldn't prospective parents take this into account before having a child?
I'm sure that there are going to quite a few people spending the next 10 years trying to get back to where they were before today's disaster. Best wishes to them.
20
@Steve
By expecting prospective parents to not have children, which i agree with (also considering we're zooming toward 9 billion), you're asking them to accept the notion that their lives are doomed. That's a devastating notion that precludes hope.
Growing up, we never considered the future as anything but bright.
10
@Steve
The situation would also be helped by not building flimsy wooden structures so close to the water ... move inland; build to last.
1
@IRememberAmerica -- not having children, or having fewer (e.g. 1 ... I have one) does not constitute "lives are doomed."
This is as absurd as claiming "if I cannot do anything and everything I want ... my life is doomed."
No one is "denying climate change"--a constant for more than 4 billion years. But consider in that span of time the great oxygenation period--much higher than today. So what was the battle plan for that back in the day? Such a fool's errand this notion that man can change CO2 and Methane levels enough to affect the momentum of current "climate change"--easier to stop the spin of the earth, which it is doing ever so slowly. Enjoy the ride, the world wags on.
3
Um. But man (and woman) CAN indeed change Co2 levels by reducing Co2 emissions. Something we should have started in earnest decades ago when scientists first started calling attention to the issue. You’ve heard of scientists and the work they do, right?
38
@Alice's Restaurant:
Humans weren't around during the time period you cite. What's your point?
We've now been the root of our own current circumstance, and have done it in a nano-second re geologic time.
47
@Alice's Restaurant
Not only can we change CO2 levels, we are doing exactly that. After being stable for the whole history of humanity and much longer, the rise in CO2 levels has occurred precisely in the industrial era - slowly at first but accelerating all the time. Enjoy the ride yourself, knowing that maybe not you but certainly your not so distant descendants will at increasing risk from flood, drought and the collapse of food supplies.
The deniers in the tobacco industry killed their victims one by one. Fossil fuel deniers could kill our entire civilization.
39
I am concerned about climate change, but our positions on climate change should not be based on day to day, mercurial shifts in the weather. Climate change is serious but not because we just witnessed an inferno of a hurricane in the Panhandle and beyond.
For example, the past summer in New York did not seem especially hot as we did not have any days in which the mercury neared 100. Did that mean that climate change was in retreat. Of course not. Indeed, this past summer, Scandanavia's climate seemed positively Carribean.
Around 1974, Time or Newsweek ran a front page article about a coming drastic decline in temperatures. When I read the article, I recalled that on Easter, in 1970, we had three inches of snow. Nevertheless we didn't see a new ice age. Indeed when Easter came around in 1976, the temperature in Central Park hit 96.
I could list innumerable incidents in which the date and the temperature were stunningly incongruent, but if I do not relent in displaying my quasi encylopedic memory, you guys will decide I have aspergers.
7
@David Gottfried The OCEANS are warming, friend, due to man-made activity. Hence, the hurricanes.
20
@David Gottfried
Our warming atmosphere becomes more volaltile, like a slowly warming pot of soup on a stove heading towards boiling. More volatility, faster wind vortices - and in some case extremes of temperature, hot AND cold, in short periods of time, although the average continues to rise.
4
@David Gottfried
Stop trying to count angels on the head of a pin.
2
"I worry that television coverage in the coming days will be dominated by heroes on boats rescuing widows on rooftops. Yes, that human drama is riveting — but it doesn’t address the larger problem"
Not to forget all of those TV Anchor people, mainly men, who have to show their (macho) bona fides by breathlessly reporting the huge danger of the hurricane.
18
@Peter J.
Considering history it is always astounding what behavior is considered great in certain period of time, and looks absolutely insane 30 years or 300 years later.
After years of reading articles like this one, there are moments when I feel like an insane person. It is the only topic covered that uses expressions like 'threatens to end human civilization' and 'could cause the loss of large sections of the United States', yet we have powerful decision makers making snowballs and using them to create the fossil fuel commercial we live in. It appears that logic, the scientific process, and the death of innocent people, just don't work anymore in swaths of this country. Everything is now about marketing, the only skill our current president possesses and the one required to run the country. As Mr. Kristof points out, it will be 'interesting' to see how many doses of reality it will take to put a dent in the marketing message.
74
@Ccurtice
Marketing. Sooner rather than later all this clean up will need to be paid for, and private insurance will eventually bail out of this. That leaves taxpayers alone to pay. Believe me, when the cost is too high, we may finally start to do something about the assumed cause.
9
Already too little, too late!
1
I think it’s a combination of the political being joined with the biblical.
3
The GOP simply doesn't care -- most of the politicians have chose the money over the interest of their constituents, and there are too many big businesses interests tied to carbon emissions. Money, money, money.
It doesn't seem to bother deniers that 95% or more of the world's top scientist are screaming this is happening, yet Trump and his ilk don't care. And if Trump says it, and Fox echoes it, the base believes it.
You can evade reality, but you can not evade the consequences of evading reality.
Science isn't partisan, and the resulting physics of climate change isn't either.
Hard to have much hope about this one -- maybe the global community, and some of the states can make a successful serious push for change. We'll see.
40
The following bit of reality brought to you courtesy of NOAA's current monthly "State of the Climate" global analysis (August 2018). Where they say "average" they are averaging the entire last century. And when they say things like "record warmest" they mean in reference to the instrument-recorded temperature data going back 138 years.
"Nine of the ten warmest August global land and ocean surface temperatures have occurred since 2009, with the last five years (2014–2018) comprising the five warmest on record.
The record warmest August occurred in 2016, with a temperature departure from average of +0.90°C (+1.62°F). August 1998 is the only 20th century August among the ten warmest Augusts on record, ranking as the seventh highest on record at +0.68°C (+1.22°F).
August 2018 also marks the 42nd consecutive August and the 404th consecutive month with temperatures, at least nominally, above the 20th century average."
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201808
And their global review for all of 2017 makes it clearer:
"The year 2017 is also the warmest year without an El Niño present in the tropical Pacific Ocean.
2017 also marks the 41st consecutive year (since 1977) with global land and ocean temperatures at least nominally above the 20th century average, with the six warmest years on record occurring since 2010."
34
@b fagan
Oh, that’s just a Deep State conspiracy going on at NOAA.
1
As long as donors with major interests in fossil fuels, such as the Kochs, own the GOP, the GOP will not be interested in what science says. As long as Fox News refuses to report news that contradicts its interests -- as their website failed to report on the new UN Climate report the day it was issued -- an embarrassingly large proportion of our population will be ignorant about basic issues that will affect their lives.
24
Hurricane Michael
I’m safe overall from Hurricane Michael; -
Live by the sea and you’ll catch the cycle,
No safety life jackets nor lifeboats for use
When you hunker down; there is no excuse
If boating and beaches are in Michael’s ambit
And after he’s gone what's left is a sand pit;
No whining for help; just deal with your own;
Learn to accept what you’ll reap you have sown.
16
"Some people will say this isn't the moment for politics."
These are the very same people, who, after a mass shooting, say that it isn't the time to talk about gun control.
Actually, I don't want them to talk anyway. I just want them to listen.
134
@R Mandl Sometimes a startling, devastating, fatal event can get people's attention, so that they're willing to listen and to talk politics.
1
The politicians denying climate change do so far short-term financial gain. It baffles me that these greedy creeps risk their children' and grandchildren's future to fill their own pockets. That's on me. Nothing should surprise me anymore.
5
I am a broad minded person.
I can relate and empathize with most positions taken by the right.
But this anti-intellectualism, this attitude that says that the opinions of politicians, pundits and bloggers is just as valid as the findings of experts, folks that dedicate their lives to finding out how things work, is truly baffling.
Yes, there is an overwhelming consensus in the findings of the world wide scientific community of climate scientists.
This is real.
It is a big deal.
Donald Trump and Senate republicans do not know better than the scientists.
And your opinion, Mr Armchair Scientist blogger, don't mean squat.
Try this:
When a loved one gets seriously ill, don't waste your time going to see a doctor, ask your congressman what you should do.
And see how that works out....
21
@Rich Huff Brilliant comment. But the Cult of Trump may just do it.
1
One thing I've always wanted to throw into the faces of these R Politicians who all say "I'm not a scientist, but ..." would be "It's obvious you're not, but somehow you still feel qualified to mouth off about it."
A few years ago it was possible to envision a Winter Olympics without any snow. In not too many years it may be impossible to have a Summer Olympics as it will be too hot for the athletes to compete.
