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."
Our Premiere is currently very anti Kyoto, and yet we see every day the effects that global warming is having on this province and in Canada. It is the people that focus on capitalism that will lead to the downfall of our species, for they are too short sighted to look into alternatives for the fossil fuels that we use in our daily lives.
Something is definitely happening to the climate on this planet, but what precisely, and what the cause(s) for this process are, not to mention the endresult (if there is one), are still unknown.
Something is happening, we only don't know what or why.
Site & blog: http://www.mayaposch.com
so does this mean its warm enough to grow pot in Alaska finally?
every one of the improvements you cited is a result of government mandated pollution controls. So you give examples of the successes of government mandated pollution controls as a proof that we dont need government mandated pollution controls. hmm ok.
BZZT, thanks for playing.
When Erik the Red discovered this odd country, he named it "Greenland" in an attempt to attract more settlers to it.
The weather here in Michigan is still too cold. I for one support global warming. Bring it on, the warmer the better. I can't believe that global warming is only bad. I heard that they can grow crops further North now than they could before and there are longer growing seasons providing more crops. And soon people may be able to live in Canada.
http://www.kubuntu.org/
It was named Greenland too fool people into moving there not because it was green. Kind of like today we just call a hot day El Nino instead of what it may really be, global warming. /P.
http://www.windmeadow.com/
i don't mean to be all self-righteous and pontificate on good taste, but i am surprised that so many posts express such a light hearted attitude to the situation. Imagine your way of life literally melting away, imagine being forced to move from a place where your ancestors have lived for hundreds of years. I really feel sorry for those alaskans. i can only hope that they'll be compensated by the government.
Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? Hint: it used to be a greener when they named it a few centuries back.
Bzzzzzt! Try again. Erik the Red called it Greenland in an attempt to make it sound more attractive to the settlers he was trying to convince to migrate there.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Actually, I thought it was the other way around. They had found iceland, but no one wanted to go because they thought it was a big floating block of ice. They found greenland next, and named it such to entice those who would be willing to go..
I'm sick of all the global-warming deniers who say that just because the climate fluctuates over long time scales, we aren't having an effect on the planet.
It's time for the town's all purpose contingincy plan...Plan B. Move the whole town 5 miles down the road.
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 seems to me that anti-global warming advocates are made up of the same kind of people who are anti-evolution. Their main reason for doubt is that it conflicts with their biases (in the case of global warming, that's largely commercial or ideological, with evolution it's religious).
Of course both groups have lots of 'scientific' evidence that mostly amounts a few anecdotes in comparison to the huge reams of evidence that the supporters have, but are yelled very loudly.
Also, both groups demand from their adversaries 'irrefutable proof' that evolution/global warming is true, even though a 'logical proof' of an empirical phenomena is impossible. You can't prove evolution and global warming the same way you can prove that 1+1=2. You can't even prove gravity to that extent.
Finally, if this report is true, and these weather changes are happening all over Alaska, it really should be enough evidence that something is happening. Alaska is pretty big, and the effect can't really be called 'local'. It's at least regional.
Finally, it comes to the question of cyclical vs. artificial warming. 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.
A while ago I read a slashdot post about global warming, and the poster said he opposed any kind of change in regulation unless we could be 100% sure. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid. It's like driving towards a cliff and being opposed to a change in direction unless you were 100% sure there was a cliff there, the argument being the trip would be longer assuming there was no cliff (or something equally stupid).
Perhaps there would be some economic constraints caused by greenhouse gas controls, but they would probably be a lot better then the economic problems caused by global warming.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Read your own link.
sheesh.
Surfing the net and other cliches...
(Who Meta-Meta-Moderates the Meta-Moderators?)
If you voted for Al Gore, you are a freak, end of story
Well I'm not visiting America then. Half of you are freaks, apparently.
It's amazing how much our leaders don't get it.
Your leader. Your leader doesn't get it.
"But I do really think we need to be cautious about it. The effects of global warming could be pretty dire."
Since there is zero evidence of human activity having an effect, there is no point in being "cautious" in regards to global warming.
"It seems to me that anti-global warming advocates are made up of the same kind of people who are anti-evolution."
True, only if by "anti global warming advocate" you mean the whackos who fight against "global warming".... which is like fighting against a mountain with a wet noodle: human activity does not effect it.
"A while ago I read a slashdot post about global warming, and the poster said he opposed any kind of change in regulation unless we could be 100% sure. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid"
No, what is stupid is changing regulation while having NO evidence at all that regulation will change anything. That is real stupid: the un-informed change of public policy based on nonscience.
Kyoto is not the be all end all. After the success of Kyoto is measured other treaties, including ones that affect China will come through and help the cause.
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
Since only about half of us stupid Yanks even bother to vote, but this standard only 25% of Americans are freaks.
More than half, actually, though the wingnuts in the White House are desperately hoping people will forget that...
Yep, those guys are funny. "Well it couldn't possibly be humans, because not all carbon dioxide has historically come from humans."
Wonder if any of them tried that in court? "I couldn't possibly have stolen that car, as cars were being stolen before I was born..."
Remember the Leonard Nimoy series In Search Of? Well, they were predicting the coming ice age in the 70s. I love how in 30 years we're now looking at global warming instead of global cooling. If you have never seen the episode they looked at evidence that included Alaska was getting colder and the Eastern seaboard was socked by snow five years in a row.
You say global warming is nonsense, but you fail to follow up with the standard non-sequitur about how evolution is "stupid". Maybe you forgot to use the "Preview" button. Please spend more time on Free Republic until you learn how to write posts that fall in lock-step properly.
We are having an effect on the climate, but its not quite as bad as you freak extreme-left alarmists would have us believe. (If you voted for Al Gore, you are a freak, end of story)
Leaving aside where you're getting your inside information on climate change, this is a pretty broad definition of "freak"- it includes the majority of the U.S. voting population.
Au contraire, my anonymous friend, your post is still at zero because if one of the teenage libertarians around here wants a piece of drooling, contentless, propaganda to moderate up, there's undoubtedly one that says exactly the same thing, posted by someone who logged in.
Honestly, do you ever read Slashdot?
Oh, wait, you're kidding... ha ha... sorry, I'm not used to 'wingers trying to be funny. Good job.
-- 'intellectual property' is oxymoronic
I wonder if the RIAA is behind all this...
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Anyone else seen Eric the viking (not especially good) has some of Monty python characters in it.
One part that is apt:
As the island was sinking the 'king' and his followers are happily singing ignoring the sinking fact, They are urged to leave (or die) and they happily say no, its not sinking.... sing song sing song....
We don't know for SURE about temp rise etc or if it is caused by industrial activity, but it seems wise to assume that we should be cautious to ensure future liberties.
It is difficault thou', as it seems that many events are taken advantage of to press too far for power grabs rather than actually helping the situation (eg terrorism) and thus destroying current hard won liberties.
