Slashdot Mirror
Baked Alaska
mithras the prophet writes "Global warming stories usually focus on the hotbutton politics, scientific debate, or latest disturbing anecdote of receding ice. A very interesting New York Times story takes a different tack, highlighting the reality of climate change for small-town Alaskans. Whatever the cause, temperatures in Alaska have risen by seven degrees in the last 30 years. This has very real consequences for ordinary citizens; the rest of us would do well to consider their stories. Lucy Eningowuk and her 600 fellow citizens of Shishmaref will vote next week whether to move their town to the mainland. Despite community efforts, thawing of permafrost and wave action from melting ice has eroded away most of the land the village is built on. Residents of Barrow (warning: MIDI-enabled page), on the North Shore, are swatting mosquitos for the first time in their lives. In an ironic twist, managers of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline are putting in supports to keep the pipeline from breaking as permafrost thaws."
Ok, let's get all the extreme left-wingers out and have them parade around proclaiming that the rise in temps in Alaska are caused definitely by global warming.
Extreme left-wingers? What??
What I don't understand is why most right-wingers in the USA like to classify issues such as global warming as a left-wing political issue. Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
It's amazing how much our leaders don't get it.
Your leader. Your leader doesn't get it.
Is the earth getting warmer just because it is, or is it getting warmer because of something we're doing? Certainly, humanity is producing lots of CO2, but the amount isn't really that much compared the naturally occurring water vapor. Honestly I'm not sure if science really has the answer. But I do really think we need to be cautious about it. The effects of global warming could be pretty dire.
Lets rephrase:
Is my eyesight getting worse because I masturbate? Certainly I don't masturbate that often, the amount really isn't much compared to the times I have actual sex. Honestly, I'm not sure if science really has the answer. I do think I should be really cautious about it, the effects could be pretty dire.
---
The point is, there is no evidence linking human activity and global warming. There is a weak correlation between it and human emissions, but that is as strong an argument as the masturbation/eyesight link.
Just because a lot of people say something, doesn't make it worth paying attention to. As the AC said, no one has produced any evidence at all that we are having an effect. "No evidence" is a lot different from "wanting to be 100% sure".
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
So you're saying we MIGHT not be affecting the planet at all by dumping millions of tonnes of pollutants and other gasses into the atmosphere, and that we should just keep doing it because we don't really know what's happening.
It's like saying: "Well, if someone really wants to steal my car, they'll just do it anyway, so why bother locking it?"
What would be so bad about cutting down on pollution even if it isn't the reason for global warming?
Is it really that much of a risk to take?
You know, we already produce more than enough food to feed everyone.
Oh right, we have to move those little pieces of green paper around, to make people happy.
There is a difference between the two. The cost of the correlation between masturbation/eyesight is a pair of glasses. The cost of global warming is conceivably a lot higher, and so deserves more attention and effort.
I think a better example would be the Challenger disaster, which killed the crew, and stopped NASA in its tracks for years. All because they asked the engineers to "Put their management hats on".
At the end of the day, we have three things to decide:
Now, we can argue about what the causes of global warming are, but that shouldn't stop us from finding a solution. There are only a few variables that we can conceivably control to bring the warming back down. One of those is CO2 emissions. It doesn't matter if the warming is a result of human activity, all that does matter is that it is happening and that we need to do something about it.
Jason PollockI live in Alaska, and I take issue with the alarmist nature of the article and post. First there have always been mosquitoes in Barrow, the town is built on the tundra (in other words, thousands of square miles of stagnant water and marshy ground). Secondly there have been dozens of instances of towns being moved or abandoned over the years. As for the town of Shishmaref, it is built on a barrier island (which are erosion prone by nature) on the Chukchi sea which is known for its violent storms. Just because the town was built on a poorly chosen site does not mean that global warming is by default to blame. Finally, the issue of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline (TAPS) having to deal with melting permafrost. This is not caused by global warming, it is caused by a metal pipe filled with hot oil (500+ degrees) sitting on ice. Great efforts are taken to refrigerate the ground, as when it melts, it has the consistency of pudding and is unsuitable to be even walked on (that's what the refrigeration fins on the structural supports are for).
