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."

Comments

you have got to be kidding me

[Edmund Blackadder]

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.

Re:you have got to be kidding me

[Wyatt Earp]

Wrong.

At this time, in the United State there is NOT a government mandated fuel consumption, and vehicles are increasing thier fuel efficentcy, not because of government mandates, but because the marketplace demands it.

Re:you have got to be kidding me

[Licinius]

At this time, in the United State there is NOT a government mandated fuel consumption, and vehicles are increasing thier fuel efficentcy, not because of government mandates, but because the marketplace demands it.

Yes, it does. It's called CAFE (corporate average fuel economy). It states that each manufacturer has to meet the standards CAFE sets, which is currently 27.5 miles per gallon (MPG) average for passenger cars, and 20.7 MPG for light-trucks (SUVs included). This means that for a certain model year, that manufacturer's fleet must average out to meet the CAFE standards. If they don't meet these standards they are liable for a civil penalty of 5.00 USD for each 0.1 MPG its fleet is below the standard, multiplied by the number of vehicles it produces.

Re:Local Warming != Global Warming

[Bob McCown]

Ever wonder why Greenland is called Greenland? Hint: it used to be a greener when they named it a few centuries back.

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.

Bring it on!

[DeadBugs]

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.

Re:Bring it on!

[LunaticLeo]

I would add to your list: Infrastructure. Railroads, cities, grainaries, irrigation, etcetra all specifically service geographic regions. Any shift in rainfall, rivers, temprature in the timeframe measured in decades will cause catastrophic economic and social impact. That is the lesson from this article.

Re:Bring it on!

[junkgrep]

No. Ice floats because, like all floating things, it displaces it's own weight in water. However, ice IS water. When floating ice melts, the water level stays exactly the same. Only ice melting off of LAND will cause a rise in the water levels.

Re:Bring it on!

[M-G]

But WTF does warning people not to go out in the sun and get skin cancer have to do with global warming?

Absolutely nothing. But it's amazing how many people out there think that global warming and thinning of the ozone layer are related concepts....then again, it shouldn't be too suprising...

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[Old Wolf]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[pubjames]

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?

Days of denial are over.

[autopr0n]

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.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[GigsVT]

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".

Re:Days of denial are over.

[dimator]

Funny observation #1: A serious, thoughtful post, signatured with a pr0n link.

Funny observation #2: You have two thoughts that start with "Finally," neither of which is the last.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[__aawsxp7741]

As the AC said, no one has produced any evidence at all that we are having an effect.

This is bullshit. There might not be enough evidence to convince everybody (or even most people), but some is certainly there. You can't deny that during the last century, both the production of various waste gases and global temperature have risen.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[bashibazouk]

Why is it when ever one of these "there is no evidence for global warming" posts pop up there is NEVER any proper debunking? There have been many studies on global warming, pick one and (this is the hard part) using logic, debunk it.

Why is it wrong?

Is there flaws in the data gathering?

Do the theories not match the data?

If so, what is a better theory?

There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why. The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced. Researchers caught fudging data fall from grace and have a very hard time being taken seriously again. The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close.

To illustrate: the theory of relativity has never been "proven" 100%. It has seen lots of minor changes and some major competing ideas. But the science behind it have made some pretty impressive bombs, yes? Should we ever have some form of unified theory, I would guess major parts of the theory of relativity will be part of it, some will be fine tuned, some will be found completely wrong.

The usual "global warming is wrong because I say so" is NOT an argument. "global warming is just a left wing plot" is NOT an argument.

If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!

Your assertion that there is no evidence of global warming is total BS. There are many, many studies full of evidence that something is happening and well thought out reasons for linking them to the idea of global warming. They could be wrong. That is possible, but to say so without a good argument or referring to a good argument is nothing more than ideological posturing and should not be taken seriously.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[ipfwadm]

Why would the burdon of proof be on me? I can't prove a negative...

Because if you're making an assertion, the burden of proving your assertion is on you. Just because your assertion happens to be a negative doesn't mean that you suddenly don't have to back up your argument.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Qrlx]

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.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[mesocyclone]

First, a note to moderators. The last time I tried an informative post on this topic, it was modded as a troll (although it ended up a 5 troll somehow). This post is an attempt to actually represent the opposing position, with an editorial at the bottom discussing the implications of current politics on this...

anyway... to respond to the previous poster..

You ask why it [the theory of global warming] is wrong. First of all, there is the issue of why it has to be wrong, as opposed to not proven. But let me at least throw some doubt on the science:

1) Much of the data is indeed flawed. It is riddled with assumptions and inconsistencies. It depends on long chains of assumptions. For example, sea temperature data has been inferred from characteristics of coral growth. And yet just in the last month a paper was published (Science) showing that the coral growth is significantly affected by other factors, blowing away that assumption. Tree rings are used as a substitute for temperature or precipitation data, but have been shown to be unreliable in many cases. Other data is significantly contaminated - I am using one such data set right now.

Refusal to accept that mankind CO2 is responsible for all or most of the warming we see is not the same as evolution denial, because the weight of evidence for evolution is enormous and rapidly growing. OTOH, the evidence of the effects of the human produced increase in CO2 is poor. It is based on poor data; good data is over too short a time period to be meaningful in a climate discussion; data may be contaminated by a number of factors (surface station urban heat island effect, for example), and even when known these contaminations are "adjusted" as best as possible.

2) Which "theory" are you referring to when you talk about global warming? As far as I know, the only theories are:
1) CO2 increases cause warming (trivial physics, but not a real hypothesis to test man-made global warming in this complex system).
2) Computer simulations show warming, and with enough tuning can sort-of match the past since temperature records were kept.

The latter is not a theory so much as a numerical computing based on known and unknown physics. However, if the predictions are accurate, who cares if it is a true theory or not? But one needs to understand the nature of climate models to understand the uncertainties. Let me list a few:

1. Resolution - due to computing limitations, the models have gross resolution, on the order of tens to hundred of kilometers on the surface and hundreds of meters in the atmosphere. Since weather, which is ultimately what is simulated (climate is the long term integral of weather), these problems are significant. The best known weather models in the world today are essentially useless beyond 5 days.
2. Parameterization - the physics of the atmosphere and the ocean are known very accurately on a small scale. But those physics do not scale well - it is like trying to predict a human from their genes... in theory you could do the simulation of the cells and proteins, etc... but you would never actually do so. Instead, one uses parameters to approximate effects that one does not want to compute. Thus one parameterizes the effect of topography, for example, because the model resolution does not allow actual representation of the details of topography. There are hundreds of the parameterizations.
3. Selection bias - models which predict the past are naturally selected. But with the large number of parameters, and the sensitivity of the models, it is pretty likely that some will approach an accurate forecast of the past. But that does not make them predictors of the future. To believe otherwise is to imagine that top stock pickers got that way because they can predict the market, when in fact they are just those selected that have a long run of luck!
4. Missing feedback - The system is unbelievably complex. For example, how does one simulate the response of the earth's biology to climate change, or even to CO2 concentration change? How much does this affect the resulting climate (hint - potentially a whole lot)> There are lots of other complex subsystems that also cannot be modeled.

As far as competing theories, how about changes in solar irradiance? Evidence that this is a significant climate forcer has become undeniable recently. This doesn't mean that the global warming hypothesis is wrong, but it certainly means that it *was* wrong in its mechanisms.

On another vein, modeling relies upon estimates of atmospheric CO2 dynamics and yet we still can't account for about 30% of the CO2 disappearance from the atmosphere. This is a huge uncertainty.

The burden of proof of a theory is on the proposer. Science works by constant refinement of theories, and outright refutation of some.

3)It is not necessary to propose a better theory to disprove, or more importantly, cast doubt upon an existing theory. Science does not require that! One could have refuted Newtonian physics by detecting gravitational lensing, without having any idea what caused the gravitational lensing!

4) Casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming does not make one a nut. True, there are nuts who cast doubt on it. And there are prople who tend to doubt it based on their political leanings, just as there are people who tend to support it based on their own political leanings.

