Climate Change is Not ‘Coming’ to the Caribbean – It’s Here

A couple of years ago I protested a factually incorrect article published by the NYT about causal affects of health care issues in Missouri's Bootheel communities. I corresponded directly with the editor who agreed and removed the online article. I was impressed with this care in getting the facts right.

I do have issues with the NYT politics and canceled my subscription once because of this. Nonetheless, it's one of the only publication that can still afford to provide in-depth coverage on the topics of our time. To read the Times, you have to understand its politics - just as to view Fox News you have to understand that network's politics. But you really need to read the Times AND watch Fox news to get the full picture.

I work in higher education so trust me when I say the ethics police have locked down academic researchers' abilities to receive funds from any source other than their paychecks. I have no reason to question the NYT reporter's conclusions about "global warming" scientists not getting rich from their research.

singlefin wrote:
I agree JohnnyU,
The New York Times have lost considerable credibility over the years. I remember them begging people not to cancel their subscriptions after the last presidential election. Their left leaning agenda nearly bankrupt them.

Gator's Mom wrote:
Since when is being a called a Fox news viewer considered an insult?

You forgot to include Alana being called "Chicken Little."

Good grief.

I never said it was an insult. What I said, was that it was childish and immature. You had to pass judgement, make assumptions and try to mock someone simply because they do not share the same viewpoint as you.

As I said, childish and immature. Says a lot about your character.

stxdreaming - Look in the mirror and read the comment below to yourself please.

"I never said it was an insult. What I said, was that it was childish and immature. You had to pass judgement, make assumptions and try to mock someone simply because they do not share the same viewpoint as you.

As I said, childish and immature. Says a lot about your character"

Gator's Mom wrote:
stxdreaming - Look in the mirror and read this to yourself please.

The comments below confirm you in no way should think of yourself as an arbiter of what is or isn't civil discourse.

BTW - what is my viewpoint that you seem to know so much about? Look in the mirror and read the comment below to yourself please.

"I never said it was an insult. What I said, was that it was childish and immature. You had to pass judgement, make assumptions and try to mock someone simply because they do not share the same viewpoint as you.

As I said, childish and immature. Says a lot about your character"

I never claimed to be an arbiter of any sort. I actually said it is healthy to have a conversation on various issues regardless of the viewpoint you may hold. The point I bring up is that you are rather immature and childish due to the fact that you (and others) do not like it when others appear to have a view that differs from yours. This is proven in the parting shot that you made regarding making an assumption that the person you were attacking watches Fox News. Why do you feel the need to do that I do not know?

stxdreaming - Look in the mirror and read this to yourself please.

"The point I bring up is that you are rather immature and childish due to the fact that you (and others) do not like it when others appear to have a view that differs from yours. Why do you feel the need to do that I do not know?"

stxdreaming wrote:

NASA just landed another probe on Mars, a planet that is 140 million miles away. They dropped it right where they wanted to safely & then communicated with it. This is amazing and the result of scientists, engineers, technicians, clerks janitors etc who's brilliance and teamwork made it happen. So then I think I'll side with the vast majority of scientists who say that global climate change will cause sea level increase, droughts and worse storms and that our CURRENT climate change is man made.

It's pretty hard to design or anticipate for every possible variable in a system as complex as the planet Earth. Hell, we can't even make a flu vaccine that works 100% of the time.... but if you see 90 something percent of scientists agreeing on something happening to within a small variability, I recommend believing them.

Does this make you not want to live in the VI? Serious question...

No this does not change my mind or my wife's mind. We feel we have reasonably solid place and can prepare for storms. We are also older and will be retired soon. But I feel that we owe it to our own kids and everybody's kids to do anything we can reasonably do to slow this train down.

(tu)

I do believe that climate change and it is a natural phenomenon is real but I disagree it man made, maybe man accelerated.

Ya think?
Cat 5 hurricanes now the norm, globally, massive flooding, wildfires, ocean temps rising, plastic and toxin pollution in our waters, air, massive deforestation, unwieldy population growth, melting ice waters, globally.

All I'm saying is you either accept the science or you don't.
Either accept the fact that each one of us can make a small change to either help or hinder.

Your choice.

If I was immature and childish, I’d hit the ball tee’d up nicely about higher education and Florida

But I won’t...

