Slashdot Mirror

C'mon, just say it. All of you climatologists need to Say "We have no fucking clue" in chorus and three part harmony.

Global warming is well understood. That scientists have uncertainty about some of the details is common with well-understood science. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/26/232046/03

Global warming, global cooling, impending ice ages, heating sun, cooling sun. I'm tired of it.

There was never any scientific consensus on global cooling back on the '70s. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222 The sun affects the temperature on earth, it is not causing today's global warming. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30666 This is a complex issue. So is rocket science and we still have great photographs of the moons of Jupiter. Many of us are in information overload these days, that doesn't mean that global warming isn't real.

Would someone please point out for me what is insightful about the parent post?

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

The short answer: We probably are, but we don't know what is causing it, and it may just be a temporary trend.

We know with a great deal of certainty what is causing it. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/224450/84

Basically there has been a general warming trend that roughly correlates with the Industrial Revolution(IR) in the US and Europe. Year-to-year, it fluxuates, but overall there is an increase. Now the Greenies among us will instantly attribute this to emissions, but remember...correlation is not causation.

I know of no one who "instantly" has come to the conclusion that anthropogenic global warming is real and is a threat. Once one has read creditable scientific articles about it, and come to the inevitable conclusion, one's response to the sort of statements you make might come instantly, but there is nothing wrong with a quick response to such statements. The fact that correlation is not causation does not mean that it is never the case that if two things are correlated, one causes the other. Scientists are not using correlation to prove causation.

The IR brought advances to many aspects of our lives, which include meteorological mesurement and recording. Our temperature readings prior to the IR were not quite as accurate or consistently recorded (mass-produced thermometers anyone?). This is one factor that might affect what we are observing.

Temperature measurements by thermometer are only a small part of the historical record. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/15216/865

There is also geological record, which indicates many cooling and warming periods throughout the history of the Earth. We may just be experiencing a natural trend.

With the exception of catastrophic events, such as a massive volcanic eruption or a meteor impact, there has never been such a rapid change in the earth's temperature. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/22147/335 and http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/17/232454/78

This is a hot-button media topic, and you see a lot of studies thrown around...many of which have questionably biased funding sources. And they all love to throw around one-sided statistics, which are the dirtiest lies that you can tell.

See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49 and http://gristmill.grist.org/

IMHO, don't get worked up about it. You don't need to cover your home in solar panels and go out and buy the first electric car you can find. But I think everyone should be mindful of their energy use, and try not to be wasteful. Save a little where you can, but don't horribly inconvenience yourself.

The results of anthropogenic global warming over the next 20 to 50 years will be quite serious, much more than an inconvenience. Due to the thermal inertia of the earth's temperature, by the time we see the severe problems of global warming it is too late. See http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/1/24/18548/9954

I wonder why the environment movement has been losing its credibility - or, since I suppose you were around in the 60's-70's, call it a "credibility gap" http://www.wellesley.edu/Writing/Nixon/Slideshow/nixon_sign.jpg

You can't make the excuse "kids today..."

Maybe the movement has been "infiltrated"?

http://www.ncforestry.org/docs/Latest%20News/articles/Archives/environmental_movement_is_rapidl.htm

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/12/opinion/12kristof.html

http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2005/01/13/doe-reprint/

A variable for "marketing splash made by issuing bad marks to a given brand" appears to be given about equal weight to "legitimately wasteful or unnecessarily toxic practices", by Greenpeace. They get far more publicity for issuing a ticket to Apple for using 3 wire-inches of the wrong type of plastic in an iPod model than they would ever get for ticketing HP's stupid behemoth wasteful packaging, which has been seen by every corporate customer of HP. (I've seen strikingly similar examples of insanely wasteful packaging from both IBM and Dell, as well as HP).

