Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

It’s Official: 2018 Was the Fourth-Warmest Year on Record

posted by martyb on Wednesday February 06 2019, @10:47PM   Printer-friendly
from the Hot-Stuff dept.

DeathMonkey writes:

NASA scientists announced Wednesday that the Earth’s average surface temperature in 2018 was the fourth highest in nearly 140 years of record-keeping and a continuation of an unmistakable warming trend.

“The five warmest years have, in fact, been the last five years,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, the NASA group that conducted the analysis. “We’re no longer talking about a situation where global warming is something in the future. It’s here. It’s now.”

Over all, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2001.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/06/climate/fourth-hottest-year.html

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
It’s Official: 2018 Was the Fourth-Warmest Year on Record | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 76 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 08 2019, @01:02AM (3 children)

    by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday February 08 2019, @01:02AM (#798088)

    Again, where's the alleged oil business propaganda?

    Maybe your Search engine of choice is broken. Whatever.

    This link is a start. [desmogblog.com]It took one search to find that.

      This one's an opinion piece, [nbr.co.nz] from that pillar of the International Communist Movement, the National Business Review. It does however point out:

    Exxon Mobil, for example, just lost a case where it tried to prevent investigators from Massachusetts and New York from digging into its decades-long systematic climate change denial.

    Here's a link to the case. [nypost.com]
    You could have found any of those yourself, but of course evidence means nothing to you does it? As long as "liberals" feel bad you're happy.

    The thing with you climate change deniers is that you're wrong. Just like the tobacco industry spent millions claiming that smoking is harmless, the polluters are churning out propaganda, and you're lapping it up.

    Here's another view of the wealthy industrialists who are making you sound stupid. [climateinvestigations.org]
    Now you can tell me all about how Greenpeace has more money than the Oil, gas and coal industries combined.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @01:57AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @01:57AM (#798101) Journal
    You do realize that not a single one of those links supports your position? For example, the Heartland Institute link which shows $34 million in donations, some from oil interests, covers the period 1986 to 2019. Sure, the donations weren't evenly spread out over that time period, but what would, for example, the World Wildlife Fund (the best funded climate change advocacy non profit) look like, if it were given the same propaganda treatment? Hint, the WWF gets more per year in government funding than the Heartland Institute has received over a 30 year period, according to that link. Half the links are from clueless (or perhaps rabidly dishonest) people with opinions. For example, your quote:

    Exxon Mobil, for example, just lost a case where it tried to prevent investigators from Massachusetts and New York from digging into its decades-long systematic climate change denial.

    Note that no such "systematic climate change denial" was ever found. It's profoundly wrong to claim that someone is "denying" just because they did their own climate change research and well, didn't find anything of near future concern.

    You could have found any of those yourself, but of course evidence means nothing to you does it?

    Evidence means ability to distinguish between hypotheses. You haven't presented any facts that would show a Big Oil propaganda effort proportional to the money that they can throw at such things or that they are funding some sort of "denier" movement.

    The thing with you climate change deniers is that you're wrong. Just like the tobacco industry spent millions claiming that smoking is harmless, the polluters are churning out propaganda, and you're lapping it up.

    I'm not denying climate change (particularly, the actual form of climate change discussed here, anthropogenic global warming). You just are constructing straw men. Once again, we have this tiresome, fact-free accusation that climate change mitigation is being halted via imaginary, magical fossil fuel propaganda.

    Now you can tell me all about how Greenpeace has more money than the Oil, gas and coal industries combined.

    We could just not be stupid here instead. Greenpeace greatly outspends the Heartland Institute, the only supposed climate denier organization you bothered to mention, considering either the US or the international organizations. Yet their propaganda is remarkably ineffective. What's missing from your analysis is the dishonesty and ineffectiveness of green propaganda. People can be lied to or livelihoods be attacked only so much before they get wise to the tactics of organizations like Greenpeace.

    • (Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 08 2019, @02:46AM (1 child)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Friday February 08 2019, @02:46AM (#798116)

      Oh gods, this again.

      Once again, we have this tiresome, fact-free accusation that climate change mitigation is being halted via imaginary, magical fossil fuel propaganda.

      Nobody has ever argued that, not even close.

      The argument is that the Oil industry funds climate change denialists and they do, and my links prove exactly that, and you know it.

      ...Heartland Institute, the only supposed climate denier organization you bothered to mention...

      So you were arguing there were none, now there's only one, because I won't provide you with more links. At least try to argue in good faith.

      I'd go through the rest of your post point by point, but it's actually a sunny Friday afternoon, and I'm looking forward to a cold beer.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Friday February 08 2019, @03:33AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday February 08 2019, @03:33AM (#798124) Journal

        The argument is that the Oil industry funds climate change denialists and they do, and my links prove exactly that, and you know it.

        At the funding levels you describe, it's silly to care. Nor do you show what you think you show. You merely show that some climate skepticism is funded by members of the oil industry at a low level.

        So you were arguing there were none, now there's only one, because I won't provide you with more links. At least try to argue in good faith.

        Nonsense. I don't consider it an example. I wasn't making a universal claim. I was pointing out the obvious. The oil industry collects trillions in revenue. Where's the propaganda effort proportional to the stakes allegedly at play? Meanwhile we can point to decades of huge propaganda efforts by the pro-mitigation side.

        As to your groundless assertion about "good faith", back at you on that. I agree that it would be pointless to provide me with more worthless links that add nothing to the discussion, but that's not a problem of lack of good faith on my part.