Slashdot Mirror
Human Activity to Blame For 2003 Heatwave
Dirak writes "The temperatures of the summer of 2003 were almost undoubtedly the highest in Europe for over 500 years. New research shows how human influence, mainly fossil fuel burning, can be blamed for increasing the risk of such a heatwave and by the middle of this century every other summer could be even hotter than 2003."
What difference does a report like this really make? The people who don't believe in global warming as it is will only repeat their same excuses, and the people who do believe in global warming will offer a smug told you so. I personally believe something has to be done to curtail our fossil fuel usage (although I'm sure running out of it will certainly help in the future), but really, who will this report convince?
They must have had some terrible green-house gas emissions 500 years ago!
Surely in vain the net is spread in the sight of any bird -- Proverbs 1:17
This seems to be the norm rather than the exception, unfortunately.
I guess it's very hard to get continued funding for a study that says "Everything's fine, situation normal" That must be why, no matter what the scientific endeavor, there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon.
So -- using that old razor of Occam's -- either the entire world and every observable natural system is on the brink of an unheard-of disaster, or there is a noticable (and understandable) trend in scientific research to a) follow the herd, and b) doomsay.
Just my opinion. I get paid for these. $.25 will get you another one.
Didn't I hear a news report about Mt. Saint Helens just the other day... something about it putting out more C02 than all human civilization? Surely that has no influence on the atmosphere...
... though personally I doubt it.
In the Kyoto Protocol, signed 1996, the many countries agreed to reduce their Co2 output below 95% of the output in the year 1990.
However, the biggest Co2 producer was among the countries that decided not to ratify the Protocol - the USA - while resposible for 25% of the Co2 produced worldwide, they decided that protecting the environment of the entire world was not an important issue.
Brief update: a few weeks ago Russia ratified the Protocol - way to go USA, even Russia has a higher priority on clima protection than you.
+++ MELON MELON MELON +++ Out of Cheese Error +++ redo from start +++
"Human activity to blame" != "Human activity can be blamed". The study does not prove human activity was the culprit (in fact they say it is possible it was not), but merely offers an explanation in which human activity was the cause.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
Or the chemists saying that bucky-balls are a major cause of global arthritis?
Or the recent flood of biologists publishing data suggesting that trees are plotting behind are backs.
These results are based on model runs. You can believe them or not (although its unlikely you're qualified to make a informed assessment), but I've heard of no climate modelers deliberately putting falsifying data or results in order to keep funding.
Do you have any references to such activity, or are you just spreading malice?
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
And actually claim responsibility and make amends for the vast amount of pollution that they are pumping out into the world's atmosphere?
You must be joking.
Name an actual climatologist who seriously believes Kyoto will actually stop global warming.
Name an actual climatologist who seriously believes doing nothing at all is better than Kyoto.
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
It is quite striking that wherever there's a predominently american crowd, the gut reaction to anything global warming related is denial - even with a comparably smart crowd like this one.
I sincerely hope we're not at the brink of self inflicted global destruction. But are you guys so addicted to your gas guzzlers and inefficient houses that you refuse to even discuss your behaviour's more or less possible/probable consequences?
You're sounding very emotional. Maybe a couple of deep breaths might help.
As an architect who has written both simulation engines and created complex models of various systems, I can tell you that the implicit assumptions going into a simulation are the ones that cause poor predictive ability. These are almost never discovered until later when better models are created.
Nobody is accusing the world of science of foul-play. I'm simply pointing out that scientists are people too. And as a system of people, they also have observable behaviour. It might be a better use of one's time to look at the pattern of scientific herd-mentality FIRST, and then take into account individual studies second.
I'm certain that all involved were top-drawer and well-meaning people.
I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the world is more complicated that what your "Save the Earth" after school specials lead you to believe.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
You're saying that scientists are either falsifying or wilfully misinterpreting their results (stressing that "there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon" which you imply is fictional). And you suggest, they do this for personal, professional or financial gain.
You have absolutely no evidence for either implication, both of which are absolutely disgraceful.
And yes, I'm emotional, you've just accused me of being a dishonest charlatan. I'm allowed to be emotional.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I am however, very familiar with how large corporations do PR campaigns. It always strikes me as spooky how a large corporations sees a profit problem, hires a PR agency giving it millions of dollars, whereas the PR agency does things such as write bogus reports from "independent" institutes saying whatever the company wanted (Linux was not written by Linus Torvalds, smoking tobacco is not bad for you, whatever...), as well as a media campaign which includes commercials, the "independent" institute people going on Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and if they're lucky, the major corporate news stations as well.