Please note that I think Greenpeace is doing the world a service by calling attention to those 3 wire-inches of environmentally unsound plastic, but they need to get a little smarter about who, why and how they critique and praise. They are not doing a very good job of translating the attention that they get from issuing a ticket to Apple, into attention on the issue of the toxic compounds in question. There are zillions of tons of this stuff used in all manner of products and manufacturing processes. These compounds get into the water that we drink and the food we eat, and there is mounting evidence that some of them cause cancer and other serious health problems. Mercury and lead are no longer even controversial, decades of research confirms that even low level exposure to lead can cause serious problems, and probably knocked a bunch of IQ points off generations of exposed people. If, say, 1/4 to 1/2 of our population were 5 or 10 IQ points smarter, how much better off would the world be today? Yet we continue to allow tons of mercury to go up the stacks of coal fired power plants, and smaller amounts to be dumped in lakes and rivers as a result of manufacturing processes. Lead paint shows up on imported children's toys because the west has been willing to circumvent its own environmental policies by exporting the manufacturing to developing nations with un-enforced or non-existent environmental safeguards.

How does this Greenpeace video and press release help educate people and motivate people about these issues? Missed call: the iPhone's hazardous chemicals. Well, it really doesn't. It just gets a bunch of headlines to the effect of "Greenpeace iPhone Smackdown". Greenpeace has figured out that they can get a lot of attention by poking at Apple now and then, but they haven't figured out how to turn that to advantage. They mention a few chemicals here, including phthalates, but they don't mention that these compounds are used in FOOD Containers, which is a much more likely source of exposure to the compound (most people do not eat their iPhones) and that it has been linked to obesity and diabetes ( Obesity In Men Linked To Common Chemical Found In Plastic And Soap )and might be a serious contributor to a global health crisis. Greenpeace could be turning these waves of press attention into a serious national discussion of phthalates, additional research on the topic, and removal of these compounds from food containers, which would be a rational application of the precautionary principle. Instead, they are squandering the opportunity for a few headlines and links to their web site.

you can't put fluorescent lighting on a dimmer

CFLs can be used with dimmers, there are dimmable CFLs.

Falcon

The parent is so far off base it's not even funny...

The purpose of this page is to provide a counter to the mythology that "journals were stuffed full of articles predicting an imminent ice age in the '70's".

I'm sorry, did I mention anything about scientific journals? I cited the National Geographic... what part of that shouts scientific journal to you?

The request was for citation that media outlets predicted that global cooling in the 1970's. Most climate change cultists willingly admit that happened. If you're still in denial of that, I'd suggest you check out LynnwoodRooster's citation as it is far more comprehensive than mine. You probably missed it as the mods have buried that one in their zeal as well. You keep preaching to the choir for karma though.

Nuclear is less cost-effective than wind, especially when one takes into account total life cycle costs and interest on capital costs.

The MIT study is best, but I can't find it right now. This will have to do:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/13/11021/6597

If you read the articles and are damned sure, cite your sources.

I do that quite frequently here and still get modded troll. I can provide evidence until I'm blue in the face, but it doesn't matter when one is on /. surrounded by believers.

I'll take just one example from your link... The "myth" The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong by Michael Le Page. The hockey stick model was demonstrated to produce hockey stick graphs with random data. It was clearly sheer incompetence or an outright fraud. But that's not the most damning evidence.

The most damning evidence is: It never happened. The predictions made never came true. That model was created by Mann in 1999. As everyone here knows, 1998 was an abnormally hot year thanks to el nino. Mann took that anomaly and ran with it, claiming we were witnessing the beginning of runaway exponential global warming. Temperatures have only gone down since 1998.

And they better link to peer-reviewed research that supports the premise. Or we will taunt you a second time...

Who needs peer reviewed papers? Global warmers are in denial of observed reality.

It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison.

If you want some additional detail, Real Climate has discussed this, and William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time.

(From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222)

It is true that there were some predictions of an "imminent ice age" in the 1970s, but a cursory comparison of those warnings and today's reveals a huge difference.

Today, you have a widespread scientific consensus, supported by national academies and all the major scientific institutions, solidly behind the warning that the temperature is rising, anthropogenic CO2 is the primary cause, and it will worsen unless we reduce emissions.

