The New York Times Wants to Answer Your Questions

None of us know all there is to know about the climate issue, we all still have questions of one type or another, mostly on the science side of the issue, but certainly some on the political side of it as well. Arguably, the more questions that are asked, the more everyone will find out about the issue, on whether the questions can be answered easily or after much deeper examination.

The New York Times wants to answer your questions. On March 21, they posted the following under the headline, “What Questions Do You Have About Climate Change?

We know that climate change can be an overwhelming subject, and we want to break it down for you.

Between now and Earth Day, April 22, we will answer as many questions as possible. Other questions may form the basis of future reporting, helping us decide what to dig into. …

The first two boxes at that NYT page first ask what you want to know, and then ask you to tell a little about yourself what why you are interested in this question, and then ask for your name, email address and where you live, with the assurance that your personal info without your permission.

It might be helpful if the NYT received more probing questions than those they are used to. The pertinent question here is whether they are prepared to answer YOUR questions.

5 9 votes
Article Rating
222 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mr.
March 23, 2022 10:10 am

From the NYT promo page for this creepy project –

Get your children invested, by talking to them about our warming planet, and what we can all do about it.

We’ve seen this creepy behaviour before –

Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 10:14 am

If you just assume that their “answer” is pretty much the polar opposite of the actual truth, you should be fine.

MGC
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 3:11 pm

I see you’re referring in your comment to the “answers” you’d get from WUWT, Bruce, not from the NYT.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 4:30 pm

#FMGC

Mike
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 4:40 pm

I see by your comment that you are quite confident in the answers which would be supplied by the NYT.
Ask them these…
What is the correct ECS?
How is it determined?
Why has there been no warming for a decade?
Why was the GAT in 2000 the same as 1958 while we had a linear increase in co2?
What caused the MWP and the RWP?
What caused the temp to drop during the little ice age?
Why did the temperature fall for 30 years starting around 1940 while we had a linear increase in co2?

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Mike
March 23, 2022 6:16 pm

My question is: Where’s the evidence showing CO2 is anything other than a benign gas essential for life, or that CO2 needs regulation?

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 23, 2022 8:02 pm

Tom Abbott says:

“Where’s the evidence showing CO2 is anything other than a benign gas essential for life etc etc”

Translation: “I’m pretending (i.e. lying to myself and others) that human CO2 emissions don’t really act to significantly warm the planet and alter the earth’s climate system. I’m pretending that there’s ‘not’ evidence to demonstrate this, even though just five minutes of genuine research would easily reveal that such evidence has been around since the 19th century.”

Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 9:18 pm

MGC, Radiation physics is not a theory of climate.

You’re a science mocker along with everyone else who’s as mindless as you are. Feigning knowledge that you don’t have.

MGC
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 1:47 pm

Sorry, pal, but saying “radiation physics is not a theory of climate” is as silly as, when trying to diagnose why your car won’t start, and it is suggested that the battery is dead, exclaiming “the state of a car battery is not a theory of automotive performance”.

Well duh. Of course it isn’t. Yet the state of the car battery in this circumstance is a vital piece of information.

Radiation physics is, likewise, vital information for any theory of climate. But your comment would appear to falsely imply that radiation physics isn’t really important to any such theory.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 24, 2022 4:43 am

“I’m pretending that there’s ‘not’ evidence to demonstrate this, even though just five minutes of genuine research would easily reveal that such evidence has been around since the 19th century.”

Well, all you have to do to shut me up is to produce even one shred of evidence connecting CO2 to changes in the Earth’s climate.

That ought to be easy according to you.

I’ll watch this space for a little while to see if you reply.

TonyG
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 9:55 am

MGC – Making Griff Coherent?

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 10:58 am

Tom
here is a compelling document that provides all the evidence one would need to be convinced CO2 has a warming effect on the climate. It is from a highly respected scientific body. Let me know where they got it wrong?
chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/royal_society_content/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/climate-change-evidence-causes.pdf

MGC
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 2:13 pm

Simon, that’s an excellent link. Thanks for reminding me of it.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 1:22 pm

It is difficult to imagine that anyone with any genuine intellectual honesty would ever actually claim that there is “not a shred of evidence”.

One might start with Harries 2001 Increases in greenhouse forcing
inferred from the outgoing longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

“Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth’s greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.”

and Chen 2007 Spectral signatures of climate change in the Earth’s infrared spectrum between 1970 and 2006

“the greenhouse forcing of the Earth has been observed to change in response to these (greenhouse gas) concentration changes”

Heck, even Svante Arrhenius … way back in 1896 … had this pegged correctly in his research study “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid (CO2) in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 25, 2022 3:46 am

I don’t think you and Simon understand what evidence really is. It’s not speculation. They are two different things.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 9:57 am

Here’s Tom still pretending that the evidence accepted by every major scientific organization in the entire world “isn’t” actually evidence.

This is, sadly, the typical mere vague handwaving and, frankly, intellectually dishonest “Nuh Uh because I say so” kind of response that one would expect from such a pretender.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 12:11 pm

Tom, is that seriously the best you can do. That article is full of undeniable evidence the increase in CO2 is having an affect on temperature and climate. It is well written and concise. Now if you think it is wrong say where so we can debate, but just saying it is speculative is light weight and frankly not entirely honest.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 3:42 am

Well, you didn’t reply so I assme I am correct and you don’t have any evidence connecting CO2 concentrations and the Earth’s weather.

I must say I’m not surprised because there is no evidence that CO2 is driving the Earth’s weather.

You had an impossible task.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 9:59 am

Say what? “didn’t respond”? What kind of anti-reality planet are you living on, Tommy Boy?

And oh, by the way, lets be accurate here and make sure we understand the difference between “climate” and “weather”. They are not the same thing.

Drake
Reply to  MGC
March 24, 2022 1:29 pm

Answer the above questions from Mike, MGC.

Just answering this would be enough for me: How did the MWP and LIA happen when ONLY CO2 can control the earth’s temperature?

I noticed you didn’t respond to those questions, just a bunch of hand waving. Your reason?

MGC
Reply to  Drake
March 24, 2022 6:30 pm

Drake sadly plays a typical intentionally disingenuous denier card when he ‘asks’ this:

“How did the MWP and LIA happen when ONLY CO2 can control the earth’s temperature?”

Who ever said that “ONLY CO2” controls the climate? No one ever said any such thing. However, what *has* been said is that CO2 is at present the primary influence in altering our current climate.

This kind of deliberately dishonest nonsense, that one encounters time and time and time again at places like WUWT, is a major reason why the so-called “skeptical” crowd cannot be taken seriously by the vast overwhelming majority of the professional scientific community.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 25, 2022 3:48 am

“However, what *has* been said is that CO2 is at present the primary influence in altering our current climate.”

Please explain how that happens.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 10:17 am

“Please explain how that happens.”

The references to research studies I posted already and the link that Simon added provide those explanations.

But you didn’t even bother to look at them, did you Tom? No, of course not. You just closed your eyes, stuck your fingers in your ears, and yelled “NA NA NA NA NA I CAN’T HEAR YOU”.

Typical anti-science attitude. And you folks still wonder why you have garnered essentially zero respect with the vast majority of scientific professionals? Unbelievable.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 25, 2022 3:52 am

“This kind of deliberately dishonest nonsense, that one encounters time and time and time again at places like WUWT, is a major reason why the so-called “skeptical” crowd cannot be taken seriously by the vast overwhelming majority of the professional scientific community.”

You speak for the entire professional scientific community?

Ever hear of “projection”?

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 10:18 am

I’ve read what the scientific community has had to say about so called “skeptics” who play these kinds of intellectually dishonest games, like Drake’s woeful example. I’m simply reporting what those folks have said.