8
Meh - you reap what you sow. They want to deny it and elect people that deny it - let them all live with it. Zero sympathy.
22
Great column! But what can citizens do? The smartest thing you can do is become an active member of Citizens' Climate Lobby http://www.citizensclimatelobby.org. Their volunteers had more than 1,600 meetings with Congress or their staff last year and had more than 4,000 letters, op-eds and editorials published. But you might read this NYT article first: Cracking Washinton's Gridlock to Save the Planet: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/cracking-washingtons-gridlock...
4
East Coast Republicans are suffering as a direct result of political views they support, i.e. climate change denial, while Democrats equally suffer from what they fought against.
They both deserve sympathy, but only one group deserves the majority of the blame.
5
Oh come on!! Florida has been getting hit by damaging hurricanes since the beginning of history and before. To be sure, global warming is real. But suggesting that a single severe weather event like Hurricane Michael is some sort of broadside or payback to global warming deniers is just wrong, both literally and ethically, and it undermines the factual arguments which prove global warming.
2
KJ, What about last year's hurricane in Houston? What about last month's hurricane in North Carolina? All these are excused as "100 year hurricanes", so how come they keep coming back every year now?
1
How about some cartoons:
A man and his family sitting astride the roof of a house that is nearly underwater, with the water rushing by carrying debris, shouting "This is the greatest hoax ever!".
A man and his family in a rowboat paddling down a main street where the houses are nearly underwater with floating vehicles drifting by, shouting "This is all a hoax !"
You get it.
23
Nick,
Gov. Rick Scott’s administration and North Carolina officials are not alone in their craziness. Here is what your colleague writes:
"ordinary citizens also have a right to be skeptical of an overweening scientism. They know — as all environmentalists should — that history is littered with the human wreckage of scientific errors married to political power"
Bret Stephens - NY Times (April 2017)
"Here’s a climate prediction for the year 2115: Liberals will still be organizing campaigns against yet another mooted social or environmental crisis. Temperatures will be about the same".
Bret Stephens - Wall Street Journal (November 2015)
12
Ouch. I'm sure glad every stupid thing I ever thought wasn't preserved for all eternity. You gotta give the guy a break though--im pretty sure he's revised his opinion.
1
@SPA “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” Upton Sinclair
I think Stephens "understands", he just cannot admit it and remain himself.
3
Sometimes the best cure for myopia is to be hit in the head by a two-by-four. Trump will believe in climate change when Mar-a-Lago gets wiped out. It is really unfortunate that so many people in this country subscribe to ignorance.
37
@Ken L
Ah but FEMA will rebuilt it for him no matter how many times it is destroyed. Those of us in blue state will pay for it w/ our new “tax cuts” when we can’t deduct all of our state property and income taxes.
2
So how does anyone with brains vote for climate change denier Rick Scott for Florida Senator? How do the great American Exceptions figure this is going to turn around?
We're looking at increasing devastation leading to total disruption of civilized society. It doesn't just start in 20 years, it's happening now.
We have children and grandchildren! And yet the American Exceptions amble merrily along, led by Richie Rich, the Bad Boy President, whose entire MO is to do the opposite of what an intelligent, mature, well-informed person would do.
America is responsible for this climate change. We've caused the lion's share of it through our heavy use of oil over the last 150+ years, and when we realized it was destroying the planet, instead of taking immediate steps to replace it with alternative energy sources and sustainable technologies, we denied it and buried the evidence. Thank the Republican god Reagan for that. The rest of the world, including China, are Johnny-come-latelies.
Americans actually believe that we’re ENTITLED to destroy the world. If we white people can’t be first anymore, then, by god, we’ll take everyone else down with us.
33
Is it not rather ironic that many of the Republican states in the South supporting Republican climate change denial are also those most likely to be harmed by its effects? Yet another example of people voting against their own best interests... Methinks there lies the greatest "hoax."
40
@Bert : "...ironic that many of the Republican states in the South ...are also those most likely to be harmed by its effects ..."
I agree, but there's collateral damage as well. Read about a certain prosperous North Carolina farmer: His migrant workers called emergency personnel desperate "as their mattresses, refrigerators, and other belingings floated by." But he told them not to come, the migrants were just fine. The web address appears below.
Even in slaveowning days, this would have been seen as shameful, if not a crime. Now, the farmer probably is a local hero, and certainly is a Presidential one.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/salvadorhernandez/migrant-workers-s...
I no longer have any sympathy or donations for these people. They elected Trump. They can ask him for help.
37
@MoneyRules Nevertheless many of these red state citizens will benefit from our hard-earned taxpayer funds, even though they cry out against "socialism." But I'm sure they won't object to our generous money pouring in.
15
Wow. I’m ashamed that you are on my side.
Why didn't Trump warn Floridians at that rally when he knew they were in the storm's path? Because he knows that science is opposed to, and an enemy of politics. Lets see what he says if the next one inundates Mar a Lago with 8 feet of water.
11
This column sets out one of the most baffling political (not scientific as it should be) positions I have ever seen. Why on earth are the vast majority of Republicans so adamant about denying climate change? It appears to be rooted in the Koch brothers and other fossil fuel producers who profit from the production and use of pollution producing fuels.
But why do these fossil fuel produces have such a hold on the rank and file Republicans? I can see Republican officeholders submitting to the bribery and threats of their puppet masters but why does it run so deeply into the ordinary Republican voters?
This is why people like me think Republicans are stupid.
If the US was to accept the science - flawed though it might be - and set about addressing climate change and start putting in place technology and industry to correct or lessen our environmental problems, we would likely proceed toward what used to make Republicans happiest: business, industry and moneymaking for owners and executives (also workers) in these industries.
We could clean up the environment and extend the life of Earth. If the science is wrong, we only clean up the environment. In any case, Republicans make money.
10
So, where does Hurricane Camille stand? A product of global warming, or not? Far greater winds(200 m.p.h) far more damage done and it occured in 1969. Just asking.
1
Statistics often work in unexpected ways. Sometimes two tall parents can have a short child, but I wouldn’t bet on that happening. Similarly, I wouldn’t bet on an absence of destructive hurricanes over the next decade. But I’m sure there will be a lot of cheap oceanfront property in the southeast if you want to take that bet.
1
@lou andrews
It's difficult to proof that any one event is caused by climate change. The proof lies in the increased frequency of extreme climate events. Just like one healthy 90 year old chain smoker doesn't proof that cigarettes are harmless.
37
Since you ask: Weather prediction is probabilistic, and global climate change means that the probability of warmer weather is increasing rapidly.
Probability talks about a series of events, not just one event. You can't tell if dice are loaded by rolling them once, you have to roll them many times. In the same way, no single weather event can prove or disprove anything global warming.
So, no, your example doesn't disprove global climate change. Just saying...
20
Trump will be long gone by the time the worst effects of climate change hit.
He's different than most of us in that he really doesn't care what happens to humanity once he's not here. If he's dead, we all should be.
We need to be as loud as possible on climate change in the next 4 weeks. Most reasonable people know Trump is lying and we all have everything to lose.
31
@Sparky Maybe he is different in not caring but I have family with grandchildren and great grandchildren (just born) who will continue to deny it's happening even though I think they care but can't admit that they have been wrong. And will admit or at least not dispute that weather/seasons are not the same as they were before. But still won't make that last step.
6
For heavens sake, how long can the pot go on calling the kettle black.
The issue is population. Climate change is but one manifestation of the devastating impact of 7 billion people, a number which continues to grow alarmingly.
It is human numbers which demand the destruction of land, the emission of carbons, the total ransacking of the earth and most living things … and climate change while important is secondary.
If tomorrow climate change were brought under control we would still be witnessing the wholesale destruction of the earth.
There is only one reason liberals wont talk about it. That’s because it goes to the heart of the massive (1 million legal immigrants and the other 1 million illegal immigrants we accept every year. )
Because the reality is that for the most part it is people of color who are having the most kids worldwide and in this country as well. Therefore following liberals logic, to question it is to be racist.
The problem is that we have exported the powers of modern medicine and manufacturing but not the mores that we developed to accompany them. Western civilization can have and bring to adult hood countless children, but we don’t because over time we recognize the consequences.
Not talking about it means we are not really serious about climate change. It’s this blatant hypocrisy which blunts the liberals message.
