I work in cleantech, and here's my favorite climate change joke: "They say we won't act until it's too late... Luckily, it's too late!"
So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company!
Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment history for links to cleantech jobs.
As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to aligned conclusion).
Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics:
1. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends.
2. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a, "Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.
If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would:
- Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world.
- It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions.
A carbon tax is the single best possible carbon policy. If implemented well, it
- simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending.
- and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?).
It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.
And what additional efforts should we take to reduce the validity of any Birther's claims that Obama was actually born in Kenya? Obama releasing his birth certificate made as much difference as the National Climate Assessment leaking this report. What more evidence will they demand before graciously changing their minds to fit the facts? Don't those people's unfounded politically motivated conspiracy theories deserve just as much respect as the claims of climate change deniers, too? /s
Does anyone else get irked when articles use photos of nuclear power plants when talking about pollution or climate change? I'm certainly no expert, but my understand was that the 'exhaust' from nuclear plants is just water vapor and with the exception of finding a place to store spent rods, it's an incredibly green source of energy and has little to no bearing on climate change?
I see arguments here that people can readily feel a change.
I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot.
But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.
It is hard to notice the gradual changes, and we tend to give too much weight to the natural variance in the weather.
A conversation I had with an older East coast snow ski instructor was illuminating. The ski season is a few weeks shorter than it was 30 years ago. That's real economic impact.
Just do some research into the trends, it's been enough to convince me: nuisance flooding along the east coast, number of regional summer days in the 90s, sea levels have been rising but the rate is now increasing, satellite imagery of the antarctic, recession of glaciers, and then notice how all these trends correlate with the increase of atmospheric CO2 since the industrial revolution. Rather than the headlining global trends, I think it's more impactful to see how climate change affects different regions.
Only thing I could really point to is a number of incredibly mild winters a few years in a row. But even then, I was under the impression that climate change wasn't particularly measurable on a year-by-year scale. Maybe I'm wrong.
This is anecdotal but winters in Vermont (where I grew up) and Chicago (where I live now) are almost snow less now. I think it snowed once last year in Chicago and three or four times the year before. I haven't noticed it being aggressively hotter in the summer but It's been much warmer in the winters.
> The authors note that thousands of studies, conducted by tens of thousands of scientists, have documented climate changes on land and in the air.
The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay:
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations."
" The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration."
i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D
At this stage, this is a bit like saying: new report finds evidence that God did not create the world in seven days. It's no longer a matter of science, it's a matter of people choosing not to believe in science.
As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting.
As a longer thought:
God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses:
From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time):
Eon 1:
- The universe was 'formless' and chaotic.
- Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate.
Eon 2:
- The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units.
- Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ).
Eon 3:
- Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear.
- Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet.
Eon 4:
- The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night.
Eon 5:
- Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet.
Eon 6:
- Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up.
Eon 7:
- Now. Beginning of written histories.
The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet.
Well, except that a substantial percentage of Americans do believe that "God did ... create the world in seven days." Maybe they'll come around in another century or two. But maybe not, because maybe global civilization will have crashed by then. Either way, I'll be dead. So hey.
I don't think @microcolonel is an astroturfer, he just seems to be fairly right leaning in his views.
I'm always a bit surprised by this, you would think the right would be fairly conservative about environmental issues. I guess it's because big business/oil has done such a good job of buying the politicians off.
what are you talking about? there's no tax in the paris accord.
Do you mean the fund to help countries affected by climate change? that countries can voluntarily donate money to. They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later.
You've literally made up several things: a tax; hundreds of billions of dollars; an unaccountable global entity... none of it in the paris accord. I assume that's why you're being accused of being anti-science (if that was really a mystery to you).
So you're turning being held accountable into somehow furthering lack of accountability. Not that I think the agreement is super perfect, but that still sticks out like a sore thumb.
> Let's fund solar power and electric cars
You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.
First, the Paris accords does not create a body which enforces it. Second, there is no tax, there's however a fund to help countries affected very severely by climate change, feel free to donate how much you want.
And third, we in the rest of the world have had it with America's vague promises to better themselves, which they promptly call into question by building more pipelines and start exploiting oil shales. You've exhausted your trust in this matter, if we're going to trust you, put it in writing this time. But your administration decided just doing that was too much, that's why we're mighty pissed outside of the US.
> WASHINGTON — The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news.
> The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not the case)
> and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
It is limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models; that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious. There is work to be done.
If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims, is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news.
I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that "At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public.
Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know that you've been dishonest.
> then implying that the change is entirely man-made
Where did you get this? Some direct quotes from the article, emphasis added:
"…human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change."
"…it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change."
"…significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain."
"…“relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather."
"Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence."
"Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit."
Nothing here comes close to asserting that the change is entirely man-made. In fact, the article is quite careful to avoid saying that, over and over again.
This doesn't require an especially close reading to discover. Rather, you would have to go out of your way to distort what the article is saying in order to reach the conclusion that you did.
FWIW, I doubt you're engaging in this distortion on purpose. More likely it's a subconscious reaction to encountering information that you don't want to be true.
> If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
I think that at this point if you don't believe climate change is happening and is man made and is significant then it is unlikely anything is going to convince you.
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets?
> > The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President).
- I think that paragraph is a little confusing. It might be better as "It _also_ directly contradicts claims" - ie the first sentence is not tied to the second sentence, even though I could see how it might at first read that way.
Read the article, it says that the report itself states that it is very likely that half of the increase in temperature (which has been observed in pretty much all data sets, this part is not controversial) is caused by human activity.
The article is not a jab at the Trump administration, it warns the reader that such a report exists, and that it may not be approved for publication by the administration, which, you may admit could be problematic.
The conclusions here are obvious to anyone that's been living in the US in the last decade or two. It's not that difficult to see/feel the changing weather patterns. So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval? If the government agencies want to dispute this, let them put forward a different hypothesis from the data. This authoritarian monopoly that various government agencies have on science has got to stop. It's not just climate change. Facts like cannabis being a safe substance, lead being dangerous, etc. are/were ignored for decades. It seems to me government funds studies and then ignores their conclusions. This is clearly not in the interest of society. At the very least it's an absolute waste of money. Will the government ever represent the people and their interests or is it just too far gone for that to the point that we're stuck with the interests of a few assholes controlling and ruining everything?
> So why does it need approval? This is science. What kind of science needs approval?
One word: Capital.
There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated on not acknowledging climate change.
Because it is not really about the science. What people differ on is the level of moral responsibility we hold.
Some people simply reject the moral imperative to protect the environment. And science does not help in that argument. You cannot scientifically prove that someone should care about a moral issue. They have to understand at a more intuitive and emotional level first. This takes time and is messy (see every contentious political issue ever).
[+] [-] diafygi|8 years ago|reply
So what can _you_ do about it? Work at a new energy technology company!
Many cleantech sectors are out of the R&D stage and are currently focused on scale and growth, and we need as many smart people as we can get. There are lots of companies hiring software engineers (including mine). See my comment history for links to cleantech jobs.
As for dealing with skeptics, remember that you can't reason someone out of a place they didn't reason themselves into. Focus on emotion, and don't tell them what to do (instead, paint an environment where they naturally come to aligned conclusion).
Here's several ways to work with climate skeptics:
1. If you know them well and they have kids or grandkids, learn their names and talk about how life is going to get much harder for them if we don't make the energy transition. Talk about how many jobs the energy transition will make (solar already outnumbers coal jobs). Focus on the opportunity for their kids. Try to paint climate change as a us-vs-the-harsh-fucking-world (rather than what they currently think of as an us-vs-liberals-and-hippies). This perspective can make them feel like they are betraying their kids and grandkids. I've seen this work for family members and close friends.
2. If they like focusing on the economic/subsidy arguments, make it competitive and selfish. Talk about how it's going to be their loss and your gain ("if you're not going to do anything about climate change, that's more money and work for me, so thanks!"). Focus on building a situation where they get left behind. Then pile on that more Republicans have installed solar than Democrats (which is true, by the way), so it feels like their own team is already on board. Shrug off all the economic and subsidy arguments with a, "Meh, if you don't want in on it, more upside for me. You complaining just makes me richer." I've seen this work for tea party friends.
[+] [-] jpao79|8 years ago|reply
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/08/opinion/a-conservative-ca...
https://www.ted.com/talks/ted_halstead_a_climate_solution_wh...
If I understand it correctly, if it is implemented correctly, a few benefits are that it would:
- Reduce the validity of any climate change denier claims that climate change is actually a political scheme to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the rest of the developing world.
- It would also reallocate carbon tax proceeds towards making the developed world into a leader in climate change prevention solutions.
Would love to hear other people's opinions.
[+] [-] aoeusnth1|8 years ago|reply
- simultaneously provide the mosts efficient incentives to reduce carbon emissions by shifting the cost onto exactly the people who are offending.
- and provides the funds to compensate the victims of climate change (every human), plus spare change for fundamental research into new Green tech which too unproven to be viable as a startup (would nuclear power ever have been created from scratch by the market?).
It also makes sense to tax SOx, NOx, and other air pollutants for exactly the same reason. However, the time scale and magnitude of those problems are nowhere near as dire.