Sorry that you are unable to handle the reality that you and your kind are scoffed at by scientific professionals almost everywhere around the world.

OweninGA
Reply to  Mike
March 23, 2022 7:25 pm

Or most importantly: What is the ideal temperature of Earth?

MGC
Reply to  Mike
March 23, 2022 8:12 pm

Mike asks:

“Why has there been no warming for a decade?”

Mike, who sold you this false claim? Some poser here on WUWT? It is simply not true. Look up the data yourself. There’s definitely been warming over the past decade.

I won’t bother to deal with the rest of your list. I chose just this one, as it is a typical example of the kinds of factually incorrect, and quite frankly, often intellectually dishonest “questions” that so-called “skeptics” routinely bring to the table.

MGC

Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 9:22 pm

Tendentious assertion, MGC. You’ve concluded that CO2 is warming the climate and worked backwards to impose a vacuous causality.

Climate models have no predictive value. Absent them, there’s no ground to claim that CO2 emissions have done anything to the climate — except green up Earth and increase agricultural yields.

You’ve been gulled. Save your wroth for that.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 4:47 am

“You’ve been gulled. Save your wroth for that.”

Good advice.

MGC
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 1:54 pm

The claim is made that “climate models have no predictive value”

… and yet climate trends have followed quite well the predictions made decades ago by even rather simple climate models.

But why are you even bothering to talk about climate models in this context? The question here was simply “has the earth warmed over the past decade?”

There was no discussion of “why” in this particular exchange. Just “did it warm or did it not?”

Observations show us that, yes, there was warming over the past decade.

Art
Reply to  MGC
March 24, 2022 2:23 pm

You wouldn’t happen to work for the NYT, would you?

ColA
Reply to  Art
March 24, 2022 5:56 pm

Oh PLLEEEAAAASSSSEEE CNN surely!

lee
Reply to  Mike
March 24, 2022 1:00 am

Pick me, Pick me. ECS is labelled an “emergent phenomena”. It emerges and varies by and from the underlying assumptions (Parameters). An emergent phenomena is defined as “a superficial outgrowth” as in rose thorns.

Last edited 2 months ago by lee
Mark Pawelek
Reply to  Mike
March 24, 2022 4:49 am

1) What primary science (citation to empirical research wanted) led you to conclude that anthropogenic climate change was even a thing?

2) Have you read recent papers on the effect of low-lying cloud, and cloud variability on climate change? If so,
2.1) what effect do clouds have? (numbers please), and
2.2) by how much did clouds vary in the last 4 decades since we’ve been able to measure their changes.
2.3) What is meant by cloud albedo?
2.4) How does this cloud albedo affect surface temperature?

LdB
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 5:12 pm

NYT defining the truth one article at a time

Curious George(@moudryj)
March 23, 2022 10:16 am

Why do we have “projections” of climate, but no predictions?

Doonman
Reply to  Curious George
March 23, 2022 11:23 am

Because no one can predict the future successfully beyond random chance. However, projections are common among neurotics and is classified as a mental illness.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  Doonman
March 23, 2022 11:56 am

And prognosticators and soothsayers and astrologers. Did I miss any?

Ken Irwin
Reply to  Jim Gorman
March 23, 2022 12:04 pm

Necromancers, phrenologists, Spherologists, Haruspicists – you need more.

They’re all with the IPCC….

Mac
Reply to  Ken Irwin
March 23, 2022 2:10 pm

Shaman

LdB
Reply to  Ken Irwin
March 23, 2022 5:04 pm

The drunk down the local bar

H.R.
Reply to  LdB
March 23, 2022 5:58 pm

“Mark my words…”

Yeah, that guy for sure.

jorgekafkazar
Reply to  Doonman
March 23, 2022 10:17 pm

Actually, projection in a more general sense is a widespread human habit that makes the interior visible. Some projection is unhealthy, other types not. The worst form consists of forcibly acting out neuroses, complexes, and mental problems on others. Classical forms include seeing others through the lens of one’s own Shadow. Dreams are healthy projection. All art is a form of projection Literature, too. They say all first novels are autobiographical. That is incomplete. ALL novels are autobiographical. We just get better at disguising ourselves from ourselves and others.

Len Werner
March 23, 2022 10:16 am

Really. Now what on this earth would lead me to believe that I needed journalists at the New York Times to give me clarification about earth science?–including climate.

The offer should be reversed; the New York Times should have been given the offer of asking contributors and commenters here what they’d like to know about climate change. Journalist are the ones who need to learn something.

Perfectly Orwellian Idiocracy. Have the knowledgable ask the ignorant for clarification.

James Allison
March 23, 2022 10:19 am

Nice idea and I’m wondering if ‘expert’ climate people who read this site would be prepared to compile lists of useful questions that ‘lay’ people who also read this site could copy and send as questions to the NYT.

As I’m sure many experts have more questions than the NYT would be prepared to answer from any one person.

A kind of WUWT community approach.

RickWill
Reply to  James Allison
March 23, 2022 3:40 pm

How is it possible for open ocean water to exceed 30C over a yearly average?

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  James Allison
March 23, 2022 3:48 pm

What objective, scientific evidence is there that changing the concentration of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere has any effect on the Earth’s temperature, either locally, regionally or globally?

Full attribution of the sources required.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 23, 2022 6:21 pm

The Heart of the matter.

Richard M
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 23, 2022 9:11 pm

The evidence goes the other way. According to Miskolczi 2010, the enhanced greenhouse effect violates Kirchhoff’s Law.

I guess someone should them why they support a science which has already been falsified.

OweninGA
Reply to  James Allison
March 23, 2022 7:27 pm

What is the ideal temperature of the Earth?

I’ve never been able to get a straight answer to that one.

Gunga Din
Reply to  OweninGA
March 24, 2022 6:35 am

I image their answer would be, “Whatever it isn’t right now.”

Curious George(@moudryj)
March 23, 2022 10:19 am

How can we “project” the climate for 100 years, but not the weather for 100 hours?

Simon
Reply to  Curious George
March 23, 2022 11:11 am

How can we “project” the climate for 100 years, but not the weather for 100 hours?”
Oh dear…..Because they are different things….

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 11:40 am

Idiot.

Simno
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 4:26 pm

Haha you think they are the same and you call me an idiot. What a nob.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simno
March 23, 2022 6:26 pm

MAGA

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 8:12 pm

Maga moron. He ain’t coming back any time soon.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 9:17 pm

Ouch, this hurt deeply, I’m cut to the bone.

Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 9:32 pm

If you voted for Joe Biden, Simon, you voted for a bribe-taker. If you voted for a bribe-taker you have no moral standing to criticize Trump.

If you voted for Joe Biden, you likely voted for, or sympathize with, Hillary Clinton. An unindicted felon.

Consciously voting for both a bribe-taker and an unindicted felon signifies a moral reprobate unfit for the company of ordinary people.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 1:31 pm

If you voted for Joe Biden, Simon, you voted for a bribe-taker.”

Unless you can provide even minimal, credible documentation, just more Propagation of Nonsense…

Sunsettommy(@sunsetmpoutlookcom)
Editor
Reply to  Simno
March 24, 2022 9:42 am

No you didn’t understand what he was talking about he wasn’t saying they are the same it was about the inability to forecast over different time frames.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 11:41 am

Hey the Russia colluuuusion guy returns.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Derg
March 23, 2022 11:45 am

Careful lest he run you down with his battery car.

b.nice
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 12:03 pm

Thing is with Simon, his only battery operated car is a toy his mummy gave him. And she wont buy him any new batteries, so he has to push it by hand.