2
@Ben Ross True - reducing the population to half would work, but not if you increased everyone's per capita CO2 production to that of the US and oil rich Arab nations. Switzerland, France and Italy produce approximately 4 tons of CO2 per capita per year, China 6, Germany 9 tons, the US 15 tons, Saudi Arabia 16 tons. Ben, do you relate more to the lifestyle of someone from Switzerland or from a Gulf State?
1
@Ben Ross
Thanks for your input. I gather that you therefore support free and easy access birth control, as well as keeping abortion legal in order to keep our population down? These traditionally liberal causes are definitely required in order to keep populations low.
United States has had less than 5% of Earth’s human population in the last 50 years, but historically is the biggest CO2 polluter (ref: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/01/climate/us-biggest-carbon... ). Liberals have nothing to do with it all!
Fact
Hurricanes have decreased in number and intensity sice 1900.
Source... NOAA study available on line.
Check it out .
1
@obumme
Checking it out: the Sept 20, 2018 revision does not seem to agree - the total number of storms perhaps but future intensity increases:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Summary
Sea level rise–which very likely has a substantial human contribution to the global mean observed rise according to IPCC AR5–should be causing higher storm surge levels for tropical cyclones that do occur, all else assumed equal.
Tropical cyclone rainfall rates will likely increase in the future due to anthropogenic warming and accompanying increase in atmospheric moisture content
Tropical cyclone intensities globally will likely increase on average (by 1 to 10% according to model projections for a 2 degree Celsius global warming).
The global proportion of tropical cyclones that reach very intense (Category 4 and 5) levels will likely increase due to anthropogenic warming over the 21st century
In terms of detection and attribution, much less is known about hurricane/tropical cyclone activity changes, compared to global temperature. In the northwest Pacific basin, there is emerging evidence for a detectable poleward shift in the latitude of maximum intensity of tropical cyclones, with a tentative link to anthropogenic warming. In the Atlantic, it is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on hurricane activity.
5
@obummer
Sorry bummer dude - that is totally false.
It's actually pretty easy to prove that there were fewer hurricanes prior to the 21st century. Hurricanes are named alphabetically by year, starting with A. In the latter half of the 20th century, there were Betsy, Cleo, Donna, Andrew, Camille, Gloria.
In recent years, we've had Katrina, Maria, Sandy, now Michael. Have a look to see how many devastating hurricanes there were starting with K or M - and forget about S, there weren't any !
There are undeniably and provably more severe hurricanes per season now than there ever were in the 20th century.
I was just on NOAA and did not see that at all. How about a link and a precise reference obummer?
1
I am so despondent knowing the havoc we’ve wreaked on this planet since the late 19th centuries. And we’re all culpable - we in our throw away society obsessed with personal convenience drive cars that look like they could be used to invade country; discard non disposable waste with nary a thought to its environmental impact ... the list is endless. Those who shop with reusable cloth bags and recycle our waste are fooling themselves if they think they’re making an impact. It’s too much like needing to lose 50 pounds so you quit chewing gum.
2
@LS You are right we are all culpable. I turned on my air conditioning earlier this (October week) when it was high 80s in northern Illinois. It is supposed to be in the 50s tomorrow. Doesn't seem like we have real fall or spring weather anymore. But like I said. I still want my air conditioning. I'm as guilty as anyone even if I want to think I do more.
1
@CM
Air conditioning is a real killer. Cause one gets used to it. If you are in a private home, get fans, cross ventilation and shades. People lived in these climates before ac.
@CitizenTM That works well in some places, but try living in Tucson in June when we are having upwards of 118 degree days. I keep my thermometer at 80-85 during extreme heat, but try to offset my dependence on A/C for 4-6 months of the year by almost never using the heat during theater six months of relatively reasonable temperatures. We installed a complete system of solar panels on our roof, have a large rain-collecting system, use low irrigation methods to water our native plants only when they look near death, recycle, use cloth bags, rarely buy anything new and limit our driving (in our Prius) to just the necessary trips. But you're correct, A/C is a major problem for the planet, and I do feel guilty about it.
I'm sure we can declare these disasters a hoax or ban the federal government from talking about them, which would save U.S. taxpayers a lot of money that should more properly be born by the states that were so sure this wouldn't happen.
6
Maybe stronger “thoughts and prayers” are needed to repel those 140 mph winds and diminish the storm surge....
8
The mitigation ship is pulling up anchor, getting ready to set sail. Which side of this impending disaster will you be on?
1
The next "100 year hurricane" is due in the next year or tow.
6
First, it's called "Global Warming", not climate change, for the climate over time ALWAYS changes. That term is used becuase thos ein the media found global warming to be too harsh of a truthful term to say to the public. Second, the water temperatures in the gulf of Mexico and particularly in this said are of 85 degrees F. is normal for this time of year and has been for over 100 years or more. Prof Mann shoul dhave been more specific with regards to the statement he made. Sure , global warming affects the oceans on a world wide scale but in this case and in this area of the world it has nothing to do with the strength of the storm, it falls within normal parameters. If you don't want the warming deniers to keep putting out false arguments then please start with yourselves, Mr Kristof for one and Dr Mann the other. Both of you know better than to fudge facts.
1
Lou, do you swim in the ocean in Oregon? I swim in California and have done so since 1995. Temperatures in La Jolla typically started at 63 degrees in May and peaked at 69-70 degrees in August. This pattern continued through 2010 or so. In the last 8 years, temperatures have gone up and this year we had 78 degrees in August.
1
@lou andrews:
It would take too long to refute the many false arguments you have posed above, and then, you would disagree, regardless. . .
One point: the exact same science that allows you to type a mindless diatribe for all of those to read online is also the platform of climate science. . .
1
Natural disasters create chaos. Trump thrives on chaos. It thus follows logically that Trump favors accelerated climate change.
2
Growing up I was taught that the geometric shape of our planet is roughly spherical and not some Cartesian plane spreading out into infinity. I've also heard that the Great Barrier Reef was formed over a long period of time by millions of individual organisms the aggregate actions of which resulted in one of the world's great natural wonders. I've also been chilly in an empty room that, once filled with other people attending a presentation, became uncomfortably hot and smelly. The beer that manly Supreme Court Justices revere is made by yeast consuming all of the life sustaining elements in their environment, excreting waste, and dying off.
I've lost my train of thought. What were we talking about again? Oh, yeah, anthropogenic climate change is total nonsense.
8
What do you call it when someone denies climate change, and then has his or her house destroyed due to the effects of climate change? Karma.
What do you call people who elect politicians who enact policies that support climate change denial? Accessories to murder.
11
Mr. Kristof knows in his bones that regardless of surveys, most climate change deniers know that the impacts are already here and just won't admit they are wrong on the issue. They are either making money off a business that contributes to degradation of the environment or don't care about people coming after them and find denying climate change a convenient defense of their behaviors that are accelerating it. Neither of the two groups are going to take any action that diminishes how much money they have in their wallets or forces them to make changes or forces their wants to be reduced in any way. They aren't going to change their actions or be even slightly inconvenienced for the common good, unless forced to by legislation that opposes and regulates them. Nick knows this as well, so I suspect the motivation for this column is to continue to strip away their defenses so that once the fig leaves are gone that are used to make it look like they have some concern about their fellow human beings, all their actions can be seen for what they are (and have been), blatantly selfish and possibly even personally self-destructive if they hang around long enough. We need even the deniers on board for reversal to happen as fast as is needed, so the approach Nick is taking to logically expose how ridiculous their positions are, isn't a bad strategy to see if some can be swung over to the sane side.
6
There must be some kind of payoff by denying climate change, cash etc.
For Republicans, let it go, they are already lost
1
It reminds me of Noah. We defile this (not our) beautiful planet and now comes the consequences.
11
Our thoughts and prayers go out to the victims.
7
@TB Johnson
For their ignorance.
1
This morning I was out early for my daily run. I have been running this same route for 30 years. This morning and for the past 3 summers I realized how dirty the air has become. I watched the road and lost count of the number of large diesel trucks, large four -door F150 type vehicles, and very large SUV's; all carrying only 1person at a time. All with humongous V6 or V8 engines. Small sedans are almost extinct these days as is anyone who really cares about gas mileage. I always loved this route with its stately homes and beautiful trees. Now the air is so bad and choked with smog just about any time of dayor night. Its time to abandon this route and find another soot and smog free street if its even possible.
8
@DJ
For male drivers, the bigger the truck, the smaller the winkie. Word!
1
@DJ There is no smog-free street.