Shouldn't the concern be concentrated on Ozone Depletion instead of Global Warming? Global Warming can't really be proven without 100s of years of data, but any scientist can tell you that ozone is getting thinner and in some places, non-existent.
Which of you who are so sure that the warming is due to the use of burning fossil fuels and the release of carbon in the atmosphere, will be the first to quit using your car? Quit using lights and AC? Turn off the heat? Got an SUV because you like to see nature so much? Double shame on you!
Get some balls! Show your conviction and be the leader in solving the problem!
-joe
-- Many men would appreciate a woman's mind more if they could fondle it
I was thinking more of how many countires adopted the protocol and how many followed it's guidelines.
But you can believe the Republican skin all you want to.
"Oh no, 3 horny women and only 2 condoms...Thank god I read slashdot"
Why, isn't it obvious?
Don't you idiots pay attention to those well-informed Slashdot posters? They have all the answers as to why I don't need to worry about changing my lifestyle. Hey, a badly-reasoned ill-informed load of Ayn Rand bullshit posted on Slashdot by a complete nobody in Butt-Phuck, Nebraska, is good enough to get moderated up to +5, Informative -- so it must be true!!
Or I could pay attention to real scientists who, like, know what they're talking about. But that would just be falling into the trap prepared by ${evil_people}!
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
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.
Simple. To left-wingers, the issue is Global Warming. To right-wingers, the issue is the left wanting control.
Let me explain some right-wing views. Only after you understand these views, can you understand the answer to your question.
Also, please note, I am not bringing these up for debate (we can do *that* in a journal) I am merely mentioning what is believed, for better or for worse.
1) Resources are made to be used. If they'll run out, then so be it.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
Now, Global Warming has never been proven. It is merely a theory. It sounds good, but so does the Theory of Evolution. So the right-wing sees the left-wings jumping on the global warming bandwagon as premature.
Now to match the three points above.
1) Even is it was true, resources are made to be used. We'll deal with the consequences later, we always have. As they say, "Necessity is the mother of invention." In fact, if we don't cause Global Warming, we're probably holding off such amazing invention!
2) Even if Global Warming was happening, and then, even if this was a "Bad Thing", who cares? We can a one sort of world, and future generations get a different one. They don't "deserve" anything.
3) (And the most important). Right-wingers don't have an issue with the left-wingers living out their fantasies. It's just when they force those fantasies on others, and tell them what they *can't* do, it gets frustrating.
For example, instead of legislating clean emmisions, some left-wingers should figure out a way to make it more attractive than the current fuels. Then people will *want* to switch! Instead, they force legilation, and that just makes everyone angry.
Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
It is possible, that they are, but they are more worried about living life freely. Instead of prediciting doomsdays and heralding death, why not actively make the world better by *promoting* a better place.
In short, don't be so pushy, and maybe people will listen.
If you'd like a really well spelled out refutation of Global Warming, and a clear deliniation of many right-wing values, check out Rush Limbaugh's, "The Way Things Ought to Be". I believe it is in that book. Some shudder at the thought of reading his books, but until one reads them, you can't complain. I believe that I read most of the first book, and found him to be clear and concise.
Have you read my journal today?
When the pot gets too hot, the culprit is usually the fire. In my opinion, the sun, the main source of heat for earth's atmosphere, should be the primary suspect. Maybe the sun is going through a warming cycle.
I think that quote says exactly why this is an interesting story that has little implication for the larger debate about our environment. I am the first to declare that all the industrial toxins and whatnot we're pumping into our atmosphere are having negative effects. However, one of the main arguments that's always made in global warming discussions is that climate change has been a constant over the history of the Earth. We simply don't know how much human actions are responsible for what we're experiencing now. So while I'm sure increased rates in asthma, cancers, and birth defects in some places are probably industry related, I'm not convinced about a bunch of wackos who live on an ice shelf losing their "land".
Couldn't have put it better myself - please mod the parent up!
We do know that CO2 causes a greenhouse effect. So should we just keep things as they are till we know or should we modify our behavior on the outside chance that we are affecting things? Continue as normal and 30 years down the road and go "oh shit we are affecting it". Capitalism will find a way to make money off of limiting greenhouse gas emissions, of course this might mean a power shift from the oil and gas companies to whatever emerges and this is who is in power and who keeps this from being explored.
The half that voted for Bush are freaks too, so it's still 50% overall. :)
Bush realizes that it has nothing to do with human activity. Bush has a problem here of wanting to stick to the truth while ignorant people who are even dumber than him insist on greenhouse fairytales.
Pretty impressive realization, for a guy who can't speak in complete sentences. Maybe the brain cells in his head that normally help with grammar and keep singular/plural and past/present/future tense consistent are busy performing climate simulations instead.
"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."
It might have something to do with the neo-ludite faction of the left using "harm the enviroment" as a mantra to oppose any progress. 50 years ago it was "harm the workers" now it's "harm the Furbish Lousewort"
When the nut cases espouse your cause you become identified with nut cases. This is equally true if it's right wing or left wing nut cases that espouse your cause. The Enviromental cause is not helped by a pack of Hippies that refuse to accept that it's not 1968 running around every Earthday mouthing pop eco Bullshit. If the Neo Nazis had decided Global warming was a "Jewish Plot" to destroy the "Aryans from the Northern areas" and made more noise than the Hippy tree huggers then it would be viewed as a far right political cause.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Good ol' Sen. Stevens...priming the pork-pump, count on it.
"If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand". -Milton F.
What's up with all this BZZZing? Erik the Red's saga has a mythical explanation for the naming of Greenland. There are also alternate (even more mythical) explanations at other sources.
What we do know for sure is that the climate was once such that Greenland could support a number of Viking settlers. However, the climate worsened, and they all starved a few centuries back.
So, BZZZT y'all, bitches.
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 PollockThe article reads like a pamphlet of hippy Greenpeace agitprop. Et tu, comrade?
I wouldn't be surprised if this press release was orchestrated by a vast left-wing conspiracy designed to discredit President Bush. Anyone who questions President Bush's authority is a traitor. Last week, a Chicago street gang member was arrested after he planned to build an H-Bomb and blow up Washington, DC! It's obvious that we must now sacrifice all of our Constitutional rights to combat this overwhelming threat to the price of gas.
Don't believe the hype! Keep driving your SUV's!
Before I begin, let me say that I am an independent, and (generally speaking) hate all political parties equally.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative." You may need to be reminded that once a new generation is born, the previous one does not suddenly disappear into the mists. They stick around for a while. You may also need to be reminded that old people have more strict requirements in their environment (e.g. air purity, temperature, etc). I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income and will have plenty of other things to worry about. Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world. Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers? Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree . This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
On another note: yes, the liberals spread FUD about global warming, and maybe global warming is all part of a long-term cycle, but we can't really figure that out until we've tested this empirically. The obvious way to do this would be to stop (cut down, restrict, etc) the emissions of "greenhouse gases" and see what happens. If nothing significant happens, then we can be confident that "greenhouse gases" aren't harming the environment, and thus the people that live in said environment.