In the 1970s, there was a book in the popular press, a few articles in popular magazines, and a small amount of scientific speculation based on the recently discovered glacial cycles and the recent slight cooling trend from air pollution blocking the sunlight. There were no daily headlines. There was no avalanche of scientific articles. There were no United Nations treaties or commissions. No G8 summits on the dangers and possible solutions. No institutional pronouncements. You could find broader "consensus" on a coming alien invasion.

Quite simply, there is no comparison.

If you want some additional detail, Real Climate has discussed this, and William Connelly has made a hobby of gathering everything that was written about global cooling at the time.

(From: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/23/18534/222)

1998 was a statistical anomaly. If you look at the big picture you would see that.

the website of an Ethanol consortium says that?

Gee, I'm not surprised.

How about some honest research instead.

Also here.

And then there's the other effects...

easier solution:

Don't Fly.

I don't anymore. I commute 275 miles a day... via Amtrak. Of course Bush and McCain are trying to shut down Amtrak nationwide to get more people using oil again, but we'll see what happens there.

Plus it fucks up the environment.

Actually, NOT flying also fucks up the environment. There's scientific evidence out there showing that the contrails provide a lot of protection from higher levels of dangerous radiation hitting the surface of the planet and contributing to global warming. If all of the planes stopped flying, our ecology would be very negatively affected.

I have to guess these versions of them still have the NIMBY problem tho....I doubt they'll let you put these up off the coast of cape code...they don't seem to like them there .

You have to love that it's "environmentalists" that are bringing lawsuits against owners of these turbines? What does someone like me do, who considers himself to be an environmentalist at heart, but doesn't buy into the insanity of the modern environmental movement?

I think most environmentalists support wind generators. About the only ones that don't are NIMBYs, and they aren't enviros anyway, like those opposing wind farms offshore in places like Cape Hatteras and Cape Cod.

Electricity use for lighting in North America is only about 1% of the total.

Even in my home, if I turn all the ligths off, I use less electricity made with hydro/nuclear/wind power and more natural gas in the furnace, so overall turning the lights off generates more smoke than leaving them on.

In 2005, coal-burning electric plants emitted 45 tons (=4.5E7 grams) of mercury in the US. That year the electric power production in the US was just over 4 billion Megawatt hours (4E12 kW-hr), so the emission is 1.1E-5 grams = 11 micrograms per kilowatt hour.

A 60-watt bulb that is on for typically two hours per day uses 44 kW-hours, so the emission of mercury due to such a bulb would be about 480 micrograms per year; or roughly 5 milligrams per ten years.

A 60-watt (equivalent) CF lightbulb has (by EPA standards, "no more than") 6 mg of mercury in it. If it is 4 times as efficient as an incandescent, it emits 120 micrograms per year, or 1.2 milligrams in 10 years. So the difference in mercury emissions is 3.6 milligrams in 10 years. So if the bulb lasts 17 years or longer, it would emit less mercury than the CF bulb.

The expected life of a CF bulb is between 6000 hours and 15,000 hours (between 8 and 20 years, at 2 hours per year), so overall, if you credit the lifetime figures, the mercury emission is roughly a wash.

The exact break even point depends on what fraction of the electrical power where you live comes from coal, as well, and whether the coal plants have scrubbers. (the numbers above are average for the US, where electricity is about 50% coal, in 2005)

Whether it's break-even or not over the lifetime of the bulb does not depend on how long you burn the bulb per day, except that CF bulbs last longer if you burn them longer-- so if you leave your bulbs on all the time, you get longer life from them.

(Unfortunately, I don't much credit these predicted lifetimes. The lifetime of a CF bulb drops the more often you turn it on or off, and my guess is that these lifetimes are for bulbs that are never turned off, not for typical household conditions nor for ratty NEO power. It's also quoted for "brand name" bulbs, not the cheapo ones you buy at the dollar store. If your CF bulb has an EnergyStar rating, by law it's guaranteed for two years. So you should keep a logbook of every time you replace a light bulb, so you can get your five dollars back, and you can email the EnergyStar program at cfl@energystar.gov to tell them about it.)

