Consensus on Global Warming

Predications by stecoop · 2004-12-07 09:51 · Score: 3, Funny

So Should I be Running climate prediction.net on my P4 Prescott or not?

Re:Predications by tolan-b · 2004-12-07 10:05 · Score: 5, Funny

No because the heat generated by the Prescott's core far outweighs the benefits to the research ;)

Like it matters ... by Draoi · 2004-12-07 09:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

... as Dubya probably doesn't read Science Magazine and won't be signing the Kyoto protocol any time soon. So, while the US government recognises the seriousness of global warming, they refuse to do anything about it as they claim it to be 'unfair'. Unfair is one nation producing over 25% of global CO2 emissions ... :-/

(BTW, that 'fine fellow' at Science Magazine happens to be a woman :-))

--
Alison

"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." - Albert Einstein

Re:Like it matters ... by Wateshay · 2004-12-07 10:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Show me some hard numbers that show the Kyoto treaty will do anything significant, other than redistribute wealth around the world and then we'll talk.

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."
Re:Like it matters ... by daknapp · 2004-12-07 10:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

If you had RTFA, you would have noticed that they explictly point out that:

The problem can only be marginally (i.e. ineffectually) addressed by increases in alternative energy and energy efficiency, any likely savings being offset by population and economic growth. And, given the huge energy and material demands in the construction of, say, wind farms, the ultimate value of these is debatable.

Kyoto would have essentially no effect on CO2 production, at the cost of essentially destroying the global economy. While I am sure you find that an attractive idea, most people don't.
Re:Like it matters ... by raider_red · 2004-12-07 10:03 · Score: 4, Informative

You mean the treaty that Clinton wouldn't even submit for ratification by the Senate? And about which the Senate passed a resolution 95-0 stating that they would not ratify if it was submitted?

--
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
Re:Like it matters ... by ArsSineArtificio · 2004-12-07 10:06 · Score: 2, Informative

So, while the US government recognises the seriousness of global warming, they refuse to do anything about it as they claim it to be 'unfair'.

Well, the Bush administration is pushing hard for renewed development of nuclear power, which is the third recommendation urged by the panel of scientists in the linked article.

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.
Re:Like it matters ... by Scarblac · 2004-12-07 10:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

I agree with you that Kyoto will probably not do all that much; however, it is a start. The point of Kyoto is that it is intended to lead to a stricter treaty after Kyoto's goals have been met in 2010 (fat chance, but anything is better than nothing).

Of course, if the US wants to propose a much stricter treaty that will cut back their output to something more in line with what the rest of the world does per capita so that actually might be significant, the rest of the world would welcome that!

That said, I guess I mostly agree with the second FA, which explains that we're mostly fucked, probably within our lifetime.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Like it matters ... by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · 2004-12-07 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

You mean apart from the fact that "redistribution of wealth" is usually a euphemism for institutionalized larceny, an offense which is rejected out of hand by every legal, ethical and moral tradition we have?

Nothin'. Nothin' at all.

--

I write in my journal
Re:Like it matters ... by e_lehman · 2004-12-07 10:29 · Score: 4, Informative

The 95-0 vote was in 1997. In a 2003 vote on emissions reductions, the vote was 55-43. Attitudes are changing.

Furthermore, a major objection to Kyoto was that it does not require emissions reductions from third-world countries. However, the major third-world producer of CO2-- China-- has been steadily reducing it's emissions anyway. So that argument isn't so compelling anymore. (Then again, they're at 1/8 the US level per capita anyway...)
Re:Like it matters ... by Yokaze · 2004-12-07 10:34 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except on that matter the FA is plain wrong: There is no statistical correlation between the GDP growth (economic growth) and CO2 emissions.

Contrary to your statement, the author suggested that the economical value of wind farms is debateable. But so is the economical value of pyramids. But on that matter, I refer you to Lord Keynes.

--
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
Re:Like it matters ... by revscat · 2004-12-07 10:49 · Score: 2

The first tax passed by the first Congress was a freakin estate tax, you moron. Here's Thomas Jefferson talking about same:
...At the first session of our legislature after the Declaration of Independence, we passed a law abolishing entails [limitations on the inheritance of property to a specified succession of heirs]. And this was followed by one abolishing the privilege of primogeniture [the eldest child's exclusive right of inheritance], and dividing the lands of intestates equally among all their children, or other representatives. These laws, drawn by myself, laid the ax to the foot of pseudoaristocracy.

I know you cockmunching libertarians love to scream "taxation is theft" until you're blue in the face with rage, but you have not a single leg to stand on, and are destroying the country in the process. Die a swift and violent death, fucktwat.

Great by daveschroeder · 2004-12-07 09:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Soon, it will be China and India that you're pointing fingers at, and not the US (or Europe).[1]

So... Then what?

And uh, is this news? Does anyone credible seriously disagree that emissions from human activity are at least in part contributing factors? Or is this another jab at boogiemen that don't exist? There's nothing "remarkable" about these so-called findings.

Also, the "Earth" isn't in danger. Yes, I know this distinction is splitting hairs, but what's in danger is Earth's inhabitants. Our actions are not going to alter a several billion year old rock.

[1] Don't feed me the per capita shit. China will be a far, far greater polluter in this realm, per capita or no. Further, the economic empowerment of the Chinese people will eventually drive them to a level of concern about the well-being of the environment, so, in a way, their accelerated economic development is a good thing, politically and environmentally. Incidentally, China has proven they can reduce greenhouse emissions, even while growing economically (1, 2)...but the point is, they're still on an upward trend. And they've got a lot more people who will begin to thirst for energy-hungry luxuries.

Re:Great by eln · 2004-12-07 09:57 · Score: 3, Insightful

Screaming about how things are "not fair" is just an excuse to keep from doing anything at all. The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols, whether for good reasons or not, and then refuses to do anything else about global warming. We can't simply refuse to do anything because the one proposed solution is not fair. As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country. Once we have a plan in place to reduce our own problems, then we can go out and try to reform the solutions that other people have come up with. Instead, we're pointing fingers, and refusing ANY solutions because the ONE solution that has been presented to us by the rest of the globe is seen as "unfair".

Also, as people love to point out so much in political flamewars, pointing to someone else and saying "they're doing it too" is not a reasonable justification to continue doing the wrong thing.
Re:Great by the_2nd_coming · 2004-12-07 10:08 · Score: 2, Informative

exactly. Australia did not sign the protocol but they are aiming to find ways to reduce their emissions to the levels that Kyoto says with out harming their economy. it might take them longer to get the to to the levels stated in the treaty, but they are at least committed to getting there.

--

I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
Re:Great by wwest4 · 2004-12-07 10:09 · Score: 3, Insightful

> Soon, it will be China and India that you're pointing fingers at, and not the US
> (or Europe).[1]

The US isn't being unfairly singled out in any of the articles posted.

> There's nothing "remarkable" about these so-called findings. ...
> what's in danger is Earth's inhabitants.

What is unremarkable about that?

The idea that China and India (and other major greenhouse contributors) should be brought to task is fine. As a US citizen, however, I am primarily concerned with what my country can do to help, not in deflecting blame. Surely, we would be in a better position to apply pressure to other countries in this regard, were we at the forefront of C02 emmissions reduction?
Re:Great by daveschroeder · 2004-12-07 10:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

The US isn't being unfairly singled out in any of the articles posted.

No, but it will be in most of the replies to this article.

What is unremarkable about that?

You just took two unrelated things I said and strung them together.

What's not remarkable is the idea that experts consider human activity related to global warming. The article insinuates that there is serious, credible opposition to this idea. There isn't. There may be disagreements on degrees of impact, but everyone agrees human activity is a contributing factor at some level.

The idea that China and India (and other major greenhouse contributors) should be brought to task is fine. As a US citizen, however, I am primarily concerned with what my country can do to help, not in deflecting blame. Surely, we would be in a better position to apply pressure to other countries in this regard, were we at the forefront of C02 emmissions reduction?

Indeed. And frankly, we can do this without ratifying Kyoto in its current state, with no timetables or hard deadlines for compliance of developing nations, that might harm our economy. We ARE a signatory to Kyoto, by the way.
Re:Great by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 10:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols

True. But even if Bush were all over Kyoto, Congress would never ratify it. It's a non-starter. If you can sell it to Congress, then maybe you can finger-point at Bush.

As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.

Great! Let's start building the nuclear power plants now. And let's fund development of hydrogen as an infrastructure fuel for cars and such.

Oh, wow! By extreme coincidence, the Bush administration is in favor of both of those things.

Given your position on Kyoto, I assume you are in favor as well? If not, start 'splainin'.
Re:Great by danheskett · 2004-12-07 10:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Taking arguments to an extreme is a classical logical fallacy intended to discredit other peoples' arguments. It's also a trick of simple minds. You and I both know he wasn't saying anything like that. Don't be an idiot.
The point was and remains that we can do anything from nothing to a very lot, yet everyone who clamours for "something to be done" is unwilling to specify at what cost. Kyoto was so vicious to the US economic outlook that the president whose vice-president negogiated the treaty wouldn't even let it come to vote. There wasn't a siggle sitting senator - even amoung the left leaning ones - who'd agree to support it even in a non-binding way.

So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP?