For example, I've been tracking Wal-Mart and the Walton family's giving in this regard. Two of the things they try to do is privatize education and create what we call "right-to-work-for-less" laws. I care more about the latter than the former, but I've been researching the former more lately. The Walton family is obsessed with privatizing education, giving massive amounts of money to efforts to do so, including giving $10,492,047.38, just in 2003, to the Children's Educational Opportunity Foundation America. They've also given millions in the last year alone to a variety of such education privatziation organizations, as have the foundations of other billionaires and millionaires such as the Olins, Scaifes and so forth. One of their jobs is to "astroturf", e.g. make fake it appear that a fake grassroots campaign exists to privatize education. Many of the privatize education groups have black and Hispanic faces at the top of the organization to talk to the press. These foundations also create scholarship foundations (for private schools only) to put a humanitarian face on the effort, and the scholarship front of this massive effort draws in people like Charles Rangel, Will Smith and people like that. These people are very clever and you wouldn't believe how tens of millions of dollars from the Wal-Mart billionaires alone can change the public discourse. And of course, the Olins, Scaifes and so forth are involved with this, even Bill Gates is peripherally involved.
My point is to stress how big money can generate all this talk you hear about privatization of education, charter schools, how our schools are failing and the need for tests and so forth. I am not deeply concerned with this relative to other issues, I'm just using it as an example, and I have been following it lately. I've been more concerned with Wal-Mart and the Walton Family and other businesses very successful campaign to do away with labor laws, or create bad labor laws around the country. They passed a right-to-work-for-less law in Oklahoma a few years ago, mostly by focusing on the massive evangelical churches in Oklahoma and preying on job and unemployment fears, the law passes something like 50.1% to 49.9% on a referendum. They're pushing these laws all over the country - they're even trying in Pennsylvania which is scary, because one thinks of Pennyslvania as a union state. Anyhow big money combined with a public which is more apt to be accepting Jesus as their personal savior in evangelical churches then seeking rank-and-file run militant labor unions can lead to all sorts of wacky laws passing.
Which is why the attitude on Slashdot about global warming scares me. Admittedly I am not an expert on chemical reactions with fossil fuels. I only have seen this show before: some group with no axe to grind and is objective as one can be says there is a problem (tobacco causes cancer, whatever...). Big corporations hire lawyers, PR firms, their own "experts" blah blah blah attacking this effort. Soon they're putting commercials on TV, catch phrases and so forth. Soon I hear the same thing coming out of people's mouths at lunchtime, they're complaining about trial lawyers or so
no matter what the scientific endeavor, there's always some cataclysmic disaster looming on the horizon
It's funny that when scientists warn of impending disasters, they get ridiculed and their motives questioned. But when politicians cook up another external threat as an excuse to spend trillions and send young men to die in a faraway country, the people eat it up.
The big concern, Kyoto-wise, is China. A nation long famous for its citizens using bicycles, China's economic growth is expected to bring with it a rise in fossil-fuel-burning industrial factories... and automobile usage.
It's just kind of odd that a nation with a billion-plus population poised to become an industrial juggernaut gets a free pass on Kyoto.
N4st0r, trixx0r h0bb1tz0rz! Th3y st0l3 0ur pr3c10uzz!
"For example, if it is GLOBAL warming, why only study Europe?"
Because there are lots of records in europe. Perhaps you'd care to ask the Apache or Sioux for their weather records for 1504? And I doubt you'd get much better data from africa, australia, or asia (except maybe china & japan).
There is MORE CO2 produced by just NORTHERN China's coal mine fires, started by bad mining practices, than the entire US produces, EACH YEAR.
But since China and the Kyoto Protocol treat coal mine fires differently, we have bad science become bad government policy.
The we have bad government policy become somekind of USA is bad because we don't march to the sea with the other lemmings.
We do want to protect the environment of the entire world - why doesn't your goverment adopt the tough environmental standards we have had for decades? Clean air, clean water, etc etc - Kyoto is bad for you, bad for your country.
That 5% means CharonX must lose his/her job and die or there will be no drop in emissions in your country!