To gather from the hysterical reporting (each event of something warmer is reported as "casting more evidence for global warming" or something stronger), I would suspect there are more of the latter than the former.

A truly scientific viewpoint is that the earth has warmed about a degree in the last 100 or so years, but that the links between that warming and human activity are insufficient to establish a strong cause-and-effect relationship. Thus one should suspect that anthropogenic CO2 may contribute to warming, but not conclude that it does.

Finally, to move on a little bit. Even if we accept that global warming is caused by humans, and that the (ever changing) climate models are providing an accurate forecast, there is a complete lack of critical thinking about what to do about it! For example, recently on here we had a debate about the Kyoto treaty. Few of the debaters realized that the best climate models (that are accepted by the IPCC and the treaty community) show that Kyoto would only retard warming by 6 years in 100 years (or in any year make a difference of a tiny fraction of a degree). And yet most advocates of doing something about global warming jump on the Kyoto bandwagon. Without the (hidden from most of the public) agenda that Kyoto is only the start of significantly more onerous and costly measures, this is completely illogical.

Equally illogical is the resistance of the global warmists (if I can coin a term) to measures that might be taken to ameliorate the negative effects and maximize benefits from the positive effects of the putative warming. This trend illustrates a strong ideological agenda - a strong bias towards forcing solutions upon unwilling mankind without a real cost-benefit analysis.

Finally, what is really illogical is the idea that we, as the people currently on earth, can do much about global warming. We have already seen that the US will not sign onto a basically symbolic (if expensive) measure: Kyoto. We must know that more significant measures will face much stronger resistance. We excuse China and India from Kyoto and yet somehow in the next 100 years imagine that they will not make up for the CO2 emissions reduced by Kyoto.

We have the arrogance (or some do) to believe that we can change the behavior of mankind, against the near and medium term benefit of most, and maintain that change for 100 years. I have seen no evidence that humans are better behaved now than they were 100 years ago, when people were then postulating utopian ideas (before WW-I, WW-II, Soviet Communism, Einstein's theories and the consequences, etc).

Even worse, we have the arrogance to assume that we should punish people today in the blind assumption that those in the future will not come up with technologies that will make the whole issue moot! Amazingly, this is even strong here on this board where most of the participants have been involved in remarkable technological transformation over short periods of time.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[thales]

"If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!"

The debate isn't IF global warming is occuring, It's the cause of the warming. The burden of proof lays on those who claim that humans are responsible.

There are facts that contradict the "humans cause global warming" assertion of the neo-ludites.

The average Global tempature is lower than it was 700 years ago. At that time wine was produced in areas of England where grape cultivation is impossible today. The Vikings had a thriving colony in Greenland. Some crops were grown in higher elevations in Europe than are possible today.

This warm period was ended by the little Ice Age which saw a period of global cooling. There is also evidance for a similar period of cooling near the end of the Roman Empire though it isn't as well documented that preceded the Medeval warming period.

The historic periods of warming and cooling preceded the industrial era and are certainly natural. The present warming may be no more than a natural end to the natural cooling period that started about 650 years ago, and the fact that tempatures are still lower than they were between 1000 and around 1350 points seems to show that we still haven't recovered from the global cooling.

The biggest falicy of the neo-ludite views on global warming is that the tempature at the start of the Industrial period was "normal" rather than just another period in the long cycle of natural warming and cooling eras.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[g4dget]

You are wrong when you say that there is no evidence for global warming caused by human activity. There is absolutely no doubt that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased because human activity, and it is clear that that must lead to an increase in the temperature. The only question is how large that will be, whether its effects will be mild or devastating, and who will pay the price.

But more importantly, the judgement shouldn't be up to you or whoever benefits from a risky activity, it should be up to the people who bear the risk. When you masturbate, you yourself may or may not end up needing glasses. That's for you to work out. But when you belch out CO2, others potentially pay the cost. I don't benefit from your SUV, I only incur risks. The Netherlands or Bangladesh don't benefit from the US's idiotic energy policy, they just risk being drowned.

A lot of US and European wealth is based on externalizing their costs. This has got to stop in the long run.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[banuaba]

Everybody repeat after me.

Commonality
Does Not
Equal
Causality.

Please stop being retarded, thanks.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Dun Malg]

and what are the effects of man-destroyed "sinks" for CO2 (rainforest, plankton, etc.) These aren't easy questions to answer.


Actually, these are easy questions to answer. The higher the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, the better plants grow. So the more we diminish CO2 sinks in one area, the faster they grow in another. It's a fairly well balanced syste-- 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.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Dun Malg]

shoe fits, quacks like a duck, etc...

Re:Days of denial are over.

[mesocyclone]

After going through a laundry list of possible flaws and weakness in the anthropogenic (cool word b.t.w.) global warming hypothesis you conclude that a competing hypothesis (of course you donâ(TM)t examine any of its weaknesses) must be true. The influence of irradiance has pretty good evidence behind it. It is not, however, my hypothesis, much less conclusion, that this is responsible for all of the warming. It is simply an example of contrary evidence that has arisen since the global warming hysteria really got going. It merely illustrates that part of the model was wrong (since it didn't take that into account). And I threw it in as one example of the many unknowns that make the anthropogenic global warming theory (I use that word you like so much because to mention global warming without it is incorrect) weak. It is interesting that you also bring up Kyoto as what a symbol. "A signal..." I can think of less disruptive ways of sending such signals that to impose governmental restrictions on all sorts of energy using activities, without having any significant effect on the supposed problem. I would call that a signal that the parts of the world are willing to do illogical and unfair things in order to send a message. Pretty odd IMHO. The main thing that the US not signing on does is get the Europeans off the hook, because they knew all along we wouldn't sign on to this. If we did, Europe and the US would hurt economically, while we exported as much CO2 production as possible to the majority of the world where they are exempt from the silly rules. Of course, another way of looking at Kyoto is as a Trojan horse. Given that 90 or 95% of those in favor of Kyoto have no idea that it is totally ineffectual in reducing global warming, it would be fair to say that this is a way to sneak them into a much more painful regime. Sort of like raising taxes out into the future. It is terribly dishonest.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[mesocyclone]

The real PROBLEM here is the media garbling the messages the climatologists really want to give out

While I agree that this is a problem, the "real problem" is the politicos and environmental activists who have taken this scientific conjecture and treated as cut and dried, and used it to increase the donations to their organizations; and, the leftists who have a remarkable ability to find reasons to increase the power of government.

Without the politicians and the activists, global warming would be an occasional article in a science review area of the popular press, not constant hysterical headlines.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Tony-A]

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.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[cybercuzco]

For example, sea temperature data has been inferred from characteristics of coral growth

Sea temperature is measured by satellite, not by inferring from coral growth. A correllation may be seen between coral growth and sea surface temperature, but the temperature is not measured by looking at the growth. See this NOAA site

2) Which "theory" are you referring to when you talk about global warming? As far as I know, the only theories are:
1) CO2 increases cause warming (trivial physics, but not a real hypothesis to test man-made global warming in this complex system).
2) Computer simulations show warming, and with enough tuning can sort-of match the past since temperature records were kept.

Number 2 (computer simulations) Isnt a hypothesis, or a theory, it is an attempt to verify the global warming hypothisis that you state in 1. A computer simulation is not a hypothesis in any case.

So really were only arguing about 1. Does an increase in Co2 decrease the rate of heat radiated by the planet. Thats the question. Does CO2 trap heat? Your alternative hypothesies, solar irradiation etc, may or may not be true. If solar variability is true, then that will contribute to an overall warming effect. Regardless we know one simple fact that cannot be disputed: CO2 traps heat. If it werent for some CO2 wed be living in an icebox. CO2 allows for liquid water, which then takes over as the dominant greenhouse gas. An increase in CO2 can therefore be assumed to increase the amount of heat trapped by the earths atmosphere, since CO2 has been doing that since the beginning of time. Regardless of any other causes to global warming, increasing CO2=Increasing trapped heat. So you may be right and solar variability may be a factor, granted, but this does not negate the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. In fact it makes controlling CO2 even more vital, since we have to compensate for solar variations as well as human caused effects.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[T.E.D.]