That's the real question.
Re:Great by eln · 2004-12-07 10:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Again, we are too quick to assume that any change will result in massive job loss, and so we don't make the effort to find ways to reduce emissions without significantly impacting the economy. We can encourage corporations to change over time through tax incentives, and phased-in mandates. There is no reason at all to say the only way to do this is to mandate unrealistic things, that's just a scare tactic to keep anything from being done. Most corporations will not modernize by themselves, or at least will do so only very slowly. Through the use of tax credits and other incentives, including phased-in mandates, we can push corporations to modernize earlier, which will put them on cleaner and, usually, more efficient modern equipment, which would represent a net gain for the economy in terms of productivity.

The "pollution credit" system is a way to encourage companies that are in a position to modernize now to do so, and a way to encourage companies that are not in such a position to get in that position as early as possible. Maybe Kyoto implemented it poorly, but the idea is still sound as far as a method of reducing overall emissions without unduly hurting the economy, and in fact improving the economy over the long run.
Re:Great by nero4wolfe · 2004-12-07 10:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

First, you need to create some political "capital" that people are willing to look at this issue. A problem so far is that in the publications, media, etc. seen by the majority of this country, they see exactly two types of stories:
1. A story with claims that this is a problem, and needs to be solved. No real details; no background info, etc. is given; the tone is similar to a church sermon.
2. A story saying that there is no problem, or no worldwide problem (e.g., something similar to the Rush Limbaugh, etc. stories)
What is needed are intelligently written articles, giving background information, and saying why the current conclusions have been reached. They should be written for people with non scientific backgrounds. There should be no preaching. The articles should intelligently cover topices like:
Temperature changes. Show that temperature changes won't affect each area on the planet equally. Show real data; show what historical data we have. Recognize that some data (like temperature history at US reporting stations) might be affected more by "urban heat island" growth rather than by any greenhouse effects.
As there are known periods in the planets past with warming, say what we think we know about what happened then.
Talk about different things that can affect temperatures. Talk about urban heat islands. Talk about energy from the sun (is it going up?). Talk about volcanism effects. Talk about greenhouse changes.
If the premise is that the main component of current changes is greenhouse gases, say what is known. If we have any information on past average atmosphere mixtures to current time, show those. If we have that info for different areas on the planet, show those.
Talk about what can be done. You can bring up the Kyoto Treaty, but talk about positive & negative parts. Could it have any practical effect whatsover? Is it just symbolic? If it had a short term economic impact, would it help long term?
And above all, try not to force a conclusion on the reader; let the readers come to their own conclusions.
Trying to teach always works better than frenzied preaching.
Re:Great by Martin+Blank · 2004-12-07 10:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols, whether for good reasons or not, and then refuses to do anything else about global warming. We can't simply refuse to do anything because the one proposed solution is not fair. As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.

Please help in getting the hardcore greens and the NIMBYs to stop filing lawsuits blocking construction of nuclear reactors. That will go a long way towards reducing the CO2 output of the US. The combustion of coal, oil, and methane in electricity production in the US in 2002 released 2,249 million tons of CO2, not to mention the various other things that are released (particularly by coal) like sulfur dioxides, NOx gases, and of course thorium and uranium. I know the filter technology does a pretty decent job of things, but some of this stuff still gets out. Total US CO2 output in 2002 was 5796 million tons -- meaning 39% of our output is from the electrical sector alone.

Imagine what the world reaction would be if in, say, 20 years, we managed to cut our output by 25% or more just by switching off of combustibles. We might even be able to do a lot more if we could get natural gas heating to be more expensive than electrical heating (it's quite the reverse at the moment, though with natural gas becoming so popular, it might change soon on its own). I'm still undecided on global warming, as the evidence may be there but the most reliable evidence is still relatively short-term and weather systems have patterns of their own that can really screw with observations. But I figure that there are other issues -- like pollution of rivers and streams, as well as various political nightmares -- that might be solved by switching so much of our infrastructure over to fuels we can find domestically.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Great by marick · 2004-12-07 11:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

'So the question remains: how much are the "clamouring" types willing to pay? 1Million jobs? 2Million? 5M? 10M? 15% of GDP?'

Me? Well, I'd give up my Bush tax-cut. But I guess you don't mean that as an option. Aren't we going to lose those jobs anyway, when the oceans rise and eat Florida's coastline?

You act like it's either-or. "either we damage our economy OR we damage the environment". That's a false-choice.

Here's another way of looking at it. Perhaps we could find a way to create an "alternative-energy" economy? Then we could have economic growth, selling this "alternative-energy technology" to other countries, and also reduce our greenhouse gases. All it would take is massive government investment in alternative energies the way they invest in invading other countries, like Iraq.

By the way, I also like the idea of switching over to nuclear power. And no, before you ask, I don't drive a car. I walk to public transportation every day. But there's room for improvement there as well, in the form of cars that get better gas mileage, such as the various hybrids out there these days.

Of course, the alternative is to let global warming happen and watch as Florida sinks into the ocean. That wouldn't be all bad, I suppose. I mean, many in New Orleans could use a good bath.

-Michael

Official EPA Global Warming Site by the_mighty_$ · 2004-12-07 09:53 · Score: 4, Informative

The official EPA Global Warming website is located at: www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

--

VI VI VI - the editor of the beast!

Re:Official EPA Global Warming Site by michaelpoltorak · 2004-12-07 10:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

Much of the debate is centred around Michael Mann's hockey stick hypothesis. It suggests that the earth's temperature indeed was significantly higher during the last century than in the last one thousand years. Hence the hockey stick image.
UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recognises this image as conventional wisdom.
However, there is scientific evidence that Mann's estimates could be wrong: See Breaking the Hockey Stick, suggesting that global warming may be a natural phenomena.

Global Warming on Mars by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 09:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

Mars Emerging from Ice Age, Data Suggest
By SPACE.com
posted: 03:00 pm ET
08 December 2003

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.

full story at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-age _031208.html

Re:Global Warming on Mars by mrn121 · 2004-12-07 10:06 · Score: 4, Funny

Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
See, that's what happens when we start putting vehicles on Mars, too. That thing isn't aerosol powered, is it?
Re:Global Warming on Mars by FatRatBastard · 2004-12-07 10:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

This made me think of Michael Crichton's Aliens Cause Global Warming" speech, which is actually quite apropos since he took on the idea of scientific "consensus:"
In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let's review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent "skeptics" around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the "pellagra germ." The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called "Goldberger's filth parties." Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor-southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result-despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology-until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on. Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2. Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.
Re:Global Warming on Mars by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2004-12-07 12:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

The Crichton canard gets pulled out every time global warming is mentioned. There are so many things wrong with it that it's hard to know where to start tearing it apart, but I'll point out one of the obvious ones right away: Michael Crichton, himself, has almost surely never done the experiments to show that E=mc^2, or that the sun is 93 million miles away, or that malnutrition causes pellagra. So why does he believe these things?

(wait for it)

Because that's what the consensus tells him.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:Global Warming on Mars by kellman · 2004-12-07 13:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

But what he is talking about is scientific assumptions not based on scientific evidence or where the evidence is insufficient to prove any point at all.

Many other people have done Einstein's equations and arrived at the same result. Many other people have measured the distance to the sun and arrived at the same conclusion.

People were dismissing pellagra as being related to malnutrition, yet they were not using the scientific method to dispute Goldberger, just their guess that it must be a germ. Not only that but even worse, they were prejudiced that it must be a germ because they didn't want to have to make social changes for some medical epidemic.

Same as today where the scientists are saying "It must be the humans!" because humans are Bad for the Earth(tm) when there is not near enough evidence to in any way conclusively state that.

"Because that's what the consensus tells him."
And what has the consensus told you?

--
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...
Re:Global Warming on Mars by ope557 · 2004-12-07 13:16 · Score: 2, Informative

Fine, scientific consensus has been wrong many times over. We all understand that. So, because scientists have been wrong before they are wrong all of the time? Everytime scientists agree on something the opposite is the truth? I agree that just because scientists agree on something doesn't mean that they are right, but they often are.

Global warming and the effect of CO2 on the environment were not idea made up by hippies and environmentalists to get everyone out of their cars. The notion of global warming came from astronomers studying Venus. Isn't it strange, they thought, that a planet so much like ours is so inhospitable? Sure, it is closer to the sun so you would expect it to be hotter but not THAT much hotter. So, why is it so hot? A lot of study eventually revealed that Venus' atmosphere is filled with CO2. Nice thing about CO2 is that it traps heat from the sun's radiation into the atmosphere instead of escaping the atmosphere as it normally would.

Interesting they thought. Then someone said 'hey, aren't we pumping a lot of CO2 into our atmosphere?' and global warming was born. You can argue how deep the effect of our pollution is. You can argue how much of our current, apparent, warming would occur naturally. You can argue about how much C02 the world's forests are recycling. You can't argue that CO2 in the atmosphere traps in heat that would otherwise escape. We see it on Venus and it can be easily proven in labratory tests. You can't argue that the human population is dumping tons of C02 into the atmosphere. Arguing that it simply isn't happening is silly and ignorant.

Scientists have been wrong before, that is for sure. They aren't wrong here. Maybe wrong about the extent or degree of it, we can't know that, but global warming is happening so deal with it. Denying it now is like all of the people 30 years ago who believed the tobacco companies when they said the smoking doesn't cause cancer. Eventually everyone came to understand the bitter truth only it was too late for some.
Re:Global Warming on Mars by syphax · 2004-12-07 13:38 · Score: 2, Insightful

Same as today where the scientists are saying "It must be the humans!" because humans are Bad for the Earth(tm) when there is not near enough evidence to in any way conclusively state that.

