Slashdot Mirror
Still More on Global Warming
hype7 writes "The Daily Telegraph is running a piece on the world's temperature. Apparently, it was a lot hotter in the middle ages: "A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""
" . . . Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one--even the staunchest supporters of science and technology--had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years..."
George Reisman, Ph.D, The Toxicity of Environmentalism
This only furthers the evidence that global warming has not been caused by human action.
Since WWII, growing populations and increasing industrial activity have put billions of tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, yet the climate cooled significantly between 1940 and 1975. Since then, surface thermometers show a continued small warming trend up to the present, while satellites, as well as balloon-borne radiosondes, do not. It is possible that loacal warming in urban areas has contaminated surface data, skewing the results.
It was with good reason that the US did not sign the Kyoto treaty.
Have you been stalked by Seth today?
The telegraph article is a pretty lousy article, and gives few details. A bettle article is available at Space Flight Now. Apparently, the study was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute so I would be especially wary of bias.
There isn't enough evidence in the articles to understand what the study actually found. They published some of their findings in the Climate Research journal, which only gives an abstract without a subscription. However, they haven't even published their full findings which are supposed to be published in Energy and Environment which appears to be more of a policy journal than a scientific journal.
I think it is very hard to evaluate the credibility of these claims without seeing the actual journal article that explains them. Another thing is that according to Space Flight Now article, is that the study is actually "A review of more than 200 climate studies," and we need to look at the authenticity of these studies. However, maybe it will help us look at global warming from a new perspective.
Ok, there is more than one factor at play here. It's not as if anyone really expected climate to depend only on human CO2 emissions, right?
But I don't think anyone should take this as an excuse to say "see? SUV culture is not bad for the planet".
Were affecting the equilibrium of a really complex system and we don't really know where that will bring us.
The idea isn't that temperatures have been low and high and now they're REALLY HIGH. The current temps aren't really much higher than they have been in previous peaks. It's that they've been rising and falling in a fairly gradual and random manner since the earliest point we have records of, and now, since about 1800, they're rising REALLY REALLY FAST, about twice as fast as any other temperature rise or drop we have records of, and seem to be continuing to rise really really fast.
Moreover, before when the rising temperatures were more or less random and due to many factors, it was just a matter of waiting until the factors causing the high temperatures went away and stuff started falling again. Now, when there is significant reason to believe that the temp. rise is being caused by human activity, it seems reasonable to expect that if the human activity causing it continues unabated-- as it seems to be-- well, they just aren't going to stop.
By the way, you shouldn't bother debating global warming. Especially on slashdot. Most studies on the subject you'll be able to link are biased one way or the other (note: who funded this current study?) and most people who have something to say on the subject will base what they say on that they want one answer to be true or not.
The ability of the human mind to begin with a conclusion and then look around until sufficient evidence is found to "prove" it is limitless.
--super ugly ultraman
the other problem that people don't realize is that a lot of fossil fuel burns in the environment naturally too and is released naturally. In the gulf of mexico for instance, oil seeps through the earth's crust creating natural oil slicks which harm animal life in that area, oil that if drilled would not slick as much. This proves that in some cases, action or inaction by us hurts the environment not just oil drilling, but perhaps not drilling sometimes hurts the environment. I think we have to weigh the pros and cons every time we make environmental decisions, both sides have to be looked at, not just the environmental side, and not just the economic side.
http://www.vanillaafro.com - take me seriously and I will shoot you
It never ceases to amaze me the level of arrogance among many environmentalists and conservationsist. Forever telling us how they feel things are supposed to be, and completely overlooking the billions of years of evolution, change and constant fluctuations it has taken us to get here. Its perfectly natural for our temperatures to fluctuate. Its not that long since we had a fucking Ice age so a bit of warming is not an inherently bad thing.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
there was vegitation in the artic circle, there are frozen remains of Mammoths up there with undigested vcegetation in their bellys (and there was enough of it to sustain a creature of that size as well).
Secondly, where did all the ice from the ice age go? surly mans discovery of fire didnt promote the end of that period in time...
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
This still doesn't mean that destroying the ozone layer is a good thing. At least the envirmentalist have one thing right
...just ask any brain-dead hick here in the Midwest (I live in Indiana with a lot of them and this winter was particularly cold and snowy).
Disolve to snowy Indiana January
Brain-Dead Hick: Global warming, my ass. It's durn cold out here.
Me: You know, you can't just decide whether Global Warming it true or not based on such a short sampling period like this winter compared to last winter.
BDH: You're one of those fancy college boys aren't ya. You calling me a liar?
Me: No, I was just saying that you can't base such a statement on how cold it is right now.
BDH: Listen here. It's durn cold, that's proof enough to me that Global Warming is a crock of bull. And if you pull more of that college crap on my I'm gonna beat your ass.
Me: Durn it's cold out here. Global warming, my ass.
"It's a tarp!" -- Dyslexic Admiral Ackbar
I'm no expert, but try to follow he discussions on global warming.
What I find is that questioning the global warming theories seems to be "not done". It would not be the first time a scientist get in trouble because he/she comes up with different models.
I don't say we can throw whatever we like into the atmosphere, moderation is alwais good. This still should not stop different scientists trying different ways of looking at the climate. To me this is what science is about, otherwise the world would still be flat.
Man also lived millions of years without global warming. Anyone else find this peculiar? I sure do.
I dont like it when people think about what I think (say). Rather I try to make them think like I think.
I live in Boston. It is April. The forecast is for 3 to 6 inches of snow.
I know I know. Warming is not universal, it is the bigger picture scientists are concerned about. Some regions get warmer, but everybody's climate changes, threatening flora and fauna.
But from my point of view, it should be a few degrees warmer, especially this time of year. The Red Sox home opener is Friday. I hope they get the field cleared by then and also hope another storm doesn't dump still more snow.
Warming? I will be shoveling my steps and digging my car out later (tomorrow?). On April 1, 1997 Boston got nailed with 24+ inches of snow. 3rd biggest snowfall ever. EVER! No fooling.
I'm really looking foreward to those 6 weeks of summer - during which the avereage temp will be 100 degress F. Then is is right back to 50 degrees and below for the remaining 10.5 months.
Ice ages come and go in cycles. We are at the beginning of the next ice age and it should become colder not warmer.
He saw some dirty arabs and fired. Too bad it was just some friendly kurds, BBC reporters and his fellow cowboys.
in the 70's, many of today's Global Warming researchers were claiming that the Earth was falling into an Ice Age.
The truth doesn't care what I think.
However, we have weather data only for the last 120 years. All "data" before that comes from "environmental models" or ice cubes from Antarctica. Well, the models predict that the models are correct. A classical logic flaw - this problem was already discussed in the antics by Aristoteles and Platon. The data from ice cubes is very wacky, it's sometimes very difficult to say from which time the ice comes from and it's even harder to get it's temperature.
So, we don't really know if there is a global warming. Temperature changes of 0.5 degree celsius are within the error intervals of the estimators therefore totally meaningless.
There is no decent theory were this global warming should come from. Trajectory oszillations of earths orbit around sun might sound sensible, but the chaotic dynamics of the n-body systems are hardly understood, especially in 4 dimensions. So that's just a guess.
The ecologist ideology "CO2-pollution" is just rubbish. These guys say that global warming starts around 1903 were CO2-levels couldn't have any effects. The methane levels in the 35000 feet layers of the atmosphere can't also be responsible for the very same reason - modern highly methane producing cow breed were introduced after 1934 world wide.
So I think this is just a pseudo-scientific ecologist scam to scare people away from modern technology and to keep them in the dark without information to control them better.
Owner of a Mensa membership card.
I was surprised to learn recently that trees are not CO2 sinks--once they die, decay restores their lifetime of consumed CO2 to the atmosphere. There are only two CO2 sinks: - biological matter that is interred deep into sediment (which often becomes oil) -solid CO2 at the bottom of the ocean (where the pressure results in a higher melting point) That there are only two sinks of carbon on Earth makes me suspicious of fossil fuels, as much as my heart goes out to the pro-tech sentiments expressed here.
I think this whole discussion of global warming hinges on a key presupposition, which is how old is the earth. If you have faith in evolution then you see it being billions of years old, depending on whom you talk to. However if you believe that God created the universe, as recorded in Genisis, then you can conclude the earth is about 7,000 years old. This conclusion can be dirived by the geneologies in the Bible. If the earth is only 7,000 years old then the environmental changes of the 1900's are not that drastic. However if these changes are compared to the believed temperatures of the earth for billions of years it is a scary thing. So like most discusssions, it comes back to orgins. Do you have faith in the word of God, or you evolution and own limited autonomy.
