Slashdot Mirror

Interestingly enough, I read this today. Remember when the big scare in the media was the hole in the ozone layer?

The more scientists learn the more they realize that the environment is far more complex than the simplistic and alarmist notion that human activity is changing the climate.

Off topic, but when you have elephants that recognise themselves in the mirror, apes that can plan tool usage ahead of time, parrots that grasp the concept of zero, and so on, I'm personally honestly no longer convinced claims like this can be made so easily.

More general research years ago has already shown that wearing red gives one an advantage. The researchers here just proved that that also holds for this more specific arena. Not really news worthy in my humble opinion :-) For an article about previous research: http://www.livescience.com/health/050518_red_wins.html

Again with the insults. I'm trying to have a discussion here. Are you, or are you simply proselytizing?

Really? An atheist friend of mine doesn't even believe love exists. He feels that it's nothing more than a bunch of biochemical reactions, and nothing more. He refuses to call it an emotion. I've known others that feel love is an actually tangible force.

As for art being a "creative endeavor"? Wee big vague there, and what one person calls "art" is definitely not what another would call this. More on this later....

IMHO, that definition of beauty could apply to ANYthing. My fiance loses it if she sees a big bug. Does that make it beautiful?

And once again, we have definitions that not everyone can agree are "true". Who's right? Is ANYone right in such a case?

I'll bet that people with synesthesia would be willing to argue that point...

...and some will see the glass as half-full, while others see it as half-empty... comes down to human perception. Typically, there're no right answers in philosophy, either. Note that I don't see atheists picketing your local college philosophy department because there's no "one definition of philosophy".

It almost seems that you're saying that if you can't define something, it doesn't or can't exist... and just as in the case of art, love, and beauty, each person you ask will have a different answer. Some might even say that God is what's supporting the underlying fabric of reality, i.e. that God is the "foundation" of our uni/metaverse.

Do you? A lot of people have conflicting views on that. To some, Keith Boadwee is an artist. I bet a lot of people disagree there, especially his blowing paint out his rear. Would you call that art?

Objective? Why must God be an objective entity in order to discuss It/Her/Him?

No more so than love, art, or beauty.

What would you consider an "internal" god? The "Thou art God" meme, the AA "higher power" god? Jus' curious.

BTW, I appreciate you taking your time to give us your viewpoint, and am looking forward to your response. We may not agree, but it's been refreshing mental exercise nonetheless!

UNITED NATIONS (AP) -- A U.N. expert on Friday called the growing practice of converting food crops into biofuel "a crime against humanity, saying it is creating food shortages and price jumps that cause millions of poor people to go hungry.

Jean Ziegler, who has been the United Nations independent expert on the right to food since the position was established in 2000, called for a five-year moratorium on biofuel production to halt what he called a growing "catastrophe for the poor.

Scientific research is progressing very quickly, he said, ''and in five years it will be possible to make biofuel and biodiesel from agricultural waste rather than wheat, corn, sugar cane and other food crops.

Using biofuel instead of gasoline in cars is generally considered to cut carbon dioxide emissions, which contribute to global warming, although some scientists say greenhouse gases released during the production of biofuel could offset those gains.

The use of crops for biofuel has being pursued especially in Brazil and the United States.

Last March, President Bush and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva signed an agreement committing their countries to boosting ethanol production. They said increasing use of alternative fuels would lead to more jobs, a cleaner environment and greater independence from the whims of the oil market.

Ziegler called their motives legitimate, but said that ''the effect of transforming hundreds and hundreds of thousands of tons of maize, of wheat, of beans, of palm oil, into agricultural fuel is absolutely catastrophic for the hungry people.

The world price of wheat doubled in one year and the price of corn quadrupled, leaving poor countries, especially in Africa, unable to pay for the imported food needed to feed their people, he said. And poor people in those countries are unable to pay the soaring prices for the food that does come in, he added.

''So its a crime against humanity to devote agricultural land to biofuel production, Ziegler said a news conference. ''What has to be stopped is ... the growing catastrophe of the massacre (by) hunger in the world, he said.

As an example, he said, it takes 510 pounds of corn to produce 13 gallons of ethanol. That much corn could feed a child in Zambia or Mexico for a year, he said.

Benjamin Chang, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, said the Bush administration didnt consider biofuel development a threat to the poor.

''Its clear we have a commitment to the development of biofuels, he said. ''Its also clear that we are committed to combatting poverty and supporting economic development around the world as the leading contributor of overseas development assistance in the world.