I smell a poorly researched article written by a reactionary reporter with an agenda.
And I have not found a single pro-warming post that does not either a) dismiss its opponents as simpletons or b) provide any non-anecdotal evidence. It may just be a Slashdot-related phenomenon, but is there anyone who can provide any good reason we should "act to stop global warming" other than "people who say we shouldn't are hicks" or "well, we might be right, so let's do it anyway"?
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
Okay, the Hawaiian Volcano is producing more CO2 than even America can. So if the volcano erupts and kills 10,000 people than it's okay that we killed only 1,000 that year?
That was a joke, sort of...
The volcano has not deforested 50% of the original forests of the earth. Man did that. I mention this because plants turn CO2 into O2 and allow us to breathe. If we kill all the plants, who will produce oxygen for us?
Cows that produce methane gas are not a natural occurance, they are man-made. That you aruge cow CH4 emissions are a natural source of greenhouse gases is utterly ignorant.
Our planet's environment is akin to the buffered acid solutions we learned about in chemistry class. It maintains the status quo, even as it gets pushed towards one direction of the other, say by mass release of CO2 or O2 or something else. The question before us is: How far can we push the system? What are the effects of man-made gaseous emissions (CO2, CH4, etc.) and what are the effects of man-destroyed "sinks" for CO2 (rainforest, plankton, etc.) These aren't easy questions to answer.
In fact we will probably never have enough of an understanding of climatic change to "know" just how our production of CO2 and destruction of CO2 converters has affected the environment. The data is massive and the time scale could be on the order of 10,000+ years. We will never know if what we're seeing is "the beginning of the end" or just a 50-year hiccup.
My reason for wanting to reduce CO2 emissions and to preserve natural habitat is because I like nature. I don't agree that the land is not being put to "good use" by remaining wild. I think an excellent example of our lack of human progress in dealing responsibly with our world is that we still mine for gold. Except now we do it by running entire mountains through a rock crusher and washing the chunks in cyanide to leech out the gold. How this possibly adds value to the world is beyond me (and no, that's not the queue for your libertairan/economic Darwinist explanation of free markets, I've read enough of that on this thread already.)
Tell me, why can't we live somewhat more in harmony with nature than we currently do? Why are we so attached to the "man vs. nature" paradigm going back to Genesis, man having dominion over the earth. What a load of hooey; ultimately the land has dominion over us as those folks in Melting Village, Alaska have discovered. The city I live in, Seattle, is beautiful not because of the buildings but because of the snow-capped mountains and deep blue waters surrounding her, and the greenways running through. Yet I look at Mt. Rainier in the distance and there's a big nasty layer of smog there. I would like to see that go away. I know that we could do it, too. Driving more fuel efficient cars would be a start, in particular Seattle could use a working mass transit system. What's wrong with legislating these things? As I see it, we could all be riding Segway HTs to work, except that the death of Ford and GM would be Bad For The Economy, and we can't have that! Fsck auto makers, all they've done is enabled suburban sprawl while they got rich because we all need cars to get anywhere now. I say open up the roads, or just one lane, to Segways and watch Detroit become Beirut. (Or is that too Free Market for you Libertarians?)
Is the globe warming? More than likely. Are we causing it? We might be, maybe not. Are our activities pushing the balance in favor of CO2 and away from O2? Yes.
Your move.
That's a nice example, and it works well because we know for a fact that masturbation doesn't cause eyesight loss. But lets examine another one, one from the real world.