I hate to feed the trolls, but...

It's well known, and not controversial, that CO2 traps heat.

It is well known, and not controversial, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, thanks to us.

Arrhenius knew these things; he was the first to examine the impact of CO2 on global climate over 100 years ago.

Of course, there are a ton of other influences on global climate; the big question is what sort of negative feedback loops may exist, and how effective they might be at countering the forcing due to CO2 increases.

There is uncertainty because climate science is tough. You've got a combination of a ton of complicated physical, chemical, biological, etc., systems involved, and you can't do controlled experiments very easily (we're doing an interesting one now with CO2, but don't have a good control).

In addition to general warming, CO2 emissions pose other threats. There's the legitimate worry that warming will screw up oceanic circulation (this is the basic idea behind that movie that, um, took a little poetic license with the concept). Also, we're increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, so we're also increasing oceanic CO2 levels, and isn't it nice that CO2 + H2O => H2CO3 => H+ + HCO3-. That's right, we're acidifying the oceans, the effects of which aren't too well known.

--
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories

Interesting article... by Jhon · 2004-12-07 09:54 · Score: 4, Insightful

75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities

Ok. How many of those actually attempted to show a LINK between global warming and human activities rather than just "accept" it?

Regardless, the final paragraph of the article begs a very interesting question:

Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

The begged question is Will it be bad or will it be good? Wouldn't warmer climates provide more arable land? What I get out of this is "We dont know what it means, but it looks like at least SOME climate changes are caused by man".

Re:Interesting article... by EnderWiggnz · 2004-12-07 10:00 · Score: 5, Insightful

What I get out of this is "We dont know what it means, but it looks like at least SOME climate changes are caused by man".

and SOME studies suggest that cigarettes cause health problems.

some.

--
... hi bingo ...
Re:Interesting article... by warrped · 2004-12-07 10:03 · Score: 2, Insightful

The use of most arable land conforms to a somewhat narrow range of temperature and rainfall. While there is certainly the capacity to adapt farming techniques to these different norms, to be perfectly honest, it would be very expensive and difficult, not to mention resulting in a rather precipitous drop in agricultural output in the meantime. Like it or not, we (people who rely on agriculture) have a fairly entrenched set of interests in the status quo insofar as it relates to climate.

--
- Bachelorhood is the father of necessity.
Re:Interesting article... by eclectechie · 2004-12-07 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

Wouldn't warmer climates provide more arable land?

Not if it is flooded with salt water...
Try this. Get a globe that shows contour lines, get a blue pen, and color everything less than 200 meters[1] above sea level blue, like the ocean.
Now see how many of the continents you can recognize.
Hint: St. Louis, Missouri is 140 meters above mean sea level.
[1] See article.

--
"The empty vessel makes the greatest sound." -- William Shakespeare; Henry V, 4. 4
Re:Interesting article... by G.+W.+Bush+Junior · 2004-12-07 10:26 · Score: 2, Insightful

Ok. How many of those actually attempted to show a LINK between global warming and human activities rather than just "accept" it?

By asking this question you raise doubt about the quality of the work without actually presenting evidence that only a minority of the scientists do serious work on this. But if you are driving an SUV a statement like that might seem insightful even though it's completely void of information.

The begged question is Will it be bad or will it be good? Wouldn't warmer climates provide more arable land? What I get out of this is "We dont know what it means, but it looks like at least SOME climate changes are caused by man".

You would have to be pretty biased to read it that way.
Two trains are heading for a collision, the respective train drivers have a lot of options, they can jump out or try to stop the train.
I could state that the question of what to do is open - but you would probably argue that I'm begging the question "Will a train collision be good or will it be bad?"
The sentence you quote has nothing to do with whether anthropogenic climate changes are good or bad.

Oh yeah... a pet peeve of mine... "begging the question" can mean two different things. If you use it the way you do you confuse the people who took the time to find out what it means, and if you use it correctly a majority of people will misunderstand what you say - so it's probably better not to use the expression at all.

--
"I don't know that Atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." -George H.W. Bush
Re:Interesting article... by Jhon · 2004-12-07 10:31 · Score: 4, Insightful

Funny that, but many of the things I've seen seem to indicate that if the ENTIRE polar ice caps melted, we'd see a rise of about 65 meters, not 200 meters. And that's if the ENTIRE cap melted -- I dont think anyone is suggest that possibility.

Maybe you just mixed up meters and feet? Your point is valid, however -- even 20 ft would be bad.

But would that happen? Global warming doesn't necessarily mean the polar ice cap will melt. The really interesting questions arise when we see the change in ocean salinity...
Re:Interesting article... by oobob · 2004-12-07 10:41 · Score: 2, Interesting

Those are the kind of comments I figured this article would end. If you read the article, it mentions the strong correllation* between increasing amounts of methane and C02 and periods of warming on the earth. Usually, some dumbass comes on and starts talking about how the dataset isn't big enough to form conclusions, forgetting that the form and details of physical structures often betray their development (not so much in this case, all I see is someone recklessly assuming that scientists assume). The earth left us clues, and that's what these scientists are looking at. Never mind that their descriptions of the natural world are overwhelmingly accurate; never mind that your life would crumble apart if the collected claims of scientists, which all of us base our lives around, turned out to be false. Scientists don't get wild ass ideas about why something's happening and then try to fit the world to their view, unlike certain other denominational groups that seem to be guiding much of this narrow-thinking inside the US. If you want to believe some wild bullshit dogma apart from the evidence, go ahead, but quit saying that everybody else's methods stink like your own.

I dislike reading slashdot and other filter site articles on global warming because of the large number of people who would rail on ONE OR TWO specific conclusions scientists make. I've never had a chance to directly speak with such a person, but I would draw them out like this.

Contrarian: The data-set is too small! We can't know!

Me: The earth betrays its history. Dinosaur bones, man.

Contrarian: But the earth goes through periods of warming all the time!

Me: Yes. Scientists told you that. And now they're telling you that fossil fuels do it too.

Contrarian: I don't see how they could make a conclusion on so little data!

Me (this part depends entirely on the contrarian not being a climatologist by trade, as is always the case): Well, you should review the data!

Contrarian: I should! And then I'll have the best ideas and arguments about the marxist fiction of global warming! I'll reason through the process, eliminate bias, and use a process of inductive observation...

Me: Right! And then other people can ask you for your educated opinion! And you'd be....a scientist.

That's what scientists are. They're the professionals. They're the ones who've READ THE FUCKING BOOKS. I like to point this out, because most of us here are arguing about shit we have no interest or training in. YOUR SHREWD POINT IS NOT A COUNTEREXAMPLE TO YEARS AND LIVES DEVOTED TO RESEARCH. SHUT THE FUCK UP ABOUT IT. You don't know about all the reasons why global warming exists BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOT READ ENOUGH TO UNDERSTAND THEM OR EVEN HAVE HEARD OF THEM. Scientists can be wrong, but you have to explain why; you can't do this unless you understand the field. So, please, enlighten us!

*I understand that correllation is not causation, but evidence like this, coupled with the melting of the glaciers and increased output of fossil fuel, and the concensus of the scientific community, the burden of proof is now on the naysayers. Most scientific results depend upon correllation, as cause and effect is a sticky relationship to (feasbly) pin down.
Re:Interesting article... by kellman · 2004-12-07 11:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Very well said.

Like you, I'm not convinced either way right now, but I believe in treating the environment well.

What makes me the most irritated though is the fact that human caused global warming is the assumption going into every one of these studies. Isn't that the point of studying the environment? Doesn't that contradict the scientific process? Why has the entire scientific community bought into this when we can't even acurately predict the weather more than 48 hours out?

It was like all those Nobel laureates signing that protest letter to Bush. Tell me how a Nuclear Physicist is an authority on global warming? He's just going along with the scientific party line and not actually contributing anything to the understanding of the environment.

--
I don't want to sell anything, buy anything, or process anything. I don't want to sell anything bought or processed...

Danger danger! by nizo · 2004-12-07 09:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

This article by a geologist which suggests that the Earth is in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.

Global warming will cause the earth to explode? Oh wait, you mean people (and possibly much of the life on earth) could be in danger. I doubt global warming will make much of a difference to the planet itself, except possibly to allow it to make more room for heat resistant lifeforms :-)

--
I Am My Own Worst Enemy

I found the truth! by lucabrasi999 · 2004-12-07 09:56 · Score: 5, Funny

From the article:

The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysica Union? What a bunch of communists. They are just trying to destroy our way of life. They don't want me to live my life the way I want. Now, where did I park my Ford Explorer? I gotta run and buy a pack of smokes...