An even though its battery operated, he still makes the brrroom, brrroom noises.

Last edited 2 months ago by b.nice
Simon
Reply to  b.nice
March 23, 2022 8:16 pm

Why would I make noises in a car that is silent and all the better for it? I mean … hello….

jeffery p
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 1:17 pm

It’s cold out, so his battery car doesn’t have enough power to get uphill.

Simno
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 4:27 pm

No need to go anywhere. It’s comes to me.

Simon
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 8:18 pm

Tell me again CM … how much is it costing you to fill your Neanderthal car?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 9:19 pm

F J B—you’re an idiot still.

Simon
Reply to  Derg
March 23, 2022 8:17 pm

Hey look it is the one trick pony.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 3:53 am

You still believe in Russia colluuuusion so you really are not bright.

MiloCrabtree
Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 2:30 pm

How can you be so fracking clueless?

Simno
Reply to  MiloCrabtree
March 23, 2022 4:28 pm

Another who thinks weather is climate. Oh dear. I guess you can’t cure stupid.

LdB
Reply to  Simno
March 23, 2022 5:05 pm

Says the bloke who can’t spell his own name 🙂

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simno
March 23, 2022 6:23 pm

“Another who thinks weather is climate.”

Just like Griff.

Simon
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 23, 2022 8:15 pm

If he does he is wrong. I don’t recall him making that simple error though. I mean let’s be honest Tom, it really is climate 101 that weather and climate are vastly different things, yet people here (in an attempt to sound clever)still confuse them.

Derg
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 3:56 am

You really are dumb…wow.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 5:13 am

Some people get confused and some people are not confused.

Hoyt Clagwell
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 9:17 am

Vastly different things? Climate is nothing but cumulative weather. Try describing what climate is without using the word weather.

Reply to  Simon
March 23, 2022 9:25 pm

Not correct Simon. Because weather models are updated with new data every four hours, to prevent them going off the rails.

While climate models cannot be updated at all. They go off the rails immediately.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Simon
March 24, 2022 5:13 am

His statement is correct!
(I can say that summer will be warmer than winter while not know when it will rain next month and there was an average global warming trend over the last 150 years, so an easy linear projection would be a straight line after discussing the trouble with this data set like limited coverage before satellites)

If you can predict the weather for 10hours might depend where exactly you are.. the weather in Antarctica is “frggin´ cold” year around 🙂

Dean
Reply to  Curious George
March 23, 2022 11:49 pm

Weather and climate are different.

That’s why warmistas who claim that whatever short term weather event has occurred in the last year as PROOF of CAGW are so moronic.

By equating the two you are in agreement of the bullshite of warmistas.

Last edited 2 months ago by Dean
Ron Long
March 23, 2022 10:21 am

OK, I submitted a question. Hope they contact me, will let you know. Not likely they contact me? That’s why I used some colorful words.

fretslider
March 23, 2022 10:24 am

“We know that our emotional climate change reporting can be overwhelming, and we want to break you down…”

Skeptic JR
March 23, 2022 10:27 am

Asking for your address and personal info guarantees they won’t get any questions they don’t like.

Opus
March 23, 2022 10:27 am

Will reducing our carbon footprint really make the climate perfect, forever?

H.R.
Reply to  Opus
March 23, 2022 6:12 pm

What is the perfect climate and who determines what it is?

I’m sure the NYT can answer that one.

dodgy geezer
March 23, 2022 10:31 am

Some time ago I asked a similar Q&A session ‘What is the correct level of CO2?’

I was told that it was around 280ppm – the so-called pre-industrial levels

I then asked how we would cope with losing about 50% of our crop yields if we ever managed to drop it to that level. I didn’t get an answer…

Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 10:37 am

How about, “When will you stop lying about climate”?

Kpar
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 12:08 pm

Another question they will not respond to…

MGC
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 3:08 pm

What a truly ironic question, Bruce, seeing that it is posted on the WUWT website, where “lying about climate” is a near constant occurrence.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 3:58 pm

You are a moronic True Believer, obviously, so have no clue what you are talking about.

meab
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 4:31 pm

Are you the same MGC that used to post lies on Yahoo? You know, before Yahoo disabled comments because they were getting too many comments that countered their narrative a bit too effectively?

The same idiot who in one post claimed that global warming would make fresh water a scarce resource and in the very next claimed the global warming would inundate the planet with rain? That MGC?

Reply to  meab
March 23, 2022 9:35 pm

So s/he has a history.

Ossqss
March 23, 2022 10:48 am

Perhaps they can explain how this data could exist under the climate crisis scenarios.

New land-use-change emissions indicate a declining CO2 airborne fraction | Nature

Art Slartibartfast
March 23, 2022 10:54 am

Question: how is it that the deadlines for climate action continue to be pushed to the future? Every ten years we have only ten years left to mitigate the problem decisively. Is the problem even real?

  • 1989: “Entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000.” – Noel Brown, director of the New York office of the U.N. Environment Program
  • 2006: “Humanity has only 10 years left before the world reaches a point of no return” – Al Gore
  • 2020: “We have ten years left to save the world” – Christiana Figueres, the lead U.N. negotiator of the Paris climate agreement
Kpar
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
March 23, 2022 12:09 pm

Just like fusion power… it’s only twenty years away, just like it’s been for fifty years…

OweninGA
Reply to  Kpar
March 23, 2022 7:30 pm

Hey, and where is my flying car…

Gunga Din
Reply to  Art Slartibartfast
March 24, 2022 6:53 am

It would seem that the “settled science” has determined that “10 years” is a nice round number.

ResourceGuy
March 23, 2022 10:54 am

How long will agenda/advocacy science persist as the basis for energy and environmental policy?
How much money does the NYT make from continuous climate fear promotion?
Do NYT readers ever get to see taxpayer supported real data tracking of the oceans and atmosphere, like ARGO and satellites?
Samples:
NOAA SST-NorthAtlantic GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×481) (climate4you.com)

PDO MonthlyIndexSince1979 With37monthRunningAverage.gif (880×475) (climate4you.com)

Do NYT readers know what UHI is and how it changed by year and decade?
Do NYT readers ever question advocacy authority?

ResourceGuy
March 23, 2022 10:56 am

How soon will we have European energy prices, shortages, and land wars?

H.R.
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 23, 2022 6:23 pm

Ya shoulda asked that question back on January 19, 2021. As of now, we know the answer.

Derg
Reply to  H.R.
March 24, 2022 3:59 am

Europe has been doing this to themselves long before 2021.

TonyL
March 23, 2022 10:57 am

Two good question for a journalist who majored in liberal arts in college.
1) What is the value of the ECS, the Equilibrium Climate sensitivity? ECS is the one critical parameter which determines the Earths temperature response to a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
ECS was originally given in the Charney Report in 1979. The estimate was 3.0 degrees +/- 1.5 degrees, giving a range of 1.5 – 4.5 deg.
With billions spent on Climate Change research in the 40 years since, We must have a better value for ECS by now. What is it?

2) What is the % of cloud cover over the Earth at any given time? How much would this % have to increase such that incoming sunlight reflected away by the clouds totally offsets a doubling of atmospheric CO2.

Inquiring minds want to know.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyL
March 24, 2022 5:22 am

“2) What is the % of cloud cover over the Earth at any given time? How much would this % have to increase such that incoming sunlight reflected away by the clouds totally offsets a doubling of atmospheric CO2.”

It is claimed that a two percent increase in cloud cover would offset all human-derived CO2 temperature increases.

