The Trump administration is, it goes without saying, deeply anti-science. In fact, it’s anti-objective reality. But its control of the government remains limited; it didn’t extend far enough to prevent the release of the latest National Climate Assessment, which details current and expected future impacts of global warming on the United States. True, the report was released on Black Friday, clearly in the hope that it would get lost in the shuffle. The good news is that the ploy didn’t work. The assessment basically confirms, with a great deal of additional detail, what anyone following climate science already knew: Climate change poses a major threat to the nation, and some of its adverse effects are already being felt. For example, the report, written before the latest California disaster, highlights the growing risks of wildfire in the Southwest; global warming, not failure to rake the leaves, is why the fires are getting ever bigger and more dangerous. But the Trump administration and its allies in Congress will, of course, ignore this analysis. Denying climate change, no matter what the evidence, has become a core Republican principle. And it’s worth trying to understand both how that happened and the sheer depravity involved in being a denialist at this point. Wait, isn’t depravity too strong a term? Aren’t people allowed to disagree with conventional wisdom, even if that wisdom is supported by overwhelming scientific consensus? Yes, they are — as long as their arguments are made in good faith. But there are almost no good-faith climate-change deniers. And denying science for profit, political advantage or ego satisfaction is not O.K.; when failure to act on the science may have terrible consequences, denial is, as I said, depraved. The best recent book I’ve read on all this is “The Madhouse Effect” by Michael E. Mann, a leading climate scientist, with cartoons by Tom Toles. As Mann explains, climate denial actually follows in the footsteps of earlier science denial, beginning with the long campaign by tobacco companies to confuse the public about the dangers of smoking. The shocking truth is that by the 1950s, these companies already knewthat smoking caused lung cancer; but they spent large sums propping up the appearance that there was a real controversy about this link. In other words, they were aware that their product was killing people, but they tried to keep the public from understanding this fact so they could keep earning profits. That qualifies as depravity, doesn’t it? In many ways, climate denialism resembles cancer denialism. Businesses with a financial interest in confusing the public — in this case, fossil-fuel companies — are prime movers. As far as I can tell, every one of the handful of well-known scientists who have expressed climate skepticism has received large sums of money from these companies or from dark money conduits like DonorsTrust — the same conduit, as it happens, that supported Matthew Whitaker, the new acting attorney general, before he joined the Trump administration. But climate denial has sunk deeper political roots than cancer denial ever did. In practice, you can’t be a modern Republican in good standing unless you deny the reality of global warming, assert that it has natural causes or insist that nothing can be done about it without destroying the economy. You also have to either accept or acquiesce in wild claims that the overwhelming evidence for climate change is a hoax, that it has been fabricated by a vast global conspiracy of scientists. Why would anyone go along with such things? Money is still the main answer: Almost all prominent climate deniers are on the fossil-fuel take. However, ideology is also a factor: If you take environmental issues seriously, you are led to the need for government regulation of some kind, so rigid free-market ideologues don’t want to believe that environmental concerns are real (although apparently forcing consumers to subsidize coal is fine). Finally, I have the impression that there’s an element of tough-guy posturing involved — real men don’t use renewable energy, or something. And these motives matter. If important players opposed climate action out of good-faith disagreement with the science, that would be a shame but not a sin, calling for better efforts at persuasion. As it is, however, climate denial is rooted in greed, opportunism, and ego. And opposing action for those reasons is a sin. Indeed, it’s depravity, on a scale that makes cancer denial seem trivial. Smoking kills people, and tobacco companies that tried to confuse the public about that reality were being evil. But climate change isn’t just killing people; it may well kill civilization. Trying to confuse the public about that is evil on a whole different level. Don’t some of these people have children? And let’s be clear: While Donald Trump is a prime example of the depravity of climate denial, this is an issue on which his whole party went over to the dark side years ago. Republicans don’t just have bad ideas; at this point, they are, necessarily, bad people. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/26/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
I had to click on the link to confirm my suspicion. Yep, its by Krugman. The man that has made a career out of being wrong.
If Krugman had all of his brain removed, he would still be smarter than every Republican in the US. That's why they hate him. Too smart. This bares repeating... And let’s be clear: While Donald Trump is a prime example of the depravity of climate denial, this is an issue on which his whole party went over to the dark side years ago. Republicans don’t just have bad ideas; at this point, they are, necessarily, bad people.
The fires are more deadly because there are more people here. Nothing about fire risk is new. Pre-2000 Remains of houses destroyed in the Oakland firestorm of 1991 Santiago Canyon Fire (1889). Burned on the order of 310,000 acres (130,000 ha). Berkeley Fire (1923). Destroyed 640 structures, including 584 homes. Griffith Park Fire (1933). Official death toll was 29 firefighters, but may have killed up to 58. Rattlesnake Fire (1953). 15 firefighters were killed in this arsonist's fire. Bel Air Fire (1961). 484 homes were destroyed; 112 injuries. Laguna Fire (1970). 382 homes burned, killing eight people. Painted Cave Fire (1990). 1 death and 430 buildings burned in this arson fire near Santa Barbara. Oakland firestorm (1991). Killed 25 people. Destroyed 2,843 single-family homes and 437 multi-family units. Mount Vision Fire (1995). 45 homes destroyed. Cause: illegal campfire.
AGW is complete horseshit. Can't believe you guys deem to debate with a nasty little tradesman in a white utility truck with ladders strapped on top about something subtle and technical. Its like discussing quantum mechanics with the garbage man. Futurecurrents is an angry loser with a fluff degree. A real piece of work.
Isn't that the main point: more people? more people require more resources (intake) and generate more wastes (output) hence the greater pressure on the system. that is why the events occur more frequently and with more intensity. (fires, hurricanes, tornados,...) population (people and animals) increase is the main culprit for the climate change. but who cares, Jesus will save us all, isn't he?
Another complete idiot Trumper ^ Read the paragraph below, moron. Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/