The Earth has experienced cycle of intense cold and periods excessive warming. Significant exterminations have taken place. The problem today is that we too many people on this planet and the we have to deal with finding enough arable land and benign growing conditions in order to feed such large populations. Lot's of luck!
3
Thanks for this.
Today I listened to victims of Michael express horror at the destruction of their homes, neighborhoods, and workplaces. If we multiply this devastation by millions we may begin to understand what we are up against with unmitigated climate change. And yet, many of the harmed will vote for climate change deniers this November.
I'm not without hope, but the failure of the American voter to connect the dots is both astounding and seemingly unsurmountable. How do we help the deniers understand?
17
@Pajarito
Teach science in the schools and ban the teaching of creationism.
It is all fake news. The hurricane in Florida was just a regular tropical storm and there was no damage. What you see on TV and the press is paid actors and stage sets. The good news is that there is no climate change and Washington need not send any funds to the region. The actors were already paid. But I must admit that the acting and sets looked very convincing.
39
@Peter Bohacek some of the CGI was pretty transparent. And I recognized some actors from earlier "disasters". A few were just kids when Mt St. Helens "blew up". It is truly sobering to see them all grown up.
But you are right, the special effects and acting were mediocre at best and we should send no more money than what they already received.
Right. Just like that bogus landing on the moon thing and that shooting that never happened in Sandy Hook.
Baseball fans understand that in the steroid era, you couldn't point to a specific home run and say "that home run was caused by the batter taking steroids." But everyone understood that players who doped had a competitive advantage, and that statistically, the number and power of their home runs was directly related to steroid use. The dice were loaded; fans were outraged.
I understand why fossil fuel companies and Republican politicians don't want to understand the facts of climate change - there's too much money and power on the line. But why is it so hard for some other people to understand that you can't point to a single storm and say "this storm was caused by climate change," but rather like baseball, we're juicing our climate with carbon dioxide and the results are clear? This past year alone we've had Harvey, Irma, Maria, Florence, and now Michael. How much more time and evidence do you need?!
41
@jrinsc That's a great, apt analogy and I will use it next time the opportunity arises, thank you. But also, I think the deniers really know that scientists are right about the anthropogenic aspect of global warming (have Republicans made that term uncool now?), they just need to have an identity and the Cult of Denial provides one, however perverse it may be.
No, no: climate change "may be the most important issue we face" is incorrect. Climate Change IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE WE FACE because it drives all the other, major (the apocalyptic 'four horsemen') issues we are facing today. Denial comes in all forms but mainly from folks who do not want their fossil-fuel-driven profit margins to be compromised in any way as they grab for supply when demand will surely skyrocket. If I hear or read that the "science is uncertain" one more time, I think I'll cringe even more. ALL SCIENCE is "uncertain:" one starts with a hypothesis, attempts to prove or disprove it, and ends up with another question (= another "hypothesis" or 'uncertainty'). What is this with "the science is uncertain" claim?? Perhaps the only phenomenon that needs "certainty" for the fossil-fuel barons is profit at the expense of everything else. That's a 'for certain' denial.
33
@JD Agree with you, except for one small but important point: In science, one never proves a hypothesis. Scientists try to disprove their hypotheses. To extent that they are unable to do that, their confidence in the truth of hypotheses grows. But you are correct that there is always at least a small amount of uncertainty. Scientific theories are never considered to be absolutely true. I only mention this because it is common for people to miss this subtlety, as you did in your comment. It leads to a lot of confusion and mistaken thinking about science.
7
@JD: Right. "Climate change", or in plain words GLOBAL HEATING, is so serious that it's quite likely to end civilization within a century if it continues. That means *drastic* action *now*, like requiring solar panels on rooftops and banning coal mining (together with providing employment for coal miners, including those who are languishing without work right now). Those are just two immediate thoughts; there is much more we can do, right now, but the political will is utterly resistant. Public education about the dangerous consequences of global heating is the only way to make things better, but again, the political will is to shut the public's eyes and plow ahead.
4
@Kevin McLin
Dear Kevin,
Yes; you are correct: I missed that "subtlety." I should have been more careful in writing. Indeed:
"scientists try to disprove their hypotheses." Apologies for that oversight.
JD
1
In reality, it comes down to dogmatic belief whether one believes in climate change or not -- no science involved. Deniers demand a video tape of Earth 50 years from now as proof that global warming is real. Nothing less will do. And if climate change scientists can't produce that video, deniers chuckle and call the theories a hoax.
The hypocrisy of the deniers is shown in their willingness to live their daily lives with guesses and assumptions that have far less support than warming theories. I routinely watch many people walk across the street engrossed by smart phones and never consider looking to see if a driver, similarly engrossed, might flatten them. Why not demand that 1 hour forward looking video for the accident that will end your life.
Oh, I know, the pedestrian example doesn't fit because one can show hundreds of cases of "no look" walking with no dire circumstances. But tell me, with the stakes this high where are we going to find the analogous situation to temperature increases, melting glaciers, and no snow pack to store water for irrigation of crops. It has started.
We can't back up! "Oh oops, I guess global warming was real," won't cut it. Earth will end up unlivable because of water shortages, crop failures and mass migrations of a few 100 million people as a result. Oh, and I guess I need a video of that too.
17
@dpaqcluck: Well said, but that video will be denounced as a fabrication.
4
@dpaqcluck You are absolutely right. The same people are still waiting for Dr. Blasey's video tape.
1
Or “fake news,”
Mr Kristof, thank you and others for trying to sound the alarm on climate change. We will have to explain to our grandchildren some day what we did and didn't do to mitigate this planetary threat.
But we progressives fail to recognize there is something more important than ever more destructive storms smashing our coastlines, more urgent than sea levels inundating huge areas of southeastern US and virtually every US Navy port in the world, more vital than hundreds of millions of future climate refugees and more desperately important than global food shortages.
And that is real estate values, especially in Florida and much of the exposed South, from Texas to the Florida Keys to North Carolina.
The fiction of climate change denial is important to many interests, from coal companies to flood plain developers to certain homeowners.
The way to change this fiction overnight is to reduce the Federal contribution to disaster relief to 50%, to put more financial responsibility and accountability for disaster recovery in the hands of local government.
There will be some short term pain, but we will start making better decisions than the paper towel tossing fool in the White House.
72
When I was widowed in 2014, I didn't take pause at the fact that one of my first "moving forward" thoughts was that my partner would not have to face the catastrophic consequences of global warming. When I had a daughter this Spring, the perilousness of climate change struck my heart deeper than it ever had before (as a child of the '80s and '90s, I have been hearing of climate change for almost 30 years, as far reaching as my memories of listening to NPR). Global warming has been on my mind every day since coming of age, and the guilt I feel for more or less assimilating to our facile cultural obliviousness, is nauseating. May we all find the strength to reduce our energy consumption (A/C, dryer, exorbitantly powerful entertainment systems, excessively long-distance shipping of goods), adopt multi-modal public transportation and demand efficacious political reform.
21
"Climate change may be the most important issue we face, reshaping our children’s world. At some point, those calling “hoax” will fade away and we’ll reach a new consensus about the perils. But by then, it may be too late."
Thank you, I appreciate this column. We can just do what we can individually and together. And vote. And let your representatives know mitigation and preparation is essential. And urgent. For the grandkids! Otherwise it's Climate Chaos here on Planet Titanic...
15
While I believe in global warming, the existence of 2 severe hurricanes in 1 season does not prove climate change.
Were there no 2 serene hurricanes in 1 season before the industrial revolution?
2
@turbot ?? "serene?" Do you mean "severe?"
I'm a working hurricane scientist, you can see my most recent paper here:
https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-16-0055.1
You are correct that two severe hurricanes hitting the US shore in one year by itself is not much evidence of a trend in hurricane strength.
If you read the article Mr. Kristof doesn't claim that it is, either.
The evidence that global warming will strengthen hurricanes (and I might say particularly Caribbean hurricanes) is a combination of obvious physics ( the hotter the ocean surface is, the more energy the hurricane has to play with -- warmer air holds more water), and more detailed modeling.
(You may note that Dr. Emmanuel is one of the coauthors on this observational paper.)
There are however aspects of the recent hurricanes that do impress (and scare) scientists who have measured hurricanes for decades. We do not yet have enough statistics to claim trends with certainty ... but we have seen a series of hurricanes that have intensified with extraordinary rapidity. We saw a hurricane (Patricia, 2015) that is the strongest hurricane ever reliably measured, that blew up "out of nowhere" off the west coast of Mexico -- that doesn't typically spawn such violent hurricanes.
We know why that happened: the extraordinarily hot water of the 2015 El Nino ... boosted by AGW.
Hurricane scientists are surprised, and more than a bit worried. That should worry anyone rational.
33
@turbot
What do you mean, 2 severe hurricanes? You're only thinking of the East Coast. There have been two major hurricanes in the eastern Pacific. Japan and the Philippines in the Western Pacific have been getting inundated too. Just because they haven't hit in your neck of the woods doesn't mean they didn't happen, like a bear doing its business there with no one around.
It's a global phenomenon. Look at the entirety of storm systems and other climate related activity around the world, and you'll see the trend ratcheting up dramatically.
20
@turbot An honest person looking at a list of hurricanes making landfall in the U.S. over the last 150 years would conclude that there is no obvious trend.
The scientists that Mr. Kristof quotes are aware of this and choose their language carefully to obscure the lack of observational evidence that their models are correct.
1
Engineers and scientists that put people on the moon, have sent probes out to other planets, and made uncounted discoveries and inventions could have (and in some cases, have started to) found ways to mitigate or reduce climate change by improving energy efficiency, developing other sources for heating and lighting our homes, and alternative materials to petroleum-based plastics. Unfortunately, our government chose to abandon basic research and leave it to corporations who are more interested in maintaining their primary source of wealth. Our citizens opted for convenience over sustainability, and our children will pay a terrible price.
38
@SDH - I have some good reading for you about things that the government has been doing with our tax money, to increase efficiency and promote development of new cleaner energy and related technologies.
First is the Department of Energy's "Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy", formed in 1973. Here's a Wikipedia article,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Energy_Efficiency_and_Renewable_...
but you might want to jump straight down to program references like these two and many others across the map of energy production and consumption:
15: Office of EERE: About the Wind Energy Technologies Office
16: Office of EERE: About the Water Power Technologies Office
Also, there's ARPA-E - the energy-focused advanced research program, which provided seed funding for concepts with promise, but that were too unexplored to attract private investment. The link below is one of three sets of program reviews they summarize.
https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=publications/arpa-e-first-seven-years-sampl...
Topics in this first one are grouped into these headings:
- Grid-Scale Batteries
- Transportation
- Grid Operations
- Power Electronics
- Energy Efficiency and Clean Power – Direct and Enabling Technologies
The federal government has pushed along a lot more of the unprofitable early R&D needed to find the most promising technologies than it gets credit for.
And don't forget EnergyStar!
7
@b fagan: Thanks for pointing out how much good governments do (federal and state) that never gets acknowledged. The problem is at the political level, where retrograde politicians do things like taking the solar panels off the White House (Reagan) and refuse to assist the adoption of renewable power (Trump and his Republican cronies).
2
The chances of America coming to its senses and doing something about climate change are less than zero. The Republicans will keep fiddling while the world burns. And white evangelicals will keep voting for them no matter what. Trump could kill a baby and eat it on 5th Avenue and they would fall all over themselves praising him for it and making movies about how God chose him to be our leader.
I’m in my 50s and I don’t have children. If I’m still alive in 20 years it’s going to be mighty interesting watching right-wingers try to explain to their children and grandchildren why they consigned them living in the hellish world this is going to become.
I hope I’m wrong but I think things are going to get much, much, much worse than people think. As if Trump wasn’t bad enough Brazil is going to elect Bolsonaro, who will destroy the Amazon, aka the lungs of the planet.
Think there’s a refugee crisis in the world now? You ain’t seen nothing yet. We are going to see a near-complete breakdown of political and social order which will just make it that much harder to adapt to he changes.
All so the Koch brothers and their ilk could add to their billions.
338
@Ken In twenty years, the Koch brothers will be gone, leaving hard-earned wealth to others who will fight like lunatics at the precious Supreme Court over wealth inheritance. In twenty years, children will not know or have experience in other world conditions, will not have our institutionol memories and may ask the wrong Republican questions, and why not? Their parents and grandparents asked the wrong questions.
4
@Ken Yes, and furthermore, when the Republicans flip, they will blame democrats for everything.
1
@Ken
Yeah, but Ken...white evangelicals want to bring about Armageddon. The Trump base wants to destroy the planet. They view climate change and the destruction it is bringing as a success. And frankly...if Nature would direct all of it's disasters at them...I'd be fine with it.
1
“...we send our sympathies to all those in its path...”
Nope, not me, not for any red state that knowingly and continuously votes in climate change-denying governments.
And before some genius chimes in with “but California and earthquakes!” Exactly, perfect example. Let’s consider how a more progressive state manages scientific reality.
California doesn’t deny the physics and engineering reality that shoddily constructed buildings are the number one contributor to deaths in a large earthquake, no matter whose deep pockets are hurt. And did those deep pockets of the construction industry ever fight when mandatory new seismic standards and requirements were passed as well as costly retrofitting requirements of older buildings seeking occupancy permits. They all lost to California’s acceptance of the reality of physics. You must design and build for survival in an earthquake and too bad if it costs you extra profit from cutting corners.
So, California doesn’t need red state “thoughts and prayers” during an earthquake nor as it now turns its substantial scientific might towards mitigating the new climate change threat of wildfires. Science wins, superstition loses. Red states reject California’s embrace of scientific reality to placate petroleum deep pockets, so I’m sure they won’t miss our thoughts and prayers as well.
454
@left coast finch: "Thoughts and prayers" make me feel sick. Worse than useless, they are the excuse for doing nothing, absolutely nothing.
12
@left coast finch I take your point but don’t be too blasé about California’s purported success in fending off devastating effects of earthquakes. Mitigation is what we are talking about. A huge earthquake in Berkeley will be pretty devastating, just not as bad as it would have been without the building codes.
Same with climate change. We and our descendants are in for it, no matter what. (It has very much already begun.) We simply have a small window to make our plight less severe.
1
@left coast finch I live in one of those red states and was, and am. Embarrassed by our senator, who I did not vote for. Our shared history of the dustbowl and it’s ecological disaster that was devastating, should make us particularly cognizant of the impact of ignoring signs of disaster. Sadly, that’s not the case as oil and gas rules the minds of too many. I hope that changes, and the Sierra Club is working on it. Time is short...vote Democrat!
1
As long as a great many Americans believe the American way of life, the ideal way of life, requires high consumption teamed with constantly-expanding material prosperity, they will continue to look the other way. I find a lot of Canadians and others are also trapped in this planet-destroying ideology. It is a head shaker.
23
So "climate change" as been happening on this "third rock" from the sun for four plus billion years. What's new, right?
That man had a hand in creating or accelerating the current climate conditions? No way to measure that--i.e., "Greatest Hoax"--and that man--and "all the King's men and all the King's horses"--can change the current "climate change" momentum within any reasonable period of time, say, a hundred or so years--no more than turning the tide on any one of the last five mass extinctions. Welcome to number six.
Where's that snowball earth when you really need it to cool things down?
1
@Alice's Restaurant
First, there is no evidence that climate change ever occurred at this rate. The denialist point that it's always been happening is correct...(but NOT at this rate, always conveniently omitted in their argument).
Second, no way to measure that? I suggest you study up on Svente Arrehnius, 19th century chemist who did indeed measure this effect. It is just chemistry, it's not up for debate. It's also being measured now. It's been measured for decades.
I do agree there is no way to change this quickly. It seems to be a mystery to many that food production, leading to a much greater population, hinged entirely on fossil fuels for the last 100 years. If fossil fuel use stopped 100% today, the CO2 already residing in the atmosphere will stay there, and the permafrost thaw will continue unabated, and tens of millions of cattle will soon be slaughtered because of massive food shortages. To truly stop fossil fuels, would mean eliminating ammonium nitrate fertilizer, which grows about 40% of the world's food. Is anyone but a handful actually prepared to live in a world with no fossil fuel products?
2
@joel strayer
Need to take a course in astrobiology. Much change on planet earth over the last four billion years--a lot of missing data to support "NOT at this rate". But you're right: "Is anyone but a handful actually prepared to live in a world with no fossil fuel products?" And given our bourgeois lifestyles, ain't happening anytime soon.
1
@Alice's Restaurant
As a professional geologist who has more than a passing interest in and knowledge of our planet's history. you clearly are making a false argument by trying vainly to fit a subset of supposed climate observations into a predetermined conclusion.
