This whole storm is a hoax - never happened. It was cooked up by the disaster industry - nonprofits, gov't agencies, etc. -- to gin up a new round of donations and tax increases to funnel into Red Cross and FEMA. The whole thing has been aided and abetted by a compliant media, just hungry for internet clicks. All the photos are doctored.
47
To Those Politicians, Cable News Pundits, Talk-Radio Hosts and Voters Who Deny Climate Change:
Do you have kids?
Do you have grandkids?
Do you have kids?
Do you have grandkids?
45
Below are recent reports which make it clear that we currently cannot state that man made global warming is affecting hurricane activity. The topics are two different questions with different answers. Twisting the findings to suit a cause is just propaganda, and is worse than denial.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Cl...
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM CLIMATE SCIENCE SPECIAL REPORT (CSSR)
Final Clearance [draft] 28 June 2017
Executive Summary - Projected Changes in Extremes
Both physics and numerical modeling simulation (in general) indicate an increase in tropical cyclone intensity in a warmer world, and the models generally show an increase in the number of very intense tropical cyclones. For Atlantic and eastern North Pacific hurricanes and western Pacific typhoons, increases are projected in precipitation rates (high confidnce) and intensity (medium confidence). The frequency of the most intense of these storms is projected to increase in the Atlantic and western North Pacitic (low confidence) and in the eastern North Pacific (medium confidence).
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3920195/Final-Draft-of-the-Cl...
U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM CLIMATE SCIENCE SPECIAL REPORT (CSSR)
Final Clearance [draft] 28 June 2017
Executive Summary - Projected Changes in Extremes
Both physics and numerical modeling simulation (in general) indicate an increase in tropical cyclone intensity in a warmer world, and the models generally show an increase in the number of very intense tropical cyclones. For Atlantic and eastern North Pacific hurricanes and western Pacific typhoons, increases are projected in precipitation rates (high confidnce) and intensity (medium confidence). The frequency of the most intense of these storms is projected to increase in the Atlantic and western North Pacitic (low confidence) and in the eastern North Pacific (medium confidence).
13
TEXAS!! THE FREEDUMB STATE!!
No evolution, no climate science, no science period, no teacher's union, no health care, no livable minimum wage, no equal rights for women, no planned parenthood, no regulations for growth, no regulations for chemical plants, no regulations for residential vs. industrial neighborhoods, no requirements to divulge what chemicals are in the plants plopped in the middle of residential neighborhoods, big floods and no flood abatement regulations, and the most astonishing thing can this be true that houses were built in the middle of reservoirs?...but plenty of prosperity gospel and not much Christianity.
No evolution, no climate science, no science period, no teacher's union, no health care, no livable minimum wage, no equal rights for women, no planned parenthood, no regulations for growth, no regulations for chemical plants, no regulations for residential vs. industrial neighborhoods, no requirements to divulge what chemicals are in the plants plopped in the middle of residential neighborhoods, big floods and no flood abatement regulations, and the most astonishing thing can this be true that houses were built in the middle of reservoirs?...but plenty of prosperity gospel and not much Christianity.
69
In Miami the sea water on some days is pushed through the sewers and into the streets. Storms continue to intensify and are more frequent. In certain parts of the world climate change is impacting economies and agriculture at an alarming rate causing food issues and may even be a prelude to war.
But climate change is a hoax. Ask any Republican and he'll tell you "I'm not a scientist" and more studies are required." It's all an act of God and mankind has nothing to do with the weather.
Yeah..................Right.
But climate change is a hoax. Ask any Republican and he'll tell you "I'm not a scientist" and more studies are required." It's all an act of God and mankind has nothing to do with the weather.
Yeah..................Right.
34
You are making the logical fallacy of assumption of causation. Since you do not have the scientific evidence you switch subject matter for an analogy that is frought with its own problems. That is called metagaming and that is a sneaky way to think.
10
Remember how the fundamentalists referred to Katrina as God's judgment on New Orleans' wicked hedonistic lifestyle? (Nice that Harvey went easy on the Big Easy, incidentally.) And I bet if I looked around a little I could find the fire raging around these parts justified as the Almighty's vengeance on Hollyweird, the land of fruits and nuts. (If so, God's aim is off a bit: the fires are in the Verdugo foothills, some miles north of L.A. proper.)
Funny how quiet the pious get when a natural disaster hits the Bible Belt or some other conservative location. Of course accepting the reality of climate change is too much a strain on a credibility presumably already stretched to its limit by the devout belief in a capricious deity.
Funny how quiet the pious get when a natural disaster hits the Bible Belt or some other conservative location. Of course accepting the reality of climate change is too much a strain on a credibility presumably already stretched to its limit by the devout belief in a capricious deity.
30
Too many know too little and too few know too much.
But there are, I suspect, a few who think that their rice bowl is threatened, and thus live in the present only. They do not care for the future beyond ten years. Um, these are moneyed interests. And there are religious fools who think the gods explain all.
Let's call it GLOBAL HEATING. "Climate change" is vague and too nice sounding.
But there are, I suspect, a few who think that their rice bowl is threatened, and thus live in the present only. They do not care for the future beyond ten years. Um, these are moneyed interests. And there are religious fools who think the gods explain all.
Let's call it GLOBAL HEATING. "Climate change" is vague and too nice sounding.
15
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! That's how many of my friends regard my hysterics about climate change. Well, IT IS falling. And its warmer air renders it laden with more water from warming oceans. So let's ALL get a little hysterical...and then mobilize to action as we would in the face of any other existential threat.
22
Donald Trump is a serious danger to the well-being of the United States. George Bush was bad enough but Trump is much, much worse. Between his clueless denial of global warming and his juvenile jousting with the nuclear-armed North Korean leader, some disaster lies in waiting.
22
The reality is we have a large swath of the electorate who are belligerent to the sciences. Be it from personal health to this issue. Some just are not gonna listen. Period. Its scary, more scary when its POTUS, and elected officials who should rely on the experts, not their ignorant opinions.
Somehow the whole issue need to be re-framed into an economic one, where the impacts - like east Texas, and the always vulnerable northeast, eastern coast states - are about lessening the economic risks and personal ones. How many people have been permanently displaced in the last two decades of devastating storms,etc? How many jobs have been lost? What are the impacts on the farming and ranching zones due to drought, excessive draining the aquifers,etc?
What of the risks to our water supplies, due to these storms, etc pushing coastal toxins inland and therefore into the aquifers, lakes, etc...? Washing inland toxins outwards to the coasts when the waters recede...? These things must be exampled, made the story of concern.
Human impact has to shown to be real in the micro (close to home) environments, and then the links made to the macro environments.
The way its being presented now is too broad, too hard for those who don't want to, or are too busy to investigate some details about the human impact on the planetary climate. Hell, most of us, myself included don't understand the science presented everyday on the weather channel! I glaze over with the way they explain things.
Somehow the whole issue need to be re-framed into an economic one, where the impacts - like east Texas, and the always vulnerable northeast, eastern coast states - are about lessening the economic risks and personal ones. How many people have been permanently displaced in the last two decades of devastating storms,etc? How many jobs have been lost? What are the impacts on the farming and ranching zones due to drought, excessive draining the aquifers,etc?
What of the risks to our water supplies, due to these storms, etc pushing coastal toxins inland and therefore into the aquifers, lakes, etc...? Washing inland toxins outwards to the coasts when the waters recede...? These things must be exampled, made the story of concern.
Human impact has to shown to be real in the micro (close to home) environments, and then the links made to the macro environments.
The way its being presented now is too broad, too hard for those who don't want to, or are too busy to investigate some details about the human impact on the planetary climate. Hell, most of us, myself included don't understand the science presented everyday on the weather channel! I glaze over with the way they explain things.
4
Frogs sitting in a beaker?
If this is the best you have we're doomed.
If this is the best you have we're doomed.
4
As a friend commented, "unprecedented" is the word the deniers now use to avoid saying "climate change".
9
Trump will ignore and deny climate change as much as he is paid too but you watch he will build a flood wall around all his FL properties and make the rest of the US pay for it.
10
While we were focused on Harvey and Texas, we had catastrophic flooding in India, Bangladesh and the Philippines. Bigger, deadlier and more destructive.
Global climate change is not a problem Republicans -- alone in all the world -- can deny.
Global climate change is not a problem Republicans -- alone in all the world -- can deny.
12
Stunning, the number of NYT commenters denying climate change. I feel like I'm reading some of my neighborhood app postings from Houstonians steeped in oil and gas / unfettered capitalism indoctrination.
I am surrounded by floodwater in my Houston suburb. Northern neighbors have feet of water in their homes; some are submerged and likely will collapse into the bayou. City officials are arguing with the Corps of Engineers over the dam water release policy unmitigated for two weeks. A health hazard, an economic disaster, a psychological meltdown. Add that trauma on top of days of helicopters, airboats , monster trucks, misinformation, panic, and heartbroken people emerging from toxic waters with pets and a few life belongings hastily thrown into a suitcase. We all have PTSD.
Harvey should be taught in every school and college as the "systems thinking" problem it is. Lack of strategic planning, corruption of politicians (rules), propagandizing information flows, and firmly entrenched INCORRECT paradigms reinforced through capitalism, religion, and other authority structures. All of you questioning climate change SCIENCE, do you question the eclipse, smoking effect on lung cancer, or the laws of physics? Or is it just greed that clouds your eyes? Either way, I have a new bayou-front property to sell you. The carbon-at-all-costs economy thrives here in Houston for the short term. But, Live by the sword, die by the sword. Climate change deniers, come on down.
I am surrounded by floodwater in my Houston suburb. Northern neighbors have feet of water in their homes; some are submerged and likely will collapse into the bayou. City officials are arguing with the Corps of Engineers over the dam water release policy unmitigated for two weeks. A health hazard, an economic disaster, a psychological meltdown. Add that trauma on top of days of helicopters, airboats , monster trucks, misinformation, panic, and heartbroken people emerging from toxic waters with pets and a few life belongings hastily thrown into a suitcase. We all have PTSD.
Harvey should be taught in every school and college as the "systems thinking" problem it is. Lack of strategic planning, corruption of politicians (rules), propagandizing information flows, and firmly entrenched INCORRECT paradigms reinforced through capitalism, religion, and other authority structures. All of you questioning climate change SCIENCE, do you question the eclipse, smoking effect on lung cancer, or the laws of physics? Or is it just greed that clouds your eyes? Either way, I have a new bayou-front property to sell you. The carbon-at-all-costs economy thrives here in Houston for the short term. But, Live by the sword, die by the sword. Climate change deniers, come on down.
33
You can't use a single event to produce an argument for climate change.
People who latch on to the spectacular are blind to averages. The parallels between compulsive gamblers and people trying declare climate change in this fashion are striking.
People who latch on to the spectacular are blind to averages. The parallels between compulsive gamblers and people trying declare climate change in this fashion are striking.
8
Frequency of 3-4 level hurricanes has not been increasing, you can check it yourself in the NYT (just count the number of articles over past 25 years mentioning level 4 hurricanes). Harvey is an outlier as anyone who knows statistics would say. Hurricanes have been the Achilles heel of the climate science for some time as they do not follow their models' predictions. So using misery of others to push political agendas is cruel. Instead of giving our money to 3rd world countries to enrich their corrupt leaders we can help people of Houston. And, I am not denying climate change.
14
As a friend of mine always says, "follow the money."
Tobacco didn't acknowledge the health risks and spent massive amounts to cover up evidence for many decades.
The food industry continues to do the same, with processed foods, sugar, and so on.
North Korea is exciting to the military because of the $$$$$ in restocking defense with new purpose.
Hurricane flood-prone real estate is a goldmine for the real estate and construction industries.
Climate change is just leading energy companies to rub their greedy little hands in joy at the new mining prospects opening up in previously inaccessible areas.
And so on, and so forth, ad infinitum.
We're never going to be driven by vision; we will be driven to our demise as a species by uncontrolled greed.
That's obvious, and nothing is going to stop it until money no longer factors in to any of our decisionmaking.
And that will require a radical transformation of our fundamental economic thinking, perhaps the thing that the greatest investment in propaganda in all history has prevented ever since the late 19th century. I'm sure the money spent against that outweighs all of the above combined.
Tobacco didn't acknowledge the health risks and spent massive amounts to cover up evidence for many decades.
The food industry continues to do the same, with processed foods, sugar, and so on.
North Korea is exciting to the military because of the $$$$$ in restocking defense with new purpose.
Hurricane flood-prone real estate is a goldmine for the real estate and construction industries.
Climate change is just leading energy companies to rub their greedy little hands in joy at the new mining prospects opening up in previously inaccessible areas.
And so on, and so forth, ad infinitum.
We're never going to be driven by vision; we will be driven to our demise as a species by uncontrolled greed.
That's obvious, and nothing is going to stop it until money no longer factors in to any of our decisionmaking.
And that will require a radical transformation of our fundamental economic thinking, perhaps the thing that the greatest investment in propaganda in all history has prevented ever since the late 19th century. I'm sure the money spent against that outweighs all of the above combined.
13
The condensation of water vapor into rain is an exothermic process. By lofting huge quantities of water vapor to high altitudes, hurricanes probably help radiate heat to space and cool the planet.
Electromagnetic radiation is the only way that heat can escape the Earth into the vacuum of space.
Electromagnetic radiation is the only way that heat can escape the Earth into the vacuum of space.
2
A valuable piece, Nick, and Harvey's lessons resonate far beyond flood plains. The same dynamic - discounting the rare, assuming "stationarity" - spills across the American and global landscape in zones of implicit climatic and geophysical hazard. For instance, the West's latest wildfire outbreak is an issue only because growth there historically discounted this implicit part of ecosystems and landscapes. More from ProPublica on this is here: http://j.mp/unnaturaldisasters and heaps of related analysis on my New York Times blog, Dot Earth: http://j.mp/dotharmsway Reducing and avoiding built vulnerability is very different than adapting to climate change, and Paris or a carbon tax would take decades to measurably affect temperature or weather patterns. Vulnerability reduction is a real-time opportunity; decarbonization is a long-term legacy. MIT experts discuss: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIWzNTbZvDI&t=1s
1
As global temperatures have risen, the oceans have been a major absorber of the excess heat. The shallow Gulf of Mexico produced the heat that changed Harvey from a Category 1 to a Category 4 hurricane almost overnight. If the Texas political establishment continues to deny this simple connection along with their prior denial of aid for Superstorm Sandy, why should those of us outside of Texas who would like to aid them do so? All we'd be accomplishing would be to help rebuild an area that would soon be engulfed again. It's time to stop the tough Texan talk and face the even tougher reality that Houston and the surrounding Texas coast needs a dramatic infrastructure program that will survive the certainty of future storms like Harvey. You may not want to "mess with Texas," but "you also cannot fool Mother Nature." Those who have now have their heads under very polluted water.
10
Everyone knows that climate change is a Chinese plot to undermine America's economy. That's what Trump says and everyone knows he speaks only the truth.
12
The drowning of Houston is bad enough, but the long term consequences are horrific. If it was safe to dig thriugh rubble after9/11, and it WAS NOT, then it will be ok when all water is gone? The health hazards of bacterial infection and chemical toxins are endless. The medical expenses will be astronomic, and will those people be insured? What about law suits to the city and maybe the state because of what turned out to be inevitable exposures? Deny global warming at your peril when you vote next, not only in Texas, but wherever you live.
8
Texas, like most states, sneered at the climatology, overbuilt like crazy, ignored flood maps, paved over the wetlands, and blew off serious disaster planning, laughing about how much they'd cut taxes and regulations the whole time.
I see no sign they're going to change.
I see no sign they're going to change.
23
With the election of Trump the ignoramuses who deny climate change--and refuse to implement prudent zoning bylaws and repair infrastructure that would have prevented some of the horrible damages of Harvey--have come into a frightening ascendecy that should give all of us the chills.
Sophia Tesfaye writes in "Salon"; "For the first time, a majority of Republicans think that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the country. Fifty-eight percent say that colleges “are having a negative effect on the way things are going in the country,” according to Pew. In other words, the Wall Street banks are more popular with Republican voters than Stanford, Harvard or the University of Akron."!
So anti-intellectualism is a major reason that Republicans refuse to acknowledge that climate change may have caused Harvey--and millions are suffering from this terrible refusal, based on arcane beliefs that have no place in the modern world.
Sophia Tesfaye writes in "Salon"; "For the first time, a majority of Republicans think that colleges and universities have a negative impact on the country. Fifty-eight percent say that colleges “are having a negative effect on the way things are going in the country,” according to Pew. In other words, the Wall Street banks are more popular with Republican voters than Stanford, Harvard or the University of Akron."!
So anti-intellectualism is a major reason that Republicans refuse to acknowledge that climate change may have caused Harvey--and millions are suffering from this terrible refusal, based on arcane beliefs that have no place in the modern world.
15
The Republican party is the only major political party in the developed world that denies the existence of a global warming trend, dismisses the causes of it and refuses to buy-in to the scientific community's methods, theories and research in the field. They are paid well by their donors to espouse ignorance and it hasn't yet been a loser for them at the ballot box. Lamar Smith, Louis Gohmert and Ted Cruz are particularly anti-intellectual, anti-science and rely on the Christian Bible for reference. I prefer to believe that they are corrupt rather than mentally deficient.
14
Worried about climate change? Feel powerless? There is one profound thing you can do. Change your diet. Go plant-based. Animal agriculture is responsible for more greenhouse gases than all transportation combined, according to the UN and others. This is the really inconvenient truth.
6
Vocal climate deniers like Trump and his minions are in reality a disguised "cut off nose to spite face" anti Obama, anti science, anti intellectual, anti Democratic, anti elite/establishment, anti progress or belief in change protest. Period. And that's regardless the consequences.
6
The dumbest point anyone has made about believing in CC is if we believe that scientists can predict the solar eclipse why don't we believe they can predict CC. Completely false analogy. The solar eclipse is easily predicted because we have 99.9999999% certainty about the orbits of earth and moon relative to the sun. CC is not as simple nor are our observations re CO2 levels, temps and extreme weather events nearly as reliable or valid. The only thing that the solar eclipse and CC have in common is that both involves the sky above us I suppose.
You could make the same argument for any scientific finding. For example, you could say, well if we believe scientists about the solar eclipse, why don't we believe them when they tell us about IQ variation among individuals and groups and relationships to life outcomes? Not quite as politically correct I suppose.
Again, dumb arguments for CC don't convince anyone about CC, they convince people that alarmists know little about science.
You could make the same argument for any scientific finding. For example, you could say, well if we believe scientists about the solar eclipse, why don't we believe them when they tell us about IQ variation among individuals and groups and relationships to life outcomes? Not quite as politically correct I suppose.
Again, dumb arguments for CC don't convince anyone about CC, they convince people that alarmists know little about science.
4
"Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?"
Many of us can, Nick. It is not a symmetrical issue. There is not equal blame amongst parties here.
Many of us can, Nick. It is not a symmetrical issue. There is not equal blame amongst parties here.
7
It is becoming painfully obvious that humans, although extremely intelligent, are in a fixed situation regarding their limited stature. Olly a few of them are able to jump high, and long enough, to see above the blades of grass in the field.
3
There is a time and place to explore the links between this specific disaster and climate change, but would it hurt to wait until the waters recede? The view from my home on north Padre Island just south of Harvey's center is one of loss, displacement, suffering, and heroic neighborliness. In our eagerness to use this hurricane to make an argument for climate change, we are exploiting this suffering, using these people's misery to advance our own political agenda. This is why poor people don't like liberals: because we don't see them as people, just as data points to advance arguments that showcase our superior insights, wisdom, and morals. I have been guilty of this myself, but finding myself on the receiving end of this exploitation frankly makes me sick.
4
Why deny climate change? Because it will be extremely costly, and deniers don't want their cash cows to be used up by it. Big donors want to get what was promised. Corporate lawmakers don't want their "cut" to disappear into flood control, clean water, or clean air.
6
Nicholas, the least you could have done in this column is to give credit to Neil DeGrass Tyson, who made the same statement over a week ago about climate deniers believing the science behind Harvey:
"Hmm. Don’t see much denial of @NOAA climate scientists who have predicted Hurricane Harvey’s devastating path into Texas."
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/901095173169532928?lang=en
True, he mixes metaphors here by saying climate scientists predicted Harvey's path, when it was meteorologists who did that. Semantics aside, the point is the same - climate deniers can't deny Harvey, and all the science behind the information in the media about it. So why can't they believe the science behind climate change, too? They can pick and choose what to believe in, but both are very real.
Tyson was ahead of you in saying this, and not giving him credit is really just ripping him off.
"Hmm. Don’t see much denial of @NOAA climate scientists who have predicted Hurricane Harvey’s devastating path into Texas."
https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/901095173169532928?lang=en
True, he mixes metaphors here by saying climate scientists predicted Harvey's path, when it was meteorologists who did that. Semantics aside, the point is the same - climate deniers can't deny Harvey, and all the science behind the information in the media about it. So why can't they believe the science behind climate change, too? They can pick and choose what to believe in, but both are very real.
Tyson was ahead of you in saying this, and not giving him credit is really just ripping him off.
4
We can throw all the names we want at the climate deniers and those who take that as permission to waffle, but I'm more baffled than mad at this point. I'm not sure what it would take to get this country to take political action.
6
Accepting the reality of climate change and its implications for the future of humanity means letting go of what most Americans have come to see as the comforts and liberties they are entitled to. It means that all those dirty hippies talking about "sustainability" are probably right. It means that Jimmy Carter's irritating sermons in the 70s on the virtues of conservation and the 55mph speed limit, were, well, fore-sighted. If it was just about accepting the science, there wouldn't be a problem. The regularity of solar eclipses doesn't challenge my deeply held prejudices. For many, the science of evolution does. And the science of climate change challenges the modern world's assumption of limitless growth and material progress.
Politicians figured out after Jimmy Carter that Americans didn't want to be told the truth. It's a downer. They want a sunny Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton to tell them that tax cuts will make you rich and no problem is so big that a minor, cost-free adjustment can't fix. Trump tells the country it's a hoax, and the folks at 'ThinkProgress' insist that the Paris Accords and a miracle technological solution will save the day. Both are two species of the genus "delusion" whose aim is the preservation of consumer culture.
Politicians figured out after Jimmy Carter that Americans didn't want to be told the truth. It's a downer. They want a sunny Ronald Reagan or a Bill Clinton to tell them that tax cuts will make you rich and no problem is so big that a minor, cost-free adjustment can't fix. Trump tells the country it's a hoax, and the folks at 'ThinkProgress' insist that the Paris Accords and a miracle technological solution will save the day. Both are two species of the genus "delusion" whose aim is the preservation of consumer culture.
61
This article is a perfect example of poorly researched "science". For example, Atlantic Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) has not increased at all. This is easy to check. In fact, some of the warmest years have the lowest ACE. If the hypothesis that warmer oceans create more powerful cyclones were true then there would be a correlation between the hottest years and hurricane activity, but it doesn't exist.
This article also make specious comparisons to well-observed phenomena and asks why we don't accept climate science with the same confidence. Cancer research relies on literally millions of "experiments" where people with similar lifestyles provided comparisons between rates of cancer in smokers vs. non-smokers. We have very little observational data relating to climate change, especially relating to arctic sea ice that relies entirely on satellite data that's only been available for a few decades. We certainly don't have a robust correlation between hurricane tracks and ice extent. Similarly, predictions in the field of orbital mechanics are nothing like the statistical projections make by climate scientists. In fact, climate scientists are the first to point this out when the climate fails to do what they think it should. You'll never see a predicted eclipse fail to materialize and then hear an astronomer say "Ah well, a single event doesn't refute the science". Honest disclosure of uncertainty is an essential part of science.
This article also make specious comparisons to well-observed phenomena and asks why we don't accept climate science with the same confidence. Cancer research relies on literally millions of "experiments" where people with similar lifestyles provided comparisons between rates of cancer in smokers vs. non-smokers. We have very little observational data relating to climate change, especially relating to arctic sea ice that relies entirely on satellite data that's only been available for a few decades. We certainly don't have a robust correlation between hurricane tracks and ice extent. Similarly, predictions in the field of orbital mechanics are nothing like the statistical projections make by climate scientists. In fact, climate scientists are the first to point this out when the climate fails to do what they think it should. You'll never see a predicted eclipse fail to materialize and then hear an astronomer say "Ah well, a single event doesn't refute the science". Honest disclosure of uncertainty is an essential part of science.
5
American economic growth depends on citizens shopping and shopping and shopping. If this is wasteful and contributes to pollution and climate change, so be it. Americans want what they want, that's what makes America great, and they won't change anytime soon.
2
Were it not for coal and abundant use of fossil fuels, Mr. Kristof would not be able to take those globe trotting excursions into conflict areas in Africa and elsewhere in developing world which have proved so informative to his readers.Nor is it helpful to play amateur meterologist or to blame Trump's refusal to sign Paris Accord for calamities in La. and TEXAS. Recorded that 26,000 live were lost in Houston in 1900. Can we blame climate change skeptics for that disaster?Even if c-in-c has signed Accord, India and China would not have stopped polluting,Gore would not have given up his fleet of suv's, and Pelosi would not have cancelled her frequent returns to SF on private jet at public expense.And we do not know about climate scientist Charles Green's financial grants from green technology firms, how they might have influenced his judgement.No disrespect intended, but just as I pointed out shallowness of PK's misleading equation of Trump and Caligula, pointing out that last politico to be compared with Caligula turned out to be France's most successful president in nation's history, Mitterand who served 2 "septennats,"must point out pretentiousness of Kristof's piece. He's best when doing on the spot reporting in troubled areas and need to help inhabitants, like his pieces on Dr. Tom Catena in south Sudan,and those suffering from paludism and leprosy in west Africa, That is where NK is really "bien dans sa peau"and his reporting is excellent.
4
Ok, Harvey was predictable. so was Katrina. We can see Irma coming along. Humans can often predict catastrophe, but rarely plan for it. None of this has a whit to do with climate change. Even with a perfect record for prediction, we will not plan, nor will we move from the path of the storm; this is just human nature. Just the other day there was a story about a family whose home has been flooded 3 times in the past few years; and yet they remain. Whether or not we accept climate change, we should move out of the path of known hurricane routes, or we will be hurt again.
4
Viewed more bluntly: the "debate" over climate change can be seen as a debate surrounding the privatization of the profits derived to individuals and corporations in the fossil fuel industry versus the socialization or having the tax paying public foot the bill of the clean up from the mess the deniers are fostering.
8
To Mr. Kristoff, “it’s staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change.” To me, it’s staggering that Mr. Kristoff is staggered. As the NYT (most recently in https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/climate/exxon-global-warming-science-... and other parties have reported for years, some of the world’s richest and most politically powerful corporations enrich themselves by acting as though humanity’s use of fossil fuel is not causing climate breakdown. Few politicians are willing to stand in the path of these economic juggernauts. Very likely, many politicians owe their political success to them.
At a more local level, Mr. Kristoff would do well to consider the candid response of a Wyoming state legislator when asked why he denied climate change. He stated that admitting its reality would threaten Wyomingites’ way of life, given the state’s economic dependence on the extraction of oil, coal, and natural gas.
At a more local level, Mr. Kristoff would do well to consider the candid response of a Wyoming state legislator when asked why he denied climate change. He stated that admitting its reality would threaten Wyomingites’ way of life, given the state’s economic dependence on the extraction of oil, coal, and natural gas.
4
When the right people find the right way to make the right amount of money from not denying climate change that's when the denying will stop.
9
Nick, I think we are going to be OK. The sun came out over Central Park late this morning. Or is that just weather doing its thing?
2
How do you know that Harvey has anything whatsoever to do with climate change? There were never hurricanes before now? If there is climate change it is gradual, like 1/100 of a degree a year.
That said it is clearly not a good idea to be depleting the Earth's resources and messing up the place with waste and debris.
That said it is clearly not a good idea to be depleting the Earth's resources and messing up the place with waste and debris.
6
It's not that gradual. Overall temps are projected to rise by 3 degrees by 2100.
7
We have made great strides in Extreme Event Attribution is recent years. You should look it up. We can say that a certain percent of a weather disaster is a result of a warming planet
3
Unfortunately, a surprising number of Americans believe that God sends storms to punish sinners, and there's nothing we can do about it.
We should be teaching the history of scientific thought in our schools, starting in elementary classrooms and on up through high school. Many people don't understand the questions scientists have asked and the actions taken to find their solutions. It all seems an abstraction, not much different from magic.
We should be teaching the history of scientific thought in our schools, starting in elementary classrooms and on up through high school. Many people don't understand the questions scientists have asked and the actions taken to find their solutions. It all seems an abstraction, not much different from magic.
8
True that. It's hard to have a public discussion about an issue that many feel is in " God's hands". Until they're the ones pleading to be rescued.
But maybe , just maybe they sinned and didn't know it.....
But maybe , just maybe they sinned and didn't know it.....
4
I'm confused. Mr. Kristof says it's "climate change", but his thesis blames "Republicans.". Which is it, "climate change" or "Republicans?"
2
You must know, if you keep up with what's going on, that public policy is enacted by politicians. The Republican lawmakers, in large part, have stalled most anything regarding our environmental issues. Sen. Imhof, being the worst.
7
Did you read the article ... ?
What causes climate change is high human CO2 emissions. So what reduces it, is policies that lower those emissions, coordinated on an international level (Paris Accord).
Republicans didn't CAUSE climate change, but the world FINALLY started to act on the proven science, a couple of years ago, and today Republican are constantly spreading myths and horrible lies about the climate, and even worse, they are deliberately destroying all measures that reduce CO2 emissions.
THAT is what they are blamed for, you see?
Gen. Mattis has told the Senate that climate change is now a threat to our national security and the safety of our troops.
The FIRST job of any president is to keep us informed of what the threats to our security are and to do something about it, NOT to start massively lying and then deliberately make things worse, as Trump and the GOP are doing today.
This is way too serious to play politics with.
What causes climate change is high human CO2 emissions. So what reduces it, is policies that lower those emissions, coordinated on an international level (Paris Accord).
Republicans didn't CAUSE climate change, but the world FINALLY started to act on the proven science, a couple of years ago, and today Republican are constantly spreading myths and horrible lies about the climate, and even worse, they are deliberately destroying all measures that reduce CO2 emissions.
THAT is what they are blamed for, you see?
Gen. Mattis has told the Senate that climate change is now a threat to our national security and the safety of our troops.
The FIRST job of any president is to keep us informed of what the threats to our security are and to do something about it, NOT to start massively lying and then deliberately make things worse, as Trump and the GOP are doing today.
This is way too serious to play politics with.
5
Well Republicans have turned science into political suicide. Dems may be hypocrites on the issue but Republicans are creating a public discourse that is weighted toward a denial of reality
5
Why should there be an argument about whether Hurricane Harvey is connected to climate change?
Only a few "bipartisan " questions are essential :
What can Houston and other coastal cities do to minimize the damage of future hurricanes? What kind of zoning would minimize or possibly prevent such extensive flooding? What kind of restrictions are needed to keep toxic waste sites and chemical plants out of wetlands ?
Forget about whether we need to call Harvey's ruinous damage a result of climate change. Too many people stop listening when you use that term.
Just ask the common sense questions, take all preventative steps, and leave the people who love to argue, and prove themselves right and others wrong,
in the dust.
Only a few "bipartisan " questions are essential :
What can Houston and other coastal cities do to minimize the damage of future hurricanes? What kind of zoning would minimize or possibly prevent such extensive flooding? What kind of restrictions are needed to keep toxic waste sites and chemical plants out of wetlands ?
Forget about whether we need to call Harvey's ruinous damage a result of climate change. Too many people stop listening when you use that term.
Just ask the common sense questions, take all preventative steps, and leave the people who love to argue, and prove themselves right and others wrong,
in the dust.
10
This is exactly what the author is speaking out against.
4
Problem is oil money influencing Congress and Governors
and Presidents
How about an article on what each elected official
Has received from the oil industry , Koch brothers etc
and Presidents
How about an article on what each elected official
Has received from the oil industry , Koch brothers etc
11
Will the moneyed people and the chemical industry (includes oil and gas) influence how the city is rebuilt? Now that we know all coastal areas are in danger of a tragedy such as Harvey, will Houston and the other towns and cities that were inundated use the federal government money to mitigate the damages which will inevitably occur in the future? Or, will they put everything back like it was, as a child does if the house it is building topples over? Who would ever live in the Houston area when poisons float around daily, and the state prevents you from knowing what they are - let alone the dangers they pose, especially to young children. I predict anyone with a functioning, discerning brain, will exodus the area post haste.
9
Imagine our response to ISIS if their lobbyists were pouring millions of dollars into the coffers of Congress.
As with so many other issues, the problem is campaign financing. Our government works not for the people, but for the money.
As with so many other issues, the problem is campaign financing. Our government works not for the people, but for the money.
17
Harvey was temporary micro local weather.
Climate change is macro dynamic long term planetary physics, chemistry, biology and geology.
The relationship between the two phenomenon is very complicated and indirect. And there is no immediate need to conflate and confuse them. Doing so can delay effectively responding to either.
Climate change is macro dynamic long term planetary physics, chemistry, biology and geology.
The relationship between the two phenomenon is very complicated and indirect. And there is no immediate need to conflate and confuse them. Doing so can delay effectively responding to either.
5
Do you think it impossible that "temporary micro local weather" might be affected by "macro dynamic long term planetary physics, chemistry, biology and geology"? Why?
7
the OP notes that evidence of association between global warning is not evidence of causality. Prematurely attempting to link the two allows the contentious to ignore common sense steps to address both issues simultaneously - common sense steps that do not require a casual link between the two.
I'm a geochemist and this is a common but false narrative. Complex doesn't mean that strong correlations can't be identified. Further, weather should be considered a sampling of climate conditions. They are tightly connected and to treat them as independent is delusion. In fact slight shifts in climate can lead to magnified weather anomalies.
Please read a book or attend a lecture by a real Earth scientist on the subject. Our children's prosperity depends on embracing and mastering complexity, not throwing our hands up and rationalizing the current state. Cancer is complex, should we stop trying to understand and fight it?
Please read a book or attend a lecture by a real Earth scientist on the subject. Our children's prosperity depends on embracing and mastering complexity, not throwing our hands up and rationalizing the current state. Cancer is complex, should we stop trying to understand and fight it?
7
It seems a feeble cry and meaningless debate when the real problems of pollution are nowhere addressed. The 'end climate change by tweaking our energy supplies' are doomed to failure even if the most fantastical projections are met. The worlds population is expected to hit 11.2 billion people in the lifetime of your own newborn baby, 2100, up from 7.5 billion now. That is almost exactly a full 50% increase. Thats 50% MORE pollution. Cut greenhouse gases by a full 50% which is far more than realistic and we gain nothing given these projections. The problem is over population - more and more people that require energy, wood from the diminishing forests, fish from the overly stressed oceans, grain from our farms and fresh water from our ever polluted limited sources. Each and every person has a dirty 'carbon footprint' and yes we can try to reduce each footprint but at some point, the discussion must be to reduce the number of footprints, I do not see an alternative as difficult a discussion as that will be.
6
I agree.
And the continued denial of rampant population growth as the primary threat to the Earth's environmental well-being is the greatest denial of all.
And the continued denial of rampant population growth as the primary threat to the Earth's environmental well-being is the greatest denial of all.
7
Carbon footprints vary enormously. A person in the US uses 6,000 units of energy per year, while someone in India uses 600. So we don't have to worry about population growth in the distant future as much as we need to worry about limiting carbon pollution now. India has made a huge commitment to solar energy, partly because does not require the massive infrastructure that fossil-fuels do; China is investing heavily in solar power; and meanwhile the US subsidizes fossil fuel extraction instead. There are so many ways to reduce carbon pollution, but the fossil-fuel industry doesn't want us to.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_pe...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_energy_consumption_pe...
9
Unfortunately, agreements such as the Paris Climate Accord will do little to stem climate change. Indeed, reducing activities that contribute to our "carbon footprint" would do little to stem the tide.
Biological reality tells us that climate change has become but a political football masking the real problem: overpopulation. Changing energy sources and altering development processes would do nothing to change this fundamental problem. Indeed, proposed changes address climate change appear to be an excuse for continuing with population growth as usual.
Wall Street, indeed our entire economy, is dependent upon an ever expanding market which can only come about through a growing population. Current climate politics would do little to change this since labeling the fossil fuel industry as the cause of climate change is unrealistic and short sighted.
We will perish as a species if we cannot change our economic system(s) to embrace a more cooperative spirit and leave the cut-throat competitive growth model behind. Capitalism and nationalism are literally killing us. All the solar panels and wind turbines in the world will do little to change the equation unless we stop spawning so many babies to suffer needlessly.
Biological reality tells us that climate change has become but a political football masking the real problem: overpopulation. Changing energy sources and altering development processes would do nothing to change this fundamental problem. Indeed, proposed changes address climate change appear to be an excuse for continuing with population growth as usual.
Wall Street, indeed our entire economy, is dependent upon an ever expanding market which can only come about through a growing population. Current climate politics would do little to change this since labeling the fossil fuel industry as the cause of climate change is unrealistic and short sighted.
We will perish as a species if we cannot change our economic system(s) to embrace a more cooperative spirit and leave the cut-throat competitive growth model behind. Capitalism and nationalism are literally killing us. All the solar panels and wind turbines in the world will do little to change the equation unless we stop spawning so many babies to suffer needlessly.
6
Climate is nothing more than a running average of innumerable weather events. Weather causes climate, not vice versa. Global warming due to the trapped greenhouse gases has caused changes in weather patterns, which has changed climate, increased ocean levels and ocean salinity, melted ice formations and permafrost, etc. We can say that the polar ice cap melted due to climate change, because that depends on long term effects of changes to weather patterns. But we rarely, if ever, can we say a single weather event is caused by climate change.
7
"...we rarely, if ever, can we say a single weather event is caused by climate change." That's the wrong question. Here is the question to which you should be seeking an answer: is it possible for a tropical cyclone to remain unresponsive to changes in sea surface temperature and atmospheric humidity (that are being increased by global warming)? The answer, from physics: no.
In your premise: "Climate is nothing more than a running average of innumerable weather events" you confound climate itself with climate data.
In your premise: "Climate is nothing more than a running average of innumerable weather events" you confound climate itself with climate data.
3
Governments can not act fast enough. Innovators must rapidly replace fossil fuels.
To the surprise of almost everyone 24/7 solar powered engines will soon provide generators of all sizes that need no fuel.
A converted Ford engine ran without fuel to prove the concept. An additional engine has been converted and will be verified and validated by an independent laboratory.
These engines expand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Few scientists and engineers believe they are possible. A White Paper is available. The work reflects 27 years of effort by Kenneth Rauen. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES at aesopinstitute.org
Imagine power generation at every scale operating 24/7 without need for fuel. Cars, trucks, boats, ships and aircraft dispensing with any need for fuel of any kind.
Similar engines will self-power refrigeration, heating and air-conditioning.
Trolls are certain such work must reflect fraud and dishonesty, making efforts to provide miniscule working capital a nightmare. At this critical moment, one or two bold souls, acting without delay, can accelerate this potentially life saving work.
Rapid development and commercialization of revolutionary science and technology can improve the odds for human survival on this dangerously warming planet.
Mass production fast enough worldwide might help avoid more destructive hurricanes, violent storms and life threatening heat.
To the surprise of almost everyone 24/7 solar powered engines will soon provide generators of all sizes that need no fuel.
A converted Ford engine ran without fuel to prove the concept. An additional engine has been converted and will be verified and validated by an independent laboratory.
These engines expand the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Few scientists and engineers believe they are possible. A White Paper is available. The work reflects 27 years of effort by Kenneth Rauen. See SECOND LAW SURPRISES at aesopinstitute.org
Imagine power generation at every scale operating 24/7 without need for fuel. Cars, trucks, boats, ships and aircraft dispensing with any need for fuel of any kind.
Similar engines will self-power refrigeration, heating and air-conditioning.
Trolls are certain such work must reflect fraud and dishonesty, making efforts to provide miniscule working capital a nightmare. At this critical moment, one or two bold souls, acting without delay, can accelerate this potentially life saving work.
Rapid development and commercialization of revolutionary science and technology can improve the odds for human survival on this dangerously warming planet.
Mass production fast enough worldwide might help avoid more destructive hurricanes, violent storms and life threatening heat.
2
I have said that the next great social movement will revolve around the climate issue. It is a threat to our economy and way of life. It seems to me that there are millions of people who are simply wringing their hands in concern. Mobilize around this concern and let the powerful know that it must stop. Don't look to the Democrats for leadership, since they are all talk and no action. If you love your children, you must take action, because it will be your children and future children who will bear the brunt of this catastrophe.
3
So much more public education is needed regarding climate change. When scientists say the ocean may rise an inch or two or go up a few degrees in temperature, I don't think Americans fully understand WHY that is so dangerous. Just one degree can make a huge difference in our ecosystem.
I think most of our fellow citizens believe gas emissions dissipate into outer space. Unfortunately, any scientific facts are met with self-serving propaganda
from the gas/oil empire and complicit fake news networks, notably Fox.
Cleaning or stabilizing our atmosphere requires a shift in profits from gas/oil to sustainable energy businesses. Unlikely. The environmental disasters we have witnessed in other parts of the world have begun to reach our shores. I fear all the goodwill we have witnessed in Houston will confirm for Texans that they can tough it out rather than adapt to climate change. I wish Texans and other Americans vote smarter next time. The changes required will not get the support from the Trump adminstration or the GOP Congress in the long run.
Talk with Hurricane Sandy victims.
I think most of our fellow citizens believe gas emissions dissipate into outer space. Unfortunately, any scientific facts are met with self-serving propaganda
from the gas/oil empire and complicit fake news networks, notably Fox.
Cleaning or stabilizing our atmosphere requires a shift in profits from gas/oil to sustainable energy businesses. Unlikely. The environmental disasters we have witnessed in other parts of the world have begun to reach our shores. I fear all the goodwill we have witnessed in Houston will confirm for Texans that they can tough it out rather than adapt to climate change. I wish Texans and other Americans vote smarter next time. The changes required will not get the support from the Trump adminstration or the GOP Congress in the long run.
Talk with Hurricane Sandy victims.
1
Not only did several Texas politicians who are now asking for federal help after Harvey refuse our requests for aid after Sandy, but we're still dealing with its aftermath five years on...
Good luck, Texas.
Good luck, Texas.
5
Kristof's heart may be in the right place, but unfortunately his facts are wrong on storms.
As several commenters have noted, storm occurrences and severity are not related to global warming.
This is the first Category 3 or stronger storm to hit the US in 12 years (Sandy was Cat 2). The facts are:
From 1970 to 2017 there have been 4 Category 4 & 5 storms (such as Harvey) to hit the US. From 1923 to 1970, there were 14 such storms.
A commenter below listed the number of recorded storms by decade going back to the late 1800's. Again, the numbers peaked in the first half of the last century.
Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Climate Assessment found "no relationship" between climate change and the frequency or severity of storms in the US.
So there is no scientific consensus on this issue--contrary to Kristof's assertion--because the facts don't support his conclusions (one could plausibly argue that global warming has reduced the frequency of such storms, but it may just be a statistical fluke--albeit one hat has persisted for over 50 years).
As several commenters have noted, storm occurrences and severity are not related to global warming.
This is the first Category 3 or stronger storm to hit the US in 12 years (Sandy was Cat 2). The facts are:
From 1970 to 2017 there have been 4 Category 4 & 5 storms (such as Harvey) to hit the US. From 1923 to 1970, there were 14 such storms.
A commenter below listed the number of recorded storms by decade going back to the late 1800's. Again, the numbers peaked in the first half of the last century.
Both the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the National Climate Assessment found "no relationship" between climate change and the frequency or severity of storms in the US.
So there is no scientific consensus on this issue--contrary to Kristof's assertion--because the facts don't support his conclusions (one could plausibly argue that global warming has reduced the frequency of such storms, but it may just be a statistical fluke--albeit one hat has persisted for over 50 years).
9
This comment is true, but it is not helpful. While there may not be more storms, the storms we do get will be monsters. The IPCC has been predicted stronger storms for decades. When hurricanes do form (including Irma heading to the East Coast this very minute) they will randomly chew up the Gulf Coast, Florida, and the eastern seaboard causing ever-increasing and unprecedented damage. That is the problem.
3
Always helpful to know the facts. And judge arguments accordingly.
There may be good reasons to fear global warming, and man's contributions thereto. But storms like Houston's don't seem to be part of that.
There may be good reasons to fear global warming, and man's contributions thereto. But storms like Houston's don't seem to be part of that.
2
This response is an example of confirmation bias and reinforces the OPs point. The IPCC may have predicted storms of increasing strength, their research also does not find empirical evidence of increasing storm strength. Global warming may well have anthropogenic causes and require human corrective action. Spurious claims unsupported by the evidence only complicate efforts to enable meaningful change.
No news of the Koches & Waltons stepping up to donate several billion dollars to aid in the flooding disaster in Texas? Apparently compassionate conservatism is hoarding wealth in case practitioners need to book tickets on the Jeff Bezos rocket to the moon.
6
The climate of the earth has always changed. Mr. Kristof is really setting the stage for economic and political changes that may help some and hurt others. It is the blind leading the blind - the hallmark of left leaning politics.
5
Your first sentence is correct. Increased populations and carbons have helped to create this problem. Our planet has a long history. You forgot that part!
2
The equivalent of arguing that there has always been lung cancer in the human population so smoking must not influence the incidence of lung cancer...
6
Politicizing a public matter in this manner is shameful.
I suggest the writer put up his air conditioning in full and tell the 3 guards at the gatehouse to his restricted community no press inquiries...that should work for a day
Then denial and ignorance can work its' own magic
I suggest the writer put up his air conditioning in full and tell the 3 guards at the gatehouse to his restricted community no press inquiries...that should work for a day
Then denial and ignorance can work its' own magic
The federal and state government's intentionally refusing to acknowledge the impact of climate change in our extreme and deadly weather events, such as Hurricane Harvey, is due to a complete lack of reality based thinking. What Mr. Kristof is not discussing here is the underlying reason for this intentional blindness. The state of Texas, the Trump administration, and many of those in congress, are beholden to the oil and gas industries. The Koch brothers, Exxon-Mobil, and so many other corporate donors are the sole reason for the anti-science "case" against human impacts causing climate change.
The election of Bernie Sanders would not have prevented the terrible devastation of Hurricane Harvey, but many of us remember the Democratic debate where a question was asked about the greatest problem facing us in the future. While all the others on the stage spoke of terrorism, Bernie was willing to actually bravely state the truth: that global climate change is our greatest threat.
How much of this was due to his refusal to accept money from corporate donors?
The United States will never really move ahead to a just and sustainable approach to climate and a healthy future until we get corporate candidates and corporate money out of our elections.
The election of Bernie Sanders would not have prevented the terrible devastation of Hurricane Harvey, but many of us remember the Democratic debate where a question was asked about the greatest problem facing us in the future. While all the others on the stage spoke of terrorism, Bernie was willing to actually bravely state the truth: that global climate change is our greatest threat.
How much of this was due to his refusal to accept money from corporate donors?
The United States will never really move ahead to a just and sustainable approach to climate and a healthy future until we get corporate candidates and corporate money out of our elections.
6
And underlying the Oil-Corporate denials...is the Christian Evangelical beliefs that God will protect and provide. No need to fret, God will not let his chosen people down.
You may laugh, but its a real sentiment among many American Christian Evangelicals, esp the powerful ones with free-access to the very hallways of state and federal offices. They truly believe the USA is impervious to such problems, as long as we remain devoted to our Christian faith. Which is why they are so much involved in trying to inflict their Christian Sharia on us. If RoevWade is overturned, more blessings come our way. If Creationism is taught over Evolution, more blessings come our way. And wow, if they can get prayer back in the schools...the blessings will be huge...bigly. Winning like we've never won before.
The very roots of US science denial is directly from the Christian community, especially the Evangelicals...who have never gotten over their perceived loss in the Scopes trial...and more recently the Dover case. They have been ratcheting up their attacks on all the sciences and it will get worse under Trump, as they have managed to gain even more free-access to not only him (they bring votes) but also in important appointments, Sessions being a big one.
But their machinations will go on behind the scenes. As usual...dont be surprised by what the Justice Dept will interfere with on local issues about public school curriculum's.
You may laugh, but its a real sentiment among many American Christian Evangelicals, esp the powerful ones with free-access to the very hallways of state and federal offices. They truly believe the USA is impervious to such problems, as long as we remain devoted to our Christian faith. Which is why they are so much involved in trying to inflict their Christian Sharia on us. If RoevWade is overturned, more blessings come our way. If Creationism is taught over Evolution, more blessings come our way. And wow, if they can get prayer back in the schools...the blessings will be huge...bigly. Winning like we've never won before.
The very roots of US science denial is directly from the Christian community, especially the Evangelicals...who have never gotten over their perceived loss in the Scopes trial...and more recently the Dover case. They have been ratcheting up their attacks on all the sciences and it will get worse under Trump, as they have managed to gain even more free-access to not only him (they bring votes) but also in important appointments, Sessions being a big one.
But their machinations will go on behind the scenes. As usual...dont be surprised by what the Justice Dept will interfere with on local issues about public school curriculum's.
2
The solution is to make environmentalism profitable, and that cannot happen until the consumers -- i.e., we -- demand those products that will save the environment. Electric cars. Wind and solar energy. Biodegradable packaging. Hop on any freeway and count the number of SUV's. Walt Kelley said it best, "We have met the enemy, and it is us."
3
Yes, and when some of those things are more affordable we might start seeing consumers make different choices!
3
This is why population is the most significant variable in the equation.
4
Denying climate change is an excuse for not doing anything about it. Even when presented with the dollars and cents costs of denial, the deniers still plod along with their mantra that is buoyed by junk science and false data to support a losing argument. What are they afraid of--why is it so hard for them to acknowledge the solid data and changing weather and climate-related events that we see everyday?
6
The fudged and false data comes from those pushing the con, in far greater frequency and size
2
Climatologists do not know the proportions of natural forcings to human forcings with a degree of confidnence anywhere near that needed to estimate the effects of any particular global clmate policy.
Harvey stalled over Houston due to a completely random upper atmospheric weether formation. If it had moved through Houston at 5-10 mph it would have been no worse than many other storms. This had nothing to do with whether or not AGW helped spawn Harvey in the Gulf of Mexico.
Harvey stalled over Houston due to a completely random upper atmospheric weether formation. If it had moved through Houston at 5-10 mph it would have been no worse than many other storms. This had nothing to do with whether or not AGW helped spawn Harvey in the Gulf of Mexico.
4
Actually, the climate scientist know the anthropogenic and natural forcings with reasonable confidence. The signal is way bigger than the noise.
The important ones--human induced: (all relative deltas to the base date)
CO2 and CH4....+2.9 W/m2
aerosols. -1.2 W/ m2
Natural forcing:
solar: +0.3 W/m2
It's essentially all us.
The important ones--human induced: (all relative deltas to the base date)
CO2 and CH4....+2.9 W/m2
aerosols. -1.2 W/ m2
Natural forcing:
solar: +0.3 W/m2
It's essentially all us.
1
Except that there's NO scientific study to back up your hypothesis, and a LOT of evidence already for the opposite ... time to update your info a little bit ... ;-)
By the way, you could start by clicking on the links to those studies mentioned in this op-ed, for instance ...
By the way, you could start by clicking on the links to those studies mentioned in this op-ed, for instance ...
3
Weather moves heat from the equator to the poles. Greenhouse gases alter the heat balances in ways that stagnate the flow.
Harvey destroys the argument that addressing climate change is too expensive. The evidence is right in front of us that it's too expensive not to. More such evidence is sure to come, but why wait?
4
Remember the money in politics and the Koch brothers!
2
Too many politicians are lawyers, too few are scientists.
Are there any scientists in that 'profession' at all?
Are there any scientists in that 'profession' at all?
2
Rush Holt, a nuclear physicist who is now president of AAAS, represented a district in New Jersey for many years. I believe he found it an exercise in futility. When he ran for the Senate, he was defeated in the primary by Cory Booker.
2
It's refreshing to hear Mr. Kristof, in particular, say these things. I hope it starts a movement away from shutting out climate evidence. Denying scary things never makes them go away. We should be advocating all good research into the many aspects of climate change, but instead we are cutting funding to studies that provide the scientific data we will need to adjust to a more extreme planet.
