11–20 of 100 posts
Absolutely
This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.
This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.
I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.
Fair-warning, this IS a WSJ article, and thus should be well-salted when it comes to their editorial stance on the facts in question.
And it's written by someone who has over 40 years of experience in climate modeling... Have you even read the article??
This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.
I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.
This is the most reasonable, non hysterical (either pro/anti GW) article I have come across in such a long time. No fear mongering about a lack of action. No fear mongering about untold damages action against GW will do to our economies (usually in reference to carbon emissions limitations & taxes). Just so... reasonable.
What makes you think that a "reasonable" stance, as you've defined it, is correct? It seems to me that when you define reasonable as being middle-of-the-road on the consequences of global warming, you're really just using the word as a label to suppress ideas: http://www.paulgraham.com/labels.html
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I thought it was reasonable for the most part too, but the section where he argued because Eric the Red found global warming to his advantage we could also find it in our interests made me a little skeptical.
A northern passage connecting the Atlantic to the Pacific would be a huge boon to international trade. Canada is already posturing itself to control a possible major new trade route.
My main point though was that the reasoning that the guy was using, a single example of anecdotal evidence, made me a little uncomfortable. Aside from that I think the other points he made were thoughtful.
I don't know if it's an evidence of global warming or not but the normal temperature at our institute has risen 7 degree celsius from what is was at this same time last year, which is kinda freaky and we are literally really trying hard to survive here !! source - http://iitkgp.ac.in/topfiles/wgraph.php
There are many problems the author unfortunately omits. Arctic sea shelves collapse? The ocean rises and millions if not billions may be displaced. How's that for an anecdote.