Ziegler, a sociology professor at the University of Geneva and the University of the Sorbonne in Paris, presented a report Thursday to the U.N. General Assemblys human rights committee saying a five-year moratorium on biofuel production would allow time for new technologies for using agricultural byproducts instead of food itself.

Researchers are looking at crop residues such as corn cobs, rice husks and banana leaves, he said. ''The cultivation of Jatropha Curcas, a shrub that produces large oil-bearing seeds, appears to offer a good solution as it can be grown in arid lands that are not normally suitable for food crops, he said.

Ahem Faith in Prayer Kills Children

The reason that informed people are worried about global warming is not a fear that all life on Earth will die if it gets too hot. It is really freaking hard to destroy Earth. What gets informed people (i.e. people not being spoon-fed tripe from cable news and alarmist media outlets) scared is that the global warming induces climate change and that climate change and associated events can have a severe impact on human civilization.

An obvious example is that melting ice caps will raise ocean levels; a large portion of human civilization is centered on coastal cities that will be flooded by raised ocean levels, and thus global warming can have a huge impact on society and humans in general. A more non-obvious effect is that climates with large "breadbaskets" may change, thereby significantly reducing the amount of food that can be produced there; considering that many people are already starving in the world, any reduction in food production will lead to many deaths. Also consider that increased temperatures lead to a wider variability in weather, leading to more damaging hurricanes or blizzards.

Those are changes that should be feared because there is no way that human civilization can weather those changes in a graceful manner. Any of those changes will bring about massive need for change (especially if coastal cities get flooded; the huge increase in refugees would overload the infrastructure of any region they relocate too); adapting to avoid these calamities is not currently feasible or would take too long before the effects are projected to be felt. Solutions to anthropogenic climate change (ACC) are predicated on the belief that 1) human output of CO2 is having an effect on the global CO2 levels and thus the global climate in a way that is adverse to human civilization and 2) that reducing the anthropogenic component of climate change will make it easier to deal with any climate change that happens naturally.

Looking at this objectively, it is true that we as a civilization are fucked if the climate changes dramatically. Individuals will most likely survive, and probably in good number considering the wide variety of climates humans already successfully live in. However, the infrastructure that everyone takes for granted could be obliterated by severe change. It obviously needs to be fortified and I couldn't agree more with you about that. However, those changes cannot be enacted and implementing in a short timescale because they are radical changes (our infrastructure is pretty damn rickety). The idea of mitigating the effect of ACC is by doing so, we are buying ourselves more time to implement the changes necessary to ensure that our infrastructure survives. Decentralizing power generation (which "going green" with windmills or other non-fossil fuel burning power generation techniques) both reduces the impact of ACC and fortifies the infrastructure.

So really, I don't buy that reducing ACC is a bad thing, and I don't think that it's a farce to hold people responsible for their actions when their actions impact the lives of other people. I mean, good, exemplar democracies like the US of A have been FORCING people to alter their lifestyles for over 100 years: polygamy is outlawed, as are various psychotropic drugs; the Eisenhower Interstate system realized a radical change in lifestyle (the rise of the exurbs, the fall of trains, etc. Every decision from a governing body has the effect of radically altering lifestyles; that doesn't make all governing bodies communistic or socialistic.

No, Western Union discontinued telegrams 2 years ago

This isn't a Republican or Democratic issue, it is a societal one. Year after year, administration after administration, we as a society have been saying "we don't really consider science/education/research all that important."

Just look at the trends: companies are increasingly seeking out technical professionals overseas because they're churning out greater and greater number of graduates with science/engineering degrees with China pushing out 600,000 such graduates compared to the US' 70,000 per year; and how can we compete in biotech when the majority of our citizens can't grasp genetics nor do they even believe in evolution (we beat Turkey though!)?

With the way we've been funding education and paying our teachers, we collectively give educators the big middle finger tipped with stinky poo every year. We're making these choices as individuals so we all have a hand in this appalling state of affairs.

ill start at a wikipedia article

move to National Geographic

and finally live science

According to the Wikipedia article, humans, apes, magpies, dolphins and pigeons recognize their self in a mirror.

I submit that religion can have a profoundly positive impact on an individual. Personally, religions are usually seen as a means to an end - the end being manipulation and control of the population. Example A

Religion as a world-view for a person is great. Key to that is realizing it is that persons world-view. Not the world's. If other's share a similar world-view, then by all means get together and have a pow-wow to discuss your views.