4
For a moment, forget about the Republican political hacks who deny climate change. And also ignore the parrots of the alt right because their squawking is just your typical anti-elites rhetoric. The real climate deniers are corporations who oppose the science behind climate for selfish economic reasons even though they know better. They are following the same playbook that was used to oppose solution of previous emerging environmental problems, like persistent pesticide impacts, acid rain, toxic substances such as mercury in fish flesh and even overfishing of commercial stocks. The corporate playbook is quite simple. The first stage is to deny the problem exists at all. The second phase is to accept that the problem exisst but that it is not due to human activities. Next, a small insignicant human component is grudgingly accepted but elaborate data gathering efforts are needed before a decision can be made. After that the next barrier is that there is no technology available to combat the problem. Finally, there is a technologic solution but it is too costly. Theis delaying strategy preserves short term profits and costs society far more in the long run.
4
There is sometimes also the step in which the problem is acknowledged, but then some pseudoscientific gymnastics is done to re- interpret it as being beneficial (e.g., CO2 is good for plants, therefore increasing its atmospheric concentration is a good thing.)
1
This flood swamped Exxon-Mobil in its heartland.
1
Our CO2 pollution is a problem for the Earth's atmosphere just as our plastic pollution is a problem for the Earth's oceans and our pesticide pollution is a problem for the Earth's soil.
Our negative impact on the climate that supports all life is part of a big problem. We are the one species that is not in sync with a life-bearing planet. Where we live is amazing. Yet we are on the road to change the rare blue-green Earth into a lifeless rock. We have been studying the heavens for centuries and have yet to confirm another planet like the Earth. We know we are destroying what supports us, yet we continue to do it like an alcoholic who drinks even when it makes him violently ill.
We are intelligent enough to know that we are doing the equivalent of an astronaut sabotaging the air exchange system that keeps him alive on a space ship. We know we are committing a slow suicide. We know we should not use resources faster than the Earth can replenish them and we know we should not produce CO2 faster than the Earth can absorb it.
But we struggle with one essential thing: our overconsumption is connected with our progress. We want to keep creating and building. We want to have children and grandchildren. So we keep on doing what we have been doing; it's a combination of inertia, habit, greed, and fear of change.
We're scared--and so we attack each other. Instead, we need to focus on solutions (i.e. google Rotterdam for ideas for Houston). Don't demonize, strategize!
Our negative impact on the climate that supports all life is part of a big problem. We are the one species that is not in sync with a life-bearing planet. Where we live is amazing. Yet we are on the road to change the rare blue-green Earth into a lifeless rock. We have been studying the heavens for centuries and have yet to confirm another planet like the Earth. We know we are destroying what supports us, yet we continue to do it like an alcoholic who drinks even when it makes him violently ill.
We are intelligent enough to know that we are doing the equivalent of an astronaut sabotaging the air exchange system that keeps him alive on a space ship. We know we are committing a slow suicide. We know we should not use resources faster than the Earth can replenish them and we know we should not produce CO2 faster than the Earth can absorb it.
But we struggle with one essential thing: our overconsumption is connected with our progress. We want to keep creating and building. We want to have children and grandchildren. So we keep on doing what we have been doing; it's a combination of inertia, habit, greed, and fear of change.
We're scared--and so we attack each other. Instead, we need to focus on solutions (i.e. google Rotterdam for ideas for Houston). Don't demonize, strategize!
6
One third of all land vertebrate species are now undergoing population and habitat collapses.
1
You will never have changes if you don't have people earnestly interested in the results of those changes. The question should first be: what can I do to reduce my own footprint? Change can only happen at grassroots level, and spread outwards.
If you look at the very people escaping to nature, cycling away, or running, are the ones who end up throwing their empty water bottles on the ground in the preserve. It is unfathomable that people who love the outdoors might also often be the culprit. Another example: people who shop at the whole foods markets are not always eco-friendly. I have never see anyone bringing reusable nylon produce bags. Yes, small stuff, but this small stuff adds up.
To be a true patronage of the planet means trying to do as much right as possible.
Perhaps Houston can be a rebuilding model for eco-consicous and eco-urban planning. Compact housing, small roads, living more land to nature. A community that is built with nature in mind.
If you look at the very people escaping to nature, cycling away, or running, are the ones who end up throwing their empty water bottles on the ground in the preserve. It is unfathomable that people who love the outdoors might also often be the culprit. Another example: people who shop at the whole foods markets are not always eco-friendly. I have never see anyone bringing reusable nylon produce bags. Yes, small stuff, but this small stuff adds up.
To be a true patronage of the planet means trying to do as much right as possible.
Perhaps Houston can be a rebuilding model for eco-consicous and eco-urban planning. Compact housing, small roads, living more land to nature. A community that is built with nature in mind.
3
Neil deGrasse Tyson made an interesting observation during an interview by Trevor Noah on The Daily Show last week. He said that scientific method had predicted the solar eclipse - the same scientific method that predicts climate change. But while many people question scientific predictions about climate change, nobody doubted the eclipse prediction. Nobody proposed legislation to prohibit the teaching of "eclipse science" in public schools. Nobody argued that predictions of total eclipse were exaggerated. Instead, people spent lots of time and energy and money to be in the precise places at the precise times that science had predicted total eclipse.
The question I have always had for climate deniers - the question I have never seen answered, anywhere - is, how much are you willing to bet on being right? We buy insurance to protect us from events that are possible, but not certain, even as we hope or even believe those events will never occur. My homeowner's insurance covers earthquake damage, for instance. We do this because, even if we believe the event won't occur, we're not willing to bet everything we own on being right.
It's one thing to believe that climate science is wrong. But it's a whole order of magnitude worse to refuse to protect ourselves against the possibility that the science is right.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
The question I have always had for climate deniers - the question I have never seen answered, anywhere - is, how much are you willing to bet on being right? We buy insurance to protect us from events that are possible, but not certain, even as we hope or even believe those events will never occur. My homeowner's insurance covers earthquake damage, for instance. We do this because, even if we believe the event won't occur, we're not willing to bet everything we own on being right.
It's one thing to believe that climate science is wrong. But it's a whole order of magnitude worse to refuse to protect ourselves against the possibility that the science is right.
politicsbyeccehomo.wordpress.com
12
Climate science involves many more parameters than the mathematics that describe the motions of massive objects in space. If only it were as simple in principle as Newtonian mechanics.
2
I have posted previously, the planet took about 10000 years to exit the last ice age changing surface air temps about 5C, CO2 rose from about 180 to 280 ppm. The planet then cooled about 1C from the Holocene max down to the little ice age over about 6500 years with CO2 in a narrow band--the Milankovitch cycles relatively dominant with minor aerosol, solar and CO2 influences. All that cooling has reversed in the last 150 years when CO2 increased dramatically. Essentially a 15 to 20% change in surface air temps very fast.
I have often asked what natural forcing is causing the rapid warm up and how many climate records must be broken for most of the AGW climate change deniers to change their respective opinions on the science and join the consensus. To date, I have never received a response with any scientific basis.
I have often asked what natural forcing is causing the rapid warm up and how many climate records must be broken for most of the AGW climate change deniers to change their respective opinions on the science and join the consensus. To date, I have never received a response with any scientific basis.
1
That is why we have agencies and labs dedicated to researching the subject, and the current science on the topic is below.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
1
"We address a threat from the Islamic State or North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess. So why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?"
Simple answer, there is money to be made in terrorism by the industrial military complex and later by appropriating oil rights. There's more cost (individual not collective) in addressing climate change by many of the same interests (say cleaner disposal protocols). Our politicians are bought so they will feign ignorance with preposterous statements like "I'm not a scientist" while routinely ignoring the preponderance of scientists that posit climate change and not letting similar lack of knowledge stop them from proposing other legislation (ie, many of them are not economists, but that does not stop them from proposing tax legislation or incentive laden laws to help local businesses).
Simple answer, there is money to be made in terrorism by the industrial military complex and later by appropriating oil rights. There's more cost (individual not collective) in addressing climate change by many of the same interests (say cleaner disposal protocols). Our politicians are bought so they will feign ignorance with preposterous statements like "I'm not a scientist" while routinely ignoring the preponderance of scientists that posit climate change and not letting similar lack of knowledge stop them from proposing other legislation (ie, many of them are not economists, but that does not stop them from proposing tax legislation or incentive laden laws to help local businesses).
2
The US military has long accepted climate change as fact, as a risk multiplier to be taken into account in all of their planning and strategies. Ask an insurance company if they take climate change seriously. The GOP is the only major influence in the world that does not take it seriously. Thanks to some of its members in the House Climate Solutions Caucus, that resistance is cracking, but much, much too slowly. That denial exists because it is paid to exist, and those who accept those payments are complicit in disasters such as Harvey, Katrina, and Sandy, in creeping changes like the drowning of Florida and deforestation by fire of the West. And those are only the local consequences: floods and fires and droughts and typhoons are worsened globally. In time, those who have fostered climate denial and impeded the needed response will be seen as criminals against all of humanity. But they are being paid handsomely in the meantime.
4
Man made global warming and hurricane activity are two different topics, and questions about each have different answers.
1
On Sept 11, 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, Mr. Kristof wrote the following in his NYTimes column:
"...there are indications that global warming will produce more Category 5 hurricanes."
"The available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make -- and possibly already is making -- those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been,"
"One summary of 1,200 simulations published in the Journal of Climate last year showed that rising levels of greenhouse gases could triple the number of Category 5 hurricanes."
Several inconvenient truths: (1) We have gone 12 years without a hurricane touching the USA. A record low number. (2) The number of Category 5 hurricanes globally is down substantially. (3) Hurricane Harvey is only tied for 14th place on the list of most severe U.S. landfall hurricanes, far behind much more severe hurricanes from the early to mid 20th century when greenhouse gasses were much lower.
Mr Krisftof would have greater credibility with his readers if he would admit that he has been wrong about his past weather predictions, and caveat that his future weather predictions could be wrong, too. There is a lot of uncertainty in the scientific models regarding climate change and its affect on changes in weather patterns. To portray climate models as conclusive predictors of weather events is misinforming the readers.
"...there are indications that global warming will produce more Category 5 hurricanes."
"The available scientific evidence indicates that it is likely that global warming will make -- and possibly already is making -- those hurricanes that form more destructive than they otherwise would have been,"
"One summary of 1,200 simulations published in the Journal of Climate last year showed that rising levels of greenhouse gases could triple the number of Category 5 hurricanes."
Several inconvenient truths: (1) We have gone 12 years without a hurricane touching the USA. A record low number. (2) The number of Category 5 hurricanes globally is down substantially. (3) Hurricane Harvey is only tied for 14th place on the list of most severe U.S. landfall hurricanes, far behind much more severe hurricanes from the early to mid 20th century when greenhouse gasses were much lower.
Mr Krisftof would have greater credibility with his readers if he would admit that he has been wrong about his past weather predictions, and caveat that his future weather predictions could be wrong, too. There is a lot of uncertainty in the scientific models regarding climate change and its affect on changes in weather patterns. To portray climate models as conclusive predictors of weather events is misinforming the readers.
7
Historically, the strength of hurricanes has been based on wind speed. After Harvey, the total rainfall will become a measure of their strength.
1
Climate is the macroeconomics of the environment, weather is the microeconomics. At some point macroeconomics precipitates to microeconomics.
1
Another in the denier camp that thinks the Atlantic is the whole globe. Cherry-picking anecdotes is not science. Climate scientists NEVER predicted there would be more land falls of hurricanes in the Atlantic portion of the US. The IPCC report clearly states that trends for frequency of hurricanes/cyclones is uncertain. However, the projection that hurricanes/cyclone would get stronger due to warmer water temps has been...well spot on. More heat is causing higher accumulated energy.
here is what is happening just like those pesky scientists projected..
"But a strong signal is found in proportions of both weaker and stronger hurricanes: the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased at a rate of ~25–30 % per °C of global warming after accounting for analysis and observing system changes. This has been balanced by a similar decrease in Category 1 and 2 hurricane proportions, leading to development of a distinctly bimodal intensity distribution, with the secondary maximum at Category 4 hurricanes. This global signal is reproduced in all ocean basins."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0
here is what is happening just like those pesky scientists projected..
"But a strong signal is found in proportions of both weaker and stronger hurricanes: the proportion of Category 4 and 5 hurricanes has increased at a rate of ~25–30 % per °C of global warming after accounting for analysis and observing system changes. This has been balanced by a similar decrease in Category 1 and 2 hurricane proportions, leading to development of a distinctly bimodal intensity distribution, with the secondary maximum at Category 4 hurricanes. This global signal is reproduced in all ocean basins."
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-013-1713-0
3
In 2013 Scientific American raised the alarm about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) because it is underestimating the damage from global warming. The IPCC's process of reviewing all climate studies and achieving scientific consensus is painstaking, and its predictions reflect the lowest common denominator among scientists. That means IPCC predictions have been too conservative. In every category of damage -- from rising sea levels, to higher ground temperatures, to stronger storms-- earlier IPCC forecasts had failed to predict how fast change was happening and how much worse it would be. Some said scientists had not been alarmist enough about the increasing damage from burning fossil fuels; but scientists said it was not their job to dictate policy.
However, there is no policy addressing global warming in the GOP. Its party platform utterly rejects the IPCC and its scientific predictions as politics: "The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy."
There is no hope in the GOP. They have turned painstaking scientific prediction into "politics"; they ignore that every IPCC report has underestimated the damage; and they have refused to act to protect us from harm.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-p...
However, there is no policy addressing global warming in the GOP. Its party platform utterly rejects the IPCC and its scientific predictions as politics: "The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a political mechanism, not an unbiased scientific institution. Its unreliability is reflected in its intolerance toward scientists and others who dissent from its orthodoxy."
There is no hope in the GOP. They have turned painstaking scientific prediction into "politics"; they ignore that every IPCC report has underestimated the damage; and they have refused to act to protect us from harm.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-p...
5
Scientific American recently published an article projecting that the population of Africa is on a trajectory to possibly reach six billion by the end of this century.
2
Fortunately, their carbon footprint per capita is 15 to 150 times less than that of the US, so when it comes to CO2 emissions (the main cause of global warming), that's not what will make a big difference.
And contrary to the US, they're all staying in the Paris accord, whereas WE, not they are the biggest polluters.
So maybe it's time to stop blaming others and start acting ... ?
And contrary to the US, they're all staying in the Paris accord, whereas WE, not they are the biggest polluters.
So maybe it's time to stop blaming others and start acting ... ?
3
The 28 June 2017 final draft of the U.S. GLOBAL CHANGE RESEARCH PROGRAM CLIMATE SCIENCE SPECIAL REPORT (CSSR) states that PROJECTED hurricane precipitation, intensity and frequency will be affected by global warming. This means that we cannot such a statement now. This is inline with other current reports.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
"It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
"It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity."
1
If if you are worried about climate change,take immediate action. Turn off the air conditioner and sell your car. If everyone does this we are doing a lot to respond to the threat.
2
Or we could form a long term energy policy that reduces the dependency on fossil fuels over a five decade time period shifting to alternative energy and keep the economy viable. It will happen anyhow since that is about the amount of time the planet has before fossil fuels are essentially too scarce to run the planet's economy.
5
It would be nice if the NY Times and Mr. Kristof could guide the process somewhat by citing examples from the way they ACTUALLY have changed the way they do things in the last 5 years.
Has Mr. Kristof moved into a smaller house? Is he driving an electric car? Is he controlling the temperature of his environment and wearing a heavier sweater in the winter?
Has the NY Times looked at its roster of advertisers and pruned away those who encourage needless consumption? Has the NY Times investigated government car fleets and identified where energy savings can be implemented? Has the NY Times looked at government embassies and asked (as was evident with the forced trim-down of the Moscow embassy) "Do we really need to waste so much money on parties and what is the effect of consuming so much caviar on sturgeon populations?"
Has Mr. Kristof moved into a smaller house? Is he driving an electric car? Is he controlling the temperature of his environment and wearing a heavier sweater in the winter?
Has the NY Times looked at its roster of advertisers and pruned away those who encourage needless consumption? Has the NY Times investigated government car fleets and identified where energy savings can be implemented? Has the NY Times looked at government embassies and asked (as was evident with the forced trim-down of the Moscow embassy) "Do we really need to waste so much money on parties and what is the effect of consuming so much caviar on sturgeon populations?"
6
One individual's action will do nothing to stop global warming. We need limits in overall carbon pollution -- we need global treaties.
4
More to the point: Have you?
Personally, I do not use air conditioning except on a half-dozen or so extremely hot nights, drive a hybrid when I drive, and generally walk to& from work. (I live within a couple of miles on purpose, not because of some stroke of luck.) I'm no climate saint, but it's a start.
Somehow I suspect that you are either one of those who denies the reality of what is happening or (possibly) in the pay of those who profit by the status quo. But perhaps I do you a disservice.
Personally, I do not use air conditioning except on a half-dozen or so extremely hot nights, drive a hybrid when I drive, and generally walk to& from work. (I live within a couple of miles on purpose, not because of some stroke of luck.) I'm no climate saint, but it's a start.
Somehow I suspect that you are either one of those who denies the reality of what is happening or (possibly) in the pay of those who profit by the status quo. But perhaps I do you a disservice.
2
Let's suppose that the answer to all these questions is no.
What you're suggesting is that the NYT editorial board and Kristof and many others are dishonest people.
Why?
Not because you know them, just because apparently you don't like to read science articles.
A bit weird, no?
Fortunately, in the meanwhile the Obama administration and the entire world didn't just wait for people like you to get excited about science.
Here's just one of the many things (apart from the crucial Paris Accord) that Obama achieved, and that in itself will have a MUCH higher impact on overall CO2 emissions than when individual citizens alone take some personal measures (as many of them, myself included, already do, by the way):
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-a...
What you're suggesting is that the NYT editorial board and Kristof and many others are dishonest people.
Why?
Not because you know them, just because apparently you don't like to read science articles.
A bit weird, no?
Fortunately, in the meanwhile the Obama administration and the entire world didn't just wait for people like you to get excited about science.
Here's just one of the many things (apart from the crucial Paris Accord) that Obama achieved, and that in itself will have a MUCH higher impact on overall CO2 emissions than when individual citizens alone take some personal measures (as many of them, myself included, already do, by the way):
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2012/08/28/obama-a...
1
I learned about climate changes via an article about David Keeling, a meticulous respected scientist who recorded carbon levels in the atmosphere above Hawaii. By studying climates of the past we can infer carbon's role in the heating and cooling of the planet even if it is not precise. A reasonable figure for maintaining the status quo is around 300PPM to 350PPM beyond which the planet warms up. We are currently at 450PPM and climbing rapidly. At this moment perhaps one seeks perspective. Well, we have already warmed the planet up, especially in the arctic and such warming is not necessarily linear because there are multipliers. Huge amount of carbon and methane are stored in permafrost and if you melt enough ice less sunlight reflects back into space, kind of like a white or black car on a hot day.
Trump doesn't care about facts or science but more importantly even if he did he would lie about it to serve his own self. He was elected president with such character traits as obvious as his hair. So the question is who really is the US? How can we as a people act so uneducated and devoid of facts? Its like saying the world is flat and I can prove it by taking you to the ocean so you can see that all the way out there it is flat. The lack of perspective by so many voters is troubling.
Trump doesn't care about facts or science but more importantly even if he did he would lie about it to serve his own self. He was elected president with such character traits as obvious as his hair. So the question is who really is the US? How can we as a people act so uneducated and devoid of facts? Its like saying the world is flat and I can prove it by taking you to the ocean so you can see that all the way out there it is flat. The lack of perspective by so many voters is troubling.
7
Inference is not science, and inference is not fact. You can infer carbon dioxide's role all you like, but this has nothing to do with fact or evidence. And facts and evidence are not on your side, unless you completely abandon scientific skepticism and recognize only points that you believe support your pre-formed hypothesis, a la Nicholas Kristof.
Incidentally, CO2 levels are currently estimated to be around 400ppm, not 450 as you state.
Incidentally, CO2 levels are currently estimated to be around 400ppm, not 450 as you state.
4
Yes, current atmospheric CO2 levels are 400ppm.
That being said, part of the scientific evidence proving that human CO2 has caused concentrations to go from 280 to 400 in less than two centuries and that that is the main factor in the extremely rapid global warming of the last two centuries, has nothing to do with inference (although Aristotle already has shown that of course there exists something as "scientific inference").
It's rather proven in laboratories and thanks to real-life experiments in nature.
As to Kristof's op-ed here: is there something you disagree with, and if yes, why?
That being said, part of the scientific evidence proving that human CO2 has caused concentrations to go from 280 to 400 in less than two centuries and that that is the main factor in the extremely rapid global warming of the last two centuries, has nothing to do with inference (although Aristotle already has shown that of course there exists something as "scientific inference").
It's rather proven in laboratories and thanks to real-life experiments in nature.
As to Kristof's op-ed here: is there something you disagree with, and if yes, why?
2
People who don't "believe" in climate change, as if it is a matter of "faith" and not a matter of science (including the President), also "believe" in one or more of the following: the world is flat, the moon-landings were faked on a Hollywood sound stage, aliens walk among us, the sun revolves around the earth, Obama was born in Kenya, and vaccines are evil.
6
Bill, with all due respect, most people do indeed "believe" (or not) in climate change and other significant issues and positions. That is, they accept or deny the truth of something without any substantial knowledge or understanding, and ability to rationally evaluate first-order data and fundamental concepts. Most people obtain beliefs from accepted authority figures, and often as a bundle of beliefs and philosophies carried in cultural or political groups.
I am a scientist, and I cringe when I hear someone say they "believe" in science. If nothing else, science is the rejection of belief, i.e. acceptance by faith without critical, rational evaluation based on data--not on tradition nor on popular support.
And while you castigate those who do not accept climate change, most of those who do "believe" in it do just that--accept the truth based on their own preference for politics and authority figures.
I am a scientist, and I cringe when I hear someone say they "believe" in science. If nothing else, science is the rejection of belief, i.e. acceptance by faith without critical, rational evaluation based on data--not on tradition nor on popular support.
And while you castigate those who do not accept climate change, most of those who do "believe" in it do just that--accept the truth based on their own preference for politics and authority figures.
3
We don't need any more hand wringing anodyne Oh-why-can't-we-all-get-along articles about this issue, which has been extensively discussed. It is extremely well-established --- as well as it can be --- that all the debate and doubt are fake and actively manufactured. See the Merchants of Doubt website:
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/index.html
So come off it, Mr. Kristof. Give us some hard-hitting investigative journalism instead. Tell us who is funding these campaigns, where and how the money is flowing. Do a detailed report on who has contributed to Greg Abbott's political career. Do another one on Ted Cruz, on Marco Rubio, on Scott Pruitt, the week after that, and week after week after week. We don't need any more weak tea.
http://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/index.html
So come off it, Mr. Kristof. Give us some hard-hitting investigative journalism instead. Tell us who is funding these campaigns, where and how the money is flowing. Do a detailed report on who has contributed to Greg Abbott's political career. Do another one on Ted Cruz, on Marco Rubio, on Scott Pruitt, the week after that, and week after week after week. We don't need any more weak tea.
8
Typical liberal response. Car accidents are followed by "it's time to limit horsepower"! The 1938 hurricane that hit Long Island and Connecticut was one of the worst on record. Damage was relatively light because shacks were the predominant shoreline residence. The topic now should be limiting exposure to storms.
4
One strong storm is not the point. It's the increasing frequency of these events, coupled with their severity.
2
Very respectively, hurricanes are not increasing in frequency and intensity. It has been 12 years since the last hurricane made landfall in the U.S. That is a record low. Globally, category 5 hurricanes are down substantially during that period.
1
Friday, the temperature in San Francisco was a record 106 degrees. Today, Saturday, it was a record 102 degrees. But there is no Global Warming or Climate Change, whatever you want to call it. Nothing man made, because God created the heavens and Earth in 6 days. Nothing to see here; just move along.
4
Speaking of moving along, maybe you could move along to Greenland, which this year experienced the coldest July in its recorded history. See how this works?
3
Here in Iowa we have have the mildest summer in my 50+ years of life. 70's in August. So it seems global warming is limited to the coasts.
Why are we having this conversation still? Those who don't believe in climate change are not worth reaching out to. It's a lost cause. It's the same people that are certain their were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the same people that didn't think the science was firm on the health impacts of smoking, the same people that think 9/11 was a inside job and same people that think Russia had nothing to do with the 2016 election. And frankly Nicolas, the people following you are not the ones you need to convince of the relationship between climate change and natural disasters. Maybe become a journalist with Brietbart and try you hand with that lot.
4
If you accept Harvey as proof of climate change, then you should also be accurate and honest about who is the greatest contributor to climate change. Surprise! It is not the US. It is China.
In 2008, China emitted about 10% more CO2 than the US. By 2015, the US had reduced its CO2 emissions by about 10% while China so greatly increased their emissions that it now emits twice as much as the US. China now emits almost 1/3 of total world greenhouse gas emissions. And under the Paris Accords, China has been given the approval of the world to keep increasing its emissions for the next 12 years!
A major culprit is China's very heavy use of coal to generate electricity. China consumes 1/2 of the entire world consumption of coal. And China still has plans to build even more coal fired generation plants!
The Paris Accords which are so hailed by so many will actually make certain even more severe climate change because it gives the world stamp of approval for substantial increase in emissions by China.
The US should continue reducing its emissions. But China must do much more that it is. At the very least China should cease increasing its emissions. Then, at least, US emission reduction could have some beneficial effect.
In 2008, China emitted about 10% more CO2 than the US. By 2015, the US had reduced its CO2 emissions by about 10% while China so greatly increased their emissions that it now emits twice as much as the US. China now emits almost 1/3 of total world greenhouse gas emissions. And under the Paris Accords, China has been given the approval of the world to keep increasing its emissions for the next 12 years!
A major culprit is China's very heavy use of coal to generate electricity. China consumes 1/2 of the entire world consumption of coal. And China still has plans to build even more coal fired generation plants!
The Paris Accords which are so hailed by so many will actually make certain even more severe climate change because it gives the world stamp of approval for substantial increase in emissions by China.
The US should continue reducing its emissions. But China must do much more that it is. At the very least China should cease increasing its emissions. Then, at least, US emission reduction could have some beneficial effect.
3
The U.S. emits far more C02 on a per capita basis than does China. Yes, China is a bigger contributor to the Earth's overall C02 emissions, but that's attributable to its much higher population.
And the world's rising population creates more environmental stress via the disappearance of rainforests, wetlands and forests which are natural buffers for mitigating floods as well as providing us with cleaner air.
The fact that mainstream global warming advocates ignore population growth as a contributing factor to the deterioration of the Earth is the greatest denial of all.
And the world's rising population creates more environmental stress via the disappearance of rainforests, wetlands and forests which are natural buffers for mitigating floods as well as providing us with cleaner air.
The fact that mainstream global warming advocates ignore population growth as a contributing factor to the deterioration of the Earth is the greatest denial of all.
One commenter says "nature doesn't really care what we think", or, for that matter, what we do. Facts are hitting us broadly in the face in Houston. Irma could easily repeat the message somewhere.
Facts that are obvious: 1) temperature are rising, in the atmosphere and in the oceans; 2) the ground is dropping rapidly in low lying coastal areas - 10 to 12 feet in parts of Texas and, to varying degrees, everywhere rapid population growth has depleted the aquifer; 3) the international community has recognized and are addressing the threat, except for Trump and his corrupt cronies; water levels are rising due to melting ice and much more.
The attention span for those now suffering in Houston is short and immediate in order simply to survive. Parts of the country are rallying around a desperate response to Trumps efforts. California and some NE states have decided to go their own way, even working with China in the case of CA.
The rest of us need to work harder to force political solutions to the forefront in order to survive, for us and our children. Thank you Nick for pounding the news into the forefront.
Facts that are obvious: 1) temperature are rising, in the atmosphere and in the oceans; 2) the ground is dropping rapidly in low lying coastal areas - 10 to 12 feet in parts of Texas and, to varying degrees, everywhere rapid population growth has depleted the aquifer; 3) the international community has recognized and are addressing the threat, except for Trump and his corrupt cronies; water levels are rising due to melting ice and much more.
The attention span for those now suffering in Houston is short and immediate in order simply to survive. Parts of the country are rallying around a desperate response to Trumps efforts. California and some NE states have decided to go their own way, even working with China in the case of CA.
The rest of us need to work harder to force political solutions to the forefront in order to survive, for us and our children. Thank you Nick for pounding the news into the forefront.
2
There's an element of magical thinking on the right, driven by evangelical Christianity, that makes every weather event an act of divine intervention. This belief system is unfalsifiable, too: If there's good weather, the lord is shining down on Houston. If there's a hurricane, it's because some sinful group (usually gays) has brought god's wrath down upon the city.
This level of thinking -- which is medieval at best -- is a huge inhibitor to smart, science-driven policy making in this country. Because these folks run the Republican Party.
This level of thinking -- which is medieval at best -- is a huge inhibitor to smart, science-driven policy making in this country. Because these folks run the Republican Party.
3
Even worse are the climate change advocates who are twisting current findings on the subject of global warming and hurricane activity, they are insisting that it is related, which is just another form of unsupported belief. They are as much cult members as anyone on the right, and are actually doing much more damage by undermining the credibility of the topic of man made global warming.
1
No Mr. Kristoff, it's not "staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change." Out of the entire Congress there are 222 of them with law degrees and only 1 scientist, a physicist. What is truly staggering is that a majority of our nation continues to be anti-science or ignorant of science, and electing people who know nothing about science. Science is humanities 'super power' - able to discover the threats, able to understand them, able to come up with solutions and methods to deliver those solutions. Yet we keep them chained to their institutions forcing them to beg for funding and relevance.
3
"Frankly, it’s staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change."
Try MONEY !, Doled out by those who's obscene wealth is from fossil fuels.
Scalia's betrayal of America, his "Citizens United" is how the worst can now easily buy as many people as they want.
Try MONEY !, Doled out by those who's obscene wealth is from fossil fuels.
Scalia's betrayal of America, his "Citizens United" is how the worst can now easily buy as many people as they want.
2
Getreal: it isn't only money. Many people deny man-made global warming because the things that would happen if it became accepted by the government are utterly anathema to their hyper-libertarian idologies<*>. It is, almost literally, a matter of religion to them.
<*>"Me! me me me me me! Me!"
<*>"Me! me me me me me! Me!"
A lot of nonsense so the government can tax us for more nonsense for something we cannot control: the weather. Scientists have many differing views and only the left pushes this climate change theory. Stop giving them the kool aid with chatter about something we cannot control.
2
This climate change theory is supported by a vast majority of scientists, left and right.
6
"This climate change theory is supported by a vast majority of scientists, left and right."
Yes, but not the relationship with hurricane activity, they are two different issues.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
Yes, but not the relationship with hurricane activity, they are two different issues.
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, March 17, 2017
It is premature to conclude that human activities–and particularly greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming–have already had a detectable impact on Atlantic hurricane or global tropical cyclone activity.
This is no different than my pet issue gun deaths. There is serious denial there as well and simplistic defenses for doing nothing that are rarely countered effectively. (US gun deaths: 30,000 /year. UK: 50-60 –not thousands, just 50 people.) Climate change denialism will dissipate quicker though because it affects far more people at one time. Even the lying liars in Texas government can't keep having their cities destroyed.
1
Mr. Kristof,
I'm a retired climate scientist from Dept of Commerce. One of my former colleagues is Alexander "Sandy" McDonald, the former Director of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory and past president of the American Meteorological Society. I was fortunate enough to hear him give a talk on his revolutionary proposal--thoroughly researched by a team of Ph.D.s and backed up with reams of data--to build a nationwide network of renewable power generation linked by high-voltage direct-current transmission lines:
https://spire.com/company/insights/news/weather-industry-luminary-joins-...
Cut to the chase: This is a win-win-win-win-win scenario, as follows:
1) Potential 80% reduction in US CO2 emissions by 2030
2) Employ upwards of 3 million Americans building the network
3) Public-private partnerships that minimize costs for US taxpayers
4) Provide a model for other countries to follow and benefit all of us
5) Greatly enhanced national electric grid security.
#5 deserves some attention and explanation. Even if North Korea (e.g.) launches a nuclear weapon towards the US and "misses," a high-altitude explosion generates a huge EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that could wipe out a large swath of the US' electric grid right now. We are as vulnerable nationally to such an event as Houston is (or was) to storm damage. Imagine millions of Americans without electricity for several months in mid-winter.
How about an interview of Sandy McDonald?
I'm a retired climate scientist from Dept of Commerce. One of my former colleagues is Alexander "Sandy" McDonald, the former Director of NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory and past president of the American Meteorological Society. I was fortunate enough to hear him give a talk on his revolutionary proposal--thoroughly researched by a team of Ph.D.s and backed up with reams of data--to build a nationwide network of renewable power generation linked by high-voltage direct-current transmission lines:
https://spire.com/company/insights/news/weather-industry-luminary-joins-...
Cut to the chase: This is a win-win-win-win-win scenario, as follows:
1) Potential 80% reduction in US CO2 emissions by 2030
2) Employ upwards of 3 million Americans building the network
3) Public-private partnerships that minimize costs for US taxpayers
4) Provide a model for other countries to follow and benefit all of us
5) Greatly enhanced national electric grid security.
#5 deserves some attention and explanation. Even if North Korea (e.g.) launches a nuclear weapon towards the US and "misses," a high-altitude explosion generates a huge EMP (electromagnetic pulse) that could wipe out a large swath of the US' electric grid right now. We are as vulnerable nationally to such an event as Houston is (or was) to storm damage. Imagine millions of Americans without electricity for several months in mid-winter.
How about an interview of Sandy McDonald?
4
People with problems often don't want to talk about it and don't want it pointed out to them. Someone who is morbidly obese does not want to talk about the health consequences or steps to lose weight. Someone drowning in debt doesn't want to hear about personal finance. It isn't logical, but that's the way people are. I don't think the issue of climate change is much different
PS. Many people have pointed out how weird it is that people who think science is opinion were willing to travel 100 of miles and spend lot of money on a prediction by science. They are right, it is weird.
PS. Many people have pointed out how weird it is that people who think science is opinion were willing to travel 100 of miles and spend lot of money on a prediction by science. They are right, it is weird.
3
There are too many people and they’re exploding into areas where they have no business living. But being humans, they’ve ignored the obvious and glommed onto tenets that will eventually cause their ruin. Who hasn’t heard that the ocean is too big to destroy? Or that climate cycles are natural and human activity has nothing to do with them? Or that people are superior to all other creatures? People back away from what they fear or don’t understand and take comfort in mysticism. So the masses will continue to deny, ‘go forth and multiply’, and believe that ‘god will provide’.
To put it succinctly, we’re doomed.
To put it succinctly, we’re doomed.
I am not certain we can ever have an intelligent dialogue regarding climate change. It seems hopeless when this dialogue needs to happen with people that believe climate change is a Chinese "hoax" or a vast international Marxist conspiracy to take away their guns and put them in concentration camps. These same deniers love their iPhones, laptops and microwaves. They applaud the quadruple bypass surgery that saved grandma's life. All of this came about due to science and years of research. Yet they deny the science that backs up climate change. And I have never heard an answer as to why scientists would lie about climate change? What do they have to gain by lying about this?
1
Of course we can't have an intelligent discussion about global warming because one side wants to shut up the other and will not even acknowledge the voluminous, scholarly, and independent research which refutes the notion of man-made global warming. Only the global warming believers want to jail people for having a different interpretation of the data. Global warming is not science, it is a religion to the left and profitable to greedy "scientists", so of course no intelligent discussion can be had.
1
You probably haven't spent much time in Texas, a place that really has to be seen to be believed. SC Gwynne observed in Empire of the Summer Moon, that civilization has three legs- wood, water, and land. Texas lacks two of those legs. Consequently, Texans are a people who tend to be charming, friendly, and stubborn almost beyond belief.
Having lived much of my life next door in Oklahoma and seeing how we carry on, I'm not optimistic. It seemed really evident to me, by 1990, that climate change was a reality. That was about the time people started tooling around our relatively small town of Norman, in SUVs on roads more suited to golf carts. They also began building enormous mcmansions. The SUVs and the houses continue to get bigger, uglier, and ever more inconvenient in this more crowded world. I suspect something in the collective subconscious.
Having lived much of my life next door in Oklahoma and seeing how we carry on, I'm not optimistic. It seemed really evident to me, by 1990, that climate change was a reality. That was about the time people started tooling around our relatively small town of Norman, in SUVs on roads more suited to golf carts. They also began building enormous mcmansions. The SUVs and the houses continue to get bigger, uglier, and ever more inconvenient in this more crowded world. I suspect something in the collective subconscious.
2
Am I the only one who considers the number of comments here attempting to deflect this into a discussion of population growth to be suspicious? Someone is organizing a run on this comment section. Why?
4
Why you may ask? Because you can't fix stupid, which is what most Republican climate science deniers are -- stupid, short-sighted and catering to the fossil fuel industry strictly for political gain.
1
Christy: "you can't fix stupid, which is what most Republican climate science deniers are"
If you mean "most of the Republicans in high positions of power" rather than just "people who identify as Republican," then I don't think that stupidity is a controlling factor. You don't have to stupid to be selfish and evil.
If you mean "most of the Republicans in high positions of power" rather than just "people who identify as Republican," then I don't think that stupidity is a controlling factor. You don't have to stupid to be selfish and evil.
I think we'd get more progress if we stopped using 'Climate change' and started talking about pollution.
I'm reminded of a Mad Magazine comic years ago. A boss is complaining that an an employee spent $5 of company money and someone says 'you deal in millions and millions of dollars. Why do you care about $5? and the boss answers, 'millions of dollars are beyond my understanding but $5, $5 I can understand!"
The average person doesn't know whom to believe about climate change. But show them a picture of the air over Beijing or a large strip mine or a floating garbage island the size of Texas and they can believe those things are wrong.
I'm reminded of a Mad Magazine comic years ago. A boss is complaining that an an employee spent $5 of company money and someone says 'you deal in millions and millions of dollars. Why do you care about $5? and the boss answers, 'millions of dollars are beyond my understanding but $5, $5 I can understand!"
The average person doesn't know whom to believe about climate change. But show them a picture of the air over Beijing or a large strip mine or a floating garbage island the size of Texas and they can believe those things are wrong.
4
We're all in for some big changes. fossil fuels are literally dinosaur products. Trying to stop things like electric cars, solar and wind at this point is like trying to stop the digital camera from taking away film's market share, or even cars from eliminating the market for horses as transportation. The old methods are much more expensive, temperamental and dirty to use; the new methods are cleaner, cheaper, safer.
The real question is when our nation is going to benefit from those substantial changes and benefits; it would happen much faster if our government supported it that's unlikely to happen. I've given up on us being leaders and examples to the rest of the world; we're far too busy at the moment regressing.
Despite Trump's chest pounding for coal, none of it will result in any significant rise in market share or even expansion of business because no one is exactly lining up to buy coal.
The real question is when our nation is going to benefit from those substantial changes and benefits; it would happen much faster if our government supported it that's unlikely to happen. I've given up on us being leaders and examples to the rest of the world; we're far too busy at the moment regressing.
Despite Trump's chest pounding for coal, none of it will result in any significant rise in market share or even expansion of business because no one is exactly lining up to buy coal.
1
if you believe the Earth is flat, you can't believe the sun and moon are spheres. instead God is shining his big flashlight at a cardboard circle.
And if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old since the 6 days of creation, there are no fossils, no fossil fuels, hence humans don't cause global warming, God does.
Finally, if you believe unlimited procreation is God's commandment and not a cynical manipulation by human priests to increase their flocks at the expense of women and biodiversity, then you must welcome these climate events as God culling the flock.
Come in Houston, all is well with our ancient beliefs.
And if you believe the Earth is 6000 years old since the 6 days of creation, there are no fossils, no fossil fuels, hence humans don't cause global warming, God does.
Finally, if you believe unlimited procreation is God's commandment and not a cynical manipulation by human priests to increase their flocks at the expense of women and biodiversity, then you must welcome these climate events as God culling the flock.
Come in Houston, all is well with our ancient beliefs.
So when Al Gore gave a global warming speech during an unexpected snow storm the Know nothing left snootily and painfully lowered themselves to explain the difference between weather and climate to the uneducated masses.
Apparently the left have forgotten their own garbage.
We don't have a climate issue.
We have an over population issue.
The solution?
All liberals should immediately stop having children- forever!
Apparently the left have forgotten their own garbage.
We don't have a climate issue.
We have an over population issue.
The solution?
All liberals should immediately stop having children- forever!
2
And on the heels of Harvey comes a wildfire Los Angeles' mayor calls the largest in that city's history. Pure coincidence, say the Trumpsters. God's punishment for gays, say the Fake Christians. Anything but what the science says. Republicans still haven't figured out a way to repeal the laws of nature.
1
I am sick and tired of hearing that Trump called climate change a Chinese hoax. Bernie Sanders resurrected that tidbit in the primaries, and Trump was embarrassed by it and denied it at first.
Does anybody, anybody at all have the slightest, tiniest inkling of an idea pertaining to psychology that when you constantly refer to the stupidest most humiliating comments someone has made at some point they will eventually just give up and dig in their heels?
Why wasn't more attention paid to the ad Trump and others took out in the New York Times that implored Obama to stand firm at the climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009 and insist on action to mitigate climate change?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/03/us/politics/document-Nyt-...
Sometimes I wonder what might have happened inside Trump's head if the media and others had appealed to his higher self a few years back and reassured him that you can be a good republican while acting progressively on climate change.
Does anybody, anybody at all have the slightest, tiniest inkling of an idea pertaining to psychology that when you constantly refer to the stupidest most humiliating comments someone has made at some point they will eventually just give up and dig in their heels?
Why wasn't more attention paid to the ad Trump and others took out in the New York Times that implored Obama to stand firm at the climate conference in Copenhagen in 2009 and insist on action to mitigate climate change?
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/03/us/politics/document-Nyt-...
Sometimes I wonder what might have happened inside Trump's head if the media and others had appealed to his higher self a few years back and reassured him that you can be a good republican while acting progressively on climate change.
Trump's responsible for his own behavior.
What an odd comment. Trump DID call climate change a Chinese hoax. Margaret says that he "denied it at first." OK, so this establishes that he's a liar. Then she goes on to say that Trump took out a NYTimes ad — in 2009 — promoting attention to climate change. What does that have to do with his current attitude and actions as president? He pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. This is his most recent attack on the very idea of climate change. Wouldn't you say that this is where his head is presently at?
1
Individual weather events are the outcome of random factors.
Climate change does not cause individual events.
Climate change loads the dice.
We lose.
Climate change does not cause individual events.
Climate change loads the dice.
We lose.
2
According to the IMF governments subsidize the fossil fuel industry to the tune of $5.3 trillion a year. An earlier study pegged it at over $4 trillion and noted that the USA is the second largest donor to the industry at $750 Billion a year. Imagine the fiscal savings if those subsidies were eliminated to say nothing about lives saved.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2015/09/28/04/53/sonew070215a
1
"We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change."
Sure we can, Nick.
That is is like saying that we cannot have an intelligent conversation on God without discussing born-again Christianity.
One is merely a symptom of a greater malaise.
So, "climate change" is the new secular religion. Even more so than the First Amendment, which the NYT and ACLU support generally, but not as applied to Islamic fascism or antifa censorship and violence.
We can discuss God without discussing Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or Buddha.
And we can discuss Harvey without genuflecting before the left's new Church of Climate Change.
In fact, even the NYT has been reluctant to link Harvey and "climate change"-and ya know that's gotta hurt the true believers.
Sure we can, Nick.
That is is like saying that we cannot have an intelligent conversation on God without discussing born-again Christianity.
One is merely a symptom of a greater malaise.
So, "climate change" is the new secular religion. Even more so than the First Amendment, which the NYT and ACLU support generally, but not as applied to Islamic fascism or antifa censorship and violence.
We can discuss God without discussing Jesus, Moses, Muhammad or Buddha.
And we can discuss Harvey without genuflecting before the left's new Church of Climate Change.
In fact, even the NYT has been reluctant to link Harvey and "climate change"-and ya know that's gotta hurt the true believers.
3
Climate-change deniers are the modern equivalent of believers in the Biblical geocentric theory of the universe.
Climate-change deniers are the modern equivalent of deniers of evolution.
Climate-change deniers believe Trump’s racist Birtherism lie.
Climate-change deniers are the modern equivalent of deniers of evolution.
Climate-change deniers believe Trump’s racist Birtherism lie.
Houston and much of the Gulf may now be uninhabital. Cities can protect against sea level rise but not 50 inch rain storms. When will the next one hit? They may be the new normal.
1
First major hurricane in twelve years and you want to link it to climate change? Nice try.
2
The Pacific has been active with typhoons over this period.
2
Because hurricanes have always happened, even before you bought your Cadillac Escalade. Galveston, nie Houston, had 6000 to 8000 dead in 1900, and low lying land attracts those who would gamble that mother nature will be kind most years.
This paper showed a picture of a flooded beachfront in the Sunday Mag to show the city of Miami drowning as insurers were malevolently raising their premiums. One problem, a "consensus of scientists" say Miami is sinking rather then being flooded with sea water, and the picture the Times showed as a lead to its story, was of a South Carolina barrier island during a flood tide and a full moon.
There are a lot of politics and lies behind this issue, Nick. That's why.
This paper showed a picture of a flooded beachfront in the Sunday Mag to show the city of Miami drowning as insurers were malevolently raising their premiums. One problem, a "consensus of scientists" say Miami is sinking rather then being flooded with sea water, and the picture the Times showed as a lead to its story, was of a South Carolina barrier island during a flood tide and a full moon.
There are a lot of politics and lies behind this issue, Nick. That's why.
2
Fossil fuel companies fear "stranded assets" more than they fear climate change. Rex Tillerson is just itching to leave the DoS and return to Exxon Mobil to "harvest" all that Arctic oil with the Russians.
Full stop.
Full stop.
1
Try getting the government to do something proactive and smart like not building or NOT insuring in flood zones. Real Estate Lobby will have fit. What about all the high priced ocean front now unsellable or insurable? Free market bay, you lose. Time to get smart about this. Ghetto housing in the 9th ward worth nothing that will cost 3 billion to defend, maybe is another sign of national stupidity.
Since most people in America only live, on average, 75 to 85 years and we are very shortsighted. We want our share now, to heck with what might happen 100 or 200 years from now. The old guys (politician's & corporate executives) run the country and most won't be around in another 15 to 25 years, so they only care about the big bucks in the here in now. According to the CDC 2,626,418 people died in the USA in 2014. 633,842 from heart disease, cancer 595,930, Alzheimer's 110,561, diabetes 79,535 and on and on. So most of us say, "so what's a little climate change, heck I'll be gone in 15 years so obesity, alcoholism, a heart attack, cancer or some other ailment will get me before climate change." Do we go the way of the dinosaurs? Possibly and will another civilization dig up our fossil remains and speculate what happened. Science Fiction isn't so fiction when you think about.
1
Facta non verba. Whether or not we live in the age of reason will be shown by the way Houston rebuilds itself. Will they stupidly rebuild on what is now seen to be flood lands, or will they plan for the future, their most certain future, of hurricanes and massive floods by building inland, with architecture suitable for 500-year floods occurring every 5 years.
We don't deny climate change. We are much more concerned about Marxist democrat policies than flooding.
1
We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?
Is that a headline or a joke?
Is that a headline or a joke?
1
Climate Change and Global Warming are woefully inadequate terms for what's been happening. Abrupt Climate Disruption was suggested long ago as are Climate Chaos, Climate Destruction, and Extinction Climate today. Use the wrong words, lose the sentence. We've lost a lot by employing sloppy or ruined terms. Yet they persist as we circle the drainpipe.
1
"Frankly, it’s staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change…"
Not really. Those politicians who resist now exist in gerrymandered electoral cages populated by two generations of people who have been mentally castrated by 20+ years of intense disinformation. Just ask Bob Inglis, former SC Republican Representative who lost re-election in the primary because he acepts the science of climate change.
Mr. Kristoff's remarks are thoughtful, but on this point of elected officials (almost exclusively Republican), there is no mystery whatsoever.
Not really. Those politicians who resist now exist in gerrymandered electoral cages populated by two generations of people who have been mentally castrated by 20+ years of intense disinformation. Just ask Bob Inglis, former SC Republican Representative who lost re-election in the primary because he acepts the science of climate change.
Mr. Kristoff's remarks are thoughtful, but on this point of elected officials (almost exclusively Republican), there is no mystery whatsoever.
2
Hey. Mr President. . You really want to keep Americans safe.? How about spending billions on infrastructure, including levees and flood control for our coastal cities instead of wasting it on a southern border fence. You're gonna save way more lives and property keeping out the water than a few poor Mexicans looking for a better life.
2
Well, one of the words that describe an ill advised activity regardless of a known,
likely destructive result, is STUPID. In some major ways, humans are stupid.
likely destructive result, is STUPID. In some major ways, humans are stupid.
1
Thank you.
Gee Nick, Harvey was caused by gay people, liberals, and communists. Obama and Clinton definitely had something to do with this. And Satan. Likely illegals and immigrants as well.
I admire your profound, yet naive belief that reason can penetrate the minds of about half of Americans. These are the same people who oppose math and science education. I had an English Ph.D. explain just last week that students who pursue language and literature should not be required to take science and math classes in college. "They'll never use it."
And I live in a deep blue zip. What chance have you got below the Mason Dixon?
But thanks for trying. For reason to work, intelligence and absence of brainwash seems necessary.
Kalidan
I admire your profound, yet naive belief that reason can penetrate the minds of about half of Americans. These are the same people who oppose math and science education. I had an English Ph.D. explain just last week that students who pursue language and literature should not be required to take science and math classes in college. "They'll never use it."
And I live in a deep blue zip. What chance have you got below the Mason Dixon?
But thanks for trying. For reason to work, intelligence and absence of brainwash seems necessary.
Kalidan
1
Kristof knows nothing, absolutely nothing, about climatology.
1
Those who deny climate change do so for various reasons, but mostly it's about greed with a healthy dose of denial and ignorance. The politicians, Cruz, Corynyn and virtually all the Texas delegation deny climate change because they are bought and paid for by the fossil fuel octopus. As long as they can get through one more election cycle they feel that it's worth it. But it will only end when soaking wet homeless voters turn and ask their legislators and the GOP power structure why they pursue policies that will continue to destroy voters' homes and lives.
And voters should ask Trump why he withdrew from the Paris accord and put Pruitt, a true enemy of the planet, in charge of dismantling the EPA. But, alas, everyone knows you won't drown if you live at the top of Trump Tower.
And voters should ask Trump why he withdrew from the Paris accord and put Pruitt, a true enemy of the planet, in charge of dismantling the EPA. But, alas, everyone knows you won't drown if you live at the top of Trump Tower.
3
Climate change is a Chinese hoax. That was on the ballot. Remember? Get over it.
1
Why? .... "Follow the money." (as Deep Throat says)
The argument by most climate change deniers is that the costs of addressing the problems would be too high, that the economy would suffer, and that there is "no scientific proof" anyway.
Well, at the very least Harvey should change these people's minds about the cost of inaction. The costs of these extraordinary climate events easily run in the billions for the simple clean-up, plus more billions in losses for the economy in the months and years following a disaster. Even the blindest, greediest capitalist right-wing fanatics should understand the math: doing something to slow down climate change and to protect ourselves from its worst consequences makes ECONOMIC SENSE far more than pretending that it's not happening!
Well, at the very least Harvey should change these people's minds about the cost of inaction. The costs of these extraordinary climate events easily run in the billions for the simple clean-up, plus more billions in losses for the economy in the months and years following a disaster. Even the blindest, greediest capitalist right-wing fanatics should understand the math: doing something to slow down climate change and to protect ourselves from its worst consequences makes ECONOMIC SENSE far more than pretending that it's not happening!
2
Before deciding the basis of climate change, please note that the British and American computer models cannot even agree on the direction of the next hurricane Irma, as to whether Irma will go westward to Florida or North to Boston. Likewise, the computer modeling of climate involves far more variables than those controlling the direction of a hurricane. So, if the computer models don't agree, how can anyone rely on the climate-change predictions, many of which have already been proven wrong?
