It is Chris Mooney of WaPo.

Climate Interactive is a very respectable organization, working hard to raise the consciousness of the public. They have made enough of an impression the WaPo saw fit to recognize them, but it is a bastion of “establishment truth” like the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times, which recently called for control of the internet with an editorial called “The Digital Virus Called Fake News.” In short, called for internet censorship.

WaPo’s editorial position is imposed on Climate Interactive’s view. Our objective in printing the article was to get out the scientific basis of global warming to people who are subject to the endless climate change denial of certain wealthy corporations. About everyone who looks at the graph will get the point that U. S. leadership of the world will determine the earth’s future. It is clear and simple to understand.

Your points are valid, but you are certainly in the “choir,” as in the old phrase “preaching to the choir.” The future must be lived by our children and grandchildren, and projections are not capable of foreseeing random events and require careful work. But they do show the direction of change and major influences.

The need is for action, to keep fossil fuels in the ground.

Tom Bond, Lewis County, WV

Apparently the actual fact that we have switched to a much higher percentage of gas as opposed to coal, is the reason for claims that emissions are dropping — it’s not based on any actual measurement, but on estimates based on multiplying things like number of gas power plants at how many megawatts times an estimate of GHG pollution per megawatt, which is based on discredited, industry-funded studies.

More objective, government-funded, direct measurements show GHG pollution at least double the claimed levels, which means the switch to gas from coal may have other merits but does nothing in terms of GHG reduction.

There is also no acknowledgment of the degree to which “our” reductions result from outsourcing, from Chinese sweatshops producing crap that Americans (and Europeans) use. Which is why “we are no longer the biggest emitter” — we’ve gone all the way down to number two.

Finally ALL of the scores of IPCC scenarios for staying below 2 degrees count on INCREASING emissions now, because anything else would be TOO HARD and NOT REALISTIC–and then, some time later this century, employing unproven magical “negative emissions” technologies, formerly known as geoengineering. As long as what is purported to be science is done so dishonestly, how can we have any hope of crafting adequate policy even if we didn’t have horrible governments?

Mary Wildfire, Roane County, WV