I don’t have my reference handy at the moment.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  TonyL
March 24, 2022 5:26 am

Scafetta has an answer to the first question..
comment image

Lance Wallace
March 23, 2022 10:59 am

Question for NYT:

Why is mortality from cold about 10 times as high as that for heat?

https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(21)01700-1.pdf

From the abstract:

In 2019, the average cold-attributable mortality exceeded heat-attributable mortality in all countries for which data were available. Cold effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 4·3% (3·9–4·7) and attributable rates of 32·0 deaths(27·2–36·8) per 100 000 and in New Zealand with 3·4% (2·9–3·9) and 26·4 deaths (22·1–30·2). Heat effects were most pronounced in China with PAFs of 0·4% (0·3–0·6) and attributable rates of 3·25 deaths (2·39–4·24)per 100 000 and in Brazil with 0·4% (0·3–0·5) and 2·71 deaths (2·15–3·37).

Tom Halla
March 23, 2022 11:00 am

Is the New York Times capable of reporting on Michael Mann’s hockey stick graph? Without special pleading?

Rod Evans
March 23, 2022 11:01 am

My question would be, simply.
‘What would convince you we do not have a climate crisis’

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Rod Evans
March 24, 2022 5:26 am

What convinces the NYT reporters we have a climate crisis?

All I see is weather in its various forms, and nothing unprecedented, and I’m probably older than most of those NYT reporters. They should listen to the voice of experience.

There is nothing unpecedented going on with the Earth’s climate. Even a NYT reporter ought to be able to figure that out. Assuming they have a desire to know the truth. I have my doubts they do.

Last edited 2 months ago by Tom Abbott
whatlanguageisthis
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 12:45 pm

Can I make a request to the world as a whole? Can we all agree to discontinue use of certain words/phrases as they no longer bear any meaning. My submission to initiate the meaningless word/phrase list:

  • unprecedented
  • new normal
  • ***gate

I also consider climate expert as potential candidate. I welcome input to the list.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  whatlanguageisthis
March 25, 2022 4:10 am

“Unprecedented” is not meaningless.

Alarmists use “unprecedented” all the time as the main part of their argument. How would you argue against that without using the word?

dearieme
March 23, 2022 11:03 am

Question: Dear NYT, why do you tell so many lies about climate?

Answer: There’s nothing special about climate, moron!

OweninGA
Reply to  dearieme
March 23, 2022 7:31 pm

About climate? About EVERYTHING!!!!

Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 11:06 am

This would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.

Here are some amusing questions for NYT to ponder:

  1. Wadhams predicted Arctic summer ice would disappear by 2016. It hasn’t. Why?
  2. Viner predicted in 2000 that UK children would not know snow. They do. Why.
  3. Hanson predicted in 1990 (to Salon) that the West Side Parkway would be under water in 20 years. It isn’t. Why?
  4. CMIP6 is supposed to be better than CMIP5. Yet it’s ECS is higher than CMIP5 (mean 4.4 versus 3.4) so MORE at variance with EGM observational estimates (~1.7), and the range from lowest (1.8) to highest (5.6) is bigger, not smaller. Why?
  5. Green renewables were promised to become competitive with conventional generation. They obviously haven’t since still require massive subsidies. Why?
  6. Why do you think climate change is confusing, since it always has and always will, slowly and naturally?
  7. Why won’t self proclaimed climate experts debate lay skeptics?
  8. Why do you think NYT reporters are capable of correctly answering such questions as these?
TonyL
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 11:14 am

Now this is a really good set of questions.
Fun!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  TonyL
March 23, 2022 6:31 pm

I liked number 8 the best.

I imagine Rud’s questions went right over the heads of the New York Times reporters.

Rod Evans
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 12:59 pm

Obviously all very good questions, Rud.
I suspect the NYT would use the opportunity they provide to buzz about between the questions to simply confuse and obscure their ignorance.
If I was allowed an auxiliary question I would ask, Why are the positive elements of our current climate conditions not mentioned and appreciated by the MSM?

Bob Tisdale(@bobtisdale)
Editor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 1:29 pm

Rud, the answer to number 7 is, the climate research (propaganda) community does not debate because they tried it once and lost to a skeptics panel consisting of Richard Lindzen, Phillip Stott, and Michael Crichton (yes, that Michael Crichton). And the alarmist side included Gavin Schmidt of GISS.

See the IQ2US YouTube video of the debate titled Global Warming is Not A Crisis:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-28qNd6ass

Regards,
Bob

Scissor
Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 23, 2022 1:52 pm

The wisdom and voice of reason of Michael Crichton is sadly missed. His medical expertise could have been even more important during this pandemic.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
March 23, 2022 9:38 pm

And Gavin accused his opponents of lying. Despicable.

Herbert
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 3:01 pm

Rud,
May I throw in a basic question for NYT which is at the heart of the climate debate?
Q: Is CO2 a pollutant and toxic?
Answer by Dr. Alan Finkel, now retired Chief Scientist of Australia and a staunch supporter of the UN IPCC published in “The Quarterly”,no.82,April 2021-
“A brief digression on carbon dioxide; it is not a pollutant.
Calling it a pollutant runs the risk of trivialising the toxic effects of true pollutants.Carbon dioxide is not toxic.
It is a product of human metabolism and we exhale it at more than 100 times higher concentration than is found in the atmosphere.
In the reverse cycle, plants absorb carbon dioxide to use as the food stock of photosynthesis.
Carbon dioxide is a fundamental part of our lifecycle but it also happens to be a greenhouse gas.”
Dr.Finkel then discusses the greenhouse effect.
So,in his terms it is all down to what is the warming effect of the greenhouse gases.
I think you appreciate the significance of Dr.Finkel’s statement which is in direct contradiction to the views of the EPA underlying its endangerment finding of December,2009.
( Does the UN IPCC state expressly that CO2 is a pollutant?)
Incidentally, the National Pollutant Inventory ( NPI) of Australia lists 93 pollutants and C and CO2 are not among them.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  Herbert
March 23, 2022 3:17 pm

The root harm in Mass v EPA was Congress definition of a pollutant as ‘that which pollutes’. All SCOTUS said in their infamous ruling was that the EPA admin had the digression to decide what pollutes.
Bad law with bad outcomes.
Permanent solution is to relegislate CCA pollutant definition after we retake Congress in 2022.

Herbert
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 5:21 pm

Rud,
Exactly.
That is also why the West Virginia v. EPA judgement currently reserved in the SCOTUS is so important.
It should be delivered before end July when Justice Breyer retires.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 9:48 pm

A permanent solution is to forever shutter the EPA and restore the power to the states.

Demolish the buildings. Plow the ground and sow it with salt, sell off the lab equipment, and scatter the erstwhile EPA upper management to operate the cash registers at remote gas stations in the Mohave.

Earthling2
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 23, 2022 11:13 pm

I like the part about plowing the EPA ground and ‘sowing with salt’.

MGC
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 3:05 pm

Rud has unfortunately offered us a short list of what are actually >> intentionally disingenuous << “questions” that are often bandied about by so-called “skeptics”. For example:

#3 – why do “skeptics” always leave out important details about this particular scenario? Like, Hansen was just making an off the cuff guess, nothing more, and moreover, that guess was predicated on the assumption that CO2 levels would have doubled in the timeframe discussed, which they did not (and still have not).

#5 – Just flat out false. The latest wind and solar projects are now delivering the lowest cost electricity of *any* generation technology, even with zero subsidies.

#6 – A “question” that simply tries to pretend away the overwhelming worldwide scientific conclusion that, no, current climate change is neither “slow” nor just “natural”.

#7 – scientists debate scientific issues via peer reviewed science, not via unscientific public forums. In the only genuine forum for *real* scientific debate, so-called “skeptics” have been totally whitewashed, because they have brought pretty much zero valid evidence to bear on anything they claim.

