Show off your holiday lights and you could win an iPad! Enter your photo by December 13. Winner will be selected by popular vote.
Sunday, August 4, 2013
It wasn’t until I’d finished reading Brian Lindholm’s interesting and reasoned explanations about the “immature science” of climate predicting that I came to his last sentence, a 13-word rant against the proposed Environmental Protection Agency crackdown on carbon dioxide emissions (“Uncertain climate predictions,” July 29 commentary).
Lindholm presents three alternatives for interpreting the wild range of climate predictions: a “cool” one, meaning we can “ignore the problem”; a “super hot” one, meaning “we should . . . stockpile food before the upcoming biosphere collapse”; and “medium results where carbon dioxide reductions could actually make a difference.”
It seems to me that any rational, thinking person (engineers included) would, for the good of our world, choose to act on the “results where carbon dioxide reductions could actually make a difference.”
Weather JournalEarly mix, then ice storm Sunday