http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/apr/15/march-tem...
It's very disappointing this isn't a major story (outside the remaining climate denial outlets, such as Fox/Murdoch/WSJ). I don't recall seeing it covered in the NY Times, for example. Perhaps I overlooked it, but it should have been a big enough story that overlooking it was very unlikely.
I think climate change news now that would get coverage would be actions being taken (as opposed to observations being made). What actions will Texas take after this season to mitigate the risk of flooding? What actions will California take to insure reliable water sources across both drought and excess modalities? I think we've reached the "Ok, so what?" phase.
Donald Trump thinks climate change is a hoax.
Ted Cruz also thinks climate change is a hoax.
Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is not a problem and that we should increase our greenhouse gas output as fast as possible.
Bernie Sanders considers climate change to be of critical importance and will act as a leader to curtail our greenhouse gas output. He is also the least likely leader in the race right now.
The story is not just about adaptation. The story is about how the US political leadership is passionate about increasing the rate of climate change and calling the entire science of climate a 'hoax'.
I'm not sure where you get the impression that Hillary Clinton thinks climate change is "not a problem". Her website certainly states otherwise: https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/climate/
Her campaign finances are a good indicator of how she will act if she is elected - much better than what her website says right now, or at any time. If she wants to really stand behind what that page says, she should stand up and say:
"Oil companies are destroying our planet's life and our health here in the USA. I will no longer take money from them. I will no longer vouch for new oil technologies."
And then she should do those things. Until then, her website is probably full of lies and I do not trust her word at all.
1. New technology leads to greater efficiency therefore reduces carbon output - So what's wrong with that? And Obama proved blocking pipelines does not stop the oil from flowing - right?
2. Taking money from oil companies doesn't mean much other than she's not anti-oil, which as a leader who understands the current dilemma, is probably not all that bad.
Obama came out of his first election pumping money into coal which was just a waste of money. Obama blocked keystone yes, but that just pushed it through via train cars and trucking (which adds more pollution). Also, Oilsands production only dropped by 0.1 percent during the whole price plummet, so not much happened there- did it? So was Obama a good investment on that front?
If you want to change the world for the better we, the people of the world, have to stop choosing to consume so much of it, but no one wants to discuss that, not even in politics.
My thesis is that stories about taking action would be considered "newsworthy" with respect to this topic, the lack of action is not.
So do we as a species just give up on every one else because they are incapable of adapting? With that line of thinking we will never be better then the animals that only react to their environment and don't really plan for the future.(save the few specific cases due to evolutionary pressure)
I'd ask that if we must discuss politics, let's avoid hyperbole and be careful to make accurate statements. All the quote above communicates is that you are angry about her position/actions re climate change, or that you simply want to damage her in others' eyes.
Dr. James Hansen of NASA has written that the Keystone pipeline would be "game over for climate" [1]
So I think it's fair to say she doesn't really treat climate change as a pressing problem, unless forced to by political expediency.
She also opposes the most sensible solution, a carbon tax.
I think the difference between her recently stated positions, and her actual political DNA, as well as that of her financial patrons, makes her a wolf in sheep's clothing on climate.
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/10/opinion/game-over-for-the-...
Even now with Europe at the brink, she still wants a no-fly zone to protect the moderate mujaheddin and to continue the anti-Russia/Assad chessgame she put into action.
She also later decided her initial Keystone support was wrong, and changed her mind.
So I'm going to say her judgement is not very good.
As far as Dr. Hansen goes, his stance is pretty simple. Look at the weird climate effects we are seeing at >400ppm carbon.
Climate was more stable and hospitable at 350ppm, he proposes leveling off emissions and then reducing them greatly by 2050. Pretty basic, rational stance in my opinion.
The amount of carbon the Keystone pipeline would deliver would blow us right past our targets.
Have either one of them ever said that there is no such thing as climate change, as your statement seems to imply? Or, do they just question the details of how the evidence is presented and emphasized, the tradeoffs in the proposed responses, and the perverse incentives involved?
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/26589529219124838...
I suppose you could interpret these as not necessarily saying "there is no such thing as climate change", if you wanted to be denser than a neutron star.
That tweet from Ted Cruz is bizarre. We've removed 3.6 million square miles of forest (from the original 6 million)[1], not to mention the billions of tons of CO2 produced annually through fuel combustion. What does the fact that humans expel CO2 have to do with it?
[1]: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/rainforests/in...
Wow. Wow.
Cruz:
OK, you are incorrect, actually. The scientific
evidence doesn't support global warming. For the
last 18 years, the satellite data - we have
satellites that monitor the atmosphere. The
satellites that actually measure the temperature
showed no significant warming whatsoever.
...
Climate change is the perfect pseudoscientific
theory for a big government politician who wants
more power. Why? Because it is a theory that can
never be disproven.
In fact, the second one - "it is a theory that can never be disproven" makes it clear that he understands that climate change is constant and has always happened.
Much of the climate data goes back thousands of years or more.
Published today, and showed up at the top of my NYTimes Now app