Rud Istvan
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 3:29 pm

Says you. You unfortunately apparently have access to the Wayback machine. Let’s take your first two.

#3 Hanson said it. salon wrote it. When the reporter was called on it after twenty years, he did not say Hanson SWAGed. He said he misreported and Hanson said 40 years. That is NOT your version. Problem with continued lying is memory eventually trips you up. Look it up.
#5 IF your assertion is true, how come nobody invests in renewables even now without subsidies? Something you cannot factually deny.
And what is your economic backup solution to intermittency, and what is your grid solution to lack of inertia? Perhaps you rely on biased ‘official’ sources claiming otherwise. Then do due diligence like I have.
Several years ago (in 2016) I wrote ‘True Cost of Wind for Judith’s Climate Etc. At the time, EIA 2015 claimed wind was at LCOE cost parity with CCGT. EIA deliberately misrepresented in several easily verifiable ways. When corrected to the then reality, CCGT was $58/MWh and onshore wind was $146/MWh.

Suggestion. You want to go toe to toe with me, up your game. Pathetic.

MGC
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 8:20 pm

Rud asks:

“how come nobody invests in renewables even now without subsidies?”

Yet another example of a “question” that leads off with trying to get the reader to accept false information. This claim is simply not true. There are lots of investments in renewables now that rely on zero subsidies. You’re way behind the times, my friend.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 24, 2022 10:08 am

#5 – Just flat out false. The latest wind and solar projects are now delivering the lowest cost electricity of *any* generation technology, even with zero subsidies.

This might actually be a true statement and yet it might make no sense to mass-produce electricity that way.
An honest debate about electricity production cost should also include the need to storage solar up to 6months (we also need electricity in April after the winter), grid stability and environmental issues and slave labor conditions during production and last not least the finite availability.

A Epstein made the point of proving the idea of sustainable electricity or even all energy on a smaller scale BEFORE trying to change the world with an unproven, but controversial idea.
(https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/14/epstein-vs-dessler-should-america-rapidly-eliminate-fossil-fuel-use-to-prevent-climate-catastrophe/)

Laws of Nature
Reply to  Laws of Nature
March 25, 2022 7:21 am

Actully, the 2nd graph in the latest article on WUWT shows an example for it:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/25/new-york-climate-act-what-the-experts-are-saying-now/

A 3 week period in winter for NYC, where the demand is much higher than the electricity production from wind and solar.
Of course the cost to cover that period with electricity needs to be discussed.

MGC
Reply to  Laws of Nature
March 25, 2022 10:44 am

“A 3 week period in winter for NYC, where the demand is much higher than the electricity production from wind and solar.”

Why do you want to pretend that the amount of wind and solar generation that was available in the 2007-2012 timeframe (which is what that 2nd graph depicts) will be what we will use to support the power grid in the future? Sorry, but this makes less than zero sense.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  MGC
March 26, 2022 9:41 am

>> Why do you want to pretend that the amount of wind and solar
Where do I say such a thing?

A classic C. Sagan straw man! Trying to put words in my mouth will not help you with your cost omission a wind and solar electricity generation is facing.
In general personal attacks are considered bad manners and often are just fog candle in lieu of arguments.

Btw in this example, there was no wind in that period of time no amount of wind parks will be able to generate electricity from that and increasing the wind or solar park density increases the cost of electricity generation.

MGC
Reply to  Laws of Nature
March 26, 2022 5:54 pm

It certainly seemed that that was in essence what you were doing. To paraphrase your statement:

“Oh look, there was a period of time years ago when there wasn’t enough wind and solar to run the grid. ‘Therefore’ we will never be able to run the grid in the future.”

BTW, I didn’t comment on other little gems in your original post, but will do so now:

1- the supposed need to have “six months of storage” on the grid for when wind and solar output is low is a wild exaggeration. Nowhere near that amount will be needed.

2- “environmental issues” ? Whatever environmental issues might exist for wind and solar electricity production are minuscule in comparison to environmental issues due to fossil fuels.

3- And what did you mean by “finite availability” ?? There are magnitudes more wind and solar resource available than what we are using.

RickWill
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 5:08 pm

Just flat out false. The latest wind and solar projects are now delivering the lowest cost electricity of *any* generation technology, even with zero subsidies.

Untrue – whenever the price goes negative in Australia, the wind and solar voluntarily curtail. The coal plants set their minimum price at the floor of minus AUD1000/MWh in the knowledge they can recover the loss when electricity is actually needed after all the rooftop solar panels shut down in the evening. So coal plants willingly operate at negative prices.

The wind and solar drop out as soon as the price goes more negative than their subsidy – the going price of LGCs.

South Australia market now negative AUD12 and wind has curtailed as rooftops kick in – per attached.

Anyone who thinks wind and solar is lower cost than dispatchable generation does not have a clue about markets. Value depends on scarcity. Water is essential to life but can kill you when there is too much. This year the price for water in Australia is down to cents per megalitre. Likewise with electricity, there is no point pumping electricity into a system that is oversupplied and suppliers are penalised if they do. The excessive input will cause over voltage and the whole system will collapse. South Australia is living with the consequence of a generating system that is not founded on value. It relies on a high power interconnector with Victoria to maintain any semblance of a normal grid. It is a parasite putting the whole east coast network at risk while adding costs for everyone. All eastern states are paying for the “renewable” fantasy.

The only situation where wind or solar offers a benefit is if the fuel price is so high that it is an economic fuel replacement. There are parts of central Australia that use diesel fuel for dispatchable generation where solar is an economic alternative and would look really good at current diesel prices in remote parts of Australia.

Screen Shot 2022-03-24 at 10.42.52 am.png
Last edited 2 months ago by RickWill
MGC
Reply to  RickWill
March 23, 2022 8:30 pm

Why do you so sadly demonstrate your willful ignorance? Spend just five minutes investigating the web search term “lowest cost electricity generation technology”.

LdB
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 5:56 pm

MGC like the NYT defining a special version of the truth

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 6:29 pm

#5 – Just flat out false. The latest wind and solar projects are now delivering the lowest cost electricity of *any* generation technology, even with zero subsidies.

Liar.

MGC
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 8:29 pm

Why do you so sadly demonstrate your willful ignorance? Spend just five minutes investigating the web search term “lowest cost electricity generation technology”.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 9:21 pm

Spammer.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 25, 2022 4:23 am

Cut and paste. That’s funny. 🙂

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 4:40 pm

Yep. Lame to the max.

Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 9:59 pm

Diffuse intermittent energy will never compete economically with concentrated continuous energy. Any analysis that says differently is a polemic.

MGC
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 2:01 pm

“Diffuse intermittent energy will never compete economically with concentrated continuous energy.”

This sounds an awful lot like someone exclaiming, say, back in the late 1960s, “diffuse personal computing resources will never compete economically with single centralized computing resources.”

OMG LOL !!

Gunga Din
Reply to  MGC
March 24, 2022 7:14 am

You left out the search terms “subsidies” and “tax breaks”.

bigoilbob
Reply to  Gunga Din
March 24, 2022 1:41 pm

Wanna lose them all? Line forms behind me. But I don’t think you’ve really thought it through to it’s economic conclusion.

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02847-2

FYI, the article neglects the century old 11-12 figures (and accelerating) of underfunding of asset retirement obligations, just in the CONUS. Add another figure to get the world wide shirk.

