Global conflict experts say the Obama administration’s recent focus on climate change as a national security threat may be misguided. “The link between global warming and national security needs is tenuous at best, though the Arctic might be an exception, if [Russian President Vladimir] Putin continues his revanchist ways,” Harvard psychology professor and best-selling author Steven Pinker said in a recent e-mail interview. “Most wars have nothing to do with climate, and vice versa.” –David O. Williams, Real Vail, 11 March 2015
One of Wall Street’s most successful hedge fund managers is once again wading into the climate change debate. His conclusion: It’s not as big of a problem as some suggest. –Stephen Gandel, Forbes, 11 March 2015
This essay is not about the science of climate change, it’s about what the data say on their own. In particular, we think it is important to distinguish the level of worry you might have from looking at this chart, versus the level of worry you might have from complex climate models. Yes, over the last 135 years the Earth has warmed, but not nearly to the danger point and if we continue at this pace (the crux of the issue) it won’t become scary until more than 500 years from now. That’s quite a different message from what we’ve read in the articles accompanying the original version of this chart. –Clifford Asness & Aaron Brown, Stumbling On Truth, 10 March 2015
You have to be very careful with averages, they are not as simple as you might think. That thought was uppermost in my mind when I was reading a recent paper in Nature Climate Change. It had been written up by the Press Association (PA) and repeated by the Guardian, I guess that its multitude of environmental reporters-editors-heads had the day off. –Dr David Whitehouse, Global Warming Policy Forum, 12 March 2015
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change () recently circulated an email breathlessly titled, “Governments on Track to Reaching Paris 2015 Universal Climate Agreement — Negotiating Text Officially Published.” This text agreed to for negotiation by the federal government includes a remarkable proposal. Buried deep inside, it proposes an “International Climate Justice Tribunal in order to oversee, control and sanction the fulfilment [sic] of and compliance with the obligations of Annex I and Annex II Parties under this agreement and the [1992 UNFCCC climate treaty].” Translated, this means that even if the Obama administration refuses to call the Paris agreement a treaty, as it already telegraphed its position: A new climate court would hold us to its terms — even the terms of a prior, “voluntary” agreement. –Chris Horner, The Washington Times, 8 March 2015
Trackback from your site.