"For success, it is essential you have Thunderball Fists." "I can have such a thing?" "That's right. Thunderball Fists."
because if the effects are true, once they have taken hold then it is suggested that they are essentailly irreversible.
The magnitue of the possible effects are what makes it wise to be cautious.
For example you may be willing to play a blindfold game in your own living room (because you would assume that the worst you can do is stub your toe) but you would be unlikley to play the same game on the highway (because you would assume that the worst that could happen is that you can be squished by a car) note that we don't KNOW that either bad event will occur but the magnitude of 'badness' in the second case (playing blindfold on the road) means that you probably wouldn't do it.
Think about your own statement.
Global warming will be an average change of a few degrees across the globe.
That average will be affected by changes in local weather patterns. But that average is made up of sample readings from individual locales.
Weather is a complex system that is currently best modeled using mathematics. While current models are far from perfect, there are strong indicationss that this is an appropriate approach.
When you add energy to a chaotic system, rather than seeing an immediate uniform increase in overall energy, you instead first see an increase in randomness and relative volatilivity within the system that over a period of time eventually develops a new stable higher-energy-level pattern of realtive randomness.
In the case of weather, energy is in the form of thermal units. Increases in randomness could be expressed as localized abnormal effects [changes in temperature (ranges or extremes), rainfall patterns, ozone density, changes in animal migratory and reproductive patterns, et cetera]. Increased volatilivity may be expressed as changes in storm frequency and/or intensity, or in sea level, for example.
Such a pattern of effects has been observable for some years now, and at this point (contrary to what American industry and the current administration want people to believe) there is no real debate over whether global warming is occuring [only the vocal objections of a few industry funded individuals or special interests]. It is occuring.
The actual current debates are 1) whether or not the change in overall global warming we are seeing is primarily due to human influences, or if it is part of a longer-term pattern that we do not yet fully understand; 2) the relative proporation of human-induced versus natural change in average global temperature; and 3) the projected size of the overall increase before the system reaches another point of relative stability.
It will be impossible to pinpoint local effects until it really gets out of hand. (It will have local effects, we just won't be able to say which are and are not natural.)
I agree with the second part of your statement. Localized effects will occur. I also agree that it may be impossible to reach a concensus among the majority of parties debating specific local effects until things are as you say 'out of hand'. (I'd say until the evidence is overwhelming. But given that the overall evidence that global warming is occuring is currently overwhelming, parties trying to defend their own specific interests will still deny the effect until no one will listen, and probably beyond.)
Furthermore, I think you are correct that we will have a great difficulty determining which may be natural and which may be human-induced.
It does not follow from that however, that specific local events cannot be examples of a larger pattern, or that the specific example brought up by the article may not be a real instance of a specific local effect. Only that it can't be conclusively determined at this time whether or not it is such an effect.
Not every instance of local climate change is a symptom of global climate change. Local climate fluctuates wildly.
I think the first of these observations is only functionally accurate. I say 'functionally' because, being a chaotic system, all climatic changes are interlinked. In that way, all weather phenomena are actually symptomatic of global climate change. We just can't interpret all of them.
As for the second, I don't agree. While local weather does flucuate to varying extremes, it does not do so wildly, but in a pattern. We understand some of these patterns better than others (5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-year flood patterns for different areas, and so on), but whether we fully understand them or not, the patterns are present. Part of climatological science is finding and studying these patterns and learning how to interpret them.
Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? Hint: it used to be a greener when they named it a few centuries back.
Actually, no. As several others have already pointed out, this may be one of the first documented instances of marketing spin. It was called Greenland to encourage settlers. Iceland, another example of spin, was called Iceland because the settlers wanted to discourage too many people from migrating to the beautiful island they wanted for their own.
This is just like El Nino. Because it was causing some unusual weather patterns, every little rainstorm was blamed on it.
Well. While global warming and El Nino are both weather patterns, and are both still only partly understood (not well at all yet), I think it's too easy an out to write off every unusual weather pattern just because it's convenient.
The dramatic changes in the Antarctic ice shelves, changes in seal level in the Pacific Islands, notable changes in local temperatures and weather patterns are indications of the overall global changes that are taking place. But it will be many years before an overall global temperature change results in a general rise in overall temperature.
If your trailer park was named "Camelot", would that mean King Arthur once stayed there?
Well, there was an Arthur and he walked around in a robe all the time.
I have been pwned because my
Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.
I want what it is you're smoking. Perhaps you've been sniffing car exhaust a bit too much. Hey, come to think of it, is that what it takes to get into mensa?
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
Guess what? You don't speak in complete sentences either. Also, all those "umms" and "aahs" aren't words.
Do you still think that's a great measure of intelligence? Didn't think so.
Oh please. Everyone stammers when they talk a little, but this is ridiculous. And it's not like GWB exists in a vacuum. If you're suggesting that the average American President talked like W, you must be crazy. Do you remember his father sounding like this? Didn't think so.
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.
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?
Disclaimer: I am an American.
What many non-Americans, and particularly Europeans, may not understand is just how conservative (and in the post 9/11 era, downright ugly) American politics have become. What you consider pretty far to the right is likely left of the current Democratic party. The US political spectrum overlaps that of Europe only to the right of the European Center, while what we call 'centrist' politics would, in Germany, probably be somewhere between the CDU (conservative) and Republikaner (ultra-nationalists).
In this country one set of conservatives believe global warming could be a problem. Most, but not all, of these conservatives are Democrats. Another set is in complete denial, and will remain so even after the seas have risen and they've been forced to relocate their factories inland several hundred miles. Most, but not all, of these tend to be Republican (or even farther to the right: Libertarian).
Both sides use the issue as a political football, which is reprehensible IMHO, but it is the Reagan-Bush Republicans who are truly adept at humiliating this country in just about every international ecological summit or meeting. The scientific evidence that human industrial activity is aggrivating, perhaps fundamentally causing, the warming of the planet is mounting geometricly, and psuedo-scientific demands for 100% proof are reminiscent of Creationists and their arguments (another source of humiliation for America).
It has, indeed, become quite emberrassing to be an American, and I fear it will only become more so before things get any better.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
I say we have to take the gender of anyone making pronouncements about global warming into account, and statements made by women should be viewed skeptically.
Stromatolites must have also caused a climate change as they removed C02 from the atmosphere. Has anyone studied this change in relationship to what is happening now?
See this page for a timeline of atmosphere activity including the introduction of oxygen. Was there a climate change during that period?
Why is it inherent that the most trolls come out when a story about supercomputers shows up on /.?
