NYT: Ice Shelf Break-up Proves Global Warming

Robert Farago
by Robert Farago
nyt ice shelf break up proves global warming

Although this story about the fracture of the Antarctic's Wilkins ice shelf isn't strictly car-related, TTAC's Best and Brightest are well aware that global warming is the intellectual justification for draconian CO2 tailpipe regulations. As far as The New York Times is concerned, the "broken ice" is proof positive that humans are warming the planet. Needless to say, something must be done (but not about the fracture, silly reader)! "Nothing dramatizes the urgency of global warming quite like a fracture of this scale. There is nothing to be done about a collapsing polar ice sheet except to witness it. It may be too late to stop the warming decay at the boundaries of Antarctic ice, yet there is everything to be done. Humans can radically change the way they live and do business, knowing that it is the one chance to find a possible limit to radical change in the natural world around us." Make no mistake dear Pistonheads, your non-hybrid anything is directly in The Old Gray Lady's– and like-minded regulators– crosshairs.

Join the conversation
4 of 48 comments
  • Tredshift Tredshift on Mar 28, 2008

    The Global Warming Hysteria we see pushed by such "geniuses" as Al "I invented the internet" Gore, is a complete fraud. It is NOT based on scientific fact, it is, however, based on a political agenda, one who's major tenet is that Western Civilization is somehow "BAD". No, Al, the Polar Bears are NOT all drowning, the ice caps are not going to disappear and the oceans are not going to raise 30 feet by the end of the century I am all in favor of clean, efficient energy. I actually live that way as much as possible, unlike the Al Gore's of the world who want YOU to have to change YOUR lifestyle to accommodate THEIR goals, but EXEMPT THEMSELVES from the same restrictions.

  • Brownie Brownie on Mar 28, 2008

    dolo54: Yes, the "risk management" argument is probably the most compelling I've heard for taking decisive action on this issue. It almost doesn't matter whether global warming is "real" or not, or whether it is caused by humans. If it is real, and if humans have a major influence, and if the consequences could be sufficiently bad (e.g. parts of Manhattan under water, complete failure of the Gulf Stream, etc.), then the cost of doing nothing is potentially so high that spending quite a lot of money now (whether directly on capital expenditures or indirectly on reduced economic growth) is arguably justifiable even if it all turns out to be much ado about nothing. It's like homeowner's insurance - just because you bought it and never needed it doesn't mean it wasn't money well spent.

  • on Mar 28, 2008

    Brownie, Feel free to spend all your money on this, don't let me stop you. I have no problem with that. It is when the watermelons want to force me to contribute and waste billions on this that I disagree.

  • Thebigmass Thebigmass on Mar 28, 2008

    To alexeck: the science is in no way simple. The simplistic "atmospheric C02 acts like a greenhouse/blanket" explanation is both inaccurate and deceptive. Global climate is enormously complex. Already, many of the computer models cited by AGW disciples have been demonstrated to be dubious in terms of accuracy. Thermohaline effects are allegedly caused by GW. If AGW is not actually occurring, thermohaline effects and feedback mechanisms are moot in this context. Also, your assertion that CO2 levels above 350 ppm always directly correlate to catastrophic events leads to a question. Why have we not seen any of this 'bad sh*t' that you mention? Richard Lindzen (MIT) concluded that we have seen no statistically significant warming since 1995, and the last two years have seen decreased hurricane activity. I anxiously await this catastrophe. brownie: It is a compelling argument, until you spend more time thinking about it. Using the insurance analogy (I will avoid homeowners given that it is mandated by lenders in many cases): would you pay insurance premiums before knowing what your actual risk was? Would you enter into a contract without knowing what the premium was? We do not yet know what the risk is, nor the actual economic costs. Again, should we not be as educated as possible before making any decisions? I am not saying that AGW is spurious. I am saying that we do not yet know enough about the science to spend trillions of dollars to combat the problem. I find it ridiculous that Al Gore and so many media outlets declare the debate over, while never debating those that hold different opinions, nor publishing stories that contradict their beliefs. Science is supposed to be a search for truth. Consensus is therefore a stupid term when relating to science; it is better to be in the right than in the majority. Bear in mind that until very recently Newton's and Maxwell's equations would have been the consensus view as far as the governing laws of the universe.