Why would anyone use predictions du jour for policy purposes?
How about using data instead?
“Greenland’s Disastrous SLR Is SOL”
“Global warming has been stuck in neutral for more than a decade and a half, scientists are increasingly suggesting that future climate change projections are overblown, and now, arguably the greatest threat from global warming—a large and rapid sea level rise (SLR)—has been shown overly lurid (SOL; what did you think I meant?).”
I’m not conversant enough in the issues to comment one way or the other, but I thought that the Cato Institute was generally regarded as being a Republican (specifically, Koch Brothers, notwithstanding the silly recent lawsuit) mouthpiece, and very much under the sway of big industry. Am I wrong in this? Could somebody more up to speed on these things fill me in?
Edit - particularly when said CATO article is coming from Patrick Michaels, who admits that he receives 40% of his funding from the oil industry?
1 Like
And as I search more, I’m finding less and less to fill me with confidence on the predictions of Michaels. Of course, as with anything so highly charged in American politics, it’s nearly impossible to find unbiased sources. It’s either far right wing or far left wing (well, far left wing by American standards, anyway).
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