Peta of Newark
March 23, 2022 11:15 am

Quote:None of us know all there is to know about the climate issue

Falls at the very first hurdle.
Yes we do know all about “the climate issue

Its a scam. period

Doonman
March 23, 2022 11:17 am

The NYT could care less about helping anyone, unless you are a democrat.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Doonman
March 23, 2022 6:39 pm

The New York Times just wants to get better at indoctrinating people.

Cat
March 23, 2022 11:18 am

Oh yes. As if anything the NYT prints today is more than agenda-driven propaganda..

OweninGA
Reply to  Cat
March 23, 2022 7:36 pm

Today? Try the last whole century at least!

Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 11:39 am

One may be assured that these liars will lie with every sentence.

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
March 23, 2022 2:17 pm

The whole basis of this “public service” is set themselves up as trustworthy
climate authorities even though they’ll lie continuously to promote the scam.
Given that, it’s pointless to even submit a question as they’ll be able to say
they answered “x+1” questions. What a bunch of sick #$%$!%##s!

MGC
Reply to  Old Man Winter
March 23, 2022 2:42 pm

Quite an ironic comment, there, OMW, seeing as it is posted on the WUWT website, which is itself beyond guilty of every one of those NYT accusations you just made.

WUWT pretends that what they are doing is a “public service” here, when in reality it is a tragically horrendous public disservice. They pretend that the content here is written by, to use your words, “trustworthy climate authorities”, yet it is routinely the exact opposite. WUWT promotes the scam of anti-science climate change denial.

Retired_Engineer_Jim
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 3:58 pm

Three assertions, none of them substantiated. Well done.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
March 23, 2022 6:46 pm

Alarmists are all about unsubstantiated assertions. They can’t substantiate any of their climate change assertions because they don’t have any evidence. So they just assert and assert and assert as if their assertions will become reality with repetition.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 23, 2022 8:34 pm

Tom Abbott claims:

“They can’t substantiate any of their climate change assertions because they don’t have any evidence.”

Yeah, right Tom. According to you, EVERY major relevant scientific organization in the ENTIRE WORLD has accepted a scientific conclusion on the basis of “no evidence”.

How delusional can you possibly be?

Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 10:09 pm

And yet, it’s true.

You’ve fallen for it, MGC. Why not them?

Here’s a conundrum for you. The figure shows that the entire global air temperature record can be fit with a 60-year cycle close to the PDO/AMO period plus the rising phase of a known 234-year oscillation.

No CO2 emissions required. Rug, launch feet.

GISS Land+SST Comp 2019 WUWT.png
MGC
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 24, 2022 2:04 pm

Really? A “known 234 year oscillation” ?? Oh please.

That supposed “234 year oscillation” has no physical basis whatever. It is merely the product of a pseudo-scientific mathematical curve fit.

What a joke of an excuse!

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 24, 2022 5:43 am

“According to you, EVERY major relevant scientific organization in the ENTIRE WORLD has accepted a scientific conclusion on the basis of “no evidence”.”

That’s exactly right. All those organizations have gone political and delusional. There is no evidence that human-derived CO2 is changing the Earth’s climate.

You, and/or those organizations, are invited to present some evidence to the contrary.

It doesn’t matter how many people are wrong, what matters are the facts and the facts say they are wrong.

Mass Delusion and political and social pressure can affect a lot of people in detrimental ways. It doesn’t change the fact that none of them, including you, can prove that human-derived CO2 is doing anything to change the Earth’s climate.

You are invited to prove me wrong.

Of course, you won’t because there’s no evidence for you to present. I say that with confidence after searching for such evidence for many years and finding none.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 24, 2022 2:10 pm

“none of them, including you, can prove that human-derived CO2 is doing anything to change the Earth’s climate.”

Just to be clear, there is never actually any “proof” of anything in science. Just supporting evidence.

On that note, there’s plenty of evidence supporting the conclusion that human greenhouse gas emissions are significantly influencing our planet’s climate. A few examples were suggested in another thread.

Pretending otherwise, that no such evidence exists, remains thoroughly ridiculous and, quite frankly, to my mind, just plain intellectually dishonest.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  MGC
March 25, 2022 4:29 am

I don’t see any evidence being presented. No detail at all. Just assertions.

That’s all we ever get from alarmists. And when called out on it, they squirm like you are doing.

MGC
Reply to  Tom Abbott
March 25, 2022 10:27 am

Again, Tom, in another thread I provided you with some examples of published research containing plenty of evidence. And there are many many more like those examples.

But when confronted with such research evidence, you didn’t even bother to look at it. Instead, you just ignorantly responded “Nuh Uh because I say so”.

So childishly infantile.

James D
Reply to  MGC
March 25, 2022 6:07 pm

No. There never is proof.

But there must be a falsifiable hypothesis. Can you give us ANY of these in the last 50 years?

MGC
Reply to  James D
March 25, 2022 7:13 pm

Hello James D

There were many predictions made, decades ago, about certain specifics expected of the “signature” of warming due to CO2; specifics that would differentiate warming via CO2 from other possible causes.

If those specifics were *not* observed as the planet warmed, then yes, the CO2 warming hypothesis would be falsified.

Here are just a few examples of those specifics, and what the outcomes of observations of those specifics have been over the decades:

1- the spectrum of the earth’s infrared emissions into space should change, and specifically at CO2 absorption wavelengths. This change has been observed. (Harries 2001, Chen 2007)

2- the spectrum of infrared radiation coming from the sky, as measured at the earth’s surface, should change, specifically at CO2 absorption wavelengths. This change has been observed (Feldman 2015).

3- The lower atmosphere should warm but the stratosphere should cool (because some energy emitted from the lower atmosphere, that would normally warm the stratosphere, has been blocked by CO2). This has been observed. (Santer, 2013)

4- nighttime temperatures should increase more than daytime temperatures (because again, the warming mechanism is the trapping of heat that would otherwise escape into space). This has been observed.(Braganza et al, 2004)

5- the “effective radiating altitude”, meaning the location in the atmosphere where infrared becomes free to travel into space, should move to a higher altitude. This has been observed. (Santer 2003)

So yes, the hypothesis is clearly falsifiable, as it made a series of several predictions that should occur *only* if CO2 were the warming mechanism. Those predictions, made decades ago, have all been observed.

LdB
Reply to  MGC
March 23, 2022 6:21 pm

Now you are showing your true greentard beliefs ….. good to see the real you.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  LdB
March 23, 2022 6:30 pm

Watermelon through-and-through.

George V
March 23, 2022 11:41 am

Well, I’d like to know how, after we’ve stopped drilling for oil, will pave the roads. Roads will still deteriorate, get potholes, and such, and so there’s a continuing need for asphalt.

If my memory is correct, I once read that an average 42 gallon barrel of oil yields about 8 gallons of asphalt, 12 gallons of diesel/kerosene, 19 gallons of gasoline, and a few gallons of light distillates used to make everything from dry cleaning fluid to paint thinner.

If drilling for oil continues so ensure a supply of asphalt and paint thinner, what will happen to all the diesel fuel and gasoline? You can’t just dump it on the ground or in the ocean. Maybe it would be burned as a waste product.

No, I am not being facetious, other than maybe the crack about burning the unused gasoline. If we don’t drill for oil there’s gonna be a problem as pretty much everything we use today from fabrics to the resins used in plastics depend on oil. The New York Times should answer these questions.

Earthling2
Reply to  George V
March 23, 2022 12:08 pm

There is 100’s of millions of barrels of low quality bitumen (oil sands in Alberta), that doesn’t have much use for other than the bottom production of asphalt. We will never run out of low quality bitumen, and the recoverable reserves of higher quality oil sands have just tripled with the general price increase of WTI and heavy Western Canadian Select. (WCS) at $95 USD And it is just sitting there ready to be dug up.

