Slashdot Mirror
Consensus on Global Warming
FredFnord writes "Well, here's an interesting one: the fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise." JamesBell submits this article by a geologist which suggests that the Earth is in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.
Is this another way of saying that anyone that disagrees with our opinion on the matter is a crank and we'll ignore their input for this "scientific" study?
Proving correlation is easy. Determining the direction of causality is much tougher.
Oh, come on. Class out the peer-reviewed journals you don't like as "crank" and publish a research that says "Journals I like agree with me".
That's life in the more controversial sciences. Everyday business in economics, you learn to keep your ears up.
And what's wrong with a little redistribution of wealth ?
Go ahead moderators, mod me down, i'll take the punishment for such a communist idea :),/p>
- Leon Mergen
http://www.solatis.com
It's pretty vain of us (as humans) to think that we are single-handedly responsible for the deterioration of our atmosphere. In fact, the truth is it would likely be deteriorating on it's own just as fast, even if we weren't here. I'm not referring to the vast number of belching cattle that would terrorize the planet if we weren't here to subjugate them, though they are a small part of the equation. A very small part, just as humans and automobiles are. The truth is, there are plenty of natural events taking place every single day that release more pollution than all the automobiles and factories that exist, or have ever existed. Let's look at just one example: Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii. It's one of the many volcanos in that region alone that errupt frequently, nice show, spews lava, etc. Only sometime in the mid 80's it decided to just start continuously dumping about 2000 TONS of sulfur dioxide out, PER DAY. Somehow I don't think my old truck, even with it's crappy milage, could ever hold a candle to that.
Well, let me be one of the 0% that chimes in with my opinion.
Why exactly are humans soley responsible for global warming? Hasn't the planet been warming up for the past 50,000 years? We were in an ice age at one time, were we not? How do we know that this warming cycle is not due to some earthly cycle that occurs once every X thousand years? We simply haven't been around long enough to collect enough data to determine whether we are responsible or not.
I've read some articles that show that humans are only 1% responsible for global warming and that the other 99% is due to natural causes. Humans are awefully arrogant to think that they alone can destroy the planet through pollution. Mother nature has quite the track record for polluting itself for the past few million years. Anyone take a look at Mt St Helens when it blew in the 80's? It blasted more toxins and pollutants into the atmosphere than mankind has since the beginning of the industrial revolution.
This is not surprising at all. Very few human beings bite the hands that feed them and scientists are human--those in academia are especially human and especially political. They're not going to be out there proving that global warming isn't happening or that it is a natural phenomenon when doing so, in sufficient numbers, will guarantee that funding will dry up on the topic and they'll have to find another research gravy train.
This also doesn't consider how many studies may have been done, submitted for publishing, and rejected. This could be just as much a political condemnation on those that decide whether or not a study is worthy of being published as it is any comment on the validity of global warming and/or its possible human sources.
Any time you see every scientist agree (or at least no scientist disagree) on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious.
> Unlike the rest of the world we prefer to listen to Bono and Madonna only when they sing.
You sick bastard. As you know, when they speak bullshit comes out. But when they sing it's even worse. Bono can't even count to four! (If you didn't know, a recent U2 song starts, translated: "one, two, three, fourteen") Yeah, a "brilliant artist" indeed.
I hate their whiny singing (as if Madonna could sing without auto-tone correction equipment -- she can't) even more than their whiny commentary. Rich pricks trying to tell the rest of us what to do. Here's a fucking hint: if you're so worried, Bono, why do you still have so much money in the bank? Donate it to some worthy cause. But then, of course, you wouldn't mean anything to the Hollywood elite & you wouldn't have your fucking artificial soap box.
Sorry, felt like ranting on something, and this was a good one to come up today.