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.
One may be assured that these liars will lie with every sentence.
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!
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.
Three assertions, none of them substantiated. Well done.
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.
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?
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.
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!
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
No. There never is proof.
But there must be a falsifiable hypothesis. Can you give us ANY of these in the last 50 years?
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.
Now you are showing your true greentard beliefs ….. good to see the real you.
Watermelon through-and-through.
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.
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.
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.
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?
After posting your questions, did you, too, get directed to their page of ‘why it’s all true’ homilies, Russell?
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.
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 .
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?”
Q: The NYTimes has been “reporting” on climate change for more than a Century. Can you list those that have been proven wrong?
Shorter list: Can they list the those where they have been proven right?
Simple question for the NYT: Why aren’t you sceptical?
As journalists are supposed to be.
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?
All answers will be provided by Nick Stokes and Griff, no matter the subject is. 🙂
Yes first Nick will define the problem and answer and then Griff will find suitable PR releases.
Nick wil redefine…remember he obfuscates.
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?
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.
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.
I would give you more than one up vote if I could, for that one. Very funny.
Kremlin Times, that is just the Moscow bureau of the NY Times, right?
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?
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?’ “
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.
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.”
Perhaps they will have some doozie answers ready for April Fool’s Day.
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?
Are you kidding? I mean no disrespect but…
that’s an ambulance chaser’s dream.
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.
Explains their slogan, “All the lies we wish to print.”
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.
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?
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.
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.
After 30 years of involvement with climate research, I distilled the main questions down to these:
For a 1⁰C change in global temperature –
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
Well I got to ask my hypothetical question, “how many windmills does it take to construct another windmill?” Am I expecting an answer, no.