I've been complaining for a while now that the problem with "global warming" is that we don't have enough long term weather data to accuratly state that this isn't a natural cycle. I'm really glad that the scientific community has taken notice of this little loophole. It might actually get a few environmentalists to do serious research instead of hugging trees. *snicker*
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I tried it, and it hurt really really bad.
environmentalism is really a path to world socialism and world government, in the same vein as the UN. every time an "environmental crisis" appears, there is a always a call for money. money from the government. also, each new claim comes with the associated calls for limits to our freedoms.
if you remember the 70's, paul weirich, et al., the big concern was global cooling. now it's global warming. look, you're looking at empirical data for say, 20 years. the earth is 5 billion years old. that would be like saying, what do programmers do, spending 10 seconds while watching the program compile, then writing a book on programming.
i hunt and fish, and love the outdoors as much as anyone. but, i think capitalism and freedom are far more important. do you really want the corrupt third world dictators telling the US how to run its economy?
My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
/. readers tend to be pretty smart - or so I thought. I find it completely depressing that even here politics override common sense. The preponderence of evidence shows that we really are having a significant impact on world climate. No one really knows what that impact will eventually be, but when screwing around with immense things that you really don't understand and that happen to keep you alive unknown == dangerous.
It hasn't been proven that global warming is true - far from it, in fact - but research has "strongly suggested" (my term, but certainly fair) that it could be true, so it strikes me that any half-intelligent primate would jump to it and try to avoid the possible crisis instead of jumping up and down and screaming "you haven't proved it yet!"
So even if this proves that global warming is not man-made.. which it doesn't until more researchers find the same answers.. we still should have signed Kyoto.
There's a lot more to pollution than global warming. How's about respiratory ailments? Know what the instances of asthma are like now, as opposed to 50 years ago? How about all of the other diseases being caused by contamination of ground water by toxic chemicals. Look especially to heavily-industrialised but unregulated states like Texas for examples of these kind of health problems.
Also, this does not challenge the damage to the ozone layer, and the probability that it is our doing. What about the tears that have been appearing in it at random, such as the one above Chile that doused a village in direct UV?
Kyoto is also about hedging our bets. As there are methods of accomplishing all of the same industrial goals with less pollution, why do we want to take the chance that it's caused by us, when we can ditch the pollutants and then sleep knowing that if the world bakes, at least it isn't our fault? How will all of you conservative fucks feel in 50 years if you were wrong? "Oops?" This is not something we can go back, say "sorry" and fix. If we are causing permanent damage to the planets ecology, our descendents will pay the price. As long as there is any doubt whatsoever, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I think any rational person would.
+++++++
"Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
They didn't call it the "Medievil Warm Period" for no reason...
-------
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
-- George Orwell
I couldnt care less if it's about global warming or the ozone layer or saving pink river dolphins from extinction. Environmental-friendly living is a worthy pursuit in and of itself!
Do you shit on the floor? Do you piss in the kitchen sink? Earth is where we live for crying out loud, we should try to keep out planetary home as clean as possible even if there ISN'T a single dangerous side effect of pollution. Where are your manners? Can we call ourselves truly civilized?
I'm sick of this stupid polluted town with dirty floors and smoggy air. I'm sick of waking up every day around 6AM when the first round of buses start zooming past my windows, which btw, keep getting black with soot.I find it terribly bothersome that, as an amateur astronomer, I have to travel hundreds of miles in order to do any half-decent observation and I really can't understand how the simple logic of keeping our own damn "house" half-clean seems to be beyond the feeble minds of its inhabitants. *shrugs*
It seems some of you have never taken High School chemistry. If you have, you'd know that any stress applied to an equilibrium system will be counteracted by an opposite process. For instance, if you heat up ice, it will melt, a cooling process. If you freeze water, it will give off heat, warming itself up.
It just so happens that the Earth's equilibrium lies at about 50 (give or take, it's different for different parts of the world.) Now, whatever we do, be it release CO2 or keep matches lit, the Earth will not increase its temperature significantly until it has exhausted its ability to cool itself, namely, melting ice. Thus, the only direct indicator of global warming is the elevating sea level, not the change in temperature.
However, it is extremely hard to measure this over a long period of time, but another way of predicting warming is looking for changes in weather patterns. If a location gets 10 times the normal amount of rain two years in a row, you know something is wrong. If an area becomes dry and arid when it used to be damp, something has changed, most probably due to our influences. Why? While melting and freezing ice will hold an equilibrium steady at a certain temperature, the Earth is a gigantic closed system, and thus requires a large amount of mixing to transfer heat from one location to another. Thus, rising temperatures need to be transmitted to the poles for equilibrium to remain constant, and the Earth does this through weather patterns. If the temperature changes, so do weather patterns. And the frightening thing is, they are. Quite a bit too.
Just saying that since the temperature hasn't risen, there is no global warming, is an utter lie. The temperature won't rise significantly until all the ice at the poles has melted.
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
" in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists"
Where do environmentalists get their facts from??
Environmentalists simply fight for a "good" cause because scientists tell them they need to in order to make the world a better place for them and their children. Science has been telling everybody if you don't recycle and stop polution the world will be a worse place to live in the future.
Damn those environmentalists for caring and wanting to make the world a better place! They have no idea what they're talking about.
Weather goes in cycles. Simple fact. Without man being an influence we've had ice ages -> hot spells -> ice ages. If what they are saying is true then as its now cooler then we might be haeding for another ice age. Also take the hole in the ozone layer which was a big deal in the late 80's. Recent tests have shown that is now smaller and taking the life of CFC's is 50 years people are now wondering if it is all a natural cycle
Rus
Cheap UK and US VPS
-40, newest first.
lookout bullow. it could get a lot warmer.
this argument is probably due to the "environmentalists" wanting to lobby their idea of an environmentally clean world of the future. They need an angle to attack the general public, cause silt in the streambeds ain't doing it. BUT, alarming theories on global warming captures our attention definitely. So what if its slightly bogus, they're lobbying for a greater good. So said the Nazis though. We may want to question the validity of EVERYTHING anyone says even if it discredits the value of "the greater good"...
this is not a sig.
Cancer rates are not skyrocketing due to "additives in food."
The single biggest reason for increases in cancer rates is early detection. Factor that out and you have a slight decline.
The single biggest preventable cause of cancer, worldwide, is SMOKING, not food additives. In fact, many of the additives in food PREVENT disease by limiting your exposure to things like aflatoxins (i.e., mold), which can kill you in days or weeks, not years.
Learn something before posting this crap.
Has he been on speed sll weedend??? Speed is a bad drug, and in no was do i condone it's use (nor do i condone P2P piracy, though large beowolf clusters can be positive in some instances).... But may i take this opportunity to thank you michael for the fine posts (including this one) this weekend, saving us from the banging-head-against-the-wall feeling from CmdrTaco (don't get me wrong, he is good, but a whole weekend of him???)... Thankyou Michael, may you kick the SPEED but keep the activity. Haleluajh. Amen. Praise the Linus.
- No scientists (not the uneducated environmentalists) ever disagreed on the fact that the Earth was much warmer about 1000 years ago. The Viking colonies in Greenland and other well known facts are proofs of this.
- No Scientists are disputing the fact that the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere is pretty drastic in the last 100 years.
- No scientists are disputing the fact that CO2 is a 'greenhouse gas'.
- No scientists are disputing the fact that temperatures across the globe are rising steadily for the past 100 years.
The issue here is *NOT* the fact that the earth was warmer 100 years ago, but the issue *IS* the fact that the Earth is getting warmer for the last 100 years, which seems to be proportional to the CO2 emissions.There are periods in Earth's history when temperatures dipped and rose quite drastically. Various theories are there trying to explain this phenomenon. But what we need to see now is whether the present rise is caused by external factors or human factors. If the earth can get much warmer in a period of very low atmospheric CO2, what would happen with so much CO2 as we have today.
"Apparently, it was a lot hotter in the middle ages"
...
Right, I'm moving there then.
What do you mean they don't have internet access?
graspee
Lets set up two planets and see on which humans will survive... Personally i still vote for the one with cars. If you die, die in style.
It's easy to believe the Earth is burning up when you are sitting in LA during the middle of summer.