This reference goes through basically the same calculation.

When the coal is removed - the land can be restored.

You can't restore a mountain after you tear off its top.

Assuming better technology (as in your point 7), one should also allow for better photovoltaic and related technologies in the comparison.

1) Aside from the new solar plant in TFA, there is a company named Nanosolar that claims to have a new, very cost-efficient technology for producing photovoltaic cells. The cost per kWh is supposed to be lower than when producing from coal. http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/12/23/2919/8613.
While that news still lacks independent confirmation, it is less "science fiction" than assuming we can mine the rest of the solar system.

2) Batteries have greatly improved over the last years. In some places, large-capacity batteries are already used to buffer the grid: http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19584/. Assume a further improvement of those technologies and you have a way to bridge phases of low production ;-)

3) According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_grid#Bulk_power_transmission), long range power transmission is already feasible at reasonable cost.

While I would love to believe some form of solar power would meet the world's needs, it simply isn't feasible with current technology.

Much of the argument against solar is one of economics, but a company called Nanosolar has recently produced solar panels making energy more cheaply than coal. "Current Technology" is a moving target.

Not to mention that energy usage wouldn't be as much of a problem if we would just produce it from more efficent and cleaner sources. That CFL what is powered by a coal fired plant is more damaging than an incandescent bulb powered by solar (or wind or tidal or geothermal or nuclear ad nasuem).

And isn't mercury a component of current CFLs? While it may not be a global warming danger, I centainly don't want any more mercury in my house than neccessary (anyone with a link to a site that compares the *production and disposal* of CFLs to incandescents?)

I love how these coal plants are all Bush's fault when 100% of them existed for 100% of the Clinton administration

On the one hand:

• Bush energy plan includes coal-burning power plants
• Bush: Kyoto treaty would have hurt economy

• Clinton Blasts Bush On Kyoto Pact -- Ex-President Says Current President 'Flat Wrong' On Global Warming
• Barack Star -- Illinois Senate candidate Barack Obama's got green cred

I'm too lazy to search for a link, but I have read many times that most of the resource consumption a car will have over its lifetime has already happened by the time it leaves the production plant. Yes, you are too lazy to pay attention, and dont do your research. You are referring to the infamous CNW Marketing "Dust-to-dust" lifecycle cost analysis, which came out with a silly claim that a Hummer is greener than a prius. Well, if you wouldnt get your news from tabloids, you would know that this was a paid "research" and has been debunked six ways to sunday.

Completely electric car has far FEWER parts than a gasoline one, less maintenance, less fluids and so on, which in itself constitutes a huge decrease in lifecycle costs, both cash and environmental impact. Of course, auto industry dont like this idea, as parts sales if often bigger cash cow for them than selling the cars themselves.
As to the battery, it depends. Lithium phosphate batteries, like the ones GM is planning for Volt plug-in, are the most environmentally benign ones possible. And they get more likely recycled than your engine oil.
Should we ever run out of metals that go into them, there are huge off-earth resources waiting to be stripmined, should we ever muster the will to go and get them.
I know little about the environmental impact of current battery production, but I imagine it is not pretty
You should have stopped at "I know little"

Ok, I don't know anything about wind in Sydney, but how about this.....

http://www.grist.org/news/muck/2006/01/12/capecod/

Its only a small story about one of the biggest names in the green movement being an absolute total hypocrite when it comes to wind power.

There is a reason why the left favours positive law: appeals to nature seem very strongly to favour the status quo. To the left, it is a clever way in which to entrench power by making it appear unassailable. The left make a mistake here, though: natural law is law that follows the grain of human nature; it is not uncritical approval of human acts.

Beware, though; when you're caught, it can undermine trust in your whole approach. Socrates is as persuasive as he is precisely because he is arguing in good faith.

1. Planets only share one causative agent (the sun), and that hasn't changed for squat.
2. Only evidence for Mars is a few photographs of a melting (actually, sublimating) southern pole. No evidence that it is a global, rather than a local phenomenon.
3. Pluto is said to be warming as well, but that is based on very limited data, and is probably solely due to the fact that it's at the nearest part of its highly eccentric, 248 year orbit.