I personally do not feel a desire to view the world via religious principles. I want to view it though experience, experimentation, extrapolation, discovery, etc. I hold these views to be mine and mine alone. I have friends and family that share similar view and we discuss them.

I do not feel the need to push these ideas onto others. I have no wish to see the exercise of religion banned or otherwise controlled by laws. However... Example B Example C Example D

No matter how counter to ones own beliefs, allowing everyone the free exercise of their beliefs is of utmost importance to me. Given the blatant desire by religious zealots to squash that for their own personal comfort, as my original comment suggested, I feel little weight should be given to religious views concerning the topic at hand. Partially because they're already well known; additionally because they tend to offer little in the way of leeway when it comes to constructive discussion. Especially concerning subjects like in the article.

if permafrost "defrosts" it will reduce albedo and will rise CO2 levels by itself;

With the permafrost melting the CO2 released isn't as big a concern as the release of methane will be. Decomposing dead plants sinking into lakes creates a lot of methane which is 20 tymes more effective as a Greenhouse Gas than CO2.

Another fact that some don't know about is that high CO2 levels in the atmosphere turn the oceans acidic which threatens marine animals adversely, especially shellfish. The acid eats the shells.

Most states have substantial (to the tune of $500 or more) additional yearly registration or excise taxes which have to be payed on pluggable EVs.

It seems strange that there would be tax incentives from the federal government as well as state tax incentives from Oregon , among others, if they were then going to go levy special additional taxes.

You may be right, but it sounds a little bit like an urban legend.

Don't laugh too hard. You're sure the reason europeans score better in the statistics is not just that the local religious leaders aren't pushing creationist viewpoints? alright, so Europe is less religious. Parts of Europe. Maybe most europeans never heard of creationism.

I mean, think about it. You want to belong to the same club as two thirds of the population? That can't be right.

No, it is the computational power. Last year, one-half of a mouse brain was simulated at one-tenth real-time. Can you imagine how slowly a full human brain would run in 2008? It would take years just to see what happens upon it getting basic sensory stimulus, far too slowly to get useful research out of it.

And the number one threat to America...

BEARS!!

http://www.livescience.com/space/scienceastronomy/080402-medium-black-holes.html

• The meteorologists say they can force rain in the days before the Olympics, through a process known as cloud-seeding, to clean the air and ensure clear skies.
• The forced rain could also help clean Beijing's polluted air, said Wang Jianjie, another meteorologist with the bureau.
• Beijing's air pollution is among Asia's worst. Officials have shuttered several chemical and steel plants on the city's edge, and many polluters will shut down -- or cut back -- during the Olympics. But the city also has 2.9 million registered vehicles, and the number is expected to reach 3.3 million by the Olympics, a 13 percent increase.

Meh, that article was too consensual to be interesting; Big Foot, vampires and werewolves in the top three, no surprise there. Better browse the monster list of international monsters in Wikipedia or Live Science's own Top 10 Beasts and Dragons: How Reality Made Myth.

According to the article, "There is also no ice cream in space. No freezer." But besides freeze-dried ice cream, according to this blog, they actually did have frozen ice cream on the ISS.

And with all the NIMBYs out there, nobody is willing to build new and needed Hydro Electric, Nuclear, Coal powered plants anytime soon.

Neither more nuclear nor coal plants are needed. In December 2007 SciAm had an article, "A Solar Grand Plan" saying that by 2050 solar power can provide 69% of the USA's electricity and 35 percent of its total energy. Then the Rocky Mountains alone has enough potential wind power to supply the lower 48 states with electricity. The Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details the potential wind power of sites throughout the 48 states. TFA "The Unsung Solution" in "Orion Magazine" goes over waste heat that can be used to produce more electricity. But you're right about NIMBYs, they are working to stop offshore wind farms. Though the Mid Atlantic states have good sites for offshore wind farms NIMBYs are doing what they can to stop wind farms in places like Cape Hatteras. Geothermal energy also offers good energy potential.

"Suddenly, we have late breaking news that the lunar eclipse was shot down by executive order".
(Shamelessly stolen from friend, J. Boyd)

Best panning-tracking by Armed Service Member - Ever.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/23272304#23272304

How:

http://www.livescience.com/space/news/080219-satellite-shootdown.html

Sky Is Falling

Brace yourself for a propaganda deluge from climate change denialists now ...

While I do believe the climate is changing, and it always has; I also believe it might be for the better.

Case in point. 7000 years ago there was little if any industrial CO2 from mankind. Mostly limited to camp fires and cooking to a very much reduced population count. mankind's influence was very small.