Not noteable, IMO a rubbish article.
All studies I have seen on Global Warming seem biased so why not do your own study. What the enviromentalists seem to complain about is not that the temperature is so high but that it is increasing at a faster rate than before. Being a Geek I'd like to see this for myself. Does anone know where one could find the yearly mean temperature for say the last 2000 years?
Calculating the derivative of the temperature curve is, what, 6 lines of perl?
The way I see it, let the environmentalists keep whining about CO2 and whatnot. Anything that stops the heart of petrolium dependency is good in my eyes. the US wouldn't meddle in the middle east. Iraqis and Iranian governments would have no reason to hate us. In the past the major life bringing arteries of the world were filled with fresh water, these days they are filled with black goo. I think the symbolism is ironc.
The earth's orientation has shifted at east once - it was cold somewhere, just wasn't there.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
I think it is clear that the medieval warming period was due to the zelous burning of witches. The little ice age was a response to the popularity of hanging them instead. Man has always been a factor in climate!
I thought everyone new this by now. As the earth heats up there's more moisture in the atmosphere. Air currents carry it to the poles where constant snowfall causes the ice cap to build up and the resulting glaciers move towards the equator eventually re-cooling the atmosphere. Also, increased moisture results in a greater cloud cover increasing the earth's albedo - reflecting more heat into space.
Throw in changes in solar activity and geothermal factors and predicting the duration of future weather patterns is a crap shoot.
Has anyone noticed that this time frame co-incides with the Viking Invasions of Europe and the Occident, (9th - 11th century), and the Mongol Invasions of Eastern Europe and most of the Orient ,(12th century onwards)?
A warmer climate would have made it easier for these conquering hordes to move and flourish, as their homelands would perhaps otherwise have been quite a tad colder as they are today - their homelands being Scandinavia/Denmark for the Vikings and the steppes of southern russia for the Mongols.
If you go by the Bible, then you would conclude that *man* has only been around for 7000 years or so. There is no clarification in Genesis as to how long ago the earth was created.
So About global warming...
I zhink that if we want to prevent it we have to stop doing thing like going to work in your car by yourself...
BTW : did you see a enviromentalist go around on a bike, or go to an office to complain using public transport??
Well i know that i use public transport, and mostly when i go somwhere near i walk... i contribute, you should too.
In southern Maine we just got a foot of new snow with perhaps another foot coming this week.
Global warming? Bah!
Now we can continue to pollute the planet and plunder the oceans and rainforests as much as we like. Phew!
.."And they call their bullshit science."
So, how long have we been accurately recording temperature now? A couple of centuries, at most.
How long has the Earth been here? Quite a few million years, depending on who you ask.
In pursuit of cosmic knowledge, we're absofragginglutely stupid. We haven't been around long enough to be anything else.
Frankly, the current 'mankind is r destroying teh earth!' line is no different than 'The Earth is the center of the universe!', or, 'The world is flat!'.
Sure, it sounds like a good concept. It's quite possible that it's horribly wrong, as well.
1) These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
2) Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
3) The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
4) if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
5) even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
6)Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Every time I fart I am contributing to a rise in global temperature by about 0.000000000000001 degrees Celcius for 24 hours.
eTrade SUCKS
It's typical that the American military-industrial complex would hijack the research of hard-working scientists in order to further their interests.
This sickens me.
To quote Gomer Pyle,
"Surprise, surprise, surprise!"
No, of course there's no sarcasm in there...
If global warming is really that big a problem, then why did we get a FOOT of snow in April in New Hampshire?
Terrorism is really a path to world socalism and a world government - in the same vein as the UN. Every time an "terrorist threat" appears, there is always a call for money. Money from the government. Also, each new claim comes with associated calls for limits to our freedoms.
It's easy for (some of you) Americans to shout "socialism!" everytime there is something you don't like, isn't there?
i hunt and fish, and love the outdoors as much as anyone. but, i think capitalism and freedom are far more important. do you really want the corrupt third world dictators telling the US how to run its economy?
I don't know about you, but I'm pretty damned sure I DON'T want the US telling the world what to do. I mean, how can the US sit and pontificate when their Congress" is corrupt? Or how about profiteering from a war which the US started preemtively and unilaterally on "humanitarian" grounds? Or actively supports terrorists" and backs dictatorial regimes when they are in the apparent best interest of the US? Or the best interests of certain member's of government?
Do I really want the corrupt nuclear supperpower to be telling the world how to run their affairs? No. And you should be worried too. The US is becoming the Land of the Progressively Less Free.
(I apologize for this being off-topic. When someone spouts off like this person did, I feel a need to respond. As for the current war in Iraq and the soldiers on the ground there: I support you and hope you come back safely. I do not support the government who sent you, or the reasons they give for doing so.)
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
the commentary on this scientific study is missing the point, as usual.
--in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.--
Global warming is not about plotting the temperature of the earth from some point in the past till today. If there are some environmentalists out there who claim that it is, then they are missing the point as much as the commentator of this article is.
Global warming is a concern NOT because of how cold or hot we think it once was on earth, it is a concern because we know that we are adversely affecting our climate with certain actions. The greenhouse affect and the heat retention properties of certain elements and substances in our atmosphere are without question - these are scientific facts beyond doubt - and THESE are the concerns of environmentalists. They realise that global warming is propably not in our best interest, and if it were to occur (or if it is occuring) because of something we are doing, and we have the ability to prevent it - shoudlnt we?
It has absolutely ZERO - ZILCH - NOTHING to do with what the weather was like for the Knights in Shining Armour
If the enjoyed 90 degree days year round that doesnt change the fact that certain subsatnces when poured into our atmosphere will affect our atmosphere - in a way that we will most likely regret.
Yes, there is an academic and scientific argument whether the weather has changed, what causes that, and how much more it's going to change in the future. That's nice. That's interesting. But it has little to do with public policy on greenhouse gas emissions, however.
The argument for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is simply that if emissions keep growing, sooner or later they will change the climate. They may cause warming, they may cause cooling, or they may cause other changes in weather patterns. It may take another decade of growth, or it may take another half century. But the conservative and prudent thing to do is to limit our emissions until we know more.
And, in fact, reducing greenhouse gas emissions should have no deleterious effect on the global economy: it just replaces one set of industries with another. If anything, that creates new business activity as new infrastructure needs to be created (new power plants, railways, etc.).
It is quite ironic that self-proclaimed "conservatives" are the ones most in favor of continuing the dangerous experiment of emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases on a global scale.
Okay folks- take this quiz- What is the largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere?
A: vulcanism.
What is the second largest contributor of CO2 to the atmosphere?
A: Decomposition of organic materials. (soil production)
What is the Third largest contributor of CO2 to the atmospere?
A: Rocks.
ROCKS? How can that be?! Rocks are inert!
A: Igneous rocks are naturally carbonated due to the high levels of CO2 dissolved in the earth's magma. (boiling hot MAGMA) . This CO2 is released anytime a rock gets wet and erodes. It's a small amount, but unfortunately there are a great many rocks. Like, a million.
I do not deny that humans impact the environment with our activity. Certainly any feasable action to limit our impact should be undertaken. I am not sure that we need to bicycle to work, though. Environmentalism is reasonable and prudent. Environmental activism is a disease. Hug a tree if it makes you feel good, but realize that extreme lefty environmental activism is a ruse for marxism, and that most of the damage men used to wreak upon the ecology has been outlawed. Our cars are cleaner every year. Hell, even our sport utility vehicles get 18-25 mpg. The main reason we buy THOSE is because the CARB emission rules killed the full size car. There was an exemption for light trucks, so people who needed large cars just buy them higher off the ground. There is no way for a family of seven to use a Toyota Prius for anything worthwhile.
Many environmental activists have a conspiracy theory based mindset, and believe all corporate entities want to fuck up the world. If this was insanely profitable, I would agree with them. In real life, auto manufacturers see fuel cell tech and other high mileage/high efficiency technology as a huge selling point. They see it as a sales advantage. Believe it or not, there is no conspiracy between auto manufacturers and oil companies. Car companies want to sell cars that use less fuel. Oil companies want to use their oil to make more profitable things than gasoline. As a complex hydrocarbon, petroleum has immense potential as a base for synthetic material production. From it, even sugar can be synthesized. (but I'm sure you wouldn't eat sugar made from motor oil no matter what, would you?-- If it was pure and identical to cane sugar, why not?)
