NYTimes: Is This the End?

In this New York Times front-page Sunday Review article, opinion writer James Atlas frets about climate change destroying New York City. Atlas comes to the correct conclusion about pointless fretting (i.e., enjoy what you have while you have it) but also (inadvertently) debunks the notion of manmade climate change as a cause.

Atlas writes:

Contemplating our ephemerality can be a profound experience. To wander the once magnificent Roman cities strung along the Lycian coast of Turkey — now largely reduced to rubble, much still unexcavated — is to realize how extensive, how magisterial this civilization was. Whole cities are underwater; you can snorkel over them and read inscriptions carved into ancient monoliths. Ephesus, pop. 300,000 in the second century A.D., is a vast necropolis. The amphitheater that accommodated nearly 25,000 people sits empty. The Temple of Artemis, said to have been four times larger than the Parthenon, is a handful of slender columns. [Emphasis added]

As there were no SUVs or coal-fired power plants causing the Lycian coast to submerge, why would 21st century New York City inhabitants think that Mother Nature would be inclined to treat the Atlantic coast any differently? [New York Times]

5 thoughts on “NYTimes: Is This the End?”

  1. I’m curious to know where your disagreement with climate scientists begins. Does increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere lead to radiative forcing? Is the net feedback to this change positive or negative (i.e. increasing temperature effects other changes which can themselves effect global climate. Is the net effect of these secondary changes to heat or to cool the planet?) Do you expect a warmer planet to be less livable or will we be OK?

  2. Murphy’s Law, Tuvalian Tendencies corollary: How can the Earth be sinking when I am standing right here on it? Therefore, it must be rising sea levels! My mind is made up. Do not confuse me with facts.

  3. Clearly he hs never been to Epesus. It was once on the coast with a harbour. It is now an inlnd city. What this has to do with rising sea levels is beyond me. It certainly speaks to constantly changing coastlines but not to rising water levels ; which as you hve correctly pointed out having been rising at more or less the same rate since the last glaciation period.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.