You think your part of the world is better because some herd of Pointy Haired Bureaucrats signed a piece of paper? Think again on how this will actually play out. Which 5% of your nation is going to just STOP?
way to go USA, even Russia has a higher priority on clima protection than you.
For those of you that found the parent to be insightful, please go read a newspaper, and get an education. Russias ratification of Kyoto had nothing to do with them trying to be good shepherds of the environment, and everything to do with money, and their admittance to the WTO.
Just another day in Paradise
Bullshit. Most governments have a desire to prove what they are doing is good. Especially conservative governments, there is poured tons of money into evaluating and disproving environmental concerns. The few positive results of this are underrepported because it is just not interesting news that everything is fine.
You further rub salt in the wounds by claiming that that scientists are doing this because they can't get funding for "everything's fine, situation normal" reports. Of course, this is balderdash anyway: the oil industry does fund such reports, and presumably the Bush administration would also rather see such things.
To me, accusing the scientists working in this area of being greed-driven liars most certainly is accusing them of "foul play".
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
i) The models are right.
ii) The models are wrong, but scientists don't know it. They predict global warming, but due to omissions in the theory, this won't actually occur. The scientist believe the results, because they're the best we've got.
iii) The models are wrong, the scientists do know it, but they're not telling anyone because they'd all have to get proper jobs.
I put it to you that either (i) or (ii) happen to be the case, but that only (iii) is consistent with the assertion
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
I'd say that scientists aren't falsifying or misinterpreting their results; but are coming in with a preconceived notion. Having a preconceived notion of what they want the end goal to believe (intentional or not) they will tend to achieve that belief.
It's the equivalent of Microsoft funding a report against linux, there may not be anything misrepresented or false in a report, but you have a pretty good idea that if the study expanded their parameters to also look at data inconsistent with the preconceived goals instead of ignoring it the report would have a good chance of being different.
For example, the arguments that got everyone so mad during the presidential election, like the Swift Boat Veterans' claims and Moveon.org etc.'s counterclaims, were personal attacks, and as everyone on Slashdot noted at the time, irrelevant to policy decisions in the 21st century.
I'm not going to argue with your issues-- this thread is getting long enough already-- but I think you'll have more impact in the future if you said, for example, that privatising schools is bad because it will amount to government support of religious education, rather than that it's bad because Wal-Mart likes it.
To be honest, I think your attitude is more similar (though less sinister) to the evangelicals than you know.
Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
I wonder how long it will take for the US to make a law that gives immunity against lawsuits to power plants and automakers for their part in generating the C02?
I'll agree with the author and put it simply this way.
People, stop believing and admiring the opinion of the news anchors who know almost NOTHING about the scientific process. Idiots watching Fox, CNN, MSNBC provide to much authority to these brainless hacks who take good science and absolutly butcher it. The main stream news media are into info-tainment. Stop using them as your critical analysis providers and turn on your own brains.
In Canada the other day the MSNBC employees were discussing how they need to drop a bomb on a Palestinian protest that was occuring. It was downright racist and NEVER should have been allowed on TV. Due to Canada's anti-hate laws if they can, this guy might get 5 years prison. I'm hoping he gets nailed!
It amazes me that people so poorly understand science that they take the word of a 'news' person over a peer reviewed journal.
The stupidity of the average human is astounding.
James L
Ummm, no. Take a look at the long term climatological charts (which the doomsayers and pollyannas both refuse to do). They show an almost perfect square wave; long periods of warm alternated by long periods of ice age, where long is measured in thousands of years. We're actually at the end of a typical warm peak. Since that's true, we should be doing everything that we can to encourage holding the world temperature up! :)
So far as I know, there is no single accepted theory as to what causes the change between two metastable states. Without understanding that, it makes sense to add as little additional factors as possible. In that regard, the Kyoto accords make sense. However, as has been pointed out elsewhere, those pounding on the US for its failure to sign the Kyoto accords fail to recognize two things:
1) The US led the world in creating true, workable, enforceable environmental legislation and regulation at every governmental level. Ya think someone would ask us how to figure out what is doable and what isn't?
2) The Kyoto accords don't account for every man made emission. Without that, it doesn't allow for a clear count of total emissions dumped into the atmosphere. For example, what about cooking/heating fires widely used throughout the world? As pointed out elsewhere in this thread what about sloppy mining practices that cause fires? What about garbage plants? etc.