2
You forgot to mention Trump's rescinding of an Obama executive order allowing rebuilding to take future weather problems into account. Rebuilding must now follow the lines of previous construction, keeping us from learning from our mistakes when the cost is far less.
4
So WHEN will those who understand their culpability actually have the integrity to start changing their behavior? We are part of the problem as long as we wait for someone else to take action.
2
The article is half correct. Are "we" surprised that politicians are blind to this problem?? I don't see many volunteering to decrease their driving (i.e. riding a bike instead), i don't see many volunteering to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars (or moving to electric that has a renewable path). I don't see anyone volunteering to curtail their plane trip to dash off somewhere far away for the weekend. etc. etc. etc. I do see a lot of people talking about "something should be done". Maybe that's a start but it's been like that for a while.
Until "we" DO something individually about our voracious appetite for fossil fuel, 'they" won't either because they just reflect what we want by what we do. It's takes two to tango. Blaming one isn't enough.
Until "we" DO something individually about our voracious appetite for fossil fuel, 'they" won't either because they just reflect what we want by what we do. It's takes two to tango. Blaming one isn't enough.
4
I live in Silicon Valley and I see people buying hybrid cars and carpooling, buying local and organic food, buying recyclable materials, using organic fertilizers around their houses, using more 'green cleaners' and helping out in many different ways.
1
sure, there are pockets self directed change and California is leading the way. The question we must ask in response to this challenge is "am I doing anything?". I've been to silicon valley and yes it's a progressive place, But the non-progressive activity there dwarfs it. For example, just drive down 101. How many of those hybrid owners just "zip up to yosemite" for the day and if you asked them to forgo that pleasure by just going to a much closer park, how much vitriol would be the response? Yes. A lot. We are a cranky species when you take away our cookies...
Overall it's a big country. Fixate on ALL of the behavior around you and you will see how little people are really doing vs. what they think they've done. Most of it is not inwardly becoming mindful. The macro economic data continues to support this viewpoint, not anecdotes. And if you think about the huge change that must occur, it's quite daunting.
I am not sure people realize how much they are bargaining for when they expect someone else to say, tax their behavior. And they haven't tried to restrict it themselves already.
Overall it's a big country. Fixate on ALL of the behavior around you and you will see how little people are really doing vs. what they think they've done. Most of it is not inwardly becoming mindful. The macro economic data continues to support this viewpoint, not anecdotes. And if you think about the huge change that must occur, it's quite daunting.
I am not sure people realize how much they are bargaining for when they expect someone else to say, tax their behavior. And they haven't tried to restrict it themselves already.
Thoughtful federal energy and environmental policy, which is on hiatus right now, will accomplish most of what needs doing, together with individual actions.
Speaking of electric vehicles, if you want to see and talk to excited, enthusiastic real owners of electric vehicles, consider going to a local National Drive Electric Week event near you. See driveelectricweek.org for details. These aren't dealers, they are individual folks who have taken significant positive action by cutting the nozzle and going electric.
It's still very possible for individuals to make a difference.
Speaking of electric vehicles, if you want to see and talk to excited, enthusiastic real owners of electric vehicles, consider going to a local National Drive Electric Week event near you. See driveelectricweek.org for details. These aren't dealers, they are individual folks who have taken significant positive action by cutting the nozzle and going electric.
It's still very possible for individuals to make a difference.
The question Mr. K, is not that there is currently a warming trend in the world, the question is whether humans are the cause, and whether there is anything we can do about it. The earth has warmed and cooled many many times all by itself before humans were around, and probably will continue to do so. We may, perhaps, be exacerbating the current warming, but to what degree, and if we ceased adding greenhouse gasses, would it make any difference. Scientists, politicos and columnists all love to discuss the warming trend because they have the evidence, flimsy as it is. And discussing warming allows them to berate big business, the oil and auto industries, and anyone who has other ideas. But they hate to even think about the effect of our industrial activity because there is little or no evidence that humans are the cause, of the impact any change would make. That is where the skepticism resides, not the warming itself.
3
Your reply exemplifies a general ignorance for how science works. The consensus of human influence on our climate comes from testing null and alternative hypotheses. The fact that there is such a large consensus across so many fields of science means that the null hypotheses (that human influence has played no role) have been rejected many many more times than the alternative. The evidence is there...just open your eyes.
3
You're certainly allowed to pose that question.
Here's the good news: scientists (you know, those people who's job it is to come up with important questions in their own field of investigation) have asked it decades ago already, and accumulated TONS of evidence already, which allowed the entire world to know the answer to the question and start acting (Paris accord).
Here's what has been proven.
The earth has known 6 ice ages. All lasted about 150 million years. The last one started 120M years ago, and is still ongoing today. So we're in an ice age now.
Within each ice age, there are cooler periods (called "glacial periods") and warmer ones, called "interglacials". Since 12.000 years now, we're in an interglacial.
When temperatures change, they change by one degree over tens of thousands of years. That's how most species have the time to adapt and survive.
Human-like beings exist for 2 million years now, and humans like us (homo sapiens) for 300.000 years. Human civilization however only started once we got to an interglacial, 10.000 years ago.
It has been proven that atmospheric CO2 warms the earth. Since 150 years, all of a sudden global temperatures increased by 2 degrees in only 2 centuries, which is EXTREMELY rapid, too rapid for most species to adapt (causing the "Sixth Great Extinction").
It's caused by the extremely high 400ppm atmospheric CO2 levels, and THOSE are caused by the 40 megatonnes in CO2 emissions produced by humans each year now.
(part 2 below)
Here's the good news: scientists (you know, those people who's job it is to come up with important questions in their own field of investigation) have asked it decades ago already, and accumulated TONS of evidence already, which allowed the entire world to know the answer to the question and start acting (Paris accord).
Here's what has been proven.
The earth has known 6 ice ages. All lasted about 150 million years. The last one started 120M years ago, and is still ongoing today. So we're in an ice age now.
Within each ice age, there are cooler periods (called "glacial periods") and warmer ones, called "interglacials". Since 12.000 years now, we're in an interglacial.
When temperatures change, they change by one degree over tens of thousands of years. That's how most species have the time to adapt and survive.
Human-like beings exist for 2 million years now, and humans like us (homo sapiens) for 300.000 years. Human civilization however only started once we got to an interglacial, 10.000 years ago.
It has been proven that atmospheric CO2 warms the earth. Since 150 years, all of a sudden global temperatures increased by 2 degrees in only 2 centuries, which is EXTREMELY rapid, too rapid for most species to adapt (causing the "Sixth Great Extinction").
It's caused by the extremely high 400ppm atmospheric CO2 levels, and THOSE are caused by the 40 megatonnes in CO2 emissions produced by humans each year now.
(part 2 below)
2
@ david g sutlif (part 2)
CO2 molecules have been proven to stay in the atmosphere for 100 years before they get absorbed. Each molecule warms up the earth a bit more.
So each year, we're warming up the earth more ... for the next 100 years to come.
During our entire interglacial, CO2 concentrations were at 280ppm. They weren't as high as 400ppm for at least 4 million years (= before the predecessors of humans like us even existed) - and even then, their increase has happened VERY slowly, over a tremendous period of time, incrementally.
So with that proven, the question becomes: what can we do about it?
Here too, a lot of things have already been proven for quite some time now, fortunately.
The worst disasters (= the entire collapse of the marine ecosystems, for instance, so the disappearance of all fish and shellfish) are expected to happen if CO2 increases so fast that by the end of 2100, global temperatures are more than 2 degrees Celcius higher than around 1850.
We can still prevent that from happening, first of all by implementing the Paris accord, and then, around 2020, by starting to negotiate the next international agreement (that has to be implemented at the end of the Paris accord, so in 2031).
If, however, we wait until 2030 to start acting, we'll have added too much additional CO2 already to prevent us from crossing the 2 degree line by 2100, EVEN if from 2030 on we do would start acting.
And then we're even not talking about feedback mechanisms yet ...
CO2 molecules have been proven to stay in the atmosphere for 100 years before they get absorbed. Each molecule warms up the earth a bit more.
So each year, we're warming up the earth more ... for the next 100 years to come.
During our entire interglacial, CO2 concentrations were at 280ppm. They weren't as high as 400ppm for at least 4 million years (= before the predecessors of humans like us even existed) - and even then, their increase has happened VERY slowly, over a tremendous period of time, incrementally.
So with that proven, the question becomes: what can we do about it?
Here too, a lot of things have already been proven for quite some time now, fortunately.
The worst disasters (= the entire collapse of the marine ecosystems, for instance, so the disappearance of all fish and shellfish) are expected to happen if CO2 increases so fast that by the end of 2100, global temperatures are more than 2 degrees Celcius higher than around 1850.
We can still prevent that from happening, first of all by implementing the Paris accord, and then, around 2020, by starting to negotiate the next international agreement (that has to be implemented at the end of the Paris accord, so in 2031).
If, however, we wait until 2030 to start acting, we'll have added too much additional CO2 already to prevent us from crossing the 2 degree line by 2100, EVEN if from 2030 on we do would start acting.
And then we're even not talking about feedback mechanisms yet ...
1
Well Gee 1 in three is great in baseball, not so good here. First we will be meeting the Paris goals on emissions without any federal efforts. A tax on carbon has been tried elsewhere and is ineffective especially when other countries are going to be increasing their emissions. The only correct response is adaption. Stop rebuilding in flood area, build retaining and improvements to adapt to the higher rains that we will be seeing.
2
At the crux of the debate is the question "Do you believe in climate change?" Science doesn't analyze "belief." It assesses verifiable fact. The pertinent question is "Do you recognize climate change?" Another step toward dealing with the problem is to get "belief" out of the discussion.
4
Yes, "belief" is about religion not science.
1
IMHO, there seems to be two aspects to the issue that are tangled up together. One - is there really a change in sea level, mean temperature, patterns of precipitation and so forth? And, from a litigious perspective, who is responsible so they can be made to pay? The first can be argued by looking out the window -- although some folks will still deny it as the waters lap around their feet or their crops blow away. To refuse to recognize those changes in patterns of building and planting is a form of self-harm and should incur pity. Sadly, Houston appears to be the very embodiment of that approach and words simply fail. Not sure where my compassion should lie when someone is so persistently self-harming.
The second problem is more interesting as much of it is bound up in a belief in complex computer models. Scarcely a week goes by when there is not a scientific announcement of yet another previously overlooked factor in climate change. Also, the world economy is trivial compared to the climate -- and how successful have we been in predicting the price of GE for 10am Wednesday? My own belief is models are descriptive but fall short of being prescriptive. And given the way they are cited to legislate behavior, I dont find disbelief all that hard.
What I am amazed at is how little effort goes into helping those being directly harmed by weather, FEMA excepted, because we are tangled in arguments about the models. One can jump out of the hot water without a belief in the heat.
The second problem is more interesting as much of it is bound up in a belief in complex computer models. Scarcely a week goes by when there is not a scientific announcement of yet another previously overlooked factor in climate change. Also, the world economy is trivial compared to the climate -- and how successful have we been in predicting the price of GE for 10am Wednesday? My own belief is models are descriptive but fall short of being prescriptive. And given the way they are cited to legislate behavior, I dont find disbelief all that hard.
What I am amazed at is how little effort goes into helping those being directly harmed by weather, FEMA excepted, because we are tangled in arguments about the models. One can jump out of the hot water without a belief in the heat.
1
I see "blame" as far less important than "can we do something about the reality of warming?"
There is much reason to think that pollution and destruction of environment are bad, living in our own filth is bad. There is much reason to think that fixing those things can improve global warming, move the needle in the right direction. There is much reason to think that reasonable geo-engineering can be done, to move the needle further.
There is much reason to think that pollution and destruction of environment are bad, living in our own filth is bad. There is much reason to think that fixing those things can improve global warming, move the needle in the right direction. There is much reason to think that reasonable geo-engineering can be done, to move the needle further.
2
Mark Thomason: "I see 'blame' as far less important than 'can we do something about the reality of warming?'"
I don't see the two as mutually incompatible.
(1) If the blame for a bad act is accompanied by significant penalties, other people may be deterred from continuing to perform those acts.
(2) If the person to blame is on an election ballot, having publicised their blame will, I believe, make more undecided people choose to vote against them than to vote for them.
I don't see the two as mutually incompatible.
(1) If the blame for a bad act is accompanied by significant penalties, other people may be deterred from continuing to perform those acts.
(2) If the person to blame is on an election ballot, having publicised their blame will, I believe, make more undecided people choose to vote against them than to vote for them.
1
Global warming is not going to get fixed by government putting in laws. People have to make changes in their own lives and demand that industries produce goods in an eco/socially responsible manner.
Secondly, the residents of cities and small towns have to take it upon themselves to ensure that there is lots of natural ground with trees where possible. People have to want it, otherwise change is not possible. People are quick to complain about traffic congestion, but none says we don't have enough trees.
Skeptics who are looking for direct link between these storms and warming climate, should build a house right on the coast of TX/FL and reside there for the next 20 years - and have their own observation deck of the rising sea level and/or storms. Those who are without conscience are the ones who make demands when the wrong doing is happening with their own hands.
And lastly, all these wars and missile/nuclear weapons' testing is adding to the woes of global warming. With Kim Jon testing his arms in north Korea underground, I am nauseated from thinking what damage he is doing to the planet underground and over the ground.
I have given up. There is no hope from the madness taking over this planet in the form of leaders.
Secondly, the residents of cities and small towns have to take it upon themselves to ensure that there is lots of natural ground with trees where possible. People have to want it, otherwise change is not possible. People are quick to complain about traffic congestion, but none says we don't have enough trees.
Skeptics who are looking for direct link between these storms and warming climate, should build a house right on the coast of TX/FL and reside there for the next 20 years - and have their own observation deck of the rising sea level and/or storms. Those who are without conscience are the ones who make demands when the wrong doing is happening with their own hands.
And lastly, all these wars and missile/nuclear weapons' testing is adding to the woes of global warming. With Kim Jon testing his arms in north Korea underground, I am nauseated from thinking what damage he is doing to the planet underground and over the ground.
I have given up. There is no hope from the madness taking over this planet in the form of leaders.
3
I also wanted to add one important point: being politically active and attending town halls if circumstances allow one. Raising awareness and asking for changes that add to the nature in the form of preserves, gardens, natural ground, asking business to be truly eco-friendly etc. This is for the the protection of natural environment and ourselves ultimately.
If people become sick, they want to be cured first, and worry about the cause later when not obvious. Nobody says, oh, let me first figure out what caused my illness, and then I will fix it. Why not the same attitude for the planet? why not preserve that which is home to all of us?
If people become sick, they want to be cured first, and worry about the cause later when not obvious. Nobody says, oh, let me first figure out what caused my illness, and then I will fix it. Why not the same attitude for the planet? why not preserve that which is home to all of us?
1
Asher,
To economists, anthropogenic global warming is a 'market failure'. It results from the 'freedom' of fossil fuel consumers to enjoy the full benefit of our private energy purchases while socializing the marginal climate-change costs. AGW is a 'Tragedy of the Commons', caused by the 'rational' choices of individual energy consumers motivated primarily by thrift. We buy fossil fuels because they're the cheapest energy on the market. Far too few of us would volunteer to pay more 8^(!
Fossil fuels are cheaper than currently available alternatives only because the energy market fails to accurately price their climate-change costs. IOW, the 'invisible hand' of the market created the problem, so the 'visible hand' of collective intervention has to solve it. 'Market oriented' economists recommend revenue-neutral carbon taxes, such as Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment, to re-privatize some of the climate-change cost of fossil fuels in their price; regulations, e.g. requiring utilities to include more renewables, do the same thing less 'efficiently'.
The carbon-neutral technology to replace fossil fuels already exists. With more accurate pricing, and private capital available to invest in R&D and buildout of 'alternative' (renewables plus nuclear) supplies and infrastructure, market forces should drive CO2 emissions to zero rapidly, fairly and cost-effectively when all costs are accounted. See carbontax.org and citizensclimatelobby.org for more info.
To economists, anthropogenic global warming is a 'market failure'. It results from the 'freedom' of fossil fuel consumers to enjoy the full benefit of our private energy purchases while socializing the marginal climate-change costs. AGW is a 'Tragedy of the Commons', caused by the 'rational' choices of individual energy consumers motivated primarily by thrift. We buy fossil fuels because they're the cheapest energy on the market. Far too few of us would volunteer to pay more 8^(!
Fossil fuels are cheaper than currently available alternatives only because the energy market fails to accurately price their climate-change costs. IOW, the 'invisible hand' of the market created the problem, so the 'visible hand' of collective intervention has to solve it. 'Market oriented' economists recommend revenue-neutral carbon taxes, such as Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment, to re-privatize some of the climate-change cost of fossil fuels in their price; regulations, e.g. requiring utilities to include more renewables, do the same thing less 'efficiently'.
The carbon-neutral technology to replace fossil fuels already exists. With more accurate pricing, and private capital available to invest in R&D and buildout of 'alternative' (renewables plus nuclear) supplies and infrastructure, market forces should drive CO2 emissions to zero rapidly, fairly and cost-effectively when all costs are accounted. See carbontax.org and citizensclimatelobby.org for more info.
1
Asher,
To be clear, I agree with your emphasis on personal responsibility. I'm simply afraid there are too few of us who do, to make enough difference in our aggregate emissions 8^(.
To be clear, I agree with your emphasis on personal responsibility. I'm simply afraid there are too few of us who do, to make enough difference in our aggregate emissions 8^(.
Thank you for stating what has been missing from the news coverage. It is madness to keep rebuilding in flood prone areas and to do nothing to reverse climate change.
3
American Democracy in the early 21st Century explained for the easily distracted voters:
1) Politicians pick the their voters via redistricting, aka gerrymandering;
2) Billionaires fund politicians to promote their interests;
3) Corporations are People and have unlimited rights to promote their self-interests, aka profits;
4) Fox News tells the masses its all OK and things will work out if they just keep the faith.
Any questions?
1) Politicians pick the their voters via redistricting, aka gerrymandering;
2) Billionaires fund politicians to promote their interests;
3) Corporations are People and have unlimited rights to promote their self-interests, aka profits;
4) Fox News tells the masses its all OK and things will work out if they just keep the faith.
Any questions?
24
What Nick and others pointing to Harvey as proof of CC don't realize is that making such arguments undermines any serious case that CC is occurring. Harvey was not a rare hurricane. What was unusual was it stalled and dumped water over a highly populated area that wasn't designed to handle extreme rainfalls.
If you cut the world into enough different areas and apply the laws of probability we should have many rare weather events every year. You can easily slice and dice the world into 1000's of areas (50 US states, cities, regions as an example). And if you count extremes of heat,cold, rain, drought, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, sunshine) and you do so with the rest of the world you will soon have 1000's of discrete areas x many types of weather events x various time frames (months, seasons, entire year) and soon you've reached 10's of 1000's of "events." Assuming that weather is normally distributed -- there's a likelihood just by chance that a % of weather events will fall between 2 and 3 standard deviations of the mean -- or roughly <1% and 5% of events. So arguing that 1 unusual weather event -- Harvey -- is evidence for CC is ridiculous.
Moreover, over the last 120 years or so the world's population has grown by about 5x. That means when extreme events occur more people are affected. If Harvey had hit Houston in 1880 (when there were 15k people living there) it would have been nothing more than a lot of rain.
If you cut the world into enough different areas and apply the laws of probability we should have many rare weather events every year. You can easily slice and dice the world into 1000's of areas (50 US states, cities, regions as an example). And if you count extremes of heat,cold, rain, drought, forest fires, tornadoes, hurricanes, snow, sunshine) and you do so with the rest of the world you will soon have 1000's of discrete areas x many types of weather events x various time frames (months, seasons, entire year) and soon you've reached 10's of 1000's of "events." Assuming that weather is normally distributed -- there's a likelihood just by chance that a % of weather events will fall between 2 and 3 standard deviations of the mean -- or roughly <1% and 5% of events. So arguing that 1 unusual weather event -- Harvey -- is evidence for CC is ridiculous.
Moreover, over the last 120 years or so the world's population has grown by about 5x. That means when extreme events occur more people are affected. If Harvey had hit Houston in 1880 (when there were 15k people living there) it would have been nothing more than a lot of rain.
2
It is clear that warmer waters had something to do with the strength of the hurricane, most of the damage was due to it not moving on as typically a hurricane would do. I doubt that climate change caused that. A previous hurricane there killed thousands in the past and led to a large wall that protected them this time. Adapt@!!!!!!
1
Hey Ralphie, if you're looking for a job I'll bet Scott Pruitt could use a mind like yours.
Perhaps Ralphie should have paid more attention in math class. Real measurements in a complex world require some statistical analysis. Yes, it does often involve breaking a large amount of data into cells and yes this does expose the "weather" involved in setting the "climate". Even a cursory skimming of articles on climate science will show that scientists spend a lot of effort on separating weather from climate.
It's surprising that Ralphie didn't see the part of the article that said
"Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global average surface temperature, according to NASA. The 10 years of greatest loss of sea ice are all in the last decade. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year floods” in the last three years."
Since Ralphie reads the NY TImes, I am surprised that he never saw the many articles there about unusual heat in the American West. It would be hard to miss the statements that San Francisco just had, within days of Harvey's devastation in Texas, the highest recorded temperature it has ever had. Ever.
It's surprising that Ralphie didn't see the part of the article that said
"Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global average surface temperature, according to NASA. The 10 years of greatest loss of sea ice are all in the last decade. And poor Houston has suffered three “500-year floods” in the last three years."
Since Ralphie reads the NY TImes, I am surprised that he never saw the many articles there about unusual heat in the American West. It would be hard to miss the statements that San Francisco just had, within days of Harvey's devastation in Texas, the highest recorded temperature it has ever had. Ever.
1
Some people here refer to the oil industry as explanation for why Republicans keep massively lying about what has been scientifically proven all over the world already.
It's true that for decades, the oil industry has invested millions in trying to come up with scientific studies that would refute climate science - in vain.
Today however, Rex Tillerson, former Exxon Mobile CEO and Sec. of State, urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord. And the current Exxon Mobile CEO wrote Trump a letter saying the exact same thing: climate change is real, and extremely dangerous so please stay in the Paris accord!
Of course, the fossil fuel industry is still receiving massive government subsidies, and is still one of the biggest donors of GOP politicians' campaigns.
But the winds are turning. Why? It's not just that they're finally understanding that the evidence is overwhelming, it's also because thanks to the global transitioning to clean energy, they know that a lot of the known oil reserves will actually never be burned, which is already making oil stocks going down, today. So they KNOW that resisting this trend and resisting science is a lost cause.
That however begs the question: why are GOP politicians and media precisely NOW spreading the most outrageous lies ever about climate change?
There's only 1 answer: because they know they can't win elections based on their real policies, and on social issues even conservatives are evolving, so they NEED these lies to keep their jobs..
It's true that for decades, the oil industry has invested millions in trying to come up with scientific studies that would refute climate science - in vain.
Today however, Rex Tillerson, former Exxon Mobile CEO and Sec. of State, urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord. And the current Exxon Mobile CEO wrote Trump a letter saying the exact same thing: climate change is real, and extremely dangerous so please stay in the Paris accord!
Of course, the fossil fuel industry is still receiving massive government subsidies, and is still one of the biggest donors of GOP politicians' campaigns.
But the winds are turning. Why? It's not just that they're finally understanding that the evidence is overwhelming, it's also because thanks to the global transitioning to clean energy, they know that a lot of the known oil reserves will actually never be burned, which is already making oil stocks going down, today. So they KNOW that resisting this trend and resisting science is a lost cause.
That however begs the question: why are GOP politicians and media precisely NOW spreading the most outrageous lies ever about climate change?
There's only 1 answer: because they know they can't win elections based on their real policies, and on social issues even conservatives are evolving, so they NEED these lies to keep their jobs..
14
Proven??? You have a model that proves that climate change is driven totally by burning carbon??? How about all those particles your people put into the air with your vehicles? That is real pollution.
@ vulcanalex
FYI: driving a car that isn't an electric car IS "burning carbon", remember?
As to the fine particles emitted by certain cars: they pollute the quality of our air, compared to what we need to breath in in order to be healthy. That's a different problem than global warming, you see?
Just like having dangerous chemicals flowing into our rivers creates a public health problem (it's to prevent it that EPA exists, for instance), but isn't known to be the main cause of global warming today.
FYI: driving a car that isn't an electric car IS "burning carbon", remember?
As to the fine particles emitted by certain cars: they pollute the quality of our air, compared to what we need to breath in in order to be healthy. That's a different problem than global warming, you see?
Just like having dangerous chemicals flowing into our rivers creates a public health problem (it's to prevent it that EPA exists, for instance), but isn't known to be the main cause of global warming today.
To add some perspective, the previous rainfall record in Texas was 48 inches, from hurricane Amelia in 1978, almost 40 years ago. Hawaii had more than 50 inches of rain in the 1950s. The climate is always changing on this planet, but factor in more humans living closer to the coastline, (the population of the U.S. has doubled since 1970 and most of us live closer to the coast) with inadequate infrastructure for drainage and you have the primary culprit. In this context, count me as a skeptic to the religion of climate change that Mr. Kristof is peddling in this article.
3
Jr;
Your peddling leaves out the rise in Ocean Temperature, The Melting of the Glaciers, The increased frequency and intensity of the storms around the world. The droughts and sea level rise. The record breaking global temperatures.
Your peddling belongs to the un educated who lap up Fox - Trump disinformation, spin and outright lies.
Your peddling leaves out the rise in Ocean Temperature, The Melting of the Glaciers, The increased frequency and intensity of the storms around the world. The droughts and sea level rise. The record breaking global temperatures.
Your peddling belongs to the un educated who lap up Fox - Trump disinformation, spin and outright lies.
1
We don't deny the predictions of the phases of the moon or the high and low tides, although you and I, left to our own devices, would be pretty inaccurate.
We rely on scientists to develop new medicines we swallow obediently, based often on TV ads.
We rely on medical advancements in transplants, going under the knife, unconscious, to let a scientist remove our heart and put someone else's in our body. We let computers and robots do the calculations and actual surgeries on our flesh.
We rely on engineers and architects to design buildings we let our families live in, and our companies headquarter in.
We drive over roads and bridges and in tunnels that scientists have designed, and live beneath dams that are scientific wonders.
We send human beings into space, confident that scientists have figured out how to get them back.
We watch and talk on and listen to scientific electronic wonders for communication and navigation and entertainment.
But for one area, one critical area, we deny science, because it is expensive and inconvenient.
The end of the human species - many have gone before us - can be just one interesting blip in the history of the earth. We have brains and cognition. Ignore them at our peril. The earth will barely notice.
We rely on scientists to develop new medicines we swallow obediently, based often on TV ads.
We rely on medical advancements in transplants, going under the knife, unconscious, to let a scientist remove our heart and put someone else's in our body. We let computers and robots do the calculations and actual surgeries on our flesh.
We rely on engineers and architects to design buildings we let our families live in, and our companies headquarter in.
We drive over roads and bridges and in tunnels that scientists have designed, and live beneath dams that are scientific wonders.
We send human beings into space, confident that scientists have figured out how to get them back.
We watch and talk on and listen to scientific electronic wonders for communication and navigation and entertainment.
But for one area, one critical area, we deny science, because it is expensive and inconvenient.
The end of the human species - many have gone before us - can be just one interesting blip in the history of the earth. We have brains and cognition. Ignore them at our peril. The earth will barely notice.
5
But that science is well understood and the predictions very accurate. Climate is not well understood and the predictions are not accurate. Not to mention the measurement systems are weak, very weak. People making such comparisons hurt their credibility.
2
The last paragraph has climate scientists rolling their eyes and saying "Dont't help us, Kristof." Confirming climate change, plus its causes and effects, because mankind can time a celestial event?
Apparently, the other side doesn't have a monopoly on simplistic thinking.
Apparently, the other side doesn't have a monopoly on simplistic thinking.
2
You're clearly not a climate scientist.
Kristof's point is that when Republicans don't have any difficulty acknowledging scientific evidence when it comes to predicting an eclipse, why are they trying to run away from the equally well proven evidence on climate change ... ?
Kristof's point is that when Republicans don't have any difficulty acknowledging scientific evidence when it comes to predicting an eclipse, why are they trying to run away from the equally well proven evidence on climate change ... ?
6
More like not understanding science, measurement systems, and the complexity of a global climate vs the simple math of gravity. Only people without any concept of science would say that.
1
And you are a scientist??? You know anything about the various measurement systems used? You know anything about how the models don't and have not accurately predicted (yet)?
1
You can't reason with those who do not believe. The only way those who deny will change is the number of storms, the growing evidence of damage and most important rising insurance rates and taxes.
1
As a scientist, I never "believe" I have objective evidence and process that accurately predicts the results of changes. I have experiments that can be replicated. Climate change has none of this yet.
1
The answer to why climate-change denial persists is simple, Nick: It wins elections for Republicans.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair.
That's really all there is to it. And if ordinary people have to suffer and die (as they are doing in Houston and did in New Orleans) so the GOP can win elections and the polluters can continue to freely pollute, while hampering safe energy alternatives, they will continue to deny human-induced climate change.
What's to understand?
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." -- Upton Sinclair.
That's really all there is to it. And if ordinary people have to suffer and die (as they are doing in Houston and did in New Orleans) so the GOP can win elections and the polluters can continue to freely pollute, while hampering safe energy alternatives, they will continue to deny human-induced climate change.
What's to understand?
7
How is it the Commander and Chief denies climate change, refuses to do anything about it and at the same time his generals in the military are spending billions in planning and reinforcing bases that are located on coasts to prepare for rising sea levels? If it's a hoax why is he allowing this huge expense to take place when the cost of allowing transgender people to serve is too expensive?
6
So Nick... You're telling people that might have lost everything that you want to raise their taxes. Howabout high living liberals like you pay more and leave the rest of us along?
3
No, Nick is saying let's accept reality and deal with it rationally. The 1% need to pay higher taxes. If they and the corporations they own paid even at the real rate they have now, we would all be better off. Those of us in "dogpatch" have been picking up the tab for the wealthy for the past 37 years. We have allowed the 1% to get off the hook for their fair share through "trickle down" economics all that time. Any farmer will tell you that a quarter of an inch of rain (trickle) will do nothing in a hot spell. We are in dire straights, and we in the middle-class need relief. We know where the money is to fund the changes and repairs needed. The only question is: Do we have the gumption to get it?
93
No, he would raise taxes on the wealthy, and those who have lost everything are not wealthy.
It is Republicans who want to put the tax burden downscale onto people who already have much less, so they can keep "I've got mine."
It is Republicans who want to put the tax burden downscale onto people who already have much less, so they can keep "I've got mine."
8
You need to focus on the problem of climate change. We have waited too long to do something about the problem and probably won't do anything until it is way too late. The generation growing up now will be paying for the mistakes of politicians like Trump.
5
"You can't fix stupid" is apt.
Which is to suggest there will be more frequent and violent hurricane weather consequent, in no small part, to those who believe mankind is the top of the food chain, and thereby invulnerable.
"Tell it to the dinosaurs . . . "
Which is to suggest there will be more frequent and violent hurricane weather consequent, in no small part, to those who believe mankind is the top of the food chain, and thereby invulnerable.
"Tell it to the dinosaurs . . . "
1
Americans must be compulsive gamblers, for some reason we think we are exceptional and can beat the odds or if disaster strikes we get the chance to be heroic and maybe separate the haves from the have-nots once again.
Because there is no evidence that the severity of the flooding caused by Harvey had anything to do with climate change.
Sometimes rare events just happen. Unless we had dozens of Hardys, occurring more frequently in recent decades than in the more distant past, we would have no evidence that climate change had anything to do with it. Suppose John Doe was visiting Dallas on the day of the Kennedy assassination. Only a conspiracy nut would think that implicates him.
Sometimes rare events just happen. Unless we had dozens of Hardys, occurring more frequently in recent decades than in the more distant past, we would have no evidence that climate change had anything to do with it. Suppose John Doe was visiting Dallas on the day of the Kennedy assassination. Only a conspiracy nut would think that implicates him.
4
Houston has had three "hundred year" hurricanes in three years. Is that a trend? How about the 900 or so wildfires burning out west? The flooding of the street of Miami at ordinary high tides?
2
So what if global warming did not cause one specific event?
Global warming is happening. It is a problem. It needs addressing.
Global warming is happening. It is a problem. It needs addressing.
What three are you talking about? The entire country has not had that. https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/major-hurricane-us-landfall-dr...
No major one for nine years. How can you not know that.
No major one for nine years. How can you not know that.
1
"(and the high heels of the visitor in the cancer ward)" Is this a reference to Melania wearing high heels onto the plane? If so, this is yet another lame and pathetic comment that only further portrays how desperate liberals, the far-left, anarchists, and antifa have become. Nicholas, you and all of you who can't accept Trump as President need to seek professional help.
I read this article only because I knew you would bring Trump into this discussion of Harvey and you did not disappoint.
I read this article only because I knew you would bring Trump into this discussion of Harvey and you did not disappoint.
2
Congrats! You succeeded in avoiding the point of the article.
1
Maybe you've read this article too fast ... ?
Kristof mentions Melania's heels several times ONLY to EXPLICITY criticize the fact that this is what the media focused on, rather than on more important issues such as the proven links between Harvey and climate change.
There's no reason to become desperate when reading the NYT. Just forget about "liberals" and focus on the content of the arguments, and you'll see that you'll feel a lot better already ... ;-)
Kristof mentions Melania's heels several times ONLY to EXPLICITY criticize the fact that this is what the media focused on, rather than on more important issues such as the proven links between Harvey and climate change.
There's no reason to become desperate when reading the NYT. Just forget about "liberals" and focus on the content of the arguments, and you'll see that you'll feel a lot better already ... ;-)
Olivia,
What did you and your friends have to say about Michelle Obama's bare shoulders? Plenty!
What did you and your friends have to say about Michelle Obama's bare shoulders? Plenty!
1
As a citizen of The Netherlands, it keeps amazing me how large parts of the population and many politicians in the US, including your rather ignorant (to put it mildly) president, can keep denying the obvious: the climate is changing and that change is most probably man-made.
The NYT published an article in June of this year about the city of Rotterdam, which, I would say, is a must-read in light of what happened in Houston. Rotterdam is the largest seaport of Europe, it lies almost entirely below sea-level, it is located in the delta of some of the largest rivers in Europe, including the Rhine, and it is quite close to the North sea. Similarities with Houston abound.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-chan...
In the waterlogged Netherlands, climate change is considered neither a hypothetical nor a drag on the economy. Instead, it’s an opportunity.
Our state-of-mind, population and politicians, is completely the opposite of what I see in the US: this is real, this is potentially life threatening, let’s invest in preventive matters
The NYT published an article in June of this year about the city of Rotterdam, which, I would say, is a must-read in light of what happened in Houston. Rotterdam is the largest seaport of Europe, it lies almost entirely below sea-level, it is located in the delta of some of the largest rivers in Europe, including the Rhine, and it is quite close to the North sea. Similarities with Houston abound.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/15/world/europe/climate-chan...
In the waterlogged Netherlands, climate change is considered neither a hypothetical nor a drag on the economy. Instead, it’s an opportunity.
Our state-of-mind, population and politicians, is completely the opposite of what I see in the US: this is real, this is potentially life threatening, let’s invest in preventive matters
4
We reject carbon as the main driver, and we reject paying bribes to others, we reject solutions that have been tried and been ineffective, and we greatly reject the idea we should sacrifice while others don't.
1
Who's we? Certainly not me, most of the worlds scientists and the majority of Americans. Please be more clear on who "we" is.
1
"We" ??? Hardly. Most Americans are concerned not only about the future of this country- but this PLANET!
Not everyone is in science denial, and living in a coal-mining state like Tennessee.
Not everyone is in science denial, and living in a coal-mining state like Tennessee.
1
Kristof has no background in climate change and is a waste of my and NY times resources. You see his face everywhere. He makes no sense in his low brow analysis.
YOu can learn more from visiting the Museum of Natural History. Why does the NY times think this guy is an intellectual or contributor. At least writers who write fiction often have had exposure to the stories they right about.
Most republicans don't "deny climate change" they just deny the cause. This is an example of his mis and sub par journalism. If he knew where to aim his anger, he might have been more in tune with other views.
YOu can learn more from visiting the Museum of Natural History. Why does the NY times think this guy is an intellectual or contributor. At least writers who write fiction often have had exposure to the stories they right about.
Most republicans don't "deny climate change" they just deny the cause. This is an example of his mis and sub par journalism. If he knew where to aim his anger, he might have been more in tune with other views.
3
Denying the cause still seems to be an excuse for some Republicans to do nothing about it.
1
President Trump's recent executive order overturning Obama's prohibits rebuilding from taking into account climate change— whether natural or manmade. You can't learn anything unless you open your eyes and your mind, and you can't change the laws of physics by disbelieving in them.
You know why...some rich monsters are making money, despite the deaths of millions. One day we'll haul them into court, but by then the damage to our civilization may be unstoppable. Our descendants will curse us.
2
"That's how we have viewed HH..." Whadda ya mean, we?
1
Mr. Kristof
The measures you suggest- ratification of the Paris accord, etc. - are little better than useless. The avalanche is now tumbling down the mountainside and these types of actions, though perhaps possessing the virtue of reasonableness, are little more than toothpick blockades in its path.
The New York Times is perhaps the only non-governmental organization in the world which can force the critical change necessary to reverse climate change. At this point TECHNOLOGY, not conservation, is our best hope. It is possible, maybe not likely, but possible, that the claims made by people who are considered lunatics have some validity. But not only lunatics are making these claims.
I refer you to former Defense Minister of Canada, Paul Hellyer. He, and several other equally credible witnesses claim to have been given information to the effect that the American military is in possession of technology far beyond what science currently accepts as possible, including sources of FREE, CLEAN ENERGY. Please don't shut off at this point. Mr. Hellyer is a formidable man.
Only the New York Times can determine if this allegation contains any truth. The Times, along with the entire mainstream media has laughed these notions off as ridiculous. But some very serious people think they deserve investigation. How long will the Times stand off? It may be nonsense, but considering the stakes, isn't it worth finding out?
The measures you suggest- ratification of the Paris accord, etc. - are little better than useless. The avalanche is now tumbling down the mountainside and these types of actions, though perhaps possessing the virtue of reasonableness, are little more than toothpick blockades in its path.
The New York Times is perhaps the only non-governmental organization in the world which can force the critical change necessary to reverse climate change. At this point TECHNOLOGY, not conservation, is our best hope. It is possible, maybe not likely, but possible, that the claims made by people who are considered lunatics have some validity. But not only lunatics are making these claims.
I refer you to former Defense Minister of Canada, Paul Hellyer. He, and several other equally credible witnesses claim to have been given information to the effect that the American military is in possession of technology far beyond what science currently accepts as possible, including sources of FREE, CLEAN ENERGY. Please don't shut off at this point. Mr. Hellyer is a formidable man.
Only the New York Times can determine if this allegation contains any truth. The Times, along with the entire mainstream media has laughed these notions off as ridiculous. But some very serious people think they deserve investigation. How long will the Times stand off? It may be nonsense, but considering the stakes, isn't it worth finding out?
2
Come now many of us do the opposite of whatever the NYT might propose and they have little effect on anybody.
/Users/lindytucker/Desktop/globalwarming9317.jpg
A friend of mine coined the phrase "How would you prefer to be wrong" when helping others make sound business decisions. It is a good phrase and one that applies to global warming. "Questioning Global Warming?"
"How would you prefer to be wrong?" .
A friend of mine coined the phrase "How would you prefer to be wrong" when helping others make sound business decisions. It is a good phrase and one that applies to global warming. "Questioning Global Warming?"
"How would you prefer to be wrong?" .
But Fox News tells tens of millons of Americans that climate change is not so. So does our fool of a president. So does the energy industry. Who are you going to believe, them or your own eyes?
1
No intelligent, rational person denies that the climate changes.
No intelligent, rational person believes that human-generated CO2 increases caused Cat4 Hurricane Harvey.
Consider: Since Cat5 Katrina in 2005, there has been no US landfall of a Cat3, Cat4, or Cat5 Hurricane until Harvey. 12 years of no Cat3+ Hurricane hitting the US, all while CO2 levels have increased. The Theory of Global Warming predicted more hurricanes, not fewer. Yet Kristoff and the entire NYT staff simply nod their heads and screech "The Globe is Warming! The Globe is Warming" like Chicken Little. Do you ignore your own predictions when they don't come true? Then guess what - you're not doing science.
No intelligent, rational person believes that human-generated CO2 increases caused Cat4 Hurricane Harvey.
Consider: Since Cat5 Katrina in 2005, there has been no US landfall of a Cat3, Cat4, or Cat5 Hurricane until Harvey. 12 years of no Cat3+ Hurricane hitting the US, all while CO2 levels have increased. The Theory of Global Warming predicted more hurricanes, not fewer. Yet Kristoff and the entire NYT staff simply nod their heads and screech "The Globe is Warming! The Globe is Warming" like Chicken Little. Do you ignore your own predictions when they don't come true? Then guess what - you're not doing science.
1
Harvey is one incident. After a winter of heavy rain we are now baking and burning in California. When the City is 106 you know there is a problem. San Francisco is supposed to be foggy and miserable in the summer.
Harvey is the most dramatic manifestation of Climate Change...for now. There will be more flooding and hurracaines to follow. Maybe when Trump's Florida palace gets slammed something will be done.
Harvey is the most dramatic manifestation of Climate Change...for now. There will be more flooding and hurracaines to follow. Maybe when Trump's Florida palace gets slammed something will be done.
3
Irma, a very powerful hurricane, is considering a direct hit on Maralago. Stay tuned!
Kind of like how we deny the fact that terrorism is a fundamentalist Muslim problem?
4
Kristof...
I have been saying "global cooling" for a long time. What is this nonsense of global warming? There is no warming, we are going into the ice age. The eco system is just trying to cool off everything with lots of water and freeze over the world. Just see what happens over the winter. Everyone will be skating smoothly on all of this water.
Perhaps the powers to be are watching!
I have been saying "global cooling" for a long time. What is this nonsense of global warming? There is no warming, we are going into the ice age. The eco system is just trying to cool off everything with lots of water and freeze over the world. Just see what happens over the winter. Everyone will be skating smoothly on all of this water.
Perhaps the powers to be are watching!
To be a Republican, especially an elected or appointed member of this government, is to proudly proclaim that you are ignorant, stupid, selfish, greedy and live in the past. Nothing will change as long as the government is run by this sort. As long as they personally profit from the status quo, they have no reason to change their beliefs on anything, nor will they. It is likely to take a generation to get this sort out of power, or a revolution.
2
Here is the rub. My college dropout neighbor watches Fox News and they tell him that climate change is a hoax. There are millions like him who will be hurt by inundations, yet, they provide the politicians who uncritically support hydrocarbon fuel industries their winning margins.
It is the same when the rural poor vote for politicians who huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
It is the same when the rural poor vote for politicians who huge tax cuts for the wealthy.
2
Nicholas, you are a voice crying out in the wilderness of ignorance, stupidity and greed, not to also mention politics and the shortsightedness of our incompetent leadership on both sides of the isle.
I don't really see democrats raising up on this issue any more than republicans. They all have their heads in the sand with their hands out for campaign funds.
I don't really see democrats raising up on this issue any more than republicans. They all have their heads in the sand with their hands out for campaign funds.
2
The deniers would have all been laughed off the stage years ago were it not for our broken campaign finance system, whereby dollars are votes, with Koch Bros. Inc. and the other fossil fuelers finding willing parrots in their think tanks and in the GOP.
Their backing of the GOP, disguised as simple contrarianism or libertarianism is what gives radicals like " destroy the state " Bannon:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-trumps-top-guy-told-me-he-was-...
the chance to take apart the sound regulations and policy initiatives that society needs to transition to renewables.
It was all made easier because the Green Movement started in Europe, and Corporate America and the media labeled the movement 'leftist' from the beginning, taking advantage of the negative American connotation of that word, as opposed to the much less often derided 'rightist'.
Their backing of the GOP, disguised as simple contrarianism or libertarianism is what gives radicals like " destroy the state " Bannon:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/steve-bannon-trumps-top-guy-told-me-he-was-...
the chance to take apart the sound regulations and policy initiatives that society needs to transition to renewables.
It was all made easier because the Green Movement started in Europe, and Corporate America and the media labeled the movement 'leftist' from the beginning, taking advantage of the negative American connotation of that word, as opposed to the much less often derided 'rightist'.
5
Harvey was not an outlier. There have been two Harvey events in Houston in the last 100 years. This was not a sign of climate change, it was simply normal weather. Extreme, yes, but fully within the bounds of periodic weather that is encountered in Houston.
Alvin, Texas, near Houston, was deluged by 43 inches of rain in 24 hours from July 24-25, 1979, setting an all-time record 24-hour rainfall for the U.S. The torrential rain fell as Tropical Storm Claudette made landfall near the Texas-Louisiana border before stalling right over Alvin.
These people should rebuild elsewhere.
Alvin, Texas, near Houston, was deluged by 43 inches of rain in 24 hours from July 24-25, 1979, setting an all-time record 24-hour rainfall for the U.S. The torrential rain fell as Tropical Storm Claudette made landfall near the Texas-Louisiana border before stalling right over Alvin.
These people should rebuild elsewhere.
2
Some of the comments here are remarkable. Denialists are out in force, in a way that bespeaks an organized machine. In it's own way, this supplies an answer to Kristof's question of why the Houston tragedy is not leading to immediate policy discussion on climate change.
3
Why? Because capitalism and representative democracy have failed to work in combination.
People at the economic top in the extractive and other industries have concentrated wealth that they use the reduce the role of the American voter to his or her vote and nothing else. In today's political climate, they know that they can field politicians who will promise the voter anything to get elected and then deliver exactly and only what their donors want and year, after year, after year, we elect them.
Donald Trump and that human carbuncle, Pruitt, are only the latest, strongest manifestation of a venerably old trend.
it's taken decades and immeasurable amounts of treasure, but the people at the top of our pyramid have finally successfully bred an American mind incapable of resisting their political influence, even when doing so is a question of their physical survival.
People at the economic top in the extractive and other industries have concentrated wealth that they use the reduce the role of the American voter to his or her vote and nothing else. In today's political climate, they know that they can field politicians who will promise the voter anything to get elected and then deliver exactly and only what their donors want and year, after year, after year, we elect them.
Donald Trump and that human carbuncle, Pruitt, are only the latest, strongest manifestation of a venerably old trend.
it's taken decades and immeasurable amounts of treasure, but the people at the top of our pyramid have finally successfully bred an American mind incapable of resisting their political influence, even when doing so is a question of their physical survival.
2
"resistance among elected officials to the idea of human caused climate change"?? Not at all. Republican elected officials yes, Democrats not at all. And that won't change until the people of Texas (and Mississippi, Alabama, etc) say that they've had enough.
2
Well, climate change definitely has a statistical effect on trends, and some role the severity of Harvey, but the more obvious man-made disaster involving Harvey is dangerous policies regarding the building and populating of flood plains and the destruction of natural barriers to flooding. Putting families in harms way to make a dollar.
3
The Kochs and their ilk are awash in money, not floodwaters. (of course no climate change deniers live in coastal areas likely to be smashed by a hurricane.). As long as the Kochs continue to buy elections, we're going to see the rejection of climate science by the congressional GOP.
5
Sure they do. Trump has golf courses on the coast and lots of rich guys have beach homes. They'll want mitigation for their situation, but that's a different issue.
Mother Nature Always Bats Last. Unless we make big changes in how we power our lives, Category 6 hurricanes will become regular events. The trash hauling biz will thrive. (Where will all that trash go.....Mexico?)
Go solar!
3
Mr Kristof quotes only climate experts in claiming that the increase in intensity of hurricanes over the past 30 years is due to climate change. He provides no data from those who know there is no connection between hurricanes and climate control. The cause of hurricanes is late August and early September. We suspect a relationship between the start of college football and hurricanes, but that has not yet been proven.
Mr Kristof seems to be suggesting that we should be putting agencies like the EPA in the hands of climatologists who believe man has hastened climate change over the past 30 years. Fortunately, our national leaders in the White House and Congress know better. Climatologists in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency would be unable to protect the environment from scientists. In that environment, how does an economy grow annually at 4% like ours will soon start to do?
Many people suggest Putting climatologists (with their bias towards the climate) in charge of protecting and preserving our environment. That is as short sighted as it would be to put Generals in charge of the military. Imagine people educated in the science of killing people in charge of preserving and protecting our safety. Theses people, who have studied war all their lives from the perspective of how to win a war, would insist that we wage war in Afghanistan, an unconquerable collection of warring tribes throughout History. No one would think that's a good idea, would we?
Mr Kristof seems to be suggesting that we should be putting agencies like the EPA in the hands of climatologists who believe man has hastened climate change over the past 30 years. Fortunately, our national leaders in the White House and Congress know better. Climatologists in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency would be unable to protect the environment from scientists. In that environment, how does an economy grow annually at 4% like ours will soon start to do?
Many people suggest Putting climatologists (with their bias towards the climate) in charge of protecting and preserving our environment. That is as short sighted as it would be to put Generals in charge of the military. Imagine people educated in the science of killing people in charge of preserving and protecting our safety. Theses people, who have studied war all their lives from the perspective of how to win a war, would insist that we wage war in Afghanistan, an unconquerable collection of warring tribes throughout History. No one would think that's a good idea, would we?
2
Wow! I just cant understand why you think it's smart to bet on the longest long shot in history with the greatest downside ever? Sure, we all hope that the mass of climate scientists are wrong, or have been compromised, or are simply lying, but you, sir, suggest (along with science haters Trump and Pruitt) that it's smart to bet against the absolutely best available data. That's not only NOT conservative, it's downright stupid especially when the two percent of scientists who think man's activities have nothing to do with all these extreme weather events are indeed compromised by their payments from fossil fuel industries. You, sir, are all-but demanding our children and
grandchildren suffer immensely if they even survive because of, why???
grandchildren suffer immensely if they even survive because of, why???
1
Mr. Kristof 'only quotes climate scientists.' Umm, well yeah, he should quote Fox News viewers deluded for profit? Trump? Come on, this is serious and anyone -still- pretending the thing to do is ignore the data and the trend lines...well, have a good time in your alternate universe.
1
Maybe some clever senator should bring a bucket of Houston's water and throw it like a snowball in the Senate chamber....
2
Because. If. You. Do. Not. Deny. Climate. Change. You. Do. Not. Get. Those. Pretro. $$$. For. Your. Re-election. Campaign. And. Your. Relentless. Power.
Next. ?. Nicholas.
Next. ?. Nicholas.
6
After Harvey, the GOP will do what it usually does when caught with smelly stuff on their shoe, they'll double down and step in the mess with their other shoe.
5
You just can't fix stupid. We're doomed.
5
Nick is in apparent denial of the contribution of population growth to climate change. Every additional person makes net reduction of emissions more difficult. Limiting climate change won't happen without limiting population growth.
5
Totally wrong.
It has been proven that unprecedented atmospheric CO2 increases, caused by unprecedented human CO2 emissions, are the main cause of global warming today. The US has 150 times the carbon footprint per capita than any poor country out there. So no, not EVERY additional person "makes net reduction of emissions more difficult. Every additional person living in the WEST does.
Fortunately, it's also the West that invented science, so FINALLY, when it's almost midnight, the West starts doing something about it.
All while seeing their populations grow, for instance, more than 1,000 big cities all over the world have managed to ALREADY reduce their CO2 emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels, and are more than on track to reduce them by 40% by 2030.
You cannot be in "apparent denial" of ideas that have been scientifically refuted, remember ... ? ;-)
It has been proven that unprecedented atmospheric CO2 increases, caused by unprecedented human CO2 emissions, are the main cause of global warming today. The US has 150 times the carbon footprint per capita than any poor country out there. So no, not EVERY additional person "makes net reduction of emissions more difficult. Every additional person living in the WEST does.
Fortunately, it's also the West that invented science, so FINALLY, when it's almost midnight, the West starts doing something about it.
All while seeing their populations grow, for instance, more than 1,000 big cities all over the world have managed to ALREADY reduce their CO2 emissions by 20% compared to 1990 levels, and are more than on track to reduce them by 40% by 2030.