The fact remains ice caps since then have grown but have recently begun melting. That is since 7000 years ago when life was more diverse (and warmer) many glaciers and ice caps didn't exit. Now even if you don't agree with carbon dating because it is too abstract for your brain, look at this link below.

And if junk science Suzuki or Gore (pretty quiet right now) beg to differ, I would love to hear their rational explanation for 7000 year old tree stumps under glacial receding ice. For if that ice was meant to be permanent, it would carbon date many millions of years, not 7000.

7000 year old tree stumps under glacial flows

To me, warming is welcome. Many fish will grow larger in Northern and Southern lakes and more habitual land will result. Maybe even in time ferns will once again grow in Alaska.

2/3 of eminent modern scientists surveyed believe in God

And this is where you stop getting taken seriously. Our energy consumption is only going to go up. What is needed is better ways to generate electricity, e.g.: nuclear power.

It's you who isn't serious. Conservative can work. But as you say energy consumption is going up. That's because more and more people are getting more and more energy inefficient appliances. People buy more and more because they think it will make them happier, however they never really are. A lot of people say they can't get by with only one job, but if they cut their consumption they don't need as much money. However that doesn't take into consideration other energy sources.

For instance right now, the Wind Energy Resource Atlas of the United States details areas of the US that are good sites for wind farms. The Rocky Mountains alone contain enough potential wind power to power the 48 continuous states. And there are a number of other good wind sites. When California had those rolling blackouts several years ago, a wind farm in southern CA capable of generating several megawatts of power sat idle when it have been supplying electricity to the grid. Why was it idle? Because Con Edison nor anyone else would lay the power lines to the farm. NAMBYs, so called environmentalists, in the northeast and midatlantic are trying to prevent wind farms from being erected offshore. From Massachusetts to North Carolina there are good sites for wind farms offshore. Then from southern CA east through AZ and NM to Texas, besides wind, it's good for solar power. Florida is also good.

Also there's something not many have thought of, waste heat. Gigawatts of lost energy goes up smokestacks everyday. "About twelve megawatts' worth of potential electricity is going up the stack" of a "Maxwell House coffee roaster in Duval County", Florida plant. With tens of 1,000s smokestacks in the US that's a lot of energy lost.

Quite simply nuclear power is not needed.

It wasn't the oil companies decrying the environmental effects of nuclear power. It was the same people that are now pushing for biofuel, causing food shortages around the world.

Insert remark about good intentions and where those get you.

With repeat offenses so high among sex offenders

Except, they're not. Sex offenders are actually less likely to re-offend than other criminals.

The only way we can protect ourselves and our families is if we have the information at our disposal to do so.

Then why single out sex offenders? Isn't it important to be able to know if our neighbors have committed assault or robbery to "protect ourselves and our families"? It's much more important to me to know if a neighbor ever took a tire-iron to someone's head, then that they once copped a feel on a crowded subway car. (Or had sex as a teen, which can land you on the registry in some states).

There might be legitimate arguments in favor of a registry of parolees and probationers who have committed serious crimes. But the "sex offender" registry isn't such a list. It's simply another symptom of American fear and ignorance about sex. Shame on us.

The "robot" spreads its weight out using the whole length of its legs in contact with the water. That is nothing like a water strider.

A water strider walks on the **ends** of its legs (feet, if you will). For a far better description see http://www.livescience.com/animals/041103_water_strider.html.

The only similarity is that they both use surface tension.

This one is erroneous in at least one way. It suggests that tiny bubbles trapped in hairs on the bug's legs make it float. Tosh! The bubbles are too small to make it boyant. What the bubbles do is increase the surface area which, in turn, increases the amount of surface tension "skin" that the bug walks on and therefore the carrying capacity.

As most fly fishermen would tell you, surface tension is far stronger than you'd think. Hatching bugs struggle to get through the surface tension which keeps them under the surface. Once they break through they are able to sit and walk quite easily.

Also, there is evidence of early contact with Polynesia (pre-Columbus), thanks to (of all things) chicken DNA.

A new way to destroy earth... death by printers!

Don't worry, there's still mind control parasites to contend with - tinfoil hats won't help against those.