They even carried on quoting it after some eminent scientist wrote in to point out their idiocy in missing the fact that CO2 production by humans is a closed loop, whereas fossil fuels release stored CO2.
Yes, because CO2 released when burning fossil fuels is magically tagged so that plants know not to use it for photosynthesis ever again.
What process caused the CO2 to get "stored" in the first place, again?
As the end of this article says, "There's more to global climate change than just carbon dioxide."
There's more to car crashes than drunk driving, but it doesn't mean that you should continue to drive around drunk. Your argument is like saying that lightning can cause forest fires, so people need not be careful with campfires.
What's even more staggering are some of the Slashdot users who obviously have little-to-no clue but pretend to know everything. These people give off knee-jerk reactions without even reading the article once. No evidence or even logic is needed, scientific reports must be wrong here.
One of the funniest replies I've read in this thread claimed that researchers cannot get funding unless they shout "Doomsday is coming". Not even the most imaginary hypothetical example is cited - the report is simply made up by some liberal asshole. And that's even modded insightful. And then for each and every such knee-jerk reactions you get another opposite knee-jerk that Bush and co. are to blame for global warming.
Reading Slashdot on such topics makes you think the world is really only divided into two kinds of persons - the coporate man/politicians and the crazy gaians. Every scientist has a conspiracy in mind, every environmental research is biased and meaningless. If someone is thinking about starting a business I'd suggest selling tinfoil hats here, the Slashdot crowd simply cannot resist it.
Just a quick point, the sun causes all global warming, as it is the main source of energy for the system that is planet earth. The problem is that with an increase in greenhouse gasses the globe retains more energy than it otherwise would possibly leading to strange weather conditions, not just 'heat-waves' but flooding, drought, etc..
A Quick point reguarding some terminology - a 500 year event is one that could be reasonably sugested to occur once every 500 years or so, extreme weather conditions have always happened - if the number of occurances drastically increases to the point where one is happening every couple of years instead of every 500 the knock on effect is obviously bad. Also climitologists deliberately locate their weather stations outside cities to avoid the effects of the urban heat island.
I'd say I'm not convinced of how certain we can be that human activities are the cause of increased global warming and other climate change, but it seems that the only people who are trying to look at the issue carefully and dispassionately are scientists. And it seems that it's quite difficult to be certain, but it appears that all things being equal it looks more reasonable to believe that humans are significantly effecting the climate.
It seems to generally be those who object to the idea of anthropogenic climate change that are "coming in with a preconceived notion." Works I have seen that fall into this group are comprised of a) people payed by the petrochemical or other industries that have a monitary interest in disproving anthropogenic climate change, b) politicians and political pundates who are against many government regulations, so opposing environmental regulations and the science supporting them fits with their preconcieved political beliefs, and c) non-experts in the field who disbelieve it based upon very simplistic explanations of the phenomina without the requisite research and modeling. This does not mean there is not good dispassionate research against the idea of anthropogenic climate change, but it is not the stuff one normally sees. If it were to be found, it would likely be done by scientists in peer reviewed scientific journals. So it really looks to me that the people who have the right expertise and are most likely to look at the question objectively are the scientists.
"You call it a new way of thinking; I call it regression to ignorance!" -- Operation Ivy
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Wow that site is completely unbiased and the "article" contains ZERO facts. I espeically like the "How I became an Ebay Power Seller" and "Anti-Bush T-Shirts" links. Just shows you how deep and concerned this person is for life on this planet.
The best quote it has is this - "This new research - reported today (2 December) in Nature - shows how human influence, mainly fossil fuel burning, can be blamed for increasing the risk of such a heatwave"
CAN be blamed on increasing the risk..thats it folks. Move along.
If you must keep reading you'll learn that all they did was "simulate" the 2003 year using god knows what kind of broken model and came to this conclusion..
"We found that although the high temperature experienced in 2003 was not impossible in a climate unaltered by man, it is very likely that greenhouse gases have at least doubled the risk"
There you have it folks, green house gases may, or MAY NOT increase the risk of heat waves.
Meanwhile Mt. St. Helens is getting ready to produce more CO2 than the US has produced in 100 years. It is already dumping between 50 and 250 tons of Sulfer Dioxide into the air EVERY DAY. (Note a common updated coal fired power plant produces some 20ish tons a day).