Re:I found the truth! by runderwo · 2004-12-07 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

They played the same trick on us with CFC's and the "loss" of the ozone layer (which for some odd reason was centered around the magnetic poles). That turned out to be a load of crap too.
Oh really? Please feel free to link to the debunking. You're not going to find any, because whether your worldview likes it or not, CFCs _are_ greenhouse gases and _do_ destroy ozone. I'm sure you'll argue that it is pure coincidence that the ozone was thinnest at the poles and over Australia during the time of greatest CFC use by industrial society. You'll point to the fact that the ozone layer seems to be repairing itself today as "proof" that CFCs really weren't that big a deal.
Whether you believe humans generate enough CO2 today to cause global warning is irrelevant. (I'm sure you'll retort with something politically attractive but blatantly false like one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 than the whole US in a year, or that the greenhouse effect is made up by scientists looking for funding.)
Ecopolitics of today does not change the fact that the "alarmists" and "pseudoscientists" were right about CFC compounds and their effect in the upper atmosphere, and you'd best get off that horse if you expect anyone to pay attention to your opinions on today's global enviroment issues.

--
LRC, the best-read libertarian site on the web
Re:I found the truth! by mark2003 · 2004-12-07 23:00 · Score: 2, Informative

Mate - you are an idiot that obviously knows nothing about how ozone is created.

Energy, in the atmosphere in the form of ultraviolet light is required to kick off the reaction that causes O2 to become O3. Suprisingly the amount of UV light hitting the atmosphere is greatest at the equators and smallest at the poles (geographic) - if you had ever looked at pictures of the holes then you would see that they covered both poles and occasionally reached as far the south of Australia.

Whaddya they know? by BWJones · 2004-12-07 09:57 · Score: 2, Funny

[George W. Bush]: "All them scientists don't know nuthin. Ain't that right Andy boy?"
[Andrew Card]: "Yessir, that is absolutely correct sir. Don't know nuthin."
[George W. Bush]: "Ain't that right Scott towell?"
[Scott McClellan]: "Right in every way sir!"
[George W. Bush]: "Ain't that right Colonoscopy?"
[Colin Powell]: "I gotta get out of here."

--
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.

Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. by gargonia · 2004-12-07 09:57 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science... that it's just a theory that can be ignored. They want to ignore it because it's inconvenient for their business cronies, and those business cronies fund party activities and candidates' re-elections. I don't think there will be any changes on this front until this administration is out of office, no matter how much evidence is presented. It's quite unfortunate.

--

-- Gargonia
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.

Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. by Orne · 2004-12-07 10:07 · Score: 3, Insightful

That's funny, because I look at this as news that the mass media is pretending that it is proven science... Read the details, 100% of the articles did not mention that global warming could be produced from valid geological / astrophysical events... temporary increase in the sun's energy output, recent random volcanic activity, you know, the kind of alternative sources that can easily be found in a google search...

I am not saying that human industrial pollution is not a contributor towards global warming, I just find it interesting that so many people think that it is the only contributor...
Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. by anthony_dipierro · 2004-12-07 10:28 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science...

I think we should take a look at exactly what is proven science...

"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." Of course Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. No one, including the Bush administration, denies that.

"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." But even if you say that everyone in those selected papers believes that climate change is due to man, it still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: what is the effect of global warming, is there anything we can do to stop it? And of course, the most important, and non-scientific, but political question, is it worth it?
Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. by AaronW · 2004-12-07 11:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Volcanic activity does not contribute much to greenhouse warming. The average annual output of CO2 from volcanic activity is far less than 1% what human activity emits. Volcanos also emit sulphur dioxide and ash which helps cool the planet by reflecting radiation back in to space.
On average, volcanos emit 200 million tons of CO2 per year. Human activity averages 26 BILLION tons per year.
See here, here or here, taken from an earlier Slashdot thread.

--
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.

Serious, imminent, unavoidable danger? by Dystopian+Rebel · 2004-12-07 09:57 · Score: 3, Funny

Oh come now, you panicky Chicken Littles in lab coats!

We can just hide in our SUVs. They have heated seats.

--
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.

Tobacco by bombadillo · 2004-12-07 09:59 · Score: 3, Insightful

The Global Warming issue reminds me of big Tobacco. Deny , Deny , Deny. Years from now their will be no doubt that our habbits accelerated Global warming.

It does matter by daveschroeder · 2004-12-07 10:00 · Score: 4, Informative

And the US supports the principles of Kyoto, but does NOT support the exemption of countries termed "developing", like China.

Re:It does matter by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 10:17 · Score: 5, Informative

China has signed the treaty and is expected to become an Annex 1 country before 2015. Since the United States wouldn't be required to meet polution reduction deadlines until 2010, it wouldn't leave much time that China would be free from the same regulations as the United States. China really isn't a good excuse anymore...

I'll be dead... by DogDude · 2004-12-07 10:00 · Score: 2, Interesting

I'll be dead by the time any of this happens. What incentive is there for me to really care? Honestly? I know it's a problem, but how do you get people to care about it, when 1. They'll be dead by the time this happens and 2. There are more pressing concerns to deal with (bills, life, etc.)?

--
I don't respond to AC's.

Re: I'll be dead... by Black+Parrot · 2004-12-07 10:11 · Score: 2, Interesting

> I'll be dead by the time any of this happens.

Given the sudden onset and continued acceleration of the Arctic meltdown, I'm not so sure about that anymore.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Re:I'll be dead... by Reducer2001 · 2004-12-07 10:11 · Score: 3, Funny

Yee-haw! That's the attitude I like, boy. I've got a cabient position open for ya, if you're interested. I love reading posts like these on the internets.
GWB

--
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Re:I'll be dead... by Fizzl · 2004-12-07 18:45 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just wait 'till you have kids.

--
Bot Assisted Blogging

Supporting the Environment & China by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 10:01 · Score: 2, Interesting

As consumers, we can do much to support the environment. The latest annual study by the Union of Concerned Scientists concludes that Honda produces the most environmentally friendly car. If we care about the environment, we should buy only vehicles made by Honda.

Despite all the hoopla, the USA is not the greatest danger to the environment. We Americans are making steady progress. Note that Honda is technically an American automobile company since Honda does more than 50% of its manufacturing in the USA.

The greatest threat to the environment is China. The Chinese have been overwhelmingly burning coal. Coal horribly pollutes the environment and unloads tons of radioactive material into the air.

Given the current rate of pollution in China, once it reaches Singapore's level of economic development, the level of pollution in China will exceed that in the USA. India is equally horrible.

Re:Supporting the Environment & China by mirko · 2004-12-07 10:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Do not speculate : USA is currently the biggest polluter, whether others will become worse soon is another story, what we want is the US to show an example and make radical progresses towards making the Earth a better planet to give our children.

In Switzerland, where I live, they developed recycling, public transportation and also motivated people to make more sport, use their bikes whenever possible... walk instead of taking their big greasy trucks to the mall, the result is a better environment aware society.

--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Re:Supporting the Environment & China by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 10:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Mod parent down, it's ridiculous. The United States is a largest per capita generator of greenhouse gases by an enormous margin...to the extent that even though China has 4x as many people as the U.S., they still have lower total emissions. According to the International Energy Agency, per capita carbon emissions in North America (includes Mexico and Canada, and the U.S.) were 4.7 tons in 1997; in China the per capita emissions were 0.73 tons. No, that's not a typo, in North America we generate 4.7 tons of carbon emissions per person, per year.
Re:Supporting the Environment & China by acidrain69 · 2004-12-07 10:58 · Score: 2

funny how no one damns Saddam as a pollutor but hammmer on GWB

I hate GWB as much as the next person, but I think his record speaks for itself, I don't need to compare him to Saddam.

--
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Re:Supporting the Environment & China by turtledot · 2004-12-07 11:06 · Score: 2, Informative

Never mind industrial pollution. In China there are great underground coal fires which are producing as much CO2 emissions as all of the motor vehicle traffic in the US

source:

If interested in more Google the following keywords:
coal fires global catastrophe

What about rejects? by ajs · 2004-12-07 10:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

How many were rejected from the peer review process which suggested or concluded otherwise? More to the point (and obviously, this cannot be known) how many were never submitted for peer review in the first place because of concern over the backlash?

Most US science funding in climate and solar research comes from the federal govt (in geological and oceanic research sizable amounts can come from private groups). When politicians don't want to look like they're anti-environment they screen funding to make sure it's not going to go to "enemies of the planet" (I kid you not, that's the phrase).

How can a survey of peer reviewed journals be a valid source of data when people are afraid to publish "the wrong results"?

Perhaps global warming is caused by adult white male toenail clippings, but I'm pretty sure we have no reasonable way of finding that out right now.

Re:What about rejects? by Garse+Janacek · 2004-12-07 10:56 · Score: 4, Informative

Okay, this shows such a poor understanding of the concept of a peer reviewed journal that I'm not even sure how to respond.
For starters, how many papers were rejected from the peer review process is almost entirely irrelevant. The peer review process is in place for a reason, and the reason is to ensure that bad science (not politically unpleasant conclusions) are not published in major journals. Unless you have a strong reason to believe that most peer reviewers have a strong personal stake in suppressing legitimate research because they don't like the conclusions, then this objection is bunk. We aren't talking about a 60-40 split on a controversial subject -- no papers that contradicted human involvement in global warming made it through the process. What possible benefit would it be to any of those reviewers to suppress opposing opinions? They have no personal stake one way or the other, except arguably their reputations, and that presupposes that there is not a single scientist that has done enough legitimate research to be a peer reviewer and yet still thinks global warming isn't a human issue (or at most, no more than a handful) -- a strong argument for thinking global warming is a significant issue, as far as I'm concerned.
You also rant about how these papers are only published because people don't want to lose funding by being perceived as anti-environment. It seems fairly evident that the current government establishment would be most served by producing strong evidence that global warming is not a serious issue -- so why would it be more politically safe to contradict the notion that things are okay, and question the status quo? If people wanted "safe" conclusions to ensure their funding, they would be saying that global warming is no big deal. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that no funding exists for the production of honest results. Again, this isn't a 60-40 split -- if anyone, even a single person, has ever received funding to do legitimate research on this subject, and has come up with findings against human involvement, it has not been able to make it through a peer review, which probably means that it used questionable methods or was otherwise flawed. Peer reviewers are not as politically motivated as you seem to suppose.
How can a survey of peer reviewed journals be a valid source of data when people are afraid to publish "the wrong results"?
A valid question, but one that is entirely irrelevant until you have shown that this fear actually exists.