I wonder when they will start accepting what chaos theorists have been saying for over 30 years now! They do have a tremendous amount of theory to explain such phenomena as temperature fluctuations (and of course, how it is connected to the stock market :) ). This also shows, wheather we can trust this article or not, that nobody has any idea whatsoever wheather the greenhouse effect exists or even what it really is.
This requires a whole lot of study, before anyone can make any conclusions. And even though environmenatalists are fighting for a good cause, most of them have no idea what they are talking about!
Do you realize that you haven't made a single argument as to:
- how environmentalism is a path to world socialism;
- how environmentalism is a path to world government;
- how environmentalism is contradictory with capitalism;
- how environmentalism is contradictory with freedom;
- how environmentalism amounts to corrupt third world dictators telling the US how to run its economy. (as a side note, the current behavior seems to be the US telling everybody how to run their country)
In short, you're a troll.
Now I think that you should read about the "tragedy of the commons" - that is, the economic problem of having some common resource (here, the air, and more generally the environment) that can be used without limitation or taxation. The problem is that, while the interest of everybody is to abuse those resources (since the slight abuse committed by one person is low on the global scale), bad things happen if everybody abuses those resources.
May I also add that this problem is acknowledged by both "socialist" and "capitalist" economists, though with rather differing solutions proposed?
en-vi-ron-men-ta-list n. 1. A political activist whose main area of concern is the environment. 2. A scientist whose area of research is the environment.
The Telegraph seems to be attempting to discredit those scientists by painting them with the brush of political activism.
Few scientists, regardless of their political views, doubt the reality of global warming. The evidence is increasingly difficult to refute _and_ there is a strong theoretical basis to the observations being made. Whether or not there were isolated areas which have actually been warmer in the last 1000 or so years is of little consequence. This is not mathematics. It will take a whole lot more than one counter-example to disprove the theory.
That still doesn't change the fact that pollution is causing a lot of health problems.. How many kids back in the day of the steam buggy had asthma? I know I have a lot of really nasty allergies due to the pollution-- I can hardly breathe at night! I think everyone should be more concious of alternative travel.
in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
Well yes, I live right smack in the middle of a largish city... I'm seriously considering moving to a quieter place in a few years, when I start having kids and run out of space for them. But with the economy being what it is, I can't afford making any major changes to my life until I start earning some decent money again. Sometimes I just wish I was a farmer or something ;)
Well, who doesn't?
(This IS mexican food and not some synonym for anal sex, isn't it?)
No way. That piece has to be wrong. There's no "scientific" proof.
Face it, the world is comming to an end. Doom is near. The world has been comming to an end ever since there were environmentalists and you're not about to change that now with one silly article.
Doom I tell you! Doom!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
In English perhaps. In Norwegian it is Aristoteles and Platon, probably in the posters native tounge too. Not easy to know that you should translate personal names...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
CHECK IF THERE WERE OTHER POSTS? You obviously never got fp in your sorry life! You never check! When you see there's a new story, it goes like CLICK CLICK CLICK FP FP FP! There's no fucking time to think!
that global warming is caused or accelerated by human activity, however a plausible mechanism has been put forth: we produce C02 etc. which allow short wavelenghts in but trap IR. Fine. Is that the only mechanism at work? What about the particulate matter that is released by man that is highly reflective and may raise the Earth's albedo? Perhaps the net effect of man is to cool the planet. The earth is on a natural warming trend. I have no references but saw plots to this effect in a class I took on Global warming from BCs Geophysics dept. The question is how much does man contribute to that trend. Those plots didn't show conclusively that man was having any effect, but that in no way proves that we aren't. So what do we do? Mine is just a lowly opinion, but I think it's wise to err on the side of the conservative and do what we can to limit emmissions of greenhouse gasses.
This lobster was alive when it hit the frothy, boiling water.
The article fails to even consider things like sea level change. How many now populated areas were under water during the middle ages? Hmmm?
So whether this change is natural or man-made, we need to figure out how, or if, we can stop it, or at least slow it down. That's where our energy should be going. Obviously, studying past patterns of weather is important for this, but let's face the fact that we have a problem and stop taking the attitude that well, if it's natural, if it happened before, it's ok. Sorry - but we're just as wet and hungry if it's natural as if it's not!
... until they eliminate the need for human operators, then they cannot make such a facility safe enough to avoid inevitable disaster.
For most kinds of engineering, that's acceptable (inevitable disaster), you just move on afterward. In the case of radioactive materials, it's not always that easy.
-pyrrho
Nuclear Power: You cite two examples of operator failure.
:-)
DDT: saved immensely more people from pest borne disease than were remotely affected by environmental impact
Preservatives: when was our last famine?
Observation: Environmentalists, like most of us, focus on "evidence" that supports their point of view i.e. observation is wildly subjective even when gathered by the finest technology available simply because data must be interpreted.
Fact is, from based on "observation" we should intensely distrust other people. Mind you, my computer is a close second. Now there's an untrustworthy piece of technology
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
Global warming is caused by humans pumping co2 into the air, thus increasing global tempaure and melting the polar ice caps. Since 2/3's of the human race lives on coast lines, they will drown and the chemical plants causing the pollution will be destroyed.
Problem solved.
Meanwhile Chicago gets some decent weather for winter, thus prolonging construction season. I hate snow, bring on some global warming!!!
no
It's certainly true that the earth has been warmer in the past. The concern that I've been reading about is whether the present rise is happening at such a high rate of speed as to cause problems. Problems like destabilizing the planet's negative feedback loops, or leaving vegetation without enough time to adjust their range to match the changing climate.
It doesn't sound like this article/study specifically treats such questions.
- jon
Ganymede, a GPL'ed metadirectory for UNIX
Well, yes, at least Microsoft is concerned enough to only produce softwares full of toxic wastes.
"You must try to forget all you have learned. You must begin to dream." -- Sherwood Anderson
Stuff that is in the artic today could have beenc hap4.html
at the equator millions of years ago... go
read about continental drift...
http://www.aaronc.com/pelgnet/pelchap4/
As for the ice from the last ice age it melted a
long time ago, but it took thousands of years to
retreat. And it stopped near the ice caps.
Since humans started burning fossil fuels en mass
(less then 100 years btw), we have started
melting what's left of the ice caps at a rate
many times faster then any ice age retreat...
In 30 years there will be nothing left.
Every degree of change in average temperature
in climate has a dramtic effect on the make
up of plant life that can live in a region.
The sky is falling!
Every time I read about global warming and the ozone hole, all I can think of is "the sky is falling!"
The fable of Chicken Little is supposed to teach children that some people expect the end of the world and look for signs of it constantly.
Unfortunately, it seems that a whole generation of pseudo-scientists have decided that Chicken Little was right.
Has anyone else seen the old documentaries on how pollution was going to lead to another ice age? Before there was global warming there was global cooling and all of it was blamed on pollution. Don't get me wrong, eventually pollution will catch up with us, but it's important to think about the implications of blaming global temperature changes on the cause of the hour. The earth is always either warming up or cooling down. That's what it does, always has, always will (hopefully). Nature doesn't stay constant.
Whenever I tell people I don't buy global warming they look at me like I just sprayed DDT on the Galapagos Islands. Not buying global warming != supporting global pollution. I may not believe that pollution is increasing our temperature, but I do believe that it is increasing our cancer rate, which in my mind is much worst. Maybe if I hadn't seen those documentaries on global cooling my perspective would be different.
Do me a favor and double it!
...and you will see that the author of the paper being discused in the article, a Dr Philip Stott, is really juat an right-wing anti-enviromentalists pro-GMO goon. See:
http://www.probiotech.fsnet.co.uk
He's even quoted on the Ultra conservative EviroTruth website:
http://www.envirotruth.org/myth1b.cfm
More info about Stott can be found here.
The sun is getting brighter. Also, there is a remarkable correlation between solar activity and climate, like the Maunder minimum (cessation of sunspot cycle) coinciding with the Little Ice Age in Europe. If the sun does have an influence on climate, then the problem is not outside the area of expertise of astrophysicists. This current study doesn't rule out the role of solar variability, and actually makes it a stronger argument.
"I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.
They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.
-- Given enough time and money, Microsoft will eventualy invent UNIX.
Many people misconcieve what golbal warming actually is (much of this based on the incorrect use of terms) a better term would be "climate instability." Basically, the weather (already very unpredictable) would be even more unpredictable. A previous slashdot article I believe covered the fact that the
whole of Europe would become much cooler. This would be because their warm fronts would be disrupted.
"Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
I would like to see the IPCC Third Assessment link included with all future articles on global climate change.
While a healthy skepticism about all things is generally good, the vast majority of people, especially on this site, will simply accuse anyone they disagree with of bias. This kind of smear makes it impossible to have a rational discussion of any sort. You have all got to realize that sometimes research won't support your position. Just because someone has data you don't agree with doesn't mean they are evil tools of the government/corporations/Orwellian evil/the Zerg. There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money, beliefs, or a particular ideology.
That's important. Let me repeat that.
There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money or a particular ideology.
I should know, after all. I am one. I also know others!
I have realized that if, in science, you attempt to defend any particular position because you like it or believe in it, you *will* end up skewing the data to support you. This is bad, I think. Many other scientists think the same way and try to pursue the data to where it leads, regardless of politics or personal views. This can be unpopular, but it is VERY frustrating when people accuse valid data and research of bias...because they don't agree with it. Again, people on this site and elsewhere have the extremely bad habit of picking a side an defending it, and looking at the data later. "Bad beats."
The continuous, general anti-science rhetoric by deliberately ignorant people on this site is also tiring and silly. It acts as a red flag of illiteracy to the rest of the world as well. If anyone on this site wants to be noticed, they should restrain their criticism of science to legitimate questions, not accusations of bias with little grounding in fact.
The main theses of this particular article have been ignored by basically everyone on this site. The main point is that if we are coming out of an *ICE AGE*, then reports that the world is warming quickly probably exaggerate the effect purely by accident--of course we're warming up if we were cold earlier! Evidence that the world's climate undergoes natural shifts of much magnitude casts doubt on the severity of the current warming trend and gives rise to the possibility that it is entirely (or at least mostly) natural. While theory obviously dictates that humans are having an effect, this article is pointing out that the current warming trend may not be all due to humans.
Now, I'd have to see the article itself (and it's Sunday so I ain't going to the office or library) to make a full judgment, but people on here spewing against it without that same research are simply spewing political rhetoric--not valid conclusions.
The best piece of advice I ever took was discarding political ideology in favor of the facts.
Now, let me get back to my frickin' research. Thanks.
--
Christian Sieber
"And yet, it moves." -- Galileo Galilei
It's interesting to note that the thinking these days suggests that famines are the result of a widespread loss of income, whereby large groups of people simly cannot buy food, as opposed to a limit on the amount of food available.
Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
I guess this means I can keep driving my ford behemoth Canyonero, and burning tires in my backyard. Finally science telling people what they want to hear, and thus earning their paychecks.
dont worry, when the time comes(in 10-20 years) when we wont be able to breathe the air and we will be having 100% skin cancer, all these creeps will turn around and scream how NOBODY in the goverment is doing anything to "save them". for now, they are smig enough to post stupid "logical" argument how glabal warming is unproven and so on. Im with you. sit back and watch them. thats all we can do. we WILL be right in the end.
Your chemicals that are purported to have such a harmful affect on the environment are not as dangerous as you think.
DDT got a lot of bad rap in the newspapers, but there isn't solid science yet to prove that it is dangerous to the environment. It was banned purely for political reasons that had nothing to do with science and everything to do with sensationalism.
And as far as cancer-causing agents? I think this is hilarious. The "scientific" community takes rats that are genetically predisposed to cancer, even in a clean environment, and then feed them enormous amounts of these chemicals. When one or two of them get cancer, it is declared as a carcinogen.
The environmental movement has nothing to do with hard facts or real science. They are motivitated by the same thing that motivates most people out there: sensationalism and "feelings".
And you claim that environmentalists rely on scientific observations. Balogna. The only observation they pay attention to is the observation of their bank accounts, and the effect of their dumb-headed propaganda on the masses.
The environmental movement in America is best described as "Communism in drag". All they want to do is disrupt American industry, our right to eat, drink, wear, and use the things we want, and our right to drive whatever car we would like. They are all about limiting freedom and expanding government. They are never about increasing individual rights.
True environmentalists realize that taking away rights from people is not the way to go about preserving the environment. The best way is to operate within the bounds of law and common sense and buy land and turn it into a preserve. Another good way is to do responsible research and show the facts to the companies, and have them cooperate willingly rather than at the opoint of a gun.
This myth about companies being unwilling to clean up their act is hogwash. The presidents of these companies are people like you and I. They want to see the world as clean as the next guy. They aren't willing to spend millions of dollars on an environmental fad that has no solid background, just like you aren't willing to buy snake oil.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Go read Friedrich Hayek's famous book The Road to Serfdom. Given what Hayek said in that book has shown pretty much to be true, this is one very good reason I am very skeptical of the environmental movement in many aspects.
Michael posted an interesting comment about an article in the Daily Telegraph, which apparently shows that the world was a lot hotter in the middle ages than at present. Before accepting this claim without question, I would urge readers to: (a) read the source document ("about to be published in the journal Energy and Environment") and (b) read some of the literature which provides background material for the belief that global warming is happening now. As a start, take a look at the most recent report on the science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) at: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
(start with the "Summary for Policymakers"),
and have a look at some of the reasons why we should be skeptical of much of the "anti-greenhouse" propaganda at:
http://www.trump.net.au/~greenhou/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"You know, you can't just decide whether Global Warming it true or not based on such a short sampling period like this winter compared to last winter."
To that, the guy would really say:
"You know, you can't just decide whether Global Warming is true or not based on such a short sampling period, such as 20-30 years. You need to look at it over a much longer period of time. In fact, through the 70's environmentalists were convined we were in a period of global cooling. I'm afraid that if we wait another 20 years, we'll be back to that thinking (global cooling) and we will waste untold time and resources fighting a problem that doesn't exist".
but you can still see the comments there here.
/. much lately - I'd thought it was just me, but it looks like we do seem to have lost rather a lot of the intelligent, thoughtful old guard lately. While there are a few thoughtful responses above, and most of the moderators seem to have done the right thing, the number of even >1 moderation inane comments on /. in this case is way higher than it ought to be.
I haven't been posting to
Guys, next time you see anything relating to global climate change, go read some of the actual science on it (Google will be happy to help) before posting here, ok?
Energy: time to change the picture.
The study shows that higher global temperatures existed in the past. It doesn't say anything about what is causing the current warming trend.
Then it shares someting in common with the claims of the environmentalists: it has no evidence showing that human action causes global warming.
Those who are opposed to emissions restrictions like to argue that the current warming trend may not be caused by humans.
The way you crafted this sentence shows your dishonestly. I and others who are opposed to emission restrictions argue that there is no evidence that the current warming trend is caused by humans.
They may be right, but that's not the point.
Okay, you are condeding that those opposed to emissions restrictions may be right about the fact that there is no evidence that human behavior is causing global warming. In other words, you are admitting that your claims may be fabricated.
It does not matter if warming is human-caused or not.
If this is true, then you are refuting what the environmentalists have been claiming about global warming. They argue that global warming is, in fact, human caused. Hence, we need to curb certain human behaviors (such as emissions).
What matters is "is this a good trend for us?" (and it does not look good)
This is "The sky is falling!"
and "can we do anything about it?" (probably).
I can't help but notice that the causes of "global warming" always come down to Americans and their capitalistic ways. Is it no small wonder that so many communists found safe haven in the environmentalist movement?
Human activity is certainly contributing to global warming, and we can do something about that activity.
This is illustrative of the poor critical thinking skills exhibited by many environmentalists. You write that human activity is "certainly" (if it was so certain, then why did you need to label it as such?) causing global warming, but you have previously mentioned that your charges may be fabricated and that whether or not human activity causes global warming doesn't matter anyway.
So the question is then: "should we?"
At this point, is your agument really worth considering? You have no evidence, an admission that your charges may be fabricated, and poor reasoning.
Given that warming seems to lead to more extreme weather,
Ahh, it "seems" to. Like much of the environmentalists' data, it is not compelling.
and given that any climate change is going have drastic and expensive consequences for argriculture,
Wait a minute, "any" climate change is going to have expensive consequences for agriculture? I admit that your wording is vague, but I infer that you believe that "any" climate change is going to have extreme and negative economic impact on agriculture. Well, what if the climate changed so that an agricultural area got more rain when it previously wasn't getting enough? Wouldn't that be a positive effect from a climate change?