Why is it when ever one of these "there is no evidence for global warming" posts pop up there is NEVER any proper debunking? There have been many studies on global warming, pick one and (this is the hard part) using logic, debunk it.

The main problem here isn't that there is no evidence of a warming over the last few years; there's plenty of that. The problem is that earth's climate was not stable before man ever got here. We'd be quite naieve to expect it to suddenly start staying stable now for us. Given that, there's some, but not enough, proof of a causal relationship between anything we are doing and any short-term temperature changes we might be seeing.

Not that I'm saying I don't buy into the theory that we are causing climate changes. I do. But the evidence is just not all in to say its proven.

I'm also not convinced that we have the consensus we need to start trying to do things about it. Perhaps we have been inadvertantly modifying the earth's climate, but I'm not convinced we should go around purposely modifying it to keep it stable. Its possible that right now we are just in the warming interval between a couple of ice ages. Would it be right for us to prevent the next one when it starts back up (by purposely pumping out massive quatities of CO2 or whatever)? Perhaps climate changes are earth's natural way of "spring cleaning" its species.

The Mississippi river is a good example of this principle. We are spending millions in the US each year to keep it in its banks. Left to its own devices, it used to move around quite a bit, and this was healthy for it in many ways. But its been trying to move its mouth west for decades, and we are preventing it because of the inconvienence that would cause us humans. Howver, the more we work to prevent it, the harder it tries to move, and the more effort we have to spend to keep it there.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Archie Steel]

The burden of proof is on those who deny that human activity is having an effect on global warming for two reasons: first, atmospheric science has given us a model that seems to indicate that it does - it's not 100% proof, but it is a sound model. Second, the collective risk is so high (and the material costs, as shown in the Alaska story, quite high) that we cannot afford to take the chance that the models are possibly wrong. So if you can prove that the models are wrong, fine - but until then, I insist that my elected representative act as if they were right. In any case, as China has proven, it is possible to cut your carbon emissions while improving your economy, so that shouldn't be an argument (except for those with stocks in the petrochemical industry...)

Paradoxically, the only way one could really prove that carbon emissions have nothing to do with global warming would be by severely reducing those emissions and then realizing that the warming is still taking place...And for those who try to delude themselves into thinking that this change might be natural: study of temperature variations from polar ice samples show that climate has never changed at such a quick pace over a span of a 100 years as it does now, and that's for the past 100,000 years!

All this because you want to keep driving to SUVs...

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Jeppe Salvesen]

I quit reading this comment pretty quickly. CO2 is not the only greenhouse gas. I am slightly worried.

Methane, water and CFCs are all greenhouse gases (CFCs also eat ozone). CO2 emissions have risen along with the temperature, and burning fossil fuel is reintroducing carbon that was originally taken out of circulation.

To argue that our CO2 does not account for much, is folly. If you take a finely balanced old-fashioned weight with a few thousand pounds on it, and add just a few ounces, you'll see what we're doing right now.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[T.E.D.]

A truly scientific viewpoint is that the earth has warmed about a degree in the last 100 or so years, but that the links between that warming and human activity are insufficient to establish a strong cause-and-effect relationship. Thus one should suspect that anthropogenic CO2 may contribute to warming, but not conclude that it does.

Right. I happen to believe we had something to do with this, but that certianly isn't proven. This level of temperature change isn't even unique to history. Witness the "Little Ice Age" of the early renisance period. Global temperatures were estimated to have dropped by a couple of degrees then, which is at least double what we are going through right now (and in a worse direction). This caused crop failures all over the world, as well as quite a few history changing effects (eg: The climate changes favored the Innuit enough that they ended up wiping out the Norse settlements in North America and Greenland, despite the fact that the Norse had iron, and the Innuit did not, setting back European coloziation of N. America by roughly 400 years). A good page on this is at http://www.vehiclechoice.org/climate/cutler.html

Unfoutunately for climatologists, the "human intervention" scapegoat isn't available for pre-industrial climate changes like this. So they have to look at all sorts of other climate-changing mechanisims. But if such mechanisms could do it then, they can just as easily be doing the same thing now.

We just don't know enough about the climate to say anything is proven at this point.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[GigsVT]

All this because you want to keep driving to SUVs...

Don't make assumptions. I own an electric bike. I'm installing an alternative energy system in my house within the next few years, with a solar trickle charge (It won't be for primary power, but hey, it's a start). Be careful with assumptions. Just because I don't believe causation has been established in global warming, doesn't mean I think pollution and alternative energy research doesn't matter.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[ink]

An increase in CO2 can therefore be assumed to increase the amount of heat trapped by the earths atmosphere, since CO2 has been doing that since the beginning of time.

Then why don't satellites show a net change of external energy input and output over the past 20 years? There are studies which show that no net changes are observed, and other studies which detail that surface temperature changes are not uniform, as you would expect CO2 to be; but rather, may be more due to urban concrete heat sinks and soot. Global warming is happening, and we may indeed be able to do something about it and/or be causing it -- but let's make sure we're addressing the proper issue before jumping into anything.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[anonymous loser]

Perhaps he is referring to historical (i.e. before satellites existed) temperature data.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[cybercuzco]

Then why don't satellites show a net change of external energy input and output over the past 20 years?

Because the only external source of energy input is the sun, which is relatively constant, unless you buy the solar variability hypothesis. I think you mean why has there been no evidence of an increase in trapped energy.

surface temperature changes are not uniform, as you would expect CO2 to be;

Why would you expect CO2 to result in a uniform temperature increase? When have temperature increases and decreases ever been uniform over the entire planet? Some places get hotter and colder than others based on variable weather patterns. You need to look at average temperature data taken over the entire planet, which shows that the last decade was the warmest on record.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[jonabbey]

That junkscience.com article is hardly persuasive. He cites one or two scientists and studies and uses them to cheerlead for his personal view of political reality, while offhandedly dismissing any widely held opinions which are not so convenient for him.

Millroy's argument seems to be that we don't know enough about global warming, so therefore scientists who claim there is a problem are full of crap and that we shouldn't do anything risky, like anything at all other than perhaps right-wing political feel-good voluntary recommendations.

If the science isn't certain, fine, why not do more science? But presenting science through an anti-regulation filter doesn't do anything to improve the science, however much pointing out flaws or assumptions may helpfully bring about greater skepticism generally.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[mesocyclone]

Okay, but it would be nice if your hypothesis would come with some falsifiable tests that distinguish it from the prediction of man made global warming - like it is not going to become hotter, wetter etc. and/or the recent increases will revert soon. The man-made global warming hypothesis was put forth in seventies (after the immediate thread of glaciation went out fashion) and its predictions seem to hold brilliantly up to now. Even you donâ(TM)t seem to dispute this.

Exactly *which* of the hundreds of global warming predictions are you referring to? And even global warming proponents are too careful in their science to take a 20 year period as being in the slightest bit meaningful in this issue.

I guess you mean that the earth has warmed in the last 150 years. Yes, I accept that. Of course, the fact that we have been coming out of the little ice age, and are not yet up to the temperatures of even historic past, would tend to indicate that perhaps the climate was warming anyway. There is NO evidence of human effects on global warming. The time series is just too short.

Of course, one could look at the graphs of CO2 levels vs. the warming. Then one would see that a whole lot of the warming took place *before* the bulk of the CO2 was released, and that we had cooling for several decades after that.

As far as falsifiable tests go... would you care to suggest tests for the anthropogenic theories? I haven't seen any yet. The whole problem with global warming policy is that it is based on global warming conjectures, which cannot be falsified any more than they can be proven, because the time scale of data is too small.

So what, a variation in the solar irradiance is current the prime suspect for the medial warming period. This does not change the fact that the vast majority of climate scientist seem to favor the anthropogenic global warming theory.>/i>

I challenge your last sentence. The vast majority of climate scientist favor the hypothesis that the earth has been warming. That is a far cry from them favoring the anthropogenic theory. And also, scientific truth is hardly a majority issue. After all, the vast majority if geologists resisted the continental drift theory for many years, until the evidence became overwhelming.