Yes our planets' climate has changed significantly in the past, and those changes happened over millions of years in the past. Man and his burning of fossil fuels is now changing the planet's climate in a time-scale measured in decades. And >90% of all climate scientists agree that we have only a few more decades, if that, before we reach one or more climate tipping points (e.g., melting of northern latitude permafrost) where the feedback mechanisms drive the planets climate into a condition that is not amenable to human life as we know it.
The Earth will survive, its not at all clear homo sapiens will.
31
The fault is with the Chinese. I blame them. This is their hoax and the Chinese are being very mean and unfair to me and America by fighting the tariff war I started. It is not fair to fight with the weather. We've never done it and never will.
Look at all the wonderful things I'm doing for them by making fossil fuels more available and cheaper. I'm even adding more polluting fuels like corn ethanol grown by our great Red states, which requires great amounts of petroleum and chemicals to produce.
I am reducing fuel economy standards, so we will burn more fuel.
I am single-handedly propping up the coal industry, so we can burn more coal.
I am getting rid of the methane controls, so we can flare more methane in the oil production process--BTW 20 times more greenhouse gas than the oil produced will inflict, I'm told.
I am opening up more federal lands to the fossil fuel industry at almost no cost to them, and I am continuing the billions in annual "tax incentives" to the fossil fuel industry. Like Dick Cheney said, the business of oil is the government's business.
By supporting the oil industry, I am supporting our wonderful oil producing allies like Russia, Libya, Syria, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, too. At the same time, I am making things real hard on our enemies like Venezuela and Iran so that we and our good friends can take part of their market share.
Unfortunately I'm going to have to impose more tariffs on China until they stop playing this hoax on the American people.
145
@Carl Lee: I detect only one minor error in this description of Trump administration policy. Burning off methane converts it to CO2, so it will be a less effective a greenhouse gas. (As CO2 it will also last millennia longer, but we won't be around to benefit from that.) The bigger problem is not even burning it, just letting it escape into the atmosphere. All this, while collecting that methane and selling it would increase profits! -- but it's too much trouble.
4
You forgot to mention that the Tariff imposed on China will add to American consumer burden as increased cost and increased inflationary pressures.
We blame the Chinese, but they didn’t force us to buy their products. It is our corporate bigwigs and marketers, who moved production abroad, as it was easy to add a 400% mark up on a lot of stuff sold here. Even after that exorbitant mark ups, inflation has been non existent. By the way, Prof. Milton Friedman, a Nobel memorial Prize winner, and leading conservative free market economist was vehemently against tariffs. So were all free market Republicans. Times are different now!
3
@Carl Lee I surely hope this was a hoax. If not, then I am very sorry for you.
Mr. Kristof -- Thank you for saying what needs to be said.
31
Here in Washington State there's been a different impact - trees have been impacted by longer dry periods in the summers than before and state scientists are trying to figure out what's killing off Big Leaf Maples for the last ten years.
I'm willing to bet they find climate change is responsible, but I can wait too. In addition to waiting for their findings I'd suggest they cross local Big Leaf Maples with some of the scrawny ones I spied above Clear Lake, Ca last year. These maples were never going to get to the 80' tall specimens I saw this year near stream beds but they survived the hot dry summers in California so they're already selected for rough summer conditions.
Hurricanes Michael and Florence were hoaxes created by the Chinese so all that flooding and wind damage should be billed to them (I apologize for the sarcasm if you were harmed by either of these storms).
The latest lie coming from the liar in chief is that the Democrats are coming for your Medicare so they can insure younger people who don't need care.
There is no time to lose or prevaricate when it comes to countering Republican lies, or Trump's lies. Some people aren't just going along with the lies for the money, they actually believe them! And I can't think of a time when Republicans ever spoke truth or waited for the smoke to clear before uttering more lies.
52
@lightscientist66 And remember: Trump just LOVES the uneducated.
1
Don’t blame Al Gore for the politicization of climate change. The right wing think tanks have been manufacturing doubt about environmental science since Gore was a senator.
38
@Tom B: Thank you for defending Gore against Kristof's false equivalency (no doubt unintentional).
4
acknowledging climate change doesn't prevent it either. its not even the first step.
2
@fme
Of course it's the first step. You can't change behavior if you don't acknowledge there's a problem. cf AA.
2
Kristof misses the point entirely – Trump and the Republicans are working hard to gain dictatorial power over the country formerly known as the United States. Their goal is much easier to achieve with a damaged and weakened state. Natural disasters create chaos. Trump thrives on chaos. It thus follows logically that Trump and his minions welcome the effects of accelerated climate change.
66
@Observer I think you are on to something there, Observer. A permanent "Shock Doctrine" is what they plan and will cynically -- and gleefully -- exploit.
Nobody denies climate change. The world has gone through global cooling and warming cycles before. Blaming man for climate change, or thinking man can mitigate climate change is foolish at best, but mostly dishonest.
One undeniable truth is that there is an entire climate change industry, both economic and the pseudo science. in economic form plans like Kyoto or Paris accords advocate for a wealth transfer to the third world through promoting cheap fuels while mandating the western world cut back. The climate model alarmists who suggest man can stop the present global warming cycle.... Well... They can't possibly be serious.
1
Another undeniable truth is that there is an entire industry, the current energy sector, determined to confuse the facts with misleading views, like those you have enumerated.
Exxon scientists warned management in the 1970s (I think) about the potential for atmospheric heating from burning fossil fuels. Management buried the report, because it threatened their profits. But you won't hear about that on Fox News
26
@Gordon You are ignoring the smoking gun: atmospheric CO2 has gone from 300 to almost 400 ppm since the industrial revolution, when we started to burn the vast reserves of carbon that have been buried over the last half billion years. Nothing remotely that fast has ever occurred in the history of the earth, and far slower changes have resulted in mass extinctions, especially of higher animals. Atmospheric CO2 has always been tightly correlated to temperature because, like a pane of glass, CO2 lets the ultraviolet in but traps the heat.
We can’t stop the cycle but we can certainly control how bad it will get. Right now, we are barely triying to do anything about it at all.
10
@Gordon The way in which the climate is currently changing is driven by human activity. The Union of Concerned Scientists has papers and books, written by scientists in clear and understandable language, that explains why an overwhelming majority of scientists belief human activity is producing catastrophic (for most large vertebrates) climate change. Folks who think otherwise would do well to read the Union of Concerned Scientists' literature.
8
Now that the Reps have abandoned the climate as an issue, the Dems should grab it.
Suggested tag line: "If you want to live, come with us."
Fact is, no one will care if Dems "save Social Security" when it is 130 degrees outside.
54
I've wondered if climate change would've been more widely accepted by the right if Al Gore hadn't been its unofficial spokesperson. For almost 30 years now, if anyone attached to the Clintons said not to jam a stick into your eye, conservatives would go half blind in defiance.
36
@JB
Whoever was its unofficial spokesman would have been ridiculed and demonized in one way or another. Looking at the demonization of individuals is a distraction.
4
I've always felt "The Sunshine State" should be the leader in solar energy; a showplace for it. But there's nothing done by the GOP here towards that end. You see, we have non-progressive leadership in Florida. Our entire state government is Republican due to severe gerrymandering. It's strange because Florida actually has more Democratic voters than GOP, and our large Independent voter bloc are more conservative. People move here for warm weather, but also for lower taxes. Added to that, Democrats just don't turn out like the GOP when voting comes around. (I DO have solar panels all over my roof for power, but there's ZERO financial incentive on the state level).
67
If a hundred scientist from across the world came together to write the "UN Climate Report" stating that Climate Change is real it would seem to carry some weight for most people. But our unscientific-president would rather question their research and ask who are these scientist?
The fact that many countries around the world have signed on to the Paris Climate Agreement while our president, republicans in Congress, and his dysfunctional EPA has chosen to remove the United States as one of the primary supporters...is very disturbing and short sighted.
It does not seem to matter that summer days here in New York City has people hiding in their homes or work places because it's too hot outside during the day.
It does not seem to matter to this administration that warming oceans, rising sea levels, melting arctic icebergs, more powerful hurricanes, flooding, and wild fires appear to be getting much more prevalent.
Most Americans believe in scientific inquiry. Most Americans believe in scientific research to prove or disprove issues of our natural world. It is unfortunate that our current leadership would rather seek out profits while hiding their heads in the sand of the disappearing beaches.
35
@Lalo. When Trump's golf courses get flooded and damaged, maybe he';; change his mind.