"2001 was the warmest year since 1653 (or thereabouts) which begs the question, exactly who or what was emitting CO2 at present day levels back then?"
(dates may be off)
They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
Two different people. My dad studders, I don't. Does that make my dad an idiot, while I'm smarter by virtue only that I don't studder? Great argument.
So people who studder have below average intelligence?
What does "studdering" have to do with it? Stuttering doesn't reflect on one's intelligence. But what W does isn't stuttering at all. Where in "Our priorities is our faith" or "Is our children learning?" do you hear a stutter?
He doesn't understand what he's saying. There is a difference.
WOO! Almost summer holidays :)
Alaska, here we come!
sigme
yes. global warming is a reality.
Yes, it's been going on for years.
Yes, perhaps humans do contribute.
However:
No, I do not believe it wouldn't happen if we didn't have cars.
No, I don't believe in Terra Firma like so many people who live on such unstable land.
No, I don't believe that global warming is a disaster.
all in all, I believe that global warming was going to happen anyway. History has shown that yes, land masses do wear away and form as the earth changes, and as time goes on, that the oceans have risen and dropped over the millenia. It's nothing but narrow-minded, self-centered eco-bullshit to say that humans alone are to blame. I will grant that if the oceans rose, say, fifty feet, there would be a lot less land mass for us to work with. However, there's nothing we can do as a planet to stop nature from taking it's course. So basically, IMHO global warming is nothing more than a disgusting human-interest story that I really don't care about unless it's directly affecting me, in which case i'll do what any reasonable human will do and move to higher ground instead of bitching about it.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
"In an ironic twist, managers of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline are putting in supports to keep the pipeline from breaking as permafrost thaws."
so, let me guess? now Bush is going to sign off on the Kyoto treaty because global warming has been proven. the only reason he would sign off on it now, rather than earlier, would be to save his oil-buddies asses up there. all that oil splashing on the ground is lost profits, doncha know!
I'm good with numbers -
RTFF
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yeah, it was an old-school triumph of marketing over reality. "Hmmm," says Erik, "this whole place appears to be a bunch of rocks a frozen sludge covered by snow. What should we name it, then? Well, we need more colonists... how about 'Greenland?' That'll get 'em coming!"
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Apparently the difference seems to be that volcanic gases never reach the ozone layer, because rain washes the water-soluble gases out of the atmosphere in the troposphere. CFC's aren't particularly water-soluble, so rain can't scrub them out of the atmosphere.
I'd welcome information to the contrary, to serve as a point of debate. I'll go ahead and cite the Ozone Depletion FAQ, specifically the part dealing with halogens in the stratosphere.
Tips and Tricks for Mozilla
One reason people tend to see Global Warming as an "extreme left" issue is that quite often, "global warming" is used as an excuse for all kinds of collectivist claptrap that's unrelated to the stated problem -- which is the planet heating up.
For instance, "solutions" often include massive wealth "redistribution," controls imposed on first-world economies only, a call for elimination or nationalization of whole industries, etc.
"Global warming!" these days has the same ring to it as "Won't someone please think of the children?!?!"
it's totally a politcal issue. If "the left" were not actually intent on riding the coattails of disaster (real or imagined) into power, then people might take them more seriously. Being told that you're ruining the planet, your country and ideals are evil, and that you need "enlightened rule" by a bunch of arrogant fucks kind of rubs the wrong way. If you'll notice, most of the crusaders for global warming are not scientists, they're members of "Non-Governmental Organizations," who want power and money real bad. The actual scientific community is much less hysterical, much less unified, non-political, and much less sure of global warming and its causes.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Noone should be told what to do.
Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree
Here's a better way to put it: People shouldn't be made to live for the sake of others.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
I grew up mostly on the coast in a town called Cordova. When I was a young child(1970-80's), winter was winter, it snowed in the winter and that was winter. As I grew older in to my early teen years, the winters became shorter and shorter with more rain than snow. It has been this way ever since. I noticed this change in the winters in the early 80's. Its not suprising what was mentioned in the article regarding the climate change. Particularly the melting permafrost in the interior.
or even farther to the right: Libertarian
Uhhh... no. Libertarians would please have you refrain from confusing them with right-wing republicans and other authoritarian nutjobs.
It has, indeed, become quite emberrassing to be an American
Pshaw. Why? because the US isn't running with the herd? Ask those uppity Euros about their little anti-semitic problem sometime, see if they have a good answer. Or ask why, if they're so hot on human rights, that they don't seem to actually care about humans in countries other than their own? Etc.
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Yeah that's when I'll start to think there's problem that needs to be address, REGARDLESS of the reason. When the salmon come come out of the water already poached. When the birds drop out of the sky already deep fried.
Or when Mr. Cheney tells me, whichever comes first.
Here's a good example of the stupidity you're citing. What really happened in that example is that Bush said, "Is..." then changed his mind about what he was going to say, then said "Are children learning?" This is exactly what happens when you take quotes out of context, misinterpret them, then use it to smear someone.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
O.K. I click the link to the Trans-Alaskan Pipeline to find the reference to "are putting in supports" and all I find are pretty pictures. Where does it say they are putting in supports?
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
Many science fiction books have been written on terraforming another planet, such as Mars, making it possible for humans to live there. I think the solution to global warming is so obvious, I don't know why the scientists haven't thought of this one:
Terraform the world's deserts! Seriously. Transport large amounts of dirt mixed with clay, horse shit, compost and seeds of various plants in large dump trucks with a mechanism to evenly release this material from the back of the truck, onto the ground. The truck would pull behind it a piece of military-strength farm equipment that digs into the ground and mixes this dirt with the existing sand. These truckloads would only cover an area about 10 feet wide and maybe 200 feet long. I'd say you'd need about 100 of these trucks to build a small oasis in the desert. In this oasis, dig a deep hole every 20 feet or so and plant pre-grown trees of various types in it, filling the hole entirely with the horse shit mixture I described above. Install a huge water tower next to the oasis, and constantly spray water mixed with nutrients onto the oasis.
Next step: Once the first oasis starts to grow and turn into a small habitat, use the experience gained to install similar oases every few miles in every direction. Once this grid of oases covers the entire desert, start installing new ones between existing oases.
Within ten years, with constant work and lots of funding, a desert can be turned into a forest. When this forest gets mature enough, it will automatically start to rain there because of vapors being released into the air. This should take place in as many parts of the world as possible, leaving a few deserts here and there, because there's a reason they're a part of the landscape.
Build a bunch of space stations where the whole ecology is engineered to be a proper cycle. All trash would be turned back into food inside the space station; food for people, animals and plants. With the experience gained in space, cities on Earth would be engineered and "retrofitted" to perform similar cycles. All products and manufacturing facilities would be engineered to act as a proper member of the cycle. As such, all garbage will be prevented entirely, as it would actually be a product for further growth. At the same time, the use of fossil fuels would stop, and other, more environmentally friendly methods would be used. All of this would take place over the next hundred years or so. (Hey, if technology and the human ability to accomplish huge things has developed so rapidly over the past 200 years, surely all of this can become reality in the next 100.)