You cannot be in "apparent denial" of ideas that have been scientifically refuted, remember ... ? ;-)
Absolutely, Steve....and not just re: climate change, but the planet's capacity to sustain such population growth. The planet's bio-output was still out-producing human populations just 75 short yrs ago. At over 7 billion now, bio-output is teetering dead even with current population levels, and in some regions of the planet, is already outflanked by unsustainable population growth. By 2050, when the population is forecast to reach 9 billion, the planet will be irreparably taxed, and the decline of the species will be in full swing. It's happening much, MUCH faster than most anyone---even in the science community----wants to admit.
Totally right. Human caused means two things. What we do and the number doing it. To deny these basic facts is insane. Try this experiment. 10 million people living any way they want. Little effect on the natural world. 8 billion even driving a Prius and with solar panels on the roof. We are still cooked. It's all very simple once you decide to look at the numbers.
1
your headline "We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?"
the short answer: harvey is "in your face," (see photos), climate change, as yet, has no such basket of irrefutables.
and, while were at it, "the risks of future terrorsim" were NOT addressed after 9/11, nor have they been since and, like climate change they will continue to develop as we continue to behave like those sitting frogs in the water as it warms to a fatal boil.
if the best we can do is the paris accord and all the chiken little fretting, then we will be cooked...how about we try, as in commit to, an actual action, the vote here is for an all-hands-on-deck, manhattan project to develop a solar and tidal powered grid to charge electric vehicles, ten years, no internal combustion, no excuses.
playwright bertolt brecht has one of his "threepenny opera" people admonish, "first feed the face and then talk right and wrong," same here, first walk the walk and (maybe walk it again!) and then talk the talk.
and please mr kristof, leave your thing for heels at home.
the short answer: harvey is "in your face," (see photos), climate change, as yet, has no such basket of irrefutables.
and, while were at it, "the risks of future terrorsim" were NOT addressed after 9/11, nor have they been since and, like climate change they will continue to develop as we continue to behave like those sitting frogs in the water as it warms to a fatal boil.
if the best we can do is the paris accord and all the chiken little fretting, then we will be cooked...how about we try, as in commit to, an actual action, the vote here is for an all-hands-on-deck, manhattan project to develop a solar and tidal powered grid to charge electric vehicles, ten years, no internal combustion, no excuses.
playwright bertolt brecht has one of his "threepenny opera" people admonish, "first feed the face and then talk right and wrong," same here, first walk the walk and (maybe walk it again!) and then talk the talk.
and please mr kristof, leave your thing for heels at home.
2
Because on climate change people don't see the creeping disaster until it hits them and while others empatahize they cannot see themselves in the same situation. Your cause is doomed mr kristof!
1
Republicans generally dismiss climate change because to acknowledge it would mean a requirement to act and that might reduce the profits large GOP donors. I am afraid its just that simple. Profits first and to heck with the grand kids. Some aren't so profit driven but they believe in the bibical directive that we are to master the planet and subdue it. Bring on the end times by any means necissary even if it means drowning whole nations, especially those that aren't predominately Christian nations.
Before the left gets too smug they should acknowledge they have sabotaged the climate change movement as well with many on the bandwagon the same people who always insist more government is always the best, or only, answer, and who practice do as I say not as I do (Al Gore with a home large enough to house a small town) or who jet off to some tourist destination in private jets for a "Climate Change Summit" ( Leo). Ever hear of video confrencing?
Climate change is being driven by mans activities.That is clear. Denial, or hypocrisy, are making finding and implimenting realistic and workable solutions difficult. The tea-party republicans and "we know best" democrats we have today need to get out of the way or change their tunes if they want to continue to serve. Our obligation is a planet our great grandkids can enjoy, improve and pass on to their great gandkids.
Before the left gets too smug they should acknowledge they have sabotaged the climate change movement as well with many on the bandwagon the same people who always insist more government is always the best, or only, answer, and who practice do as I say not as I do (Al Gore with a home large enough to house a small town) or who jet off to some tourist destination in private jets for a "Climate Change Summit" ( Leo). Ever hear of video confrencing?
Climate change is being driven by mans activities.That is clear. Denial, or hypocrisy, are making finding and implimenting realistic and workable solutions difficult. The tea-party republicans and "we know best" democrats we have today need to get out of the way or change their tunes if they want to continue to serve. Our obligation is a planet our great grandkids can enjoy, improve and pass on to their great gandkids.
1
Old farmer's saying: Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig!
Denying climate change in front of the evidence biting us is plain stupid. But that is Trump's territory, plain and simple. He is the biggest liar we've had in the White House since Nixon: and malicious to boot, given that Trump's ignorance is intentional.
3
Until you accept that you are at war to win a knowledge-based scientifically guided society, you will continue to loose. The other side is willing to destroy you, the government, and anyone or thing else to advance its agenda of more for fewer. You, on the other, and the New York Times, Jews, women, the Left, and all the rest of the disparates, seem to have prepared your lives to look for virgins in horror houses (consummation devoutly to be desired, I'm sure; like a nun after school or for lunch).
100 billion in relief, it should be tied not to cuts someplace else like Sanndy, but to regs that will lessen the cost. So that when the next 1 in five hundred year strom hit in the next couple of years it might not cost as much.
The sad truth is that until something REALLY bad happens - like the when the ocean currents shift (read up on that one and you'll understand) - then the naysayers will have their way. But then it will be too late. We are destroying our planet, plain and simple. Too many people. I probably won't live to see this but I think my grandchildren will. When a derecho hit my area a few years ago (another event that supposedly happens once in a 100 years) it opened my eyes to the reality that we can't control our planet and what it is trying to tell us. And it's trying to tell us......
1
Deniers are really just anti-regulationists, trying to keep their wild party going until the law arrives.
The answer is a lot less complicated than we'd like to believe; it's because lots of people are stupid and/or uneducated. And they elect leaders just like themselves, and these equally stupid and/or uneducated leaders make stupid decisions, ignore science, pray to their gods and we suffer the results. What's so complicated about that? Look who we have right now for a leader. Surely an oxymoron...maybe just a moron?
3
But wait Kellyanne said it was inappropriate to talk about climate change and she knows what she talking about, right??????
2
the 'resistance among elected officials' should've read,...'the resistance among AMERICAN elected officials' with perhaps, 'republican' in there somewhere.
i'm guessing that among a large % of republican/trump voters if it ain't the chinese hoaxin' 'merica that it's god's will. can't do nuthin' if that's what the sky fairy wants.
i'm guessing that among a large % of republican/trump voters if it ain't the chinese hoaxin' 'merica that it's god's will. can't do nuthin' if that's what the sky fairy wants.
2
Some wit once wrote that it's very hard to get someone to understand something if his salary depends on not understanding it. Exxon worked very hard to deny climate change, and its former CEO is Secretary of State. And Republicans are brilliant at doing whatever it takes to shovel money into their own pockets, facts be damned.
2
Upton Sinclair Jr.
It's inconceivable and disgusting that the current crop of corporate greedmeisters in charge of DC won't own up to the global warming implications wrought by Harvey. Flat earthers. Obama birthers. Fascist authoritarians. Racial haters and haters. America in 2017 = make America great again by bringing back the dark ages.
2
As an Afro-American I blame these storm 100% on the Trump hate campaign against our precious climate.
If he had a shred of decency, Trump must get down on his knees and beg forgiveness from the people of France for spurning the Paris Accords!
If he had a shred of decency, Trump must get down on his knees and beg forgiveness from the people of France for spurning the Paris Accords!
1
FELLOW READERS. PASS THIS ARTICLE ONTO EVERY NEWSPAPER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
I JUST DID TO THREE.....HOUSTON, DALLAS, BEAUMONT.
I JUST DID TO THREE.....HOUSTON, DALLAS, BEAUMONT.
Why deny climate change?
Maybe because a goodly segment of the parasitic plutocrat class makes trillions preparing to inflict hell on today's 10 year olds.
It's the American oligarchs and christofascists who are by far the worst in denying reality: the Europeans and Asians are too intelligent.
Maybe because a goodly segment of the parasitic plutocrat class makes trillions preparing to inflict hell on today's 10 year olds.
It's the American oligarchs and christofascists who are by far the worst in denying reality: the Europeans and Asians are too intelligent.
1
Now that we collectively Denied, Ignored & Dismissed simple science long enough (and its criticism of our naive beliefs in a pretty irrational and childish magic dealer of divine providence and privilege, paired with a quite arbitrary and immensely cruel divine wrath), we have been Delivering, Inheriting and Dealing ourselves one of the first of many Deluges, Inundations and Drownings, that's what we DID.
Climate change deniers in the blaze of Sandy were already quite a sight to behold, but to see the deniers emerge undaunted in their denial from unequivocal global temperature rises in years in a row and from the harassments of Harvey (Hell-bent on Abomination & Reluctance to Verify Evidence's Yardsticks?) (or Hu's, Abu's, Rauls & Vlads Engaging You?) is raising the bar.
Ann Coulter said Harvey is more likely to blame on divine retribution for the former Houston mayor having been a lesbian than on climate change. Soon she'll say Trump diligently tweeting the time of the day quasi around the clock (a real feat without an internet browser) is more likely responsible for the rhythm of night and day called into existence than the earth rotation around its own axis, for which there are no eye witnesses, there's only vain, unscriptural theorizing hubris by "scientists".
And the latest attack on Christmas wants us to say: "Happy Climate!" instead of "Merry Christmas!"
Gosh, if we didn't have people like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to defend Christmas and Santa and his reindeer!
Climate change deniers in the blaze of Sandy were already quite a sight to behold, but to see the deniers emerge undaunted in their denial from unequivocal global temperature rises in years in a row and from the harassments of Harvey (Hell-bent on Abomination & Reluctance to Verify Evidence's Yardsticks?) (or Hu's, Abu's, Rauls & Vlads Engaging You?) is raising the bar.
Ann Coulter said Harvey is more likely to blame on divine retribution for the former Houston mayor having been a lesbian than on climate change. Soon she'll say Trump diligently tweeting the time of the day quasi around the clock (a real feat without an internet browser) is more likely responsible for the rhythm of night and day called into existence than the earth rotation around its own axis, for which there are no eye witnesses, there's only vain, unscriptural theorizing hubris by "scientists".
And the latest attack on Christmas wants us to say: "Happy Climate!" instead of "Merry Christmas!"
Gosh, if we didn't have people like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity to defend Christmas and Santa and his reindeer!
3
C'mon, Kris....you should know that existential truth is no match for the Conjured Belief Set.
Why bother with reality when you can tailor anything in this existence to fit one's own lazy and self-absorbed "intellect." And then, if that's not incredible enough, be allowed to get away with it. Just ask religionists.
While Mother Earth begins the process of expelling the virus, we "have to" practice tolerance among our own paltry, woefully ignorant species. She's not going to wait for the delusional segment of the humanity to get onboard with reality, because she doesn't need to be saved...
...she'll save herself by being rid of us.
Why bother with reality when you can tailor anything in this existence to fit one's own lazy and self-absorbed "intellect." And then, if that's not incredible enough, be allowed to get away with it. Just ask religionists.
While Mother Earth begins the process of expelling the virus, we "have to" practice tolerance among our own paltry, woefully ignorant species. She's not going to wait for the delusional segment of the humanity to get onboard with reality, because she doesn't need to be saved...
...she'll save herself by being rid of us.
1
The Harvey catastrophe is a clear case of underplanning, overdelepment, and lack of regard for hydrology. Climate change is not nearly as sure a thing as pure hubris.
All of us in America , excuse the language, are Morons letting our lleaders get out of Paris accord and not believing in climate change. Even the so called uneducated masses in the third world believe in climate change.
Few coal miners are determining the fate of the world. Go USA
Few coal miners are determining the fate of the world. Go USA
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" Upton Sinclair
It's up to us to ensure that politicians are crystal clear that their job depends on them understanding huamn generated climate change
It's up to us to ensure that politicians are crystal clear that their job depends on them understanding huamn generated climate change
Everyone in the US should try and change their ways. Lets not sit here and wait for Trump and his people to come around. Stop our over use of plastic. Separate your garbage and put your organic matter back into your soil. Drive and buy less. Be happy doing simple things. Help someone in need. Pick up our garbage to clean up our nation.
1
This is an all-hands-on-deck moment, if we aren't already too late. The effects of warming and acidification of our oceans, on the polar ice caps, on rainfall and hence the ability to grow food are all tipping into crisis management and it is as if the planet is the Titanic and the captain is asleep in the bridge as we approach the iceberg. There will not be enough life boats, period. In fact, no life boats.
The image of the frog, which was also in An Inconvenient Truth, appears to be the real analogy. In fact, as I understand it the frog will stay in the beaker until the water boils and the frog dies. It doesn't have the sense on its own to get out; it was a change in the movie from what actually happens. Climate change denial, withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the election of a denier and liar like Trump means that we American frogs may condemn the entire planet. Only really tackling carbon (and methane, huge amounts of which will be released once the northern permafrost regions thaw) and bringing online a variety of alternative, clean energy sources will be in a position to save us. It must happen now. I wish climate deniers could be sequestered to their own hell of ecosystem collapse but we all share space on the same precious blue marble in the black vastness of space.
The image of the frog, which was also in An Inconvenient Truth, appears to be the real analogy. In fact, as I understand it the frog will stay in the beaker until the water boils and the frog dies. It doesn't have the sense on its own to get out; it was a change in the movie from what actually happens. Climate change denial, withdrawal from the Paris Accord, the election of a denier and liar like Trump means that we American frogs may condemn the entire planet. Only really tackling carbon (and methane, huge amounts of which will be released once the northern permafrost regions thaw) and bringing online a variety of alternative, clean energy sources will be in a position to save us. It must happen now. I wish climate deniers could be sequestered to their own hell of ecosystem collapse but we all share space on the same precious blue marble in the black vastness of space.
It is very accurate to compare the 'smoking causes lung cancer' situation to 'climate change causes more severe weather events' (among other negatives) situation. Consider one's internal denial mechanism that smokers currently use: its just a little tobacco - it's natural, it can't hurt me; just one more won't hurt me; it has never hurt me before; what do those eggheads know anyway; hey, it's my choice, butt out; stop taking away my freedom to choose, My lung cancer was not caused by smoking, it was caused by fill in the blank here, my grandpa smoked every day until he died at age 93, etc.
Sounds like many of the false logic points used by climate change deniers. The capacity of humans to rationalize and justify bad things (inconvenient truths even!) knows no bounds. Economic and political interests will not hesitate to cause the deaths of millions of people to keep that wealth and power. Think about that last sentence.
Sounds like many of the false logic points used by climate change deniers. The capacity of humans to rationalize and justify bad things (inconvenient truths even!) knows no bounds. Economic and political interests will not hesitate to cause the deaths of millions of people to keep that wealth and power. Think about that last sentence.
1
While I appreciate your effort Mr. Kristof, many experts are on record that a global warming in excess of 2 degrees Celsius is already baked into the cake, and that the level will prove catastrophic. And while there is no doubt that an intelligent nation would join the rest of the world in doing all we can as a species now to minimize the damage, it seems to me the most responsible things we can do individually are to 1) vote only for candidates that fully embrace the science and 2) cease bringing children into what is going to be an increasingly unstable, uninhabitable world. To do otherwise is not only irresponsible, it is selfish and cruel.
Times. Get real. We all deny whatever we don't like to think about. The times for instance, never mentions population and specifically u.s. population, especially the effects of our unbridled immigration on our booming population. Of course, to do this would be to link population and climate change. Can't do that. Not PC. Unfortunately, to deny this obviously, critical link is to be as clueless and willfully unaware as any right wing climate change denier. Hypocrisy is not limited to one party.
5
Actually, the Times and other reputable news reporting sources don't mention such things as "unbridled immigration" in the US and "our booming population" because such claims are not true. Immigration is not 'unbridled.' Due to enforcement efforts and the recession of 2008/9 Illegal immigration is far down on an annual basis from where it was a decade ago, and legal immigration is actually very low in historical terms and has been for many decades. Hence, 'unbridled' is a patently false descriptor. Our population is also not 'booming' in the usual sense of that word as a quick look at actual data reveals:
http://www.multpl.com/us-population-growth-rate/table/by-year
http://www.multpl.com/us-population-growth-rate/table/by-year
2
Geez I hate having to go thru this. The u.s. popultion rate has averaged around 1% for the last 20 years. Doesn't sound like much right? That's almost 3 million per year, more than the populations of 20 states. That is driven 70+ percent by immigrants and their offspring. The native popution is below replacement. We'd be there if it wasn't for immigration. We are the fastest growing western democracy, driven almost exclusively by immigration. We are, due to economic factors at .7% currently. It won't last. Stick your head in the sand. Im 60 and the u.s population has basically doubled in my lifetime. That's a fact. Please feel free to refute it. Tell us that the doubling has had no effect on our GH gas production.
And yet ... you send no link, you don't even refer to any scientific study backing up your claims, whereas Kristof's op-ed is full of them ... .
Here are some facts.
The US has less than 5% of the world's population, yet produces more than 25% of the world's CO2 emission (= the proven cause of the current and dangerous global warming).
The US has less than 5% of the world's population, yes is the world's biggest polluter.
The US also has a carbon footprint per capita that is 150 times higher than that of poor countries. "Per capita" means that every American citizen each day pollutes 150 times more (= puts 150 times the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere) than the average citizen of a poor African nation.
So yes, human activity causes dangerously rapid global warming today, but no, the main factor here is NOT population growth, it's the way the wealthiest countries decided to organize their economies ...
Unfortunately, more and more it becomes clear that hypocrisy IS entirely limited to ONE political party today, and that in itself is extremely dangerous, as a democracy can only thrive when there are at least TWO serious political parties ... .
That being said, I you believe you can find some solid scientific studies proving that it's NOT the behavior of wealthy human beings today but the sheer number of people living on the earth that cause the dramatically high 400ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration, I'll be happy to read them.
Here are some facts.
The US has less than 5% of the world's population, yet produces more than 25% of the world's CO2 emission (= the proven cause of the current and dangerous global warming).
The US has less than 5% of the world's population, yes is the world's biggest polluter.
The US also has a carbon footprint per capita that is 150 times higher than that of poor countries. "Per capita" means that every American citizen each day pollutes 150 times more (= puts 150 times the quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere) than the average citizen of a poor African nation.
So yes, human activity causes dangerously rapid global warming today, but no, the main factor here is NOT population growth, it's the way the wealthiest countries decided to organize their economies ...
Unfortunately, more and more it becomes clear that hypocrisy IS entirely limited to ONE political party today, and that in itself is extremely dangerous, as a democracy can only thrive when there are at least TWO serious political parties ... .
That being said, I you believe you can find some solid scientific studies proving that it's NOT the behavior of wealthy human beings today but the sheer number of people living on the earth that cause the dramatically high 400ppm atmospheric CO2 concentration, I'll be happy to read them.
Many people stubbornly cling to beliefs unsupported or disproven by observable facts. Why?
Too many people are undernourished or actually starve though there are food surpluses uselessly stored, thrown away or plowed under. Why?
Wars are fought and terror inflicted in the name of claimed superior and exclusive "holy" beliefs. Why?
Great numbers of children are denied decent public education though there are adequate funds and resources to provide reasonable, responsible and necessary educations to children in this country and around the world. Why?
Nations measure their strength most overtly if not principally in terms military might, euphemistically claiming that strength as "defensive" power. Why?
Politicians, in clumsy kabuki dance fashion, portray themselves as "representing" their electorates while soliciting and taking extraordinarily large sums of money from interests that then effectively control the levers of government. This obvious corruption, sometimes given legal blessing, is accepted as within the norms of our political system and discourse. Why?
Risky and frequently unregulated land development and use that jeopardizes life and property is allowed. Why?
Too many people are undernourished or actually starve though there are food surpluses uselessly stored, thrown away or plowed under. Why?
Wars are fought and terror inflicted in the name of claimed superior and exclusive "holy" beliefs. Why?
Great numbers of children are denied decent public education though there are adequate funds and resources to provide reasonable, responsible and necessary educations to children in this country and around the world. Why?
Nations measure their strength most overtly if not principally in terms military might, euphemistically claiming that strength as "defensive" power. Why?
Politicians, in clumsy kabuki dance fashion, portray themselves as "representing" their electorates while soliciting and taking extraordinarily large sums of money from interests that then effectively control the levers of government. This obvious corruption, sometimes given legal blessing, is accepted as within the norms of our political system and discourse. Why?
Risky and frequently unregulated land development and use that jeopardizes life and property is allowed. Why?
2
Why? Because we are stupid. (See the comment I submitted a minute ago).
1
Evangelicals don't buy into climate change at all. They are happy with being decidedly anti-science. Those people are Trump's solid base.
2
Where did you find a link between evangelicals and science ignorance?
Sorry, Scott Pruitt. You are misplaced, not Climate Change. While you shill for big polluters, a flood of Biblical proportions has demonstrated the poverty of your education and the national security weakness of Trump.
Climate change, as the U.S. military recognizes, threatens national security, particularly Energy security. We need a massive infrastructure investment to move refineries, harden grids, foster alternative energy and mitigate ahead of time risks to our coastal communities from pitiless hurricanes.
Over to you Mitch and Paul.
Climate change, as the U.S. military recognizes, threatens national security, particularly Energy security. We need a massive infrastructure investment to move refineries, harden grids, foster alternative energy and mitigate ahead of time risks to our coastal communities from pitiless hurricanes.
Over to you Mitch and Paul.
2
Harvey is just another fact that will not get in the way of irrational denial of climate change. Why be confounded with business as usual here? At least deniers are consistent in accepting the big money-based lie and many will be truly loyal to the faith until the literal end.
2
The eclipse? Don't mention the eclipse.
The solar eclipse could be “a sign of His judgment,” according to pastor Franklin Graham, who gets to speak at a presidential inauguration. (He does a nice line of homophobic raving, too). When that kind of thinking goes all the way to the top, facts don't stand a chance.
The solar eclipse could be “a sign of His judgment,” according to pastor Franklin Graham, who gets to speak at a presidential inauguration. (He does a nice line of homophobic raving, too). When that kind of thinking goes all the way to the top, facts don't stand a chance.
5
"Science progresses one death a time." Max Planck
Denying climate change is red meat to the base and sadly that is all that matters to the GOP and especially Donald Trump. Also by admitting the clear truth and dangers of climate change and the imminent threat it poses you are subject to the wrath of the Koch brothers and their billions. Sadly. nearly 40 % of America prides itself in their abject ignorance to things the rest of the world, not just Americans know to be facts. Until the KOch brothers and the Fox News propaganda machines stop the tre emanation of " fake news" it will continue and might even intensify.
2
Except, ironically, in a disaster.
The fossil fuel industry intends to milk every last cent out of the enormous infrastructure that they built. They will spend fortunes on disinformation and bribery to do it. And the people whose livelihoods depend on this industry will do all they can to preserve the status quo. Unfortunately, the behemoth of this industry dwarfs what big tobacco was back in the 1960's, and Americans are just as addicted. We should remember that the demise of smoking as an accepted part of daily life was not brought about by education on the health perils of tobacco. It was brought about by a relentless campaign of shame, and ever more cruel treatment of smokers. MADD didn't gain success through education, but by passing ever more restrictive laws against drunk driving with harsher and harsher punishment. Until we have a critical mass of people who get their energy from solar, and those people rise up to attack those who do not, nothing will happen.
2
I'll share the comical Facebook response I received from Rep Clay Higgins (LA, R):
"Climate change has taken place since the Creation of our universe.
Liberal "scientific" fraud and purposeful manipulation of climate data in order to produce agenda driven results designed to legitimize government seizure of private property and further theft of We the People's treasure... is a much more recent phenomena. "
"Climate change has taken place since the Creation of our universe.
Liberal "scientific" fraud and purposeful manipulation of climate data in order to produce agenda driven results designed to legitimize government seizure of private property and further theft of We the People's treasure... is a much more recent phenomena. "
You aren't going to get far flogging this stale argument. We all know that climate change is real, even those who deny it because they make money pimping the fossil fuel industry. Change requires an end run and here it is. As bad as fossil fuels are for the environment, living without them would be worse. But in fact we're running out of the stuff. In short we need to change the energy paradigm not because it's poisoning us and the planet but because it's getting scarce. Focusing on fossil fuel decline is a lot more effective than focusing on climate.
Until my Liberal fellows and pundits like Kristof take aim at absurd rates of population growth in nations like India and Nigeria and Brazil, they are not, simply by the value of their emotional pleas, worth taking seriously on climate change. It is population growth that is the single greatest danger to human civilization, it is the primary pump of energy use, from transportation to food production.
What we have here is conjecturing (correlation is not causation) about very recent bad weather, when in fact Houston has had a 28+ inch rain event once every 6.5 years since 1950. How about a conjecture on a plan to pay or otherwise incentivize people in the 3rd world to stop reproducing like The Catholic Church would love them to, and instead start reproducing like responsible adults in a world where resources are limited and carbon use needs to be curtailed? In the long run all the best energy practices and carbon reduction we can do will be done but it will take time. If you want a reduction in carbon emissions fast, cut the birth rate, which can be done nearly overnight.
What we have here is conjecturing (correlation is not causation) about very recent bad weather, when in fact Houston has had a 28+ inch rain event once every 6.5 years since 1950. How about a conjecture on a plan to pay or otherwise incentivize people in the 3rd world to stop reproducing like The Catholic Church would love them to, and instead start reproducing like responsible adults in a world where resources are limited and carbon use needs to be curtailed? In the long run all the best energy practices and carbon reduction we can do will be done but it will take time. If you want a reduction in carbon emissions fast, cut the birth rate, which can be done nearly overnight.
2
CK, you are acknowledging the elephant in the room. Not good. You'll be labeled a xenophobic racist. You need to go a step further. As we (Americans) are the greatest per capita carbon producers on earth, 19+ tons/year and people in those countries produce much less you need to call for us to alter how we live, but also reduce our numbers by birth control and sharply reducing immigration (turning a low carbon producing Nigerian into a high carbon producing American is a bad idea for the environment, don't need to mention the higher birth rate even when they get here). Now, when you get one politician on either side to even discuss these issues, get back to us.
1
The climate has often offered harsh harsh events, but it has only recently (and at earlier times - " . . . The colder temperatures increased the frequency of crop failure, and colder seas prevented cod and other fish from migrating as far north, eliminating this vital food source for some northern areas of Europe. . . . " http://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/did-climate-change-cause-witch-... have been the subject of such religious fervor. ( " . . . Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-En... ) [Please provide links to your spurious, and non-spurious, refutations, and have a nice day.]
1
The biggest elephant in the room about climate change is overpopulation. We are staggeringly good and reproducing and eating all other animal species. We are also really good and wanting to use all the niceties of life, created by technological progress. Unfortunately, there will come a time when it shall be realized that there will be be net winners and net losers in population. The losers will be the poor countries, when some new super-virus pops up or when a mega-famine hits.
People themselves are the main contributors to climate change. I pity the idea that "Soylent Green" is prophetic. I pity the idea that my nieces and nephew's grandchildren will be fighting border wars over water, arable land, food and rising waters.
People themselves are the main contributors to climate change. I pity the idea that "Soylent Green" is prophetic. I pity the idea that my nieces and nephew's grandchildren will be fighting border wars over water, arable land, food and rising waters.
4
Why not solve the problem?
... and the polls predicted the victory of Hillary Clinton, just as well as they predict Climate Change
1
The polls were only incorrect by not counting on the Electoral College.
Clinton still won the popular vote by 3 +MILLION -- and she wouldn't have rolled back the E.P.A. restrictions that will doom this country like Scott Pruitt.....You were saying???
Clinton still won the popular vote by 3 +MILLION -- and she wouldn't have rolled back the E.P.A. restrictions that will doom this country like Scott Pruitt.....You were saying???
1
So you'd then argue that to avoid all this, the entire human race should move to the mountains and into the deserts to avoid risks associated with flooding? Humans will be exposed to natural disasters wherever they reside and this is nothing new. Trying to pin Harvey on climate change is simply absurd.
1
You just don't get it. Let me decode the business model of GOP for you. Deregulations create first group of winners. They can be builders, miners, oil companies, etc. They want to maximize profits in the name of smaller government. After they are done, they move on to next projects and leave the liabilities behind. Because they know very well that federal government will always pick up mess. Of course it is a great business model. After diasters, the second group of business interests coming in and it is free money for them to grab. Think about how many people are on their side when free money and easy money is on table? The winning strategy is to build a coalition of military-industrial complex, energy-industrial complex, construction-industrial complex, pharma-industrial complex and all the other industrial complexes. To further secure their winning strategy, they recruit racists, "second amendment people", "national security people", "border security people" and "Christian conservatives".
And they still can preach "self reliance". Wow! But why are liberals still talking about humanity?! It is totally beyond me. When dealing with the ugly side of human nature, liberals just don't get it! Seriously, in the land of Harvard, Yale and MIT, there must be a solution to counter GOP.
And they still can preach "self reliance". Wow! But why are liberals still talking about humanity?! It is totally beyond me. When dealing with the ugly side of human nature, liberals just don't get it! Seriously, in the land of Harvard, Yale and MIT, there must be a solution to counter GOP.
1
We need to allocate money for solar panels on every rooftop. Call it defense spending. Think of the manufacturing jobs. Think of the work for people to install and to maintain the solar panels.
We need leaders with vision and with courage.
We get the government we deserve.
We need leaders with vision and with courage.
We get the government we deserve.
1
Let me get this right - we just went through one of the longest periods in recent history absent a large hurricane striking the continental US. This period of inactivity took place while climate folks (mostly NOT scientists), in their normal panic mode, told us after Katrina we should expect more and larger hurricanes. A CAT 3 hurricane finally makes landfall years later ... and of course this is because of man-made climate change! Do climate collapse promoters like Al Gore or Mr. Kristof even read their past articles on the subject? This isn't science for these people - it's religion because facts that obviously challenge their assertions don't matter.
1
"Do climate collapse promoters like Al Gore or Mr. Kristof even read their past articles on the subject?"
Uh ... did you actually read this op-ed before commenting on it?
Kristof includes concrete links to studies proving his claims. If you want to defend the idea that those studies are flawed, don't think that the only non ideological, rational option is to READ them FIRST ... ?
And of course, then we're not even talking about the possibility to tell us WHERE exactly they contain mistakes and why yet.
The attitude of people like you is entirely irrational. The only way to refute scientific studies is to read them and then prove where they're wrong, remember ... ? Not to simply repeat some idea you read on one or the other political blog, or to even invent things yourself ...
By the way, it happens almost never that non scientists can discover errors in scientific studies, precisely because they go FAR beyond what non scientists can understand. The only thing ordinary citizens can do is comparing what op-eds write about studies they mention, to what those studies themselves conclude.
I've done so for quite a while now. It's VERY rare to find misinterpretations of those studies on high quality websites such as the NYT. You CONSTANTLY find them, however, on websites such as Breitbart ...
It BECAUSE facts matter that you HAVE to read the links in op-eds before starting to blindly criticize them...
Uh ... did you actually read this op-ed before commenting on it?
Kristof includes concrete links to studies proving his claims. If you want to defend the idea that those studies are flawed, don't think that the only non ideological, rational option is to READ them FIRST ... ?
And of course, then we're not even talking about the possibility to tell us WHERE exactly they contain mistakes and why yet.
The attitude of people like you is entirely irrational. The only way to refute scientific studies is to read them and then prove where they're wrong, remember ... ? Not to simply repeat some idea you read on one or the other political blog, or to even invent things yourself ...
By the way, it happens almost never that non scientists can discover errors in scientific studies, precisely because they go FAR beyond what non scientists can understand. The only thing ordinary citizens can do is comparing what op-eds write about studies they mention, to what those studies themselves conclude.
I've done so for quite a while now. It's VERY rare to find misinterpretations of those studies on high quality websites such as the NYT. You CONSTANTLY find them, however, on websites such as Breitbart ...
It BECAUSE facts matter that you HAVE to read the links in op-eds before starting to blindly criticize them...
If you're such a great scientist, calculate the statistical odds of 3 X once in 500 years floods happening 3 years in a row!
1
I'm not a scientist, nor is Mr. Kristof, Al Gore or a host of others. I can clearly say that we were warned of experiencing more hurricanes and those would be more powerful. It didn't happen - the global warming folks were wrong - yet Mr. Kristof and yourself seem to forget this, um, inconvenient fact.
I agree that we should not deny climate change.
But note that more than ten years after 9/11, president Obama was STILL refusing to use the expression "radical Islam".
What we admit to depends as much on politics as on what the truth is.
Democrats did not call Mr Obama to account and Republicans might not call Mr Trump to account.
But note that more than ten years after 9/11, president Obama was STILL refusing to use the expression "radical Islam".
What we admit to depends as much on politics as on what the truth is.
Democrats did not call Mr Obama to account and Republicans might not call Mr Trump to account.
2
The "Whatabouts" are here! And what about Hillary's emails??
1
Seriously this is what you took away from this column?
1
Typical. Change the subject and blame Obama.
This is an old story: http://merchantsofdoubt.org/ . Some powerful business and economic interests coalesce to deny existing science, not for the benefit of the nation, but for their own pockets. And they are currently facilitated by the man in the White House, some billionaire cohorts, and the desire to raid any federal piggy-bank they can to give money back to their most affluent supporters.
Some of these pernicious forces still argue that this is just their desire for "small government," for turning massive national and international problems over to individual states that could no more handle them alone than ... [pick metaphor].
As Mr. Kristoff implies, these behaviors facilitate the ability of the most affluent to protect themselves even more, while walling off those less fortunate--even if means ignoring the greater good (yes, we can argue over what that means).
Focusing on the ignorance, greed, mendacity and misinformation (wilful or otherwise) coming from the man in the White House--while understandable--will not help much. We need better cooperation in numerous sectors (our congressional and major business leaders?)--before we are viewing something more persistent and destructive than a transient solar eclipse.
Some of these pernicious forces still argue that this is just their desire for "small government," for turning massive national and international problems over to individual states that could no more handle them alone than ... [pick metaphor].
As Mr. Kristoff implies, these behaviors facilitate the ability of the most affluent to protect themselves even more, while walling off those less fortunate--even if means ignoring the greater good (yes, we can argue over what that means).
Focusing on the ignorance, greed, mendacity and misinformation (wilful or otherwise) coming from the man in the White House--while understandable--will not help much. We need better cooperation in numerous sectors (our congressional and major business leaders?)--before we are viewing something more persistent and destructive than a transient solar eclipse.
3
"Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?"
Money. Scientists seem to be the only people who think about long-term consequences. Politicians and business leaders can't see beyond the next election cycle or the next quarters profits.
Money. Scientists seem to be the only people who think about long-term consequences. Politicians and business leaders can't see beyond the next election cycle or the next quarters profits.
8
While Harvey dumped enough water on Texas to keep every man, woman and child in the nation well served for a month and a half, the monsoons over on the other side of the world have flooded and devastated tens of millions in India, Bangladesh and Nepal.
Big storms, of impossible strength, of more devastation, and more variability are the predictions from the climate change model. And while all that rain falls in a single area, drought creeps into others.
With 7 billion people to be affected, that means hundreds of millions are in danger of drowning, losing their livelihood, starving, dying of disease from catastrophe or malnutrition.
We can ignore the causes for only so long. But how in the world can we pretend to be good people and ignore the consequences? At home, we have to reduce the cost of damage in areas in danger of flooding. And abroad? We need to find ways to accommodate the millions and millions displaced and affected by changes that we have been a primary contributor to.
Big storms, of impossible strength, of more devastation, and more variability are the predictions from the climate change model. And while all that rain falls in a single area, drought creeps into others.
With 7 billion people to be affected, that means hundreds of millions are in danger of drowning, losing their livelihood, starving, dying of disease from catastrophe or malnutrition.
We can ignore the causes for only so long. But how in the world can we pretend to be good people and ignore the consequences? At home, we have to reduce the cost of damage in areas in danger of flooding. And abroad? We need to find ways to accommodate the millions and millions displaced and affected by changes that we have been a primary contributor to.
4
I fail to understand the decision of climate skeptics to guard against all possibilites. After all, if the weather forecast says it MIGHT rain I carry an umbrella.
4
The answer to your headline question, your last paragraph, and much else is because the Koch Bros, Exxon, et al believe doing anything about it will cost them money.
8
Of course, the reasons politicians voice public doubts about climate change and human influence on it are the donations (bribes?) by oil and gas lobbyists.
My guess is that over a beer or in the privacy of their homes most politicians agree with most of us: climate change is real and energy usage is its main cause.
But, then, how can they look at themselves in the mirror or at their children and think that they are morally free of the calamities now in Houston and Bangladesh and that are still to come in the future?
My guess is that over a beer or in the privacy of their homes most politicians agree with most of us: climate change is real and energy usage is its main cause.
But, then, how can they look at themselves in the mirror or at their children and think that they are morally free of the calamities now in Houston and Bangladesh and that are still to come in the future?
7
Like the billion dollar Slave Economy, oil will fight. It up to us. Some powerful leaders using humor and tact and simple powerful language must emerge (like Lincoln,FDR, JFK. Reagan) to lead us. They will be the most important humans in history.
1
The right tells us, anything we do will likely destroy the economy and our way of life and anyway it's all so unsettled let's wait on it. The left tells us we can revitalize the economy with nary a blip in how we live but it will involve a lot of uncertain change. In the mean time, the left tells us open borders and a population likely to top half a billion by mid century will be the best thing that ever happened to America. Both these views are based on lies and unfounded ideology. The fact is, even with a drastic population decline, embrasing technology and a much different lifestyle, we still might not head off the train (GW) coming straight at us. The average American is struggling to get by and frankly doesn't have time or effort to do much of anything about these issues.
2
Why deny climate change? Becuse it's easy to deny things you don't understand, and can't control...without making money, that is.
And if anything, that seems to be the raison d'etre of this president and his devotedly anti-scientific administration.
Those who try to ignore the reality that both unfettered human expansion and climate change are involved in the recent toll of Hurricane Harvey, are clearly not in charge of the facts -- even though they are drowning in them.
And if anything, that seems to be the raison d'etre of this president and his devotedly anti-scientific administration.
Those who try to ignore the reality that both unfettered human expansion and climate change are involved in the recent toll of Hurricane Harvey, are clearly not in charge of the facts -- even though they are drowning in them.
9
Nicholas Kristof asks:"So why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?"
The answer lies in the money spent by the oil and gas lobbyists for our politicans. Opensecrets.org (The Center for Responsive Politics) reveals that $1,967,987,642 was spent between 1998 and 2017. This year alone, the oil and gas industry has spent 64,312,866 corrupting the politicians. In the book and movie - The Merchants of Doubt - Naomi Oreskes ( Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego) documents this corruption and how they create doubt in climate disruption and change.
The current salary (2017) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. In addition, all members of the house and senate receive allowance to run their offices with staff and supplies. Yet, it`s known that many of the bills in congress contain similar language to lobbyists requests. This year alone , the pharmaceutical industry has spent $144,778,982 lobbying congress .
They walk the halls of congress, winking and nodding our legislators - assuring them - in legal and surreptitious ways - that their future is secure,
Enough! We the people demand that they be ousted.
The answer lies in the money spent by the oil and gas lobbyists for our politicans. Opensecrets.org (The Center for Responsive Politics) reveals that $1,967,987,642 was spent between 1998 and 2017. This year alone, the oil and gas industry has spent 64,312,866 corrupting the politicians. In the book and movie - The Merchants of Doubt - Naomi Oreskes ( Professor of the History of Science and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University in 2013, after 15 years as Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego) documents this corruption and how they create doubt in climate disruption and change.
The current salary (2017) for rank-and-file members of the House and Senate is $174,000 per year. In addition, all members of the house and senate receive allowance to run their offices with staff and supplies. Yet, it`s known that many of the bills in congress contain similar language to lobbyists requests. This year alone , the pharmaceutical industry has spent $144,778,982 lobbying congress .
They walk the halls of congress, winking and nodding our legislators - assuring them - in legal and surreptitious ways - that their future is secure,
Enough! We the people demand that they be ousted.
21
It seems that what is denied is the cause of climate change. But this does not change our obligation to deal with the effects. It seems painfully obvious that melting glaciers and rising sea levels are concrete enough to demand retrofitting of our infrastructure, regardless of what caused it. In other words, there's no argument, really. Rising heat and water levels is a fact, period. Of course we've also long known the effects of so much plastic on the environment (and on our bodies) and yet the amount of plastic packaging has increased to the point where I've given up avoiding it. Clearly we're doomed.
4
You ain't seen nothing yet.
When solar activity peaks in 30 years, we will bake.
The only defense is to implement geo engineered thermostats. I also suggest the USA and Canada merge
our militaries and industrial capabilities and jointly build
geo thermal powered sustainable communities in the north.
When solar activity peaks in 30 years, we will bake.
The only defense is to implement geo engineered thermostats. I also suggest the USA and Canada merge
our militaries and industrial capabilities and jointly build
geo thermal powered sustainable communities in the north.
The lack of intelligent planning and preparation for climate change is going to drain the resources of the entire country, not just coastal cities and states. The bill for cleanup comes chiefly out of tax funds that are paid by all of us, across the nation. These funds will be snatched from infrastructure, social programs, and other important national imperatives - defense? Whether it is hurricanes or great swaths of burning woods, we will be overwhelmed by the cost of aid, higher prices for affected industries (gas, chemicals, etc.), and relocation costs. This is no way to run a country!
9
It's still the asserted relationship between carbon dioxide from humanity's use of fossil fuels and changes in earth temperatures that is the subject of skepticism and dispute. The extent to which a hurricane or a group of hurricanes may be related to rising earth temperatures doesn't establish the amount, if any, that can be attributable to human activity or the amount related to natural forces independent of human activity. A list of observed effects doesn't define the cause of those effects. Earth's temperatures and sea levels were rising for hundreds of years before atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations began to rise due to human activity
1
FYI: the latest government report on climate change, that IF Trump knows how to separate politics and science will be published soon, shows that the cause of global warming is NO LONGER "the subject of skepticism and dispute", just like the causal link between smoking and lung cancer is no longer the subject of dispute.
THE main cause of the historically (= entire history of the earth) unprecedentedly rapid global warming, is the amount of CO2 that human activity is putting in the atmosphere for almost two centuries now.
And the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on global warming has been proven both through observation in nature and experiments in laboratories ... for DECADES already.
It's just that for a strange reason, people like you keep inventing excuses and false arguments, rather than FIRST reading the many scientific studies out there (you could start with the links provided here by Kristof, for instance).
Why are you guys doing this?
Yes, of course during an interglacial (= a period in an ice age where temperatures are a bit higher; and today we're since 12.000 years in the Holocene interglacial, within the Quaterny Ice Age which started 120 million years ago, the sixth and latest of ice ages the earth has known) sea levels rise. But global temperatures have been rising EXTREMELY fast for 2 centuries now, as have sea levels, so you can't explain this by normal interglacial effects anymore. It's proven to be caused by the recent 400ppm CO2 level.
THE main cause of the historically (= entire history of the earth) unprecedentedly rapid global warming, is the amount of CO2 that human activity is putting in the atmosphere for almost two centuries now.
And the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentrations on global warming has been proven both through observation in nature and experiments in laboratories ... for DECADES already.
It's just that for a strange reason, people like you keep inventing excuses and false arguments, rather than FIRST reading the many scientific studies out there (you could start with the links provided here by Kristof, for instance).
Why are you guys doing this?
Yes, of course during an interglacial (= a period in an ice age where temperatures are a bit higher; and today we're since 12.000 years in the Holocene interglacial, within the Quaterny Ice Age which started 120 million years ago, the sixth and latest of ice ages the earth has known) sea levels rise. But global temperatures have been rising EXTREMELY fast for 2 centuries now, as have sea levels, so you can't explain this by normal interglacial effects anymore. It's proven to be caused by the recent 400ppm CO2 level.
1
@McTigue-ignorance and denial will not protect mankind from its foolishness.
Do you also believe smoking cigarettes doesn't cause cancer?
Shouldn't Houston be closing the door to redevelopment in any seriously flooded area? Gov. policy needs to withdraw future coverage to ensure this happens.
Climate change and the coming global debacle must be faced.
Climate change and the coming global debacle must be faced.
15
Em, you live in a dream world. The first thing any politicians says at the tail end of a disaster is, "we're going to rebuild!". Makes for a great TV ad in the next election cycle and is always backed by the local COC. Sure ther might be some concessions to future planning if the Feds pick up the tab, but it is usually little more than a finger in the dike.
Try getting elected to anything by saying "we're not going to develop".
Nicholas, I wish that folks on both sides of the ideological divide would look outside their entrenched ideological position and confront the fundamental driver of climate change: global population growth.
Human population growth is triply insidious because, firstly, it contributes directly and indirectly to climate change through tree clearing and increased industrialisation as displaced peoples move into the cities.
Secondly, human population growth leads to competition over access to dwindling supplies of fresh water as lakes, reservoirs and underground wells dry up [1].
Thirdly, human population growth leads to competition over access to arable land and pastureland and to the destruction of other species of animals and plants.
1) Vörösmarty, Charles J., Pamela Green, Joseph Salisbury, and Richard B. Lammers. "Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth." science 289, no. 5477 (2000): 284-288. http://water-pire.uci.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1_Hao_Science-2000-...
Human population growth is triply insidious because, firstly, it contributes directly and indirectly to climate change through tree clearing and increased industrialisation as displaced peoples move into the cities.
Secondly, human population growth leads to competition over access to dwindling supplies of fresh water as lakes, reservoirs and underground wells dry up [1].
Thirdly, human population growth leads to competition over access to arable land and pastureland and to the destruction of other species of animals and plants.
1) Vörösmarty, Charles J., Pamela Green, Joseph Salisbury, and Richard B. Lammers. "Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth." science 289, no. 5477 (2000): 284-288. http://water-pire.uci.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/1_Hao_Science-2000-...
17
Science (= by definition non ideological ... ) has also shown that it's NOT the sheer number of human beings that is mainly destroying the earth today, but the huge CO2 output.
If you know that the US has 150 times the carbon footprint per capita than poor African countries, and is responsible for 25% of the entire global CO2 output all while having less than 5% of the world's population, it becomes clear that it's not human population growth in itself that is the main culprit.
By the way, as the title of the report you're sending a link to says: it's about how VULNERABLE people (and as a consequence growing populations) are from climate change.
It's obvious that when due to climate change (= CO2 output) wells are drying up, a growing population will suffer even more from a lack of access to H20 than one that doesn't grow. The MAIN problem here however is the fact THAT those wells are drying up. And that is caused by CO2 output, not by no matter what human activity.
By the way, scientists have also shown that today's earth could easily feed 2 billion more people than the 8 billion who are currently living, IF wealthy countries would stop polluting less and transition to clean energy faster.
So whether you like it or not, it's really up to us to start acting now.
Fortunately, the entire world just did, and signed the Paris Accord. If only Syria and Nicaragua refuse to sign such an accord, it's pretty obvious that there's nothing partisan/ideological about it, no ... ?
If you know that the US has 150 times the carbon footprint per capita than poor African countries, and is responsible for 25% of the entire global CO2 output all while having less than 5% of the world's population, it becomes clear that it's not human population growth in itself that is the main culprit.
By the way, as the title of the report you're sending a link to says: it's about how VULNERABLE people (and as a consequence growing populations) are from climate change.
It's obvious that when due to climate change (= CO2 output) wells are drying up, a growing population will suffer even more from a lack of access to H20 than one that doesn't grow. The MAIN problem here however is the fact THAT those wells are drying up. And that is caused by CO2 output, not by no matter what human activity.
By the way, scientists have also shown that today's earth could easily feed 2 billion more people than the 8 billion who are currently living, IF wealthy countries would stop polluting less and transition to clean energy faster.
So whether you like it or not, it's really up to us to start acting now.
Fortunately, the entire world just did, and signed the Paris Accord. If only Syria and Nicaragua refuse to sign such an accord, it's pretty obvious that there's nothing partisan/ideological about it, no ... ?
6
Ana, suppose we do feed another 2 billion, and let's face it, far more than that are coming, what kind of world will that be? Not a pleasant one. We need to get past a planet that simply grows more humans. If we are to preserve anything beyond the ant heap of humans we are making we need to come to terms with the fact that our numbers need to go down. Way down. In addition, people will need to live far differently than Americans (the most wasteful on earth) and even euros live. There is zero evidence that any of this is going to happen.
1
I've been saying the same thing for years. But people that do not believe in climate change do not believe in over population either. I think it's a religious thing with some people (be fruitful and multiply) and others just not caring. More people = more pollution.
1
Maybe politicians don't see the dangers of climate change because they're paid to not see the dangers of climate change.
40
When we see three once-in-500-year storms within 10 years, someone's commitment to empiricism should be questioned.
9
"We don’t deny Harvey, so why deny climate change?" Sure beats the heck out of me, but, let me take a stab. Denying Harvey fails to provoke multi millions in camaign donations from the fosdils of the fossil fuel industry. In fact, denying Harvey would really, but really, tick off a lot of voters, especially in TX and LA.
Like cuddly puppies, however, these same voters cannot see future climate change in their immediate fields of vision so it's not really there. But the fossil fuel industry can see it as clear as a dew drop on a crisp autumn morning. They don't like what they suppose will result from society seriously tackling it.
Hence the obscene flow of lucre for policy-makers to stop the planet, or at least America's part of it, from saving itself. They'd rather keep their sinecures.
Like cuddly puppies, however, these same voters cannot see future climate change in their immediate fields of vision so it's not really there. But the fossil fuel industry can see it as clear as a dew drop on a crisp autumn morning. They don't like what they suppose will result from society seriously tackling it.
Hence the obscene flow of lucre for policy-makers to stop the planet, or at least America's part of it, from saving itself. They'd rather keep their sinecures.
14
an article in the British newspaper The Guardian [Wednesday 12 July 2017]
"... according to a new study that identifies the most effective ways people can cut their carbon emissions..."
if i understand this properly - when I, and all of my 7.5 billion fellow humans, power our homes with renewables, buy electric cars [to drive instead of fly], stop eating meat, and adopt children instead of reproduce, the momentum towards more frequent and more powerful fires, floods, etc. will begin to slow.
if i am right - #1 what are you personally doing to stop your contribution to the killing? and #2.) why aren't ANY news organizations publicizing information about the connection between my, yours, and everybody's behavior to the world-wide pain/loss/suffering??
if we're to spread the word about our responsibility, we shouldn't be quiet about our guilt NOR be quiet about what actions we're taking to try to resolve the problem. that includes me!
I lease an electric-hybrid {bmw i3} and use mass-transit, i took one cross-atlantic toun-trip flight this year {plus amtrak}, turned down the thermostat for heating {we've got no AC], and am too old to have kids {had one - already grown}. i hope to do better, i. e., put solar-panels on the roof, someday soon.
10
Tall order, isn't it. And Mother Earth obviously isn't going to wait for an intellectually challenged human race to sort it out. But sort it out, we'd better.
"Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?"
Because it is not cost effective for a small population. The love of money blinds common sense. The truth of the matter is when the entire planet cooks, there isn't a bunker that can save any of us. You ask why? Myopic selfishness and greed.
Because it is not cost effective for a small population. The love of money blinds common sense. The truth of the matter is when the entire planet cooks, there isn't a bunker that can save any of us. You ask why? Myopic selfishness and greed.
10
After the amazing job the media has done to cover Harvey, warning citizens ahead of time and keeping them informed, and showing us countless stories of courage and humanity in the aftermath, not a peep from the fake president accusing the coverage of this catastrophe as fake.
Why deny Climate Change? Profit! Whether it is money to pollute or money for a prayer - denial is a business and religious strategy, all about money. The irony is a lot more money is to be had going green than perpetuating filth that is degrading our planet.
The Chinese hoax is on Trump and America as they pursue green technologies leaving us in the clean-coal dust.
How long do we sit, swim or float by, while a few frogs on high ground - only they can afford - continue to boil the water around us? Unfortunately, for Planet Earth there is nowhere to jump to beyond. Poor people rarely get to live on high ground and rarely have choices.
Note that Hurricanes do not need to get "stronger" in the sense of higher wind speeds to cause higher flood damage. Warmer waters increase the amount of moisture going into the atmosphere. Harvey could have been tropical storm stalled in the same way and dumped as much flooding waters. We have Cat 1-5 for wind speed, perhaps we also need another to categorize the "wetness" - so to speak - of the storm.
Fortunately, I live in a state where Republican state legislators outlawed climate change.