There already are signification restriction on the use of energy in Europe, Japan and some in the US. In the aftermath of the oil embargo of the seventies, Europe and Japan implemented polices to reduce their fatal dependency on foreign oil imports. As a consequence their use of energy per capita is roughly half of an US citizen. Granted there are many reasons for the latter fact but the lack of a political will to reign in energy consumption is a major component.

Sure is. Another way to put it is that Americans are more dependent on energy because we have much greater distances to travel. And furthermore, we are less dependent on Arab oil than Europeans are, so energy reduction is less important. Finally, as indicated by American's choice of relatively safe SUV's (at much greater cost) over relatively unsafe fuel efficient vehicles, we are more likely to put personal safety ahead of vague predictions by politicians.

Personally I doubt that the US economy would to be doing much worse if its citizenry would be driving smaller more energy efficient cars in stead of gas gosling SUVs.
The fuel economy standards are estimated to cost 2000 - 3500 American lives per year directly in reduced auto safety. This estimate is from the National Research Council, a pretty good source. Personally, I think Europeans should feel free to tax their citizens on gasoline, and the citizens should feel free to buy those tiny little gadgets you guys call automobiles. They fit better in your tiny little streets ( a historical artifact).

But see below...

Your last assertion is pure fiction. Europeans were genuinely surprised and upset that the US strongly turned against a treaty that in large part was brain child of the Clinton administration â" however I grand that some of the signing states are secretly gleeful that the whole Kyoto thing fell through.

European citizens may have been surprised, but European governments were not surprised.

However there is a role of the government in imposing restrictions on economic activities when the actual costs are hidden or unknown.

I would argue that such conditions are one of the few cases where government economic intervention is justified.

Your evidence how such a decision would influence a complex system like the World economy twenty years down the road is certainly on much shaggier ground than current climate models.
Not hardly - we have a lot more experience watching the response of economies to coercion than we do watching the climate response to trace gas changes. BTW.... the UN IPCC had forecasts of the economic impact of Kyoto, and they were substantial (although later drafts left it out).

Now what about lowering taxes based on a trillion dollars budget surplus prediction? Imo a prototypical example of the voodoo science coming out of conservative think-tanks sponsoring the majority of studies refuting the anthropogenic global warming theory.

I note you fail to address the silliness of Kyoto by itself. That is wise, because the *only* defense of Kyoto is that it would be a first step that would have only symbolic value, but maybe somehow would cause societies to enter into more onerous treaties in the future.

Regarding lowering taxes and budget surplusses... lowering taxes in general is a good idea when they take an unprecedented proportion of the GDP at the same time that defense costs are the lowest in a decade in the world's only superpower. Budget surplus predictions, which BTW came from the left AND the right, are of course almost as difficult as climate predictions. However, I would point out that the left, not conservatives, were very happy to spend that very same surplus... except they spent it on government programs instead of tax reform.

To address the "voodoo science" about conservative think-tanks sponsoring anti-global warming studies... Where do you get that information? Almost all climate science is sponsored by the government. It is true that under the Clinton administration, climatologists were much more likely to get grants for studies likely to confirm global warming than those likely to refute it. But my arguments against global warming hardly come from conservative think tanks, and it is just plain silly to argue so.

If you can't look at the primary information; if you don't understand the difficulties of climate prediction; if you don't understand the folly of making predictions of slow systems based on short term data, then you may have to rely on think tanks to boil the issue down for you. I don't have those handicaps.

Re:Days of denial are over.

[mesocyclone]

In principle it is only one prediction: The average global temperature will rise, the plural referring to increased average measured temperate of normal weather stations, oceanianic temperatures the raise of global sea-level, the reduction of glaciers, the increase of deserts⦠.

This is not a test of anthropogenic global warming, because it does not distinguish between natural and man-made causes.


Uh, I must have been living in a left turning universe? For one thing SUVâ(TM)s are an obvious menace for regular cars consequently some insurances will ask for higher premiums, disregarding the fact that SUVâ(TM)s are involved in fewer accidents, and the picture for the passengers of SUVâ(TM)s themselves isnâ(TM)t all that rosy either. Until recently SUVâ(TM)s were classified as light weight trucks which allowed for cutting corners on the more stringed security regulating for normal passenger cars. The main SUV safety issue was their rigid frame leading to an immediate and unhealthy deceleration of its unfortunate passengers.

The extra insurance cost is because insurance companies pay much more money on liability claims than on collision and medical. Yes, in a collision, the SUV is more likely to cause injuries than have injuries in it. Guess where I want MY family. Nonetheless, you are missing the analysis of the NRC which directly attributes a huge death toll to fuel efficiency standards. They don't blame SUV's, they blame small cars.

My SUV has not only frontal airbags, but driver side airbags, engineered crumple points, and a zillion other safety features. They are still classified as light trucks for fuel conservation measures (they are exempt from CAFE) but when people buy for safety, they don't buy SUV's with no safety features! This is simply the market responding to a desire for safety - the SUV's are getting plenty safe, even if the government doesn't mandate it (this must come as a shock to those who live on the left side of the universe - safety improvements without government mandates).

As far as rapidly decelerating passengers... mine seems to be just fine. Engineered crumple zones in front, but a rigid frame around the passengers. Sounds like good enigneering to me. And because the vehicle is large and not subject to CAFE, it can have a lot more strength in that frame. In general, the ratio of mass of the vehicle to mass of its passengers is important, in addition to the ratio of the mass of the vehicle to the mass of what it collides with. The SUV wins in both categories.

Come on there were plenty of people pointing the obvious: It is not a good idea to base a tax cut on a projected budget surplus which, in ten years down the road, might or might not materialize.
If that were all it were based on, you would be right. But it is equally a bad idea to base ANY tax policy on such a scenario. There are three basic tax policies in any given year: increase them, leave them the same, lower them. Your criticism applies exactly the same to all three. Given that, it is meaningless!

The ``voodoo scienceâ(TM)â(TM) was obviously mend polemic and based on my personal left leaning biases. Your impression that I cannot understand at least some of the difficulties of climate predictions is probably wrong (I hope didnâ(TM)t get a Ph.D. in Math for nothing) but it is obviously impossible for me to competently judge the iffy issues.

Obviously my response was an equivalent polemic to your voodoo science polemic, and your implication that my opinions come from conservative think tanks.

Thanks for the reference on the history of the politics of research. It is indeed interesting. BTW... some of my friends in the climate community have been afraid to express their contrarian opinions because they were afraid of losing funding... this due to the Clinton Administrations politicization of the science. Other friends in the agricultural area were unable to get funding to research the CO2 effects on crop growth after previous research showed, not surprisingly, that the CO2 increases caused major improvements in crop growth. Also not covered here is the experience of yet another acquaintance in the area, who is an outspoken anti-global warming advocate with his own research foundation. He found a rapid drop in energy industry demand for his services (as a spokesman, speaker, etc) as various companies discovered that they could profit from the market disruptions to be caused by Kyoto.

Last but not least I do think that implementing the Kyoto accord in itself has only symbolic value. Your point of view seems to be that it would have led to compliancy and that would have been enormously costly for the US economy. I am doubtful about either claim, what really worries me is the message send by the US-refusal to ratify the accord.

No, my point of view is that the costs, which are major, would be to no purpose, because Kyoto itself will have result in no significant improvement in climate - if you use the numbers provided by its own supporters! In fact, the models show only a .15C decrease in resulting temperatures in 2000, which is so small that it would be undetectable due to the larger noise in the system. Thus, Kyoto is completely silly unless it is seen as a first step towards more drastic, and more expensive responses. Since the latter is admitted by Kyoto advocates, but hidden entirely from the US public in the debate (which is not nearly as balanced as implied by the history you presented), it is a strong argument that Kyoto is merely a trojan horse.