The point is that by the time global temperatures would have melted the ice caps and caused the next Noah's flood, it would be prevented because the temperatures--and indeed the whole Earth system--would have been balanced once again. At that point, it would be time to put snow machines all over Alaska and the surrounding islands to rebuild the permafrost.
Since there is zero evidence of human activity having an effect, there is no point in being "cautious" in regards to global warming.
I admit that we don't know all there is to know about global warming, but how can you honestly say there is *zero* evidence? We know for a fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know for a fact that we produce shitloads of it. What else is there to know?
Serously, what kind of evidence would convince you that humans could have an impact on global temprature?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
We've been in a global warming cycle since the ICE AGE!
and in the 1970s they said we were heading for another ice age...
the scientists say "we cant look at localized warming or cooling, we must look at the whole picture" yet here they are pumping localized warming... why dodnt they come to OKLAHOMA? its cooler than it has been for a while AND there are LESS tornadoes...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
The most recent issue of Science journal has an article reporting the melting condition of Antarchtic ice sheet. Even though the report from NYT is suspecious, the global warming issue is not to be desserted and disparaged.
From an climatologist's point of view, it is still an uncertain issue at this moment wheather anthropogenic activity will lead to global warming, but we have to be cautious about the possibility in any event.
Together, we are strong; Apart, we are stronger.
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.
can't prove those things don't have an effect. This isn't about proof in the mathematical sense; this is about the real world. You can never 'prove' anything in the real world 100%, you can only come up with evidence until the evidence is overwhelming.
If someone presents some evidence for something, and other people believe it, you need to explain why it's not true, not pretend it doesn't exist.
If you want anyone to believe you explain why the theories are wrong. If you don't, no one will take you seriously.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
People who are angry are always wrong.
I don't know if you realize it or not, but nothing you said discredits anything he said. It's just and ad-homonym attack.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Well, it appears that humankind is screwing up the earth's weather. (Well, I suppose that "screwing up" is relative, as some species will thrive and others will die.)
Now the important fundmental existential question is, how does one go about profiting off of this?
Can I buy Alaskan real estate off of the likes of etrade.com? People tend to flock to where the weather is nice. Thus, boomtown Alaska. Are there REIT's for Alaska? Are REIT's any good? Is it REIT or RIET?
Table-ized A.I.
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?
The reasons are fairly simple. The "left-wing" on average is more closely associated with "protecting the environment," whatever that means. The "right-wing" is skeptical of movements which seek to increase the size of government.
The global warming "issue" only becomes political when attached to suggested government mandated responses. Other than that, it is simply a scientific question.
But, it is has become extremely political. The left is all over the issue, accusing anyone who does not support the expensive but ineffective Kyoto treaty of being an unrestrained capitalist monster. Some on the right (such as Rush Limbaugh) have reacted automatically to assume the science must be wrong if the left supports it (Rush is a good political commentator, but his knowledge of science is inversely proportional to the amount of certainty he has in his opinions about it).
So... look around. You will find significantly more on the "left" who are advocates for global warming "solutions" than you will on the right. And you will find some of those using the same tried-and-true tactics they have used on other issues: moral posturing, distorted information (read The Skeptical Environmentalist for accurately cited examples of the above), fear-mongering and name-calling.
Guess what. I am on the right, and I am a global warming skeptic (I don't think the forecasts are very accurate, and I think the proposed solutions are positively dumb). This is a normal alignment.
In my case, my position stems from a lot of study of the issue, a natural skepticism towards those who think they can predict the future with a crude computer model, a strong skepticism towards those who think they can significantly alter the behavior of billions of people with a treaty or two, and a decades long study of leftist activism and how it distorts issue - in other words, if the left is for it, you can be damned sure I am going to look into it a lot farther than what the popular press emits. Not that I always disagree with the left, but I sure as hell don't trust anything they say in public.
The only good weather is bad weather.
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative."
.So, it must be social in nature, but again the United States government cannot make such laws to tell you what to do, unless they can somehow claim jurisdiction. Instead, what would happen is, they would say that cars or trucks that use the Interstate highway system have to follow the commerce laws.
Left wingers think there is no such think as compassionate conservatism, because they believe that they are compassionate, and thus any other approach isn't. In truth, compassionate conservatism, if there is such a thing, would be to soften the harsh blow that conservatism beings, without giving up on the ideals.
I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income
This is liberal thinking. Rely on the government. The conservatives rely on themselves, so it is a moot point.
Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world.
No problem with that. Just don't force it.
Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
Yes. That denial is passive. In order not to deny to them, I must *actively* deny it to myself. It is not my duty to serve others.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers?
No. And who is talking only about Republicans? I am talking about the right wing, which include some Republicans, and some Liberatarians, and that is only in the US.
Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree.
No. People should never, ever, ever, ever, ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever,ever, be told what to do. You do not have the right to tell me, or anyone else what to do! Who made you my master?
This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
That is a left-wing approach, and a very modern one at that. It is generally used in child-rearing for 5-6 year olds, but is proving to not work. The latest issue of Parents (US version) magazine has an article on it.
Instead, you should realize what governments actually are.
Government makes two types of laws. One is Social, the other is Criminal. The Social laws promote society, such as Socialism or Capitalism. The Criminal laws protect people.
(IANAL, but I'll pretend I am anyway. Feel free to point out the law.) If a Criminal law has no specific victim, it cannot be prosecuted. Governments can only use these laws to protect a citizen. In other words, the Liberatarian approach, do what you want, as long as it doesn't inhibit my doing what I want.
In Social laws, the government can promote society. In the United States, the Constitution restricts such laws severely. Freedoms can never be taken away, unless specifically mentioned. Such as copyrights.
The United States government cannot tell people what to do. The United States government can't even tell the states what to do. They have no authority. So, they came up with a form of extortion. Using the 16th amendment they raised enormous taxes and said that the states can have the money only if they followed some program.
The United States government can also not pass any Criminal laws that affect people, unless they can find a way to claim jurisdiction. They usually use the Commerce Clause to do that, and say that if you use an interstate highway, or communication device, or some other interstate device used for commerce, they have jurisdiction.
If a criminal act is committed in a state, the United States government cannot get involved. The local state has jurisdiction.
Now, the act of passing an environmental law, is not criminal. Simply because nooone can prove any one specific victim. And even if they could, what damage was given to that victim? Taking away scenery is not damage. Warming up the Earth is not damage. Punching someone in the nose, is damage
So, to make it work in the states, the United States government would have to withold taxes to the states to use as an incentive for the states to adopt a uniform set of laws.