[+] [-] DonHopkins|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toxican|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Fej|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RickJWagner|8 years ago|reply
I have to admit, I don't see it. It's been an unusually calm summer where I'm at. We haven't had a summer with several days over 100F in quite a few years. If anything, it's been less hot.
But I'll surely give the report a read. It is an important topic.
[+] [-] jnwatson|8 years ago|reply
A conversation I had with an older East coast snow ski instructor was illuminating. The ski season is a few weeks shorter than it was 30 years ago. That's real economic impact.
[+] [-] TheBeardKing|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toxican|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AlwaysRock|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryanchoi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yflu|8 years ago|reply
Of course you won't notice much when comparing this year to last, especially since the weather's fairly random.
But the trends all point in one direction. Even remembering to my childhood (barely 15 years ago) paints a different picture than what we have today.
[+] [-] geiseric|8 years ago|reply
http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/miranda-de...
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] guscost|8 years ago|reply
The enormous effort put toward finding "confirmations" of the hypothesis has always been a big reason why I'm reluctant to trust the authorities in this case. I don't see the point of going through this again. Where are the falsifiable predictions? Will the Arctic Ocean be ice-free next month? We're back to point number one from Karl Popper's essay:
"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory- if we look for confirmations."
[+] [-] kristopolous|8 years ago|reply
Does not knowing these answers make the activity fundamentally safe and concern about blindfolded driving to be alarmist?
It's certainly possible to see something as absurdly dangerous without having crystal ball level predictive accuracy.
[+] [-] mirimir|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tradersam|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dovdovdov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] dogruck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethbro|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stanislavb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stanislavb|8 years ago|reply
i.e. if Trump's administration does not approve it, it does not exist :D
[+] [-] d--b|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] deckiedan|8 years ago|reply
As a side note: Its 6 days, not 7. Day 7 (the Sabbath) was for resting.
As a longer thought: God, as a omnipotent being, obviously doesn't need to rest, and given the idea that he (for lack of a better pronoun) is essentially keeping the universe running himself, the whole concept of 'God resting' is obviously (to me, and many others) poetic. Looking at the rest of the Genesis creation story through 'poetic narrative' lenses:
From the beginning of the universe until the start of human written history, we can divide it up into Eons (non-specific but LONG periods of time):
Eon 1: - The universe was 'formless' and chaotic. - Pure energy / light and darkness / vacuum / void become separate.
Eon 2: - The planets and other 'heavenly bodies' or galaxies start to spin together into units. - Planetary atmospheres form. (The separation between 'waters below' (the unknown depths of the sea) and 'waters above' (the vast 'ocean' of space') from a ).
Eon 3: - Focussing on Earth, the planet surface began to stabilise, continents appear. - Plants and other 'basic' forms of life begin to show up and spread all over the planet.
Eon 4: - The moon shows up, the atmosphere clears up a bit, stars are now visible, the earths spin is now stable re. Day and Night.
Eon 5: - Animals! Firstly water based, then birds. Maybe huge birds (dinosaurs?) No non-bird land-dwellers yet.
Eon 6: - Land based animals, 'finally' humans showing up.
Eon 7: - Now. Beginning of written histories.
The above pattern is a pretty strict interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis, with most of the poetic stuff stripped out. It's kind of interesting how much of it does kind of map to our current understanding of the beginning of the universe and our planet.
What do you think?
[+] [-] noja|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mirimir|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Banthum|8 years ago|reply
What you're referring to is the idea that climate change exists. Nobody disputes this.
The headline describes "drastic impact of climate change on U.S" happening today.
"X exists" != "X is drastically affecting America today"
[+] [-] adwhit|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sctb|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonyedgecombe|8 years ago|reply
I'm always a bit surprised by this, you would think the right would be fairly conservative about environmental issues. I guess it's because big business/oil has done such a good job of buying the politicians off.
[+] [-] narrator|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rgbrenner|8 years ago|reply
Do you mean the fund to help countries affected by climate change? that countries can voluntarily donate money to. They can put anything they want into it, even $0. Those pledges aren't even enforced. A country can pledge whatever, and change their mind later.
You've literally made up several things: a tax; hundreds of billions of dollars; an unaccountable global entity... none of it in the paris accord. I assume that's why you're being accused of being anti-science (if that was really a mystery to you).
[+] [-] thinkfurther|8 years ago|reply
> Let's fund solar power and electric cars
You've always been free to do that. You still are. Instead of, say, waging a war of aggression for control of oil, littering the world with military bases, all the while complaining about the specter of a "world government" -- which is anything but the US desires of hegemony, right? No problem with the main superpower being a brute instead of a boon, but a huge problem with the means to defend ourselves. Also see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2C-zWrhFqpM&t=49m38s , and for now in general I'll just say "no". Not good enough. Too little, too late.