Why deny Climate Change? Profit! Whether it is money to pollute or money for a prayer - denial is a business and religious strategy, all about money. The irony is a lot more money is to be had going green than perpetuating filth that is degrading our planet.
The Chinese hoax is on Trump and America as they pursue green technologies leaving us in the clean-coal dust.
How long do we sit, swim or float by, while a few frogs on high ground - only they can afford - continue to boil the water around us? Unfortunately, for Planet Earth there is nowhere to jump to beyond. Poor people rarely get to live on high ground and rarely have choices.
Note that Hurricanes do not need to get "stronger" in the sense of higher wind speeds to cause higher flood damage. Warmer waters increase the amount of moisture going into the atmosphere. Harvey could have been tropical storm stalled in the same way and dumped as much flooding waters. We have Cat 1-5 for wind speed, perhaps we also need another to categorize the "wetness" - so to speak - of the storm.
Fortunately, I live in a state where Republican state legislators outlawed climate change.
11
Good column, but why are you "staggered' at resistance from elected officials? It wasn't long ago that elected officials in the south were denying that cigarettes cause cancer, despite overwhelming evidence.
As always, follow the money.
www.newyorkgritty.net
As always, follow the money.
www.newyorkgritty.net
8
What's really weird and unfortunate about the ideological divide over global warming is that Ronald Reagan considered his shepherding the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement that banned the use of the chemicals responsible for creating a hole in the ozone, a "monumental achievement." Instead of disparaging the warnings of scientists, he took them to heart and helped engineer an agreement that is steadily shrinking the size of the hole--so much so that it's expected to heal completely by 2050.
4
When ignorance , denial and easy economic gains are in charge don't expect science and common sense to prevail .
Demographics explosion and greed are running the show .
We are doomed !
Demographics explosion and greed are running the show .
We are doomed !
6
As long a City planners disregard mother nature and build thousands of houses in flood planes and River basins it doesn't matter if you believe in climate change it not. Eventually the rains will come no matter who you agree with..
7
Climate Change Shmimate Change. What we need is a good 5-cent cigar.
Our politicians are like the weather - we all complain about them but don't do anything about them. Why our politicians aren't talking about climate change? Because they're boobs.
Trump and the Repubs weren't going there; Hillary and the Dems could do nothing but talk about Trump, who dominated all the talking points. Such a puzzle - why progressive voters weren't inspired?
Why can't the Dems stand up for something?
The vast majority understand climate change is real - make it an issue! Explain the threat, what needs to be done, the jobs to be created in green technology, the health benefits, etc.
Explain foreign trade! The TPP is a trading mechanism with 11 other Pacific rim countries (to counter the threat of China's expansive trade policies) that will increase markets for us. There are 7 billion people outside the US -trade deals are essential for our prosperity - Fight! - don't just cave in to the Repubs.
Explain immigration! We have an aging population, it's important to keep immigrants who are law-abiding and productive here working and paying taxes, it's important to bring in productive workers.
The GOP made people afraid to deal with climate change, afraid of immigration, afraid of trade deals, etc. - the list goes on. Our Dem pols let it happen.
Progressive voters wanted change and our politicians offered no REAL change.
DEMS - IT'S TIME FOR A VISION FOR THE FUTURE, ONE WE CAN FIGHT FOR.
Our politicians are like the weather - we all complain about them but don't do anything about them. Why our politicians aren't talking about climate change? Because they're boobs.
Trump and the Repubs weren't going there; Hillary and the Dems could do nothing but talk about Trump, who dominated all the talking points. Such a puzzle - why progressive voters weren't inspired?
Why can't the Dems stand up for something?
The vast majority understand climate change is real - make it an issue! Explain the threat, what needs to be done, the jobs to be created in green technology, the health benefits, etc.
Explain foreign trade! The TPP is a trading mechanism with 11 other Pacific rim countries (to counter the threat of China's expansive trade policies) that will increase markets for us. There are 7 billion people outside the US -trade deals are essential for our prosperity - Fight! - don't just cave in to the Repubs.
Explain immigration! We have an aging population, it's important to keep immigrants who are law-abiding and productive here working and paying taxes, it's important to bring in productive workers.
The GOP made people afraid to deal with climate change, afraid of immigration, afraid of trade deals, etc. - the list goes on. Our Dem pols let it happen.
Progressive voters wanted change and our politicians offered no REAL change.
DEMS - IT'S TIME FOR A VISION FOR THE FUTURE, ONE WE CAN FIGHT FOR.
2
Uh ... FYI: it's Obama who had the guts, courage, intellect, diplomatic skills and patience to contact China (knowing that the US and China are the world's biggest CO2 polluters) and convince them to enter negotiations on CO2 reduction.
It's also Obama and the Dems who managed to obtain an accord on this from China. Once this was accomplished, Obama has worked around the clock to get ALL the other countries around the table, and after years of VERY hard work, he came home with the very first global climate change accord.
That's a MILESTONE, achieved all while at home GOP politicians and media were investing millions in spreading lies about climate change AND viciously attacking all the Dem politicians who are responsible not only for the Paris accord but also for the MANY CO2 reduction and clean energy policies of the Obama administration.
Thanks to Dems for instance, today already more than twice as many Americans work in the solar power industry than in coal. And that's only ONE example.
I agree that politicians have to lead and as a consequence from time to time explain things. But their first job is to make laws and implement them.
For 8 years, Dems have clearly done BOTH, under Obama.
Time for progressives to wake up and start rolling up their sleeves, instead of standing at the sideline yelling "not enough!" each time those standing in the mud manage to move the country 1 step closer to the finish line!
ALL real, radical change is step by step change.
It's also Obama and the Dems who managed to obtain an accord on this from China. Once this was accomplished, Obama has worked around the clock to get ALL the other countries around the table, and after years of VERY hard work, he came home with the very first global climate change accord.
That's a MILESTONE, achieved all while at home GOP politicians and media were investing millions in spreading lies about climate change AND viciously attacking all the Dem politicians who are responsible not only for the Paris accord but also for the MANY CO2 reduction and clean energy policies of the Obama administration.
Thanks to Dems for instance, today already more than twice as many Americans work in the solar power industry than in coal. And that's only ONE example.
I agree that politicians have to lead and as a consequence from time to time explain things. But their first job is to make laws and implement them.
For 8 years, Dems have clearly done BOTH, under Obama.
Time for progressives to wake up and start rolling up their sleeves, instead of standing at the sideline yelling "not enough!" each time those standing in the mud manage to move the country 1 step closer to the finish line!
ALL real, radical change is step by step change.
I have often wondered about what if the nonsense War on Terrorism we've pursued had been mostly prevented, say except for wiping up Bin Laden at Tora Bora. What would have happened is all good. We'd have saved $3,000,000,000,000 (three trillion) that could have gone to infrastructure. We'd have hundreds of new schools and many dozen new hospitals, bridges renewed, education funded, etc. All good stuff, if we'd just laid off spending like alarmed drunken sailors on holiday in Vegas.
8
ok...I'm leaving your uninformed and unnecessary comments about meteorology aside Mr. Kristof. You used a quote from the Great Dr. Kerry Emanuel out of context any anything a "climate scientist" says about anything should be summarily dismissed because they are clueless statisticians.
That said...you said one thing right: "We also must adapt to a new normal "
Since we...and I presume you...intend to keep flying on airplanes, driving cars, heating and cooling our homes and charging our cell phones, climate change is going to get worse. Paris Schmaris. The Fossil Fuel Economy (FFE) is too economically advantaged to allow any fringe players like solar or wind a seat at the table. And a full scale move to an H2 economy is opposed by liberal know-it-all naysayers so that's not happening either. Let's face it. One way or another we're *burning all the oil*. The only prudent course of action is adaptation. If you and the "it's not my fault" liberals could just accept that and quit blaming climate change on DJT and the Republicans we'd all be a lot better off.
That said...you said one thing right: "We also must adapt to a new normal "
Since we...and I presume you...intend to keep flying on airplanes, driving cars, heating and cooling our homes and charging our cell phones, climate change is going to get worse. Paris Schmaris. The Fossil Fuel Economy (FFE) is too economically advantaged to allow any fringe players like solar or wind a seat at the table. And a full scale move to an H2 economy is opposed by liberal know-it-all naysayers so that's not happening either. Let's face it. One way or another we're *burning all the oil*. The only prudent course of action is adaptation. If you and the "it's not my fault" liberals could just accept that and quit blaming climate change on DJT and the Republicans we'd all be a lot better off.
2
You can refuse to read the many links to extremely solid scientific studies that Kirstof included in his op-ed, of course, and imagine that you know something about science without reading science.
In the meanwhile, the ENTIRE world except for Syria and Nicaragua are strongly engaged in reducing CO2 emissions.
That's how Paris, London, Berlin and thousands of other major cities already managed to reduce their CO2 output by 20% compared to 1990 levels (all while continuing economic growth, of course). So already today, they're AHEAD of the 2020 objectives, which means that they'll certainly achieve the 40% reduction target by 2030.
And it's because this is happening on a global scale, that today oil industries already admitted that they'll NEVER be able to "burn all the oil" AND that oil stocks are going down ...
Maybe that's also why for instance current Sec. of State and former Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, together with the current Mobile Exxon CEO, strongly urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord ... ?
In the meanwhile, Sec. of Defense General Mattis has warned Congress and the president that already today, climate change is a threat to our national security and the safety of our troops, and that we have to absolutely stay in the Paris accord.
But apparently, you prefer to dismiss these people as "it's not my fault liberals"?
Any concrete arguments to back up such a claim?
By the way, nobody is blaming current presidents for what is ALREADY happening ... ;-)
In the meanwhile, the ENTIRE world except for Syria and Nicaragua are strongly engaged in reducing CO2 emissions.
That's how Paris, London, Berlin and thousands of other major cities already managed to reduce their CO2 output by 20% compared to 1990 levels (all while continuing economic growth, of course). So already today, they're AHEAD of the 2020 objectives, which means that they'll certainly achieve the 40% reduction target by 2030.
And it's because this is happening on a global scale, that today oil industries already admitted that they'll NEVER be able to "burn all the oil" AND that oil stocks are going down ...
Maybe that's also why for instance current Sec. of State and former Exxon Mobile CEO Rex Tillerson, together with the current Mobile Exxon CEO, strongly urged Trump to stay in the Paris accord ... ?
In the meanwhile, Sec. of Defense General Mattis has warned Congress and the president that already today, climate change is a threat to our national security and the safety of our troops, and that we have to absolutely stay in the Paris accord.
But apparently, you prefer to dismiss these people as "it's not my fault liberals"?
Any concrete arguments to back up such a claim?
By the way, nobody is blaming current presidents for what is ALREADY happening ... ;-)
11
Of course Republicans are free of blame for anything and everything. It's all the fault of the liberals and academics in society. If they would only shut down their sources of information and research and listen to what the Republicans have to say via Fox News and talk radio, we would all be "better off."
1
Please show us one person that has blamed" climate change on GOP and DJT. What a ridiculous premise. No, we just want DJT and the GOP to acknowledge it--that it is very real, it is happening now, to act responsibly for the interests of us all rather than let greed be the determining factor and TRY to do whatever is necessary and possible to help reduce and mitigate its effects.
Yes, we all must act in our own personal ways, but we rely on our so-called leaders to help lead the way in that regard, and not to stick their heads in the swamp.
Yes, we all must act in our own personal ways, but we rely on our so-called leaders to help lead the way in that regard, and not to stick their heads in the swamp.
65
"The truth is that what happened in Houston was not only predictable, it was actually predicted. ... As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey in place over Houston. It was this stalling that led Harvey to be so destructive."
If the world is full of smart people who predict catastrophic weather with reasonable accuracy and dumb people who are unreasonably skeptical of scientists, why aren't the smart people getting crazy rich by shorting the insurance companies and coastal property whose value will inevitably be impaired when the storms hit?
If the world is full of smart people who predict catastrophic weather with reasonable accuracy and dumb people who are unreasonably skeptical of scientists, why aren't the smart people getting crazy rich by shorting the insurance companies and coastal property whose value will inevitably be impaired when the storms hit?
1
I know this isn't the point of the article but the idea that you can slow-boil a frog is a myth: when the water becomes uncomfortably warm, the frog jumps out.
I think the scientifically correct take-away from that is that frogs are smarter than Donald Trump. ;-)
I think the scientifically correct take-away from that is that frogs are smarter than Donald Trump. ;-)
5
Djt and apparently his many friends, some cabinet members advisors are all operating without the benefit of an enaged Pre Frontal Cortex (the part of the brain that reflects, plans, exercises attention, maturity and control, learns from mistakes, etc). Its among the first dysfunctions of dementia and of immature brains
Without this function djt cant connect the dots regarding a complex concept like climate change. He and potentially we are doomed to magical thinking and/or complete lack of forethought or hindsight on the whole subject.
Without this function djt cant connect the dots regarding a complex concept like climate change. He and potentially we are doomed to magical thinking and/or complete lack of forethought or hindsight on the whole subject.
2
C'mon, the climate deniers would ignore it, even when they have to swim to their farms. If mar-a-lago gets blown away, Trump will rebuild it with tax-payer money and brag about how he ripped of the big bad government.
This is a lost cause.
This is a lost cause.
3
It's no use. The threat of monster hurricanes chewing up our coastlines has been widely known for years -- for decades. The IPCC has been warning of the increasing severity of storms in every report it has written. Republican Party is not listening. Thy only chance we have to curb carbon pollution and to mitigate its damage is to vote. Elect Democrats.
1
Those politicians and their fossil fuel backers who continue to deny climate change is happening and who pro-actively stop measures to mitigate its effects need to start being taken to court and if necessary put in prison. This isn't a joke. We're sleep walking into a future where climate change will cause conflict all over the planet and the tide of refugees is going to become huge.
2
"An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts"
Ahh, that's how this works. A carbon tax to pay for tax cuts. This obviously cuts global warming substantially and provides wonderful tax cuts!!!
Ahh, that's how this works. A carbon tax to pay for tax cuts. This obviously cuts global warming substantially and provides wonderful tax cuts!!!
Sedimentary rocks record that climate change has always occurred during the history of the earth. The "climate change" we speak of here is human-induced climate change. The oil industry and its powerful outstretched tentacles into science and politics do not want human-induced climate change. Imagine the transfer of assets through litigation; it would make the tobacco litigation look like a small puff of smoke.
1
Climate change is real; it has been real for at least the past 36 million years. And its causes are known. They have been quantified for the past century.
None of them are human caused. None of them are human controllable.
We might be able to mitigate the current warming somewhat. All the Priuses in the world won't stop the next big change, the next Ice Age with glaciers two miles thick covering most of the Northern Hemisphere like all the past ones did, which is much closer than any of you seem to realize.
The Earth will become cold and infertile, and most of the human race will die. Now that's something to really worry about.
None of them are human caused. None of them are human controllable.
We might be able to mitigate the current warming somewhat. All the Priuses in the world won't stop the next big change, the next Ice Age with glaciers two miles thick covering most of the Northern Hemisphere like all the past ones did, which is much closer than any of you seem to realize.
The Earth will become cold and infertile, and most of the human race will die. Now that's something to really worry about.
1
If you can read the tea leaves (i.e scientific study) the predictions tell you what's going to happen! People don't read the tea leaves any more. We're all frogs sitting in a slowly boiling pot. We're not looking at trends. We're not looking at forecasts. We're not looking at current studies. We can all think back to how things were 20, 50 or more years ago. Why is it that summers are hotter? Why is it that we have more bad fires? Why is it that we have more extreme tornadoes? Even in our lifetimes, the climate has changed. Stay in the pot and boil slowly or learn, adapt, change and mitigate.
1
I don't take issue with the author or his conclusions. I would merely point out that 'homo sapient has survived because culture is an extremely efficient adaptive tool. If it continues to work as well as it has in the past mankind will adapt to its' new climate-induced challenges, and if it doesn't mankind will just be another evolutionary dead-end. It is sheer hubris to view the situation in any other manner. We'll either sink or swim and nature doesn't care one way or the other.
I am 61 and believe in anthropogenic global warming. But my wife and I don't act much differently from our neighbors. We recycle (only 10% of Americans do).
Are we going to turn off the HVAC, zero-scape, stop getting clothes dry-cleaned, grow and can our own vegetables, or stop eating meat (do I get credit for buying expensive pasture-laid eggs, organic buffalo and chicken)? No. Is anybody doing these things?
We buy efficient appliances, replace the HVAC systems before they need to be for better efficiency, and unlike many of my neighbors, don't drive big SUVs (it's all for the safety of their brood, they tell me, and so everyone is comfortable driving the 500 miles every week for dance lessons, cello lessons, language lessons, piano lessons, private tutoring, soccer practices and games, and out-of-town baseball games for the 3rd grader) and giant pickups that never haul a stick of wood. Oh, and here in the Midwest, we don't have trains--it's all by car baby, and it always will be.
It will take 40 years for the oceans to absorb existing carbon dioxide and stop heating up if we shut down everything planet-wide today. The forward-looking overwhelming greenhouse-gas contribution is going to come from methane released from warming permafrost and oceans (methane is 27 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide).
So, besides being smug, what is your answer to this?
Are we going to turn off the HVAC, zero-scape, stop getting clothes dry-cleaned, grow and can our own vegetables, or stop eating meat (do I get credit for buying expensive pasture-laid eggs, organic buffalo and chicken)? No. Is anybody doing these things?
We buy efficient appliances, replace the HVAC systems before they need to be for better efficiency, and unlike many of my neighbors, don't drive big SUVs (it's all for the safety of their brood, they tell me, and so everyone is comfortable driving the 500 miles every week for dance lessons, cello lessons, language lessons, piano lessons, private tutoring, soccer practices and games, and out-of-town baseball games for the 3rd grader) and giant pickups that never haul a stick of wood. Oh, and here in the Midwest, we don't have trains--it's all by car baby, and it always will be.
It will take 40 years for the oceans to absorb existing carbon dioxide and stop heating up if we shut down everything planet-wide today. The forward-looking overwhelming greenhouse-gas contribution is going to come from methane released from warming permafrost and oceans (methane is 27 times as powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide).
So, besides being smug, what is your answer to this?
2
You've hit it on the head. Short of a spectacular reduction in human numbers and a complete rewrite of how those few people live, most scientists believe we are well past the tipping point. Houston is a great example. Over populated, zero urban planning, now a mess. What are they saying? "We're going to rebuild!" Better get our fiddles out.
1
"Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?" and "We can’t have an intelligent conversation about Harvey without also discussing climate change."
We can't have an intelligent conversation about anything without truth and if there is one thing humanity has avoided for several millennia it is truth.
As long as we accept thoughts of so called prophets and live according to the interpretation of words written millennia ago we will continue to deny reality and remain blissfully ignorant while we destroy the only home we will ever know
The truth is most of us have been sold an excuse to accept as little of reality as possible, How else can any of us accept war? Starvation? Sexual exploitation? Child labor?
Why can't we .....? because there is no room for understanding in belief.
We can't have an intelligent conversation about anything without truth and if there is one thing humanity has avoided for several millennia it is truth.
As long as we accept thoughts of so called prophets and live according to the interpretation of words written millennia ago we will continue to deny reality and remain blissfully ignorant while we destroy the only home we will ever know
The truth is most of us have been sold an excuse to accept as little of reality as possible, How else can any of us accept war? Starvation? Sexual exploitation? Child labor?
Why can't we .....? because there is no room for understanding in belief.
Harvey was trapped between two highs, which meant Harvey had no where to go - hence unprecedented rain. Had Harvey come on shore without being trapped, a lot of damage for sure, but nothing like what SE Texas has experienced.
To me it is astounding that so many people still persist in saying climate change is a hoax and not to be taken seriously. In fact, it's patently ridiculous. These people are literally burying their heads in the sand rather than facing the obvious: ...that we are all in peril...that this beautiful tiny blue planet that is our home is being treated like one huge waste basket by a system that values the accumulation of "things" over that which nourishes our body, mind, and soul.
Can't people appreciate that this wondrous world -- this wondrous planet in which we live -- is the result of a magnificent intelligence that permeates "life as we know it" at every level -- that everything that exists in this world of ours has a purpose, otherwise it simply would not exist.
This delicate balance that nature provides (and that too many either ignore or simply take for granted) should be revered for its absolute magnificence and grace. It is, in fact, our LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM on "Spaceship Earth" that continues to spin its way through infinite space. We need to treasure it rather than treat it as a dump site, don't you think?
Can't people appreciate that this wondrous world -- this wondrous planet in which we live -- is the result of a magnificent intelligence that permeates "life as we know it" at every level -- that everything that exists in this world of ours has a purpose, otherwise it simply would not exist.
This delicate balance that nature provides (and that too many either ignore or simply take for granted) should be revered for its absolute magnificence and grace. It is, in fact, our LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM on "Spaceship Earth" that continues to spin its way through infinite space. We need to treasure it rather than treat it as a dump site, don't you think?
1
Why deny climate change? Upton Sinclair informed us decades ago: "'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
Why deny climate change? It's very simple: There's a lot of short-term profit. Short-term profit drives American business, and drives America. ("The business of America is business." - Calvin Coolidge, an idol of Ronald Reagan) And the fossil fuel industry has run America for a century plus. It's very simple: The Koch brothers et. al. are selling out their grandchildren. Are they capable of admitting it?
Roger, and others who appeal to rationality and altruism, and conscientious politics, you're deluded: The only way this thing is going to work, to convert to clean energy, is to talk the language of the money power: We have to buy them out in order to keep the dirty resources in the ground.
It may be too late. I think the accelerant of the coming methane release from permafrost melt has been underestimated, as well as the tipping by warming/icemelt feedback loops.
Why deny climate change? It's very simple: There's a lot of short-term profit. Short-term profit drives American business, and drives America. ("The business of America is business." - Calvin Coolidge, an idol of Ronald Reagan) And the fossil fuel industry has run America for a century plus. It's very simple: The Koch brothers et. al. are selling out their grandchildren. Are they capable of admitting it?
Roger, and others who appeal to rationality and altruism, and conscientious politics, you're deluded: The only way this thing is going to work, to convert to clean energy, is to talk the language of the money power: We have to buy them out in order to keep the dirty resources in the ground.
It may be too late. I think the accelerant of the coming methane release from permafrost melt has been underestimated, as well as the tipping by warming/icemelt feedback loops.
1
To me it is astounding that so many people still persist in saying climate change is a hoax and not to be taken seriously. In fact, it's patently ridiculous. These people are literally burying their heads in the sand rather than facing the obvious: ...that we are all in peril...that this beautiful tiny blue planet that is our home is being treated like one huge waste basket by a system that values the accumulation of "things" over that which nourishes our body, mind, and soul.
Can't people appreciate that this wondrous world -- this wondrous planet in which we live -- is the result of a magnificent intelligence that permeates "life as we know it" at every level -- that everything that exists in this world of ours has a purpose, otherwise it simply would not exist?
This delicate balance that nature provides (and that too many either ignore or simply take for granted) should be revered for its absolute magnificence and grace. It is, in fact, our LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM on "Spaceship Earth" that continues to spin its way through infinite space. We need to treasure it rather than treat it as a dump site, don't you think?
Can't people appreciate that this wondrous world -- this wondrous planet in which we live -- is the result of a magnificent intelligence that permeates "life as we know it" at every level -- that everything that exists in this world of ours has a purpose, otherwise it simply would not exist?
This delicate balance that nature provides (and that too many either ignore or simply take for granted) should be revered for its absolute magnificence and grace. It is, in fact, our LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM on "Spaceship Earth" that continues to spin its way through infinite space. We need to treasure it rather than treat it as a dump site, don't you think?
2
The Paris Accord is a sham. Not because it begins to address our impacts on climate change, but because it obviously doesn't go far enough. We must move more quickly to end consumption of fossil fuels world wide. We must find more eco-friendly ways to live our live, or we will suffer huge consequences. Parts of the people in the world already are. Houston just did. Who's next?
The issue cannot be addressed by logical arguments. If it helps them politically, people will find a way to deny Harvey. Which is exactly what is happening. The real problem here are the Super PACs that have bought US Elections and our elected representatives. The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling has been the greatest blow to Democracy in the history of human civilization.
"...why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?". You're a smart man, Mr. Kristof. It's been obvious for more than 20 years: our leaders are beholden to monied interests, for whom remediation and regulation spells the loss of significant amounts of money. So rather than deal with the problem now, they will kick the can to the next generation, when they will be out of office and their financial masters will have secured their fortunes.
1
"Why can’t we all similarly respect scientists’ predictions about our cooking of our only planet?" It's not that "we all" can't respect scientists' predictions. This is a defect of Republican politicians in particular, from Trump on down. Do Democrats deny the reality of climate change?
I expect more from you, Mr. Kristof. We can't hope to solve a problem if we are unwilling to clearly state what it is.
I expect more from you, Mr. Kristof. We can't hope to solve a problem if we are unwilling to clearly state what it is.
1
Even if everyone could agree that climate change is real, how to address this threat on an international scale still seems sketchy especially when you consider that it will take an unprecedented level of international cooperation, coordination and enforceable policies to turn this around. The state of humanity being what it is, this doesn't seem like a good bet...
If we want to mitigate the effects of climate change, we first have to change the climate in Congress. There are those that only add to the amount of carbon dioxide without introducing meaningful ideas. We will suffer their noxious exhalations as long as voters see irritating liberals as a guiding force in their choices.
We should be talking psychology here, not earth science. A segment of our population refuse to say that humans have a significant impact on climate and that this impact has been leading to global warming and serious danger.
Trying to make them say they are wrong will not get us very far. More weather data, explanations about the way science works, or pictures of shrinking glaciers just doesn't cut it for the deniers.
And what do those of us who accept the scientists' warnings want out of this?
What is wanted are policies -- building codes and insurance that will reduce and eventually eliminate the destruction that results from climate change; less fossil fuel burning; rational growth of our economy that leads to a good life, but not necessarily a life of great consumption; and things like cars that require fewer gallons per mile, more mass transportation that reduces the need for car use, appliances that use less electricity, and so on.
Let's push for these practical policies. Corporations can help with this by eliminating the pushing of inefficient cars, appliances, homes -- why market the magnificence of high ceilings (inefficient to cool, heat, and even paint)? Citizen pressure on corporations (strategic boycotts, getting CEOs doing what they know is good for us all) to voluntarily do many of these things (some of which has been going on) will likely work faster than trying to convince people with their fingers in their ears and their toes in their eyes.
Trying to make them say they are wrong will not get us very far. More weather data, explanations about the way science works, or pictures of shrinking glaciers just doesn't cut it for the deniers.
And what do those of us who accept the scientists' warnings want out of this?
What is wanted are policies -- building codes and insurance that will reduce and eventually eliminate the destruction that results from climate change; less fossil fuel burning; rational growth of our economy that leads to a good life, but not necessarily a life of great consumption; and things like cars that require fewer gallons per mile, more mass transportation that reduces the need for car use, appliances that use less electricity, and so on.
Let's push for these practical policies. Corporations can help with this by eliminating the pushing of inefficient cars, appliances, homes -- why market the magnificence of high ceilings (inefficient to cool, heat, and even paint)? Citizen pressure on corporations (strategic boycotts, getting CEOs doing what they know is good for us all) to voluntarily do many of these things (some of which has been going on) will likely work faster than trying to convince people with their fingers in their ears and their toes in their eyes.
6
It will be labeled a once in a century event, America will spend a decade paying to rebuild Houston just as it was before this storm. No new building codes, no new infrastructure and no new evacuation plans. Then in 2027 the same thing will happen again.
It is the circle of funding for 'freedom loving' Republicans.
It is the circle of funding for 'freedom loving' Republicans.
4
could not agree more - however it is not a blue red thing it is a total collapse of all levels of misgovernment in the areas of prediction, preparedness,and land use planning. They did everything wrong,ignored all the long terms warnings and bingo a disaster. the handwriting has been on the wall for a century or more. If I was Congress I would not give a penny for reconstruction as opposed to relief and rescue unless Texas and the counties convene a land use planning conference to determine the flood zones and get people out of harms way forever.
Texas building codes and land use planning are practically nonexistent. Texas is especially bad in those areas.
There are of course very powerful reasons to deny climate change, as profits from fossil fuels are everything. And since members of Congress owe their power and their electoral success to petroleum's campaign contributions, lawmakers will deny climate change is happening. This is what makes American "democracy" so special: The power and privilege of the few justifies the desecration of planet and Mother Nature. This is America, the land of the free and the home of the brave.
America and its democracy
America and its democracy
4
No, it is very inaccurate to say "lawmakers" deny climate change. It is ONLY Republican lawmakers who deny climate change. Painting all with the same brush harms our ability to elect those who would make positive change.
1
It doesn't matter if you deny it or not. The point is, no politician, at least in this country, ever got elected by telling their constituents they're going to pay more, sacrifice more and there may be some benefits way down the road. Aside from the fact that our economy depends on ever more consumers using ever more resources, both of which are incompatible with long term sustainability, not to mention global warming, it is basically "unamerican" to ask people to actually do anything about GW. Just ask jimmy carter.
1
A news story in this week's Science magazine notes that something called the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is in its warm phase, which favored Harvey. Human actiity, in turn might be favoring thw warm phase of the AMO. Of course there's evidence that the region had hurricanes as far back as the Cretaceous, if I remember a long-ago seminar correctly. Dinosaurs in the the wind and rain.
Political denial of climate change is popular among people who don't much like geological narratives of the past, or even historical information that interferes with their fixed notions. Jefferson treated his slaves admirably. Having become an ideological doctrine, we are likely to see Congress and the Trump Administration dismantle anything the federal government does to collect data, assess threats, or develop responses. They're not persuadable.
But it's likely that the next governor of Florida and the next state legislators, very likely to be a Texas-style Republicans except for bills that would repel tourists, will pay extra attention to the Lake Okeechobee dikes (already getting attention) and perhaps actually support local governments in their efforts to improve urban drainage systems. So far, governor Scott has vetoed such funding. Private utilities in the state are abandoning coal and building solar generating facilities because it makes economic sense. The state has no interest in supporting the coal or oil industries. So perhaps there's a bit of hope.
Political denial of climate change is popular among people who don't much like geological narratives of the past, or even historical information that interferes with their fixed notions. Jefferson treated his slaves admirably. Having become an ideological doctrine, we are likely to see Congress and the Trump Administration dismantle anything the federal government does to collect data, assess threats, or develop responses. They're not persuadable.
But it's likely that the next governor of Florida and the next state legislators, very likely to be a Texas-style Republicans except for bills that would repel tourists, will pay extra attention to the Lake Okeechobee dikes (already getting attention) and perhaps actually support local governments in their efforts to improve urban drainage systems. So far, governor Scott has vetoed such funding. Private utilities in the state are abandoning coal and building solar generating facilities because it makes economic sense. The state has no interest in supporting the coal or oil industries. So perhaps there's a bit of hope.
2
Republicans trying to make voters believe that climate science is "fake" only do so for 1 reason: polls show that 80% of 18 to 40-year old conservatives agree that the government shouldn't impose certain moral choices (it's citizens who should lead through example and sincere debates instead).
So they can't fire up their base using social issues that much anymore. And as they cannot possibly address their real agenda in Congress (which only benefits the 1% and their own wealthy donors), they needed another issue that could help them paint Dems as "evil people". So they invented the idea of climate change as a "hoax". And it worked, if you look at the polls.
Behind closed doors however, Republicans KNOW that it's real.
On July 13, for instance, the House defended a provision in the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act which identifies climate change as a “direct threat to the national security of the United States,” and requests a report from the Dep. of Defense on climate change risks to its mission over the next 20 years. 46 Republicans joined 188 Dems in supporting the provision (vote tally 234-185). They cited Sec. of Defense Mattis in his responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee, wherein he noted that climate change is a current threat that is altering the strategic environment, and presenting a range of risks to military readiness and operations.
Informing the American people of existing national security threats is the FIRST job of a president ... !
So they can't fire up their base using social issues that much anymore. And as they cannot possibly address their real agenda in Congress (which only benefits the 1% and their own wealthy donors), they needed another issue that could help them paint Dems as "evil people". So they invented the idea of climate change as a "hoax". And it worked, if you look at the polls.
Behind closed doors however, Republicans KNOW that it's real.
On July 13, for instance, the House defended a provision in the FY2018 National Defense Authorization Act which identifies climate change as a “direct threat to the national security of the United States,” and requests a report from the Dep. of Defense on climate change risks to its mission over the next 20 years. 46 Republicans joined 188 Dems in supporting the provision (vote tally 234-185). They cited Sec. of Defense Mattis in his responses to the Senate Armed Services Committee, wherein he noted that climate change is a current threat that is altering the strategic environment, and presenting a range of risks to military readiness and operations.
Informing the American people of existing national security threats is the FIRST job of a president ... !
4
Using carbon tax proceeds to pay for natural disaster relief would be entirely appropriate. Even more appropriate would be a massive class-action lawsuit against the fossil fuel industry to make them pay for the damage that their products are causing around the world. It took years to cut through the lies of the tobacco industry and assign them responsibility for the damages they have caused humanity. We shouldn't wait that long to make the fossil fuel industry pay for what the harm that they're causing.
2
Unfortunately the science is not clear at all whether an increase of CO2 concentration from 0.04 to 0.05% would cause a noticeable rise in temperature. There has been a correlation between CO 2 concentration and temperature, but correlation does not prove cause and effect relationship. A serious attempt to reduce CO 2 output is not as innocuous as politicians and media like to portray. It would seriously impair transportation, industrial production and change our entire way of life. With all this it might be useless and the world may still warm up.
Some kind of clever experimental proof is sorely needed.
Some kind of clever experimental proof is sorely needed.
1
Funding for data gathering and experimental proof has been cut. What is clear is that those who are cutting these funds do not want clarity, any more than cigarette companies wanted clarity on lung cancer or growers of corn (the source of high-fructose corn syrup) want clarity on the causes of obesity (unless this clarity shows that sugar calories have nothing to do with obesity).
2
True, there's a statistically small chance the science might be wrong, so why change our dangerous habits unless we're 100% certain?
Answer: science is a better guide to reality than right-wing disinformation.
Answer: science is a better guide to reality than right-wing disinformation.
It's funny how, when 97% of climate scientists agree that EXACTLY the kind of proof you're talking about has been shown, year after year again and for decades already, people who aren't scientists imagine that they're smarter than those scientists and could come up with some basic question that professionals who work on this day and night wouldn't even have thought about already ... ;-)
With all respect, but I sincerely don't understand how ordinary citizens can imagine that no matter who is qualified to question scientific evidence, when it comes to climate science, whereas everybody seems to understand that it's absurd to start objecting to wearing protective glasses during an eclipse because, let's say, you'd believe that "clever experimental proof is sorely needed" before you accept to put extremely cheap glasses on your nose, as you don't see how for instance such a cheap glasses could have such a powerful effect.
Exactly the same goes for your remark about the reduction of carbon emissions. Today already, big cities such as London, Paris and Berlin have ALREADY cut emissions by 20%. And it's not because you remove ordinary light bulbs and replace them with LED lights (30% CO2 reduction) in buildings and public transport, that you're somehow "seriously impairing" transportation, you see?
If you're interested in climate science and want to learn how to distinguish politics from proven evidence, here's a good start: www.skepticalscience.com.
With all respect, but I sincerely don't understand how ordinary citizens can imagine that no matter who is qualified to question scientific evidence, when it comes to climate science, whereas everybody seems to understand that it's absurd to start objecting to wearing protective glasses during an eclipse because, let's say, you'd believe that "clever experimental proof is sorely needed" before you accept to put extremely cheap glasses on your nose, as you don't see how for instance such a cheap glasses could have such a powerful effect.
Exactly the same goes for your remark about the reduction of carbon emissions. Today already, big cities such as London, Paris and Berlin have ALREADY cut emissions by 20%. And it's not because you remove ordinary light bulbs and replace them with LED lights (30% CO2 reduction) in buildings and public transport, that you're somehow "seriously impairing" transportation, you see?
If you're interested in climate science and want to learn how to distinguish politics from proven evidence, here's a good start: www.skepticalscience.com.
Coincidentally, climate change deniers may also share a belief in life after death for the same reason; an inability to comprehend the magnitude of a certainty many of us are unwilling to face. I'd like to see a study on the correlation of climate change denial with religiosity. Dollars to donuts you'll find a bingo!
I envy the comfort a strong faith offers of believers. I sincerely wish I had that to fall back on. But I'm also terrified what their equally strong dis-belief in climate change is doing to the here and now.
I envy the comfort a strong faith offers of believers. I sincerely wish I had that to fall back on. But I'm also terrified what their equally strong dis-belief in climate change is doing to the here and now.
7
I assume Kristof studied journalism in college. But it looks like he never studied earth science, or any science at all.
If he did, he'd see that there is not one shred of evidence that there has been any trend whatsoever toward more intense storms that in any way can be causally linked to human activity.
The primary reason this hurricane is noteworthy is that 6 million people live in the area, which provides the hurricane the opportunity to cause human damage. If the same hurricane happened 200 years ago (and probably did, but of course wasn't recorded), there'd have been virtually nothing human there to wreck, and nobody to wring their hands about it in apocalyptic worry.
If he did, he'd see that there is not one shred of evidence that there has been any trend whatsoever toward more intense storms that in any way can be causally linked to human activity.
The primary reason this hurricane is noteworthy is that 6 million people live in the area, which provides the hurricane the opportunity to cause human damage. If the same hurricane happened 200 years ago (and probably did, but of course wasn't recorded), there'd have been virtually nothing human there to wreck, and nobody to wring their hands about it in apocalyptic worry.
2
David. I did study "earth science". I am a scientist. As much as I would love for climate change to be a Chinese hoax, it is not. It is real. The evidence is overwhelming. I was likely the last scientist in the country to be convinced of this reality. But I am. And it is real. It has resulted in more frequent and more intense weather events. OVER TIME, this increase will accelerate. Any given event may or may not have such causality. But when considered broadly, not narrowly, the facts are irrefutable. The earth is warming and the consequences are severe.
Climate change does not care if you believe it. It will occur regardless. But all of the rest of us do care to try to do something about it.
Climate change does not care if you believe it. It will occur regardless. But all of the rest of us do care to try to do something about it.
15
If the area is prone to flooding, six million people should not live there unless they have taken measures to deal with flooding (which will involve higher taxes and limitations on certain freedoms).
4
Here are the mistakes you're making.
1. You certainly didn't consult the many links to scientific studies providing the evidence needed to make the claims Kristof is making here, because if you would have, you would never have continued believing that there's "not one shred of evidence" of more intense storms, nor that those are related to human activity.
2. Instead of reading those studies and trying to prove which calculation or measurement would contain a mistake, IF you believed one of them does, you seem to even not understand what scientists mean by "more intense hurricanes" (even though Kristof, as any good op-ed writer, explicitly explains what it means).
Contrary to what you, as an ordinary citizen, spontaneously associate with "intense hurricane", in scientific terms the intensity is NOT related to the number of human casualties (precisely because indeed, EVEN ordinary citizens may understand that that has to do with how many people live there, strength of houses built etc., rather than with the hurricane itself ... ;-)).
It's instead related to wind speed, the quantity of water it contains, how much rainfall it provokes, how long it lasts, etc.
Conclusion: maybe it's time to start reading some science before believing that you can question (let alone criticize) scientifically proven results in some credible way ... ?
1. You certainly didn't consult the many links to scientific studies providing the evidence needed to make the claims Kristof is making here, because if you would have, you would never have continued believing that there's "not one shred of evidence" of more intense storms, nor that those are related to human activity.
2. Instead of reading those studies and trying to prove which calculation or measurement would contain a mistake, IF you believed one of them does, you seem to even not understand what scientists mean by "more intense hurricanes" (even though Kristof, as any good op-ed writer, explicitly explains what it means).
Contrary to what you, as an ordinary citizen, spontaneously associate with "intense hurricane", in scientific terms the intensity is NOT related to the number of human casualties (precisely because indeed, EVEN ordinary citizens may understand that that has to do with how many people live there, strength of houses built etc., rather than with the hurricane itself ... ;-)).
It's instead related to wind speed, the quantity of water it contains, how much rainfall it provokes, how long it lasts, etc.
Conclusion: maybe it's time to start reading some science before believing that you can question (let alone criticize) scientifically proven results in some credible way ... ?
1
Even if nearly every climate scientist is wrong and the skeptics and deniers are right, the result of addressing climate change is a healthier, more beautiful, and more livable planet. Whereas, if the skeptics are wrong, and we don't address it, we will have a catastrophe that will threaten many lives, many species, and our civilization as we know it.
Why is there a choice here at all?
Why is there a choice here at all?
14
I completely agree. The potential negative outcomes from climate change are so disproportionate to the cost to address it we are completely insane to fail to address the issue.
Of course, there are a lot of people who are pretty irrational -- people still smoke, for example. Humans don't process long term risk very well.
Of course, there are a lot of people who are pretty irrational -- people still smoke, for example. Humans don't process long term risk very well.
3
Do you favour keeping the poor in the developing world poor?
Much has been said, written, proven, about climate change and how it is affecting the planet and its people.
However, we have those in power as Trump who deny climate change is causing the destruction that has devastated Houston.
I would like those that deny the scientific facts to prove their arguments that climate change does no harm.
Stan Chun
Wellington
New Zealand 3-9-2017
However, we have those in power as Trump who deny climate change is causing the destruction that has devastated Houston.
I would like those that deny the scientific facts to prove their arguments that climate change does no harm.
Stan Chun
Wellington
New Zealand 3-9-2017
2
Anthropogenic global climate disruption (including ocean acidification, that of other surface waters and the rain) now constitute THE greatest threat facing civilization, humanity — and most higher life on Earth; indeed, we are on the brink of the Earth's sixth global mass extinction (and the first since we homo sapiens came into being about 200,000 years ago). THIS is the accepted world-wide scientific consensus.
Anyone who denies this reality is either ignorant of the facts, incapable of understanding them, blinded by ideology, has vested financial interests or is starkly mentally ill — none of which are mutually exclusive.
The science is clear and unambiguous: if we are to have any hope of mitigating this growing global calamity, then we must keep at least eighty percent of the remaining carbonaceous energy sources undisturbed where they lie.
Fortunately, we have off-the-shelf technology — that will only continue to improve, while becoming more cost effective — to harness energy that is abundant, widely distributed, inexhaustible, safe, clean, environmentally friendly — and which source cost is identically zero.
Modernizing our energy infrastructure, and migrating away from the energy sources of the eighteenth, nineteenth and through the mid-twentieth centuries, to those of the twenty-first — and well beyond — will create generations of good, clean and far safer jobs than those of carbon and nuclear fission-based energy.
These ARE facts; they cannot be disputed.
Anyone who denies this reality is either ignorant of the facts, incapable of understanding them, blinded by ideology, has vested financial interests or is starkly mentally ill — none of which are mutually exclusive.
The science is clear and unambiguous: if we are to have any hope of mitigating this growing global calamity, then we must keep at least eighty percent of the remaining carbonaceous energy sources undisturbed where they lie.
Fortunately, we have off-the-shelf technology — that will only continue to improve, while becoming more cost effective — to harness energy that is abundant, widely distributed, inexhaustible, safe, clean, environmentally friendly — and which source cost is identically zero.
Modernizing our energy infrastructure, and migrating away from the energy sources of the eighteenth, nineteenth and through the mid-twentieth centuries, to those of the twenty-first — and well beyond — will create generations of good, clean and far safer jobs than those of carbon and nuclear fission-based energy.
These ARE facts; they cannot be disputed.
15
Unfortunately, it's worse than that.
Biologists first warned us that we might be on the brink of the sixth extension in the 1980s. By the end of the 20th century, 70% of biologists confirmed that the sixth extinction had ALREADY begun, and today nobody is doubting this fact anymore.
One of the best books explaining and describing the sixth extinction in detail is "The Sixth Extinction" written by Elizabeth Kolbert.
Today, the rate of extinction of species is 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates ... . That's why acting NOW, and on a global scale, is SO urgent.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
Biologists first warned us that we might be on the brink of the sixth extension in the 1980s. By the end of the 20th century, 70% of biologists confirmed that the sixth extinction had ALREADY begun, and today nobody is doubting this fact anymore.
One of the best books explaining and describing the sixth extinction in detail is "The Sixth Extinction" written by Elizabeth Kolbert.
Today, the rate of extinction of species is 100 to 1,000 times higher than natural background rates ... . That's why acting NOW, and on a global scale, is SO urgent.
More info:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
1
Not going to happen. First, politicians know that it is far easier to tell people that the other side wants to ruin/take their lifestyle away ( thereby stalling any real progress) and second there are 325 million Americans and 7.5 billion people on earth. Under no scenario envisioned, will the planet and its other inhabitants last long term no matter what technology we employ. There are simply too many of us.
2
Absolutely. And while we are experiencing the pain and then talking about what to do, we need to honestly apply medicine to cure our omnivorous uses of fossil fuels. Everyone look in the mirror and stop blaming everything else as to why things are as they are.
We're all denying climate change (global warming) science to some degree. We deny our individual and collective impact by living in ways that are unsustainable and beyond the means of the planet to to support. We pollute, deplete resources, over consume and essentially pretend that our behavior has no consequence. In the case of Houston and surrounding areas, the biggest threat now faced is how to manage when the area wells, the ground, and homes are contaminated with toxic chemicals and bacteria. How are the millions affected to cope?
10
I have thought for years that the only way to get the US to really move on climate change is when the Republican base starts to be direct victims of it. But that they and their political leaders remain unconvinced is astonishing and sort of like continuing to believe that Earth is only 6,000 years old despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. What more will it take?
9
The widespread flooding of Hurricane Harvey is a good time to talk about climate change and global warming. It is a good time to bring up Donald Trump’s allegiance to the climate-change deniers.
This coming winter, after the first big blizzard, Trump’s supporters will ask us to explain our belief in global warming.
Be ready.
This coming winter, after the first big blizzard, Trump’s supporters will ask us to explain our belief in global warming.
Be ready.
5
Recent advances at the Universities of Arizona and Montana (and elsewhere) have improved the prospect of carbon capture and sequestration from ambient air. Discoveries in the chemical reactions between carbon dioxide and basalt have accelerated the solidification of CO2 into limestone by several orders of magnitude. Given the intransigence of the Republicans to reducing carbon outflows, a "Manhattan Project" approach to carbon sequestration, globally implemented, seems tailor-made to help mitigate the problem, along with advances in solar, wind, tidal, geothermal sources of clean energy.
2
"We address a threat from the Islamic State or North Korea even when it’s complicated and hard to assess.". no, we don't. we may talk about it but we don't deal with it. instead, the President turns over his proper role as Commander-in-Chief to Generals who view military withdrawal as anathema to their profession (e.g. in Afghanstan).
4
Had a big hail storm and need a new roof - Trump wants to deport my roofer. Those Trump voters flogged by globalization will be flocking to become roofers - you bet.
Need more engineers to design products for the warmer world - Trump wants to deport the DREAMERS headed to our colleges. Those Trump voters flogged by automation will be learning calculus to become engineers - you bet.
Need infrastructure to deal with heavier rains dealt us by climate change - Trump wants to build a wall. Those Trump voters working 3 jobs with no benefits will volunteer to construct the sea walls since the GOP won't be paying to build that stuff- you bet.
Every day is a screaming contradiction between reality and the GOP's policies. Irma may winding up to land punch 2. Pretty sure that won't change any Right-Thinking minds - politics is a contact sport and Republicans aren't wearing helmets. CTE is seen in the 84% of Republicans who still approve of Trump. Ideology is a disease and the GOP has a lethal case.
Need more engineers to design products for the warmer world - Trump wants to deport the DREAMERS headed to our colleges. Those Trump voters flogged by automation will be learning calculus to become engineers - you bet.
Need infrastructure to deal with heavier rains dealt us by climate change - Trump wants to build a wall. Those Trump voters working 3 jobs with no benefits will volunteer to construct the sea walls since the GOP won't be paying to build that stuff- you bet.
Every day is a screaming contradiction between reality and the GOP's policies. Irma may winding up to land punch 2. Pretty sure that won't change any Right-Thinking minds - politics is a contact sport and Republicans aren't wearing helmets. CTE is seen in the 84% of Republicans who still approve of Trump. Ideology is a disease and the GOP has a lethal case.
12
Great article. Thank you. Also want to suggest another, often ignored, way in which we all can make a change on a daily basis: By eliminating or reducing meat and dairy from our diets. Not often talked about, but animal agriculture is one of the greatest factors in deforestation, greenhouse gas emission and desertification of the earth. People can make huge strides to reverse climate change on the grassroots level simply by buying different things at the grocery store, and yet, we seem to either be unaware of these facts, or not pay a lot of heed to them....
11
We are descended from early humans with two limitations: short lives and small communities. We don't naturally project past our 30's and we don't naturally care about more than 30 or 40 related animals. Unfortunately, a quirk of evolution has gifted us the poisoned chalice of global impact. Without the wisdom to manage it.
9
The biggest reason to deny climate change is equality. We will have to see ourselves as something fundamentally connected and 'one'. That's not a good idea for rugged individualism and billionaires and gospel of wealth.
We are fed from the trough of the wealthy. They sit on the corporate boards, they rule from the courts and the Congress. We now have a billionaire (at least he likes to brag that he is) as our President. Can't get much worse.
So the idea of coming together, of unity, rings hollow because it is. We're the worst at equality in the industrial world. We don't even want to give our citizens access to health care, due to the chorus of 'freedom' or 'states rights' and such. So, the rich are well taken care of here, and the poor are left to be 'free' with no adequate standard of living, quality of life.
We are not the best type of Christian nation, for that one would surely be less attracted to and seduced by lucre and material wealth. Climate change requires spiritual change. That's the real denial.
So, yes, love your neighbor. Love this magic planet in the middle of a cold and dark universe. Love and love well. And help us see our reckless habits that aid the warming of the earth, into a dangerous imbalance, as the challenge of our lives. Moving towards more green energy resources, probably more mass transit and less personal transit, a deeper commitment to society and less to 'me', will be a revolution of the heart. That could be start of a better world.
We are fed from the trough of the wealthy. They sit on the corporate boards, they rule from the courts and the Congress. We now have a billionaire (at least he likes to brag that he is) as our President. Can't get much worse.
So the idea of coming together, of unity, rings hollow because it is. We're the worst at equality in the industrial world. We don't even want to give our citizens access to health care, due to the chorus of 'freedom' or 'states rights' and such. So, the rich are well taken care of here, and the poor are left to be 'free' with no adequate standard of living, quality of life.
We are not the best type of Christian nation, for that one would surely be less attracted to and seduced by lucre and material wealth. Climate change requires spiritual change. That's the real denial.
So, yes, love your neighbor. Love this magic planet in the middle of a cold and dark universe. Love and love well. And help us see our reckless habits that aid the warming of the earth, into a dangerous imbalance, as the challenge of our lives. Moving towards more green energy resources, probably more mass transit and less personal transit, a deeper commitment to society and less to 'me', will be a revolution of the heart. That could be start of a better world.
13
One could argue that it is the lack of an ethical, what you may refer to as spiritual, compass that has led to the problem of human resource abuse/overshoot (and climate change is one of the symptoms). The pursuit of material wealth and fame and power at all costs by many humans has led to this predicament. You're right that accepting and getting over it, if it is not too late, will require a massive paradigm shift in the way we think about ourselves.
2
We treat the planet like we treat each other... and we don't treat each other very well...
1
yes, too true.....but many are very compassionate and giving and we can see that there is a greater good....a better world is possible....
For far too long man has been in denial about the effects of his destructive actions on the environment. Watching the polar ice cap release fragments the size of cities, it is hard to get much reassurance from any climate accords this late in the game. Rising sea levels due to global warming also create an imbalance to our polar ice caps increasing the stress on the Earths tectonic plates, especially at the time of the winter solstice, when the earth changes it's directional tilt producing our seasons.The 2004 boxer day earthquake, and resulting tsunami in Indonesia, was just a precursor of similar events to come. We are running short of time to adequately prepare our nuclear storage sites along the pacific rim especially the one at the Hanford nuclear reservation on the Columbia River. The disruption of stored nuclear waste due to increased plate movements could cause a type of destruction that would have us longing for the days when all we had to deal with was the flooding of our coastal cities.
5
Just to be more precise, the Earth's tilt does not change (much) within a year - the cycles for the change in tilt that cause a difference in the seasons are much longer. It's just the fact that there is a tilt that causes the seasons.
