People should try reading the actual science instead of some journalist's cherry-picked take on the science. It's also interesting that Disney ("evil media corporation") now controls NatGeo.
As Bill Gates recently noted, climate alarmists are more of a problem than the "deniers." Here's a story from the BBC this week titled, Climate change: 12 years to save the planet? Make that 18 months:
This is getting ridiculous. The submitter, in this case, appears to have issues with civility, and is obsessively submitting climate related articles for an account that's less than 60 days.
It's weird how the deadline for point of no return is being pushed ahead every few years.
Ah yes, looking into it further, here is the claim:
"25-50 years are needed for Earth’s surface temperature to reach 60 percent of its equilibrium response"
PEW put out a practical plan to address the issue a couple months ago that actually goes through the trade-offs, and then makes recommendations.
I even have the Unpaywall extension installed (http://unpaywall.org), precisely to avoid this situation, but unfortunately the extension wasn't able to find a free version of this article.
This is one reason Open Access publishing is so crucially important to the public discourse. "Alternate facts" will win if people can read them for free but must pay to read peer-reviewed science.
Whether or not you think National Geographic has mischaracterized the science in this instance, I hope we can all agree that access to the original source would help everyone get their facts straight.
The problem is that people who do not want to enact federal policy that decimates the US economy (i.e. "Green New Deal"), are deemed "deniers." I'm not into extremism. The US emits 15% of GHG, and until you can get a commitment from countries where they are building new coal plants to this day, it's difficult to take seriously.
"Since 2005 annual U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have declined by 758 million metric tons. That is by far the largest decline of any country in the world over that timespan and is nearly as large as the 770 million metric ton decline for the entire European Union."
The problem is the lack of any alternate policy put forward, especially one that can compete with the flexibility, cost effectiveness and proven track record of emissions pricing. There aren't two competing solutions, there's one proposed solution up against wishful thinking.
> The US emits 15% of GHG, and until you can get a commitment from countries where they are building new coal plants to this day, it's difficult to take seriously.
And it's an indication of the trajectory of the US that they are no longer willing to be world leaders. Had they not done their best to sabotage previous efforts at international agreements we'd be well on our way to including developing countries, if not already there, and punishing those that don't sign on.
You also can't just look at current emissions, you have to consider how much CO2 already in the atmosphere the developed world contributed too, which is nearly all of it.
Either we tackle this problem in a timely way by choosing our tactics thoughtfully, or the near future will be decimated by an uncaring set of physics principles.
We must choose wisely.