That's the problem you face when you use universal qualifiers like "any" (meaning "all") -- I need but generate one exception to disqualify it.
and given that it seems easier to induce global warming than global cooling
Once again, it "seems." What "seems"? Where are you getting this?
It is highly unlikely that everyone has got it all wrong and that there is no global warming at all.
Which is not the argument, of course. The argument is this: There is no evidence that any current trends in global warming are caused by human action.
And again, it's better to err on the side of caution.
In other words, let's just assume it's caused by humans.
If we convince ourselves that there is no problem and we turn out to be wrong the cost of that mistake will be extreme high.
I think the problem is very clear: the environmentalist religion
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Please read a basic grammar book. It is difficult to be credible in claiming scientific expertise if you fall down on basic grammar and spelling.
Sigh, okay time for Science 101. Science is not based on dogma or unchanging beliefs. Rather it's based on research
You are not totally correct. I'll trump your "Science 101" with "Sociology 101":
Science is controlled by humans, not by infallible angels. Since it is controlled by humans, its practice, while allegedly being about "pure research," will be tainted by ego, money, and power. Once ego, money, and power get involved (and they always do), then there will be parts of science that are based on protecting some individuals' or groups' ego, money, or power. This happens in any and all human endeavors.
Science is an iterative process.
Science is an iterative, human process. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone is perfect.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.
Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming. I have seen Leftists and environmentalists finding a new excuse to hate American industry and hate the fact that Americans drive cars when and where they want to.
Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far
Show me the evidence. Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific community believes it!" I won't accept your ad verecundiam and ad numeram arguments. I, too, can list a bunch of scientists who say that your claims are excrement.
The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.
So what? You're still stuck on #1 and #2. Start with a flawed premise, and you will reach a flawed conclusion.
if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.
Flawed premise, flawed conclusion.
even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.
So you are admitting that there are other factors. It begs the question: How much do all of the factors (including the Holy CO2 factor) contribute to global temperature? Have you measured? Do you even know how to measure them? Do you even know what all the factors are?
Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.
"Heads, I win. Tails, you lose." It seems that you believe that reducing greenhouse gas emissions must be reduced at all costs. How convenient that doing so just so happens to involve weakening American industry and capitalism. It also just so happened that so many communists and America-haters have found good company in the Church of Gaea.
Environmentalism is a religion. It has as much to do with science as does Christianity.
yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.
Yes, sarcasm. It's solace for those who have a poor argument.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Unless they are using fertilizers based on petrochemicals I dont see the relevance.
There can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob
This sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure if you are making a point about something currently in place.
Are there things allowed to mobs but forbidden to individuals?
Chernobyl was a disaster but TMI actually did very well - especially when you consider that it took simulaneous HUMAN failures to push the plant over the edge. If the operators has followed Rickover's dictum to "Believe your indication" things would have gone much much better.
Chenobyl is what happens when you don't plan for reactor safety - they violated so many operation rules it's hardly believable. The design of the plant included a positive "alpha-T" that is the temperature coefficient of reactivity could be POSITIVE which means the plant had an operating regieme with postive feedback. Is this stable? NOPE and definately NOT what you would design for a system which changes power exponentially.
So don't cast such a broad net.
One person's bandwagon is another's consensus.
If I were to use your own rhetorical standards, I might just take the same "shortcut" and find you nothing more than an apologist for the head-in-the-sand reactionaries who have a burning emotional need for human-caused climate change (and, usually, a host of other human-caused environmental problems) not to be happening.
That parka will keep you safe from UV!
Don't let THEM imminetize the eschaton.
The word is immanentize. To be distinguished from imminentize. Imminetize isn't a word.
Sorry if this seems like a spelling nitpick, but it's more significant, due to the common confusion of terms and meanings.
Some discussion here.
Peace and love, y'all
Why not let them eat cake?
Sorry, I think your facts are not quite correct.
As you know, Monsanto, besides marketing its genetically-altered plants, also produces RoundUp, which is the #1 used pesticide.
Monsanto has every incentive to increase dependency on pesticides, not the opposite. Its genetically-modified plants resist Roundup, so you can put more of the stuff on your crops, so more pests are killed more surely, but not what you want to grow.
It's beautiful: Monsanto sells you both the seeds and the pesticide, and soon you can only use this combination and you are locked in with them under their term.
The fear is also that the roundup-resistant gene will spread to other plants (it can happen) and make them somewhat roundup-resistant. Then you have to use even more of the stuff and now you have a vicious circle you can't get out of.
Great, isn't it?
You know that. I know that. The inbred mouth-breather in the slummy part of town doesn't know that, so he and his ilk keep pumping out simple-minded breeders that are dragging the average way, way down.
Now that it's OK for people who can't support themselves to reproduce like mad, and decidedly un-PC to ask them not to do so, we have to put up with crap like urban chaos, LA riots every time the Raiders lose (or win, who cares, let's party!), and Jerry Springer. If gathering food and eating it were dependent on desirable qualities in humans, just like every other animal in the world, I think we'd all be better of. Since that isn't likely to happen soon, it's up to the intelligent and hard-working to have as many junior scientists and engineers as possible.
Given the attractiveness of the average Slashgeek, "as many [...] as possible" too often tends to be a rather small number.
If a system does not account for all operator error then it is itself flawed.
If you are an expert at something of course you will know how to use it. That doesn't mean your widget is just fine and needs no more adjustments. It's still broken if you're the only person that knows how to use it.
So no, a proper product would anticipate user error and provide appropriate failure modes to crash gracefully, not wipe out an entire species and cause cancer for hundreds of years in others.
Mod parent up, definatly one of the most intelligent posts here!
Ignore the watermelons (green on the
outside, red on the inside). The SUN
warms this planet, and it goes through
cycles, which change the weather here.
Unfortunately why the US dropped out of the Kyoto treaty was because of the potential investments made on behalf of the environment. Such investments do not yield money in return.
Although you might get less smog, cleaner air and less pollution, it is not reasonable to invest in such things if your goal is to make as much money as you can. I'm sure the US heavy industry got all this figured out before they went to lobby against the Kyoto treaty.
free world history of ZERO deaths - the safest power ever invented.
Chernobyl. Oh, that wasn't "free world", my bad.
Just because someone is a bigot doesn't mean they're a moron.
(Or perhaps he was joking.)
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
Environmentalists keep saying how CO2 is bad. Well, I would like to remind them that when they breath they expel CO2. The cure? Stop breathing. It will do the world good.
caused by operator incompetence
friendly fire - caused by operator incompetence (personally I'd rather call it fuckup fire)
perhaps if we got rid of all the operators? or better if we made it more difficult for them to fuck up.
The fact that operator incompetence can have lethal consequences, means that the technology needs modification. I'm in favour of increasing safety equipment and procedures.
And can somebody explain to me how a pilot cannot tell the difference between a convoy of trucks with cars, and a tank?
-- it must be true, it's on the internet.
We should at least create sufficient carbon sinks (forests) to remove the amount we produce - or use biomass as our principal fuel, since it's carbon-neutral. There's no good technical reason why all new vehicles can't be built to run on biodiesel. It's widely sold in Europe and most standard diesel engines can use it. It creates CO2 when you burn it, but the oilseed rape absorbs the same amount of CO2 when it's growing in the fields.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
1. How how is caused by human activity?
and
2. How will global warming affect weather patterns?
Weather patterns are important because weather is a local phenomena. Will you get enough rain during the summer so your crops can grow? Or will you get so much that the Okeefenokee swamp is jealous? Or so little the an acre of land on Lake Bonneville costs more than yours does?
All this meta-study does is point out things that a climatologist should already know.
They are blasphemers who dare challenge the doctrine of Global Warming!
It's clear that the climate changes, and we don't really know why. There are lots of good reasons why we should develop replaceable energy sources and stop burning fossil carbon as our principal energy source - not the least of which is that the fossil carbon is going to run out some day. But global warming caused primarily by human interference? Unproved, perhaps unprovable.
[this
If you read the report, it states that the evidence for increased middle age temperatures are based on local data only. It is quite possible for that region to have experienced a rise - it however says nothing about average global temperatures at the time.
If you are interested, I think this is an excellent article and provides a lot of information between 1950 - present plus the opinions of a number of European scientists. It is related to the ski industry but is much more useful than the Telegraph's piece.
I also suspect that as a right wing newspaper The Telegraph probably anti-green movement.
I live in Poland. Ten years ago I used to wear T-shirt, sometimes a pullover in April. Today I see the snow behind the window. Brrr. And this year winter was one of the coldest I remember.
If someone could warm it a bit, I'd be grateful.
First off, it mentions that there are some problems with the observations. Second, we have some enormous and indisputable global phenomena, such as the rapid disappearance of species, that can't have happened and then un-happened in the middle ages. We also have forests retreating up mountains to stay with the moisture and appropriate levels of heat. There's no evidence that this happened 1100-600 years ago. This one questionable contradictory observation does not a refutation make, and those who say it does are just reaching.
The temperature has risen steadily this century, but that does not mean that it will continue to do so. But it means that we are leaving the equilibrum position that the global climate has been in since the last ice age. More over, this rapid change in the climate is claimed by a majority of climate scientist (or environmentalist if that is what you like to call them) to be caused by human energy consumption and other human activities.
When we leave the equilibrium that we have come to depend on, the system will at some point become unstabel. Such unstabel systems can be seen for instant in a simple pendelum with an external force out of frequency with the pendelum motion; the motion will become chaotic and the behavior of the system very hard/impossible to predict. The system will often come back to a new equilibrium position, but where it will end up is again very hard to predict.
The climate is of course a much more complex system than any simple mechanical model you can make in the lab. What we do know is if we get too far away from the equilibrium, the climate will become unstabel, and we will see some uncontrolable changes, before any new equilibrium, i.e., weather pattern set in. If the new weather pattern will lead to global cooling or global warming is anyones guess. But rapid changes in the climate on a global scale will definitly wipe out huge eco-systems and will probably wipe out the poorer parts of the world, if not also richer countries. The economic cost will of course sky rocket (think of the costs money wise if Miami and Manhatten suddenly are under the sea level , as one example).
There are scientific reasons to belive the earth has been into such externally driven climate changes before. Everyone knows of the theory of the dinosaurs being killed of by the climate change due to a meteorite. Similar changes have happened in the past when the sun has gone through changes. The resent change in the climate is most probably due to human beings, and therefore is unique in that we can actually do something about it.
I do not really understand the economic argument of Bush (and his oil friends). First, the cost will be much greater if these climate changes comes. Second, it makes sense to not be so dependent on burning fossile fuels, and to use energy sources that pollute less but equally importantly, are renewable. Third, what ever country or company develops the technology that makes sun, wind, waves, thermal energy competetive, or likewise, make burning of fossile fuels more effective or makes technology to not let CO2 out in the atmosphere, will have a technology that they can sell for hard bucks all over the world.
The Kyoto agreement will force industrialized countries to make investments now, that will cost some part of our budgets, but it is an investment in the future that one can hope will lead to a more stable climate, but for sure in more viable energy sources and useful technology. I think it is a more valuable budget cost than tax breaks for the rich 3% of the US population.
--- guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people ---
The problem is that people become zealots on various "sides" and drive away real concern except by other zealots (which is in reality not concern but emotional slavery). Politicians using these emotions to manipulate others into supporting them or companies equally using the emotions of others in an effort to manipulate them into giving or sustaining their power base are only going to get worse from the zeal. Approach all with skepticism and search for facts. The "cause" or "issue awareness" should be only the driving force but should never actually steer.
Lately many have discovered that pragmatism about conservation and more efficient environment adaptation resulted in more "issue awareness" than any of the nazi methodologies used previously. Try that approach more, but do not expect to get much sympothy when you use the government to rape the populace in the name of environmental protection.
"Okeefenokee"
So though I think any statement suggesting that human activity is not contributing to global cclimate change is questionable, why don't I just concede the point. You got me. Global Warming is Junk Science.
Okay, now the only reason to work to replace burning fossil fuels for power is air, land, and water pollution and their expensive impact on public health, acid rain and its expensive impact on natural and manmade resources, the politics of oil and the incredibly expensive impact of diplomatic and military maintenance of world oil supplies, the non-renewable nature of these fuels and the eventual impact on all human society of running out without having developed rational alternatives...
Funny, my views on the subject haven't changed.
It Is the Nature of Information to Transgress Artificial Boundaries
Here we go folks, yet one more piece of evidence added to a substantial stack proving the home of communism lies in the environmental movement. No serious scientist considers "global warming" a real scientific issue. They know it's purely political, pushed forward by the neo-communist/global community folks that wish for the fall of the USA. When these people claim more "greenhouse" gasses are produced by SUVs than what was belched from Mt. Pinatubo, you simply cannot take them seriously. That eruption was monitored and they know what was put into the atmosphere.
Remember, no matter how hard we puny human beings try to destroy the earth, the Almighty Lord simply will not allow it. He said HE will do it with fire. Read Revalation for details.
You come off as sounding all superior. But talking big and making a good argument are two different things. You must drop your condescending attitude; if anything, it's just going to your opponent resistant to accepting your point of view. That goes for me and for anyone that you may debate.
I would spend time here explaining the difference between 'contributing to' something and 'causing' something, except that you are clearly intelligent enough to know it... you're just ignoring it so you can make your opponent look foolish.
What you are saying here is that "causing" implies "being the one and only contributing factor." It seems we have a semantic problem. And I didn't have to make my opponent look foolish: she/he did a fine job all by their lonesome. I notice that you ignore the fact that the previous poster admitted that the charges may have been fabricated as well as the fact that they admitted that the reasons behind global warming didn't matter anyway.
It's clearly untrue that there is no evidence that global warming is caused by human action.
You have made an error by choosing to use the word "clearly." If it was really so clear, then you wouldn't need to label it as such: its clarity would be self-evident.
There is plenty of evidence, albiet indirect and uncertain.
I don't depend on indirect and uncertain evidence to make my judgements.
What you're saying is, 'Any evidence produced by environmentalists can be immediately discounted completely. Once this is done, there is no evidence that any current trends in global warming are caused by human action.'
These are your words, not mine. My argument is this: I have seen no evidence that human activity causes global warming.
Oh, I forgot one thing. 'Anyone who produces evidence that the current trends in global warming are caused by human action is, ipso facto, an environmentalist.'
Again, these are your words, not mine. Stop putting words in my mouth. Furthermore, how could these be my words? They imply that I have seen someone produce some evidence that human activity causes global warming.
You are a very strange man, but an interestingly consistant one. You are constantly accusing others of your own failings.
Not only do you accuse me of ad hominem (which I didn't), but you commit one yourself.
I could, for example, say that Libertarianism is a religion, and money and 'unfettered capitalism' are its gods.
Perhaps you could. Do you care to whip it into an argument?
And, like the stereotypical raving religious fanatic, you use every rhetorical tactic at your disposal to mock those who say things you don't like, but can make few actual substantive arguments because you're too busy with vitreol and spleen.
It's telling that you didn't find the time to respond to my arguments but did find the time to include this invective. Aren't you committing the sin that you accuse me of?
One person makes the argument that we are dumping a bunch of garbage into the atmosphere, and that we have very little idea what the consequences might be.
Actually, that was not his/her argument. They argued that it didn't matter what the causes were.
You *could* argue in return that since we don't know the consequences, we should pretend that it is impossible that there could be any, and act accordingly. It's an amazingly stupid argument, but at least a self-consistant one.
If only it were my argument or even relevent to the discussion we were having. CO2 is not "garbage." You are actually bringing up a separate discussion. Did you want to "go there," too?
Instead you call him a pinko commie rat-bastard who is out to destroy the free market (and, of course, America) with his ideas. Not a lot of substance there, and what there is sounds like it was dreamed up by McCarthy.
Except that I didn't cal
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
That's the real reason to oppose that crap. It's like crack for farmers. It's sad when there is a good reason to oppose something, but the hippies go after nebulous fears of a mouse somehow being born with an ear of corn coming out of its ass.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Most environmentalists I know, at least, don't even (directly) distrust the effects *technology* has on our environment and our health. What we distrust is the effect that GREEDY PEOPLE AND CORPORATIONS have on our environment. The effect that people who are more concerned about "Efficiency" (read: Improving My Bottom Line) than they are about the public good. Unfortunately, the profit motive tends to be a controlling factor in the majority of scientific research, as unless a corporation sees an eventual profit growing out of a research project, they're not going to foot the bill. And if nobody foots the bill, nobody does the research.
Oy. I'm rambling now, and need coffee.
-d
=== "Some people see the glass as half-empty. Others see it as half-full. I see the glass as too big." -G. Carlin.
Bet you didn't know that, huh?
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
..you are a little bit right.
Like being a little bit drowned though, the devil is in the details.