Many scientist agree that the unfettered growth in Houston has covered (cemented) over lands that were once open soil and would allow rains to be absorbed into the ground cover. With all this open lands cemented over, the rain had nowhere to go except to flood these concreted over lands with no viable means of escape. Yes, it was too much rain, too fast, caused by global climate change, but some of the undeveloped land would have helped to sop up some of the huge rains. This will happen all over the U.S. when we leave no viable options as to where and how these rains can be absorbed.
The rain, not be left untethered, with no option as to it’s ability so as some of it can be naturally absorbed rather than run rampant down these city street sis a show for a recipe for disaster. Not rocket science, just plan common sense. And not me, a layman, but a laymen with SCIENCE on his side. Get smart in city planning and don't let this happen again or at least not with such devastating effect. Plan ahead and grow slowly with an agenda, and not just growth without responsibility and foresight.
The rain, not be left untethered, with no option as to it’s ability so as some of it can be naturally absorbed rather than run rampant down these city street sis a show for a recipe for disaster. Not rocket science, just plan common sense. And not me, a layman, but a laymen with SCIENCE on his side. Get smart in city planning and don't let this happen again or at least not with such devastating effect. Plan ahead and grow slowly with an agenda, and not just growth without responsibility and foresight.
5
How many of Trump's advisory and legislative minions still subscribe to the following sustained line of "reasoning"?
There is no global climate change.
Even if there were such change, it is not due to human activity; and even if it were due to human agency, there is nothing we now can do about it; and even if there was something we mere mortals could do about it, it would cost too much to intervene; and even if it would not cost too much to intervene, why should we bother? It costs us absolutely nothing to continue burning fossil fuels, to eliminate regulations that protect the environment and public health, and just to sit here and be flooded, swelter and fry. Just remember to avoid the droughts and wildfires.
As long as major corporations prosper it is far more cost effective just to sit here and endure the flooding, sweltering and frying--or droughts and burning--as best and for as long as we can.
Obviously, there is no need to pay any attention to those alarmist scientists and their rantings about some purported global climate change.
Besides, we are in the End Times anyway and we have known for millennia that the long scheduled Wrath would descend upon us.
Well--with Hurricane Harvey, wide spread droughts here at home and in Africa and the Near East, the dislocation of peoples, rampant Western wildfires, et al.--here and now it descends!
The great gettin' up morning is surely at hand!
There is no global climate change.
Even if there were such change, it is not due to human activity; and even if it were due to human agency, there is nothing we now can do about it; and even if there was something we mere mortals could do about it, it would cost too much to intervene; and even if it would not cost too much to intervene, why should we bother? It costs us absolutely nothing to continue burning fossil fuels, to eliminate regulations that protect the environment and public health, and just to sit here and be flooded, swelter and fry. Just remember to avoid the droughts and wildfires.
As long as major corporations prosper it is far more cost effective just to sit here and endure the flooding, sweltering and frying--or droughts and burning--as best and for as long as we can.
Obviously, there is no need to pay any attention to those alarmist scientists and their rantings about some purported global climate change.
Besides, we are in the End Times anyway and we have known for millennia that the long scheduled Wrath would descend upon us.
Well--with Hurricane Harvey, wide spread droughts here at home and in Africa and the Near East, the dislocation of peoples, rampant Western wildfires, et al.--here and now it descends!
The great gettin' up morning is surely at hand!
3
Wind systems? No! Harvey's stall over Texas had nothing to do with "wind systems." The upper Bermuda ridge extended westward into the Gulf of Mexico steering Harvey northwestward and as that ridge relaxed and retreated, a 2nd upper ridge that has been responsible for baking parts of the Western United States was able to block Harvey's movement northward. It would later take an upper level trough to kick Harvey slightly eastward and then northeastward. As for Climate Change; I agree but I don't believe there's enough evidence to suggest we'll have more tropical cyclones but the ones we do have will have the potential higher energy that a warming planet has the ability to have more water vapor thus more proficient and efficient rainfall as evident with Harvey. The only reason any city is a sitting duck has zero to do with cyclones and everything to do with people and poor planning and recognizing the vulnerability of coastal communities and either build vertical or further inland. I get there will be natural disasters but we have to rethink all of this and build smarter. Harvey is likely to cost the federal government in excess of $150B when it is all said and done and I believe that money could be spent better than it will be. And let's not forget Irma which appears to be making an Atlantic coast landfall in just over a week. Once in a 1000 year flood; we say that a lot now; one in 100 or one in 500...with increasing frequency.
4
Climate change is a problem of paramount importance. We progressives also should point out that a major aspect of the Harvey horror needs to be thoroughly exposed and addressed.
Due to the Texas GOP politicians' anti-regulatory fervor, even after the floodwaters have receded, Southeast Texas will remain an environmental and ecological disaster area. The noxious air may soon dissipate, but the chemical pollution of water and soil will threaten the health and wellbeing of Southeastern Texans for years.
EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt will do all within his power to assure the Texification of the nation--to assure that wealthy corporations, due to extreme environmental deregulation, will reap massive short-term profits at great long-term costs to the general public.
Due to the Texas GOP politicians' anti-regulatory fervor, even after the floodwaters have receded, Southeast Texas will remain an environmental and ecological disaster area. The noxious air may soon dissipate, but the chemical pollution of water and soil will threaten the health and wellbeing of Southeastern Texans for years.
EPA Secretary Scott Pruitt will do all within his power to assure the Texification of the nation--to assure that wealthy corporations, due to extreme environmental deregulation, will reap massive short-term profits at great long-term costs to the general public.
4
In my research of political opinion on climate change, I have found that some GOP members believe that the Earth is warming and that the Climate is Changing as a result.
Where deniers seem to have difficulty is connecting global warming with the combustion of fossil fuels for electric power and transportation, and making cement. They don't want to believe that the carbon dioxide, methane, and other global warming gasses are causing the climate to warm and they feel the greatest disaster will be from the hardship of terminating the use of fossil fuels.
I suggest an experiment for President Trump where I imagine him inviting some chemical engineering students to run the experiment described in Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook that would demonstrate that a tiny amount of carbon dioxide is added to a confined glass cover White House air and then watch the temperature rise. Of course, he would invite his Cabinet their and his grandchildren to see the temperature rise on n several digital thermometer displays so that the results will be clear for the viewing audience (assuming this is a TV event). Then he could have a briefing on the findings of our ice core bubble count and also changes that have been discovered in the archaeological record of the Earth. Wow!
No need to panic just figure out how to evolve fossil industry workers to electric transport and space solar, both much cheaper energy than we have now. Carefully described in Jim Powell's book "Silent Earth".
Where deniers seem to have difficulty is connecting global warming with the combustion of fossil fuels for electric power and transportation, and making cement. They don't want to believe that the carbon dioxide, methane, and other global warming gasses are causing the climate to warm and they feel the greatest disaster will be from the hardship of terminating the use of fossil fuels.
I suggest an experiment for President Trump where I imagine him inviting some chemical engineering students to run the experiment described in Perry's Chemical Engineers Handbook that would demonstrate that a tiny amount of carbon dioxide is added to a confined glass cover White House air and then watch the temperature rise. Of course, he would invite his Cabinet their and his grandchildren to see the temperature rise on n several digital thermometer displays so that the results will be clear for the viewing audience (assuming this is a TV event). Then he could have a briefing on the findings of our ice core bubble count and also changes that have been discovered in the archaeological record of the Earth. Wow!
No need to panic just figure out how to evolve fossil industry workers to electric transport and space solar, both much cheaper energy than we have now. Carefully described in Jim Powell's book "Silent Earth".
3
A common denial of climate science is that the scientists, may of them "elite" professors, are rigging the research in order to keep their government grants coming in. How this can also be true for those who work in other nations, how it can be true for the Exxon scientists who were not depending on government largess is a mystery. Another argument rests on the notion that weather and its changing patterns is the same as climate change and global warming. The weather is always changing, there have been powerful storms, hot time and cold times in the past. Therefore, the substantial increase of emissions/pollution in the past 100 years or so can not possibly be relevant.
In recent years, the denier propagandists have overwhelmed legitimate education, and today there's a growing movement to denounce learning and the acquisition of knowledge beyond one's personal beliefs and deliberate ignorance.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
In recent years, the denier propagandists have overwhelmed legitimate education, and today there's a growing movement to denounce learning and the acquisition of knowledge beyond one's personal beliefs and deliberate ignorance.
Doug Giebel, Big Sandy, Montana
4
I don't have enough knowledge to link the disaster Harvey brings to climate change. However I do know that the infrastructure of southern Texas and Huston were not prepared for the extreme weather. I do know that burning coal to generate electricity contributes to unusual hot temperature and air pollution in Taiwan, and global warming. Trump wants to revive coal industry, it is a pipe dream to begin with, and just how much damage that would do to our immediate environment? Global warming is a fact, whether it is man-made or otherwise, we still have to be prepared for it. If we can do whatever we can not to exacerbate it, why not? The deniers of man-made global warming seem to me just throw in the towel and let the fate determine human survival. Sad!
5
Very simple. Hotter ocean evaporates faster. Hotter air holds more water. Ergo, what would be a minor storm if the weather was cooler, becomes a major storm when the weather is warmer. We are talking one degree change making a difference.
That is about the science of it. Not sure you were asking, but readers who think like you may want to know. Houston area had eight cubic miles of water fall on it pretty much in one or two shots because of a warm ocean and warm air. Infrastructure or not, nothing could have survived that.
Kalidan
That is about the science of it. Not sure you were asking, but readers who think like you may want to know. Houston area had eight cubic miles of water fall on it pretty much in one or two shots because of a warm ocean and warm air. Infrastructure or not, nothing could have survived that.
Kalidan
4
When resistance to science based information is coupled
with corporate concern for profit...I don't think there's any hope.
with corporate concern for profit...I don't think there's any hope.
13
It’s so much easier to believe that there isn’t a problem with climate change, just as it was easier to believe that cigarettes don’t cause cancer, when the tobacco company executives told us that tobacco was safe. If you don’t think climate change is real, you don’t have to lie awake wondering if you can afford flood insurance, or what kind of life your grandchildren will have. If climate change is just a plot cooked up by eastern elites—a big fake propagated by liberals—then you won’t ever be in a 500-year flood, right? So why worry about a problem that’s never going to happen?
If there are any advertising or communications geniuses out there who could help convince the climate skeptics that climate change is real (and that we should vote for politicians who are willing to address the problem), now would be a very good time to step forward and sign up for the task. The climate—and the world—you save, could be your own.
If there are any advertising or communications geniuses out there who could help convince the climate skeptics that climate change is real (and that we should vote for politicians who are willing to address the problem), now would be a very good time to step forward and sign up for the task. The climate—and the world—you save, could be your own.
19
It's all so obvious when one observes and thinks about it, the increased energy (heat) in the system, the disruption, the increased water vapor, the melting ice, the rising seas, the moving populations of flora and fauna, the blocking patterns, but there are none so blind as those who will not see.
We're not supposed to talk about it when it's not happening because it's not happening, and we're not supposed to talk about it when it's happening, because it's happening. It's that obvious, the manipulation, the reversal of sense, the constant attacks, varied to wiggle away from sense and sensibility under any and all circumstances.
I used to notice that the moment I came up with a new way to point up the truth, my words would be twisted, their meaning reversed, often within 24 hours. That's the whole business of fake news, to claim that black is white. When it becomes a childlike namecalling game, there is no chance for thought or curiosity.
Most of all, there appears to be an eagerness to prevent us thinking or exercising curiosity,, or connecting cause with effect.
Thanks, anyway, for a well supported and referenced article that just might persuade a few people to stop and think if they really want to go on trashing their hospitable home, and fighting with their neighbors instead of working together to solve problems.
We're not supposed to talk about it when it's not happening because it's not happening, and we're not supposed to talk about it when it's happening, because it's happening. It's that obvious, the manipulation, the reversal of sense, the constant attacks, varied to wiggle away from sense and sensibility under any and all circumstances.
I used to notice that the moment I came up with a new way to point up the truth, my words would be twisted, their meaning reversed, often within 24 hours. That's the whole business of fake news, to claim that black is white. When it becomes a childlike namecalling game, there is no chance for thought or curiosity.
Most of all, there appears to be an eagerness to prevent us thinking or exercising curiosity,, or connecting cause with effect.
Thanks, anyway, for a well supported and referenced article that just might persuade a few people to stop and think if they really want to go on trashing their hospitable home, and fighting with their neighbors instead of working together to solve problems.
13
Yes, it is true that people need to consider the human aspect contributing to global warming, but the Houston disaster is the last place to take up the conversation because the frequency and strength of hurricanes is the least understood aspect in the development of climate science. Oversell that limited understanding and you give aid and comfort to those who don't want to hear it to begin with. It's on a par with claiming a chilly New England summer disproves AGW theory.
2
Too bad he mentions a couple of experts that sustain that thought. Or?
This is exactly why it is so easy for those that so desire to deny the human causality of climate change. As in this case, those who support the idea as a political cause point to any specific weather event and thump their chests, certain that the abnormal rainfall, snowfall or wind in some particular storm is the result of warming. I am a scientist, and I completely agree that human activity is a major contributor to readily observable changes in climate, but there is no evidence that Harvey, or Katrina, or Superstorm Sandy is a result thereof. Harvey would have been a modest storm had steering currents favored its rapid passage onto land, and Katrina, while a powerful storm elsewhere, is best known for its effects on New Orleans, where it was a quite modest storm until antiquated pump and canal systems broke down and the city flooded.
By overstating the influence of climate change on individual local weather events you make it easy for deniers to use the most powerful tool in scientific inquiry, negative exclusion, to challenge the entire hypothesis. There are plenty of global climate trends that provide support for the hypothesis, and long-term predictions of the effects on global weather patterns will allow climate scientists to compare trends over time. It adds nothing and detracts much to say 'I told you so!' every time there's a great storm. There have always been great storms and great droughts.
By overstating the influence of climate change on individual local weather events you make it easy for deniers to use the most powerful tool in scientific inquiry, negative exclusion, to challenge the entire hypothesis. There are plenty of global climate trends that provide support for the hypothesis, and long-term predictions of the effects on global weather patterns will allow climate scientists to compare trends over time. It adds nothing and detracts much to say 'I told you so!' every time there's a great storm. There have always been great storms and great droughts.
1
You missed that part:
"Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey in place over Houston"
Kristof is not pulling this out of his hat. We are in the danger of soft talking while hard realities kick in, more often and often. And step by step we slide down.
The delay and see attitude has brought us already very far, down the road.
"Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell. He notes that there’s also a third way, not yet proven, in which climate change may be implicated: As Arctic sea ice is lost, wind systems can meander and create blockages — like those that locked Harvey in place over Houston"
Kristof is not pulling this out of his hat. We are in the danger of soft talking while hard realities kick in, more often and often. And step by step we slide down.
The delay and see attitude has brought us already very far, down the road.
11
Scientists (I am one) are generally very conservative, and this has led to them being too careful in this area. I think it's better to shout "fire" and be wrong in this case rather than waffle around the issue. It's not about a specific link as Kristof notes - it's the general logic. A warmer world puts us in a new climate normal which we've not evolved for and while we MAY adapt (which I doubt, at some point), other organisms may not.
Back in the 60s' when global warming was 1st discussed, there were certain predictions made. As I follow the weather these days, those predictions are coming true. One was that storms would become more destructive as the earth warmed. That prediction has been seen.
You may not be able to prove definitively that a certain storm was helped by climate change, but the effect of storms increasing around the world in intensity is a result of climate change.
And they will keep happening while we keep adding to the heat of the earth.
You are the frog in the beaker as the water warms, refusing to accept that soon you will be boiling.
You may not be able to prove definitively that a certain storm was helped by climate change, but the effect of storms increasing around the world in intensity is a result of climate change.
And they will keep happening while we keep adding to the heat of the earth.
You are the frog in the beaker as the water warms, refusing to accept that soon you will be boiling.
The rationale for the Conservative opposition to global warming is epistemological. The overwhelming majority of conservatives are Christians and embrace a belief system based on faith and dogma, not empirical reasoning or evidence. Global warming is a scientific fact based on empirical observation, The strong opposition of many conservatives to the scientific fact of evolution is also based on a perceived threat discredit the reality of their creation myth, and other religious stories. which can't be authenticated empirically. Scientific fact has always been the mortal enemy of superstition and is viewed by those whose belief systems have no empirical basis, as potentially an existential threat, which must be discredited. So they will not acknowledge any connection between the devastation of Harvey and the reality of global warming.
13
The Pope accepts evolution. Endless numbers of conservatives are engineers and other professionals who accept science. You really have nothing but conjecture based on your own affinities and prejudices. To say "global warming is a scientific fact" is to say just about nothing, because scientists can only model what might happen, they really don't know. I'm a liberal and a scientist and atheist and what I see in the current Liberal stand on the climate is one more manifestation of the Liberal propensity to petty totalitarianism. Liberals are driven to put into effect controls on behaviors of others for their own good, usually without either good plans, or good cause. In the end it is curtailing population growth in the 3rd world that will slow carbon emissions, not regulations on people who do not want them and won't vote for them.
The statement that "global warming is a scientific fact" refers to what has been happening, not necessarily what will happen or why. The fact part is that ocean and air temperatures have risen over the last 200 years, icecaps and glaciers have been melting, arctic sea ice is less and less each year, oceans are rising etc. Those ARE facts. Your rant about Liberals is thus based on a red herring assumption of what other people are talking about.
2
@ CK " my conjecture" is based on the empirical fact that the overwhelming majority of Conservatives in the U.S. self identify as Christians and that can't help but make them more likely to reject scientific explanations or adopt religious dogma on social issues. Your anecdotal references are the exceptions that prove the rule.
1
Its time for America to begin planning for the phased removal of people from our coastal cities. You can talk all you want about controlling emissions or taking carbon out of the air, but the solid truth is that within a very short while our coasts will disappear under the onslaught of waters from melting ice at the poles and from Greenland's glaciers. It is too late in the game to change anything by eliminating the use of fossil fuels. There is plenty of arable land more than 1,000 - 1,500 feet above sea level for our people to relocate too. It is better to plan now than to chance a sudden, unexpected change in the oceans and rivers which would leave us flatfooted and unable to move away. What should please all the Republican deniers is the magnitude of work it would create. We need to begin planning right now. We may not have 50 years to wait for the deluge.
10
I agree with you but I think you are missing one thing. Chaotic reactions are always preferable to planned, controlled, reflective problem solving--if you want to make lots of money from the victims. A good plan for removal to higher ground would include ways to prevent price gouging when people are told that, oops, there's finally no more money to once again rebuild their flooded homes.
4
Wow, goofy. I live less than 90 feet from where the ocean breaks at high tide and I'm not going anywhere. Certainly some coastal areas are at some risk because of the funneling effect of storm surge. And some places that might have been developed will not be because of future considerations. But like in the Nederlands, a lot of places will be fortified against storm surge and moderate rise around a foot won't really matter. You need to spend more time by the seaside, it's good for you mind, and you won't have these fantasies about moving people who know better than to listen to you anyway.
Let's indulge some of the deniers who insist that while there may be actual warming, it's not human-caused. OK, in that case it is still prudent to take measures to prevent massive economic loss and displacement from events like Harvey, and indeed many conservatives have argued in favor of technological solutions rather than burdensome regulations to a non-problem like warming.
That said, places like Houston simply need to better prepare for massive incursions of water; more permeable surfaces, more wetlands, more canals and other conduits to divert water away from peoples' homes and channel it back to where it won't do harm, and raising elevations of roads and buildings. As much reporting has made clear, the damage of Harvey is undoubtedly much greater because of the city's much-vaunted "freedom" to develop without zoning regulations, wetlands preservation, etc.. Even if one vehemently denies global warming, that should change to make sure the next storm isn't as devastating.
That said, places like Houston simply need to better prepare for massive incursions of water; more permeable surfaces, more wetlands, more canals and other conduits to divert water away from peoples' homes and channel it back to where it won't do harm, and raising elevations of roads and buildings. As much reporting has made clear, the damage of Harvey is undoubtedly much greater because of the city's much-vaunted "freedom" to develop without zoning regulations, wetlands preservation, etc.. Even if one vehemently denies global warming, that should change to make sure the next storm isn't as devastating.
7
The great predictions from the first earth day reveal how badly scientists are at getting the future right, whereas with Eclipses, all one needs is a slide-ruler and math to get it right.
Actually they are getting it quite right. The predictions were that storms would get stronger and deadlier, which has happened. That the weather would be adversely affected and weather patterns changed, which have happened. They predicted that glaciers and the poles would melt away, which is happening along with a sea level rise.
They predicted that water temperatures would rise, which they did. And that life would suffer from the effects, which has happened. Ocean acidity has risen, killing the coral reefs. Both land and sea life has been forced to move from their normal habitats, all predicted.
It is far easier to calculate an eclipse since the universe moves in a certain pattern that doesn't change. Life however does not use any pattern that a slide rule can use, yet the predictions are proving correct.
One ignores the scientific reality of climate change at one's peril. At everyone's peril.
They predicted that water temperatures would rise, which they did. And that life would suffer from the effects, which has happened. Ocean acidity has risen, killing the coral reefs. Both land and sea life has been forced to move from their normal habitats, all predicted.
It is far easier to calculate an eclipse since the universe moves in a certain pattern that doesn't change. Life however does not use any pattern that a slide rule can use, yet the predictions are proving correct.
One ignores the scientific reality of climate change at one's peril. At everyone's peril.
Look at the predictions from Limits to Growth from 45 years back. They're largely right, at least in terms of trends. The Earth's climate and human resource use/abuse is indeed a more complex/chaotic system but it doesn't mean trends can't be ascertained and risks estimated. These are rough, not precise, like with the solar eclipse, for that nature. But whatever number you use for the ECS, the more GHG there is in the atmosphere, the warmer the Earth will get. Water vapour is the biggest contributor to global warming. But as there is more warmth, more water vapour will be produced. This produces a positive feedback loop, that is nonlinear. This kind of thinking is what is missing from your argument.
The sad scientific fact - fact, not belief - is, that even if our Republican government believed in a man-made cause for global warming - this still could have happened.
Of course - in the many stages of solving a problem, admitting there is a problem is step 1, or perhaps step 0, and we in this country are arguing about being at step 0 while "Rome" burns around us. The only reason for this is a maintenance of wealth in the hands of those who have earned it classically through petrochemical production, distribution, and use. They have cleverly turned maintenance of their social position into a religious issue to the right. And religious issues cannot be refuted. Belief exists independent of fact, and they have espoused this technique in their control of the public.
Meanwhile - there is no research going on to determine how to reverse the fact of human-driven global climate modification through introduction of carbon.
There may be no way to stop this. So while admitting humanity is causing severe weather events will get us to Step 0 of solving the problem - it is unclear to science whether or not this problem is solvable.
Thus, the best action is to understand that taking action for self-preservation in light of climate change is not "blasphemy against God" but rather, sensible protection of our children.
Of course - in the many stages of solving a problem, admitting there is a problem is step 1, or perhaps step 0, and we in this country are arguing about being at step 0 while "Rome" burns around us. The only reason for this is a maintenance of wealth in the hands of those who have earned it classically through petrochemical production, distribution, and use. They have cleverly turned maintenance of their social position into a religious issue to the right. And religious issues cannot be refuted. Belief exists independent of fact, and they have espoused this technique in their control of the public.
Meanwhile - there is no research going on to determine how to reverse the fact of human-driven global climate modification through introduction of carbon.
There may be no way to stop this. So while admitting humanity is causing severe weather events will get us to Step 0 of solving the problem - it is unclear to science whether or not this problem is solvable.
Thus, the best action is to understand that taking action for self-preservation in light of climate change is not "blasphemy against God" but rather, sensible protection of our children.
3
If you want to understand why our elected representatives, mostly republicans, deny climate change, read Dark Money, by Jane Mayer.
8
The Houston region was and is a "sitting duck " for major hurricane activity. It was 15 years age that I was teaching university students about climate change. One of the region amongst many we studied was low lying coastal areas with high population , such as the southern Texas and Louisiana .Our research concluded that such a destructive hurricane would in the next 10-20 years and would devastate this region.
For the US's Republican political leaders to deny Climate Change is irresponsible. The consequent economic and social misery it brings to the global population is
like holding a loaded gun to one's head. Sooner or later the gun will fire with unremitting national and global consequences .
For the US's Republican political leaders to deny Climate Change is irresponsible. The consequent economic and social misery it brings to the global population is
like holding a loaded gun to one's head. Sooner or later the gun will fire with unremitting national and global consequences .
11
I think it is time to move on from arguing about whether global warming is real and what our global goals for greenhouse gas production is. Its real. Not only is it real but reducing fossil fuel use has other benefits - less mercury in the food chain, less need to do fracking and hopefully fewer off shore oil wells. Let's talk about how we are going to reduce greenhouse gases. I can think of two things we can do right off the bat. Let's subsidize battery storage for grid level generated solar energy so our country can use solar energy for baseload applications and lets mandate that any new electric power plant built in the world attain at least 50% generating efficiency. Almost all of the coal fired plants in the world operate at only 33% efficiency but newer plants can operate at 50%. Finally, it is time to have a realistic discussion about nuclear power. As far as I am concerned it is a technology where you should be either all in or all out. The worst choice is what we have now which is in between. Questions concerning nuclear power that should be asked are can we do as france has done on a global basis and generate all of our electricity without the use of fossil fuels? If we accomplish this does the environmental benefit out weigh the additional risks? Is it worth taking the risk that alternatives will be cost effective in the next 20 to 30 years and will it be able to do the same job as nuclear?
8
While we're at it, how about using the term, "global warming" instead of the less informative, "climate change." Global warming is more accurate. "Climate change," while true, does not convey as much information. When historians talk of the Great Depression, they say the stock marked crashed, not that prices changed.
Global warming poses an existential threat to all large vertebrates; using language as precisely as possible increases our chance of survival.
Global warming poses an existential threat to all large vertebrates; using language as precisely as possible increases our chance of survival.
10
The switch to ''climate change'' was after obvious evidence that we had gone though a period if static or falling temperatures. Selling the scare was more important than consistency.
3
No, it was because "global warming", while accurate, isn't a complete description due to the chaotic nature of the aftereffects of the warming, which can cause more cooling in some places while warming others more (the average increases). It's more like global weirding. Climate change is accurate but inadequate I think. It's more like global weirding.
The IPCC was founded in 1988. What do you think the CD in IPCC stands for? Did you think it was originally named the IPGW?
In fact, climate change is the older term.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/cc_vs_gw.GIF
In fact, climate change is the older term.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/cc_vs_gw.GIF
The controversy is is not about climate change but about human-induced climate change. Nobody denies climate change and nobody knows how temporary or permanent it is going to be. In order to know whether it is human-induced or not it is a matter of choosing the data and interpreting it. And then, supposing the data supports the hypothesis that it is human-induced (and I believe it is), projections must be made to know what it would take for humans to alter the trend or even reverse it and then whether it is feasible technically and politically despite potential errors in models. In other words, do you make the life of people even more challenging than it is because this is potentially good for future generations? How much effort is worth it given the uncertainty? This is where politics come in and this is not an illegitimate question.
2
True enough. We had to choose between an ounce of prevention or a pound of cure. Higher carbon tax? Or mega-monster hurricanes chewing up our coastlines? It wasn't a tough choice except Exxon and Fox News didn't want us to make it so they sold their lies. The choice -- and it was an easy one -- should have been made long ago.
When it comes to life, politics should not come into play. It is like saying that if your house is on fire, which party, how much money you donated, how much support? etc should determine whether you have the fire department come to your house.
There is no such thing as "so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change." The resistance (actually, denial) is almost exclusively on the Republican side.
On, and about the absurdity of "America . . . discuss[ing] the challenge of lung cancer . . . without . . . considering tobacco policy." Well, the Republicans are doing that too, by refusing to adopt regulations that curb the nicotine content in tobacco products.
On, and about the absurdity of "America . . . discuss[ing] the challenge of lung cancer . . . without . . . considering tobacco policy." Well, the Republicans are doing that too, by refusing to adopt regulations that curb the nicotine content in tobacco products.
8
there are to reasons people deny climate change: greed and religion. those motivated by the first cause don't care about the evidence because they can insulate themselves. the second group cares more about mythology than the world we live in. both groups relied on trump to help them get their heels on the neck of the rest of us.
14
There have been three "500 year storms" in the Houston area in the last three years. Odds are there will be at least a couple more in the coming ten years. Warmer water drives bigger hurricanes; warmer air carries more moisture. Increased atmospheric CO2 means warmer water and warmer air.
Go figure. It's not that hard.
Go figure. It's not that hard.
17
Sea levels are rising, storms are becoming more intense, and there are more hurricanes. It doesn't matter if some claim they don't believe it.
This is like many Trump supporters who look past every lie, every broken promise, and every new announcement about the Russian investigation. Trump just ended many regulations that dealt with climate science, including the flood regulations.
It would be the height of irresponsibility for those in California over fault lines to not have the most updated earthquake regulations for construction and infrastructure.
Yet, we are supposed to join in the delusion that floods in flood plains are not completely predictable. Shoddy construction will cost lives; ending regulations risks the country and the planet.
Yes, join the Paris Climate Accord; add back in the carefully considered regulations of the Obama scientists and engineers. Individual cities and states should do this if Trump and the GOP continue to put greed and profit over lives and homes.
This is like many Trump supporters who look past every lie, every broken promise, and every new announcement about the Russian investigation. Trump just ended many regulations that dealt with climate science, including the flood regulations.
It would be the height of irresponsibility for those in California over fault lines to not have the most updated earthquake regulations for construction and infrastructure.
Yet, we are supposed to join in the delusion that floods in flood plains are not completely predictable. Shoddy construction will cost lives; ending regulations risks the country and the planet.
Yes, join the Paris Climate Accord; add back in the carefully considered regulations of the Obama scientists and engineers. Individual cities and states should do this if Trump and the GOP continue to put greed and profit over lives and homes.
21
One of the U.S. military's primary concerns is climate change. What a twisted reality we live in where the Commander in Chief denies the existence of something the military is acutely aware of and works diligently to mitigate its effects?
121
You have been brainwashed, the military concerns about climate change is the tale of the scorpion and the frog. One of the US military's main responsibilities overseas is to keep the oil taps open, to insure cheap carbon energy for the wealthy nations and their carbon hungry citizens. Ours is also the military that uses the most carbon energy and generates the most greenhouse gasses in the world, it uses as much carbon energy as many whole countries.
The military embracing the politics of climate change is cynical, and a highly carboniferous smokescreen.
If the world's military including our own cared about larger humanity we'd be nuclear free by now and not embrace weapons of mass destruction and perpetual warfare often over oil or other greedy economic interests.
The military embracing the politics of climate change is cynical, and a highly carboniferous smokescreen.
If the world's military including our own cared about larger humanity we'd be nuclear free by now and not embrace weapons of mass destruction and perpetual warfare often over oil or other greedy economic interests.
1
Maybe that was what Trump had a ranting raging hissy fit directed at Kelly about!
What do we do with a Party that denies climate change to the peril of humanity?
The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard required federal agencies to take sea level rise and flood risks into account when funding new infrastructure or rebuilding after disasters. It was the first new U.S. flood protection rule in 40 years. By requiring agencies to either build projects that withstand future flooding or avoid building in flood-prone areas, the new standard was supposed to move the United States toward a safer, more prepared future. Instead, Donald Trump reversed it (an Obama rule, of course!) with a stroke of his pen – making communities less safe and requiring taxpayers to pay for future destruction.
Again, how can we deal with a Party that rejects science, rejects global warming and offers no responsible ways of dealing with the new normal of a warming climate? We can no longer afford the suicide positions of the GOP. Mother Earth will survive. Homo sapiens may not if we fail to deal with the growing climate crisis.
The Federal Flood Risk Management Standard required federal agencies to take sea level rise and flood risks into account when funding new infrastructure or rebuilding after disasters. It was the first new U.S. flood protection rule in 40 years. By requiring agencies to either build projects that withstand future flooding or avoid building in flood-prone areas, the new standard was supposed to move the United States toward a safer, more prepared future. Instead, Donald Trump reversed it (an Obama rule, of course!) with a stroke of his pen – making communities less safe and requiring taxpayers to pay for future destruction.
Again, how can we deal with a Party that rejects science, rejects global warming and offers no responsible ways of dealing with the new normal of a warming climate? We can no longer afford the suicide positions of the GOP. Mother Earth will survive. Homo sapiens may not if we fail to deal with the growing climate crisis.
96
Oddly enough, these are the same folks against medically assisted suicide for people who are soon to die, in excruciating pain, and who have chosen this for themselves.
Instead they want to commit all of us to their decision to commit suicide for the entire earth.
Instead they want to commit all of us to their decision to commit suicide for the entire earth.
The Party of Stupid and Greedy needs a nation of village idiots to keep the oil profits flowing....until of course they blow up the whole damn planet.
The Republican Know Nothings will stumble over Houston's fossil-fueled storm and ignore it, just as Churchill told us.
“Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.”
― Winston S. Churchill
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin
“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.”
― Isaac Newton
“There is nothing in the record of the past two years when both Houses of Congress have been controlled by the Republican Party which can lead any person to believe that those promises will be fulfilled in the future. They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.”
― John F. Kennedy
“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”
― Robert Orben
Nice GOPeople.
The Republican Know Nothings will stumble over Houston's fossil-fueled storm and ignore it, just as Churchill told us.
“Occasionally he stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened.”
― Winston S. Churchill
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
― Isaac Asimov
“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”
― Charles Darwin
“I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies but not the madness of people.”
― Isaac Newton
“There is nothing in the record of the past two years when both Houses of Congress have been controlled by the Republican Party which can lead any person to believe that those promises will be fulfilled in the future. They follow the Hitler line - no matter how big the lie; repeat it often enough and the masses will regard it as truth.”
― John F. Kennedy
“If you think education is expensive, try ignorance.”
― Robert Orben
Nice GOPeople.
407
No one else above you tonight in this column leads with anger, but yours is well-trained.
3
Harvey is the time to talk about urban planning, wHere to build, how to build everywhere and so on and so forth rather than about the three people who deny whatever about climate whatever.
8
There is no mystery why. It is due to entrenched fossil fuel money; most prominently from Koch Industries. There are deep pockets sowing doubt and it is cast about by the likes of Fox News and Briebart. It finds fertile ground in economically beleaguered Americans who have built their car dependent lives around cheap gasoline. More disasters will be necessary to waken them from the slumber of modern life.
11
Unfortunately this is too true, and at that time it may just be too late to save life on our planet.
5
Simple. It's climate. Not climate change.
3
You say you don't believe climate change is real. I think it is. Rather than argue the merits, let me ask you a few questions:
1. What's the worst that can happen if I am wrong? Cleaner air and water, less asthma and pulmonary disease, development of alternative technologies to replace fossil fuels, which are, after all finite.
2. Now: What's the worst that can happen if you are wrong?
1. What's the worst that can happen if I am wrong? Cleaner air and water, less asthma and pulmonary disease, development of alternative technologies to replace fossil fuels, which are, after all finite.
2. Now: What's the worst that can happen if you are wrong?
146
If you are wrong, we would have spent large amounts of finite resources on a non-problem instead of spending them on real problems. As for replacing fossil fuels, it means putting people out of business. Be that as it may, the only real alternative is nuclear power, which unfortunately liberals killed in the 1970s and 1980s. But if now, liberals want nuclear power, I'm all for that.
3
"If you are wrong, we would have spent large amounts of finite resources on a non-problem instead of spending them on real problems."
-------
Actually, almost all the actions taken to combat climate change are what are known as "no regrets policies." That means that, even if climate change turns out not to be human-caused, the effects from those actions will provide other benefits, such as more efficient use of resources, which provide economic benefits.
We DO know that increasing CO2 levels are causing ocean acidification, regardless of their impact on climate. That is a serious problem in and of itself.
-------
Actually, almost all the actions taken to combat climate change are what are known as "no regrets policies." That means that, even if climate change turns out not to be human-caused, the effects from those actions will provide other benefits, such as more efficient use of resources, which provide economic benefits.
We DO know that increasing CO2 levels are causing ocean acidification, regardless of their impact on climate. That is a serious problem in and of itself.
7
As Upton Sinclair said: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. There has been a concerted effort by many GOP to keep America in the dark about climate change. Follow the money to find out how wealthy power brokers put their own interests above American lives.
22
Our society is getting oh so predictable. A mass shooting is sure to be followed by a plea to treat gun violence as a public health issue while at the same time the sales of gun increases dramatically. A weather related disaster similarly results in pleas to take steps to help reverse climate change while at the same time the resistance to such steps increases. Guess who is winning?
3
Maybe the better question is, "Guess who is losing?"
4
Well we are all losing right now, just some people don't realize it.
Thank G_d the Resistance is winning... a rare case where common sense triumphs over Chicken Little alarmism. You don't know that the current heat-wave, as it were, is anthropogenic, it's only a guess, and even if it is, you have little hope of containing it, even less of reversing it, and even if you could, would that be such a grand idea?
It's 'interesting' that climate change denialists, like some in Republican congress, will readily state when challenged 'I am not a scientist', yet many of these same self admitted non-scientists have likely never read a scientifically reviewed and accredited study on climate change.
But somehow with their sophomoric words, we are supposed to believe they know anything about it.
It is all about preservation of the status quo, to continue to enrich individuals and companies which make exceedingly large amounts of money from fossil fuel extraction and burning. Trump himself during his campaign said 'I am a developer' and remarkably when speaking about our scaling back the extensive federal ownership of public lands that this would be his 'biggest real estate deal ever'.
There is a sharp divide in this country, those who recognize the very grave threats that climate change poses, and those who could care less as long as they can line their pockets without all of those pesky environmental regulations. Anything that costs them a dime is anathema to them.
But somehow with their sophomoric words, we are supposed to believe they know anything about it.
It is all about preservation of the status quo, to continue to enrich individuals and companies which make exceedingly large amounts of money from fossil fuel extraction and burning. Trump himself during his campaign said 'I am a developer' and remarkably when speaking about our scaling back the extensive federal ownership of public lands that this would be his 'biggest real estate deal ever'.
There is a sharp divide in this country, those who recognize the very grave threats that climate change poses, and those who could care less as long as they can line their pockets without all of those pesky environmental regulations. Anything that costs them a dime is anathema to them.
24
The reason they preface their statements with "I am not a scientist" is to brand themselves for their audience. When a right wing voter smells "science", he wants to hold his nose. Conservative children don't like to be told to pick up their toys and use their words instead of hitting.
2
Mr. Kristof, I'll ask you thesame questions I ask everyone who insists that we must do something, anything!, about 'climate change now.
1) what steps do we take?
2) at what cost?
3) to what effect? i.e. what impact on 'climate change' and when?
4) who pays?
the fact is that there are many more important public health/safety issues worldwide where money will have an immediate impact on the health/safety/welfare of people. Clean drinking water, sanitation infrastructure and immunization programs quickly come to mind. Climate change is real, just as it has been for millennia. Man-made 'climate change' is but a small component of that and efforts to combat climate change under the umbrella of 'man-made' are just redistribution schemes and crony capitalism.
1) what steps do we take?
2) at what cost?
3) to what effect? i.e. what impact on 'climate change' and when?
4) who pays?
the fact is that there are many more important public health/safety issues worldwide where money will have an immediate impact on the health/safety/welfare of people. Clean drinking water, sanitation infrastructure and immunization programs quickly come to mind. Climate change is real, just as it has been for millennia. Man-made 'climate change' is but a small component of that and efforts to combat climate change under the umbrella of 'man-made' are just redistribution schemes and crony capitalism.
7
JB--good questions.
And the costs of many steps immediately result in improvements and savings.
Thus, you have outlined an excellent story, or serious of stories, for NYT.
As a science writer, I hope they will follow through! Very doable!
And the costs of many steps immediately result in improvements and savings.
Thus, you have outlined an excellent story, or serious of stories, for NYT.
As a science writer, I hope they will follow through! Very doable!
2
They don't want to talk about the solution because it involves the other N word, nuclear power. They don't really mind it ( most are OK with the continued use of nuclear power and the the modest expansion of it throughout the world. They just don't want to embrace it. Hence the incessant complaining about how people deny global warming is real. By the way if everyone was like france which generates 91% of their electricity without fossil fuels ( mostly nuclear) we would reduce greenhouse gases by 40% and the growth of CO2 would drop to almost zero because of CO2 sequestration by the worlds oceans. Yes we can generate a lot of electricity with renewables but nuclear is necessary to eliminate greenhouse gases in the generation of electricity
2
Well you may have heard about government initiatives to promote alternative energy production. New industries employing more people. Scotland had some days this year when wind and solar production met all electricity demand. Obama had started ... but you probably don't want to hear that, or the gas targets he set in return for the bail out of the American car industry. The real champion though, since America decided to drop out, will be China who is investing heavily.
So who pays?
Well, America will pay, and pay dearly, for getting left behind in the technology of the future.
So who pays?
Well, America will pay, and pay dearly, for getting left behind in the technology of the future.
9
More important than whether climate change specifically exacerbated or even caused Harvey is the need to recognize that the destruction caused by Harvey is an example of what lies in store in the future, as the result of climate change.
4
Unless Trump Tower goes under water - Trump will continue denying climate change.
5
Trump would just blame Obama for leaving the spigot on in the washroom.
Good question. I give up, why?
There are a lot of very rich, powerful people (i.e. The Koch Brothers) who stand to lose a lot of money if we acknowledge that climate change is all too real. They'd rather thousands die and billions of tax dollars be spent that sacrifice any part of their wealth.
12
Even more than abject greed they couldn't accept the fallacy of their political dogma.
1
Really? Do you really think the Kochs - or anyone - want thousands to die for the sake of a few bucks? Such an allegation requires evidence.
The earth goes through heating and cooling cycles. There is no reason to think that any human activity is changing, or could even hope to change, that cycle.
However, Al Gore's bank account is enough to show that there will always be enormous rewards for scaring people into spending money to placate their feelings of worry.
Barack Obama's neglect of actual issues to flush the United Nations' climate racket with cash shows us the climate scare draws tons of publicity.
Nicholas' climate theory would also have to allow for the past twelve years without a Category 4 or 5 storm, and I have seen nothing to indicate he has facts to hold that up.
However, Al Gore's bank account is enough to show that there will always be enormous rewards for scaring people into spending money to placate their feelings of worry.
Barack Obama's neglect of actual issues to flush the United Nations' climate racket with cash shows us the climate scare draws tons of publicity.
Nicholas' climate theory would also have to allow for the past twelve years without a Category 4 or 5 storm, and I have seen nothing to indicate he has facts to hold that up.
7
Except for the little fact that scientists can compute the effect of increasing greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and it is what we are seeing, e.g. temperature increases and increases in massive precipitation events. (Kind of like predicting when and where a solar eclipse will occur, you know, physics and math.) The vast majority of scientists who have studied this issue all agree, as well as all major scientific societies in the world.
10
It's on the issue of manmade climate change where the right wing really goes off the rails. They'd rather believe it's a crazy global conspiracy than believe obvious scientific fact.
1
Completely different from predicting an eclipse. You know, chaos theory and all that?
1
In Manhattan Playwright Dr. Larry Myers of St John's University & Director of The Playwrights Sanctuary is headed to Houston. Myers' Sanctuary was endorsed by the late legendary Playwright Edward Albee as Myers sponsors newer & younger dramatists penning plays about serious issues like climate change. Albee s Pulitzer winning "Seascape" predated many eco-concerned newer works. Myers was a Post Katrina & post Sandy volunteer. His innovative service/learning theories about the use of theater are very Catholic oriented. Myers sees St Francis of Assissi, St Vincent de Paul. Saint Theresa & Thomas Merton as influences as well as Tennessee Williams (who he was associated with) , Caryl Churchill, & Paula Vogel (Catholic University grad).
Myers penned :Houston Future Atlantis" to raise funds for dislocated, lost pet recovery in Houston. Dr. Myers is in Houston on September 16.
Myers penned :Houston Future Atlantis" to raise funds for dislocated, lost pet recovery in Houston. Dr. Myers is in Houston on September 16.
1
The threat from North Korea was predicted to be 10 years in the making 10 years ago. Yet here we are unprepared as to the next step. NO! Government is not proactive it is reactive at best and obstructive and ignorant most of the time.
4
Nick and all the other alarmists.
1) In science an N of 1 in almost all research only provides anecdotal evidence -- which is not worth much.
2) Climate models can predict that the sun will rise in the west, but the only thing that counts is actual data.
3) Harvey was not an unusual storm in terms of strength. Since 1851 the US has averaged 6 major hurricanes per decade making landfall in the US.
4) The unusual event that has happened is that we've gone 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the US -- odds for that happening are less than .1%. I now most Times readers can't do the math but trust me -- it's just like flipping a coin. The odds of hitting 12 straight heads or tails is an exponential function and becomes increasingly unlikely with each flip.
5) To suggest that Harvey is evidence for CC, not only do you have to explain the 12 year major hurricane hiatus, you have to a) show that gulf temps have gotten warmer over time and b) that more intense hurricanes are associated with warmer than avg gulf temps. Based on historical data, not model projections.
6) Neither is the case. Gulf temps show no upward trend since 1870 and there is no association between warmer than avg gulf temps and hurricane intensity.
Emotion is a wonderful thing, Nick. You've got a lot of it. But obviously no scientific ability.
1) In science an N of 1 in almost all research only provides anecdotal evidence -- which is not worth much.
2) Climate models can predict that the sun will rise in the west, but the only thing that counts is actual data.
3) Harvey was not an unusual storm in terms of strength. Since 1851 the US has averaged 6 major hurricanes per decade making landfall in the US.
4) The unusual event that has happened is that we've gone 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the US -- odds for that happening are less than .1%. I now most Times readers can't do the math but trust me -- it's just like flipping a coin. The odds of hitting 12 straight heads or tails is an exponential function and becomes increasingly unlikely with each flip.
5) To suggest that Harvey is evidence for CC, not only do you have to explain the 12 year major hurricane hiatus, you have to a) show that gulf temps have gotten warmer over time and b) that more intense hurricanes are associated with warmer than avg gulf temps. Based on historical data, not model projections.
6) Neither is the case. Gulf temps show no upward trend since 1870 and there is no association between warmer than avg gulf temps and hurricane intensity.
Emotion is a wonderful thing, Nick. You've got a lot of it. But obviously no scientific ability.
8
Harvey was not an unusual storm in terms of strength.. but it is in texas.. “Climate change played a role in intensifying the winds and rainfall associated with Hurricane Harvey,” says Charles Greene, a climate scientist at Cornell... ice caps are melting.. but you think there's no cause for alarm?
4
The odds of 12 years without a major hurricane hitting the US are much greater than 0.1% because weather is correlated, year-to-year. These are not "independent random events" in statistical jargon.
But "Ralphie"'s point is valid: one rare event doesn't prove anything. Any anyone who suggests a systematic increase in hurricanes hitting the US must show that is at least consistent with the 12 year hiatus.
But "Ralphie"'s point is valid: one rare event doesn't prove anything. Any anyone who suggests a systematic increase in hurricanes hitting the US must show that is at least consistent with the 12 year hiatus.
2
Ask a fifth grader to explain the greenhouse effect to you, they'll be able. It was discovered in the 19th century by Sven Arrhenius. Our government is ran by the oil lobby, that's not difficult to understand either.
7
The concern isn’t about recognizing a changing climate, but about many (like Trump) believing you have to assign blame. And if you supported industries that generated hydrocarbon emissions where does that leave you? It’s all about pride and saving face, not about doing the right thing. Who cares how we got here? What are we going to do about it now?
1
The simple-minded will now bray that every hurricane is the result of "climate change" (proving that liberals cannot comprehend anything that took place prior to breakfast). Harvey was not the biggest or strongest storm to hit the Gulf, much less the US. Harvey, however was blocked by a high pressure system that pinned it along the coast, causing the massive rain event. My mom was in the 1938 Hurricane ("the Long Island Express") that slammed Connecticut with 200+ MPH winds , and I am certain that Donna, CAmille and Andrew were all as strong or stronger that Harvey. I have been in 13 named hurricanes , and in many cases the problem is not the storm, the problem is with inadequate flood control measures. Katrina is a classic example. Katrina, and 4 other hurricanes, hit Florida that year, but Florida had nowhere near the problems NOLA had.
3
as soon as you said (proving that liberals cannot comprehend anything that took place prior to breakfast).. you lost credibility .
Did human activity cause the high pressure system that trapped Harvey over Houston for days instead of passing over and heading North? Perhaps that high pressure system was deliberately placed there by all the hot air emanating from the NYT opinion pages!
The massive flooding caused by this hurricane has more to do with population growth than global warming.
The consequences of urbanization is the eradication of marshlands and forests which are nature's natural buffers to mitigate floods limit the damage. Rapid population growth is why these buffers are disappearing.
But rising population growth and its negative impact on the Earth is largely a taboo subject because that would implicate the third-world as being part of the problem, whereas global warming is primarily a developed world problem and fits the left's political correct narrative.
The consequences of urbanization is the eradication of marshlands and forests which are nature's natural buffers to mitigate floods limit the damage. Rapid population growth is why these buffers are disappearing.
But rising population growth and its negative impact on the Earth is largely a taboo subject because that would implicate the third-world as being part of the problem, whereas global warming is primarily a developed world problem and fits the left's political correct narrative.
2
The loss of wetlands does contribute to flooding, but rainfall totals like those which came with Harvey cannot be seen as anything but exceptional.
Population growth is indeed something that should be curbed, but is not liberal minded people who ignore it but the likes of GOP congressmen who oppose American population aid to other countries. Their anti birth control and anti abortion positions have prevented US government aid for population control in many third world countries. It is the liberal minded who have sought to make family planning available to poorer nations.
Population growth is indeed something that should be curbed, but is not liberal minded people who ignore it but the likes of GOP congressmen who oppose American population aid to other countries. Their anti birth control and anti abortion positions have prevented US government aid for population control in many third world countries. It is the liberal minded who have sought to make family planning available to poorer nations.
1
Did you read about the sheer amount of water that fell on Houston last week? That didn't have too much to do with population growth or urbanization.
1
@ MJ: Population growth is exactly why these catastrophes are becoming more frequent.
Much of Houston is situated on wetlands and forests. It's because of the rising population, that said areas are being exploited for human habitation. If these areas were left in their pristine state, then there would be no human turmoil.
Much of Houston is situated on wetlands and forests. It's because of the rising population, that said areas are being exploited for human habitation. If these areas were left in their pristine state, then there would be no human turmoil.
1
Nick
As a scientist with a public policy orientation who has worked on climate change for about 30 years, I thank you for such a well–written and much needed article.
As a scientist with a public policy orientation who has worked on climate change for about 30 years, I thank you for such a well–written and much needed article.
82
Put 'terrorism' aside, climate change poses a far far FAR greater threat than 19 guys with box cutters.
Once FEMA redraws flood maps for Gulf states? the insurance sector will collapse, no one can afford the rising premiums, and on that the banks will have mortgage assets that crash, because they won't take a mortgage without flood insurance, and no one will be able to afford insurance.
This wasn't THE storm, this was just the tip of MANY icebergs that are melting, and when you take all that ice ? and move it to liquid state? I wouldn't be surprised if next year Houston is 11 feet under instead of 5.
Once FEMA redraws flood maps for Gulf states? the insurance sector will collapse, no one can afford the rising premiums, and on that the banks will have mortgage assets that crash, because they won't take a mortgage without flood insurance, and no one will be able to afford insurance.
This wasn't THE storm, this was just the tip of MANY icebergs that are melting, and when you take all that ice ? and move it to liquid state? I wouldn't be surprised if next year Houston is 11 feet under instead of 5.
5
When icebergs melt, the sea does not rise because liquid water is denser than ice. Try it with an ice cube in a glass of water.
The sea level is rising (about 3 mm/year, or a foot per century) because the sea is getting warmer. It's a real effect, but not large enough to be important for a long time.
The sea level is rising (about 3 mm/year, or a foot per century) because the sea is getting warmer. It's a real effect, but not large enough to be important for a long time.
1
You're partially correct. Once an iceberg is in the ocean (having calved from a glacier or ice sheet on land) its melting will not raise sea level. However, the moment it left the glacier or ice sheet, sea level rose as a consequence. Check what happens when you add an ice cube to your glass of water.
