They shilled hard for Putin/Russia. The articles/comment section was a propaganda piece for the Kremlin. It forced a lot of good people with something interesting to say, to leave.
[1]https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-09-05/5-surprising-scien...
"While most of the current climatologists who collaborate with the United Nations believe anthropogenic CO2 emissions have exacerbated natural warming in recent decades, there is no empirical proof to support their claim. The only way to test it would be to wait and see if their assumptions come true.
The entire climate fraternity was in for a surprise when global temperature between 2000 and 2016 failed to rise as anticipated by the climate alarmists. The scientists assumed that rising CO2 emissions from human activity would result in a rapid rise in temperature, but they didn’t.
This proved that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are not the primary factor controlling global temperature. Consideration of a much longer period (10,000 or more years) suggests that CO2 had no significant role to play in temperature increases. CO2 never was the temperature control knob."
https://cornwallalliance.org/2012/12/carbon-dioxide-and-air-...
That doesn't make him wrong, but it does raise questions. There are also few who agree with his stance.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/02/26/uds-david-leg...
Fully examining arguments against Legates would be a lot of work, but here's a discussion of his most recent paper.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97...
It is in aggregate an extreme blog with narratives that are non-consensus. So, yes, climate denial fits in that box, but it will also have articles on climate apocalypse. In aggregate I find it to be fairly eye-opening and bring to light ideas that are forgotten by mainstream media. It also has a healthy disregard for any form of consensus reality or authority.
Furthermore, in the very article you linked there is a link to a NATURE commentary: https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf
Of course, we should leave it to experts to interpret a scientific paper such as this one, but my perception is that reporters do not always get it right. In all of the NYTimes you just hear the consensus from organizations such as the UN, I have yet to see an interview with an author of a paper such as the one mentioned above.
------
I didn't link the article, I just reply to the comment asking what was wrong. But he's very much wrong and that nature article doesn't support him. He said CO2 did not lead to a rise in temperature. That article says there was a lower than expected rise in temperature - it's still rose!
He said co2 has no significant impact on temperature which is definitely not what that paper is saying. They refer to co2 as anthropogenic forcing.
Full text is here: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/...
Give equal time to both sides, even when one side is blatantly full of shit. It's ridiculous.
And that CO2 not being “proven” as the primary motivator due to lack of testing is also trivially true — we only have the one earth to test on, so we test on models; and our understanding of earth is hardly complete, and so too must be our model.
The conclusions may be “wrong” but at least that article is hardly making things up as they go along
Lets base it on reports of a couple of big name species and declare everything is fine. Facts!
if you read zerohedge you have long since decided that facts do not at all matter to you.
Every commentator/speculator was drooling at the possibility of "boring" Yahoo going bust, despite Yahoo being the most sound business in the dotcom space, and ignoring walking warning signs like Pets.com.
In the end it matters little if the planet is warming from natural or man-made causes. If the environment is sufficiently degraded that things start to come apart then everything is in trouble.
Take the point that climates have always changed. Most definitely. However the concern has always been the rate at which warming is occurring. Given that humans and agriculture have fragmented the natural habitat and hence the ranges of species, the primary concern is the ability of species to adapt. I know that's too subtle a point for mainstream media to digest but it's pretty fundamental in describing the problem. For example, if you are a Brown Bear in northern Spain or the Pyrenees there's nowhere to go.
You could do the same for the other points. All verifiable. It's only once you start adding the consequences that things start to look a little problematic.