[+] [-] pimmen|8 years ago|reply
And third, we in the rest of the world have had it with America's vague promises to better themselves, which they promptly call into question by building more pipelines and start exploiting oil shales. You've exhausted your trust in this matter, if we're going to trust you, put it in writing this time. But your administration decided just doing that was too much, that's why we're mighty pissed outside of the US.
[+] [-] lumberjack|8 years ago|reply
You cannot expect developing countries to halt their carbon emissions without some king of financial help to balance out the costs incurred.
[+] [-] canoebuilder|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] microcolonel|8 years ago|reply
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets? No credible person denies that the global (and U.S. local) mean temperature has increased, this is not news.
> The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
These are entirely separate claims. The author of the article is saying that the United States are warmer; then implying that the change is entirely man-made and detrimental to make a political point (in this case, a hit against President Trump, though I suppose it's a step in the right direction that NYT are now allowed to refer to the President as the President). (Edit: I should clarify that I'm talking about the link between the two clauses in this paragraph, which makes it seem like one supports the other when this is not the case)
> and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.
It is limited, the report details the limits, as do many other great sources. The climate models we have are about as good as the economic models; that is to say, they're basically useless for genuine predictions. They do not fit historic data without piles of corrections, some of which are dubious. There is work to be done.
If you have data to back up your points, show the data. If you are making a point which is not supported by the data, don't use slight of hand to make it seem like it is.
The reason that there are so many people skeptical about the alarming claims, is because the presentations have been so dishonest and manipulative. Public figures frequently grossly overstate the certainty of statements which are not really settled, and some climate scientists and academic administrators have been caught basically ganging up on people who do not present alarming news.
I understand why some of you feel, as Fej says elsewhere in this thread, that "At this point, mass panic might be more effective than mass ignorance.", but it's important that we be honest in presenting what we know to the public.
Every time you present an opinion as a fact, somebody somewhere no longer trusts you, and those people will be vocal and active in letting people know that you've been dishonest.
[+] [-] csallen|8 years ago|reply
Where did you get this? Some direct quotes from the article, emphasis added:
"…human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change."
"…it is possible to attribute some extreme weather to climate change."
"…significant advances have been made linking human influence to individual extreme weather events since the last National Climate Assessment was produced in 2014. Still, it notes, crucial uncertainties remain."
"…“relatively strong evidence” showed that a man-made factor contributed to the extreme weather."
"Worldwide, the draft report finds it “extremely likely” that more than half of the global mean temperature increase since 1951 can be linked to human influence."
"Human activity, the report goes on to say, is a primary culprit."
Nothing here comes close to asserting that the change is entirely man-made. In fact, the article is quite careful to avoid saying that, over and over again.
This doesn't require an especially close reading to discover. Rather, you would have to go out of your way to distort what the article is saying in order to reach the conclusion that you did.
FWIW, I doubt you're engaging in this distortion on purpose. More likely it's a subconscious reaction to encountering information that you don't want to be true.
[+] [-] frio|8 years ago|reply
The New York Times has made the 545 page report available (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/08/07/climate/docum...) and at a passing glance, it contains oodles of data. The article links to it.
[+] [-] nl|8 years ago|reply
If that's the case, then wouldn't it already be born out in other widely available temperature datasets?
It is. Really.
There's even a nice dataset on Kaggle you can play with if you like: https://www.kaggle.com/berkeleyearth/climate-change-earth-su...
If you have data to back up your points, show the data
The data is linked, and there is plenty more data out there.
Enjoy.
[+] [-] jusben1369|8 years ago|reply
- I think that paragraph is a little confusing. It might be better as "It _also_ directly contradicts claims" - ie the first sentence is not tied to the second sentence, even though I could see how it might at first read that way.
[+] [-] d--b|8 years ago|reply
The article is not a jab at the Trump administration, it warns the reader that such a report exists, and that it may not be approved for publication by the administration, which, you may admit could be problematic.
[+] [-] jjaredsimpson|8 years ago|reply
Recent decades are likely the warmest in 1500 years. What data opposes this view?
[+] [-] cool_look|8 years ago|reply
That was already accepted and should not be trumpetted as further "proof".
[+] [-] mnm1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s_kilk|8 years ago|reply
One word: Capital.
There's a hell of a lot of money tied up in the carbon industry, and maintaining the status-quo for that section of the capital class is predicated on not acknowledging climate change.
[+] [-] 7952|8 years ago|reply
Some people simply reject the moral imperative to protect the environment. And science does not help in that argument. You cannot scientifically prove that someone should care about a moral issue. They have to understand at a more intuitive and emotional level first. This takes time and is messy (see every contentious political issue ever).