NY Times article on Climate Change

I don’t have a whole lot of time today to get into the why, but trust me, it’s important that you read this article on Climate Change: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/01/science/earth/climate.html

Biggest problem I have is that many wealthy nations (US included) have been tinkering with the language of the report, requesting changes. Now is the time to just lay out the facts on the table, with no sugar-coating and no agenda, and then come up with a real, actionable plan for the survival of the world and humanity. But no, it’s politics as usual for the moneymakers. Bah.

And if you still disagree with the findings of 99.5% of the scientific community and choose to believe that humanity ISN’T destroying the world, I have a song for you:

Science is Real

Edited to add that 99.5% is by no means a reliable statistical figure, but merely me exaggerating for effect. And for good measure, here is my last paragraph that I wrote in reply to a comment.

“Even if the climate change we’ve experienced thus far is a completely natural cycle, and our human impact is negligible, the argument for changing the way we operate as a country and a global society still stands, I think. Because if the coasts keeps getting slammed by storms, if further earthquakes and tsunamis are on the horizon, and if the ice caps keep melting, and if all this is happening while we’re losing more and more clean water to chemical spills and big corporations hording water for business purposes, and more people are going to be starving due to long dry spells, then these problems all still need to be addressed, regardless of whether it’s a natural disaster or one of our own making.”

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “NY Times article on Climate Change

  1. It isn’t 99.5% of the scientific community, it is just agreement among atmospheric scientists who were trained in a manner similar to James Hansen. There is widespread disagreement among geologists, oceanographers, meteorologists, and engineers. There is no way I could convince you to change your mind, but at least accept that there really are two sides to the story.

  2. I was exaggerating for effect! But I should watch that in written form, I know. And I always accept that there are at least 10 sides to every story. 😉 You can offer other reading/research to me if you like, and I will look at it when I get a chance, but it will take a lot to convince me that humanity can continue down the road we’ve been treading since the Industrial Revolution and sustain itself in good health. And I probably won’t be buying any property on the coast that sits below sea level anytime soon.

    Even if the climate change we’ve experienced thus far is a completely natural cycle, and our human impact is negligible, the argument for changing the way we operate as a country and a global society still stands, I think. Because if the coasts keeps getting slammed by storms, if further earthquakes and tsunamis are on the horizon, and if the ice caps keep melting, and if all this is happening while we’re losing more and more clean water to chemical spills and big corporations hording water for business purposes, and more people are going to be starving due to long dry spells, then these problems all still need to be addressed, regardless of whether it’s a natural disaster or one of our own making.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s