Mr. Lee
March 23, 2022 11:55 am

It’s like that annoying religion peddler that knocks on your door wanting to “answer your questions about God.”

What a bunch of scum bags at the NYT….in my opinion, of course.

March 23, 2022 12:04 pm

I asked ’em 3 political questions:

1) considering that ‘science consensus’ (i.e. argumentum ad populum / “a show of hands“) has never validated any science-based conclusion in the history of the Scientific Method, what other possible reason does the NYT have for dismissing skeptic climate scientists out-of-hand?
2) if the NYT says ‘Big Coal & Oil’ pays those skeptics to lie, does the NYT then have evidence which can stand up in a courtroom evidentiary hearing proving a pay-for-performance arrangement exists between those skeptics and fossil fuel company executives?
3) if not, will the NYT investigate the core clique of enviro-activist accusers who’ve promulgated that accusation over the last 30+ years?

Last edited 2 months ago by Russell Cook
Reply to  Russell Cook
March 23, 2022 10:11 pm

After posting your questions, did you, too, get directed to their page of ‘why it’s all true’ homilies, Russell?

Reply to  Pat Frank
March 23, 2022 10:27 pm

Nope, nothing like that. Was only a few hours old yesterday when I first saw it and responded to it, NYT might have subsequently added that as an afterthought.

glenn holdcroft
March 23, 2022 12:07 pm

When will the Western woke ‘democratic’ world wake up to the facts that fighting against climate change with their current methods is more damaging than adapting to the inevitable particularly when it has an unfair distribution of whom should pay .

Phillip Bratby
March 23, 2022 12:21 pm

This would be my question: “Given that water vapor is far and away the most important greenhouse gas, why is so much importance given to minor greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane?”

Rob_Dawg
March 23, 2022 12:27 pm

Q: The NYTimes has been “reporting” on climate change for more than a Century. Can you list those that have been proven wrong?

H.R.
Reply to  Rob_Dawg
March 23, 2022 6:45 pm

Shorter list: Can they list the those where they have been proven right?

Harry Passfield
March 23, 2022 12:40 pm

Simple question for the NYT: Why aren’t you sceptical?

Mr.
Reply to  Harry Passfield
March 23, 2022 1:24 pm

As journalists are supposed to be.

mkelly
March 23, 2022 12:49 pm

If CO2 in air traps heat causing an increase in temperature shouldn’t there be two columns for energy input required in specific heat tables, one for with infrared and one without?

J N
March 23, 2022 1:06 pm

All answers will be provided by Nick Stokes and Griff, no matter the subject is. 🙂

LdB
Reply to  J N
March 23, 2022 5:09 pm

Yes first Nick will define the problem and answer and then Griff will find suitable PR releases.

Derg
Reply to  LdB
March 24, 2022 4:08 am

Nick wil redefine…remember he obfuscates.

March 23, 2022 1:12 pm

Would this be the New York Times which has spent the last two years denying the existence of the Hunter Biden “laptop from hell”, only to perform a recent about face and admit that it is, in fact very real? That New York Times?

Old Man Winter
Reply to  Derek Wood
March 23, 2022 2:37 pm

Everything the NY Slimes prints is self-serving propaganda to advance their
cause. They finally admitted the laptop was real as they felt they needed to
act as a shock absorber to plant lies to shape the narrative as the real story
was going to break soon, possibly with Hunter being indicted or someone
with smoking gun evidence they were going to reveal. Maybe Brandon’s
rambling about “someone we know being blackmailed” may have been a
trigger, too. It also gave a “heads up” to fellow MSM outlets & liberal pols to
prepare “answers” to questions they may get asked.

Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 1:15 pm

By coincidence, the Kremlin Times wants to answer your questions about Ukraine. Any question, big or small. They are there to help. You just need to tell them who you are, and where you live. Just for their records, of course.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 6:52 pm

I would give you more than one up vote if I could, for that one. Very funny.

OweninGA
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
March 23, 2022 7:40 pm

Kremlin Times, that is just the Moscow bureau of the NY Times, right?

jeffery p
March 23, 2022 1:16 pm

Climate change is a natural, ongoing process that started when the earth formed. The climate is in a continual state of change. Why should we fear it?

pouncer
March 23, 2022 1:26 pm

For the New York Times,

“In light of the recent lawsuit filed against you by Sarah Palin, and considering the Amicus Brief filed in August 2014 by TWENTY SEVEN news organizations against Michael Mann and in favor of Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, which side of the long-running libel suit about Mann’s so-called “fraudulent hockey-stick graph” are you supporting? Are public figures entitled to sue and win financial damages from authors and publishers, if and only if the matter of public interest is ‘climate?’ “

Steve Case
March 23, 2022 1:29 pm

So the New York Times wants to know what questions I have about Climate Change. Really? SURE:

How much is methane going to run up global temperatures by 2100?

Telling us that it’s 86 time more powerful than CO2 isn’t productive.

Steve Case
Reply to  Steve Case
March 23, 2022 2:03 pm

I sent the form, cleaned up the grammar and added some info they wanted. So I’ll watch my inbox & Junk mail to see if they answer. They wanted to know about me. So I said, “I’m skeptical about every thing the press tells us, To quote Mark Twain, I’m uninformed, not misinformed.”

Robber
March 23, 2022 1:47 pm

Perhaps they will have some doozie answers ready for April Fool’s Day.

ResourceGuy
March 23, 2022 1:52 pm

How much did NYC get from the Superstorm Sandy political push on all media fronts?

Also, why can’t NYC build a one-foot curb to step over at the top of subway entrances, in place of claiming Armageddon with each storm to get more federal money for your subway expansions?

John Garrett
Reply to  ResourceGuy
March 23, 2022 2:26 pm

Are you kidding? I mean no disrespect but…
that’s an ambulance chaser’s dream.

Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 2:35 pm

To paraphrase (IIRC) Solzenytzin (sp?):

We know they lie.
They know we know they lie.
We know they know we know they lie.
And yet they continue to lie.

That sums up NYT pretty well.

Scissor
Reply to  Rud Istvan
March 23, 2022 3:18 pm

Explains their slogan, “All the lies we wish to print.”

Rick C
March 23, 2022 2:54 pm

Don’t fall for it. It’s just a ruse by the NYT to justify pumping out a steady string of climate hysteria propaganda pieces. Sounds like they can also use it to expand the list of “climate deniers” who will be dealt with when the time comes.

Cool Tolerance
March 23, 2022 3:16 pm

As I am surrounded by homes with swimming pools, why is it nobody has used them since 2016 because the water doesn’t warm enough to please them?

Laws of Nature
March 23, 2022 3:28 pm

I asked two questions (see below each had a small field “Why does this interest me”)
Let´s see if I hear back from them.. little hope I have..

Does R. McKitrick´s article “Checking for model consistency in optimal fingerprinting: a comment” really mean that current model methodology s cannot predict the real world?

He elaborates the problem in laymen terms here https://judithcurry.com/2021/08/18/the-ipccs-attribution-methodology-is-fundamentally-flawed/

And I am interested in this question because without a scientific answer to his critique, basically any article using climate models to make any statement about the real world seems to be flawed. It has been almost a year without any scientific reaction which worries me.

Can the proxy selection for reconstruction of past climate lead to unkown uncertanties which is not considered at all in the reconstruction?