Now, left-wingers see this as progress. right-wingers see this as coersion. Firstly, taxes are an invasion of personal property, and then to use it for extortion is a real slap-in-the-face.
Have you read my journal today?
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?
Nope. Not really. Enviromental problems and the pollution that cuases them are more or less entirely the result of big buisness and thier blatant disregard for all that is good and decent. I'd like to see you try and be Right-wing AND be anti-corporate at the same time.
If anything, the theory of Man-made Global Warming is more like the Malthusian population theory. They're both doomsdays scenarios and they are both suppose to result from our sins.
What's up with all this BZZZing? Erik the Red's saga has a mythical explanation for the naming of Greenland. There are also alternate (even more mythical) explanations at other sources.
Ummm, no. You forget it was a literate society, they wrote everything down as it happened. I've read some of those stories in the orignal. They are quite boring in their detail. Now, there were obvious exagerations, but they aren't any worse than you're average NYT article if you accept they really did believe in sea monsters and such. Not so difficult to understand when you sail in a little boat and meet a whale.
What we do know for sure is that the climate was once such that Greenland could support a number of Viking settlers. However, the climate worsened, and they all starved a few centuries back.
They lasted nine years or less. They weren't growing wheat or anything. It's not so hard to believe their livestock ate the grass faster than it grew and they never fished enough to make up for it.
I grew up in Iceland where the orignal settlers chopped down all the trees usable for firewood in a few hundred years and then a huge portion of the population starved to death as the economy collapsed. It's both a good and bad example to us, because 1) we prolly won't wipe out humanity or anything 2) most of us will die.
Same with global warming, it's not gonna be the end of humanity. But disease will spread and people will die, big deal. It's the tale of life on earth.
ok, you may (still) not believe global warming is caused by humans (and, you probably never will)
but this article is *not* "alarmist" or any other buzz word you picked up watching the oreily factor.
these are real people, dealing with real consequences of global warming. period. dont like it? put your head back in the sand
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.
There's no way to summarize decades of detailed research in a short Slashdot post. Read the The summary of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Third Assessment report. It should provide you with plenty of non-anecdotal evidence.
The difference, of course, if you had read either of the links, is that the volcano gases aren't CFC's. What they tend to be are simpler compounds, like HCl. These can cause similar reactions that destroy ozone.
Tips and Tricks for Mozilla
This is a direct quote from the EPA volcano link I posted earlier. More sources can be found on this NASA page: Depletion Causes. Apparently the water vapor in the volcanic plume caused much (~99%) of the HCl to coalesce into water/acid droplets or freeze into ice crystals.
Tips and Tricks for Mozilla
What does it matter if the earth is warming up? If the world becomes less habitable, human population levels will recede to the correct levels. If you don't want to die, too bad you're going to die anyways. And so what about extinction. The dinosaurs are extinct and you don't hear people crying. And who knows what kind of grand lifeform would take over if humans were to extinct ourselves. The fact is, global nuclear war would not even destroy the bacteria living miles below the surface of the earth.
The fact is, while human beings are doing all the right things to ensure survival, the earth has gotten along fine for many eons, and will get along fine for many eons further despite
doomsayers.
Humans did not put life on this planet and they aren't able to take it away. If we kill the baby seals they will be replaced with something else, like head crabs.
Sure. Mt Erebus puts out carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and aerosols/particulate matter. There are also minor amounts of HCl, HF, and metals. No CFC's.
Tips and Tricks for Mozilla
Also, FWIW, Mt Erebus doesn't release a giant plume, like Pinatubo, or Mt St Helens. The gases released basically plummet out over the crater walls, and stay at sea level.
Tips and Tricks for Mozilla
You know what's really funny? I watched a speech Bush gave to a group of Spanish-Americans, and he didn't studder one bit! Crazy... he speaks better Spanish than English.
Jesus that is funny. Obviously you don't speak Spanish yourself.
Bush's Spanish is embarrassingly bad. I mean, if you think his English makes him look stupid, you should hear his Spanish. Whenever he says some Spanish they always show it on the news here in Spain. Translated back into English, he talks kind of like this:
"I is happy very to be in Spanish"
"You people is very good."
"Terrorism is a global bad thing."
It's like you ran his normal speak through Babelfish.
Environmental science is pretty damn complex. We don't have the statistical models and processing power to even predict tomorrows weather accurately. The scientists are basically throwing guesses around. Maybe global warming is caused by an increase of carbon-dioxide in the athmosphere. Maybe a sufficiently large amount of carbon-dioxide will have the exact opposite effect. What we do know is that Earth currently is in equilibrium. If the balance is disturbed, a new equilibrium will be found. Some scientists will say that this new balance just means malaria in Quebec and some new places to spend your vacation. The truth is, this is just a guess. It is also equally possible that the new balance means ice-covered landmasses and an athmosphere with 2% oxygen. Maybe I can sit alone on my ass in my Chevrolet Impala and drive to work every day, and keep the engine running when I stop at the McDonald's drive-in, and we'll all be alright anyway. Who knows? I for one though, am not willing to gamble with Mother Nature.
However, one has to be a zealous Bushist, in order to consider industrialization and increase in temperature happening at the same time to be a coincidence.
And how many billions of dollars is going to be wasted to deal with the consequences of a rising temperature on a global scale? Just ask Trans-Alaska Oil how much money they have wasted on dealing with disappearing perma-frost and then add it to the other expenses.
Why should we resist legislation (from democrats, communist or terrorists or from whining republicans) to make sure that Big Business does their part of the job to keep energy consumption and pollution production down? No legislation is just good for slackers in Big Business who don't want to "waste" their precious money on our common future. The only problem is that the extra money dirty companies saves, the rest of the community will have to pay back with rents. But I am sure that Bush has our common future in mind and not his crony friends when he wants to cut down on all that "restrictive legislation" connected with air pollution, strip mining, alska oil, Kyoto...
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
Yes it is possible. See: Hard Green: Saving the Environment from the Envrironmentalists a Conservative Manifesto by Peter Huber.
The author has an engineering degree from MIT and a law degree from Harvard. His engineering background comes through in the writing. Highly recommended reading, even if you are inclinded to disagree with it.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
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.
Methinks it's the Cray SX-6 that's heating up the state. But if it isn't, they will have more problems keeping it cool as the ambient temperature rises - we really need to take this problem seriously!
Money for nothing, pix for free
the pinatubo plume went up to 35 km, that sounds
like that would be way above the troposphere where
the precipitation would be effective at cleaning
out chlorine based materials.
The plume != The ozone-depleting chemicals - molecules such as HCl dissolve damn readily in any water present, and will have been washed out by rain or indeed any water vapour it finds on the way. The plume that extended that far up will have been other, non-water-soluble stuff.
