As the referenced son in the article, I want to get out ahead of this and say that I was much more gullible at the time than I am right now (I hope). My argument at the time was based on myths about solar activity which were debunked even when I said them. There has been no accelerated warming of any other planet in our solar system (at the same rate as Earth's).
I am sure your knowledge is superior to mine. The larger point is that no one felt an obligation to either search out evidence or error upon hearing you.
Hey, my point was just to correct myself in case that story comes back to bite me.
Unfortunately I don't have time to go in depth on the entire article, but I would approach it with the same skepticism as the events we've discussed already. A glance at the references to some of the more immediate timelines were taken out of context and do not refer to an imminent disaster. Whether the quotes referenced are worthwhile is up for debate, but the author hurts his case by including them out of context or including them at all.
The graph of CO2 emissions is excellent, but the author comes back to the US's portion of those emissions. It's true that they're going down absolutely and relatively. The author questions what it would take to get the US's output down to half of the current percentage, and the answer may be "nothing" (or even output more). The rate of carbon output overall is going up quickly according to the graph, so if the US has steady emissions (or even emissions that go up some), that percentage will look good shortly. That does not solve the issue of emissions anywhere.
I'm being a little annoying by calling the author out for that when he probably would be right by referencing total numbers instead of a percentage, but I'm getting the distinct impression that there was some cherry picking here. This isn't to say that I'm fond of any of the politicians in the article or their ideas (or that the article is wrong overall), but I'm taking it with a heavy dose of skepticism.
As the referenced son in the article, I want to get out ahead of this and say that I was much more gullible at the time than I am right now (I hope). My argument at the time was based on myths about solar activity which were debunked even when I said them. There has been no accelerated warming of any other planet in our solar system (at the same rate as Earth's).
I am sure your knowledge is superior to mine. The larger point is that no one felt an obligation to either search out evidence or error upon hearing you.
Moi, I wish I had the time (and, yes inclination) to exhaustively search out the answer. Instead, I find some measure of glee when cynicism triumphs. https://mishtalk.com/economics/lets-review-50-years-of-dire-climate-forecasts-and-what-actually-happened
Hey, my point was just to correct myself in case that story comes back to bite me.
Unfortunately I don't have time to go in depth on the entire article, but I would approach it with the same skepticism as the events we've discussed already. A glance at the references to some of the more immediate timelines were taken out of context and do not refer to an imminent disaster. Whether the quotes referenced are worthwhile is up for debate, but the author hurts his case by including them out of context or including them at all.
The graph of CO2 emissions is excellent, but the author comes back to the US's portion of those emissions. It's true that they're going down absolutely and relatively. The author questions what it would take to get the US's output down to half of the current percentage, and the answer may be "nothing" (or even output more). The rate of carbon output overall is going up quickly according to the graph, so if the US has steady emissions (or even emissions that go up some), that percentage will look good shortly. That does not solve the issue of emissions anywhere.
I'm being a little annoying by calling the author out for that when he probably would be right by referencing total numbers instead of a percentage, but I'm getting the distinct impression that there was some cherry picking here. This isn't to say that I'm fond of any of the politicians in the article or their ideas (or that the article is wrong overall), but I'm taking it with a heavy dose of skepticism.
Which I think was your point in the first place.
If anyone wants to bite you, they have to go through me first.