There are infamous examples like M. E. Mann´s Bristlecone Pines supposedly not depending on any factors beside temperature or the Cape Ghir series (the raw data https://climateaudit.org/2014/11/25/new-data-and-upside-down-moberg/ implies that we had 10x more warming in the last 200 year in that region than at any other time in the last 2000 years which seems to contradict history), which was used as pure temperature proxy without discussion to produce IPCC6 SPM figure 1, see https://climateaudit.org/2021/08/11/the-ipcc-ar6-hockeystick/

It seems to me that climate scientists do not work very scientific here. Also the more than 10 year old critique of McShane and Wyner (DOI 10.1214/10-AOAS398REJ) seems very much valid and more importantly unaddressed. It seems just plain wrong to continue publishing such studies without fixing the problem first.

Galileo9
March 23, 2022 3:35 pm

My question to the NYT would be: In 1988 the Canberra Times reported that all 1196 islands of the Maldives will be underwater within the next 30 years so by now they should be gone. Now ABC News International is reporting that it will be by 2050 80% of the Maldives will be uninhabitable. Can the NYT give a definitive date when the Maldives will disappear? Asking for a friend.

Last edited 2 months ago by Galileo9
Mike Smith
March 23, 2022 3:42 pm
  1. How much have we spent so far attempting to change the climate and to what extent have we actually changed the climate?
  2. How much more will we have to spend in order the change the climate and by how much will it actually change?
Geoff Sherrington
March 23, 2022 3:54 pm

After 30 years of involvement with climate research, I distilled the main questions down to these:
For a 1⁰C change in global temperature –

  1. By how many millimeters does the sea level surface height change?
  2. By how many ppm does atmospheric CO₂ change?
  3. By how many tonnes does the weight of terrestrial vegetation, like forests, change?
  4. By how much does the pH of the oceans change?
  5. By how many sq km does the average area of cloud cover change?
  6. What change is there to the accumulated cyclone index, ACE?
  7. What is the net change to the global number of –
  8. Birds
  9. Land animals
  10. Marine algae
  11. By how many Watt per square metre does the Top of Atmosphere TOA radiation balance change?
  12. By how many tonnes does the weight of ice change –
  13. Over land
  14. Floating on sea
  15. Grounded over sea
  16. By how much does total precipitable rainfall TPW change?
  17. By what number does the number of large bush fires change?
  18. By how many tonnes do yields of major food crops change, expressed as tonnes available per person.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/09/11/the-dirty-dozen-tests-of-global-warming-science/

Now, you know and I know that any media group will not answer questions that are inconvenient for them To have the NYT make useful answers, you will need to pressure them. How about a loosely coordinated approach, where readers of WUWT here send in these questions and get their friends to send them in as well?
Then we can report to the NYT how many potential subscribers they ignored, if they do indeed ignore, and congratulate if the attempt to answer decently. Geoff S

David Baird
March 23, 2022 4:07 pm

Well I got to ask my hypothetical question, “how many windmills does it take to construct another windmill?” Am I expecting an answer, no.

otsar
March 23, 2022 4:16 pm

Once upon a time Stalin would take a train and visit towns along the way. He would ask for peoples opinions. The train that followed Stalin’s train would pick up the people that did not give opinions he agreed with. They were sent to be re-educated or worse.
Very creepy!
How much do you trust NYT with your personal data?

Frank Hansen
March 23, 2022 4:30 pm

I have a question somebody may feed to the New York Times. Suppose the US achieves
Net Zero in 2050. How much would that lover the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and would it have any effect on the climate?

March 23, 2022 5:23 pm

Dr Tim Ball – Historical Climatologist

<http://www.generalistjournal.com>

Book: ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’

Book: ‘Human Caused Global Warming, the Biggest Deception in History’

https://www.technocracy.news/dr-tim-ball-on-climate-lies-wrapped-in-deception-smothered-with-delusion/

March 23, 2022 6:13 pm

My submitted question: “How do you account for the certainty of your conviction that CO2-emissions-caused climate change is a reality when it’s been known for 2-1/2 years that climate models have no predictive value …

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

… which in turn means that all the projections of a torrid future are physically meaningless?”

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Pat Frank
March 23, 2022 6:33 pm

“No, you can’t point to this paper, Nick Stokes has decreed it to be wrong…”

Old.George
March 23, 2022 7:10 pm

I have questions, NYT.
Why is the world (except Russia, China and India) spending so much money using climate models which, to date, have failed to predict?

Are Wind & Solar the biggest waste of money ever?

Why isn’t everyone on board with nuclear power generation which will provide the energy for civilization whether the climate warms, cools or stays the same?

Bob
March 23, 2022 7:15 pm

I can’t think of one thing I would want answered by the New York Times. They are a joke.

Dean
March 23, 2022 11:47 pm

What temperature range is ideal for the planet?

Mark Pawelek
March 24, 2022 4:40 am

An even more pertinent question to NYT. Are you even prepared to read my question(s)? before you apply your usual idiot habits of projection to it to conclude it doesn’t need answering because NTY staffers applied their considerable woke telepathic skills to conclude the questioner is: Brexiteer, antivax, pro-Putin, Fascist, Trumpist, Racist, transphobic, or whatever they feel like projecting next.

James Bull
March 24, 2022 6:17 am

My Question would be why was the IPCC set up with the sole purpose of finding Man Made Global Warming and nothing else not allowed to look at natural warming cooling cycles not allowed to look at natural sources of CO2?

James Bull

Reply to  James Bull
March 24, 2022 10:18 am

That is indeed true. From the archived pages of the IPCC itself,

The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

Change the words there of “climate related data” and “climate change” to “ghost population data” and “ghost proliferation,” and it immediately becomes obvious to how ludicrous the IPCC’s mission statement was back then. Show the altered version of that statement to any ordinary person on the street and one of the first things they’ll say is “don’t tell me that we need to adapt to or mitigate the rising numbers of human-induced ghosts until you prove ghosts exist in the first place!!”

Matt G
Reply to  James Bull
March 24, 2022 4:10 pm

This was because it is a political organisation not a scientific one.

A true science body should look at all scenarios.

Gunga Din
March 24, 2022 6:37 am

I’d ask, “Why do our children still know what snow is?”

Bruce Cobb
March 24, 2022 10:22 am

And foxes want to answer your questions about henhouses.

TallDave
March 24, 2022 12:44 pm

what’s the Earth’s ideal temperature and how do you know? show your work

if ECS is less than two, does the total effort wasted on cooling, coerced and voluntary, amount to tens of trillions of dollars or only trillions?

which shell is the ball under?

Art
March 24, 2022 2:21 pm

If I want answers to my “climate change questions”, the last place I would go to get answers is the New York Times.

Matt G
March 24, 2022 3:53 pm

Why is human climate change a potential failed theory?

Answer

Cooling between 1940’s and 1970’s despite continuous rising C02 levels.

Why no warming between 1940’s and 1970’s?

Answer

Sunshine levels were declining and global clouds were increasing.

Why warming between 1980’s and 2000’s?

Sunshine levels were increasing and global clouds declining.

What fits this cycle of cooling and warming?

Answer

AMO
https://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-amo

Why is the Arctic sea ice declining but not sea ice around the Antarctic?

The ocean current (AMOC) that influences the AMO and the warmer phase melts more sea ice in the Arctic and the cooler phase reduces energy reaching the Arctic ocean, causing more sea ice.

Which one fits changes in temperatures since the 1940’s, CO2 or AMO and global cloud levels?

AMO and global cloud levels.

Can the AMO and global cloud levels be responsible for the range in temperature changes seen?

Answer

Yes

Only a few % change is easily enough to show the warming that has occurred in the oceans and the atmosphere, with increased sunshine hours warming the surface.

Frederick Michael
March 24, 2022 9:44 pm

How about, “What is the second law of thermodynamics and does it explain the downward trend in the strongest (EF4 & 5) tornadoes?”

%d bloggers like this: