4 ms·

We need to measure the average temperature of the earth starting with accurate thermometers and not pictures of polar bears, ice bergs, glaciers, patterns of ic

We need to measure the average temperature of the earth starting with accurate thermometers and not pictures of polar bears, ice bergs, glaciers, patterns of ice in late summer in the Arctic, coral reefs, the snows on Mount Killimanjaro, etc. This NYT story is one more example of why I refuse to consider the NYT for anything, why it's "dead to me", on paper can't compete with Charmin and on the Web is useless for wrapping dead fish heads.

okreallywtf 9y ago
What a fantastic idea, maybe someone should get on that? Of course I'm being sarcastic since there are many people doing that and I would provide some resources if I thought any measurement would be up to your high (perfect) standards.
- futun 9y ago
  https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png/450px-Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Ph...
gdudeman 9y ago
The human mind is tuned to story. Stories help us make sense of facts and give them meaning. That's probably different from person to person - possibly you believe you're on the fact end of the spectrum. This is a small part of the overall climate story, but it's actually what you're arguing for I think - it's a factual account of how glacier ice has changed in the park. The same has happened in the Juneau Icefields, Mount Rainier and elsewhere. Stories are also a useful way to summarize the facts and can be misused to support things that are not factual - I understand that's what you're saying here. I'm not aware of the story you allude to around accurate or inaccurate thermometers - the one you believe to be the truth.
- graycat 9y ago
  This is yet again the NYT talking about climate. Their goal is to create and push a never ending sequence of stories about climate, to create a lasting audience for such stories, and, then, to continue to feed the audience. The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding low lands, killing the polar bears, etc. IMHO all this NYT stuff is just totally cooked-up, made-up, stirred-up, gang-up, pile on, nonsense, fake stories to get eyeballs for ad revenue and otherwise from junk down to a dangerous effort to sabotage the economies of the world. Well, then, let's start at the beginning: Warmer. How much warmer, since when, measured how, by whom, reviewed where, published where, when? On this basic, foundation issue, IMHO, the NYT should put up or shut up. Since they won't, and are free to publish their scare sewage, the NYT is dead to me but I am willing occasionally to call them out on their dangerous nonsense. For this foundation, we just need the data, temperature, in degrees F, C, or K. But the NYT doesn't want to do this. Similarly stories at Nova want to say "If temperatures keep increasing ..." Well, from all I've seen, there is no significant evidence that temperatures have increased significantly for 20 or so years. Moreover, I see no significant evidence that so far human activity has had any significant effect on temperature at all. Moreover, I have seen lots of evidence that CO2, from humans, volcanoes, out gassing from the oceans, rotting plant life, etc. has never had any significant effect on temperature for at least 800,000 years. I've seen lots of evidence of significant temperature changes but where CO2 could not have been the cause -- there must be other causes. Basically, over the past 800,000 years, temperature has changed significantly often, up and down, but CO2 could not have been the main cause or hardly ever or even once a significant cause. Why? Never, but never, not even once, in the whole 800,000 years was significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2 concentration. So, CO2 had nothing to do with the change, and there must be other causes. For higher temperatures, the story is nearly the same. The evidence is clear: It's just ain't CO2, guys. Sorry 'bout that -- the causes are elsewhere. The Medieval warm period, closely preceded by higher CO2? Nope. The Little Ice Age, closely preceded by less CO2? Nope. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 from lower CO2? Nope -- if anything, higher CO2. It's over, guys: The CO2 scare is a scam. So, this OP is just again the NYT flogging their fake story. Sure, the NYT used to have scare stories about global warming, but somehow they got the memo and changed over to scare stories about "climate change" -- well, that's somewhat safe since we can be sure the climate will keep changing. Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change -- how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid climate change if the sun stopped? What the NYT is doing is essentially the same as the Mayan charlatans killing people. And if the NYT had their way, many people would be killed. Indeed, many are being killed in Africa because of attempts to avoid releasing CO2. The NYT is up to dirty business, very dirty business. So, i'm calling them out on it. Simple.

okreallywtf 9y ago

What a fantastic idea, maybe someone should get on that? Of course I'm being sarcastic since there are many people doing that and I would provide some resources if I thought any measurement would be up to your high (perfect) standards.

futun 9y ago
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png/450px-Phanerozoic_Climate_Change.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Ph...

gdudeman 9y ago

The human mind is tuned to story. Stories help us make sense of facts and give them meaning. That's probably different from person to person - possibly you believe you're on the fact end of the spectrum. This is a small part of the overall climate story, but it's actually what you're arguing for I think - it's a factual account of how glacier ice has changed in the park. The same has happened in the Juneau Icefields, Mount Rainier and elsewhere. Stories are also a useful way to summarize the facts and can be misused to support things that are not factual - I understand that's what you're saying here. I'm not aware of the story you allude to around accurate or inaccurate thermometers - the one you believe to be the truth.

graycat 9y ago
This is yet again the NYT talking about climate. Their goal is to create and push a never ending sequence of stories about climate, to create a lasting audience for such stories, and, then, to continue to feed the audience. The stories all have a foundation -- the sky is falling, in this case, the earth is warming, growing warmer, and the cause is sin, human sin from human greed and corruption, for human activities that release CO2 which is warming the planet dangerously, melting glaciers, ice in the Arctic and Antarctic, making the oceans acid and killing the coral reefs, killing off food for the whales, making the lobsters move farther north, raising sea levels, flooding low lands, killing the polar bears, etc. IMHO all this NYT stuff is just totally cooked-up, made-up, stirred-up, gang-up, pile on, nonsense, fake stories to get eyeballs for ad revenue and otherwise from junk down to a dangerous effort to sabotage the economies of the world. Well, then, let's start at the beginning: Warmer. How much warmer, since when, measured how, by whom, reviewed where, published where, when? On this basic, foundation issue, IMHO, the NYT should put up or shut up. Since they won't, and are free to publish their scare sewage, the NYT is dead to me but I am willing occasionally to call them out on their dangerous nonsense. For this foundation, we just need the data, temperature, in degrees F, C, or K. But the NYT doesn't want to do this. Similarly stories at Nova want to say "If temperatures keep increasing ..." Well, from all I've seen, there is no significant evidence that temperatures have increased significantly for 20 or so years. Moreover, I see no significant evidence that so far human activity has had any significant effect on temperature at all. Moreover, I have seen lots of evidence that CO2, from humans, volcanoes, out gassing from the oceans, rotting plant life, etc. has never had any significant effect on temperature for at least 800,000 years. I've seen lots of evidence of significant temperature changes but where CO2 could not have been the cause -- there must be other causes. Basically, over the past 800,000 years, temperature has changed significantly often, up and down, but CO2 could not have been the main cause or hardly ever or even once a significant cause. Why? Never, but never, not even once, in the whole 800,000 years was significantly lower temperature closely preceded by significantly lower CO2 concentration. So, CO2 had nothing to do with the change, and there must be other causes. For higher temperatures, the story is nearly the same. The evidence is clear: It's just ain't CO2, guys. Sorry 'bout that -- the causes are elsewhere. The Medieval warm period, closely preceded by higher CO2? Nope. The Little Ice Age, closely preceded by less CO2? Nope. The cooling from 1940 to 1970 from lower CO2? Nope -- if anything, higher CO2. It's over, guys: The CO2 scare is a scam. So, this OP is just again the NYT flogging their fake story. Sure, the NYT used to have scare stories about global warming, but somehow they got the memo and changed over to scare stories about "climate change" -- well, that's somewhat safe since we can be sure the climate will keep changing. Then, sure, we get lots of stories about why we must fight climate change -- how the heck to do that? Like the Mayans who killed people to pour their blood on a rock so that the sun would keep moving across the sky and, thus, avoid climate change if the sun stopped? What the NYT is doing is essentially the same as the Mayan charlatans killing people. And if the NYT had their way, many people would be killed. Indeed, many are being killed in Africa because of attempts to avoid releasing CO2. The NYT is up to dirty business, very dirty business. So, i'm calling them out on it. Simple.