A few years ago, some doctors noticed that there was a certain kind of bacteria that lived in stomach ulcers, a high correlation just like the rise in temperature and greenhouse gasses. Anyway, some people suggested that perhaps the bacteria caused the ulcers, but people were skeptical. Perhaps it was just an opportunistic infection, you know, it was easy for them to live there due to the damage cells.
So, either the bacteria caused the ulcers or the ulcers caused the bacteria. Which one was it? Medical researches didn't believe the bacteria caused the ulcers, and traditional remedies were continued (you know, lots of bland food, stress free lives, etc). I would say that there was some evidence, you would say there was none. Apparently a correlation isn't evidence in your eyes, right?
Eventually, one of the people who believed the bacteria caused the ulcer simply ate a large quantity of it, and came down with all kinds of gastro-intestinal problems. Including ulcers. Now we know that ulcers are caused by the bacteria, and that they can for the most part be cured by antibiotics.
If you had ulcers, would you have waited until the final study, the one where the scientist infected himself before trying antibiotics to cure an ulcer?
By the way, those same researchers have discovered a bacteria that is often found in people with heart disease. I don't think there are going to be many scientists willing to inject themselves with this. Should we change treatments now? Or should we go on and say it's just a bunch of BS?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
We have excellent records of CO2 concentrations over thousands of years from inclusions of gas in ice cores, as well as other sources. CO2 concentrations have unquestionably increased significantly since the 1800's. And increased CO2 concentrations invariably will lead to higher temperatures. The only scientific debate is whether the temperature increase from our current levels of CO2 will be modest or dramatic.
But that question doesn't really get to the core of things. CO2 emissions aren't standing still, they are growing exponentially. If we don't curb CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 won't just double, it will double over and over again. At some point, even the most conservative climate models predict catastrophic consequences, whether that be 2x, 4x, 8x, or 16x current levels.
Sooner or later, we have to put a limit on the growth of CO2 emissions because, while we may debate how much CO2 is too much, there exists some level that is going to be too much. So, we might as well impose the limits now, since there is no economic reason to keep belching out CO2 at current rates. Besides, with a reduction in CO2 come a lot of other benefits, like reduction in particulate emissions, sulfur, and other pollutants.
Everybody repeat after me.
Commonality
Does Not
Equal
Causality.
Please stop being retarded, thanks.
Brant
Argle. Bargle.
It's a fairly well balanced system-- as it would have to be to have lasted as long as it has. The notion that we humans could actually "break" such a system is the most ludicrous form of arrogance. We're not nearly as powerful as we think, man.
Mostly I agree with you, but there is no good reason to believe that there is just one equilibrium point. To oversimplify, the weather/climate is basically what we observe of a heat engine that adsorbs heat at the equator and radiates it out into space at the poles. We've got a kinda-sorta handle on land and air, extremely poor handle on water and no handle on where the edges are from one equilibrium to another.
Increased CO2 would lead to increased average global temperature, other factors being equal. With a big and complicated heat engine that builds its engine walls out of air and water, I just don't believe in "other factors being equal". This thing will tend to push back harder than you push it. It's not all that farfetched for the effect of global warming to be another ice age. The key is probably what triggers the ocean currents.
I don't know about you guys, but I don't find people who make fun of this amusing whatsoever. I lived in nome for 5 years (which is on the mainland, by shishmaref). I never saw any real global warming stuff going on, but I do know that having to move a whole town off the island is going to be *EXTREMELY* detrimental. I loved alaska, but hated it at the same time. For fuck's sake, they're voting on moving EVERYONE off the island, and onto the mainland, giving up their homes, their jobs, everything. Fucking quit making it out to be a joke, it's not funny. What if everyone in your neighborhood had to move because some corporation bought the entire block, and you didn't get a cent of it. Would you appreciate it if everyone fucking laughed at you? didn't think so. Show some respect for christ's sake.
Back off, seriously.
...of /. posting: +5 (Troll). Enjoy it while you got it.