Melting of glaciers and ice sheets (and increased production of icebergs) does indeed raise sea level, hence the concern among climate scientists like myself about the impact of warming on the massive ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Thermal expansion is real, but currently about half the contribution from melting of land ice.
Melting of glaciers and ice sheets (and increased production of icebergs) does indeed raise sea level, hence the concern among climate scientists like myself about the impact of warming on the massive ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. Thermal expansion is real, but currently about half the contribution from melting of land ice.
1
It is land ice that is melting that causes sea level rises. And the land ice is melting.
I'm not being facetious, but in view of their utterly disastrous stand on climate change, shouldn't we be asking ourselves how President Trump and EPA head Scott Pruitt would react if the world's top scientists suddenly agreed that a large, newly discovered, near-earth asteroid is certain to collide with Earth... say about two years from now?
Is there ANY REASON WHATSOEVER to imagine that they'd believe the scientists and expedite plans to destroy or divert the asteroid in an effort to prevent the death of every human being on the planet?
Seriously. Think about it.
Is there ANY REASON WHATSOEVER to imagine that they'd believe the scientists and expedite plans to destroy or divert the asteroid in an effort to prevent the death of every human being on the planet?
Seriously. Think about it.
11
It is a sad fact, a sort of tribal epistemelogical phenomenon: once the average American conservative became convinced that carbon based global warming was a "liberal" issue, they were going to dig in against whatever scientific evidence was amassed to support it.
Now, no amount of evidence, even evidence of threat to their own homes and family, will convince them to change their position or, more importantly, their lifestyles. It's now a freedom issue. I would wager that the Republican party will not acquiesce to meaningful, let alone drastic, moves to reduce carbon emissions to combat this threat. Not in the next few years, and by then it will be too late.
The only hope is for the rest of the world to do drastic things, and to elect Democrats. In American politics, this has become a tribal political issue, and the science or even human devastation is probably not going to change minds on the right. Of course, one must try. One must always try.
Now, no amount of evidence, even evidence of threat to their own homes and family, will convince them to change their position or, more importantly, their lifestyles. It's now a freedom issue. I would wager that the Republican party will not acquiesce to meaningful, let alone drastic, moves to reduce carbon emissions to combat this threat. Not in the next few years, and by then it will be too late.
The only hope is for the rest of the world to do drastic things, and to elect Democrats. In American politics, this has become a tribal political issue, and the science or even human devastation is probably not going to change minds on the right. Of course, one must try. One must always try.
83
David, I whole-heartedly agree with you. However, it's worth remembering that Houston is actually blue. Houston went, by narrow margin, for Hillary and the newly elected Houston mayor is a Dem. If you are devoted to evidence as your post suggests, check the voting data.
Then please think about how you will help your Texas brethren and compatriots; have sympathy for them. The battle isn't science and evidence, it is political and gerrymandering. Please recognize your allies and help them fight their fights!
Then please think about how you will help your Texas brethren and compatriots; have sympathy for them. The battle isn't science and evidence, it is political and gerrymandering. Please recognize your allies and help them fight their fights!
2
I have found that most climate change deniers, when discussing it, very quickly manage to throw in the words 'Democrat', 'Liberal' and/or 'Obama'. It's as if this is a conspiracy to somehow deprive them of some sort of of religious belief. They could be sweltering in the heat of temperatures 15+ degrees hotter than anything ever on record (for the 8th year in a row), or wading through record breaking (again for 8 straight years) back yard floods, and it's a 'conspiracy'.
24
You left out "Gore" ...
"[T]he idea of human-caused climate change" is the wrong way to fight this political fight.
First, there is climate change. Whatever reason, it is.
Second, we can do something about that. We should.
Those are two fights each easier to win, quite winnable. Let's win them.
First, there is climate change. Whatever reason, it is.
Second, we can do something about that. We should.
Those are two fights each easier to win, quite winnable. Let's win them.
8
I am the first to agree that we should act as if "global warming" theory were true. But to suggest that Harvey, or any other series of horrible weather events, proves gobal warmin in a scientific sense is naive at best and anti-science at worst. The two most important scientific discoveries of the last 100 years are Einsteinian relativity and quantum mechanics. They have been proved because they were theories about the present, not models and predictions of a future of indefinte time and scope.
4
These theories remain the best description of available data. They did and do make predictions, and these predictions are tested to confirm that the theory remains consistent with the evidence. Climate change theory similarly is the best description of available data. It too makes predictions and these are confirmed as temperatures continue to rise, ice flows recede, stuff like that. You may say that Harvey does not prove climate change, and of course you are right because you cannot prove a scientific theory (not in that sense of "prove") - but Harvey certainly does not contradict it and those predictions of severe weather events resulting from warmer sea temperatures really look pretty sensible right now.
2
The storms may not prove anything about AGW, but if you accept AGW as mostly on the right track (trendwise at least), then it says something about these storms. The proof/evidence is in careful studies conducted over the long term, not individual events. But once you have a model, the model says a little something about every event. It is is stochastic model, not a deterministic one like relativity. It's about probabilities and risks and likelihoods. And there's still a lot left to argue about the Standard Model (relativity + QM). All science is about providing evidence, not proving things conclusively. People may accept something for which there is a lot of evidence as "true" but a good scientist will always look beyond.
Mr. Kristof, why “staggering that there’s still so much resistance by elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change.”? Who is sponsoring their election campaigns? If you’ve noticed, our politicians depend on fossil fuel conglomerates for big money to run. How naïve can you be?
Easy to bash Tsar Trump the Atrocious. But it’s not just him and his 100 tweets. The US congress for years hasn’t exactly been a leader in green energy. How naïve can you be?
Why? Because in the US, combating human caused global warming is labeled as ‘left wing’, anti profit. It's centrist in other nations. Could part of the reason be that other democracies don’t turn their elections over to the richest corporations for sponsorship of their candidates? And don’t allow billionaires to swamp their media with privately paid political ads? How naïve can you be?
These are strong US interests against green energy that are in the center of our politics.
The NYTimes, seeming anxious to not look too ‘liberal’ recently added a new conservative columnist, Bret Stephens, from WSJ. His 1st column buttressed the climate deniers (don’t deny them freedom of speech, you know.) and bashed scientists’ consensus on global warming.
Bret’s post Storm Harvey column use the phrase “climate lobby’s hyperactive smear machine”. Wow.
Kristof’s naïve lectures on climate will make little difference, until he and the main media start focusing on campaign finance.
What's holding them back?
Easy to bash Tsar Trump the Atrocious. But it’s not just him and his 100 tweets. The US congress for years hasn’t exactly been a leader in green energy. How naïve can you be?
Why? Because in the US, combating human caused global warming is labeled as ‘left wing’, anti profit. It's centrist in other nations. Could part of the reason be that other democracies don’t turn their elections over to the richest corporations for sponsorship of their candidates? And don’t allow billionaires to swamp their media with privately paid political ads? How naïve can you be?
These are strong US interests against green energy that are in the center of our politics.
The NYTimes, seeming anxious to not look too ‘liberal’ recently added a new conservative columnist, Bret Stephens, from WSJ. His 1st column buttressed the climate deniers (don’t deny them freedom of speech, you know.) and bashed scientists’ consensus on global warming.
Bret’s post Storm Harvey column use the phrase “climate lobby’s hyperactive smear machine”. Wow.
Kristof’s naïve lectures on climate will make little difference, until he and the main media start focusing on campaign finance.
What's holding them back?
21
The fact that their Democratic friends often raise more campaign money than Republicans. "Working-class" voters went for Trump. Reducing the influence of billionaire contributors will not necessarily help Democrats.
Both parties are corrupted by big money. There are other factors such as personality and message that also influence voters, so the highest fund raiser as such may not always win. It's not a math formula.
But the billionaire donors still create political norms, and set the limits of policy making. This shuts out influence of the vast majority of citizens who can't compete.
Now we just want to replace Trump as the highest good. So we don't have much power.
But the billionaire donors still create political norms, and set the limits of policy making. This shuts out influence of the vast majority of citizens who can't compete.
Now we just want to replace Trump as the highest good. So we don't have much power.
Thank you!!
"We keep building in vulnerable coastal areas and on flood plains, pretty much daring Mother Nature to whack us."
Americans have been doing the latter since 1800, if not earlier, and the latter since 1900. Global warming is exacerbating the cost of what is bad behavior under any circumstances.
Americans have been doing the latter since 1800, if not earlier, and the latter since 1900. Global warming is exacerbating the cost of what is bad behavior under any circumstances.
6
Follow the money. Carbon fuels are far larger revenue than alternate energy companies. They can buy more political power. Their number one job is to preserve their near monopoly positions. Senators do not come cheap, and there are 5 times as many house members to pay.
This is not a hard concept to understand.
This is not a hard concept to understand.
19
While NK's article would seem to reflect common sense, he should have done a little more research before hewing to the party line.
For over 40 years, the frequency of major storms (Category 4 & 5) has been falling, not increasing.
In fact, the WSJ ran a piece yesterday by an actual scientist--not an op-ed columnist--R. Pielke, professor of environmental studies at U of C, Boulder on the topic. Contrary to NK's assertion that there is scientific consensus on global warming's impact on storm frequency and severity, the actual consensus to date is that there is NO established relationship between climate change and storm frequency and severity.
Nor is Pielke some renegade Climate denier, he also cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment (see below).
"Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts and tornadoes . . ."
If you want the actual facts, a better article is:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hurricane-lull-couldnt-last-1504220969
For over 40 years, the frequency of major storms (Category 4 & 5) has been falling, not increasing.
In fact, the WSJ ran a piece yesterday by an actual scientist--not an op-ed columnist--R. Pielke, professor of environmental studies at U of C, Boulder on the topic. Contrary to NK's assertion that there is scientific consensus on global warming's impact on storm frequency and severity, the actual consensus to date is that there is NO established relationship between climate change and storm frequency and severity.
Nor is Pielke some renegade Climate denier, he also cites the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the National Climate Assessment (see below).
"Scientific assessments, including those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government’s latest National Climate Assessment, indicate no long-term increases in the frequency or strength of hurricanes in the U.S. Neither has there been an increase in floods, droughts and tornadoes . . ."
If you want the actual facts, a better article is:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-hurricane-lull-couldnt-last-1504220969
5
JG has confused two writers named Roger Pielke.
Roger Piece Sr is a respected climatologist whose work is often cited. He has frequently entered the debate on global warming, declaring himself no skeptic and calculating that at absolute mathematical minimum 72% of global warming is caused by humans.
Roger Piece Jr did not train as a science scientist but as a social scientist. I read that he is NOT affiliated with the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a director within the athletic department there. He does write on environmental issues, and once was employed by 538, a reputable analysis organization. He was fired for gross distortions of the truth. But don't feel too bad for him - the fossil fuels industry generously funds his publications.
Those wishing to distinguish between the two can begin with the Wikipedia articles, and I assure you that there's plenty more available, well documented and easy to find.
Roger Piece Sr is a respected climatologist whose work is often cited. He has frequently entered the debate on global warming, declaring himself no skeptic and calculating that at absolute mathematical minimum 72% of global warming is caused by humans.
Roger Piece Jr did not train as a science scientist but as a social scientist. I read that he is NOT affiliated with the Department of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a director within the athletic department there. He does write on environmental issues, and once was employed by 538, a reputable analysis organization. He was fired for gross distortions of the truth. But don't feel too bad for him - the fossil fuels industry generously funds his publications.
Those wishing to distinguish between the two can begin with the Wikipedia articles, and I assure you that there's plenty more available, well documented and easy to find.
10
Houston has had flooding 3 times in recent years. Caused by climate change, or not, all major cities along bodies of water, need to consider flooding and water damage to factories , homes and infrastructure if they had a storm that dropped a significant amount of rain. There's also the threat of earthquake and fires.
Are we adequately prepared to move large numbers of people, and shelter them? And if not, lets not allow differences about the existence of climate change to not plan ahead for the worst case scenario of repeated heavy rainfall incidences .
Are we adequately prepared to move large numbers of people, and shelter them? And if not, lets not allow differences about the existence of climate change to not plan ahead for the worst case scenario of repeated heavy rainfall incidences .
2
To Marvant: I did look it up.
Pielke Jr. was a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research from 1993-2001, and has been a member of the University of Colorado, Boulder's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2017 (see http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/ ).
In 2006, Pielke Jr. also received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research.
For what it is worth, he has professed to believe in climate change and man's influence therein and has denied receiving any funding from the fossil fuel industry.
He is also involved in research in sports governance.
Pielke Jr. was a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research from 1993-2001, and has been a member of the University of Colorado, Boulder's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research from 2001-2017 (see http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/ ).
In 2006, Pielke Jr. also received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany for outstanding achievement in interdisciplinary climate research.
For what it is worth, he has professed to believe in climate change and man's influence therein and has denied receiving any funding from the fossil fuel industry.
He is also involved in research in sports governance.
1
People deny climate change because of the language we use to describe such events. A hurricane can't be credited to climate change (yet) but flooding can. During some of the coverage of Harvey some people keeping using such terms a "flooding of biblical proportions". Harvey nor climate change has nothing to do with the bible nor God but is nature reacting to man made changes. So when reporting climate change events such as flooding lets change our language and use accurate and honest terms such as "flooding of man made climate change proportions". This would not only be accurate but remind people of what they are doing.
17
It could only be accurate when paired with actual proof that any of this is man-caused. Tell you what - you tell me right now where Irma will be in a week and a half, and I'll listen to your theories of man-caused climate change.
we should be critical of others, but your argument would be stronger if you speak about your own actions, or failure to act, first. we've all contributed to the problem. what have you done to reduce your carbon footprint?I lease an electric-hybrid {bmw i3} and use mass-transit, i took one cross-atlantic toun-trip flight this year {plus amtrak}, turned down the thermostat for heating {we've got no AC], and am too old to have kids {had one - already grown}. i hope to do better, i. e., put solar-panels on the roof, someday soon.
4
We do these things, but of great importance is voting for lawmakers who believe in science and care about the fate of humanity.
14
94306 is Palo Alto, Cal., with a mild climate and a median house price of about $2 million. Not everyone can afford to live there and the town council is now trying to prevent more business and jobs from moving in.
For a political party to win elections they have to paste together many interests. Right wing radio and TV helps Republicans with a steady drumbeat of propaganda. In between they insert some real facts to look legitimate. Fear of gun confiscation; fear of minorities, immigrants, transgender individuals, other religions; climate change deniers; even people worrying about not being able to have 24 oz. cups of soda will fall in line to back regressive government. Then the wizards of wealth can rob them blind. The truth is, Mother Nature is not political so whatever will be will be.
9
Dear NK,
Thank you for this great article.
Can we leaflet it from the air over Washington and every state capitol?
Dealing with climate change will create one of the greatest economic boons in history.And it will save the planet and living things on it. It's a win/win.
It's a mystery to me why people can be so blinded by self interest that they can't see this.
Thank you for this great article.
Can we leaflet it from the air over Washington and every state capitol?
Dealing with climate change will create one of the greatest economic boons in history.And it will save the planet and living things on it. It's a win/win.
It's a mystery to me why people can be so blinded by self interest that they can't see this.
16
It doesn't matter if we deny climate change or not. Nature really does not care what we think.
277
But nature is clearly influenced by what we do.
Not in the long run. Eventually, humanity will have destroyed itself by one way or another. Then the heat or viruses or carbon dioxide, or whatever we used to exterminate ourselves will settle out of the atmosphere, and the earth will continue on as it was before we were here. So over a time scale of a million or several million years, the earth is not really influenced by what we think or do.
2
The EU should slap a steep carbon tax on goods imported from the US. If US politicians are so stupid, why should EU consumers support the US economy?
The Republicans wanted to drown government in a bathtub. They missed and got Houston instead.
292
It's money, plain and simple.The fossil fuel industry profits from climate change denial, and spends a fortune on lobbying and disinformation campaigns, which are skillfully amplified by the right wing media. Future generations will shake their heads in disbelief that the selfish interests of a few put millions of lives and the well being of the planet at risk.
64
excelllent.
As long as we continue to have a system where "bribing" of politicians is legal, special interests will keep paying to protect their interests regardless of the costs, financially, to the environment and otherwise.
84
The reason there is so much resistance amongst the Republican political class is that they've been bought by the Oligarchs who want to continue to use fossil fuels as they're means to wealth. Pruitt, Texas Republicans and Trump himself benefit form the charade.
We'll see if Harvey changes any minds. If Irma stops by, say in Miami, I imagine it'll more difficult to continue the baloney. But then, we'll see.
We'll see if Harvey changes any minds. If Irma stops by, say in Miami, I imagine it'll more difficult to continue the baloney. But then, we'll see.
14
Isn't this like saying it's the hippies who demand action on climate because they want subsidies for their electric cars?
No. Nice try though.
Nick, we do it because denial is more than a river running through Egypt.
Lower Manhattan got wiped out five years ago - flooded, shut down, brought to a watery halt. How often has that happen in American history?
Could it be a coincidence?
To the deniers, absolutely.
Now, there are critics of a specific approach to climate change who argue that we should be working now to accommodate the physical changes that are most likely to happen, using a cost-risk analysis. It's a reasonable position - but it's not the position that the deniers take.
The deniers' position, like our Denier-in-Chief and his appointee at the EPA, is that it's a hoax, inasmuch as nothing can be allowed to get in the way that certain Americans currently make their money - even if it significantly increases the chances that one of their grandchildren will eventually become a victim of climate run amok.
It's madness - but also par for the course in an America run amok.
Lower Manhattan got wiped out five years ago - flooded, shut down, brought to a watery halt. How often has that happen in American history?
Could it be a coincidence?
To the deniers, absolutely.
Now, there are critics of a specific approach to climate change who argue that we should be working now to accommodate the physical changes that are most likely to happen, using a cost-risk analysis. It's a reasonable position - but it's not the position that the deniers take.
The deniers' position, like our Denier-in-Chief and his appointee at the EPA, is that it's a hoax, inasmuch as nothing can be allowed to get in the way that certain Americans currently make their money - even if it significantly increases the chances that one of their grandchildren will eventually become a victim of climate run amok.
It's madness - but also par for the course in an America run amok.
23
Did you swipe that phrase about denial/the Nile from Mark Shields yesterday?
Lets how many times in the past 1000 years was a storm like super sandy that wiped out the subway and bought Lower Manhattan to a watery halt... hmm not in the past couple hundred years, but then there really wasn't anything there until a couple hundred years ago.
The storm hit in Houston--home to NASA mission control, Rice University, and one of the very most famous medical campuses in USA. ( MD Anderson is one of the best cancer regional treatment and research centers in America. The most famous heart surgeons in USA for decades were in Houston.)
So many people there are among our best scientists, atmospheric engineers, plus biomedical researchers. They understand and admit science.
Let's spread their enthusiasm for facts and reality!
So many people there are among our best scientists, atmospheric engineers, plus biomedical researchers. They understand and admit science.
Let's spread their enthusiasm for facts and reality!
11
You may have noticed that our best minds are not allowed to work on climate science for the time being. The funding is yanked and the websites are down. Putin wants America to be irrelevant and Trump and all those on that side of their stupid argument is a big part of that plan.
It is not that Harvey is proof, it is an indication. No single event is proof but a growing collection of realized predictions is corroboration for the theory. If the arctic ice shelf was growing it would be a contradiction; that is not happening. The question then is how many events will be necessary to convince you, the skeptic, the one who values common sense and personal experience over scientific consensus, to convince that something dangerous is coming? Seriously, ask yourself, what would it take to shatter your denial? And then ask, will it then be too late?
20
It's the christians. I live in a red state with lost of people who believe god controls the weather. So if god controls the weather, climate change can't be man made according to their logic. Just remember there's no science in the red states, only this god stuff. And don't forget these are the same people who burned Galileo at the stake for being right! It's scary.
213
You're right, E. But to put the record straight, nobody burned Galileo at the stake. He died of old age. There were others, of course, who were not so lucky, I just can't recall their names of the top of my head.
1
They don't have history either.
Giordano Bruno. That's the guy. Hung upside down and burned for being good at math. I don't suppose any of the evangelicals are going to suggest in their sermon's tomorrow that Harvey was clearly God's wrath aimed directly at the heart of the fossil fuel industry for its crimes against the climate.
1
Neil DeGrasse Tyson said it more succinctly:
"We don't deny the eclipse, why deny science?"
"We don't deny the eclipse, why deny science?"
14
Why bother trying to convince them, they already know there is global warming. The evidence is overwhelming. They choose to lie and to deny the truth, because it's just not in their best interests to admit the scientific facts as they are.
10
Nick, can you seriously be asking this question? They're two entirely different things.
How so? Both are stark realities.
3
@David, one is based on statistical evidence which might be confusing to individuals the other is based on eye witness accounts and can be easily observed by a laymen.
How could the President's head of the Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, say it's "misplaced" to talk about Hurricane Harvey and climate change? The president's demented tweets about climate change being a "Chinese Hoax" are as true as his "birther" allegations about President Obama being a Muslim and born in Kenya, Trump's hubris will prove catastrophic.
How can Republicans and their commander in chief (and alas, our commander in chief) be so ignorant about the changes our earth is going through because of the depredations of human beings in this "Sixth Extinction" age? Why do intelligent American people deny climate change, deny the melting of permafrost in the Arctic, deny the calving of state-sized icebergs from the ice shelf of the south pole? Deny the plastic gyres killing Earth's oceans?
President Trump squinted up at the sun during the solar eclipse on 21 August, and he didn't wear eclipse glasses. How could he look up at the naked sun in total eclipse and still deny climate change in our Earth? Horrifying that the monstrous Houston Flood was predicted and foreseen, and no one paid attention to this life-changing event until those millions of hapless Americans were literally lip deep in water. It's a warm new world now, Nick Kristof, and we cannot adapt to a new normal. Woe is us.
How can Republicans and their commander in chief (and alas, our commander in chief) be so ignorant about the changes our earth is going through because of the depredations of human beings in this "Sixth Extinction" age? Why do intelligent American people deny climate change, deny the melting of permafrost in the Arctic, deny the calving of state-sized icebergs from the ice shelf of the south pole? Deny the plastic gyres killing Earth's oceans?
President Trump squinted up at the sun during the solar eclipse on 21 August, and he didn't wear eclipse glasses. How could he look up at the naked sun in total eclipse and still deny climate change in our Earth? Horrifying that the monstrous Houston Flood was predicted and foreseen, and no one paid attention to this life-changing event until those millions of hapless Americans were literally lip deep in water. It's a warm new world now, Nick Kristof, and we cannot adapt to a new normal. Woe is us.
35
Easy. Trump's and Pruitt's puppet masters so directed.
And intelligent American people do not deny climate change, except those who are so greedy they have no problem ruining the earth and killing life as we know it. Stupid American people do.
And intelligent American people do not deny climate change, except those who are so greedy they have no problem ruining the earth and killing life as we know it. Stupid American people do.
Republicans (I won't say "conservatives" because there is nothing conservative about this) cannot accept the science of man-made global warming. To do so, they believe, would expose their entire political philosophy as a lie. Just as some people cannot accept that the Earth is billions of years old, because recognizing that fact would sweep away their entire religious faith. Such people will hold to their beliefs until they die, likely taking many of us with them. These folks (unfortunately with disproportionate electoral power) are seemingly, genetically incapable of modifying their opinions.
19
Their only concern is losing a percentage of the base that they have spent years putting together and keeping on the same page. Republicans are well aware that if they lose the crazy corps they won't have enough greedy rich on their own to put them over the top and win elections, which is the only thing they care about.
Privatizing profits and socializing costs has long been the environmental risk management approach of choice for our "Extraction Class" of oil, gas, and coal billionaires. It's a great business if you don't have to clean-up after yourself. Throw some money at politicians, try not to think about the future of your grandchildren, and watch the money roll in.
American's collective scientific illiteracy allows politicians like James Inhofe (Senator Snowball) and Donald Trump (Conspiracy Theorist in Chief) to get away with the most inane statements and take the most indefensible actions. A sane nation would be reluctant to issue these people driver's licenses never mind elect them to office.
The bill for Climate Change is coming due and even Trump's massive experience in bankruptcy will not help -- floods, pandemics, crop failures, droughts, the list is long and the cost is always paid. The only question is who pays and when?
The only certainty is that as long as politicians can be bought and poorly educated Americans easily fooled, the Koch Brothers and their ilk will do just fine.
American's collective scientific illiteracy allows politicians like James Inhofe (Senator Snowball) and Donald Trump (Conspiracy Theorist in Chief) to get away with the most inane statements and take the most indefensible actions. A sane nation would be reluctant to issue these people driver's licenses never mind elect them to office.
The bill for Climate Change is coming due and even Trump's massive experience in bankruptcy will not help -- floods, pandemics, crop failures, droughts, the list is long and the cost is always paid. The only question is who pays and when?
The only certainty is that as long as politicians can be bought and poorly educated Americans easily fooled, the Koch Brothers and their ilk will do just fine.
280
Pretty much hitting the nail on the head. Poorly educated people, easily fooled and vote that way.
1
Thank you for stating the absolute truth of privatizing profits and socializing costs. We are stepping away from even that- more like privatizing profits and expecting the middle class, end even many struggling to get by, to donate the recovery costs and labor so congress can still pass a tax cut for billionaires.
1
You pose an important question: "who pays and when?" As it is, no one is paying, and those who use the atmosphere as their toilet, or garbage can, are getting something for nothing. Oh, also, I forgot, to be fair, I do get cheap gasoline, cheap natural gas, and cheap plastics, that is my consolation. But I, and other consumers, never asked for "cheap" anything because we consumers were never asked if we want to trade our health and well-being for something cheap that would in the end compromise our well-being.
Like the tobacco industries, who lied about the ill-health effects of smoking,(but have paid a price for harming consumers) so have petroleum companies (Exxon, for ex.) lied about the ill-effects of emitting tons upon tons of carbon and other green house gases, and have similarly caused harm to consumers.
I agree a carbon tax is necessary, but the great polluters who have lied about the impact of their product on human and natural health will have to pay a penalty, a fine, for years of denial and undo harm.
For the next "great bargain," let's imagine a happy harmony of petroleum companies agreeing to pay for their sins as 'we the people' through our elected officials devise a winning strategy to contains global warming.
Like the tobacco industries, who lied about the ill-health effects of smoking,(but have paid a price for harming consumers) so have petroleum companies (Exxon, for ex.) lied about the ill-effects of emitting tons upon tons of carbon and other green house gases, and have similarly caused harm to consumers.
I agree a carbon tax is necessary, but the great polluters who have lied about the impact of their product on human and natural health will have to pay a penalty, a fine, for years of denial and undo harm.
For the next "great bargain," let's imagine a happy harmony of petroleum companies agreeing to pay for their sins as 'we the people' through our elected officials devise a winning strategy to contains global warming.
1
Because hurricanes have been around A LOT longer than this "climate theory"
It doesn't sand up on the court of common sense.
It doesn't sand up on the court of common sense.
1
Common Sense is loosely defined and dangerous. Facts and math tell the story. That's what scientists have. Look globally to see the devastating effects of climate change in Africa, the disappearing Maldives, the dried up rivers in South America.
1
Your common sense is smarter than everyone else? Thats some powerful commonness. My common sense says that in twenty years SE Texas will be flooded this badly every year just like it has for the last two. It will get worse and worse and what your gut says is going to be pretty much worthless. What is happening today was predicted twenty years ago and it's right on schedule so far. But if your common sense is so powerful that you can can ignore that, fine, please just try to stay out of the way and let the rest of us deal with it. Although it's to late to save Texas from flooding, if only we had ignored your common since in the early 90s when you all made up your minds to put reality aside and play games with the future of humanity because your common sense says so.
According to the Washington Post:
"Did climate change make Hurricane Harvey’s impact significantly worse? There are a lot of opinions on this out there, and it’s okay if you’re confused. The reality is that some scientists say yes; and some, no.
"In answering this question, the safest place is the middle ground: Climate change probably made Harvey a little worse. But you’re on shaky ground to say any less or much more."
Mr. Kristof's views are drastically different. To me, it seems that the Post is appropriately restrained, while Kristof is talking of the top of his head, At any rate, the case for climate change is not strengthened by such contradiction among prominent climate change defenders. Somebody has gotten sloppy and this is not the sort of issue where such sloppiness is acceptable.
"Did climate change make Hurricane Harvey’s impact significantly worse? There are a lot of opinions on this out there, and it’s okay if you’re confused. The reality is that some scientists say yes; and some, no.
"In answering this question, the safest place is the middle ground: Climate change probably made Harvey a little worse. But you’re on shaky ground to say any less or much more."
Mr. Kristof's views are drastically different. To me, it seems that the Post is appropriately restrained, while Kristof is talking of the top of his head, At any rate, the case for climate change is not strengthened by such contradiction among prominent climate change defenders. Somebody has gotten sloppy and this is not the sort of issue where such sloppiness is acceptable.
4
No, the answer is not "some say yes and some say no." The overwhelming percentage of scientists, some 98%, agree that climate change exists, that humans are the main causation and there is a ton of data to back this up. You may not believe it but it is still true. The jury is "not out" on this issue....just you.
12
comtut, you missed the point Michjas is saying. He's not denying climate change, he is pointing out how climate change may have affected hurricane Harvey. Scientists have different opinions on how climate change affected Harvey. Big difference.
From what i understand what made Harvey so dangerous is that Harvey stalled, sat in one place, and all that moisture collected in one overly paved, overly built spot. I would say that climate change only affected Harvey a little, but what do i know living in Michigan and enjoying a most cool, delightful, very breezy summer.
From what i understand what made Harvey so dangerous is that Harvey stalled, sat in one place, and all that moisture collected in one overly paved, overly built spot. I would say that climate change only affected Harvey a little, but what do i know living in Michigan and enjoying a most cool, delightful, very breezy summer.
Climate change didn't aim Harvey where it struck. But although it may seem as though Houston had bad luck, things could have been even worse. Harvey made landfall in the vicinity of the small town of Rockport. The whole area is thinly populated, happily, and as a result, there were few immediate fatalities from storm surge and wind. Had Harvey hit Houston head on, driving water from the Gulf into the bayous and then feeding them with rain from the other end, we might have been looking at casualty figures in the thousands.
There really isn't any room for doubt but that the waters of the Gulf are warmer than they used to be. There isn't any room for doubt but that warmer water and warmer air result in wetter air. So we know from basic physics that if everything else had been the same, but the Gulf had been a couple degrees cooler, there would have been less rain.
Part of what you do when you have a problem is you look at the cause, and see if you can eliminate it or blunt it. But another part of what you do is you look at your own defensive measures and see if you can duck the blows, or protect yourself. It's like divided highways, yeah, but also seat belts. Rebuilding should be done with an eye to not having any housing in areas that were six feet deep this time around. To having more catchment basins. And on and on.
There really isn't any room for doubt but that the waters of the Gulf are warmer than they used to be. There isn't any room for doubt but that warmer water and warmer air result in wetter air. So we know from basic physics that if everything else had been the same, but the Gulf had been a couple degrees cooler, there would have been less rain.
Part of what you do when you have a problem is you look at the cause, and see if you can eliminate it or blunt it. But another part of what you do is you look at your own defensive measures and see if you can duck the blows, or protect yourself. It's like divided highways, yeah, but also seat belts. Rebuilding should be done with an eye to not having any housing in areas that were six feet deep this time around. To having more catchment basins. And on and on.
Those who may deny climate change and who live in Houston probably put Harvey down to the hurricane that DIDN'T miss them, out of the hundreds that might have hit but didn't since we started keeping records of the region -- about 150 years. Even at that, our Gulf Coast gets hit by a seriously damaging hurricane on average every seven years. So, is it climate change or yet another natural and destructive phenomenon that has plagued us forever that we haven't yet figured out how to counter?
Others around the country may be waiting for a storm surge that starts in Houston to make it as far north as Topeka.
Me, I don't deny Harvey because I can see the news and I have relatives down there. I also don't deny climate change but question whether the U.S. alone can affect it beyond what we already do (quite substantial), while much of the rest of the world merrily goes about building middle classes that it never had before, regardless of the carbons they add to the atmosphere along the way.
To Nick and others, I'd simply ask one thing: can we finish counting our dead before environmentalists start flogging a natural catastrophe the likes of which we've seen at regular intervals for a LONG time to support a contention that the world is ending NOW and that we really have no place else to go?
Others around the country may be waiting for a storm surge that starts in Houston to make it as far north as Topeka.
Me, I don't deny Harvey because I can see the news and I have relatives down there. I also don't deny climate change but question whether the U.S. alone can affect it beyond what we already do (quite substantial), while much of the rest of the world merrily goes about building middle classes that it never had before, regardless of the carbons they add to the atmosphere along the way.
To Nick and others, I'd simply ask one thing: can we finish counting our dead before environmentalists start flogging a natural catastrophe the likes of which we've seen at regular intervals for a LONG time to support a contention that the world is ending NOW and that we really have no place else to go?
Richard,
No the US alone cannot change the problems of climate change.
But the developed world doing it WITHOUT the participation of the USA would have s big problem.
Let's not become the dark sheep of the educated, developed world.
And may your relatives in that region be safe!!!
No the US alone cannot change the problems of climate change.
But the developed world doing it WITHOUT the participation of the USA would have s big problem.
Let's not become the dark sheep of the educated, developed world.
And may your relatives in that region be safe!!!
5
No we can't Richard, because it's essential that we take this opportunity to tie rebuilding funding to reversing what's happening in the Trump administration with de-funding some much climate change research and action. If we keep accepting the know-nothings, we will all go bankrupt because of the huge financial burden their know-nothingness will impose upon all of us. And by the way, we shouldn't be "do-nothings" either. China has made great strides to reduce emissions - often in order to reduce pollution, but the end result is the same. It's ridiculous to propose that we do nothing because it won't have much impact. Any impact we have is important, and furthermore it's important for the US to show leadership. Have a nice rest of your weekend!
4
Jean and Dan:
I'd like to see the developing world at least TRY to catch up with what we ALREADY spend as a society per capita on climate change mitigation, instead of merely making promises that get some of us to agitate for even GREATER spending on our part.
For example, New York City spends 35 times as much per person on climate change mitigation than the city of Lagos, Nigeria (https://www.carbonbrief.org/huge-divide-in-spending-on-climate-change-ad.... They can't afford to spend more? Then what's the basis of their promises, and how is the industrialized West to manage mitigation of a GLOBAL biosphere all by itself?
I'd like to see the developing world at least TRY to catch up with what we ALREADY spend as a society per capita on climate change mitigation, instead of merely making promises that get some of us to agitate for even GREATER spending on our part.
For example, New York City spends 35 times as much per person on climate change mitigation than the city of Lagos, Nigeria (https://www.carbonbrief.org/huge-divide-in-spending-on-climate-change-ad.... They can't afford to spend more? Then what's the basis of their promises, and how is the industrialized West to manage mitigation of a GLOBAL biosphere all by itself?
1
Hurricane Harvey stands at the intersection of climate science, politics and human devastation. To people who say to leave politics out of the discussion, please consider that many decisions affecting how well or poorly a location survives the onslaught of a Harvey rest in the hands of politicians. And if they deny climate science, favor construction standards that don't account for weather conditions, allow the destruction of essential wetlands, refuse to regulate zoning to separate hazardous business activities from residential areas, and ignore infrastructure deficiencies, they only exacerbate the effects of an event like this.
Politicians wield too much power to be ignored, or to be trusted blindly (Flint, Michigan's ongoing water crisis began in 2014 because politicians made horrendous decisions at the expense of the populace) . So if you care about your fellow human beings, there must be a political component to the conversation.
Politicians wield too much power to be ignored, or to be trusted blindly (Flint, Michigan's ongoing water crisis began in 2014 because politicians made horrendous decisions at the expense of the populace) . So if you care about your fellow human beings, there must be a political component to the conversation.
44
Excellent comment, D Price. Every collective action crosses at least one slippery slope. Sometimes collective action should be taken nevertheless.
As you point out, politicians cannot be trusted blindly. Zoning for flood risk has clear net aggregate benefit, but will often mean lost profits for local real estate developers. If your county commissioner is opposed to zoning, find out if his day job is in real estate! Every voter has to keep track of which politicians are more trustworthy than others, vote for the trustworthy ones, and hold their feet to the fire at each election. In our pluralistic republic, glibertarian antipathy toward government because people can't be trusted is merely lazy, IMHO, and an abdication of one's responsibility as a citizen.
As you point out, politicians cannot be trusted blindly. Zoning for flood risk has clear net aggregate benefit, but will often mean lost profits for local real estate developers. If your county commissioner is opposed to zoning, find out if his day job is in real estate! Every voter has to keep track of which politicians are more trustworthy than others, vote for the trustworthy ones, and hold their feet to the fire at each election. In our pluralistic republic, glibertarian antipathy toward government because people can't be trusted is merely lazy, IMHO, and an abdication of one's responsibility as a citizen.
7
I am not climate denier, however there are other factors that contribute to the major losses of life and possessions from hurricanes and tropical storms that have effected the world increasingly over the decades.
The destruction of former farmland and grasslands where humans have built housing developments and corporations have built factories, which leave the local environments unable to absorb the water from these storms.
And then there is the growing populations that seek to live near major bodies of water, and so many with the concept that they will be safe when nature shoves a nasty storm their way.
People need to be aware of the havoc they wreak as they create the explosion of building in flood prone areas. It's all part of climate change, whether it is CO2 emissions, the devastation of our rainforests or the apparent nonchalance of building over natural areas.
The destruction of former farmland and grasslands where humans have built housing developments and corporations have built factories, which leave the local environments unable to absorb the water from these storms.
And then there is the growing populations that seek to live near major bodies of water, and so many with the concept that they will be safe when nature shoves a nasty storm their way.
People need to be aware of the havoc they wreak as they create the explosion of building in flood prone areas. It's all part of climate change, whether it is CO2 emissions, the devastation of our rainforests or the apparent nonchalance of building over natural areas.
6
You're sort of on the right track. Overbuilding, destruction of grasslands and building in flood zones makes the damage worse, but that doesn't create stronger storms, climate change does. Believe or or not, it still is scientifically established. When 98% of the scientific community agrees on this, you can't say "well some say yes and some say no." There's no equivalence.
6
Two things: First, after years of flooding along the Mississippi River, incentives were given for property owners to not rebuild in flood prone areas. Most did not. Some towns completely relocated. Other property owners had to be bought out using eminent domain, but the bottom line is less money was spent (wasted) rebuilding at risk properties.
Second, here in California the years of neglect of war storage capacities was thrown into sharp illustration by the problems with the Oroville Dam spillway. In Houston not one but two water storage facilities has contributed to the flooding issues.
I realize this isn't really the place but it is the time to say "I told you so" to all the politicians who have encouraged willy-nilly housing development in flood prone areas and who have also put maintenance and improvement projects on existing water storage facilities on the backburner. I hope at least one of them had a district office flooded.
Second, here in California the years of neglect of war storage capacities was thrown into sharp illustration by the problems with the Oroville Dam spillway. In Houston not one but two water storage facilities has contributed to the flooding issues.
I realize this isn't really the place but it is the time to say "I told you so" to all the politicians who have encouraged willy-nilly housing development in flood prone areas and who have also put maintenance and improvement projects on existing water storage facilities on the backburner. I hope at least one of them had a district office flooded.
8
The two storage areas contributed to the flooding only in the negative sense that they should have been two of four, not two of two. These reservoirs are normally kept empty. In the event of a big storm, their gates are closed and they fill up. With luck, they don't quite fill, and then later on the water can be released. But Houston ran out of luck. It would have been prudent to have built another two such reservoirs. The water that arrived at the inlets to the reservoirs simply overwhelmed their capacity, and like it or not, the gates had to be opened.
Some are convinced that Harvey was God's will while climate change is fake science. They just haven't figured out the "why" of the former.
5
If someone says Harvey or Katrina or Sandy were God's will, they don't know God or why Jesus was sent into the world. The reason is "that we might have life and have it abundantly";that's not wealth, its life. Climate deniers are denying the life of the planet and those affected by storms. We are to be "good stewards of the earth's resources. What's fake is the belief of people like that.
Intelligent conversation? Intelligent conversation? Surely you jest, Nicholas.
2
Nothing will happen so long as rabid evangelical jihadists control our politics. To begin with, they actually want our species to become extinct. More importantly, since overpopulation is the greatest single factor in creating global warming, their vindictive war against birth control is causing an unsustainable rate of population growth.
7
Yep, you got it. Rabid right wing evangelicals with money are the jihadists against American Democracy. They are arrogant and delusional enough to believe the know best, but how sure can they be if they have to keep bribing and buying politicians to get their way?
Are we sure Harvey isn't fake news that was made up by left-wingers trying to prove climate change? Isn't Harvey the name of a fictional character in a James Stewart film--a film made by the Hollywood elite? Maybe the same elite who made Harvey the movie made Harvey the Hurricane. Maybe "Harvey" is code in left-language for "make believe." Any way, I've never been to Houston and I've never seen a climate change so I just don't know what to believe. I did see Harvey the movie though and I thought it was pretty good.
11
Idea for you: Rs and Ds should agree an appropriate response to Harvey would be to get a national infrastructure program started by safeguarding all flood-prone areas in US with dikes and levies, as in Netherlands and Norway. Rs wouldn't have to admit the reality of climate change, just acknowledge that places like NY (Sandy), LA (Katrina) and TX (Harvey) are vulnerable. Bipartisan achievement, create jobs.
8
Climate changes threatens our entire species... and yes, the people of United States are no exception (gasp!). WAY past time to remove Trump and the other climate-change denier fools from office--as a matter of survival. Ignoring an immediate threat to human lives is called malfeasance in office, among other worse names.
4
Fewer people = less climate change = a good thing!
Whenever Environmental Protection Abomination Scotty Pruitt is mentioned, the phrase "Who has no Scientific Training" should follow the reference.
10
True, and granted I'm not in the position of power he is in, but I have no scientific training either, yet I believe in climate change science because I know the vast majority of (very smart) climate scientists are probably right, and because I'm not in the ideological pocket of the petroleum and related industries. So really it should be Scott Pruitt "who does not trust science and instead chooses to trust the deceitful profit-motivated oil industry where he will no doubt find lucrative employment after he finishes his term emasculating the EPA".
8
When people confuse short term weather events with long term climate change I am reminded of that senator from Oklahoma who took a snowball into the Senate as "proof" that global warming is a hoax.
3
Can't help the fact that many senators are dumber than dirt.
1
Why this or why that? One (actually two) word: Big Oil.
4
Big Oil rules the world, that's a fact. Think Syria is being destroyed over ideology? Wrong Asad and Putin had plans for the coastal oil fields in Syria. Who else might be involved in that oil deal. Venezuela suffering from crooked oil deals gone wrong. The real news isn't pretty people. You want the truth, READ. Then help those who can deal with the truth and work to fix the problem.
Most of us do not deny climate change !
It is trump and his cronies deny it and they enjoy the extreme weather in their Towers ! Most of us have no Towers !
It is trump and his cronies deny it and they enjoy the extreme weather in their Towers ! Most of us have no Towers !
4
Great column! What to do? First step is to get involved with Citizens Climate Lobby which has played a leadership role in getting 26 Republicans and 26 Democrats to join the House Climate Solutiuons Caucus and then read this NY Times article on CCL's work to "Crack the Washington Gridlock on Climate Change." https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/19/opinion/cracking-washingtons-gridlock...
3
Nick Kristof conveniently ignores the fact that this is the middle of hurricane season. In addition Nick Kristof also forgets that, despite the devastating impact of Hurricane Harvey, Houston remains the fossil fuel and energy epi center of America. After Harvey becomes a distant memory Houston will resume producing those fossil fuels that pollute our atmosphere again. The more things change the more they stay the same.
I heard the same panicky "climate change" excuse after Super Storm Sandy five years ago. Guess what happened Nick? No one noticed or cared. People just wanted their lives to get back to normal as soon as possible. Let the scientists and the meteorologists worry about climate change.
I heard the same panicky "climate change" excuse after Super Storm Sandy five years ago. Guess what happened Nick? No one noticed or cared. People just wanted their lives to get back to normal as soon as possible. Let the scientists and the meteorologists worry about climate change.
1
When "An inconvenient truth" came out I thought we might actually take the threat of climate change seriously. But I underestimated the power of those who stand to lose a considerable amount of money if we start doing anything meaningful to address climate change. A rich man will ignore anything if his pocket book depends on it and our politicians answer to the wealthy.
I grew up in central Oregon. In my lifetime I've watched the annual amount of snow fall drop while the temperature has increased. Our forests are dying because it no longer gets cold enough to kill the Beatles and our fire season is worse because the summers are drier.
At some point we're going to have to address climate change. But we won't do so until those in power are forced to admit that the scientific community is telling the truth. Hopefully we won't wait until it's too late to do anything meaningful.
What people forget is that the planet will be fine. It will adapt and eventually heal itself. Humans on the other hand respond very predictably to climate change. Rather than adapt, we die. Right now that's a third world problem but eventually the rest of us will suffer the same fate.
I grew up in central Oregon. In my lifetime I've watched the annual amount of snow fall drop while the temperature has increased. Our forests are dying because it no longer gets cold enough to kill the Beatles and our fire season is worse because the summers are drier.
At some point we're going to have to address climate change. But we won't do so until those in power are forced to admit that the scientific community is telling the truth. Hopefully we won't wait until it's too late to do anything meaningful.
What people forget is that the planet will be fine. It will adapt and eventually heal itself. Humans on the other hand respond very predictably to climate change. Rather than adapt, we die. Right now that's a third world problem but eventually the rest of us will suffer the same fate.
206
We area already suffering from climate change right here at home. While SE Texas is dealing with biblical scale flooding , huge tracts in other parts of the state are suffering from biblical scale wild fires burning up ranches and cattle.
Meanwhile China is posed to take over our once lead in clean energy development.
This Reagan, Bush II and now Trump stupidity is costing our country big league, so it isn't even really about the money anymore, it is about sheer stupidity and hatred of all things Obama, progressive or rationally, scientifically and intellectually based with a good dollop of racism and misogyny and xenophobia thrown in.
Meanwhile China is posed to take over our once lead in clean energy development.
This Reagan, Bush II and now Trump stupidity is costing our country big league, so it isn't even really about the money anymore, it is about sheer stupidity and hatred of all things Obama, progressive or rationally, scientifically and intellectually based with a good dollop of racism and misogyny and xenophobia thrown in.
3
The Earth will cleanse itself of parasitical homo sapiens and go on to produce new life. That is a comfort to me. I don't feel sorry for any species that destroys its own habitat and suffocates in its own waste.
2
Two of the Beatles are dead already :( but I think you mean beetles.
As your neighbor (sibling) to the north, I understand and agree with some of what you say. But our planet heal itself? Maybe after our stupid and destructive activities kill off life as we know it.
“We do not inherit the land we live on from our grandparents, we borrow it from our grandchildren.”
(attributed to Indian and Native American sources)
As your neighbor (sibling) to the north, I understand and agree with some of what you say. But our planet heal itself? Maybe after our stupid and destructive activities kill off life as we know it.
“We do not inherit the land we live on from our grandparents, we borrow it from our grandchildren.”
(attributed to Indian and Native American sources)
2
People who religiously believe there once has been a yuge, mountain high flood, from where the mysteriously planetary-wide materialized waters, again mysteriously, receded into the depths of the oceans?
Who also believe there was an ark with a pair of each animal species that had been successfully gathered on it, ingeniously fed, all of them, from utterly brilliantly engineered and conserved supplies, and kept from illness or starvation, that then peacefully disembarked and went on to multiply without interfering in each other's peaceful multiplication, like the hungry lions high fiving the sheep, disembarking right before them, gosh?
Of course these people also readily deny, ignore and dismiss the science proving global warming, that's universally accepted (except in oil-profit greedy holdouts like Texas and with its post-Confederate sympathizers); deny, ignore and dismiss the wisdom of urban planning, indicating to better not build on wetlands, but to have reservoirs for when the rain comes instead ("Not immediately profitable? Can only be financed by raising taxes on the same ultrawealthy who batter me daily into my impenetrable right-wing ideology with dumbed-down ChristoFoxNews fact schisms? Nooo!"); the simple wisdom of having a gov, and environmental regulation; and of course deny, ignore, dismiss what it really is they and their Republican and religious "leaders" and "heroes" do or did!
Deny, Ignore, Dismiss, that's what they believe in, and that's what they DID!
Who also believe there was an ark with a pair of each animal species that had been successfully gathered on it, ingeniously fed, all of them, from utterly brilliantly engineered and conserved supplies, and kept from illness or starvation, that then peacefully disembarked and went on to multiply without interfering in each other's peaceful multiplication, like the hungry lions high fiving the sheep, disembarking right before them, gosh?
Of course these people also readily deny, ignore and dismiss the science proving global warming, that's universally accepted (except in oil-profit greedy holdouts like Texas and with its post-Confederate sympathizers); deny, ignore and dismiss the wisdom of urban planning, indicating to better not build on wetlands, but to have reservoirs for when the rain comes instead ("Not immediately profitable? Can only be financed by raising taxes on the same ultrawealthy who batter me daily into my impenetrable right-wing ideology with dumbed-down ChristoFoxNews fact schisms? Nooo!"); the simple wisdom of having a gov, and environmental regulation; and of course deny, ignore, dismiss what it really is they and their Republican and religious "leaders" and "heroes" do or did!
Deny, Ignore, Dismiss, that's what they believe in, and that's what they DID!
7
Even when island nations disappear and ocean front cities worldwide flood, climate change deniers will exist aplenty and, of these know-nothings, most will refuse to accept human conduct played any role
6
My hope is that Senators and members of Congress will tie Hurricane Harvey relief aid to reinstatement of funding and support for various types of climate-change-related activities within the federal government. It would be the apex of idiocy to to ignore how anti-science and anti-government attitudes in one of the states that is the biggest purveyors of such harmful rhetoric and policies helped make Harvey and the damage it caused worse than it would have been otherwise. Let us not miss this opportunity to change the direction of this foolish journey.
4
The Republicans have much mythology built up around denying climate change. There is the example of Ronald Reagan, who decided that trashing Jimmy Carter's legacy was worth trashing the environment. There is the overall Republican desecration of science (including evolution). And the platitudes that climate change is a conspiracy against business. The GOP have endless fondness for lying that environmental regulations kill jobs, rather than admit that they protect people. Then, at the state level, even Florida with its record of environmental disasters, had a Republican governor prohibit state employees from using words like "climate change" or "global warming." And Republicans gladly scored cheap points by serving as foils to President Obama's environmental stewardship.
The irony is that the EPA came into being under a Republican president, Nixon. But, since then, the GOP has turned environmental recklessness into an article of faith they will not drop, no matter the costs.
The irony is that the EPA came into being under a Republican president, Nixon. But, since then, the GOP has turned environmental recklessness into an article of faith they will not drop, no matter the costs.
6
I'll be quick, Mr. Kristof: America (Republicans, anyway) deny climate change because its politics are interwoven with the Right's drumbeat: smaller government; lower (or no) taxes: complete, across-the-board de-regulation so that, free of the fetters of a government that might corral the excesses of capitalism, the "job creators" would be free to work the magic of "free enterprise."
If the nation, as a whole (the Koch-controlled state legislatures and their Republican-majorities in the Senate and House excepted) embraced the indisputable fact that the Earth is turning over in terms of weather and ecosystems, we would be building houses of brick (Practical Pig) instead of straw and sticks as the two stupid brother-pigs did, allowing the Big Bad Wolf, a/k/a the destructive force of nature, to wreak havoc on them.
We've got to cease deifying capital as the most efficient, the finest social/financial systems devised by human ingenuity. Profit cannot continue to be turned into the only altar at which we worship. For if we continue to ignore the obvious, one day, there'll be nothing left on which to build.
Money will be useless when there's no one left to spend it.
If the nation, as a whole (the Koch-controlled state legislatures and their Republican-majorities in the Senate and House excepted) embraced the indisputable fact that the Earth is turning over in terms of weather and ecosystems, we would be building houses of brick (Practical Pig) instead of straw and sticks as the two stupid brother-pigs did, allowing the Big Bad Wolf, a/k/a the destructive force of nature, to wreak havoc on them.