As far as I am concerned, the message that the US sends is that it will not bind itself to global initiatives that:

1 - are expensive but ineffective

and

2 - have gross disparities in the sacrifices required by different nations

In other words, I believe that the US sends a message that in this case it will not sign on to folly. I think that is a good message.

If you can convince me that Kyoto is not folly in itself, then I would reconsider.

BTW... In addition to being enormously expensive, Kyoto depends on global compliance for 100 years to achieve its negligible effect. This compliance is somehow supposed to magically happen even though we have no global police force, and in the face of rapidly changing technology and a very unstable world situation. Given the history of the last 100 years, this is really silly!

Re:Days of denial are over.

[Archie Steel]

I agree: because you can't disprove something doesn't mean that it's true, of course. However, when confronted with probabilities of an existing danger, even though there is nothing that proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that the danger is real, the wise man takes precaution to lessen the potential for danger - unless someone can prove that the danger doesn't exist.

Now, as far as global warming goes, we have:

• One of the highest rate of temperature increase in history, including from deep measures in the Greenland ice shelf
• Increased carbon emissions due to industrialization
• Science experiments and computer models that show carbon gases can act as a greenhouse, trapping heat inside the atmosphere

So we don't have definite proof, but a collection of facts that points to a possible human-influenced warming of the global climate. This is not a murder trial, there is no need to provide proof beyond reasonable doubt. Anyway, the money spent on solving the problem won't be lost in a vaccuum: part of it will go in salaries (and, unlike the Missile Defense project, against another hypothetical threat, this one will actually improve our living environments). The negative effect on the economy is both overstated and misleading, while the potential effect of doing nothing could be disastrous.

I find it ironic that many in the U.S. are ready to spend billions on bombing Saddam Hussein over a perceived threat, to which there is no conclusive evidence (i.e. that he would use weapons of mass destruction on the U.S.) while at the same time refusing to spend similar amounts of money (in a much sounder way, from an economic point of view) in order to prevent another perceived threat, whose consequences could be far worse.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[pubjames]

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.

Re:Argh!

[pubjames]

It's amazing how much our leaders don't get it.

Your leader. Your leader doesn't get it.

You are in denial

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

Re:I live in Alberta

[TMLink]

How long till the masses realize climate is long term?

Exactly. And how many years of good data do we have on the earth's climate? 150? 200? So who can say for sure the reasons for Global Warming.

The temperature is increasing...but does that mean we're heading for disaster, or is this the earth working as it always has?

Re:what is wrong with you people

[taxman_10m]

In other parts of the country we have a term for the time when the ice melts and everything thaws: spring. It sucks, really it does.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[nomadic]

More than half, actually, though the wingnuts in the White House are desperately hoping people will forget that...

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[nomadic]

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..."

What, no potshot against evolution?

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Eric the viking anyone?

[daniel2000]

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.

Obvious!

[Cally]

Whatever the cause, temperatures in Alaska have risen by seven degrees in the last 30 years.

Why, isn't it obvious?

• The sun's natural variations in output cause fluctuating temperatures here on earth;
  
• Temperatures have gone up and down many times in the last few thousand years, regardless;
  
• Scientists said we were heading for a mini-ice age opnly fifty years ago!
  
• It's within the bounds of natural variation
  
• It's all the fault of those pesky Indians and Chinese. Goddam those anti-american creeps!
  
• It's a conspiracy by the World Bank / the interantional Jewish rulers / the freemasons /the Euro-weenies/ economic competitors to the United States / the UN / the World Bank
  

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}!

Re:Obvious!

[Sycraft-fu]

It is amazing to me that such baltant, uninformed trolling, gets moderated up as insightful. A Brief response:

The reason that many scientists do not accept that the global temperature rise is cause by increased CO2 levels due to human activity is because there is insufficient evidience. Remember one of the first things they teach you about doing research: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. The corelation part has been shown beyond a reasonable doubt. Humans have released much CO2 into the atmosphere and the average global temperature has risen. However there is not even NEAR enough evidence to say that the CO2 rise is responable for the temperature rise. This does not mean we should reject the hypothesis, however stronger evidence needs to be presented before it can be accept as fact.

In real science, you can't just go off proclaiming something as truth because there is a little evidence, a correlation, or because it "sounds right". You have to prove, according to the method of strong inference, that there is sufficient evidence to accept your hypothesis, no other hypothesis that is equally or more possable and no evidence to the contrary.

Unfortunately many people these days seem to accept a correlation as absolute proof of causation. We've seen this with the crusade against violent video games. There is a correlation (though not a real strong one) between playing violent video games and exhibiting violent behaviour. Many people have then instantly assumed that this means that violent video games CAUSE violent behaviour, which just isn't true.

Finding correlations in the world is easy, the hard part is figuring out what they mean. Sometimes it is because one thing causes the other, sometimes it is because a thrid factor infulences or causes both, sometimes it is just a conincidence.

I'll say it again, correlation does not imply causation and thus far theo only thing that has been proven in relation to CO2 and global warming is correlation, not causation.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[Chacham]

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.

Could the Sun Be the Culprit?

[Louis Savain]

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.

Re:I live in Alberta

[Anomolous Cow Herd]

You're wrong, of course. Water expands when it freezes. This is goes against your general rule citing the relationship between volume and temperature.

Water is at its densest at about 4 degrees celsius.

"Whatever the cause..."

[Logic Bomb]

Whatever the cause, temperatures in Alaska have risen by seven degrees in the last 30 years.

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".

Re:"Whatever the cause..."

[Edmund Blackadder]

well thats easy all you have to do is check whether the temp incresed in a similar way the previous 30 years. and then the thirty years before that.

I dont know the data for alaska but similar data for the world says thats not true.

Re:I live in Alberta

[EvilAlien]

Ya, me too... and I would like to know where you get the facts to support your claims.

<humor>Unless you experienced a vastly different winter than I did, I'd say getting warming is a good thing. Sucks for Alaska tho =)</humor>

As for actual scientific support for the assertion that our society's fossil fuel use is "warming the planet", I'd sure like to see some. If I'm expected to take it all on faith, I won't. I didn't ignore the bits in science class where they talk about climatic change cycles, so I'm not convinced. I don't see these effects you refer to, every day or any day, and unless you have a Ph.D. or three in whatever it takes to be an expert in global climatic change, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that you see alleged effects due to global warming.

Of course, you could argue that it is in our best interests to find an alternative for a non-renewable resource. I would probably agree with that, because it is a logical idea, and therefore has merit. There are facts to support the assertion that these resources are non-renewable. If you want to push the idea that we should change our habits "just in case the global warming theory is correct", I would say thats akin to agnosticism... "better sorta believe in a god just in case he/she/it is real... wouldn't want to go to hell"... go read Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Interview with Douglas Adams.

However, I suspect your views are merely formulated to support an anti-free market political stance, in which case you might have more luck in Eastern Canada or in BC. I don't see Alberta embracing socialism any time soon.

Re:I live in Alberta

[YU Nicks NE Way]

All right, Rasta Prefect, you're a troll. You can't really be that ignorant.

Water is one of the two exceptional substances I know of that is actually densest slightly above the temperature at which it freezes (at normal atmospheric pressure, etc.) The other one if elemental gallium.

Re:Our leader gets it.

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[thales]

"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.

Pork-priming?

[torgosan]

"While President Bush was dismissive of a report the government recently released on how global warming will affect the nation, the leading Republican in this state, Senator Ted Stevens, says that no place is experiencing more startling change from rising temperatures than Alaska."

Good ol' Sen. Stevens...priming the pork-pump, count on it.

Re:Pork-priming?

[edremy]

Good ol' Sen. Stevens...priming the pork-pump, count on it.

<senator> My fellow Alaskans, I continue to support drilling for oil in ANWR. How else will we get the energy to cool our homes during the blazing Fairbanks summers? </senator>

Re:Local Warming != Global Warming

[Henry V .009]

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.

Cost of failure.

[Jason Pollock]

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:

1. Is Global Warming is happening? The answer seems to be "Yes".
2. Should we do anything about it?
3. What can we do about it?

