Mike Mann has important things to say, and says them well, in an op-ed for The Washington Post.
Support Your Global Climate Blog
Recent Comments
kinimod on A High Schooler’s Take o… geoffbeacon on A High Schooler’s Take o… Bob Loblaw on Not Even Wrong? Bob Loblaw on Not Even Wrong? Tom Passin on Not Even Wrong? convictstreak on A High Schooler’s Take o… Bob Loblaw on Not Even Wrong? Cliff Mass on Not Even Wrong? jgnfld on Not Even Wrong? Bob Loblaw on Not Even Wrong? kinimod on A High Schooler’s Take o… jgnfld on Not Even Wrong? geoffbeacon on A High Schooler’s Take o… climatefreak on A High Schooler’s Take o… Lowlander on Not Even Wrong? -
Recent Posts
Buy the book
astronomy
Blogroll
Global Warming
- Climate Change
- ClimateSight
- Goddard Institute for Space Studies
- GreenFyre’s
- Hadley Center for Climate Change
- History of Global Warming (Spencer Weart)
- IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
- James’s Empty Blog
- Maribo
- Old Man in a Cave
- Open Mind Archive on Skeptical Science
- Rabett Run
- RealClimate
mathematics
On that note, a great recent lecture here by Professor Kevin Anderson, once again Kevin pulls few punches.
Anything by Kevin is worth a read/watch IMO.
In same paper there were several articles on Climate Change the last week, and today this
High court declines to extend halt to climate change lawsuit:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/high-court-declines-to-extend-halt-to-climate-change-lawsuit/2018/11/02/3f8eb588-defd-11e8-8bac-bfe01fcdc3a6_story.html?utm_term=.be3460b3a28a
A WH document said they’re expecting 7 degrees Fahrenheit by end of century.
A decade ago climate change deniers were telling us that scientists like Mike Mann would all be in prison by now, and op-eds on climate would all be being written by former tobacco scientists recycled as climatologists.
And not only that, we’d be in a Neo-Maunder-Minimum-caused “Little Ice Age.”
A decade ago Climate deniers were insulting climate scientists for projecting CAGW, catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. Scientists maintained that they were not predicting catastrophy. Now scientists say that changes will be catastrophic if we do not take strong actiion soon..
Not sure what your point is?
And which scientists, exactly? I think that the substance of what was then being predicted was precisely a “catastrophe”. C.f., for just one notable example, “Six Degrees”, which I wrote about here:
https://owlcation.com/stem/Mark-Lynass-Six-Degrees-A-Summary-Review
Lynas, of course, is a writer, not a scientist, but his book is, as I put it, a “synthesis” of then-available research–which means that all of the papers upon which he based the text predate 2008.
I hope everybody votes tomorrow.
Voted 2 weeks ago. All I can say is that the Republicans have certainly made the process simpler for me. If they have an R by their name, I vote agin’ em. If I see a hard advertising a bunch of Republicans and they are also stumping for an unaffiliated candidate, I vote agin’ em.
I voted this morning. Straight D ticket.
My experience: