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
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.
...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
So hang on a second... based on one article, which contains no evidence, just a few quotes from researchers on one team, and some ideas you state without reference, you think the US decision was correct? Let me repost...
To begin with, almost all of the "evidence" denying global warming has been put out by scientific groups funded by oil companies like Esso (ExxonMobil) and Shell, and have usually been shown to be flawed by the majority of the scientific community. It'd be interesting to see if this group is part of the same group, or in any way funded by those with vested interests in denying global warming.
Secondly, the US didn't ratify Kyoto for economic reasons, not scientific ones - the US Govt's own sceintists confirmed that global warming exists and is caused by a boatload of human activites - though no doubt some ignorant Congressmen voted against it because they bought the bull from phoney science. It was the protection of major US interests that drove them to not sign it... that, and ignorance and stupidity.
Thirdly, did you read that article? It states that "According to Prof Stott, the evidence also undermines doom-laden predictions about the effect of higher global temperatures." Riiight, so the flooding of areas with dense human populations is just a myth, is it? I mean come on, it's fuzzy conjecture in a newspaper, not a detailed scientific study that has been subjected to careful peer review.
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!"
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*
That's funny... it never ceases to amaze me how arrogant people can be in thinking we are outside the ecology, or can just trample all over it, quite obviously upsetting balances in drastic ways, and then try to justify it either because we're somehow special, or because "that's just nature". Sure, we're part of the ecology, but it dosn't mean to say that everything we then do in the ecology is a good, natural thing to happen.
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.
It also amazes me how ignorant people can be. Yes, certain temperature fluctuations are perfectly natural, but the question is: are the temperature fluctuations we have seen over the past couple of hundred years normal, or are they the result of human activities? It is a fact that rising temperatures are already causing problems in low-lying areas, and that if they continue to rise, as the majority of the scientific community believes, we will see many more problems for humans and the ecology as a whole. You're just fudging the argument.
Secondly, the US didn't ratify Kyoto for economic reasons, not scientific ones - the US Govt's own sceintists confirmed that global warming exists and is caused by a boatload of human activites - though no doubt some ignorant Congressmen voted against it because they bought the bull from phoney science. It was the protection of major US interests that drove them to not sign it... that, and ignorance and stupidity.
That's not completely true, or at least there's more to it. The Kyoto treaty was meant to cut down on emissions and to reduce possible sources of greenhouse gasses. It was supposed to be binding to all signers. Sounds great, right? But think about the full story -- especially with regard to the two most populous countries: China (~1.5 billion) and India (~1 billion). Conveniently, they were both exempted from the Kyoto accord because the benevolent governments of the world did not want to impact their economic growth potential. So why would the US, a country with less than a 5th of the combined population of those countries, saddle itself with a policy that will not touch those countries? BTW, those two countries are also the largest producers of greenhouse gasses with Mexico and Brazil following way behind them.
everything in moderation
Environmentalism is about as far from socialism as it is from right-wing conservatism. Socialism holds that society is the fundamental, whereas environmentalism holds that the ecology is, whereas right-wing conservatism holds that the family and status quo are, etc. etc. Most ecological parties are also essentially capitalist, though they aren't into the laisse-faire capitalism that thinks corporations are trustworhy while states aren't.
When you say freedom, you're just referring to your individual freedom - freedom from the control of others - but there are many more freedoms you enjoy, such as freedom from poverty, freedom from shitty living conditions, freedom from pollution, freedom from a repressive government, etc. etc. Get that into your head, and you might drop the absurd posturing.
And your last paragraph, well, name me an environmentalist who has advocated a third world dictator telling the US how to run its economy!
I come from a part of the world that's under the ozone hole - I want freedom from skin cancer - I WANT the right to stop the US from dumping stuff in the atmosphere that will kill me - it doesn't make me a 3rd world dictator
"Despite the fact that land sinks help remove carbon from the atmosphere, the U.S. continues to emit more carbon than it removes. In 1990, for example, the country released 1.337 billion tons from fossil fuel emissions, making it a net source of between two-thirds and 1 billion tons of carbon per year."
Got a reference for your statement?
BTW, those two countries [China and India] are also the largest producers of greenhouse gasses with Mexico and Brazil following way behind them.
That's not true, according to the US Department of Energy. According to them the top producer is the USA. China is second, and India is 5th.
There is no way for a family of seven to use a Toyota Prius for anything worthwhile.
Perhaps, but in the 21st century even Mormons and devout Catholics have less than five kids. Really, having more than two children when the world is overpopulated already is not a good idea.
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.
Ranking of the world's countries by 1999 total CO2 emissions from fossil-fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring.
That specifically excludes the largest source of greenhouse gasses - domestic animal farts, aka "methane", of which India & china are huge sources.
Its a such a significant problem that New Zealand is considering a genetically engineered bacteria that lives in a cow or sheeps gut that will reduce methane production by 30% - this pretty much covers New Zelands Koyoto commitments.
