Posted on 09/19/2017 6:25:52 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
We know. Global warming is daunting. So here’s a place to start: 17 often-asked questions with some straightforward answers.
1. Climate change? Global warming? What do we call it?
Both are accurate, but they mean different things.
2. How much is the Earth heating up?
Two degrees is more significant than it sounds.
3. What is the greenhouse effect?
We’ve known about it for more than a century. Really.
4. How do we know humans are responsible for the increase in carbon dioxide?
This one is nailed down.
5. Could natural factors be the cause of the warming?
Nope.
6. Why do people deny the science of climate change?
Mostly because of ideology.
7. How much trouble are we in?
Big trouble.
8. How much should I worry about climate change affecting me?
Are you rich enough to shield your descendants?
9. How much will the seas rise?
The real question is how fast.
10. Is recent crazy weather tied to climate change?
Some of it is.
11. Are there any realistic solutions?
Yes, but change is happening too slowly.
12. What is the Paris Agreement?
Virtually every country agreed to limit future emissions.
13. Does clean energy help or hurt the economy?
Job growth in renewable energy is strong.
14. What about fracking or ‘clean coal’?
Both could help clean up the energy system.
15. What’s the latest with electric cars?
Sales are still small overall, but they are rising fast.
16. What are carbon taxes, carbon trading?
It’s just jargon for putting a price on pollution.
17. Climate change seems so overwhelming. What can I do about it?
Start by sharing this with 50 of your friends.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ques: What should the temperature of the earth be at any point on its surface at any point in time.
Ans: It has been and will always be an unknown.
And here I thought Trofim Denisovitch Lysenko was dead. Clearly, he has risen from the grave.
Why is socialism such a scam?
How is CAGW different from Marxism?
How are Climate “Scientists” not on government welfare?
The NYT does fail to disseminate its knee-jerk, communist propaganda. The answers to these questions range from the ingenuous to the outright false.
What a pack of propaganda and lies. “Virtually every country agreed to limit emissions” Well, yeah, except for China and India, the two biggest polluters on the planet. And they forgot that part about us paying $3 Trillion extortion money to 3rd world dictators’ private slush fund.
And I loved the “what can I do about it” question. How about “tell 50 of your friends to demand that Algore, Leonardo Dicrapio, John F’n Kerry and Barack Hussein 0bama personally live a lifestyle that they expect all of the rest of us serfs to live.”
“does not” fail (need coffee.)
Where does it come from?
How many trees are utilized in printing the NYT? What is the impact on the environment in cutting those trees down?
Really? Pick a nearby city/town but at a slightly lower elevation or a little bit south, so that their temperatures are typically two degrees warmer than yours. Would it be a disaster if your town "suddenly" (over a century or so) transitioned to their climate.
ML/NJ
Here’s to Herr Goebbles.
His spirit lives among leftists, Democrats, Progressives, communists, socialists and every other type of psychotic that ever roamed the earth.
IMHO
In the last ice age, my home was under 500 ft. of glacier. So I bought an SUV.
How much job loss is there in the mandatory switch to renewable energy? Is this as misguided as the previous opposition to nuclear, which has suddenly been embraced as green, carbon-free energy?
5. Could natural factors be the cause of the warming? Nope.
Nope? NOPE?
With such a monstrous caveat as "could," and merely considering the sun, cloud cover and seasons, this nitwit author replies with NOPE? What a maroon.
This is what passes for answers in the climate hoax. Vague declaratives with no evidence to back them up, or rhetorical evasions so transparent Helen Keller could read through them.
If only they had the honesty to include all climate research instead of cherry-pick the research that supports their agenda they may have included this
18. Why the switch to a goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees after almost 30 years of alarm over 2 degrees?
Because the IPPC’s last report said we may not reach 2 degrees and many peer-reviewed observational studies said we will not reach 2 degrees. This science comes from our gold standards (IPCC & peer review) so we can’t blame it on deniers. It’s hard to cause hysteria about something that’s not likely to happen (tho we try our best) so the danger value had to be adjusted to what science says may happen in order to save the planet. It’s a problem that is likely to get more difficult as the years go by. So avoid science (even the IPPC and peer reviews) and come to the NYT for an explanation of what the science means rather than what it says.
Question for the Slimes:
Science uses the scientific method.
Climate “science” uses computer models.
Computer models are not science.
Why don’t you believe in science?
We could ban the use of internal combustion engine driven agricultural equipment. Then the job growth in the use of human-pulled plows and reapers would be even stronger.
This one is true - surprising with NYT. I might even consider one in 5-10 years. Maybe. If they are a better product and not just an expensive way to virtue signal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.