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 Pollock

Re:Cost of failure.

[GigsVT]

The cost of global warming is conceivably a lot higher

The cost of taking measures to prevent global warming are pretty high in some cases.

I'm not against intelligent ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when they don't cost too much, but that is the key. Creating huge economic inefficiencies for something that may or may not have an effect on something that may or may not be caused by the emissions in the first place is what is bad.

Higher cost of items in stores, possible inflation, reduced GDP, companies driven out of business... I'd say the cost is high.

Re:Cost of failure.

[FreeUser]

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.

More to the point, there isn't, and never has been, any evidence that masturbation leads to blindness (or poor vision at all).

There is a mountain of evidence, piling ever higher, that our industrial wastes are changing the albedo of the planet, that the planet is thus radiating less heat away than previously, and as a result the climate is growing warmer.

Is it absolute proof? As you point out, no, it isn't, and absolute proof wouldn't be possible even after the entire process runs its course and Earth comes to resemble Venus (assuming it were ever allowed to go so far), as one could still argue that it might have been a natural phenomenon.

It is like arguing that an oily beach is a natural phenomenon. It is possible that an oil reserve is exposed to the sea through natural causes (like an undersea earthquake opening a rift), but the hulking remains of the Exxon Valdeze would, for example, make the argument that the cause could have been natural pretty weak, even without 100% irrefutable proof.

So to with the ever warming planet. It could possibly be natural, but a mountain of strong evidence suggests it isn't, and to proceed on the very unlikely assumption that it is natural is folly to the nth degree, and an action only someone living in complete denial because they simply don't want it to be so could ever advocate.

BTW, you can't even 'prove' 2+2=4 ... much less explain why. It is aximoatic that 2+2=4 ... one could build a methematics just as easilly on the notion that the plus sign adds 1 to the value, such that 1+1=3 and 2+2=5. It wouldn't yield very useful results, but it can be done. 2+2=4 because that is how we have axiomatically defined addition to work.

Re:Cost of failure.

[Jason Pollock]

I'm not against intelligent ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when they don't cost too much, but that is the key. Creating huge economic inefficiencies for something that may or may not have an effect on something that may or may not be caused by the emissions in the first place is what is bad.

The issue has to be what is the potential cost of not doing anything. It doesn't matter if you caused the problem with car exhaust, or if it's the Earth's core turning up the heat. If the sea levels go up by as little 5', most of the people on the coast will have to move. Can you imagine the $$ involved in protecting New Orleans alone?

As with anything, we shouldn't have a panic response. However, doing nothing because we believe (rightly or wrongly - who cares) that warming is natural isn't a solution.

This is why we build flood control systems. It may be a natural event, but we still act to mitigate the damage caused. We need to do the same on a global scale to handle global warming.

Sure, companies will go under, others will flourish, and new millions will be made. Is that a problem? Probably not, look what happened to the .coms. No lasting damage was done. I would say that the displacement of coastal populations is going to be worse, but that's just a guess... :)

Jason Pollock

Re:Cost of failure.

[ink]

It is like arguing that an oily beach is a natural phenomenon. It is possible that an oil reserve is exposed to the sea through natural causes (like an undersea earthquake opening a rift), but the hulking remains of the Exxon Valdeze would, for example, make the argument that the cause could have been natural pretty weak, even without 100% irrefutable proof.

Well, natural oil slicks occur all the time, so I suppose what we need to see here is the Exxon Valdeze which links human CO2 production to global warming. At one point in the past, the Gulf of Mexico reached the base of the rocky mountains with help from high global temperatures (see Discover Magazine/May 2002) and without the help of human CO2 production. The Green party folks were certain that human pollution was sending us into another ice age back in the 1970s, and now they're just as certain that the Sky is Falling yet again. Those of use who urge caution are signaled out as ignorant duffs who do not pay attention; e.g. "You're with us or you're against us". Personally, I'd rather see some rational discussion happen over this. I want to see all the side-effects of atmospheric CO2 found. I want to see good reconciliation with satellite data. Most importantly, I want scientists, and not politicians, to draft specific reccomendations after the research has become sufficient.

Re:Cost of failure.

[TWR]

I have a theory that it's witches that are causing global warming. Notice that global warming is getting worse JUST as Pagan movements are picking up worldwide.

Furthermore, I hypthosize that burning witches will solve the problem of global warming.

Now, my evidence is only circumstantial but there is SUCH A DANGER from global warming, that how could we NOT start buring witches?

-jon

Re:Cost of failure.

[ErikZ]

Wow, a whole MOUNTAIN of evidence and not a single link.

I can exaggerate on Slashdot too! Though I doubt anyone would notice.

Re:Cost of failure.

[FreeUser]

You can in fact prove that 2+2 = 4 assuming the truth of the Peano axioms. (hint 4 := 3 + 1; 3 := 2 + 1; 2 := 1+ 1;)

You have really just said exactly what I said, you've merely brushed it under the carpet a little. To whit, the Peano axioms define what addition means.

The Jean axioms, on the other hand, define (5 := 3+1; 4 := 2 + 1; 3 := 1 + 1; and 2 := 0 + 1;), which of course can yield an internally consistent, but relatively useless, mathematics all its own. The reason 2 + 2 = 4, or doesn't, is entirely a result of its axiomatic definition. In other words, it is so because we say it is so.

Re:Cost of failure.

[M-G]

Can you imagine the $$ involved in protecting
New Orleans alone?

Uh, New Orleans is already below sea level. If the pumps stop, they're wet.

This is why we build flood control systems. It may be a natural event, but we still act to mitigate the damage caused.

Except that flood control systems have effects of their own. Flood control tends to destroy the natural cycle of rivers, which causes loss of habitat for many animals. And flood control protects one location, while making the flooding worse elsewhere. Flood control is a good example of the solution creating many other problems. I'd rather not go creating 'solutions' on a global scale....

Re:Cost of failure.

[FreeUser]

The difference between Peano and Jean axioms are names only - i.e. Jean::5 == Peano::4 but this on the level of calling them eins, zwei, drei, vier, fuenf or ichi, ni, san, shi, go.

No, actually, the difference is that the plus sign adds one to the result, wheras, for example, the multiplication sign behaves exactly as in standard mathematics.

In other words: 2 + 2 = 5, but 2 x 2 = 4. Jean::5 == Peano::5, but the process of addition has been defined to do something rather silly (add one more to what the result should have been).

The problem of course is that we tend to think two apples plus two apples equals four apples, so therefore 2+2=4 must have some fundamental, unversal truth inherent in it. But in reality the definition is arbitrary (though wisely chosen to yeild useful results in the physical world) ... the defenition could just as easilly be something that yields nonsense in the physical world, but is nevertheless internally consistent. Of course, such a form of arithmetic is useless, but that doesn't mean you can't define the axiom to create it.

Re:I live in Alberta

[canadian_right]

Melting the northern ice, most of which is floating, won't raise the sea level as it is already in the sea. Only when great chunks of glaciers and ice that are on LAND melt (or slide into the ocean) will the sea level rise. Antartica has lots of ice on its land, but the recent breaking up of some of the ice-shelf, which floats, had no effect on the sea level.

Re:I live in Alberta

[Kwil]

The temperature is increasing...but does that mean we're heading for disaster, or is this the earth working as it always has?

Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?

Re:In Search of the Ice Age

[canadian_right]

Global warming is the result of an overzealous plan to prevent the next ice-age. The world-wide Illuminatia who only work for the good of all mankind (making a huge profit is just a happy side-effect) acted decisively to prevent a looming ice-age in the 1970's by promoting the use of flourocarbons throughout the world. Alas, the plan has worked too well, and now they face the taunting task of reversing their previous plan!

Re:I live in Alberta

[Kwil]

If you want to push the idea that we should change our habits "just in case the global warming theory is correct", I would say thats akin to agnosticism... "better sorta believe in a god just in case he/she/it is real... wouldn't want to go to hell"

Considering the mass effects global warming (if true) will have vs. the very localized effect of believing, the major economic damage (think the insurance companies had it bad in 9/11?), the loss of life and arable land, the spread of disease, and the long term damage to environmental systems that work to support us, I would say the possible effects are a little more dire than you make them out to be.

Now, we can continue to drive our economy forward at 100 mph through the environmental fog and hope that we don't go over a cliff, or we can choose to slow down the economy and see if we can't turn on some headlights.

Those who argue for no change are essentially saying "There is no cliff", but they don't have any better a view through the fog than those who are screaming "For goodness sakes stop!"

I personally know who I've chosen to listen to.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[Gaijinator]

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.

Re:That is very unwise

[daniel2000]

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.

Re:what is wrong with you people

[ttfkam]

But in Alaska and other parts up north, they have a term for when the ice never melts and nothing thaws: permafrost.

The issue isn't that ice is melting during warmer months. The issue is that ice that hasn't melted for centuries/millenia -- ice that isn't supposed to be melting in that part of the world -- is melting. It sucks, really it does.

Your sig

[RelliK]

-atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa [mensa.org] member. I have no toleranse for stupidity.

And yet your comment shows that you are remarkably stupid.

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?

Re:So who whill be first?

[apsmith]

Uh, what's your point exactly here?

There are a lot of different cars on the market. For a given level of safety and other features that we were looking for, the two cars we as a family have purchased over the last 8 years were selected for their high fuel economy. Unfortunately, our most recent purchase (last fall) had significantly LOWER economy than any car we had purchased before - why? Because, with Congress wimping out on CAFE standards, cars sold today have WORSE mpg ratings than they have had for years. Look at any model you like, and compare fuel economy for the 2001 or 2002 model year with 2000 or earlier and you'll see what I'm talking about! Fortunately at least the Japanese makes are coming out with some hybrids that look pretty good.

All the slug-like do-nothings typical of /. and the global climate change naysayers translate into dominance of our politics by the do-nothing naysayers of the energy and automotive industries - inaction, and worse. And it's not like our local politicians have any interest in providing safe bike-routes to help out...

Oh well, time to move back to Canada... Toronto will be real nice when it's as warm as NYC.

Re:Ozone Depletion not Global Warming

[shawnseat]

Huh? Ozone isn't some kind of "magic radiation shield" (?). It simply absorbs some short wavelengths of light (decomposing into an oxygen molecule and an oxygen atom -- O3 + hv --> O2 + O). It is regenerated by oxygen molecules absorbing a shorter wavelength of light and forming oxygen atoms (O2 + hv --> 2O) and the atomic oxygen recombining with other oxygen molecules (O + O2 --> O3). It exists in the stratosphere because that's the highest region where there is a high enough (molecular) oxygen density that the reactions form a balance.

I have searched this entire thread...

[elefantstn]

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"?

Re:I have searched this entire thread...

[Edmund Blackadder]

maybe you should look into the numerous reports written by nobel winning scientists.

Re:I have searched this entire thread...

[Dun Malg]

Maybe I would if you'd perhaps listed some, but as it is I can only find one Nobel Laureate (Professor Paul Crutzen, 1995, chemistry) who dealt with the greenhouse effect at all, and his main focus was the nature of atmospheric ozone fluctuation.

So maybe you should look into a better suggestion than "Some smart guys wrote reports on it".

Re:I have searched this entire thread...

[GigsVT]

What are you going to use as an energy source to make your precious hydrogen? Hydrogen generally costs more energy to produce than it releases when you burn it, which means it is not an energy source, merely a storage method.

Re:I have searched this entire thread...

[imnoteddy]

For evidence try a report from the EPA, thisfrom a committee of the National Research Council which included "11 of the nation's top climate scientists, including seven members of the National Academy of Sciences", and a page written by a NASA scdientist.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[FreeUser]

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.

Re:No - !(Re:Local Warming != Global Warming)

[Henry V .009]

I agree with your first 8 paragraphs. In fact, they are built off of my first sentence that you quote. You assume, fallaciously, that it means something different to me than it does to you.

Your next three are you agreeing with me, so we can skip those.

Your next two, which make reference to a pattern are malarky. To say something follows a pattern is to say that there is some model out there, that if we were only smart enough to know what it is, would predict the weather for us. I think you misunderstand chaotic systems. In a chaotic system, seemingly insignificant changes can have large indeterminatable effects. Chaotic systems can resemble patterns, but they do not follow patterns.

The patterns are simply not present. To use the hoary old example: The mechanics of atmospheric physics are such that if we imagine two parallel universes that split as you drink your tea, one where you put sugar in your tea this morning, and another where you don't, are such that the two universes could have wildly different weather. One universe could have massive flooding this year, and the other could have drought.

The 5, 10, 100, year flood patterns are statistical patterns. Take a period of 1000 years. The top ten magnitude floods are 100 year floods. The top 100 are 10 year floods. The top 200 are 20 years floods. A twenty year flood doesn't come every 20 years, it simply has a 1/20 probability of occuring in a given year. In fact, you could go a century without a twenty year flood (though it would be more unlikely than 1/20 per year figure suggests, they aren't completely random).

I responded to the comments about Greenland in a post. The others are just quoting a common piece of misinformation. Climate change in Greenland is a fact. Eric the Red's saga has a number of tall tales.

I'm not saying that we can write off all unusual weather events. But they can only be taken in context. You have to have a statistically valid sample. Any individual local climate change is useless. You can't say what it could have been caused by. In fact, there are so many dependant variables, that talk of cause is almost silly. However, if you sample a thousand different local climate changes, then you have something to go on.

Let me sum up. A 30 degree increase in one area is not evidence of global warming. We've had 30 degree fluctuations of temperature since time began. However, 5 degree increases past average across 10,000 locations, now that means something.

Interesting quote

[krogoth]

"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)

Re:Interesting quote

[Edmund Blackadder]

Thats how far the data goes. Doesnt mean that 1653 was warmer.

Re:Interesting quote

[Edmund Blackadder]

yeah i doubt 1650 is accurate. i was just repeating it from the above poster who said himself that the dates may be wrong.

Re:Interesting quote

[markmoss]

"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?"

All those witch-burnings.

8-)

Re:Interesting quote

[T.E.D.]

Thats how far the data goes. Doesnt mean that 1653 was warmer.

Right. In fact is was probably far colder, since the world at the time was in the middle of the Little Ice Age.

In fact, things got much more unusually cold back then than they are unusually warm today. That's why thermometers were invented then.

Re:Interesting quote

[krogoth]

Yes, and /usr also means "Unix System Resources". Fear logic!

Got anything more believable than the word of an anonymous poster?

Re:Argh!

[istartedi]

RTFF

Re:Local Warming != Global Warming

[1010011010]

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!"

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[1010011010]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[1010011010]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[1010011010]

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.

Wait'll the salmon come out poached

[gelfling]

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.

Re:Our leader gets it.

[elefantstn]

"Is our children learning?"

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.

Am I?

[autopr0n]

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?

Re:Am I?

[Dun Malg]

but how can you honestly say there is *zero* evidence? We know for a fact that Co2 is a greenhouse gas

CO2 has been found to show greenhouse properties in laboratory experiments, but this information cannot rationally be extrapolated out to reach conclusions regarding a system as complex as our planet. True, a pyrex cylinder filled with 45% CO2 and 55% Nitrogen traps more heat than a cylinder filled with 100% Nitrogen; but we don't live in a pyrex cylinder, we live in the middle of a mind-bogglingly complex system. There are literally too many variables to make any firm conclusion. We can't even accurately predict weather more than 10 days in advance; what makes people think these speculative notions like "by 2050 the global temp will rise by 4 degrees" are any more accurate than a weather report in July predicting snow on Christmas Day?

NEWSFLASH!!!!

[night_flyer]

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...

Talking metaphores here..

[autopr0n]

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?

Idiot.

[autopr0n]

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.

Re:Idiot.

[junkgrep]

No, all he has to do is explain why he is unconvinced, and finds the theories unconvincing. The burden of proof IS on the claimaint.

