Climate Change News 4

  • Thread starter Thread starter Theo520
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Steam [water vapor] is shown, falsely, as pollution. What you do is photograph the exhaust through a red filter which makes it look bad. If it was real actual pollution it would not disappear after a few seconds, which the water vapor does.

The author has no technical background. Just makes stuff up to satisfy a political agenda. “1400 deaths”

Other people [ non-technical readers ] assume the author knows what she is saying and give her words technical credibility.

Domain parking page

www.paulstewartphoto.co.uk www.paulstewartphoto.co.uk

Jill Filipovic is a journalist based in Nairobi and New York City, and the author of The H-Spot: The Feminist Pursuit of Happiness . A contributing opinion writer for the New York Times, she is also a weekly columnist for Cosmopolitan and CNN. Formerly a columnist for the Guardian and Cosmopolitan.com’s senior political writer, she is also an attorney. Her work on law, politics, gender and foreign affairs has appeared in the New York Times, the Washington Post, VICE, TIME, Al Jazeera America, the Nation, Foreign Policy, Marie Claire, and others. She was an editor at NYU Law’s Journal of Law and Social Change, and a contributor to the Yale Journal of Law and Feminism and the anthology Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and a World Without Rape , named one of the best books of the year by Publisher’s Weekly.

A winner of a 2014 Newswomen’s Club of New York Front Page Award for her global health reporting and two Society of Professional Journalists Sigma Delta Chi award for political commentary, she was also a UN Foundation Fellow in Malawi and Indonesia, and an International Reporting Project fellow in Brazil and India.
Follow her on Twitter and Instagram at @jillfilipovic.
 
Last edited:
MonteRCMS said:
Steam [water vapor] is shown, falsely, as pollution.
Click to expand...
Where in the article does it say that the visible steam in the photo is the pollution they are talking about? The picture is just a picture of a normally operating power plant. (Or are you referring to the enhanced thumbnail in the link?) The pollution is described in the EPA report as invisible. There is no photographic fakery to show a normally operating power plant and then talk about the pollution. If people think steam is pollution, that is their problem. The article did nothing to further that misunderstanding.
The author has no technical background. Just makes stuff up to satisfy a political agenda. “1400 deaths”
Click to expand...
The 1400 number was cited from the EPA’s own technical evaluation. The author of the opinion piece did not make it up. As for having a political agenda, that is par for the course for opinion writers. If this was presented as a pure news story you might have a point. But it is an opinion piece. People are allowed to have and express an opinion.
Other people [ non-technical readers ] assume the author knows what she is saying and give her words technical credibility.
Click to expand...
That is their problem for being inattentive readers. The article was correctly labelled and not misrepresented.
 
Last edited:
… " up to" 1400.

NOT the same as 1400.

Photo shows an unlabeled exhaust.

Author:

The GOP has long been in the pocket of polluters, who have made clear that they are quite comfortable destroying the planet for our children and grandchildren in return for getting rich now. The party has helped to make this denialism politically feasible by systematically undermining the public education system and refusing the validity of scientific inquiry. Do they believe in evolution yet?

New plan to protect the Great Barrier Reef


New plan to protect the Great Barrier Reef 01:01

That the new Trump rules will cost thousands of lives – 1,400 every year by the EPA’s own admission – doesn’t seem to matter to this President and his GOP enablers, who put corporate profits first, ahead of citizens’ health. In this, they are joined by a base that seems willing to accept any lie, indignity or even undermining of health and life.
 
MonteRCMS said:
… " up to" 1400.

NOT the same as 1400.
Click to expand...
You would expect the author of an opinion piece to highlight the figure most favorable to her point.
Photo shows an unlabeled exhaust.
Click to expand...
Why should it have been labelled? No claim was made about it?
Author:
The [GOP has long been in the pocket of polluters]…
Click to expand...
Yes, and a lot of conservative commentators say that the Democrats have long been in the pocket of Planned Parenthood. That’s what opinion authors do.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
When you say “we”, you are not speaking for all skeptics. There is a considerable portion of them that do not “get it”.
Click to expand...
I think a fair survey would identify that all academics and most armchair skeptics do in fact agree CO2 is a GHG
 
Anxiously awaiting Part Two.

Found this:

The sceptics evidence is that after at least 40 years of claims of imminent catastrophe, nothing has happened.

And as its you alarmists who are making these insane claims, it’s up to you to provide the evidence.