There are plenty of studies showing that the global warming issue is caused by the sun getting hotter (look it up...I'll wait), and a recent study showing that the ozone holes at the north pole are getting smaller (did we do that? doubtful. Can a blogger get that kind of reaction, unlikely)

Microwave popcorn?

This statement is meant for no other reason than to give weight to the claims, not discuss the issues intelligently.

Even if true, "most scientists" once thought we would see an ice age within 50 years of the 1970's.

But did you also read just a little further and see where he said, "I showed some evidence that humans are causing warming in the surface measurements that we have but it is not the greenhouse relation"?

What evidence?

You're still arguing personalities instead of science. "So-and-so agrees with me." "So-and-so can't be trusted."

Where's the evidence?

So I take it you weren't able to find other long-term studies of CO2 levels than the side of a single volcano either?

No, I'm just uninterested in doing your homework for you. But you should know that "Mauna Loa is a volcano" is one of the most-often rebutted claims of the global warming deniers. Look, if they're demolishing your argument at Gristmill of all places, you really need some new material. (You'll find a link to 8 other CO2 monitoring stations at that link, incidentally.)

Okay, then I'm gonna go out on a limb here and call bullshit and bet you that the CO2 levels in the middle of Iowa haven't shown the same increase that the side of an active volcano has.

What's your evidence that the geologic CO2 emissions of Mauna Loa have been increasing over time, coincidentally with a warming trend and an upwards trend in CO2 concentrations worldwide? That's a bit much to swallow.

Scientific papers are rarely written in a method quite so direct and blunt as the discussion you and I are having, so you need to watch carefully for the subtext.

Oh, come on. Scientific papers aren't direct and blunt because scientific conclusions are rarely direct and blunt. You're asking me to read a paper that says "our research improves one minor aspect of climate modeling" as saying "the entire edifice of global warming is about to come crashing down."

That's just nonsense. You're asking me to disregard my "lying eyes" and read in global warming denial where there actually is none. You're just proving my point - global warming denial isn't based on evidence, it's based on inventing a scientific dispute where there is none.

The phrase 'climate change denier' is meant to be evocative of the phrase 'holocaust denier.'

I don't know too many synonyms for "denial", I guess. I'm not using it in reference to anything but the fact that global warming deniers simply dismiss contrary evidence and invent supporting "evidence" from whole cloth, like you've been doing in your posts.

Sorry, but that's simply not behavior that can be described as "skepticism." Skepticism is the foundation of honest scientific inquiry - but you've absolutely turned your back on that. What you're doing can only be described as "denial."

If you don't like it, then by all means - abandon the position that makes it so easy to apply that term.

lots of US farmland is actually fallow to keep food prices up

let me guess, it's all a conspiracy of the big corperations?

Jim Hansen, the head of NASA's GISS, talks about global warming all the time. Here's an interview from a couple of months ago. However, whenever he speaks publicly he states that the ideas presented are his own, and not NASA's.

Mars is irrelevant.

Did someone mention Greenland yet again?

So what do you make of this counter argument?

You were right 5 years or more ago, but things have changed drastically since then.

The US is very close to being a net importer of food. According to the WSJ, our net food trade balance has gone from tens of billions in 2000 to a hundred million in 2005 and will go negative this year. It's shocking to me, too, but we are no longer the breadbasket to the world we once were.

When I first heard about the pet food scandal my first thought was "Why are we importing wheat gluten?" It turns out we are dependent on imports already, not just seasonally, and becoming more so every year.

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/2/12/115426/ 732

-Rick

Actually, people are driving less. I also recall hearing that mass transit use has skyrocketed since Hurricane Katrina (in some places more than others).

"Can't use them on a dimmer controlled circuit"

Yes you can!:
http://www.grist.org/advice/ask/2006/06/07/dimmer/
http://www.eartheasy.com/live_energyeff_lighting.h tm