--
I am the man with no sig!
Re:What about rejects? by Garse+Janacek · 2004-12-07 13:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Show why peer reviewed journals are a valid source.
I doubt this will satisfy you, but -- the people who run and are published in peer reviewed journals for a given subject are almost exclusively the most educated people in that subject, and typically devote the majority of their lives to studying it. If you are going to trust anyone to do major research in this area, it almost by definition has to be these people. And they seem, so far, pretty unanimous.
I should emphasize that I'm not saying there is never bias in peer-reviewed journals, or that political concerns never prevent publication of valid research. Certainly political issues, professional rivalries, and funding can affect the peer review process. The notion I reject is that there is a strong case to be made against human impact on global warming, but that every single paper that talks about it has been rejected. Bias in individual instances, yes, or even bias against papers reaching an unpopular conclusion -- but bias so strong that there is not even a single exception?
You've also concluded that article reviewers have no personal stake. What's the basis for that conclusion? Lack of imagination?
No, personal experience and statistics. I don't work in environmental science, but I know many people who work in academia (and expect to end up there myself), and while funding and politics certainly matter, the vast majority of these people are voluntarily doing work for less pay than they could get elsewhere because they love the work, and want to learn more about their field of expertise. The notion that not only the majority of these researchers, but virtually all of them (in any way that can be measured) are deliberately suppressing valid research because of some personal stake in it seems very implausible to me. As I said above, in some cases, sure, but every single time? In every single journal, by every single review committee?
Because the government is much more likely to fund research into something that's "no big deal" than something that's a crisis.
My point was that right now it is to much of the elected government's advantage if people believe that global warming is not a serious issue. In that light, it seems that they should discourage doomsaying, especially if they thought it was inaccurate. Yes, exaggerating the importance of your research may get you more funding in the short term, but reaching the conclusion that our entire country needs to spend uber-billions of dollars cleaning up our act hardly seems like the sort of thing that would make the government happier about your research.

--
I am the man with no sig!

Another danger of Global Warming... by Saeger · 2004-12-07 10:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

...is being suckered into accepting the neutral "Climate Change" euphemism, which downplays its significance. I wonder who started that trend?...Hmm...

--
Power to the Peaceful

The problem is this discussion is now political by jludwig · 2004-12-07 10:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

How about books that argue against global warming, do those count?

http://www.lomborg.com/books.htm Or any of the following reviews or responses in Nature and Science?

http://www.lomborg.com/critique.htm

Oh right, those don't count because refuting environmental destruction claims isn't politically correct! Look, I don't agree with much of what Bjorn says, but the point is he compiled some statistics, came to some conclusions, and was then ostracized by the political machine for being "irresponsible" for advocating what a very liberal Euro nation dubbed "wreckless science". The critique of his science (that wasn't much of that) was second to the smear campaign leveled against him for being irresponsible. His work didn't "count" I guess in however cooked up his stupid statistic also.

This is the same thing John Stewart was talking about during his CNN Crossfire talk, we're so right or left now we can't have an honest debate about real issues, which we really need. No papers are published because its career death because a very liberal academia has decided anyone going against this trend is scum, without even looking at the science. Nature would not accept a paper from someone that claimed otherwise, but this is a debate we really need to have folks.

Jeff

Inexpensive land? by nizo · 2004-12-07 10:04 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sea level has constantly fluctuated in the geological past: its highest recorded level was in the Cretaceous Period, some 80 million years ago, when CO2 levels were considerably higher than at present, and ice-caps were virtually absent from the earth. Then, sea level stood at least 200 metres higher than today, with most of the UK being submerged.

Now the key is to figure out where the least expensive land is that is currently about 202 meters above sea level so I can have beachfront property to retire on. I wonder if I can get a good deal on a submerged English castle to ship over to move onto said property?

--
I Am My Own Worst Enemy

Finally a solution by Wateshay · 2004-12-07 10:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

A solution from the last link:

a large-scale switch to civil nuclear power. This has the benefit of being proven technology. We are aware of the problems, and current public unpopularity of this route, but we consider the dangers posed by global warming to be orders of magnitude greater than those likely to be caused by the controlled use of nuclear power. This energy source, additionally, could lie at the heart of future hydrogen-based transport systems.

Now, there's a solution I can get behind (no, I'm not joking). Nuclear energy, pursued with a strong eye towards safety and security, would be a step forward in terms of our efficiency and use of energy.

Bankrupting the industrialized nations of the world for an unproven solution isn't.

--

"If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

The rest of the story by radinator · 2004-12-07 10:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

"Unfair is one nation producing over 25% of global CO2 emissions ..."

"...and produce 31% of the worlds output." Conveniently, you forgot this part. Seems a common oversight.

Re:The rest of the story by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 10:27 · Score: 5, Insightful

"...and then consume that output." Funny how those who are so eager to "correct" this mistake never notice their own.

Seems a far more common and far more damaging oversight, eh? In fact, it's so common that one would almost think that this oversight is a deliberate untruth propogated for rhetorical purpose.
Re:The rest of the story by nomel · 2004-12-07 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

But, you also have to consider how much of that output we consume ourselves.
Re:The rest of the story by El+Cabri · 2004-12-07 11:47 · Score: 2, Insightful

The US does not output anything. Have you checked the US trade balance lately ? How come a nation with 31% of the world "output" does not export anything ? You are counting the GDP. But the US GDP includes stuff like the markup retailers make on imported Chinese goods, the legal costs of the Clinton-Lewinsky incident, the health insurance industry profits, the DoD purchasing of the bombs that killed 100,000 human beings in Irak recently, the profits of people who cashed out of their Manhattan apt and went to retire in Florida. It's just a number, just an accounting figure.

The share of "useless" GDP is higher in the US than in most industrialized nation. Plus it is compared with other nation's figures using purchasing power parity conversion, which values the USD much more than the currency market currently does.

and in another 20 years we will be seeing by hsmith · 2004-12-07 10:14 · Score: 2, Informative

global cooling again. in the 70's they thought the world would freeze over, someone make up their mind

Re:A general question about global warming... by Reducer2001 · 2004-12-07 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I basically agree with you on this, the evidence isn't air tight. However, that doesn't change the fact that we're still dumping tons of poisonous gas into our atmosphere every day. If nothing else, we should cut back on that.

--
When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!

Re:Lovely by RedWizzard · 2004-12-07 10:15 · Score: 2, Insightful

I love how lately on Slashdot anything a particular individual doesn't agree with has become "groupthink". As though that somehow makes it invalid. Has it occurred to you that maybe the consensus has been reached because global warming is a real problem, and that the evidience is overwhelmingly in support of humanity being a major factor?

Science is not a democracy by geneing · 2004-12-07 10:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

Or as the article itself says: "The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong."

At the risk of being labeled a troll. There are only a few ways that can convincingly prove a scientific theory: 1) carefully done experiments where all the extra parameters are kept constant, which is impossible in this case, or 2) either analytical derivation or computational simulation from "first principles" (also can't be achieved despite all the progress in HPC).

Studies that I'm aware of either show that there is a historical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (no control for other sources that change climate) or ad-hoc models that are made to fit past data and then used to extrapolate into the future (approach has been tried before for stock market prediction without much success).

It's just very hard to prove human influence on climate.

Having said this, I think it's a very good idea to try find a better source of energy than oil and gas.

Re:I call bullcrap... by Tumbleweed · 2004-12-07 10:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Because back then, these big-ass creatures called 'dinosaurs' roamed the earth, and when they went swimming, it caused the sea level to rise.

Simple, really.

Oh yeah, plus sponges hadn't yet been invented.

"Blame Bush" fails again by kippy · 2004-12-07 10:19 · Score: 5, Informative

The Bush Administration rejects the Kyoto protocols, whether for good reasons or not, and then refuses to do anything else about global warming.

Bullshit.

14 Nations to Participate in Plan to Reduce Methane

This is largely driven by the US and it includes India and China. It'll have the same greenhouse effect as removing 7% of US fleet of cars from the road and it costs next to nothing.

Just because Bush doesn't sign up to a program with name recognition, doesn't mean the US government isn't doing anything.

--
Blaze a trail to the New World

Re:Meaningless by Durandal64 · 2004-12-07 10:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

I was unaware that there existed separate journals for each conclusion on politically controversial topics. Maybe you should learn more about how the peer review and journal submission processes work. Oh, and by the way, the article never said that "crank" journals were singled out and rejected. It said that any journal in the ISI was searched for relevant articles, and one would assume that the ISI does not include crank publications in its listings, and it certainly doesn't include non-peer-reviewed publications.

Science is science by Ryan+C. · 2004-12-07 10:22 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agree that the scientific community has a history of being affected by groupthink and politics.

