General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsR0ckyRac00n
(84 posts)Chevy
(1,063 posts)more than enough for me to cancel.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Climate 'skeptics' are just as anti-science as vaccine 'skeptics' and creationists - they just camouflage their denial as concern and insist that accepted science is simply theory.
They're not fooling anyone.
VOX
(22,976 posts)All this equivocating on FACTS is serious.
question everything
(47,488 posts)I wondered how long he would last. I admit, I do not remember his stand on climate change, but in the last 18 months, or so, he went after Trump - one of the very conservative journalists who did. I posted here many of them but now can find these two
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027638476
https://www.democraticunderground.com/10027668287
bigtree
(85,999 posts)...might not suit folks advocating other issues that NYT is handling well.
AgadorSparticus
(7,963 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Science is settled.
ProfessorGAC
(65,082 posts)...it would take 15 seconds to look up the infrared absorptivity of CO2 vs Nitrogen or Oxygen
Simple logic dictates the more CO2, the more heat contained.
That NYT writer is a moron.
The simple technique is that none of the models are dead on.
Well, of course not. We didn't have satellites reading global thermographic data in 1860. So the 150 year old numbers are Arctic ice estimates
Hence every model is flawed. But, every model predicts higher temperatures world wide, and some are closer to reality than others
That doesn't mean global warming isn't happening, it just means we need more time to model it perfectly
But, the idiot at NYT assumes that since no model is perfect, none has merit. That's intellectually dishonest and plain stupid
Good for this scientist for reading them the riot act