I wonder how the green party (part of the government in kiwi land) will cope with that ?
- reducing greenhouse gasses good ...
- GM bad ...
- Baaa! baaa !
They'll probably go with "GM Baaaad...", logical thinking and compromise is not their strong point
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
When the scientific community cannot even find where 30% of the carbon flux goes, why should we believe any assertions about carbon sinks. This is one of the many reasons that Kyoto is bad policy - it is based on an infant scientific field with lousy data. That doesn't mean that the science is bad - it means that it is insufficient, by a long ways.
As far as Kyoto went, what nobody seems to mention is that it was a fraud and a trap. If you believed the numbers that the Kyoto framers themselves used, Kyoto would have resulted in an unmeasurable change in global temperature over the 100 year timeframe of its scope. Or, put another way, it would have delayed whatever warming there was by just a few years.
Kyoto was meant to do two things:
1) Hurt the US economically compared to Europe, by hitting us harder
2) Provide a start to a process that would have required drastic cuts in CO2 emissions - cuts that would have been politically impossible if called for in the first treaty, but cuts that would be necessary to achieve Kyoto's goals.
Without breakthrough technology and massive investment, those cuts would have been impossible. But there is no way to cause breakthrough technology - it is like pushing a rope!
The ultimate conceit in Kyoto was its assumption that its CO2 emissions rules could be maintained, world wide, for 100 years. That requires an absurd faith in the stability of international life that is unprecedented in history. If Kyoto had been put in place 100 years ago, is there anyone alive who believes it would have made any difference? Do the Kyoto planners really believe that the world will be stable... that monstrous regimes will not arise (which will give a fig about the environment - witness the USSR)... that unforseen technological innovations will not occur? After all, 100 years ago there were no airplanes, electronics, computers, antibiotics, totalitarian regimes, Naziism, Marxist-Leninism, nuclear energy, nuclear weapons, etc.
Finally, one almost never hears any support for the cheapest, most reliable anti-CO2 emissions technology around: nuclear. France would have an easy time with Kyoto, BECAUSE 70% OF ITS ELECTRICAL POWER IS NUCLEAR. But US enviros have completely killed nuclear power, in spite of its free world history of ZERO deaths - the safest power ever invented.
This in itself is enough to make me strongly doubt either the sanity, education or honesty of almost every pro-Kyoto proponent!
The only good weather is bad weather.
While I should know better than to get into this, it really pisses me off when people damn others for making huge, sweeping generalizations while making huge, sweeping generalizations themselves.
"True environmentalists" don't believe in taking people's rights away, no. News flash. You don't have a right to pollute the river that flows past your property because that river then flows past my property. You ever hear the old Libertarian maxim, "your right to swing your nose ends at my face?" It applies to the environment, too. You don't have a right to do things with your property that affect my property, or anyone else's.
Water and air are a common good that cannot be owned by anyone. This ain't communist propaganda. It's fucking common sense, people. And it means that sometimes as a property owner your rights are going to be curtailed. Deal with it. I support gun rights, but they don't include a right to fire your gun without paying attention to where you're pointing it.
And, no, companies not wanting to clean up their act is not hogwash. Companies want to spend as little as they can and charge the highest prices they can. This isn't because they're evil, it's because they're trying to increase their capital. Hello! That's why it's called capitalism. Not all companies are responsible citizens. Some of them will do exactly the same calculation Ford made with the Pinto: balance the cost of expected fines and lawsuits from doing things sleazily against the cost of doing things the right way, and doing things sleazily if it's a lower expense. They can do this because when they're caught, they can apologize profusely and know that they will have lots of defenders saying thing like: "The presidents of these companies are pople like you and I."
Furthermore, people with your attitude seem to be really hep on bashing environmental groups for having "vested interests" in scaring people. You never once seem to be willing to admit that maybe, just maybe, corporations making billions of dollars on practices those environmental groups are criticizing could have a vested interest in making sure that you dismiss the environmentalists as kooks. Individual donations to the Center for Science in the Public Interest make it a scare group, but the blatant industry backing of JunkScience.com couldn't possibly influence their reporting, right? Check.
Funny, to me being about individual rights has nothing to do with promoting corporations and bashing government any more than it does to do with bashing corporations and promoting government. Many libertarians have figured that out. Have you?
Scientists who aren't on Exxon's payroll aren't arguing about whether the temperature's rising, and they're not even arguing about whether humans are having an effect--the debate has moved to what effect we are having, and how to control it. If you think this is just the province of Greenpeace kids hanging signs from smokestacks, congratulations! The industry is keeping you in the '80s. This debate isn't going on in Granola Crunch Quarterly anymore, it's going on in Nature.
Wake up. By and large environmentalists are not out to send us into the dark ages or to create a happy Marxist utopia. They're out to make us think about the resources we use and to convice us that we should use less, even if using less is going to be inconvenient. And, yes, using less might mean some industries have to change. It's happened before. Why is it so horrific to consider that it might have to happen again?