But, this is the scientific process. That community has come up with most of the innovations of the last few centuries, including the computer and networks you're reading this on. They can be and sometimes are wrong. But betting against them is not a smart bet. Especially with life as we know it on the line.

Books generally don't count since they are not filtered though peer review. The one you link to, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" has the distinction of generating some peer discussion in scientific magazines. The only problem is that the discussion has been unilaterally negative. At least he did get some arguments started, so hats off to him. But if he's serious about changing scientific opinion, he should (and maybe has) submit to peer reviewed papers. They may not be published, but that's where the true battle is waged.

--
-Ryan C.

So what's the news here? by Alwin+Henseler · 2004-12-07 10:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the article summary: ".. 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."

Just because everybody is saying it, doesn't make it true.

But okay, I'm the last person to deny global warming is upon us. Other than some US folks still not convinced or thinking it's not that big a problem (or simply putting their head in the sand), global warming is observed, and the only question is about how much of it is the result of human activities, and how much by natural causes. Oh yeah, and what to do about it.

For the rest: nothing to see here.

Re:So what's the news here? by Frymaster · 2004-12-07 11:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

I still say that reguardless of global warming it is better to continue on and deal with problems as they arise
so the solution is to deal with the symptoms rather than address the cause?
If we throw away our technology, as some would seem to prefer
slow down, there! it's a bit of a leap to conclude that those who advocate a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gasses are calling for us to "throw away our technology".
a hundred and twenty years ago, all the western world's major cities had a horse poop problem. lots of horses in the streets, lots of poop. how was this addressed? by "throwing away" the technology of horses? no. the solution was technological improvement rather than regression.
now we just have to deal with the car poop.

--
2 1337 4 u!
Re:So what's the news here? by Dashing+Leech · 2004-12-07 13:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Just because everybody is saying it, doesn't make it true.
Mod this way up. The "study" itself is pseudo-science. It basically says the majority of climate scientists believe something is true without questioning it or citing proof. There are at least two logical fallacies in this study, Appeal to Authority (they're climate scientists therefore their beliefs must be the truth) and Appeal to Majority (most believe it therefore it's true). Science magazine has taken flak for their silliness on global warming before.
When you look at the actual science behind global warming and its causes, things are a lot less clear. In the same link above, you can see that when atmospheric scientists actually studying the causes of global climate change, the data at leasts points to a significant amount (>80%?) of climate change due to solar activity. But this doesn't make for entertaining or shocking headlines. Boring old science just doesn't have the flash of wild claims and bizarre pseudo-science. Unfortunately, it seems more and more scientists are incapable of separating the two themselves.
Re:So what's the news here? by de+Selby · 2004-12-07 14:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Appeal to Authority (they're climate scientists therefore their beliefs must be the truth) and Appeal to Majority (most believe it therefore it's true)."

You've got the word of "appeal to authority" but not the spirit. It's a mistake to rely only on authority to justify something (because reasoning and evidence are the only things that justify), but in the case of climate scientists they supposedly determine the truth as best as anyone can on this subject, using reason and evidence. It's proxy reasoning; not necessarily authority.

Or, to maybe put it better, it's an authority only because it's a good thing to appeal to. You can't throw it out because it made it that far.

Same with "appeal to majority". If we were talking about a simple survey of the ignorant, majority would mean nothing. And if this were deduction, it would be bad deduction. But this is about who's argument is more convincing, and thus most likely to be true (or truer). You could not perfom a survey on a better sample to determine who's argument is more convincing on this topic.

Re:Science is no democracy by Durandal64 · 2004-12-07 10:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

This is a rebuttal to right-wing politicians' common claim that there is controvery in the scientific community about global warming. This is a lie, and it's the same tactic that creationists use to drive evolution from public schools. They claim that biologists are split on evolution, so it shouldn't be taught in schools. (In reality, there is only debate about certain details, like whether natural selection is the exclusive mechanism driving the observed process of evolution. No biologist worth his salt is going to dispute that evolution occurs.)

Re:Has to be said... by Tumbleweed · 2004-12-07 10:28 · Score: 2, Funny

Except that the sea level won't rise if the ice caps melt. Ice displaces more volume than water.

That's not what was shown in the documentary 'Waterworld'...and hey, if melted polar ice caps means a world with Kevin Costner with gills, well then, bring it on! I loves me a good freak show.

Global Warming vs. "Maunder Minimum" by jstanforth · 2004-12-07 10:28 · Score: 2, Interesting

Interesting conclusions, and they seem entirely valid. One thing I was wondering just last week, though: Astronomers point to a period of reduced solar activity (sunspots, flares, etc.) about four hundred years ago and say that this accounts for a "mini-Ice Age" experienced in Europe at the time. That is, without the flares sending huge amounts of radiation towards earth as they normally do, the quiet period on the sun lowered our temperatures significantly during that 80-100 year period (in the 1600s). No one is quite sure why that happened, nor can they predict when it might happen again, though at least a couple people have suggested something like a 400-year cycle, which would be some point in the next decade.

So the interesting question will be: How will our human-generated global warming (which they didn't have during the Maunder minimum four hundred years ago) affect the climate if temperatures already drop due to lower solar activity? Just something random (and hopefully interesting) to contemplate.

climate change is a better phrase by dankelley · 2004-12-07 10:29 · Score: 4, Informative

The phrase is not a euphemism. It's a recognition of the fact that we care about more than just global averages and we care about more than temperature.

The world-averaged temperature could remain unchanged by cooling some regions and warming others, and both things could be difficult in terms of crop adjustment, etc. And there is a lot of concern about water as well as heat; think drought.

The expanded phrase also includes the "climate of weather", i.e. the slowly varying statistics of the quickly varying fields. For example, we ask whether the weather would be more stormy in the future.

I've never heard it said that climate change is a euphemism ... to folks like me who work in this field, it's a more encompassing phrase.

Lies by daveschroeder · 2004-12-07 10:29 · Score: 5, Informative

Bush didn't "pull out of" anything. Why YOUR revisionist history, Anonymous Coward?

The US is a Kyoto signatory, but "On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification."

All of this happened under Clinton.

So, sorry, but your bullshit post is just that.

Re:Lies by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 11:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

So, what is W doing now to move forward?
Re:Lies by killjoe · 2004-12-07 12:10 · Score: 2, Funny

SO bush is just as bad as clinton. I am sure you republicans are proud of that.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Lies by YouHaveSnail · 2004-12-07 12:26 · Score: 2, Informative

Bush didn't "pull out of" anything.

Perhaps, but he did radically change the direction the country was moving in with respect to Kyoto. Had Bush wanted to get Kyoto ratified, he surely could have done so.

He also gutted the Clean Air Act with his dishonestly named "Clear Skies" initiative. Clear Skies weakens the emissions controls of the Clean Air Act, and nearly eliminates New Source Review.

Don' t try to paint this like Bush is a friend of the environment. You can't make that case.
Re:Lies by dubl-u · 2004-12-07 12:29 · Score: 4, Insightful

I don't have much time for the AC's reflexive Bush-bashing, but the picture you paint doesn't seem to be any less one-sided.

From my understanding of it, the US did pretty much disengage from the process, so although they didn't technically pull out of the treaty, they certainly have withdrawn from the process of dealing with global carbon emissions. And there's no denying that Bush welched on his campaign promise to do something about it.

And I think there's an important difference with Clinton's actions: the main post points out, we're six years further along with the science of it. The room for reasonable doubt has greadly shrunk, and we've got six more years of excess CO2 emissions to clean up now.
Re:Lies by dubl-u · 2004-12-07 15:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

There is no reason to sign the treaty.

Aside from impending climate change, of course.

There are countries who are largely hardly even bound by it (China)

China just recently joined the WTO, but that doesn't mean we should have waited for them. If we want to be a global leader, a good way to do it would be by leading.

and it would put our sovreignty in jeapardy. [sic]

Sorry, I missed the provision of the treaty where it said that the carbon police could annex territory or replace the president if we didn't cut emissions. Could you point that part out to me?

Besides, through our own regulation we've already cut our emissions by half since about 1972.

Based on what data? Government data says there's been a 25% rise from 1972 to 2000. And as far as I know, there are no CO2 emissions regulations in the US yet. Could you point us at them?
Re:Lies by dubl-u · 2004-12-07 18:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

So in spite of the population increasing 47% and the Gross Domestic Product increasing by 254%, co2 emissions have only increased by 24%. That's a pretty good reduction by anyone's standards.

Ah, ok, that's what he was talking about.

Of course, that's not a reduction at all. It's an increase, and a substantial one. It's not like the atmosphere is going to say, "Good work guys, you got your per-person emissions down, so I guess I'll let some of this heat out. And hey, your GDP is up, so I'll cancel one of these hurricanes, too."

And before we pat ourselves on the back too much about getting our emissions per unit of GDP down, we might ask how much of that is due to shipping most of our manufacturing to foreign countries. With a $600 billion trade defecit, a lot of the emissions we cause are actually going on somebody else's Kyoto tab.

Glad you're not a scientist by WebCowboy · 2004-12-07 10:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Well, I HOPE you aren't anyways.

Yes, groupthinking like 2+2=4 and the earth is round, is just sooo bad.

