On 14/08/2019 16:29, Norman Lynagh wrote:
Norman Lynagh wrote:
Spike wrote:
On 14/08/2019 11:06, Norman Lynagh wrote:
An excellent article from the Financial Times. IMHO it tells it as
it is.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7ec60e6-...e-8b459ed04726
" Become an FT subscriber to read:
Emission impossible? Harsh facts on climate change"
No. thank you. I for one do not wish to subscribe to the FT.
If one is going to refer to an article that is only available from
behind a paywall, it might be polite to quote the key points from it
(as well as give the link) , as not all readers will be able to
access - or be willing to pay - to access the original.
Don't know the answer to that. I got into the article via a re-tweet
from Paul Beckwith. There was no paywall. Since your post I have gone
back to the re-tweet and tried again. This time I also get the
paywall. Unfortunately, I didn't save the article so I can't display
it elsewhere. I don't subscribe to the FT.
I haven't given up! I tried doing a search on
simon kuper emission impossible? harsh facts on climate change
Clicking on the first link that came up took me directly to the article
with no paywall.
Thanks to you and all who replied with helpful comments, links, and
reposts of the article in question.
One can't get 'fined' for reposting a copyright article, but the owner
of it can sue for damages, which in this case would be zero as no-one
was willing to pay for it anyway, so there was no loss to pursue.
Unfortunately the article itself is essentially an emotional appeal, and
it's interesting to note that the climate change industry quickly moved
away from discussions of science - essentially when it was seen that the
models on which so much was based couldn't predict anything worthwhile -
to the socio-political sphere where nay-sayers were shouted down, had
their funds withdrawn, and were subjected campaigns of abuse. But it
seems like that is now old hat too, and we now have, like this article
and others that have recently been mentioned on this group, an appeal to
the emotions. It's not worth reading, and the FT has hardly done itself
any favours here.
--
Spike