We've got to cease deifying capital as the most efficient, the finest social/financial systems devised by human ingenuity. Profit cannot continue to be turned into the only altar at which we worship. For if we continue to ignore the obvious, one day, there'll be nothing left on which to build.
Money will be useless when there's no one left to spend it.
187
Sox,
Fewer people would mean less climate change a "good thing" according to you!
Fewer people would mean less climate change a "good thing" according to you!
In addition to the financial incentives of the energy companies to deny climate change and keep things status quo--there is the public's complicity in the belief (hope) that things like Harvey (and levees catastrophically breaking in Dallas--predicted by the U.S. Army Core of Engineers--or major earthquakes from fracking--Category 3 under the old Cowboys' Stadium area several weeks ago--just don't or won't happen to them.
But, the public's denial is just below the surface. In Dallas in the last few days there has been a "gas shortage." This shortage is either real or imagined. Our government leaders are telling us that we, ourselves, have CAUSED the shortage by rushing to the pumps when we heard that several large refineries had closed down in Houston due to Harvey. No one wants to be a panicky idiot--but, no one wants to be without gas. This will either pass, or it won't.
We all rush to the pumps--climate change deniers as well as the rest of us--because we all know (if we don't admit out loud) that our government in Texas is corrupt and wrong, that our U.S. Senators are corrupt and wrong and that they are all in the pockets of "climate-denying" energy companies. It's becoming more and more evident that none of them cares at all if Houston or Dallas or San Antonio flood, or are contaminated with toxins, or are even destroyed.
Most of us expect things to be "back to business" in a week or so. Those in Houston will be mostly on their own. And nothing will change.
But, the public's denial is just below the surface. In Dallas in the last few days there has been a "gas shortage." This shortage is either real or imagined. Our government leaders are telling us that we, ourselves, have CAUSED the shortage by rushing to the pumps when we heard that several large refineries had closed down in Houston due to Harvey. No one wants to be a panicky idiot--but, no one wants to be without gas. This will either pass, or it won't.
We all rush to the pumps--climate change deniers as well as the rest of us--because we all know (if we don't admit out loud) that our government in Texas is corrupt and wrong, that our U.S. Senators are corrupt and wrong and that they are all in the pockets of "climate-denying" energy companies. It's becoming more and more evident that none of them cares at all if Houston or Dallas or San Antonio flood, or are contaminated with toxins, or are even destroyed.
Most of us expect things to be "back to business" in a week or so. Those in Houston will be mostly on their own. And nothing will change.
3
Well written - thank you! There have always been the naysayers before a big ecological disaster takes place. Unfortunately, those people who have been elected to lead this great nation are also the ones leading us down a path of no return. The average American needs to be his/her own Commander in Chief and make well thought out logical decisions for the safety of their families because as far as I can see no wisdom is coming out of the White House. It would be interesting to know if climate change contributed to the Missoula Floods at the end of the last Ice Age (13 - 15,000 years ago). Scientists say that by the time the flood waters reached what is now Pasco, Wa from the melting ice dam near what is now the Northern Clark Fork River, it was still over 1200 ft high. By the time they reached what is now Portland, Or they were about 300 ft high. It is no wonder that catastrophic flood stories stay in the human psyche forever!
3
Climate changes is real.
There were hurricanes before there was civilization.
Hurricanes are no proof of climate change, but rather events ripe for politically opportunist to exploit.
There were hurricanes before there was civilization.
Hurricanes are no proof of climate change, but rather events ripe for politically opportunist to exploit.
3
Nick, in this case, the NYT must cite the opinions from major and influential Texas universities. Otherwise, the discussion is perceived as coming from NE liberals who are not losing everything (repeat, everything) in this flood. And, this perception would be justified.
The people of Houston also need their voices heard and quoted in all media.
The people of Houston also need their voices heard and quoted in all media.
3
These 2 quotes from your articles, grabbed my attention in particular:
"Nine of the top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred since 1990." and "Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global average surface temperature, according to NASA...."
And so the question you posed "why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?" has a simple answer: a number of elected official have sold their proverbial souls to corporations who have a stake in continuing 'business as usual.' That is, to ignore how their industrial processes are contributing to the worsening problems here on earth.
Perhaps if we had public dollars funding campaigns - the only source of campaign money - we could mitigate in the long run the toxic effects of "buying" our candidates by PAC's, corporations, and very wealthy individuals. Yes, such a solution will mean significantly increased taxes. What's the alternative? An uninhabitable earth.
"Nine of the top 10 years for heavy downpours in the U.S. have occurred since 1990." and "Last year was the third in a row to set a record for highest global average surface temperature, according to NASA...."
And so the question you posed "why can’t our leaders be as alert to climate risks that in the long run may be far more destructive?" has a simple answer: a number of elected official have sold their proverbial souls to corporations who have a stake in continuing 'business as usual.' That is, to ignore how their industrial processes are contributing to the worsening problems here on earth.
Perhaps if we had public dollars funding campaigns - the only source of campaign money - we could mitigate in the long run the toxic effects of "buying" our candidates by PAC's, corporations, and very wealthy individuals. Yes, such a solution will mean significantly increased taxes. What's the alternative? An uninhabitable earth.
214
You know perfectly well why we can't deal with the obvious harm to ourselves and our children. Because in the early 1990s right-wing nutjob radio and TV found a profitable entertainment niche shrieking that all out country's institutions were lies, because the Republican Party winked and smirked and joined the caterwauling because it got them power, and because we the people of the USA, largely the southern USA, are quite content to let the world boil around us rather than look beyond our noses.
12
I doubt there exists adjectives describing insanity, cruel behavior and deplorable leadership qualities that has not been attached to Trump and many of his abysmal cabinet choices. I am sure such descriptors have been used up and with good reason. Why then would you expect climate change to be acknowledged?
You write, "An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief." A valid "second step" but what will defray the costs of moving every Gulf Coast and ocean side city 400 miles or more inland to escape rising sea levels?
Estimates of repair costs for Harvey's damage are as high as 150 billion dollars. We willingly spend this amount only to have more 500 years storms rage ashore with the same or worse results and more frequently? Are we insane?
Dollars alone won't come close to fixing these problems but we are willing to ignore the obvious so pigheaded politicians can dig this climate hole deeper and deeper.
"Gee, I might have to rethink this," is a common question that involves far more than just weather.
You write, "An obvious first step is to embrace the Paris climate accord. A second step would be to put a price on carbon, perhaps through a carbon tax to pay for tax cuts or disaster relief." A valid "second step" but what will defray the costs of moving every Gulf Coast and ocean side city 400 miles or more inland to escape rising sea levels?
Estimates of repair costs for Harvey's damage are as high as 150 billion dollars. We willingly spend this amount only to have more 500 years storms rage ashore with the same or worse results and more frequently? Are we insane?
Dollars alone won't come close to fixing these problems but we are willing to ignore the obvious so pigheaded politicians can dig this climate hole deeper and deeper.
"Gee, I might have to rethink this," is a common question that involves far more than just weather.
6
As a Texan - in the Houston area - I'm done with elected officials who deny manmade climate change. I don't respect them. I don't trust them. I don't think they're smart. I feel the same way about their staffs.
.
That said, many of the problems in the Houston area are put there by people who live and work thousands of miles away. Arkema - the owner of the exploding chemical plant in Crosby - is headquartered in the suburbs of Paris, France. Executives at companies like Arkema would never dream of polluting their own communities - but they have no qualms about polluting ours. It's hypocrisy at its worst and it's a deeper, bigger problem than I think most are willing to admit.
.
That said, many of the problems in the Houston area are put there by people who live and work thousands of miles away. Arkema - the owner of the exploding chemical plant in Crosby - is headquartered in the suburbs of Paris, France. Executives at companies like Arkema would never dream of polluting their own communities - but they have no qualms about polluting ours. It's hypocrisy at its worst and it's a deeper, bigger problem than I think most are willing to admit.
217
The Arkemas of the world will pollute wherever they are permitted to pollute. It just so happens that there are politicians (Republicans) that use polluters and tax rebates to bring jobs to their communities. In the long term this is a dangerous and toxic way to go.
And it is a long term commitment. People and politicians in these chemical corridors are willing to look the other way while the fish in the rivers die and kids can no longer swim because of the pollution. It is a crime that these same people deny all truth and science just so that they can have a job that kills them and everyone else around them.
There is a better way. There are new ways of doing things but people refuse to want to move forward. This inertia is killing us all.
And it is a long term commitment. People and politicians in these chemical corridors are willing to look the other way while the fish in the rivers die and kids can no longer swim because of the pollution. It is a crime that these same people deny all truth and science just so that they can have a job that kills them and everyone else around them.
There is a better way. There are new ways of doing things but people refuse to want to move forward. This inertia is killing us all.
Those companies are there due to Texas' zoning laws that enable these plants to be placed within residential areas. Furthermore, this lack of zoning ordinances makes flooding far worse. Your state is an enabler of these polluters.
1
Remember how comforting it used to be, knowing regulations enacted to protect us citizens were in place and would be enforced? As soon as the Republicans get into office they start knocking down these protections. Their argument is that it is bad for business. So now you have companies starting up here (like Arkema) because there is no accountability and thus they avoid those pesky regulations they would have to abide by in their own country.
The Eclipse was " believed ", because it didn't require any sacrifice. Well, except for the cheap, special eyeglasses. Climate change, if taken seriously, will require additional costs, regulations, sacrifice. Therefore, the GOP ostriches will stick their heads in the soggy sand, wallowing in their willful ignorance. After all, disaster relief can be covered by Federal funding. The RED states can Mooch, even more than usual. So, no problem. The Confederacy won the Civil War. They are collecting, now.
11
The Feds provided relief to the North East after Sandy, more "Mooching"? By the way do you drive an electric car?
More than even climate change, it was the most basic environmental regulations that either were ignored or, probably, never in force anyway that, if they didn't cause the floods in Houston certainly made them worse.
Don't build in wetlands, they are ecologically valuable. "Oh, no, don't tell me where to build, it's my property and I'll do what I please!" So the land that should have helped soak up a great deal of rain water had been turned to concrete and threw the water back in Houston's face. But you know this will never change because . . . regulations are BAD! Government interference is BAD! Look forward to more of the same.
Don't build in wetlands, they are ecologically valuable. "Oh, no, don't tell me where to build, it's my property and I'll do what I please!" So the land that should have helped soak up a great deal of rain water had been turned to concrete and threw the water back in Houston's face. But you know this will never change because . . . regulations are BAD! Government interference is BAD! Look forward to more of the same.
6
We have gone ten years without major hurricane landfalls, which suggests that the global warming experts are mistaken in their prediction of the increase in the frequency and severity of hurricanes.
The phenomenal increase in the cost of hurricanes in the past two decades compared to previous generations is associated with the higher value of building that exists today in flood prone areas. A home on Long Island destroyed by a flood cost $10,000 to replace in 1960. [$66,000 in Sandy inflated dollars.] When Sandy hit, there were 10 times as many homes destroyed and it cost flood insurance $350,000 each and other sources and additional $350,000. At an average of $700,000 per house destroyed, it doesn't take much to get to a trillion dollar storm.
The flooding in Houston is the result of there being three times as much land paved over as in 1960, meaning there is more to be damaged and also less ground to absorb 50 inches of rain and there also isn't sufficient open drainage area to speed the water out to sea. The damage level is the result of actions of mankind. They have nothing to do with CO2.
If the planet is warming, it is resulting in fewer, less severe, hurricanes. But do not allow facts get in the way of opinion.
The phenomenal increase in the cost of hurricanes in the past two decades compared to previous generations is associated with the higher value of building that exists today in flood prone areas. A home on Long Island destroyed by a flood cost $10,000 to replace in 1960. [$66,000 in Sandy inflated dollars.] When Sandy hit, there were 10 times as many homes destroyed and it cost flood insurance $350,000 each and other sources and additional $350,000. At an average of $700,000 per house destroyed, it doesn't take much to get to a trillion dollar storm.
The flooding in Houston is the result of there being three times as much land paved over as in 1960, meaning there is more to be damaged and also less ground to absorb 50 inches of rain and there also isn't sufficient open drainage area to speed the water out to sea. The damage level is the result of actions of mankind. They have nothing to do with CO2.
If the planet is warming, it is resulting in fewer, less severe, hurricanes. But do not allow facts get in the way of opinion.
2
Very wrong....first, the Atlantic portion of the US is not the entire globe. Climate scientists NEVER predicted that hurricanes would increase in frequency or land falls in the US. Please read the associated section of the IPCC report.
What was projected is the fact that warmer oceans...which have warmed significantly over the past 150 years...would produce hurricanes with more energy. And that is exactly what has happened over the GLOBE.
Cost of damage of a hurricane is not really a good metric as strong hurricanes hitting low population and infrastructure areas will not ring up much dollar based damage. The fact is that this hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina packed a lot of energy...with such events increasing. How many Harvey events to you need to see?
There is no "if" to the planet warming...unless one follows an ideology and does not understand basic physics.
What was projected is the fact that warmer oceans...which have warmed significantly over the past 150 years...would produce hurricanes with more energy. And that is exactly what has happened over the GLOBE.
Cost of damage of a hurricane is not really a good metric as strong hurricanes hitting low population and infrastructure areas will not ring up much dollar based damage. The fact is that this hurricanes such as Sandy and Katrina packed a lot of energy...with such events increasing. How many Harvey events to you need to see?
There is no "if" to the planet warming...unless one follows an ideology and does not understand basic physics.
7
G,
The planet has been warming for the last 12,000 years! That's why all the ice that was covering Canada and the U.S. melted and the seas haven risen over 300 feet. Most of this "change" occurred while humans were living in caves!
The planet has been warming for the last 12,000 years! That's why all the ice that was covering Canada and the U.S. melted and the seas haven risen over 300 feet. Most of this "change" occurred while humans were living in caves!
@Richard.
The planet has not been warming over the last 12000 years. It warmed to the Holocene max about 8000 years, remained stable until about 6500 years ago when it started cooling...there was the roman warm period, followed by the medieval warm period, followed by the little ice age. That is cooling and in line with the Milankovitch cycles. All the millennia of cooling has reversed in only 150 years which is very fast.
The planet has not been warming over the last 12000 years. It warmed to the Holocene max about 8000 years, remained stable until about 6500 years ago when it started cooling...there was the roman warm period, followed by the medieval warm period, followed by the little ice age. That is cooling and in line with the Milankovitch cycles. All the millennia of cooling has reversed in only 150 years which is very fast.
1
What does Harvey and Climate Change have to do with each other? Absolutely nothing -- just ask anyone at the National Hurricane Center.
What happened with Harvey is a hurricane stalled out over an area with notoriously-bad drainage (Houston).
I'd like to draw to your attention that this year multiple areas in Florida have been hit with 20+" of rain in a week's time period, and it's not climate change-related.
What has changed are the number of people living in areas prone to flooding, and modern development techniques which pave over green spaces and try to unnaturally funnel water away.
Have humans left a negative effect on the environment/climate? Sure. BUT Harvey isn't the result.
What happened with Harvey is a hurricane stalled out over an area with notoriously-bad drainage (Houston).
I'd like to draw to your attention that this year multiple areas in Florida have been hit with 20+" of rain in a week's time period, and it's not climate change-related.
What has changed are the number of people living in areas prone to flooding, and modern development techniques which pave over green spaces and try to unnaturally funnel water away.
Have humans left a negative effect on the environment/climate? Sure. BUT Harvey isn't the result.
2
You miss the point. Nobody is saying climate change caused Harvey. They are saying climate change probably made Harvey worse than it would have been otherwise. You have no credibility if you don't state the facts upon which your contention is based. Most climate scientists, who were probably a lot smarter in school than you or I were, probably profoundly disagree with you.
10
EC,
Government feels obliged to do something in the face of nature even when it can't really change anything. That's why the Chinese Emperor's archers fired arrows at "the Dragon devouring the sun" (the moon) during eclipses.
Government feels obliged to do something in the face of nature even when it can't really change anything. That's why the Chinese Emperor's archers fired arrows at "the Dragon devouring the sun" (the moon) during eclipses.
Geologic evidence infers climate change is real. We're in a post Pleistocene interglacial warming period exacerbated by the industrial revolution.
Saying climate change is responsible for Harvey's rain is a lie though, a high pressure ridge that caused Harvey to stall and spin for days over the Gulf coast was responsible for the deluge. If one says the false statement that the warming trend is responsible for storms like Harvey one must also make the contradictory statement that the same warming caused the gulf hurricane hiatus the past 12 years. These don't square.
The gulf has been home to hurricanes and heavy rains historically, and will continue to. The wasn't a one in thousand year rain event but closer to a one in one hundred year event, about how long we've been keeping good gulf weather records. Galveston was obliterated by a gulf storm in the year 1900, by a storm disaster much worse than Harvey.
Science ought to be about facts not irrational emotions, politics or selling the news.
Saying climate change is responsible for Harvey's rain is a lie though, a high pressure ridge that caused Harvey to stall and spin for days over the Gulf coast was responsible for the deluge. If one says the false statement that the warming trend is responsible for storms like Harvey one must also make the contradictory statement that the same warming caused the gulf hurricane hiatus the past 12 years. These don't square.
The gulf has been home to hurricanes and heavy rains historically, and will continue to. The wasn't a one in thousand year rain event but closer to a one in one hundred year event, about how long we've been keeping good gulf weather records. Galveston was obliterated by a gulf storm in the year 1900, by a storm disaster much worse than Harvey.
Science ought to be about facts not irrational emotions, politics or selling the news.
1
Harvey was not an outlier. There have been two Harvey events in Houston in the last 100 years. This was not a sign of climate change, it was simply normal weather. Extreme, yes, but fully within the bounds of periodic weather that is encountered in Houston.
1
Alvin, Texas, near Houston, was deluged by 43 inches of rain in 24 hours from July 24-25, 1979, setting an all-time record 24-hour rainfall for the U.S. The torrential rain fell as Tropical Storm Claudette made landfall near the Texas-Louisiana border before stalling right over Alvin.
These people should rebuild elsewhere.
These people should rebuild elsewhere.
1
Hooey,
Your claim that Harvey was not a sign of climate change is hooey. Even if it was within the historical bounds of Houston's weather, the amount and intensity of Harvey's rains was partially due to increased convection over warmer waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and more moisture carried by warmer air over SE Texas.
Weather is variable around the local average, but anthropogenic climate change has loaded the dice for higher rolls, and even added a dot or two. A changing climate is changing weather everywhere.
Your claim that Harvey was not a sign of climate change is hooey. Even if it was within the historical bounds of Houston's weather, the amount and intensity of Harvey's rains was partially due to increased convection over warmer waters of the Gulf of Mexico, and more moisture carried by warmer air over SE Texas.
Weather is variable around the local average, but anthropogenic climate change has loaded the dice for higher rolls, and even added a dot or two. A changing climate is changing weather everywhere.
7
Climate change is an article of faith among the secular left.
Drought or flood or locusts or frogs the culprit is always climate change and the solution is always bigger government and higher taxes.
Drought or flood or locusts or frogs the culprit is always climate change and the solution is always bigger government and higher taxes.
3
From NYT Columnist and climate change minimizer, Bret Stephens:
"Then again, as meteorologist Philip Klotzbach points out, it’s also only one of four Category 4 or 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the United States since 1970."
Nothing to worry about, says Bret. Our wealth is our salvation.
Of course, Bret got wrapped up in the wrong numbers. What he might have more helpfully observed is that 4 of the 11 most destructive storms in US history occurred just since 2005, when wimpy little Category 3 Katrina become the most destructive storm to date.
Its not the Category that causes the destruction, its a number of factors considered together, like topography, population density, development and the amount of water the storm pumps.
Even now, a new Hurricane Irma churns toward the southeastern coast of the US, with at least some possibility of building up to a Big One. With national emergency resources fully deployed in Houston, its not an ideal time for another natural disaster, especially with growing labor shortages.
Let's hope we dodge this double barreled threat, but it won't be long before yet another storm emerges. And with each one, denial and dismissal grows harder.
"Then again, as meteorologist Philip Klotzbach points out, it’s also only one of four Category 4 or 5 hurricanes to make landfall in the United States since 1970."
Nothing to worry about, says Bret. Our wealth is our salvation.
Of course, Bret got wrapped up in the wrong numbers. What he might have more helpfully observed is that 4 of the 11 most destructive storms in US history occurred just since 2005, when wimpy little Category 3 Katrina become the most destructive storm to date.
Its not the Category that causes the destruction, its a number of factors considered together, like topography, population density, development and the amount of water the storm pumps.
Even now, a new Hurricane Irma churns toward the southeastern coast of the US, with at least some possibility of building up to a Big One. With national emergency resources fully deployed in Houston, its not an ideal time for another natural disaster, especially with growing labor shortages.
Let's hope we dodge this double barreled threat, but it won't be long before yet another storm emerges. And with each one, denial and dismissal grows harder.
9
Climate alarmism is not science but feelings, irrationality. Hurricanes have always happened. People who blindly embrace nuclear weapons and who threaten to use them scare this writer more than any hurricane, drought or our changing cilmate.
1
When someone complains that Climate Science Alarmists or the UN Climate Change council want to bring down the standard of living in Western Nations, I want to ask the deniers how many televisions they really need, why their kids ride endlessly down my dirt road on jumbo quads (can't they hike?), why obesity is an American epidemic, why anyone needs a McMansion or more pavement, a 14 mpg vehicle, etc etc.
We deny climate change because we are ignorant of science. Same reason we deny the neuro and chemical basis for sexual preference or gender identity.
Complicated stuff is not the American way for a lot of us. Easy D. We don't like those hyper educated elites. And if we are honest, guys like Donald who don't pay tax are happy to pander to corporations who don't want to be regulated. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, we're talking to you. Financial Roundtable - we love some of you individually, but your agenda stinks. Heritage. Any caucus called Freedom.
Thanks Mr. Kristof, for being the smart, compassionate, tireless, versatile tilter at windmills. Because I don't think we are winning. But we might.
We deny climate change because we are ignorant of science. Same reason we deny the neuro and chemical basis for sexual preference or gender identity.
Complicated stuff is not the American way for a lot of us. Easy D. We don't like those hyper educated elites. And if we are honest, guys like Donald who don't pay tax are happy to pander to corporations who don't want to be regulated. Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, we're talking to you. Financial Roundtable - we love some of you individually, but your agenda stinks. Heritage. Any caucus called Freedom.
Thanks Mr. Kristof, for being the smart, compassionate, tireless, versatile tilter at windmills. Because I don't think we are winning. But we might.
5
When you follow the money, the obvious becomes less than obvious because legislators and administration officials are paid handsomely to deflect and obfuscate.
How can one refute why around 97% of scientists acknowledge that climate change is the result of human activities (i.e. fossil fuels?) Easy! Politicians and the climate deniers depend on the rhetorical accounting of the right wing press. For example, the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-9..., and the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-gl..., and of course the bell weather of facile facts, FOX News. Their reporting is always good enough for those programmed to assimilate an alternate reality.
Unless the majority of Americans experience some especially meaningful change in the quality of their life, politicians will be continue loading up their campaign war chests.
Hurricane Harvey is a textbook example of how government works. 100% of America is going to chip-in to bailout 1% of the population (north of 50 billion), PLUS the energy companies. What? Yup, the energy companies who are at the root of climate change are spared harm because when disaster strikes, they automatically and immediately reap billions of dollars in increased oil and gas prices. Sweet deal, I would say. Thank your member of Congress - they deserve all the credit.
How can one refute why around 97% of scientists acknowledge that climate change is the result of human activities (i.e. fossil fuels?) Easy! Politicians and the climate deniers depend on the rhetorical accounting of the right wing press. For example, the National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-9..., and the Daily Caller (http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/05/lets-talk-about-the-97-consensus-on-gl..., and of course the bell weather of facile facts, FOX News. Their reporting is always good enough for those programmed to assimilate an alternate reality.
Unless the majority of Americans experience some especially meaningful change in the quality of their life, politicians will be continue loading up their campaign war chests.
Hurricane Harvey is a textbook example of how government works. 100% of America is going to chip-in to bailout 1% of the population (north of 50 billion), PLUS the energy companies. What? Yup, the energy companies who are at the root of climate change are spared harm because when disaster strikes, they automatically and immediately reap billions of dollars in increased oil and gas prices. Sweet deal, I would say. Thank your member of Congress - they deserve all the credit.
17
I agree that the planet is warming, and know that the planet has warmed, cooled, and warmed again. What we can do is help to reduce population growth and reduce CO2 emissions.
But the political aim of UN Climate Change groups is to bring down the standard of living of Western nations while bringing up the standard of living of Third World countries. Don’t believe it? Read their words:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Otto Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal?
"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
" Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said, "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-ad...
But the political aim of UN Climate Change groups is to bring down the standard of living of Western nations while bringing up the standard of living of Third World countries. Don’t believe it? Read their words:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Otto Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal?
"We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer.
For those who want to believe that maybe Edenhofer doesn't really mean that, consider that a little more than five years ago he also said that "the next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated."
" Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, said, "This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history."
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/another-climate-alarmist-ad...
1
Well, why shouldn't we Begin to consider what we hold "sacred" that is our standard of living? Because our so-called standard puts about 4 billion human souls at risk, that might be why. Our take-it-for-granted assumption that our standard of living has been righteously earned is a fallacy. Basic economics can explain this.
Our"standard of living" in the USA has been borne on the back of native Americans, slavery, and institutionalized racism
Where is the historical perspective here?
Our"standard of living" in the USA has been borne on the back of native Americans, slavery, and institutionalized racism
Where is the historical perspective here?
14
Anne,
Where is your "historical prospective" those big buildings you drive by as you head down the east coast are called "Indian Casinos" Native Americans own and benefit from them!
Visit other countries in the "new world" and see how their indigenous people live! With the exception of Canada the answer is Not so Well! Visit Europe and see how the Gypsies live or any other minority group. Also Not so Well!
That too would be "Historical Prospective"!
Where is your "historical prospective" those big buildings you drive by as you head down the east coast are called "Indian Casinos" Native Americans own and benefit from them!
Visit other countries in the "new world" and see how their indigenous people live! With the exception of Canada the answer is Not so Well! Visit Europe and see how the Gypsies live or any other minority group. Also Not so Well!
That too would be "Historical Prospective"!
"Frankly, it’s staggering that there’s still so much resistance among elected officials to the idea of human-caused climate change."
I can't imagine what the rest of the world thinks of the United States these days. The evidence is before our very eyes, and yet, it's the great "unspoken" causal agent of our time.
In fact, I think that while the right attacks the left for an overabundance of "political correctness" when it comes to cultural issues, an even better argument can be made for political correctness when it comes to science.
Notice how everybody, even here in the comments section, tiptoed around the reasons for Harvey? How we all expressed our dismay and compassion for the Texans but didn't dare say anything about the wild-west Texas attitude towards regulations, even to the point of corporations being forbidden to tell the public what chemicals were housed in storage facilities?
You're so right, Nicholas, that the national rallied to prevent another 9/11 which was perpetrated by outsiders. But for politicians to claim Harvey is just another "act of God" while claiming no responsibility whatsoever for decades of antiregulatory, "growth at any price" public policies, is both intellectually and morally wrong.
I can't imagine what the rest of the world thinks of the United States these days. The evidence is before our very eyes, and yet, it's the great "unspoken" causal agent of our time.
In fact, I think that while the right attacks the left for an overabundance of "political correctness" when it comes to cultural issues, an even better argument can be made for political correctness when it comes to science.
Notice how everybody, even here in the comments section, tiptoed around the reasons for Harvey? How we all expressed our dismay and compassion for the Texans but didn't dare say anything about the wild-west Texas attitude towards regulations, even to the point of corporations being forbidden to tell the public what chemicals were housed in storage facilities?
You're so right, Nicholas, that the national rallied to prevent another 9/11 which was perpetrated by outsiders. But for politicians to claim Harvey is just another "act of God" while claiming no responsibility whatsoever for decades of antiregulatory, "growth at any price" public policies, is both intellectually and morally wrong.
154
You haven't read the same comments I have. Plenty of people have commented extensively on the relation of climate change to Harvey and the relation of Texas' lax regulation to the harm caused by Harvey.
Tanaka, you are correct except other posters shot them down when they did. So climate change even here in the liberal Times became a subject for debate, and almost PC-like pall was cast over anyone seen as "blaming" Texas for this "500 year storm" that suddenly, in the arc of things, becomes more of a regular occurrence. Many in the GOP lauded Texas as a model for the country, the land of opportunity, where unbridled capitalism and degregulation created cities of cement and buildings with few construction codes. The laws preventing public disclosure of toxic chemicals were particularly heinous, leaving state officials in the awkward position of not being able to warn residents when to evacuate until the companies coughed up this information. Texas is really the poster child for deregulation that puts state residents at risk--but God forbid any Democratic official to mention this, when people are dying and cities need to rebuild from the ground up.
Point is, will they learn from Harvey? I doubt it because the PC bias against climate change is so strong and the state is run by the GOP, notorious climate change deniers paid for, and elected by the richest energy producers who put company profits ahead of resident safety.
Point is, will they learn from Harvey? I doubt it because the PC bias against climate change is so strong and the state is run by the GOP, notorious climate change deniers paid for, and elected by the richest energy producers who put company profits ahead of resident safety.
2
Christine,
A "social conscience" is a wonderful thing but is it enough? Have you installed solar panels on your house? Do you drive an electric car? Have you protested in front of any Liberal's palatial energy wasting estate like Al Gore's, the Clintons, or the Obamas?
I have solar panels and an electric car how many here can say the same!
A "social conscience" is a wonderful thing but is it enough? Have you installed solar panels on your house? Do you drive an electric car? Have you protested in front of any Liberal's palatial energy wasting estate like Al Gore's, the Clintons, or the Obamas?
I have solar panels and an electric car how many here can say the same!
Until Americans are willing to accept the fact that government can indeed effect positive change, I'm afraid there's not much action that will be taken. Our elected leaders were chosen by an electorate that still reveres the memory of Saint Ronald. Indeed, it's not even his memory - it's a fairy tale that has replaced the genuine history of 40th president.
Reagan cut taxes and the economy grew - so, tax cuts grow the economy, period. It doesn't matter how many times we see the opposite happening - it's Reagan's Rule and it can't be violated. Same with government being incompetent: no matter how many times we fly safely across America in a system heavily - and very successfully - regulated by the government, the Reagan Rule says government is inefficient, so that's that.
Reagan removed the solar panels Carter had installed on the roof of the White House, so clearly he was a fan of fossil fuels, not renewables - right?
Wrong on just about all of the above. Reagan actually was a leader in the early fight against climate change. He cut some taxes and raised others. He increased the size of the federal government. He was nothing like the cowboy mythology that fuels the worst contemporary policies.
Reagan was the ultimate pragmatist. If he were president today he would be on the forefront of cutting carbon emissions and developing alternative energy sources. Instead we're being destroyed by his fictional legacy.
Reagan cut taxes and the economy grew - so, tax cuts grow the economy, period. It doesn't matter how many times we see the opposite happening - it's Reagan's Rule and it can't be violated. Same with government being incompetent: no matter how many times we fly safely across America in a system heavily - and very successfully - regulated by the government, the Reagan Rule says government is inefficient, so that's that.
Reagan removed the solar panels Carter had installed on the roof of the White House, so clearly he was a fan of fossil fuels, not renewables - right?
Wrong on just about all of the above. Reagan actually was a leader in the early fight against climate change. He cut some taxes and raised others. He increased the size of the federal government. He was nothing like the cowboy mythology that fuels the worst contemporary policies.
Reagan was the ultimate pragmatist. If he were president today he would be on the forefront of cutting carbon emissions and developing alternative energy sources. Instead we're being destroyed by his fictional legacy.
4
That last paragraph is a good one. Best comparison I've seen. If climate deniers trust scientists about the eclipse, why not trust them about climate change. Prize-winning words for sure.
8
I have lived on or near the Atlantic Ocean coast most of my life. While we have always had our share of big and dangerous hurricanes, they seem to be more frequent now.
But climate change deniers always have an excuse for why it isn't so. Look, today was cooler than a usual summer day or warmer than a usual winter day, so it can't be true that our climate is changing. They fail to grasp that they are describing weather, not climate.
Until we get these deniers out of office, we will not get far. Witness the undoing of numerous regulations related to weather and climate in the past nine months.
Ostriches keep their heads in the sand and do nothing, then lament the destruction of major cities.
But climate change deniers always have an excuse for why it isn't so. Look, today was cooler than a usual summer day or warmer than a usual winter day, so it can't be true that our climate is changing. They fail to grasp that they are describing weather, not climate.
Until we get these deniers out of office, we will not get far. Witness the undoing of numerous regulations related to weather and climate in the past nine months.
Ostriches keep their heads in the sand and do nothing, then lament the destruction of major cities.
12
"First, hurricanes arise from warm waters, and the Gulf of Mexico has warmed by 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit..."
First, Atlantic hurricanes don't arise in the Gulf of Mexico; they arise in the eastern Atlantic and track westerly.
Second, the U.S. has not suffered a Category 4 storm since Katrina and Wilma in 2005. That's 12 years without a major hurricane, the longest "drought" since recording began in 1900.
Third, Hurricane Sandy (2012) was not a major hurricane; indeed, it was not a hurricane at all, but a post tropical cyclone when it landed in the U.S.
It took a very unusual right turn and struck New Jersey first. It also occurred
during a full moon, which greatly enhanced its tidal surge.
Are you suggesting that the geniuses of Paris can control the tides, like King Kanute?
First, Atlantic hurricanes don't arise in the Gulf of Mexico; they arise in the eastern Atlantic and track westerly.
Second, the U.S. has not suffered a Category 4 storm since Katrina and Wilma in 2005. That's 12 years without a major hurricane, the longest "drought" since recording began in 1900.
Third, Hurricane Sandy (2012) was not a major hurricane; indeed, it was not a hurricane at all, but a post tropical cyclone when it landed in the U.S.
It took a very unusual right turn and struck New Jersey first. It also occurred
during a full moon, which greatly enhanced its tidal surge.
Are you suggesting that the geniuses of Paris can control the tides, like King Kanute?
2
King Canute made no claim that he could control the tides.
On the contrary, when his subjects claimed he was all-powerful, he had them take his throne down to the beach, right at the water's edge. Then he commanded the tide to turn.
They saw then how stupid it was to believe he could control everything,even the movements of the mighty sea.
On the contrary, when his subjects claimed he was all-powerful, he had them take his throne down to the beach, right at the water's edge. Then he commanded the tide to turn.
They saw then how stupid it was to believe he could control everything,even the movements of the mighty sea.
4
Are you suggesting the Atlantic coast is the whole globe?
Anecdotes are not data...that pesky science stuff.
By the way, the number of cat 4 and 5 hurricanes over the globe have increases over about 30% since 1970....yea! (even if the total number is not increasing, hurricanes are more energetic.
Anecdotes are not data...that pesky science stuff.
By the way, the number of cat 4 and 5 hurricanes over the globe have increases over about 30% since 1970....yea! (even if the total number is not increasing, hurricanes are more energetic.
8
@Glennmr:
Hurricanes only form in the warm waters off equitorial Africa.
They only travel west. They lose strength when over land or when they move to colder northern waters. They don't strike Norway or Rome or Detroit or the Middle East.
So, yes, in the case of hurricanes, the Atlantic coast IS the whole globe.
Hurricanes only form in the warm waters off equitorial Africa.
They only travel west. They lose strength when over land or when they move to colder northern waters. They don't strike Norway or Rome or Detroit or the Middle East.
So, yes, in the case of hurricanes, the Atlantic coast IS the whole globe.
1
Please add to your list of things we should be doing: reinstating methane limits, fully funding the EPA and populating it with real scientists again, promoting truly sustainable, renewable energy (which emphatically does NOT include nuclear), and keeping fossil fuels in the ground.
193
Do you know if any current regulations have impacted climate change? Shouldn't we know by now?
1
I think that climate change is too long-term an issue, and the regulations have been too inconsistent and in place for too short a time, for us to be able to begin to measure the impact that they have had so far. Given the science, and the dire consequences of not mitigating the effects that we are creating, these actions seem to me to be simple common sense.
3
Bill,
Even if all fossil carbon emissions ceased today, under 'greenhouse' warming, the Earth's surface wouldn't reach its equilibrium temperature for decades to centuries. That's partly due to thermal inertia. It's also partly because of mid-to-long-term feedbacks to anthropogenic CO2 forcing, such as outgassing of CO2 from warming oceans, or methane release from melting permafrost.
In any case, while global fossil carbon emissions may have slowed, they have not ceased. The US and some other countries are reporting emissions declines, but the 'Keeling curve' of total atmospheric CO2 is still rising steadily, as it has since 1959. When the slope of the Keeling curve decreases (i.e. total atmospheric CO2 rises more slowly), we'll see how effective emissions abatement policies are.
I hope it's clear that atmospheric CO2 will only *stop* rising when anthropogenic emissions, and all CO2-emitting feedbacks, have ceased completely. For the reasons I discussed above, global surface temperature will keep rising for some time after that. Currently, it's warming at about 0.2 degrees C per decade. How high it will eventually rise, and how fast, largely depends on how soon the US enacts Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff.
Even if all fossil carbon emissions ceased today, under 'greenhouse' warming, the Earth's surface wouldn't reach its equilibrium temperature for decades to centuries. That's partly due to thermal inertia. It's also partly because of mid-to-long-term feedbacks to anthropogenic CO2 forcing, such as outgassing of CO2 from warming oceans, or methane release from melting permafrost.
In any case, while global fossil carbon emissions may have slowed, they have not ceased. The US and some other countries are reporting emissions declines, but the 'Keeling curve' of total atmospheric CO2 is still rising steadily, as it has since 1959. When the slope of the Keeling curve decreases (i.e. total atmospheric CO2 rises more slowly), we'll see how effective emissions abatement policies are.
I hope it's clear that atmospheric CO2 will only *stop* rising when anthropogenic emissions, and all CO2-emitting feedbacks, have ceased completely. For the reasons I discussed above, global surface temperature will keep rising for some time after that. Currently, it's warming at about 0.2 degrees C per decade. How high it will eventually rise, and how fast, largely depends on how soon the US enacts Carbon Fee and Dividend with Border Adjustment Tariff.
2
Ignoring reality is what we do. It’s so much more convenient to pretend everything is just fine.
And then the bleeding obvious surprises us when it can no longer be rationalized. It doesn’t help that our most highly placed government leaders have a vested interest in ignoring reality. Getting the coal vote was apparently more important than reducing fossil fuel emissions.
This is especially true when the president is so reality-challenged and obstinately perverse that he’d look at the sun during the eclipse, even after the experts said not to. Experts! Bah! What do they know?
Maybe the experts should tell him not to stick his finger in an electric socket. Or play with dynamite.
We may have reached a tipping point with the climate, when ice caps melt and more sunlight heats more of the ocean, in a vicious spiral that soon overwhelms our ability to respond. It’s small comfort that the people who voted for a climate-change-denying ignoramus will suffer along with us. But I have to shamefully admit that it is a comfort, however fleeting and small.
When the day finally comes when we can’t do anything about the torrential rain and the rising water, there will be no fashionable heels high enough to protect us, and no news fake enough to deny the grim reality.
And then the bleeding obvious surprises us when it can no longer be rationalized. It doesn’t help that our most highly placed government leaders have a vested interest in ignoring reality. Getting the coal vote was apparently more important than reducing fossil fuel emissions.
This is especially true when the president is so reality-challenged and obstinately perverse that he’d look at the sun during the eclipse, even after the experts said not to. Experts! Bah! What do they know?
Maybe the experts should tell him not to stick his finger in an electric socket. Or play with dynamite.
We may have reached a tipping point with the climate, when ice caps melt and more sunlight heats more of the ocean, in a vicious spiral that soon overwhelms our ability to respond. It’s small comfort that the people who voted for a climate-change-denying ignoramus will suffer along with us. But I have to shamefully admit that it is a comfort, however fleeting and small.
When the day finally comes when we can’t do anything about the torrential rain and the rising water, there will be no fashionable heels high enough to protect us, and no news fake enough to deny the grim reality.
498
The day has already come.
4
But he IS playing with dynamite.
1
gemli,
You are about 12,000 years late worrying about the ice melting and the seas rising. The seas have already risen over 300 feet! The question is will putting you and your cohorts in charge of running our lives actually change anything or not.
To the extent that humans do influence the earth's climate they influence it by their sheer numbers. There are more than 7 Billion of us here now with yet more on the way. What do you plan to do about that? What can anyone do about that?
A "plan" that doesn't include first stopping the increase in the world's population and then reducing it by about half is no "plan" at all! Your "plan" is to control people's lives here in the U.S. and "tax" them yet more for the privilege. When I see you and others on the Left out in front of the homes of Al Gore and other rich Liberals protesting their "enormous carbon footprints" I will start to take you seriously. I already installed solar electric panels and drive an electric car! What about you? What about Al Gore?
You need to "walk the walk" not just "talk the talk"!
You are about 12,000 years late worrying about the ice melting and the seas rising. The seas have already risen over 300 feet! The question is will putting you and your cohorts in charge of running our lives actually change anything or not.
To the extent that humans do influence the earth's climate they influence it by their sheer numbers. There are more than 7 Billion of us here now with yet more on the way. What do you plan to do about that? What can anyone do about that?
A "plan" that doesn't include first stopping the increase in the world's population and then reducing it by about half is no "plan" at all! Your "plan" is to control people's lives here in the U.S. and "tax" them yet more for the privilege. When I see you and others on the Left out in front of the homes of Al Gore and other rich Liberals protesting their "enormous carbon footprints" I will start to take you seriously. I already installed solar electric panels and drive an electric car! What about you? What about Al Gore?
You need to "walk the walk" not just "talk the talk"!
1
Why deny climate change? Because some extremely powerful and wealthy individuals and corporations might lose some of that power and wealth.
424
It's politics, plain and simple.
2
"We Don’t Deny Harvey, So Why Deny Climate Change?"
Because, Nick the writer, STEM is always about challenging the status quo. That settled science takes decades, sometimes centuries of challenges.
That instead of mindlessly and relentlessly attacking non-Democrats, framing the issue as *conserving* to *conservatives* would be more workable. Unfortunately, that would require open minds, math skills, and good manners.
Because, Nick the writer, STEM is always about challenging the status quo. That settled science takes decades, sometimes centuries of challenges.
That instead of mindlessly and relentlessly attacking non-Democrats, framing the issue as *conserving* to *conservatives* would be more workable. Unfortunately, that would require open minds, math skills, and good manners.
No, because the wealth will transfer to younger, innovative, creative and disruptive business leaders who are willing to take the challenge. There are billions to be earned in the new energy economy, and the Exxons of this world know it well (and in fact, they don't deny climate change any more). It is only dinosaurs like Trump and the Kochs, enabled by an army of scientifically illiterate folks who support them politically, that stand in the way of change.
1
Nick,
Why no mention of the standard of living reduction that would be imposed on human kind if we decided to fix climate change? Wouldnt this be induced on society if we chose to fix climate change? Do you think population growth in Asia and Africa are contributors? If so why is the onus on US to fix? Yes Dems and Republicans watched the solar eclipse but we did that because presumably that makes us happier, not quit sure the same can be said of fixing climate change.
Why no mention of the standard of living reduction that would be imposed on human kind if we decided to fix climate change? Wouldnt this be induced on society if we chose to fix climate change? Do you think population growth in Asia and Africa are contributors? If so why is the onus on US to fix? Yes Dems and Republicans watched the solar eclipse but we did that because presumably that makes us happier, not quit sure the same can be said of fixing climate change.
18
Why doesn’t this letter mention the standard of living reduction that will be imposed on human kind if we fail to address climate change?
The author’s assumption that deciding to fix climate change would reduce standards of living shows that he hasn’t been keeping up. A 2013 REMI study concluded that a revenue-neutral carbon fee, with proceeds returned to American households, would in 20 years reduce CO2 emissions by 50% below 1990 levels, add 2.8 million jobs above baseline, and avert 230,000 premature deaths by reducing air pollution.
The author’s assumption that deciding to fix climate change would reduce standards of living shows that he hasn’t been keeping up. A 2013 REMI study concluded that a revenue-neutral carbon fee, with proceeds returned to American households, would in 20 years reduce CO2 emissions by 50% below 1990 levels, add 2.8 million jobs above baseline, and avert 230,000 premature deaths by reducing air pollution.
13
Bill,
Mr. Kristof may not have mentioned that because:
1. The mounting costs of anthropogenic climate change have already severely reduced the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of people globally, due to more severe heatwaves, droughts, storm surges, extreme rainfall, etc.;
2. Switching to carbon-neutral energy need not reduce global average living standards. As hrichards points out, only the distribution of costs and benefits would change if fossil fuel consumers paid for their marginal climate-change costs at the time of purchase instead of making poor people in New Orleans, Tacloban, Lahore and Mumbai pay for them later.
Mr. Kristof may not have mentioned that because:
1. The mounting costs of anthropogenic climate change have already severely reduced the standard of living for hundreds of thousands of people globally, due to more severe heatwaves, droughts, storm surges, extreme rainfall, etc.;
2. Switching to carbon-neutral energy need not reduce global average living standards. As hrichards points out, only the distribution of costs and benefits would change if fossil fuel consumers paid for their marginal climate-change costs at the time of purchase instead of making poor people in New Orleans, Tacloban, Lahore and Mumbai pay for them later.
3
If everybody waited for someone else to act first it would be a crazy thing. Gridlock.
2
How disgruntled Donald must be
His blackmail stopped by a warm Sea,
His shutdown threat’s all wet you bet
The frustration’s sheer agony.
"I want the damned Wall”, Trump will say,
“That Harvey just got in my way,
Because of that inflated squall
I won’t get money for my Wall."
His blackmail stopped by a warm Sea,
His shutdown threat’s all wet you bet
The frustration’s sheer agony.
"I want the damned Wall”, Trump will say,
“That Harvey just got in my way,
Because of that inflated squall
I won’t get money for my Wall."
128
Larry,
"Words can be a wall"!
Illegal immigration has slowed to a crawl.
We will still build the wall
We are finally enforcing our laws
The Times opposes this
It takes every opportunity to diss.
The "Deplorables" who support this.
There's not much you can say, Law is the only way.
"Words can be a wall"!
Illegal immigration has slowed to a crawl.
We will still build the wall
We are finally enforcing our laws
The Times opposes this
It takes every opportunity to diss.
The "Deplorables" who support this.
There's not much you can say, Law is the only way.
1
According to EPA spokesperson Liz Bowman, “EPA is focused on the safety of those affected by Hurricane Harvey and providing emergency response support—not engaging in attempts to politicize an ongoing tragedy.”
As long as the EPA believes that pick-and-shovel climate physics is subject to political considerations rather than thermodynamics, we're in for a series of surprises, It's only natural, I suppose, to personalize Harvey and talk about his "ferocity," but nothing about Harvey surprised anyone who knows classical meteorology.
As long as the EPA believes that pick-and-shovel climate physics is subject to political considerations rather than thermodynamics, we're in for a series of surprises, It's only natural, I suppose, to personalize Harvey and talk about his "ferocity," but nothing about Harvey surprised anyone who knows classical meteorology.
332
*Everything* is political to the American Right. If you claim to be taking facts into consideration, you only make them suspicious. "What is his real agenda? What does he really want?" To these people there *are* no facts, only agendas.
3
In addition, it's FEMA, not the EPA, whose mission is to provide emergency support. That's what the E in FEMA stands for! It is the height of hypocrisy for the Trump EPA to accuse others of politicizing its role in climate change discussions.
1
Variations on a theme:
"This is not the time to talk about ...."
"Those who talk about .... are only politicizing the issue when we should be paying attention to the victims"
"The advocates of .... are only interested in pushing their agenda"
And speaking of agendas, what is Betsy deVos doing in the disaster area? It wouldn't be to push private and charter schools, like in NO after Katrina, would it?
"This is not the time to talk about ...."
"Those who talk about .... are only politicizing the issue when we should be paying attention to the victims"
"The advocates of .... are only interested in pushing their agenda"
And speaking of agendas, what is Betsy deVos doing in the disaster area? It wouldn't be to push private and charter schools, like in NO after Katrina, would it?
154
This year alone, a huge chunk of iceberg the size of Delaware separated from Antarctica, and now the disaster of Hurricane Harvey struck Texas and Louisiana with a vengeance, with the threat of Hurricane Irma looming in the last few days. Tsunamis and typhoons pose grave danger to islands in the western Pacific and Indian Oceans, with Samoa, Java, Sumatra and Japan being hit in the last several years.
Climate change is not a hoax at all, and understanding what causes hurricanes and intense flooding can possibly prevents natural disasters like Katrina and Harvey from destroying American cities and coastlines. The neighboring Gulf of Mexico spawned both these hurricanes and proves that global warming is no hoax. Any American city on the Gulf is a potential target of a hurricane at any time.
Climate change is not a hoax at all, and understanding what causes hurricanes and intense flooding can possibly prevents natural disasters like Katrina and Harvey from destroying American cities and coastlines. The neighboring Gulf of Mexico spawned both these hurricanes and proves that global warming is no hoax. Any American city on the Gulf is a potential target of a hurricane at any time.
96
I pray for the people of Texas and hope that no more lives will be lost.
I also hope that the people of Texas stop voting for Senators and Congressmen who deny that global warming and climate change exists. All of Texas's Republican congressional representatives voted against the Hurricane Sandy relief bill after Sandy decimated the Northeast.
Trump has called global warming a Chinese “hoax” and has erroneously claimed that cutting emissions to avert catastrophic climate change will ruin the US economy.
Trump has rolled back Obama-era policies that aimed to curb climate change and limit environmental pollution, while other executive orders threaten to limit federal funding for science and the environment. His proposed budget will cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 35%, more than any other agency.
He has gutted the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s electric plants and signed an executive order to remove the requirement that federal officials consider the impact of climate change when making decisions.
Who would you rather have as President during an environmental disaster or preventing one from happening? Obama or the fraud currently occupying the White House?
The people of Texas will get thru this disaster. It will take time but they will rebuild their homes, businesses, houses of worship, and their lives.
The question is, can America survive Trump?
I also hope that the people of Texas stop voting for Senators and Congressmen who deny that global warming and climate change exists. All of Texas's Republican congressional representatives voted against the Hurricane Sandy relief bill after Sandy decimated the Northeast.
Trump has called global warming a Chinese “hoax” and has erroneously claimed that cutting emissions to avert catastrophic climate change will ruin the US economy.
Trump has rolled back Obama-era policies that aimed to curb climate change and limit environmental pollution, while other executive orders threaten to limit federal funding for science and the environment. His proposed budget will cut funding for the Environmental Protection Agency by 35%, more than any other agency.
He has gutted the Clean Power Plan, which was intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the nation’s electric plants and signed an executive order to remove the requirement that federal officials consider the impact of climate change when making decisions.
Who would you rather have as President during an environmental disaster or preventing one from happening? Obama or the fraud currently occupying the White House?
The people of Texas will get thru this disaster. It will take time but they will rebuild their homes, businesses, houses of worship, and their lives.
The question is, can America survive Trump?
607
"The people of Texas will get thru this disaster. It will take time but they will rebuild their homes, businesses, houses of worship, and their lives."
........
I read about one poor fellow who was only $400 away from owning his home. Now it has been destroyed. He lost his home, his car and his job. Flood insurance is expensive and many poor people could not afford it.
How does one get through that? Republicans keep trying to privatize Social Security or cut its benefits. How much will he and others in his position exist when it is time to retire?
........
I read about one poor fellow who was only $400 away from owning his home. Now it has been destroyed. He lost his home, his car and his job. Flood insurance is expensive and many poor people could not afford it.
How does one get through that? Republicans keep trying to privatize Social Security or cut its benefits. How much will he and others in his position exist when it is time to retire?
6
" .. I also hope that the people of Texas stop voting for Senators and Congressmen who deny that global warming and climate change exists .."
Many hope Democrats stop voting for those over age 60, with open minds and new thinking that doesn't repackage "The New Deal." That would be true "progress."
Many hope Democrats stop voting for those over age 60, with open minds and new thinking that doesn't repackage "The New Deal." That would be true "progress."
2
The question is how long will the rebuilt houses in a flood plain last. Well, Troy was rebuilt several times in the site. On a rien oublie, on a rien appris
1
It's purpose is to justify bigger and bigger government.
Higher taxes, too.
Less freedom inevitably.