How are mathematical statements and established facts groupthink? Groupthink is belief in an opinion or hypothesis because it is the most popular one. There is consensus based on scientific observation of climate data that global temperatures are rising along with atomspheric CO2 levels. There is actual evidence of this.

The evidence pointing to the CAUSE of global warming isn't so solid. All we know for sure is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are heating up the planet. The impact of human activity on CO2 levels may be negligable for all we konw. One major volcanic eruption, for example, can pump out more climate-altering emissions in days than all of humanity could do for years. The observations in this article do not present any evidence at all, they just demonstrate that scientists who write papers happen to have come to a consensus that human CO2 emissions have an impact on global warming. Being there is not SOLID, DIRECT proof of that one might say it is "group think"...scientists have succumbed to "group think " before...

The article itself makes a good statement:

The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Science isn't always right. One thing is for sure though, reducing CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels might not stop global warming for sure, but it certainly can't make the problem worse. And besides that, it is probalby wise to conserve the worlds biggest NON-renewable resource, much of which happens to be unfortunately located in politically unstable countries where mentally unstable terrorists like to hide.

Re:Bah... by nomadic · 2004-12-07 10:32 · Score: 5, Insightful

It is still surprising to me that only 1 in 4 bothered to include alternative polution sources...

Because they're professional geologists, so that goes without saying? These are peer-reviewed scientific journals, not introductory textbooks. If a physician writes an article claiming some chemical causes cancer, is he going to also mention everything else causes cancer? Is he going to mention the sun also causes cancer? Of course not, because he most likely is not a complete and utter moron, and he assumes his readers aren't either.

Find me a single geologist anywhere who has ever publicly stated that anthropogenic sources are the only things that cause global climate change.

The Earth is fine, it's we who have to worry by serutan · 2004-12-07 10:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe this is just a nitpick, but people tend to overestimate the importance of humans and our impact on the planet. The issue here is our own survival. The opening of the article lays it out plainly:

Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development - and even survival - of humanity.

Exactly. The Earth will go on spinning and evolving new land masses and creatures as it has done for billions of years, no matter what we do to it, short of actually blowing it to pieces. Even massive global nuclear contamination would fade away eventually, becoming a mere hiccup on a geological time scale. Our activities might destroy a lot of species in addition to ourselves, but in planetary history mass extinctions are routine non-events.

What motivates my concern is not that we need to preserve this or that for its own sake, but that we want to maintain a pleasant world to live in. For some people that might include spotted owls and obscure mud lizards, for others not. I think the environmental movement might get more attention from the people who make the decisions if they give up on the sacred earth-spirit thing and focus on the fact that nobody wants to think of their great grandchildren living in shelters and subsisting on hydroponic fungi.

Re:Cranks by Rasvar · 2004-12-07 10:35 · Score: 3, Insightful

Of course, 600 years ago a "peer review" would call you a crank for saying the world was round.

There is human influence on the climate. The harder question to answer is to what degree and how fast? Most of the global simulations have some pretty fatal flaws. Some do not account for the oceans ability to hold heat very well. Others do not take into account how changing currents in the deep levels of the oceans will affect upper currents. Heck, the GFS[NOAA's main forecast model] had a 30 degree miss on the weather in New England this past weekend three days out. Computer modeling is not the be all end all.

This is not to say that nothing needs to be done. I think there is a bit of Chicken Little in the research community. Especially the ones who know that fear brings them more funding.

Some have stated Kyoto was a "start." In international treaties, there are no such things as starts. Once you get a bad treaty, you tend to be stuck with the damn thign forever because the other countries feel like they did what they needed to do. That is politics. You can not accept a bad treaty like Kyoto. It had major flaws and would have been a band aide on a monster gash.

Is the administration doing enough, hell no? However, Kyoto flat out sucked as a treaty goes. It had been rendered as nothing but a way for third world countries to make money by selling their pollution rights. It was full BS.

Re:I call bullcrap... by mce · 2004-12-07 10:42 · Score: 2, Insightful

Look, I for one am convinced that we humans are causing a (large) part of this. But whether or not we do should not even matter!

It is an undeniable fact, backed by a large volume of evidence, that the climate is changing worldwide. Whether or not we humans co-caused this, we will have to live with the consequences! And if we're sufficiently open minded about what is going on we may be able to mitigate some of the bad effects, or at least slow down these unwanted changes by pro-actively looking for "solutions".

I simply fail to understand how scientifically educated people can be so stubbornly blind to this simply because "they don't like the consequences"!

--
Linux user since early January 1992.

Re:Michael Crichton just said... by Oligonicella · 2004-12-07 10:44 · Score: 2, Informative

"The article started off with an ominous warning about climate change from the 1970s about...global cooling."

Not only that, but the "warnings" for global cooling and now global warming are coming from the same individuals. Can you say book sales? I know you can.

Re:I may be too young... by Russ+Nelson · 2004-12-07 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

The climate is always changing. Sometimes it gets warmer and sometimes it gets colder. What is controversial here is 1) should we attempt to stop changing the climate if that is indeed what is happening, or 2) save our resources for adapting to the inevitable change?

If you think 1) is correct, then you worship Kyoto as the God that will Save Mankind (nevermind the fact that if the predictions are correct, and they are not likely to be, that Kyoto is only intended to reduce the INCREASE IN CO2 emissions by less than 10%).

Kyoto will do nothing to actually save us, but it WILL cause a huge amount of resources to be consumed. Somehow, environmentalists think that consuming resources to no good result is good IFF the intentions are good. You see this all the time. That's because environmentalism is a religion, and has nothing to do with science.
-russ

--
Don't piss off The Angry Economist

Hammering GWB by theblacksun · 2004-12-07 10:46 · Score: 2, Insightful

I hammer GWB over his environmental record because he is my elected representative and he has done a very piss poor job of representing my environmental views.

What Saddam did was in the middle of war; we are prepared at any time to fire nuclear missles at other countries, which just might be a bit worse on the environment than Saddam's oil fires. FYI when Saddam asked the US about invading Kuwait, Bush Senior's administration told him they had no opinion on the matter. Not that I'm defending him, but I can see how he might have been a bit bitter on his way out of Kuwait.

--
Ignorance kills, complacency kills, hatred kills, but usually not the ones guilty of them.

For the true and not so true believers by FooGoo · 2004-12-07 10:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Here is an interesting discussion given by the Alfred P. Sloan professor of Atmospheric Sciences Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences Massachusetts Institute of Technology...Richard S. Lindzen entitled: CLIMATE ALARM - Where Does it Come From?

It may help to explain why most "scientists" agree in this topic.
http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/264.pdf

--
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them

help! This means you... by Cally · 2004-12-07 11:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

I've been getting gincreasingly despondent reading climate change stories on Slashdot over the last few years, seeing well-established science ridiculed and ignored by people apparently intelligent enough to know better. In particular I see the same tired old straw man arguments, deliberate canards, propaganda, misinterpretion and plain ol' ignorance trotted out again and again. No doubt the comments here are full of the same nonsense - see below for my working list of tired attempts to refute rationality.

After the most recent Slashdot story I actually steeled myself to do something about it. I re-read the whole story at Threshold 2 to gather UIDs of people who might help. The idea is to build a list of myths and authoritative answers to them. For example, the old line that the sun's getting hotter, and that this explains global warming, comes up over & over again. Many, very patient! and knowledgable people posted to that story with excellent refutations of such nonsense.

I'm going to put my plaintext mail address in this comment, that's how serious I am about this! You can even help if you believe that Climate Change is hippie nonsense trotted out by pseudo scientists who just want more funding!!

What I am looking for:

A list of skeptical objections to the hypothesis that human CO2 emissions are changing the climate, and that this is a bad thing. I don't really mind how loopy or paraniod your objections are: whatever reason you use to claim that it's nonsense, let me know so I can add it to the list.
More importantly - people who can help prepare authoritative, rational refutations of these assertions.

If you have violent objections to the idea that global warming is a bad thing, please email me at the address below describing why you think this. As you will see if you hit 'see the rest of this comment', the existing list - which were collected from a single Slashdot story - is already pretty long, so this isn't so vital.

If you can help knock down such gibberish- if you have posted with a calm, well-argued and ideally knowledgable or carefully referenced refutation of a wild claim - please email me and make yourself known; I will get in touch in the next few days.

If you want to subscribe me to lots of spam lists, don't bother; Gmail are very good at spam filtering, you'll get yourself blacklisted when I hit 'report spam' and you won't be helping your cause one little bit.

If you can help, mail me at:

username: imipak; domain (at): gmail.com

Here's the list I collected from the last Slashdot climate change story, only a few days ago, about "why anthropogenic climate change is a myth". Read it and weep.

We only have temperature records for the last few hundred years.
The sun is getting hotter.
Climate change == global warming - great! It's too cold where I am!
Climate change is pseudo-science
Climate change is just a theory - we should wait until it's proven before taking action
Climate scientists deliberately falsify and/or manufacture fake data to support the theory, because otherwise they wouldn't get grants for further research.
Climate science is skewed by unconcious assumptions that climate change is anthropomorphic
Climate change is a conspiracy by the UN or the French or Europeans or Chinese to hurt the USA
Volcanoes emit more CO2 than humans (several variants on this one - eg more than all humans ever, this year, etc)
For every scientist who predicts global warming doom and gloom, you will find as many who say that it isn't happening, or that human activity isn't a significant factor.
we are barely 10,000 years out of our last one, and may still be warming FROM it? 10,000 years are mere seconds in geologic time.
the Earth has sustained worse temperature fluxations. (variants: in human history / last 10,000 years / lifetime of the planet)
Cows produce methane!