We are sceptical of anything you say because you can’t empirically demonstrate the underlying claim that CO2 causes global warming.

The fact that the models have proven that they can’t model climate.

PS: If they can’t model the earth regionally, they aren’t modeling the earth. The claim that the models can be wrong for each and every region, but still be right for the earth as a whole may be enough to satisfy the acolytes, but it just shows that you aren’t doing science.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
You moderately skeptical position is noted. (and appreciated)
Click to expand...
This seems an appropriate article for you to read,
don’t accuse people of torturing innocent animals.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/08/25/why-i-dont-deny-confessions-of-a-climate-skeptic-part-1/
Click to expand...
I really don’t place much stock in oversimplified terms such as “denier.” As this article points out, such a term is too imprecise to nail someone down to exactly what their position is. If we fall into quoting the worst criticisms of our respective sides (as this article is doing) and railing against those criticisms, we neatly sidestep discussing any real issues, which is a shame.

There are many levels of climate change “belief” and of climate change “denial.” Arguing about whether someone is a “believer” or a “denier” is pointless, so I will try not to do it.

That said, there does appear to be a real division of opinion on this issue. How we best quantify and label that division for purposes of discussion I don’t really know. One thing that might help is to give preference to responding to the best and most reasonable arguments. This is hard to do because it is so tempting to respond first to the worst and most off-the-wall criticisms.

Take the recent discussion of the EPA report about the CPP repeal options for example. It could have been over effects of various CPP repeal scenarios. Instead the discussion centered on the manner in which the media reported the results of the EPA report. It is so much easier to bash the media (and often they deserve it) than to address the difficult issue the story is about. That’s what I mean. Going after the easy target instead of tackling the hard ones that are supposedly more important.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I really don’t place much stock in oversimplified terms such as “denier.”
Click to expand...
Yet you made the below quote, which does oversimplify a very complex topic
There is a considerable portion of them that do not “get it”.
Click to expand...
LeafByNiggle said:
Take the recent discussion of the EPA report about the CPP repeal options for example. It could have been over effects of various CPP repeal scenarios. Instead the discussion centered on the manner in which the media reported the results of the EPA report.
Click to expand...
I thought the media was dishonest in their approach, they should present the range of projected impacts, not just the worst case. They also did not compare against current ‘in place’ pollution standards. The Obama standards were a joke, they had already been rejected by the Court.

In climate reporting, I yearn for the day when the media acknowledges where there is agreement and highlights the area of disagreement, an area that does deserve focus and additional research.
 
Last edited:
Theo520 said:
In climate reporting, I yearn for the day when the media acknowledges where there is agreement and highlights the area of disagreement, an area that does deserve focus and additional research.
Click to expand...
Reporters have zero science education.

And are proud of it.
 
MonteRCMS said:
40.png
Theo520:
In climate reporting, I yearn for the day when the media acknowledges where there is agreement and highlights the area of disagreement, an area that does deserve focus and additional research.
Click to expand...
Reporters have zero science education.

And are proud of it.
Click to expand...
Yeah, let’s all jump on the media and ignore the scientific questions. It is much more fun!
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Yeah, let’s all jump on the media and ignore the scientific questions. It is much more fun!
Click to expand...
To be blunt, I notice posters consistently fail to respond to posts that try focus in on the real disagreement between the two sides of the argument. They seem to prefer the more black and white, or sensational angle on the disagreement.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I agree that most “solutions” I offered to mitigate global warming are ill-conceived.
Click to expand...
I think a massive shift to replace coal/NG with nuclear electricity generation is the only one that makes sense economically and could work in developing world. In 60 yrs we could stabilize if not reverse the trend in CO2 output levels.
 
Theo520 said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I agree that most “solutions” I offered to mitigate global warming are ill-conceived.
Click to expand...
I think a massive shift to replace coal/NG with nuclear electricity generation is the only one that makes sense economically and could work in developing world. In 60 yrs we could stabilize if not reverse the trend in CO2 output levels.
Click to expand...
My typo. I meant to say “most solutions offered”, not “most solutions I offered”. Corrected. Indeed I have not offered any solutions.
 
www.cnn.com

Great Barrier Reef headed for ‘massive death’

The ‘Godfather of Coral’ predicts a ‘planetary catastrophe’
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

I don’t know much about climate change but when the worlds leading authority on coral reefs sounds an alarm at least I’m willing to see what he has to say unless I have a level of scientific knowledge to counter his
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top