CFCs are chlorofluorocarbons - chlorine and fluorine bonded to organic compounds. Not every chlorine- or fluorine- based compound is a CFC! CFCs are a very specific family of compounds that it's actually quite hard to make - requires bombardment with EM radiation (UV light I think) in rather controlled conditions if I remember correctly.
faggot, eurotrash. We're a#1, and you're just jealous. We laugh at the socialist, europeans. We are the wealthiest and the strongest. Bow before America eurocunt.
Your superiour education, style and culture shines through.
Americans seem to that that anyone who doesn't want to burn Yassar Arafat at the stake and bulldoze all Palestians into the sea is anti-semitic.
Have you read the Book by Art Bell & Whitney Stieber call "The Coming Global Superstorm"?m
Looks like it's starting.
www.artbell.com
www.unknowncountry.co
Geek Hillbilly
I guess he was actually in Marketing department, not R&D.
Whitley Striber writes some great stuff (WarDay for example is one of the best books I've ever read). He also wrote "Breakthrough", which is described as:
With the same curiosity, awe, and undeniable credibility, the author of the million-copy bestsellers Communion and Transformation again crosses barriers into the unknown and recounts his experiences with extraterrestrials, providing very compelling proof of their presence here on Earth.
Ya, this is THE person we need to listen to about Global Warming all right . . .
What were the people living there experiencing in 1200AD? 400AD? 400BC? 3000BC? In all of these times the temperature was WARMER than it is now!
Most scientists do not question that there is a warming trend presently active. Most do question that the cause is (predominently) man-made. The problem with the "global warming debate" is that this distiction is not made. This is extremely unfortunate because it has direct and immediate consequences as to what our options are and what our long-term strategies should be.
China may as well have, seeing as they are experiencing sustainable economic growth while reducing emissions
A study by scientists at the Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory in California concludes that China's C02 emissions are already 400 to 900 million tonnes below what was expected in 2000 which is approximately equivalent to all C02 emissions from Canada, at the low end of the range, or Germany, at the high end of the estimate. Press Release
"China has, despite economic growth estimated at 36%, managed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions by 17% since 1996/97" United Nations
Bit embarrassing that the US could take some lessons from China in how to achieve massive economic growth, while not screwing the planet, don't you think ?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. --Albert Einstein
Wasn't there once something called the Ice Age? Didn't it go away without human intervention? Maybe the dinosaurs farted C02.
I certainly think that we should be kind to the environment. I am against throwing more legislation at it when the current policies aren't being effectively enforced! Typical liberalism! "Well, the problem hasn't gone away, so lets make more rules! Throw more money at it! Yeah! That'll work!"
-- Craig "Kowboy" McDaniel
But they (should) be there in cases where someone's personal liberty is going to obstruct someone else's personal liberty.
I believe I said that. I said: In other words, the Liberatarian approach, do what you want, as long as it doesn't inhibit my doing what I want.
By the way, are you against all taxation or just Federal taxation? If so, why the difference?
Firstly, all taxation is "federal". But, I understand the question. Bascially, I personally am against all taxation unless required (such as to raise an army) though other methods should be sought out first (sell resources to foreigners).
When it is inevitable, taxes should be laid either, per capita, or as a sales tax. But not based on income. If I had the chance, I would repeal the sixteenth amendment.
Have you read my journal today?
Changes in global temperature couldn't possibly be due to things like ongoing cyclical climate fluctuations.
Obviously, environmentalists are always right.
Awww c'mon.
Nobody really buys this global warming horseshit anymore anyway.Temps go up and down.Averages change.Research makes findings to support both sides and discredit the other.meanwhile it still snows in the winter and burns my nose red in the summer.Time to move on to SOMETHING IMPORTANT.
So go put on your leathers,fire up the SUV.Go
fell some redwoods for the fireplace and nuke a whale for supper.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
You can look at the response of the climate in the past to relatively small pertubations. As has happened many times in the past. This does have the advantage of effectively running a full scale real time experiment, the only difference being the nature of the forcing factor.
People who argue against global warming invariably fail to discuss paleoclimate. Or fail to have any knowledge of the subject.
Carbon dioxide does warm the earth. If this were not the case, you would currently be sitting under several hundred meters of ice. Adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere will warm the earth; the question is how much and how quickly.
Recent numerical simulations of Arctic climate suggest that the recent Arctic ice melt (and generally warmer temperatures) may be caused by decadal variability, instead of (or, more likely, in addition to) a general warming trend. This cycle is about to switch, so that in the next ten years, the ice may reform and temperatures could drop. That is, until the cycle switches again, when ice melt and warming could come back with a vengance.
What does this mean for long term climate variability? It means it is much harder to detect permanent changes in climate when there is so much noise in the signal and so little data. It is important not to put too much stock on short term changes -- i.e., an unusually hot summer is not evidence of global warming, and global warming will not have stopped even if it gets cooler for ten years in a row.
They will have to change the name to not-so-perm-afrost.
Jon Thorharson wrote Eric's Saga in 1387. You've got a gap of several centuries of oral tradition there. Oral tradition is just another code word for 80% made up, of course.
I've read the same stuff. Yes they are boring. That doesn't make recitations of individual conversations from centuries back very accurate.
9 years? Yeah right, dumbass. Between 1124-26, Greenland became a diocese, for God's sake. We have written records all the way up to 1480-1500 where they disappeared (starved, we now know). That's 400 years of written records.
...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
First the conservatives said that global warming wasn't happening. Then they said that, sure, it's happening, but you stupid environmentalists don't realize that it's a totally natural process. I think it's simple. If the environmentalists are wrong, then we all pay a few bucks more for cars that are more efficient, or run on hydrogen, or behave in a way that makes us less dependent on foreign oil. If the conservatives are wrong, all life on earth dies a slow heat death with the total breakdown of the ecosphere, and the only interesting planet we're currently aware of goes down the tubes.
Conservatives better feel pretty fucking confident they're right, in my opinion.
If I remember correctly, the Kyoto protocol called for the United States to lower its emissions by eight percent, Europe to lower its emissions by seven percent, and Japan to lower its emissions by six percent (or something like that), and for the developing world to keep on pouring pollutants into the atmosphere.
Now, call me crazy, but having lived in America, Europe, and Japan, I don't think that the US is the most polluting country on Earth. Urban Japan (Osaka and Tokyo in particular) is a hell of a lot worse than any American city I've ever been to, with the possible exception of Los Angeles. And thanks to a government monopoly on leaded gas, the smog in Mexico is even more outrageous... and from what I've heard, breathing the air in Shanghai or Beijing is the equivalent of smoking two packs of unfiltered cigarettes a day.
So what's up with Kyoto? I believe that, like many other United Nations initiatives, it's an attempt to be an economic equalizer, to boost industrial development in Asia, Africa, and Latin America while hampering economic growth in the developed nations. Science and common sense both tell us that if implemented, it will do very little, if anything, to stop or even slow global warming.