Call me when the other half of the planet buys a clue.
Apple free since 1990!
Don't give yourself a hernia moving those goalposts, eh?
NOVA did a show on that topic several years ago called "Do Scientists Cheat?" and documented several examples of serious cheating. Not only that, they sited research that established that during the last 20 years (from the date of the show, about 15 years ago) 48% !!! of all published research included cooked or falsified data. These revelations resulted in some PhD's having their degrees withdrawn and certain drugs taken off the market.
....
If you believe, like I do, that ethics and morality have declined since that show was aired you have to believe that the situation has gotten worse, not better. Further, the government agencies that fund most research won't fund projects whose hypotheses challange the status quo set forth by the politically active environmentalist. That fact alone establishes the bias of all research to favor Global Warming. It is a constant amazement to me that Dr Ed Loranz proved in 1962 that mathematical modeling the weather, even using computers, is impossible, yet modern environmentalist think that even though any given model is inherently flawed by Chaos, several flawed models can over come Chaos. Just like another organization that uses a group of flawed individuals to choose another individual who can speak without error, 'ex cathedra'.
The problem gets even worse. Many government agencies are committed to persuing policies based on environmentalist presumptions. Here in Nebraska there is a project called COHYST http://cohyst.dnr.state.ne.us/
In 1997 "The states of Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado, and the US Department of the Interior have entered into a Cooperative Agreement (CA) partnership to address endangered species (whooping crane, piping plover, least tern, pallid sturgeon) issues affecting the Platte River Basin. The initative has two major purposes:
1. To develop and implement a "recovery implementation program" to improve and conserve habitat for four threatened and endangered species that use the Platte River in Nebraska:
2. To enable existing and new water uses in the Platte River Basin to proceed without additional actions required for the four species under the Endangered Species Act.
The Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) is a cooperative effort to improve understanding of the hydrological and geological conditions in the Platte Basin in Nebraska upstream of Columbus, Nebraska. A group of Nebraska interests have joined together as sponsors and partners to develop scientifically supportable hydrologic databases.
"
Sounds great, doesn't it?
But, when you investigate, you discover that research isn't driving the policies, the policies are driving the research. This is candidly stated in the original documents, and a local engineer outlined many of the problems in http://www.platterivertruth.org/defects1.pdf
and http://www.platterivertruth.org/index1.html
The purpose of the science was to 'prove' the previously chosen solutions to the 'problem'. Documents used to exist on the internet, but were removed (after I made copies which I don't presently have access to), in which project leaders stated that regardless of the science, or even if the science is not compelted or even done, the goals will become law. It's another kind of "my mind is made up, don't comfuse me with facts."
It's interesting to note that the ground water model (a computer program) used to predict water flows is actually run BACKWARDS! The desired results are entered and backstream parameters are adjusted till the initial data is arrived at. Then the model is cited as proof that the conclusions are justified by the input data. In reality that method is chosen for two reasons: 1) the model usually results in wild oscillations, as all chaotic systems tend to do, so 2) running the model backwards avoids chaos and allows ANY DESIRED result to be arrived at by adjusting parameters so that a particular set of parameters links the input data to the desired results. Simple test environments that are no where near the complexities of the huge Platte River basin are used to 'verify' the model method.
Like most environmental pronouncements from the Extreme Left Wing, it is Junk Science at its worse and all for environmentalist causes.
The difference is that lomborg is a true "junk scientist".
Meh.
Previously the nay-sayers didn't even accept the fact that global warming was happening! But now that it's pretty much proven to be occuring, nobody calls them on their previous opinion. The corporations have done a very good job brainwashing the masses here in north america.
Meh.
You obviously have much greater insight and wisdom than these scientists. Never mind that you don't even seem to know the difference between weather and climate. You'll go on with your head firmly planted in the sand so you can rest easy in your comfortable ideology bubble.
"The sky isnt falling people.Move along,nothing to see here.More of the same crap that goes on year after year,nothing new here.Feel free to continue life as it was and bring back regular gasoline."
Self delusion can be comforting. It's much easier to deny hard realities than to face them and work toward resolving them. Yes, it's very hard. You may continue sleeping if you wish. Those mean old tree-hugging hippies only lurk in your dreams and fantasies, though. The rest of us are responsible citizens who want a stable world for our children and grandchildren to inhabit.