1
These storms will only increase in intensity. Those who have fossil fuel to sell, like the Kochs, want to extract every last dollar from them, even if it means their grandchildren won't enjoy the same world they do. Any rational person would conclude that even if all the science is too vague, it's worth erring on the side of caution and reduce green house gases as much and as soon as is possible. The cost to return keep our air and water clean is beyond the capacity of our 19th century model of capitalism no matter how much money we print. I am sure whalers did not want their meal ticket to end either, but each century marches to a new drummer, and we need to embrace a cleaner energy future, or suffer consequences that will effect everyone, everywhere.
34
Nice article on an important topic. It continues to amaze me how polarizing climate change is.
Anyway, I did want to challenge a couple of things in the article. I ran an international survey on climate change in 2008, and climate change was already a very partisan issue back then in the US. Indeed it goes beyond the US. In all 3 countries we ran the survey (US, Canada, England), a strong predictor of someone denying climate change is whether they were supporters of the conservative party in their country.
120
President Trump likes money. He likes people who have money. He listens to people and corporations who have big money. Why doesn't he listen to the people who actually have skin in the climate change game - no, not the oil and coal companies - but the others - the insurers and reinsurers (companies that insure the insurance companies.
More than 25 years ago one of the world's largest reinsurance companies issued a report that pretty much predicted the climate mess that we no longer can ignore - if reasonable minds prevail. The problem is greater than coastal flooding. Next it will be food shortages, mass relocations, etc.
I would suggest Trump talk to the climatology departments of the world's largest insurers and reinsurers (yes, they actually have them). They are the new who have long term financial interest in the subject.
61
In Texas, summer gets up to 105. Winter gets down to 25. That's 80 degrees. Climate change is about 2 degrees, so who can see or feel it? Who can believe a mathematical regression? (People who know maths, of course, but there aren't that many of us.)
3
@Michael, what is scary is how much impact such relatively minimal warming has had on the planet and our communities already, given we're on track for 3.7 degrees in the not too distant future.
Averages simply do not give a full picture....
20
@Michael . That is the tragedy. While animals have the instinct for it, humans tend to ignore even the saner voices of people who are trained and who can read those even minute changes. Giant mosquitoes the size of wasps, crocs and mambas in Hudson valley know what is happening there is a whole establishment both in business and policy that have insulated most of the ill informed with disrespect and derision.
7
@Michael - a bit more math for Mike. Just 1 degree C into the specific heat of air over earth's full volume, and sea water for just top most meter of depth is an added 7e21 Joules, or 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Joules of energy dumped into the atmosphere and top meter of world ocean. Itty bitty temperature equals massive biological impact, as in most worldwide coral now dead, given most of that heat has been absorbed by oceans. But that's now changing as oceans reach max capacity. Oops... Perhaps we should have let scientists do their job instead of believing radio celebrities who wouldn't know a measurement from a kumquat.
7
In the final analysis most people with any political clout seem to be more focused on finding their own spot on a lifeboat than in keeping the ship from sinking. The simple fact that we are still propelling so many cabin spewing airplanes and massive cargo ships all over the world every day is enough to condemn our species.
44
@B Scrivener: I think you meant carbon-spewing airplanes. And that doesn't even mention the good ole boys riding around alone in huge pickup trucks with Trump stickers on the back.
6
I think climate change is a real issue, but when you look at hurricanes, over the period for which we have reliable data, there really isn’t any significant variation over time. When you start tying to tie specific, discrete weather events to climate change is where you run into trouble. The focus has to be on the overall trend in temperature variations over wide areas.
3
Well, Floridians have a chance this November to deny Rick Scott, a "climate change" denier (as noted), a Senate seat. That's the first step voters have to take if they want elected officials who really will "serve and protect" them from climate change rather than serve and protect the special fossil fuel interests like Exxon Mobil. If Hurricane Michael doesn't wake them up, then Floridians will continue to be in denial themselves as their state gradually submerges under the inevitable rise in the oceans due to, yes, global warming and massive ice melts. It's time for the voters to stop buying into the "the "Greatest Hoax'" myth and see what's happening to those around them.
289
@Paul Wortman Excellent point, and I hope this becomes a crisp, bulleted part of the campaign narrative in its final month. No long policy wonk discussions, just, "Rick Scott says climate change is not real, and look what we just got. Vote for Bill Nelson who understands how climate change can affect your real life."
3
@Paul Wortman We're very worried here in FL. Republicans turn out strongly.
1
Instead of embracing the challenge of climate change that's going to cost us dearly, politicians continue to fill the pockets of the carbon barons. It's crazy. We are the only country (except maybe Brazil) that hasn't accepted the science.
Here's to hoping we elect officials who allow the United States to lead for the common good before there's no going back.
177
@Marge The new report on the 1.5 C goal, as horrific as the projections are, is already watered down by the scientific consensus review process. It is focused solely on what is well established from peer reviewed published studies. Since we do not have good studies to tell us where the tipping points for positive feedback loops are, just that they exist and are started, this study leaves out of consideration known positive feedback mechanisms such as methane emissions from permafrost, because they are not yet well measured in published studies. However there are new studies that show planetary scale positive feedbacks have been initiated. We know enough to be certain there will be surprises and that they go in the wrong direction and they are not included in this report. This scientific consensus is an underestimate.
34
Marge: Brazil and 173 states and the European Union have joined the Paris agreement. The US is the only country that has withdrawn from it.
8
Marge, I'm afraid Australia is also a country that officially doesn't believe in the science. The majority of the people do but not our conservative government. Prime Minister Morrison recently waved a lump of coal around in parliament joking about how harmless it was. He has double the excuse not to believe the science; he's in the pocket of the coal industry and a is bible bashing, self righteous Pentecostal who thinks god is guiding him.
As reported by NOAA scientists
"Once an estimate for likely missing storms is accounted for the increase in tropical storms in the Atlantic since the late-19th Century is not distinguishable from no change."
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/historical-atlantic-hurricane-and-tropical-sto...
5
@Amy it's not the NUMBER of storms, it's their energy- and destructiveness. The warmer the ocean, the more energy the storm will have. And the increase in storm destructiveness over the past 50 years correlates perfectly with warming.
https://www.livescience.com/642-warmer-seas-creating-stronger-hurricanes...
27
@Amy
No where in that reference is there mention of rainfall amounts, which is a direct result of warmer water temps, which the article does mention
4
@Amy
I just read this report and also its author Knudson's analysis and while the number of hurricanes is not increased, the likelihood of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes in the 21st century is increased by 100%. Also, warmer waters means more evaporation and precipitation, by 10-15%, higher wind speeds and along with higher water levels means greater storm surges.
19
Unfortunately Mr. Kristof--even though your article is timely and important, it isn't only the "climate change deniers" who are the main problem.
As all industrialized nations have created in the last 100+ years a dependence on carbon-based material production, transportation, and consumer goods and services, we have been trapped into living a life of abundance, convenience, and ease with no alternative methods of living outside a carbon-based energy--it's a "mono-culture" of energy resource.
There has been no political will nor experience to create choices between using several different kinds of energy sources to generate electricity, or to move goods or ourselves around the planet.
In other words, the problem is the "mono-culture" of having in place an energy system that is only carbon-based for the bulk of all of our myriad energy uses.
Furthermore, we really don't have any experience living in any other fashion--it's all connected, reliant on "the power grid" of one type or another. This interrelated "mono-culture" is now true for most of the world at one level or another--by the term "developed" world we really mean the carbon-based world.
Yes, the most visible situation is that there are those who would disbelieve that the burning of fossil fuels couldn't possibly change how the climate is behaving--easy to spot these folks and easy to blame them, too.
But the very serious and frightening reality is how we're all stuck following a carbon lifestyle.
75
The energy mono-culture is in many ways supported and encouraged by the environmentalist community, eg, ongoing and ever more vocal opposition to copper mine development in Arizona.
wind turbines: 3.6 tonnes of copper per megawatt.
100 pounds of copper in a Tesla, 60 in a Prius.
171 miles of wire in a 767.
Copper tubing essential for AC and refrigeration.
2 miles of copper in a house like yours.
But we don't want a mine.
Fine. Where would you like it to come from?
Another is the opposition to wind turbines, largely over aesthetic issues..(Cape Cod)..and opposition to nuclear power, whose waste disposal issue is purely political.
The individuals I know (four of them) who adamantly oppose the Keystone XL pipeline ALL purchased vehicles which get 10 or less MPG.