A global ban on certain chemical emissions would do a much better job, but who's going to go with that idea? Certainly no state that emits those chemicals--i.e. every country in the world.
Right. That's because, again, volcanic gases aren't CFC's, and the volcanic gases get scrubbed out by rain before it ever reaches the stratosphere.
Tips and Tricks for Mozilla
Um, actually, they don't give a damn. You see, they won. Not only did they win, they won YEARS ago.
Now, when the next election pops up, they'll remember.
Ever hear the phrase "Sore Looser"?
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
Wow, this is like chum to shark infested waters ^__^
"There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why"
Global warming has only been a science of serious observation for - let's be generous - a century. I guess you can even say the experiment is still in progress since the only real world one that I know of is the Earth itself. Using an inconclusive "experiment" and a very, very, very small slice of history has created the theory of "Global Warming".
"The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced."
Oh, like cold fusion? Or data over AC? etc.. etc... History is rife with as many research failures as success. To say that "science" strives for anything is also inaccurate. People make up science and as we all know people have their own dreams, motivations and aspirations, some wholesome, some not some. And yes, these people even study under the broad label of science. Science is not nessisarily a well meaning entity that looks out for the good of humanity as you portray it to be. And since you mentioned that "good" science strives to ensure accuracy how can they even claim accuracy in a several million year old experiment that we've only seen and participated in one century of? tell me HOW they have even remotely REPRODUCED a fraction of this grand experiment? the most ambitious efforts that I know of have has been Biosphere 2 (a muddled failure) and another being built in England. If you have others that even remotely scratch the surface, then by all means...
"The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close."
No, let ME illustrate. being able to produce a result and actually knowing how it works are two entirely seperate things. Like Electrical Theory. Nobody can accurately explain quite a few aspects of what makes it work, but they can construct devices to use it. The same thing with your Relativity example, but even that's beside the point. You have far too few observable facts on a system that has been operating for far to long in which we are influencing to some degree. It's like popping your head into an hour long labratory experiment for one minute and forming your own conclusion based on that one minute. And you would still be ignoring the fact that this isn't the first time that the Earth has gone though warming and cooling trends. There's an observable result for you. Fossil record and sediment bountries support those numerous cycles of change, THEREFORE why can't it happen again?
You are right... Global warming because I said so or because it's a conspiracy ISN'T an argument, but neither are the "facts" supporting global warming given the conditions under which they have been obtained. None of the opponents of Global Warming are under the obligation to have to prove anything since it's "those other people" looking to bring about a massive change in economic, political and environental policy. It's like saying a meteor will hit the Earth tommorow and telling everybody else to prove you wrong. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You want to change the status quo? YOU CONVINCE US. You're obviously not doing a very good job.
Why is it wrong? See above.
Is there flaws in the data gathering? Plainly.
Do the theories not match the data? Pretty much.
If so, what is a better theory? Natural cycles, supported by sediment and fossile record.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
If anything, the theory of Man-made Global Warming is more like the Malthusian population theory. They're both doomsdays scenarios and they are both suppose to result from our sins.
True enough. Of course, the fact that Malthus' doomsday population explosion has not manifested itself as severely as he anticipated does not a priori invalidate his reasoning. Even if it did, there would be no logical connection between Malthus' theory and the factual truth of greenhouse gas warming of the Earth.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
I forgot to list geothermal, since you asked.
Until one of those elaborate, non-Soviet plants survives a destructive earthquake, attack, or other disaster, I don't think we will be able to quantify that at all.
I prefer fission to coal, but just barely.
This is the type of Anecdotal evidence that clinches my opinion that Global warming is a substitute religion of politicians and anti capitalists. Smart politicians love an issue that they uuuuse to instill fear. Machiavelli taught that fear was a better motivator of loyalty than love. Anti capitalists are naive people who have seen certain evil doings of powerful capitalists. Thus they think big government needs to come in and disarm them, allocate property, and quash individual freedom, liberty, and conflicting religion. There is no proof or strong scientific argument for Human caused global warming. The original computer model has already been revised downward several times in predictions of the amount of expected warming. There are natural sources of CO2 on Earth, much more powerful than Man. CO2 has increased, but remains at only around 2% of our atmoshpere. Increased CO2 causes more rapid growth of plant life on land and in oceans. This in turn helps rebalance CO2 becaus plants consume it. I am only an Engineer, not a scientist, but I think I know politics and junk science when I see them. I think that if there were ever an honest debate between some qualified individauls who also respond to questions, we would be able to move on to some real issues.
You've been duped by Rush. There are a few Rush fact checking websites that can provide some insight into this mistake.
Play Command HQ online
The economics of libertarianism is like high school physics. Everything is a sphere, and there is no friction.
Interesting. You only wrote a rebuttal for my post, and you conveniently forgot to write a rebuttal for the more ridiculous original post.
Spoken like a person who hasn't traveled much. Just visit a former communist country and take a look, will you? In the US, go find the nearest polluted wasteland, and take another good look. I'll bet that whatever kind of wasteland you'll find, it will public property. Granted there may have been a corporation doing the damage there, but a corporation will almost never destroy its own private property, they only destroy public property and they usually do that with the permission and the complicity of the government.
Alaskian (sic) Temps up, Canadians remarking about how hot it is
With due respect, even the staunchest advocates of belief in global warming admit that if it is occurring it is currently lost in the noise of current climate patterns. So none of the things you cite are relevant to the debate, and you only hurt your argument by citing them.
Don't forget that only two decades ago, the very same scientists now telling us about global warming were telling us about the terrible scourge of global cooling...
It's hard not to ignore the fact that Exxon-Mobile and the other oil companies are the ones who are REALLY in charge.
Yeah, that sneaky, sneaky Bush. He's not willing to throw away the US economy in pursuit of an ineffective `fix' to a problem which hasn't been convincingly shown to exist? Gee, he must be working for the oil companies.
Whatever...
Yes, but most of those are nations like Germany, which gets a free ride because Kyoto calls for reductions against 1990 emissions levels, and all the inneficient, pollution-heavy plants of East Germany were shut down in 1991, or China, which is not required to make any change by the treaty.
So I'm assuming that in calling Mr. Bush an idiot you are more accomplished then him? That you have an ivy-league MBA, have been a highly popular governor of a large state with a strong bipartisan following, and are currently enjoying 76% approval ratings?
You may thing Mr. Bush is an idiot. Luckily, 0.76 * 285,000,000 Americans know better...
Since climate may relate to any and all events in the past through chaos theory... Isn't the main problem that in order to proof any global climate theory in a (natural) scientific way, we would need to reproduce all events? Ie.: to proof that earth temparature rose over the last century due to human behaviour, we would need to:
1) Recreate all circumstances as thay were in 1902 - which we obviously can't do,
2) Reprocuce all events that happened since 1902 (including two world wars) - which we obviously don't want to do.
Now does that mean that climate research isn't science?