Looking at the temperature profile here
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
shows that there was a long warming between 1900 and 1940, then a lull.
But check out that spike from around 1980 through to today. That gradient is way big, totally out of proportion to anything seen in the previous thousand years.
You can't account for that unless you allow for rising CO2.
Sorry.
Organics are recalled 10x as often? I wasn't aware of that. Any documentation?
small(ish), rolled up, fried tacos. very tastey
between the greater and lesser infinities sleep the dreams undreamt
In other news, a Wyoming couple was arrested on charges of "Playing God" when prosecutors discovered their rampant procreation. Vowing to crush the unauthorized creation of life, the DA has stated he will be asking for the maximum penalty.....
'Do some homework' is the cry of those who cannot document their own assertions. Basically, you say 'go look at the evidence for yourself.' If the person you're arguing doesn't find any, you have plenty of recourse: you can tell them they didn't look hard enough, or in the right places, without actually telling them where to look. Or you can say that they're lying, or that they're stupid, because they didn't find what is so obviously there. Or you can, after they spend a bunch of time looking, steer them in the direction of a biased source.
And if they find data that seems to refute what you're saying, you can always claim that it's biased. Not actually giving out your own sources keeps you safe from claims of bias, even if your source does happen to be the 'People in favor of whatever it is you're arguing in favor of.'
Saying something is common knowledge, and that it has been documented to death, may or may not be true. Even if it is true, it's not helpful, because it depends entirely on who documented it. Give me your sources.
But you can't or won't, so you accuse me of having my head in my arse. Because it's easier than backing up your assertions.
The global cooling thing was a brief footnote in history, which is currently being blown up to insanely huge proportions by a bunch of people who are determined to discredit the global warming theory for their own, usually economic, purposes. And people like you have bought into it hook, line, and sinker, because it dovetails neatly into your own preconceptions... and so it must be true.
See? I can make unsupported assertions, too. And they're no more useful than yours.
-fred
Sign #11 of Slashdot overdose: You see the phrase 'moderate Republican' and you wonder if that would be a +1 or a -1.
That's an important little detail that I didn't see in that article. How warm the Earth is right now isn't that scary. What's scary is how fast it's heating up. What's even scarier is a look at historical global temperatures. All the graphs I've seen show gradual warming for 10,000 to 100,000 years, followed by a cold spike. Remember that during the last ice age, glaciers covered North America down to about the latitude of Manhattan. Buy real estate in Florida now! It's only going to get more expensive! Even if humans aren't the only thing warming the planet, we're at least contributing. And I'd like to avoid the natural backlash as long as possible.
Yup, instead of copy paste, here is a link to a long post on the subject of enviromentalists real motvations. Of course it is =1 Troll, but that's ok, my Karma is excellent and I gotta burn some off.
Democrat delenda est
Well, once again a "scientist" whose main field is not climate neither any other related domain tries to describe the debate about global warming as occuring between "environmentalists" and "serious scientists" ignoring all scientific work on the subject and forgetting that the "evidence" he mentions was already taken into account by the scientific community.
It's not a suprise that he doesn't even mention the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which reviews all scientific publications about climate change and yearly produces extensive reports on the current knowledge about global warming.
If he did it would be too easy to dismiss all his claims since the IPCC already took all the elements he brings to light into account.
Have a look at the latest scientific evidence about global warming directly at their site.
THIS is the absolute reference on the subject and no economic PhD will be able to claim it's the work of environmentalist hippies without looking both dishonest and ridiculous.
http://www.ipcc.ch
The IPCC is no "environmentalist" association, it's a "governments-appointed" scientific panel which job is to review ALL scientific evidence on the subject including the "revolutionnary" stuff this poor oil-industry-sponsored economists talks about.
Not exactly an environmentalist lobby...
Pleaase don't confure our current system with what would happen in an actual capitalist system. And even here it isn't quite as bas as you think. For example, the problem with inherited money is not as bas you you apear to think. Most of the truly wealthy are either self made or took a modest inheritance and made it big through skill or risk taking. Trust fund kids don't tend to create a lot of wealth and it gets split into smaller and smaller chunks with each generation.
That tendancy for power to monopolize is a result of mercantilism, or using the power of the State to prohibit competition.
Random example: Automobiles. Once there were hundreds of makers, now there are perhaps a dozen worldwide. Because new companies can't enter the market and companies occasionally fail or merge, the number can only decrease. But WHY can't a new company enter? Reason #1 is government regulation.
We should be in a wonderland of variety because te big automakers don't actually make much of anything. They outsource everything from engines to body parts. Small niche builders should be buying parts off the rack and designing all sort of intersting cars. But they would want to start with high margin cars and would never meet the CAFE standards without also selling as assload of cheap econoboxes to keep the average MPG up. And while there would be an inital market for exotic cars, it would be hard for a startup to compete in the lowball market without volume purchasing. And consider how expensive it would be to meet the paperwork requirements of the huge body of federal regulation that a large multi-national corp can easily absorb.
And don't fall for the finite resources argument. Liberals see a finite world and obsess over how to carve up the pie 'fairly' but free people see infinite vistas and a ever increasing pie, limited only by our imagination and will to succeed. Running out of oil? Who gives a rats ass! As we run low the price will rise (if we retain a semblence of a free market) and someone will see a profit in a replacement.
Sieze the stars and we won't ever worry about resource limits again.
Democrat delenda est
I've been reading all these posts, and wondering a bit. First off, I'm a student majoring in Geology and Computer Science. (double-major woo!)
Point 1: The earth would be a lot warmer if the isthmus of Panama did not exist. When it formed, it blocked the flow of warmwater currents, this began the "ice age."
Point 2: Some Geologists call all the time from the late Cenozoic to present the "ice age." This was when Antarctic glaciation began. (Other Geologists refer to the ice age as starting 10 MYA, when mid-latitude glaciation was first evident). The little period of extreme glaciation that ended 10,000 years ago was just that, a period of cyclical glaciation. Things are still a lot colder now than they were 40 million years ago.
Point 3: During the warm periods in the Earth's geologic history, there was much more biodiversity.
Point 4: A warmer planet could mean longer growth cycles, rainer weather, and more farmable land in higher latitudes, if the planet were to become at all like it was in the past.
So, why is global warming necessarily bad? I don't care what you all identify the cause as, and I don't care about rising sea levels. (They are well below average over hundreds of millions of years, you know.)
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
If the "environmentalists" would please stop breathing.
...
The point is, no one KNOWS how the entire climate system works.
It (CO2=Global Warming) is a theory. That is all.
Imagine if we decided to kill all people with birth defects, or even just "bad jeans", just because many accept evolution?
"Environmentalists" will tell you:
1. It is warmer then it was 100 years ago.
2. There is more free CO2 in the air
3. Therefore the CO2 MUST be the cause of the increase in temperature.
This ladies and gentlemen is referred to as "post hoc ergo propter hoc" so long as we do not have all of the supporting facts. Kinda like:
1. It is warmer then it was 10 years ago.
2. The internet is larger then it was 10 years ago.
3. Therefore the internet MUST be the cause of the increase in temperature.
Of course, there's always the requisite ad hominum attacks.
Normal person: "Hey, maybe part of this warming is normal considering that we are coming out of an Ice Age"
"Environmentalist": "You are bought and paid for by the oil companies!"
Normal person: "Hey, maybe part of this warming is caused by variable energy intensity from the sun."
"Environmentalist": "You are bought and paid for by the oil companies!"
Normal person: "Hey, maybe part of this warming is from the fact that the locations where the temperature is being taken has become more urbanized since 1900."
"Environmentalist": "You are bought and paid for by the oil companies!"
Normal person: "Maybe we should reserve judgement on this until the facts are in."
"Environmentalist": "You are bought and paid for by the oil companies!"
Normal person: "You know, the rate that it seems to be getting warmer is so slow that it won't make much difference if we wait, say, 500 years, and then if it IS a problem it will probably have stopped being one since I don't think ANYONE thinks we have 500 years of fossil fuels in reserve, but even if it is still a problem we will have 500 years of new technologies to combat it."
"Environmentalist": "You are bought and paid for by the oil companies!"
Normal person: "Kyoto was a flawed protocol from the start. It's main goal was wealth redistribution away from the US. That is why, except for Gore, no one in the US government wanted it (including Congress and Clinton)"
"Environmentalist": "You are bought and paid for by the oil companies!"
Some people can not be reasoned with.
Dan