Good ting.
We don't agree on much of anything so all the best to you.

What climate is perfect for our species?
At what point, or when did it ever exist?

The only constant is change.

The human species should be able and WILLING to figure it out

Unless, unwilling to move forward to preserve and protect the only planet we live on.

To “preserve and protect” as it currently is?

So TODAY is your idea of the ideal environment for humanity... till the end of days?

Not at all, do I think TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT is Ideal.
It saddens me.

I guess my problem (obviously amongst many) is;

What’s the Objective?

What would make YOU and other like minded individuals happy?

Countries that signed onto the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015 agreed to limit the 21st century’s global average temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above the levels from the years 1850-1900 (the pre-industrial era).

Even though it may be childish and immature of me to reference this, this overarching goal has consensus from the majority of countries on earth.

singlefin wrote:
I guess my problem (obviously amongst many) is;

What’s the Objective?

What would make YOU and other like minded individuals happy?

What would make you happy, singlefin?
Less toxins in our air, lands,waters, food, less plastic and micro plastic pollution, less slaughter of wildlife because you need a trophy on your wall, less deforestation, less massive floods, wildfires, hurricanes, earthquakes, fracking, more methane pollution and allowances of toxic runoff, drought, less fish and coral die offs, population growth that's not sustainable?

I don’t believe “less” of everything would help, because we would never reach a point to satisfy ardent environmentalists.

Hence my earlier question of “when was our environment/climate perfect for our species.”
Answer: Never
It’s not a perfect world, it has never been a perfect world, and it will never be a perfect world.

The best we can do is make reasonable choices and then adapt to whatever change may come.

And,
Personally I’m quite happy, I live in a beautiful, uncrowded, tropical paradise, surrounded by (for the most part) the most friendly, caring people I’ve ever known.

I do what I can in my small part of this earth, recycle, etc. It's a drop in the bucket but I am doing what I can. I'm not going to change the world but I can change my world.

U.N. Climate Summit, COP24, Warns of ‘Collapse of Our Civilizations’
By Drew MacFarlane17 hours ago Associated Press

Next Article

Hurricane Michael Creates Giant Holes in Florida Town, Threatening Homes and Cemetery

NEWS
U.N. Climate Summit, COP24, Warns of ‘Collapse of Our Civilizations’
By Drew MacFarlane17 hours agoAssociated Press

At a Glance
The U.N. chief opened the climate summit in Poland with a dire warning to world leaders.
Secretary-General Antonio Guterres warned that we need to act now to combat rising temperatures.
Without drastic action, there will be catastrophic consequences, he warned.

U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres opened the climate summit in Poland on Monday with a dire warning to world leaders: Act now to combat rising temperatures or there will be catastrophic consequences.

“Even as we witness devastating climate impacts causing havoc across the world, we are still not doing enough, nor moving fast enough, to prevent irreversible and catastrophic climate disruption,” Guterres said in his opening speech at the summit, dubbed "Paris 2.0" after the 2015 Paris climate agreement. Guterres called climate change "the most important issue we face."

The 24th Conference of the Parties, known as COP24, is taking place near a Katowice coal mine used for 176 years and closed in 1999. At the top of the agenda is the so-called Paris rulebook, which determines how countries have to count their greenhouse gas emissions, report them to the rest of the world and reveal what they are doing to reduce them.

(MORE: Rapidly Changing Climate Is Creating a Global 'Medical Emergency')

image

In an earlier speech Monday, British naturalist Sir David Attenborough echoed Guterres' warnings, telling the gathering that the “collapse of our civilizations and the extinction of much of the natural world is on the horizons” if no urgent action is taking against global warming.

And U.N. General Assembly President Maria Espinosa said at the rate we're seeing today, mankind is "in danger of disappearing. We need to act urgently, and with audacity. Be ambitious, but also responsible for future generations."

In his opening remarks, Guterres took aim at the countries that are most needed to be held accountable for their level of greenhouse gas emissions, failing to play by the rules set in the Paris agreement. The United States is the only country not part of the accord after President Donald Trump decided to walk away from it.

The agreement aims to bolster the response to combating climate change by setting a goal to keep global temperature rise well below the 2 degrees Celsius and actively seeking ways to keep the increase below 1.5 degrees Celsius. But the Paris agreement let countries set their own emissions targets. Some are on track, others aren’t. Overall, the world is heading the wrong way.

