Wilder winds are altering crucial currents. The sea is releasing ancient carbon dioxide. Vast ice shelves are melting from below. See why the experts are increasingly alarmed.
This one’s an interactive, so you can’t do the trick of loading it while inspecting, then using the Network tab’s Response view to read it.
I’m not sure that newspapers should be allowed to call anything an “alarm” while only allowing some to read it. Is it untrue that when they do such things, what they are really saying is “we don’t think it’s very alarming, but we want to work certain voters up into an outrage because they’re predictable and usable that way”?
The alarm is coming from the people actually studying these things. We are in a middle of a climate disaster and thinking about it in terms of electoral politics is frankly absurd.
Can’t read the article or infographic or whatever it is. Can’t see the names associated with it… for all I know, the NYT cites Bozo the Clown and Ming the Merciless. Your assumption that “it’s the people studying this” is just that.
I am ignorant of what the link says, because NYT paywalled it beyond my ability to sneak past.
What am I supposed to be ashamed of? Not ponying up for a newspaper subscription that still wouldn’t even let me read the actual newspaper articles, but just their crappy website articles?
You’re arguing as if this same information isn’t readily available from plenty of other sources. You can go to NASA’s official site, science journals, sci hub, and plenty of other places. You should be ashamed of insinuating that the alarm is being manufactured for political reasons.
No I am not arguing that. I can’t argue that, because I have no idea what is on this particular link. I am unable to view it. If I am unable to view it, I couldn’t possibly say whether or not it’s on other sites I do have access to.
“we don’t think it’s very alarming, but we want to work certain voters up into an outrage because they’re predictable and usable that way”?
That’s exactly what you’re arguing here. And of course, all you have to do is go to the internet archive to read the article if for whatever reason you’re not able to view it on the actual site. So, it’s not that you’re not able to read it, you’re choosing not to while also choosing to express opinion on it.
This one’s an interactive, so you can’t do the trick of loading it while inspecting, then using the Network tab’s Response view to read it.
I’m not sure that newspapers should be allowed to call anything an “alarm” while only allowing some to read it. Is it untrue that when they do such things, what they are really saying is “we don’t think it’s very alarming, but we want to work certain voters up into an outrage because they’re predictable and usable that way”?
The alarm is coming from the people actually studying these things. We are in a middle of a climate disaster and thinking about it in terms of electoral politics is frankly absurd.
Can’t read the article or infographic or whatever it is. Can’t see the names associated with it… for all I know, the NYT cites Bozo the Clown and Ming the Merciless. Your assumption that “it’s the people studying this” is just that.
You’re an utter ignoramus and you should be ashamed of yourself.
I am ignorant of what the link says, because NYT paywalled it beyond my ability to sneak past.
What am I supposed to be ashamed of? Not ponying up for a newspaper subscription that still wouldn’t even let me read the actual newspaper articles, but just their crappy website articles?
You’re arguing as if this same information isn’t readily available from plenty of other sources. You can go to NASA’s official site, science journals, sci hub, and plenty of other places. You should be ashamed of insinuating that the alarm is being manufactured for political reasons.
No I am not arguing that. I can’t argue that, because I have no idea what is on this particular link. I am unable to view it. If I am unable to view it, I couldn’t possibly say whether or not it’s on other sites I do have access to.
This is simple logic. It’s rather infallible.
That’s exactly what you’re arguing here. And of course, all you have to do is go to the internet archive to read the article if for whatever reason you’re not able to view it on the actual site. So, it’s not that you’re not able to read it, you’re choosing not to while also choosing to express opinion on it.