Today’s New York Times (sigh) carries an article from Justin Gillis wringing has hands about what do about climate change—especially methane emissions. But take in the second sentence of his lede very slowly and carefully:
Climate scientists long ago settled among themselves the question of whether human emissions of greenhouse gases are a problem, concluding that we are running some grave risks. But the field still features vigorous debate about how bad global warming will get, how quickly, and how to combat it. [Emphasis added.]
Whoa, what!? “Vigorous debate”?? I thought there was no debate! Everything is “settled,” don’t you know, at the 97 percent confidence level! Consensus! So shut up and fall in line!
More seriously, the second sentence here accurately summarizes the main point of the core group of so-called “lukewarmers” or “climate realists” (as I like to call them), especially the last part: the climatistas insist on a policy of immediate carbon suppression only, and will not discuss any other approach, such as what has been called “technology first,” let alone geoengineering (which I probably oppose), and adaptation/resiliency/no regrets. The New York Times today essentially validated our position with this statement.
Which raises the question: how the hell did this slip by the editors? This is an embarrassment—for the climatistas.