With this kind of thinking, we will have oil around for a long time to come
12
@Cate
I live in Massachusetts far from the threat of hurricanes, but because the threat of global warming affects us all, I am doing my part. Even with a poor solar exposure we get 110% of our electricity from the sun (a net generator). I switched from driving to work to biking, and my wife's car is a 63mpg Prius. The house has the longest way to go, but has the highest efficiency furnace I could find and added insulation and air sealing. Admittedly I am not carbon neutral, but it shows that a much-lower-carbon lifestyle is possible even now.
151
@joel strayer
"... wind turbines: 3.6 tonnes of copper per megawatt...."
As of November 2017, Fort Knox holdings are 4,582 metric tons.
Gold is a far better conductor than copper.
We could build thousands of wind turbines with the gold in Fort Knox. Alas, gold is ridiculously overvalued, thus far more copper wind turbines could be bought rather than built with the gold in Fort Knox.
Why do humans hoard gold in huge high security vaults, or place such a high value on this particular commodity?
This gold has already been mined and purified, then hoarded for god only knows what reason. No need for mines.
National flood insurance is a perfect example of socialize the losses and privatize the profits. Private insurance carriers cherry pick their customers for maximum profitability leaving the uninsurable properties to the tax payer. Similarly developers and home builders cash their Cheques and tax payers will be left holding the bag. Property owners get beautiful views without having to pay the true cost of insurance. Basically everyone benefits and tax payer pays for the losses. Repeal that program and see the awareness of risk and climate change will increase tremendously as reality will hit those denying the effects.
354
@Matt -- you're right, but you don't get it.
Federally-subsidized insurance and generous FEMA aid is what keeps the economy of Florida going.
Every hurricane is a fabulous payday. The construction industry makes a fortune ... all paid for by the suckers in the rest of the USA.
People who didn't get insurance are wiped out -- they lose their land, it can be sold to the next sucker.
It gets rebuilt ... rinse, lather, repeat.
16
@Matt
I share your concerns, but the problem goes far beyond Trump, and removing him won't help us turn the corner on the existential threat posed by climate change. Huge entrenched interests are driving our country's immoral, self-defeating posture on this issue, and those special interests are supported by ordinary citizens reacting to any limitations on their freedoms.
2
@Matt.... I don't believe that you can buy private flood insurance. The only kind available to me is one administered by FEMA and I've been buying it for over 30 years. While I have changed brokers and insurers, none have offered an alternative to government backed flood coverage.
1
With every massive new hurricane that wreaks havoc, disaster and chaos across swaths of America, and I include our islands in the Caribbean, Trump demonstrates that he's not up to the challenge of mitigating disasters, of handling real crises much less working in a rational way to make sure they don't happen in the first.
An opponent of climate science and other sciences as well, he lacks sufficient intelligent brainpower to understand what is going on around him and what he can do about it.
This job of President is far beyond his very small abilities. I sincerely hope that my country - our country - survives four years of Donald Trump who himself is an existential crisis for America.
432
@Porter,
Don't make any long term plans.
3
@Porter. Yes, it is amazing there were no hurricanes before President Trump.
@Porter Remember the compassionate conservative living the high life now in Dallas, Texas who did nothing to deal with "climate change" in his 8 years in office.
1
The worst thing was originally terming this phenomenon global warming. Then not properly admitting and explaining why that term was misleading and instead trying to substitute the term climate change, which is indeed a more accurate term.
16
@Eric- i disagree, Climate always changes over time , with or without our influence. global warming is indeed more accurate for that is what is happening- human caused increase in global temperature. Can't get anymore direct and to the point than that. Climate change is a misleading term.
18
Terminology is "the worst thing?" Did you read about today's hurricane?
7
Eric does have a point. A more accurate term, due to the rapidity of the process, would be "global heating".
3
https://twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/1049752648524673025
Glenn Greenwald @ggreenwald
"On Sunday in Brazil, the world’s seventh-largest emitter of greenhouse gas, voters appeared on track to elect a new president, Jair Bolsonaro, who has said he also plans to withdraw from the [Paris] accord."
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/07/climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html
Major Climate Report Describes a Strong Risk of Crisis as Early as 2040
1:05 PM - 9 Oct 2018
[ Of course, the Wall Street Journal just endorsed Bolsonaro for president of Brazil. ]
57
Glenn Greenwald is married to a left wing Brazilian activist (PSOL, that supports the Worker’s Party in the second round) and is trying to interfere in Brazil’s election.
We don’t have Electoral College in Brazil, so the Brazilian people will decide democratically who is going to be our next president. Glenn Greenwald biased opinion is not welcomed here.
The US (the world’s second largest emitter) is the only country in the world that have withdrawn from the Paris accord so far.
Here a list of the first emitters of greenhouse gases:
1. China: 25,9%
2. USA: 14,75%
3. European Union: 9,33%
4. India: 6,43%
5. Russia: 4,86%
6. Japan: 2,99%
7. Brazil: 2,25%
4
@Flavia
Nothing that you wrote refutes the original comment in the slightest. Bolsonaro does want to withdraw from the Paris Accord. I also notice that you have no problem with the WSJ's opinion.
@Bill B: I have read Bolsonaro's projects and I haven't seen anything supporting what Glenn Greenwald is reporting. It seems that Mr Greenwald has an agenda and is trying to interfere in Brazilian elections. Btw, his husband is a PSOL party political activist. One of PSOL registered supporters stabbed Bolsonaro during a rally. He has confessed that it was a politically motivated crime and is in jail.
We, Brazilians, are going through the worst economic crisis of our history, recession, 60 thousands murders a year, 15 millions of unemployed, one of the greatest corruption scandals of world history. Courtesy of the Worker's Party. In this election our choices are Bolsonaro or Worker's Party (Haddad).
I apologize if Global Warming is not our top concern right now. We are not deniers. We are just trying to survive!
The military takes global warming very seriously. See the documentary, "The Time of Consequences" It is devastating in its clarity that global warming is causing huge political upheaval and instability. It is a powerful documentary.
212
@Guy Sajer. I will make sure to see it! Two ounces of common sense tells you this is not sustainable.
3
Yeah Guy, it's an excellent doco, only it's called " The Age of Consequences". And I'm afraid it's probably only preaching to the converted. Like we read in the NYT etc., there is so much information available but climate change deniers- those who profit by denying the facts and stalling action, those who entrust their lives to a supernatural being in god and don't need facts, and the majority, people who are simply afraid of the truth, just won't look or take heed.
1
Correct title is “The Age of Consequences”
What deniers of climate change do not seem to understand is that this is only the beginning. Image a world where it is too hot to live, where massive crop failures occur every year, where floods and drought are common occurrences and where violent storms a thousand miles in diameter destroy everything in their wake. Not to mention mass migrations, pandemics and social chaos.
How many people have to die before we wake up and do something? I would gladly pay a carbon tax equivalent to a case a beer a week than have to rebuild my house every other year due to inaction.
545
@DSS,
Human deaths do not move such people.
But when insurance companies begin to drop coverage for their beach side estates because they're tired of coughing up billions five times a year they'll suddenly believe the scientists.
24
@DSS- the Earth will survive and it has many, many times before in worse circumstances. It's humanity that should be on notice. The Earth and life on it will adapt, with or without us.
5
@DSS you forgot to mention the devestating effect on fisheries resulting from ocean acidification. We used to think the oceans would be there when we lost terrestrial agriculture.
4
Hopefully, the leaders of the other countries that contribute to air pollution on a larger scale that the USA will also read Mr. Kristof's and heed his advice. Oops, his column did not mention them. Easier to blame President Trump.
5
To which countries are referring? Only China emits more Greenhouse gases than the United States, and its emissions per capital are far lower than the US. And keep in mind that China and other large polluting countries are actually trying to address climate change only, the United States has pulled out of the Paris accord. Why did Trump and McCain support climate change mitigation strategies in 2008 and 2009 but suddenly changed their positions later? Did they read new scientific studies?
237
@Karl Offen
China is working hard on climate change abatement and is meeting every goal far ahead of schedule. I am gratified.
5
@Maurice Gatien it appears that you very possibly are misinformed. So now the burden falls to you to ask how you came to your ideas about this matter. Where did you hear that all these countries are worse than the US? How could you have come to the conclusion that people who believe the science didn’t scream when Obama, Bush, Clinton, and Bush presided? I suspect that if you inquire honestly, you’ll find that you have been systematically misled...by whom? and why?
175