Guterres pleaded with countries to reduce their emissions from 2010 by 45 percent by 2030 and to set a goal to release a net zero emissions by 2050, recalling consequences laid out in the 700-page report written by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Without drastic action, the planet is on pace to warm an additional two to three degrees by the year 2100.

Severely reducing emissions is the only way reach the 1.5-degree goal, experts say, but it will be an expensive feat.

“In short, we need a complete transformation of our global energy economy, as well as how we manage land and forest resources,” said Guterres.

Guterres asked governments to find ways to replace fossil fuels — which contribute about 65 percent of global greenhouse gases, according to the EPA — with cleaner alternatives.

Host-nation president Andrzej Duda said Poland, which relies on coal for about 80 percent of the nation's energy, has no plan to give up coal entirely and that the country's use of it doesn't get in the way with fighting climate change. However, Poland did announce it will cut its reliance on coal to about 50 percent by 2030. The country's supply of coal can last another 200 years.

The planet has already warmed 1 degree Celsius since pre-industry times due to human activity and we've already begun to see the impact of the rise in global temperatures. Sea levels have already risen more than 8 inches in the last 140 years and extreme weather events are becoming more damaging.

“For some people, this is a life-or-death situation without a doubt,” said Natalie Mahowald, a Cornell University climate scientist and lead author of the IPCC report.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/28/climate/climate-change-health.html?em_pos=medium&emc=edit_sc_20181204&nl=science-times&nl_art=10&nlid=74441305emc%3Dedit_sc_20181204&ref=headline&te=1

FACT CHECK OF THE DAY

The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?em_pos=medium&emc=edit_sc_20181204&nl=science-times&nl_art=13&nlid=74441305emc%3Dedit_sc_20181204&ref=headline&te=1

This is the same article I referenced previously.

Sorry I can't use quotes anymore - but check previous discussion on this same topic.

Your childish and immature friend 😉

Alana33 wrote:
FACT CHECK OF THE DAY

The Baseless Claim That Climate Scientists Are ‘Driven’ by Money

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/27/us/politics/climate-report-fact-check.html?em_pos=medium&emc=edit_sc_20181204&nl=science-times&nl_art=13&nlid=74441305emc%3Dedit_sc_20181204&ref=headline&te=1

Fake News Award for Science goes to The New York Times

So, the Fake News Award for Science should go to a media outlet that has credibility (in some people's eyes, anyway), yet consistently gets the science wrong, likely for ideological reasons. With those criteria in place, the runaway winner is The New York Times. There isn't even a close second.

The New York Times Should Stop Writing About Science

Back in 2015, when I was editor of RealClearScience, I wrote a piece called "The New York Times Should Seriously Consider Not Writing About Science Anymore." My assault on the Gray Lady was prompted by several outlandish articles, such as one that cited Joseph Mercola, an anti-vaxxer and "cell phone truther" who is the purveyor of the aforementioned garbage site Mercola. The NYT also rose my ire by teaching the controversy on post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, fretting over scary chemicals, claiming that sugar is toxic, and ceaselessly promoting organic food. Acupuncture? The Times loves it!

Believe it or not, the New York Times has gotten even worse.

Early in 2017, Danny Hakim was caught flat-out lying about glyphosate. Mr. Hakim, who fancies himself a journalist, clearly didn't even bother to do a PubMed search before declaring agricultural pesticides to be akin to "Nazi-made sarin gas." A few months later, Stephanie Strom hammered away at Ben & Jerry's over trace levels of glyphosate in its ice cream, gleefully doing the bidding of activists who want the company to go 100% organic.

The NYT's alignment with the organic food industry is probably not coincidental. The former publisher of the paper, who just handed over the job to his son, is married to a person who sits on the board of Whole Foods. That helps explain their long-standing crusade against PhD scientists who support GMOs, such as when journalist Eric Lipton defamed plant biotechnologist Kevin Folta.

Even New Yorkers are waking up to the dishonesty of their hometown paper. My colleague, Dr. Josh Bloom, just penned an article about the NYT's opioid coverage, which he described as "misleading, manipulative, and also illogical."

For these and many other transgressions, the New York Times easily wins the Fake News Award for Science in 2018. Given its track record, it is already the top contender for the award in 2019.