I think it was the "card-carrying Mensa" sig, coupled with the misspelling of "tolerance." Or maybe the juxtaposition of the comment on stupidity with the parroting of the latest Rush Limbaugh lies being used to dupe the really stupid who want to believe so badly.
Since others have pointed out the obvious flaw in the "Big Business is policing itself" lie, I will concentrate on the "Kyoto is a restrictive and impractical way to cut pollution" lie. The Kyoto Treaty is nothing of the kind. It is an agreement among nations as to who has what responsibility for cleaning up how much. It says nothing about the way in which the emission of greenhouse gases might be accomplished (well, it says some things, but only to preclude bogus schemes by the unscrupulous).
Government-mandated pollution reduction is not required. Each country is left to its own devices: economic incentives, tax breaks, or legislated restrictions. The fact that this lie is being promulgated is an excellent measure of the desperation of the anti-Kyoto forces. All their other arguments are falling one by one, so they are reduced to pathetic trolling such as this:
Most Democrats, of course, believe that the "the Capitalist system works." Part of the reason it works so well in the United States is that James Madison realized the key to its success would be government regulation (particularly enforcement of contracts). Since that time, we have found a number ways in which it works better with regulation.
An excellent example of this is pollution control. Imagine, if you will, a community of manufacturers who compete with each other. Imagine further that they are moral people all of whom want to do the right thing. (This is not as surprising as Ralph Nader seems to think. Businessmen are people, too, and they don't want to poison their kids any more than they want to poison yours.)
Sooner or later, one of these companies will find itself at a competitive disadvantage. They cannot produce their product at a price which will allow them to make money selling it for what they can get. If they are paying money to reduce their pollution, they will be in a position where they can stay competitive by cutting controls or they can lose everything by going out of business. They may start polluting with full intention to clean it up later, when they get competitive again.
But they may never get the chance. Because now another business is in the least-competitive position, their existence threatened if they don't cut pollution controls. Eventually you can see an entire industry polluting at a maximum, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM WANT TO. Regulations prohibiting pollution can be seen as a contract (sort of like a treaty) between them with the government as a guarantor. And it also protects them against a competitor who actually is nefarious and really doesn't care what is right.
The Kyoto Treaty can be viewed as just such a contract between nations. Any industrial nation could achieve an unfair competitive advantage over the others by ignoring global warming. If one country is losing out in the global marketplace because its business is overtaxed, the government could allow greenhouse gas emissions as a way to become competitive again without giving up its beloved taxes. (We saw this in Eastern Europe and Russia and China during the Cold War.)
Mensa-morons can whine and moan all they want, but the Kyoto Treaty will WORK. Just like the pollution and fuel-efficiency regulations they probably opposed during the '70s (and now celebrate the results of).
Eternal vigilance only works if you look in every direction.
Correlation is not causation, but there's a mechanism, a prediction, a verification of the prediction, and a complete lack of any alternative plausible hypotheses at this point.
Just because we understand the physiology of hangovers, and you drank like a fish last night, and you have a terrible headache just like the last six times you overdid it doesn't mean that your headache is a hangover. After all, correlation is not causation. Still, it might be a good idea to ease up on your drinking anyway.
Anyone who claims the evidence is weak at this point is willfully ignoring the evidence, or selecting *very* carefully from it, or listening to someone else who is doing so.
Things are pretty much on track with the earliest greenhouse predictions from 15 years ago. (Biggest and earliest changes were expected at high northern latitudes. What do you know...)
And it gets dramatically worse from here on. Fossil fuels, in addition to being responsible for a lot of otherwise dangerous global entanglements, are doing damage to the world not only increasingly but acceleratingly. Nothing but ideology and special interests prevent us from escaping our headlong dive toward widespread environmental disruption combined with getting messed up in medieval throwback geopolitics. Losing fossil fuel dependency fast is a big double win, but it's a little inconvenient to some corporations. Hmm.
It's really time people with any brain cells started to look at the evidence.
mt