As we all know

[autopr0n]

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.

When I was young, life used to be so magical

[Tablizer]

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?

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[mesocyclone]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[Chacham]

This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative."

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, 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.

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[Cyberllama]

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.

Re:I live in Alberta

[Rasta Prefect]

Sigh. Every flame will contain at least one blantant error....

Re:I live in Alberta

[EvilAlien]

Excellent retort =) I intended to retain that flaw in my argument.

The inertia preventing a "just in case" solution from those with a vested interest in fossil fuels and necessary migration to something with less theoretical impact has as weak support as those pushing for change. Guess which side has money? Guess which side gets to control the rate of change?

The inertia is by far the dominant position in this debate, and weak arguments with little supporting data will take a long time to change the mind of the public. If those pushing for change for the sake of the environment want to really affect change, they need to realize that the key is in convincing the public that change is in their best interests. And the reasons for this need to be communicated without the drooling fervor of activism. The activists may provoke thought in some, but it is the moderates armed with sufficient facts that will actually affect a change.

Re:Local Warming != Global Warming

[zenyu]

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.

to the deniers of global warming...

[g4dget]

People like to debate whether global warming exists based on temperature measurements. But that is missing the point. We don't need to interpret noisy temperature measurements in order to determine whether global warming exists. Instead, we just need to look at CO2 measurements.

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.

Re:to the deniers of global warming...

[Dun Malg]

increased CO2 concentrations invariably will lead to higher temperatures.

Really? And where does one find proof of this? I understand that many people accept that as true, but as yet no one has proved that more atmospheric CO2 increases temperature. There appears to be a correlation, but correlation != cause. Uncomplicated lab experiments with CO2 are not an accurate simulation of the global climate system.

Re:to the deniers of global warming...

[g4dget]

There appears to be a correlation, but correlation!=cause.

The assertion that CO2 causes increased global temperatures isn't based on correlations, it's based on first principles. If CO2 concentrations go up in the atmosphere and nothing else changes, the temperature must go up. That's elementary physics.

What if, you might say, something else does change and compensate? What if there is negative feedback, so that increased CO2 concentrations activate some mechanisms that somehow kept average global temperatures unchanged? That would be just as bad as global warming. The problem with global warming isn't that we don't like it warm, it is that it results in massive changes in weather and the environment. If there were negative feedback mechanisms that kept global average temperatures unchanged, those mechanisms would themselves represent massive changes in weather patterns and/or the environment.

The absolute best scenario that we can hope for is that there is neither negative nor positive feedback, and that the increase in CO2 just leads to an increase in global temperatures resulting from the CO2 greenhouse effect alone. That way, we could probably double atmospheric CO2 without too many problems or consequences. But even in that ideal scenario, we'd run into trouble once we triple or quadruple atmospheric CO2.

Of course, the most plausible climate models show some degree of positive feedback, meaning that increase in atmospheric CO2 leads to a larger increase in global temperatures than expected from the CO2-related greenhouse effect alone.

CO2 simply isn't like air. Emitting large quantities of it into the atmosphere must result in big changes beyond some point. From having studied lots of ecosystems, we know that those changes will mostly be undesirable and costly. And, if current trends continue, that point is not too far off even under the most optimistic scenarios.

Evidence

[goodmanj]

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.

Re:Our leader gets it.

[pubjames]

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.

Why Global Warming Is A Bitch

[CoderByBirth]

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.

Back off guys.. this is serious

[AntiTuX]

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.

Coincidence?

[richie2000]

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!

Re:Get real

[Snootch]

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.

*NOT* CFCs!

[Snootch]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[pubjames]

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.

Re:I live in Alberta

[aeryn_sunn]

Air and water quality in most first-world nations is far cleaner today than it was 30 years ago,

Obviously you are ignorant to the southeastern US. In Atl, the air and water quality is far worse that it has ever been. This week alone the air quality is so bad that asthmatics are warned to not spend much time outside...and i could imagine what other effects this has....most people I know don't drink the water out of the facet either...

furthermore, how do you account for the increase in asthma in children?

Cars burn less fuel, and the fuel they do burn is burned much more efficiently, than older cars

ever wonder why there are emission standards differences b/w the US and Europe? cause of legislation. Ever wonder why US car manufacturers install catalytic converters? not because they want too...ever wonder why there is no more lead gasoline? cause the government said so...and even if cars do burn better than 30 years ago, there are 10 times as many cars on the road to day...do you think that the fuel efficiency in cars is proportional to the the number of cars b/w 30 years ago and today?

Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.

again, do you think if Big Business is given the choice between profits and policing itself it is going to police itself? hell no...only the threat of lawsuits or government legislature spurs Corps into action....hell, most of the time it is after the fact anyway, i.e. Love Canal.

Ideas like the Kyoto treaty are not easy nor painless. Making a concerted effort towards addressing pollution will have economic consequences in the short term, that much is true. But better deal with it now, than later...hell, what does Bush care anyway, he is going to be dead and gone by the time everything goes to hell in a hand basked on account of his half-baked policies.

Re:I live in Alberta

[SerpentMage]

Have you ever thought that this could be natural? Back in about 1000 AD New Foundland had the ability to grow grapes. But then things went cold. Could it not be that maybe we were on a cold swing and that the mean temperature is actually warmer than we are used too?

Na, that would be too easy!!!

Re:Local Warming != Global Warming

[Bob McCown]

I guess he was actually in Marketing department, not R&D.

Oh please . . .

[dlharper]

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 . . .

Re:I live in Alberta

[macdaddy357]

Businesses can't police themselves because in business, greed is good and the almighty dollar is god. Strict government regulation is neccesary. Savings and loans were deregulated, and destroyed themselves with predatory greed. Utilities were deregulated, and energy prices went through the roof. People lost home just trying to heat them , and Enron still self destructed, crushed under the weight of it's greed. The big problem with capitalism is that it has become a cult, and it's followers are brainwashed into believing in the myth that business can regulate itself, and that prosperity will trickle down. This cult caused the great depression of the thirties, and is causing another, while raping the earth.

the zeroth order question

[waldeaux]

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.

Sigh.

[hage]

Changes in global temperature couldn't possibly be due to things like ongoing cyclical climate fluctuations.

Obviously, environmentalists are always right.

decadal variability must also be considered..

[rhetland]

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.

Permafrost

[techstar25]

They will have to change the name to not-so-perm-afrost.

Re:Local Warming != Global Warming

[Henry V .009]

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.

You have achieved the holy grail...

[freeBill]

...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:

"The Democrats can whine and moan all they want, but the Capitalist system WORKS."

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).

Correlation does not refute causation

[uncadonna]

I realize that there's no examination to be qualified as a Slashdot reader, but it amazes me that people with the wit to read Slashdot make such ridiculous arguments as people inevitably do on this subject.

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.

Evolving Thought

[rossjudson]

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.

Re:On the other hand...

[mesocyclone]

Actually, my comments about data quality were primarily aimed at pre-data and paleoclimate, where the data discrepancies or chains of assumptions are the longest. For example, my coral comment is purely aimed at paleoclimate.

The problem with the perturbations in the past is identifying, with good data, the perturbations, and also separating cause from effect. In paleoclimatic data, for example, there are cases of warming coincident with high CO2, but not cases where you can prove that the CO2 caused the warming.

As far as the last comment, you are illustrating your ignorance of the complexity of the system. In a system with no clouds, no plants, no erosion, etc, the simple physics of CO2 heat trapping would dominate all but extraterrestrial effects (i.e. solar irradiance). I don't live in such a simple world. I live in one where there are negative feedbacks and positive feedbacks. Such a system can have hard-to-predict responses to such forcing. For example, with strong negative feedback, the effects of the CO2 may be overwhelmed by natural variability.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[ErikZ]

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"?

Those days have just begun...

[Mulletproof]

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.

Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??)

[jonabbey]

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.

Libertarian Economics

[AndyChrist]

The economics of libertarianism is like high school physics. Everything is a sphere, and there is no friction.