Before attacking my spelling and punctuation i suggest you check your own, dumbass. i use "your" because i can't be arsed with the stupid 're, but i certainly don't sink to retarded spelling nazi troll tactic's when losing an argument, and i would certainly make sure i didn't make the same mistake in the same fucking paragraph.

atmospheric CO2 can increase from many sources, such as the ocean which is THE storehouse for CO2, and will release it when heated. CO2 release in this way has been documented to lag heating cycles of the earth for up to 800 years. CO2 increases were occuring pre industry, so please explan just how that happened? you state it yourself, "since the 1800's". the industrial revolution only occured in the early 1900's. How do you explain the fact OTHER planets are also warming? http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html Are you going to dream up some way to try make us feel guilty for that to? yeah thats right - i'm such a rightwing bastard for using facts and figures to prove my points.

double post, because /. fucked up my brackets somehow

atmospheric CO2 can increase from many sources, such as the ocean which is THE storehouse for CO2, and will release it when heated. CO2 release in this way has been documented to lag heating cycles of the earth for up to 800 years.

CO2 increases were occuring pre industry, so please explan just how that happened? you state it yourself, "since the 1800's". the industrial revolution only occured in the early 1900's.

How do you explain the fact OTHER planets are also warming? http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html are you going to dream up some way to try make us feel guilty for that to?

yeah thats right - i'm such a rightwing bastard for using facts and figures to prove my points.

To answer your questions -- apparently Armadillo will be the only team competing this year. According to last year's wrap up they spent "...six months and about a quarter million dollars in direct pursuit of this...". Of course, more money has been spent since then, but even if they quadrupled the amount they spent, they'd still come out way ahead.

I have to say that I tend to agree with Freeman Dyson and Richard Lindzen rather than Al Gore. And I think the majority of the corrupt money is definitely in the Global warming camp.

Granted, we all have to die somehow - but you seem a little defensive! Allergic to bees, perhaps? Again, the math:

Your chances of getting killed by a terrorist (from here):
But while keeping such potential dangers in mind, it is worth remembering that the total number of people killed since 9/11 by al Qaeda or al Qaedalike operatives outside of Afghanistan and Iraq is not much higher than the number who drown in bathtubs in the United States in a single year, and that the lifetime chance of an American being killed by international terrorism is about one in 80,000 -- about the same chance of being killed by a comet or a meteor. Even if there were a 9/11-scale attack every three months for the next five years, the likelihood that an individual American would number among the dead would be two hundredths of a percent (or one in 5,000).

From here:

All figures below are for U.S. residents.
Cause of Death Lifetime Odds

Heart Disease: 1-in-5
Cancer: 1-in-7
Stroke: 1-in-23
Accidental Injury: 1-in-36
Motor Vehicle Accident*: 1-in-100
Intentional Self-harm (suicide): 1-in-121
Falling Down: 1-in-246
Assault by Firearm: 1-in-325
Fire or Smoke: 1-in-1,116
Natural Forces (heat, cold, storms, quakes, etc.): 1-in-3,357
Electrocution*: 1-in-5,000
Drowning: 1-in-8,942
Air Travel Accident*: 1-in-20,000
Flood* (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-30,000
Legal Execution: 1-in-58,618
Tornado* (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-60,000
Lightning Strike (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-83,930
Snake, Bee or other Venomous Bite or Sting*: 1-in-100,000
Earthquake (included also in Natural Forces above): 1-in-131,890
Dog Attack: 1-in-147,717
Asteroid Impact*: 1-in-200,000**
Tsunami*: 1-in-500,000
Fireworks Discharge: 1-in-615,488

It will not only perk interest in the sciences, but has also been shown to increase literacy.

Be prepared for resistance though, as schools are still a female-dominated sector, and sexist sterotypes are as strong as ever. You don't want to become the next whipping boy like Larry Summers.

In July of this year, a study (Study: Organic Farming More Efficient) was published that found that organic farming methods can produce up to 3 times more food than more 'conventional' methods... just wanted to add to the debate!

Actually recent research indicates that memories are not "stored" in the brain at all. Rather, your experience at a particular moment activates a sequence of proteins in the brain that "make" the experience. Then, each time you recall the event, you're actually recreating the event in your head to re-form the memory, rather than recalling a stored event.

It's really fascinating research and has huge implications for memory erasure/formation and treatments for PTSD.

More info here: http://www.livescience.com/health/060824_memories_ erase.html

Talk about shooting themselves in the foot.

A hurricane hit NYC 20 years ago. I was standing in it at the time. We're overdue.
Meanwhile, Climate Change is increasing those probabilities, and the size of the damage when they do hit.