- Hail to our fearless misleader! Fool speed ahead!
we are really in a phase in human history over the coming decades and centuries where humans can really wipe themselves out if radical changes are not made on the order of the changes of the feudalism to capitalism type during the Glorious, American and French revolutions. Our systems of production can not continue as they are, Keynesianism and liberalism has shown itself to be a band-aid, not a solution, and a band-aid that doesn't work very well. IMHO, of course.
:( And the few countries that stay true (more or less) to communism, such as Vietnam or Cuba and (not Western European) socialist (or trying to be socialist) states such as Venezuela or Belarus, won't persuade anyone, unless they build paradise in their countries. And even that may not be enough...
The answer, however surprising, is communism. By switching to communism the society solves all problems related to corporate greed, astroturfing and stuff. It also becomes capable of correcting manufactured or irrational demand (demand for Big Macs, SUVs, etc.). It also works very well for increasing quality of life through improved healthcare, education, etc.
Sadly, the United States (most of all) was extremely effective in persuading almost everyone, whose opinion matters, that communism is somehow evil and liberal/democratic/free market societies are an answer to all problems. This (and the willingness of the USA to support pro-US coups with money, weapons and know-how) makes the possibility of communist revolutions very low.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
That's my take on the matter. This is a prime example of a "Post Hoc" logical fallacy, that is, saying A caused B soley because B happened after A. (If this summer had been the coldest in 500 years somewhere in the world, I'm sure we could say global warming melted some ice caps or something, ala The Day After Tomorrow)
I mean, yeah, reducing pollution is a good thing. Go for it. But the fact is, as you said, we don't know enough about the climate to accurately predict the week's weather, much less how a single Honda getting 27MPG vs one getting only 25 impacts the macro-global climate as a whole!
One more rant before I sit down. According to the initial post this -- whateveritis caused the hottest day Europe has seen in "the last 500 years". So... what happened 500 years ago? Call it a hunch, but I don't think it was a bunch of frilly old tights-wearin' Elizabethans in SUV's.
-- Just another unsolicited opinion... from the Peanut Gallery.
Um, you don't write the conclusion to your study before you seek approval. You write it after you finish the study.
>> either the entire world and every observable natural system is on the brink of an unheard-of disaster, or there is a noticable (and understandable) trend in scientific research to a) follow the herd, and b) doomsay.
Two things here: first, your implication that science = fraud is both blind and offensive. Second, the article doesn't say anything about imminent doom. It says that petrochemicals appear to be contributing to global warming, but that this is not certain. Not only does it not "doomsay", it openly declares the possibility that there is no "smoking gun". You are clearly a rabid ideologue for jumping from the article to what you said.
Finally, as for "the entire world" being "on the brink" of disaster, in geologic terms, "the brink" could be a decade or a millenium.
But hey, f*ck it, let's wait until we're permanently screwed, because it feels good now. If you were a heroin addict, I could understand your attitude.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
I cannot name a climatologist, however, lets assume:
Now, any one of those assumptions could in fact be wrong. However, if they are true, then I believe that many experts on environmental matters (including some professors I've had) would consider the Kyoto treaty damaging. The worst thing you can do about a problem is to pretend to be doing something about it - at great cost - so that the problem is "being worked on" and there is less pressure to solve it because we're "already doing something, isn't that enough?" when in fact it's not doing anything. But worse, it looks like our ability to fix the climate will be very much a function of our technology - the same thing that caused the problem in the first place. What we need right now is to develop new energy sources that do not release carbon and methane into the air, and new methods of food production that avoid the large herds of cows etc. All of this costs money for our economy to support, and so funnelling money into something like Kyoto may make it take significantly longer to make all of the breakthroughs required to get us out of the whole we may have dug ourselves.
Not to mention the fact that we have *NO IDEA* as of right now what happens when we start limiting our CO2 output - complex systems like the climate tend to be very sensitive to changes in variables and their derivatives. We need a solid predictive model if we're going to fight this thing - and by all means we should fight it if we can figure out how to.
Cheers,
Justin
mods should actually check the link instead of just modding up because they happen to agree, informative? That article says absolutely nothing about global warming.
In their study of "Global Warming" they found little or no data to support this claimed occurance and have reported so.
uhhh...ok dude, everybody agrees that the planet is warming up. There is empirical data from the last hundred years to back this up. The ONLY thing up for debate is the cause!