Thanks for weighing in to demonstrate you don't even have the basic facts or logic to weigh in on this subject. Saves a lot of time humoring you in a boring, drawn out display.

life started when there was a lot more radiation,

Life also started in water, that shields out the most harmful radiations. Life on land has to wait until the ozone layer was strong enough.

if a bacterium has its DNA badly injured by a radiative event, it's less likely to survive than an animal with a million cells.

The single bacterium is less likely to survive. The population of billions of bacteria isn't. Also bacteria are independent (to a point): they don't need to be nice to each other to survive, at least not to the degree multicell bodies do. If just one of your cell goes awry, your whole body goes to the dogs. We call that "cancer". Bacteria don't have it.

My friends the PhD's go so far as to claim that the reason that the seven counties in the US with the longest average lifespan are all on the Continental Divide in Colorado where the radiation levels are highest because of the elevation. (Sorry I can't find a better link for the Eight Americas dataset: you have to download an Excel spreadsheet to get the raw data.)

This link gives county-by-county life expectancy (near the end of the article). That's interesting data, but low pollution + semi-rural lifestyle + OK incomes + low crime = lots of alternative explanations.

Go here, the FA linked from the blurb is not nearly as informative.

One of my twenty dollar girlfriends has a fear of anyone touching her neck, due to being strangled once. I hope they come up with the drug, which pressesc (who the hell are they anyway?) says they already have but LiveScience says they don't. One of TFAs is obviously incorrect.

I'm also wondering if phobias like hers could be related to traumatic stress syndrome.

While googling for a better FA (I suspected hoax), I found another related and very interesting LiveScience article Bizarre Human Brain Parasite Precisely Alters Fear. I wonder why NewScientest doesn't have anything on the "fear cure"? It's generally a far better site than LiveScience.

Scary stuff!

-mcgrew

(posting anonymously because my karma is frighteningly high)

Go here, the FA linked from the blurb is not nearly as informative.

One of my twenty dollar girlfriends has a fear of anyone touching her neck, due to being strangled once. I hope they come up with the drug, which pressesc (who the hell are they anyway?) says they already have but LiveScience says they don't. One of TFAs is obviously incorrect.

I'm also wondering if phobias like hers could be related to traumatic stress syndrome.

While googling for a better FA (I suspected hoax), I found another related and very interesting LiveScience article Bizarre Human Brain Parasite Precisely Alters Fear. I wonder why NewScientest doesn't have anything on the "fear cure"? It's generally a far better site than LiveScience.

Scary stuff!

-mcgrew

(posting anonymously because my karma is frighteningly high)

humans killed off mammoths in the first place

That's been proposed as a possibility. But recent evidence suggests a comet, not human activity, may be to blame.

But anyway, recent research implies that the pyramids were made out of a primitive form of cement, so it might not have taken nearly as much labor as is assumed...

Ya, and unlike current "seasonal worker" models, these ones come with their OWN microchips (just in case anyone missed the story the first time around)

And I reckon in my life time the worst case rise of a degree or so is no biggie.

Oh, the realistic worst case scenario as given by the IPCC is a lot worse than that. Both in the number of degrees increased, and the negative effects on economy and environment. I think we both argue that we should err on the side of caution, but my personal belief is that the evidence shows that doing nothing nothing is in fact going to be much more costly than doing something.

>Hmm here's what Nasa say
[...]
The answer is not clear, because much of what we know about global climate change in inferred from historical evidence of uncertain quality.


All right, so we can never be 100% sure, I agree with you on that. But we don't need to be 100% sure that something is going to happen before we take action, it is all about calculating the risks and the costs.

On the other hand, stratosphere seems to be cooling quite clearly, as NASA's satellite graphs show.

The much quoted analysis of those graphs, which showed that the stratosphere was on average cooling, is most likely incorrect. And even if it were true that the stratosphere was cooling - so what. We don't live in second layer of Earth's atmosphere, and we don't grow our food there.

Now at this point, I'd expect a load of one liners about the difference between climate and weather. But that's bunk. It's a big chaotic system - we can't predict it next week and we can't predict it next century, anymore than we can predict the stock market over short or long terms.

The stock market is also a chaotic (complex) system, but this does not mean that we can apply rules from it to climate. If enough people think that stocks will go up and start buying - they go up. No matter how many people think or hope it is going to be sunny tomorrow in a spot - this does not make it sunny. Also, we can predict climate to some degree - if your hemisphere is angled against the sun, you have warmer climate (summer) for a couple of months. Variations in earth orbits according to Milankovitch cycles causes ice ages to come and go, due to complex interactions with greenhouse gases.

So we CAN in fact predict some changes in climate.