--
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe

Re:help! This means you... by kilpo1 · 2004-12-07 14:34 · Score: 3, Interesting

Has the Northern Hemisphere been warming for at least the last 100 years? No question. But I would suggest that what is important is the *rate* of change -- the delta. Also important is the question: "How warm is warm?"
Let me explain.
Circa 900 AD or so, Eric the Red was tossed out of Iceland (he and his bunch were a tad too rowdy for the Norse already there) and began settling what was known as Greenland in the last century. At one time I used to think that Eric and his son Lief ran not only the first but arguably the greatest real estate scam in recorded history. But I was wrong. For nearly 200 years Norse settlements dotted the coasts of Greenland, some of them more than 100 miles *north* of the Arctic Circle. These Norse settlers were not fishermen; they were farmers and survived by growing wheat! Hard as it may be to believe, but 1000 years ago the coasts of Greenland were indeed green.

So question Number One: How much warmer does it have to get before wheat can be grown and harvested on the west coast of Greenland north of the Arctic Circle?

Sometime after 1100 AD these settlements were abandoned as the climate began to turn colder. By 1350 Europe was in the middle of a "mini-ice age." It was still plenty damn cold when Columbus sailed the ocean blue.

Question Number Two: What was the rate of change as Europe cooled down from 1000 AD to 1350 AD? Is that delta smaller or larger than the one we are now experiencing?

I would posit that if the delta of climatic change today is not significantly (in its statistical sense) greater than it was from 1000 AD - 1350 AD, then it is hard to argue that human activity is the *primary* cause of the change. After all, the current warming trend has been going on for more than 100 years now and I think we still have a ways to go before farmers are planting wheat at Godthab or Holsteinborg on the west coast of Greenland.

The Earth is NOT in "in serious ... danger". by sfjoe · 2004-12-07 11:23 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Earth will be just fine. It will go on evolving as it has for billions of years. We humans, however, may not be so fortunate if we don't change our habits. As George Carlin once said, "the Earth will shake us off like a bad cold".

--
It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.

Re:0%? by JasonBee · 2004-12-07 11:51 · Score: 2, Informative

>>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.

Uhhhh...no it hasn't. But then again neither I nor you are backing up either of our assertions with information...how many cubic kilometers of dust and ash were release? Not sure? Go pick up a study and read up on it.

likewise...if you're unsure of any of the global warming studies done out there...go find one...and read it! Some are very dry, and boring for many I assure you but the science is there...and it doesn't lay out a concrete series of future facts. Science as always only draws lines from parallels of known data.

As a Canadian I know it's going to be national concern #1 very soon because we've let atrophy our navy and the arctic sea ice is disppearing so fucking fast that we're going to have to build 10 to 15 ship armada just to police all that new open water. Other nations have even started planting rogue flags to claim territory we haven't been using.

in the end all our posturing is psuhed aside by cold hard fact...Earth warms = less sea and land ice. That is happening now.

"Nucular" and "Nuclear", if you're interested. by ArsSineArtificio · 2004-12-07 11:51 · Score: 2, Interesting

Every time W calls it "nucular" (and he usualy does)

I think he always pronounces it "nucular" in public addresses. "Nucular" is an incorrect but very common pronounciation of "nuclear"; as this dictionary entry explains, it's common because so many other terms (circular, spectacular, molecular, ocular, vascular) end with a "-ular" sound, whereas "-lear" is comparatively unfamiliar.

An analogous word would be "minuscule", very commonly misspelled as "miniscule", because so many familiar words begin with "mini-".

--
All employees must wash hands before seeking equitable relief.

Slashdot Opinion or US Opinion by solanum · 2004-12-07 11:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

I saw this article on the front page and wondered to myself if there would be yet another stream of comments denying that there is evidence of climate change or that it could have any deletarious impact. Of course there was.
I am a scientist, not working directly on how anthropogenic activities are effecting the atmosphere but on what the predicted effects may have on vegetation.
As a scientist I look at all the available evidence for a question and come to some conclusion based on that evidence. There is no other sensible way to make a decisison. Where the evidence is lacking, I would try and do some work that would provide evidence one way or another.
Virtually all available evidence points to anthropogenic emmisions causing climate change and there is plenty of evidence as to what those changes may be and what the effects of those changes on the biosphere may be.
Consequently, what I wonder about the, extremely predictable, Slashdot response to an article such as this is whether it reflects the attitude of the US or whether it reflects the attiude of the predominently young, middle-class and technical readership of Slashdot?
Either way, I'm fearful of the general ignorance and lack of logical thought.

--
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes.

Don't blame the messengers for the bad news... by mulescent · 2004-12-07 12:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

Usually, I stay out of Slashdot discussions on pseudo-religious scientific topics, but the comments I have read so far demand a reply. Unfortunately, many /. posters seem to forget that scientists are highly trained human beings whose job it is to answer questions such as the one being considered here.

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that scientists are any different than most human beings. Individual scientists can succumb to greed, lust for fame, etc and, occasionally, will get away with publishing intentionally erroneous data. Usually when this happens, especially in an area where so many scientists are working (like climate change), their lies will be uncovered and they will be ruined (ex: cold fusion, etc).

The article being discussed here states that the vast majority of hundreds of studies on the subject have all come to the same conclusions: global warming is both real and anthropogenic. I suggest that the groundswell of /. opinion that all these researchers are wrong/lying is due to the rather unfortunate consequences of the truth. We will have to face the facts that our climate may change. Maybe for Canadians, this will be a good thing. For ocean algae and those in the lower lattitudes it will most certainly be bad.

Society invests a huge amount of money in scientific research each year, and does so in a way that ensures maximum objectivity and honesty on the part of the researchers. Averaged over time and sufficient numbers of studies, science usually hits pretty close to the mark. Therefore, to all those doubting, suck it up and deal with the damage we've done. Don't blame the messenger if you dont like the message.

I imagine someone has picked this up before, but.. by Jim_Callahan · 2004-12-07 12:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

(1) there has never been any doubt that human activities contribute to global warming. The only point of contention is wether an alteration of our current activities would cause a significant change in the rate of global warming, and wether, if this is the case, we should attempt to do so.

(2)Consensus has nothing to do with truth... unless you subscribe to the WOD view of the universe, in which case we could fix all our problems by believing at them really hard.

Good to know that human foolishness is once again aligned in a predictable direction, though.

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~

Consensus Science is an Oxymoron by hadronzoo · 2004-12-07 12:37 · Score: 2, Informative

Science is founded upon doubt--constantly challenging existing theories in search of physical truth. Considering most predictions concerning the earth's climate are based on poorly performing computer models, current theories are far from conclusive. Check out Patrick Michaels http://www.cato.org/people/michaels.html.

that's pretty. by vena · 2004-12-07 12:43 · Score: 2, Interesting

By asking this question you raise doubt about the quality of the work without actually presenting evidence that only a minority of the scientists do serious work on this. But if you are driving an SUV a statement like that might seem insightful even though it's completely void of information.

what wonderfully circular logic. don't question an article for its lack of information, as doing so is devoid of information. wow.

Here's a scientist that disagrees. by gokeln · 2004-12-07 13:01 · Score: 2, Informative

Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in Social Anthropology & Sport Sociology at Liverpool John Moores University and the editor of of CCNet (Cambridge Conference Network) webzine, labeled Oreskes' essay a disturbing article.

"Whatever happened to the countless research papers published in the last ten years in peer-reviewed journals that show that temperatures were generally higher during the Medieval Warm Period than today, that solar variability is most likely to be the key driver of any significant climate change and that the methods used in climate modeling are highly questionable?" Peiser asked.

"Given the countless papers published in the peer-reviewed literature over the last ten years that implicitly or explicitly disagree with the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, one can only conclude that all of these were simply excluded from the [Science Magazine] review. That's how it arrived at a 100 percent consensus!" he added.

According to Peiser, Oreskes' assertion that there is a 100 percent consensus about the issue is not backed by science.

"Even [former Soviet dictator Joseph] Stalin himself did not take consensus politics to such extremes," Peiser explained. "In the Soviet Union the official 'participation rate' was never higher than 98-99 percent.

"So how did the results published in Science achieve a 100 percent level of conformity? Regrettably, the article does not include any reference to the [unpublished?] study itself, let alone the methodology on which the research was based. This makes it difficult to check how Oreskes arrived at the truly miraculous results," he added.

--

There's no time to stop for gas, we're already late.

Semantic Nit-Pick by Koryu · 2004-12-07 13:17 · Score: 2, Insightful

The Earth is decidedly NOT in "serious, imminent danger". The planet is going to be just fine for quite a while, as far as anyone can tell. Get it right. Life on Earth might have a hard time adjusting to rapid climate change, but that's happened before, and life (and, yes, the planet Earth itself) has continued to exist. The REAL question (as the discussion appears to notice) is how much of this climate change do we have control over, and what should we be doing to keep ourselves out of trouble?

WOOHOO! Unavoidable! by xant · 2004-12-07 13:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Time for rampant hedonism and fornication. We're all doomed.

Can we get an exact date on the doom? I want to start the bacchanalia about a week before, so as to optimize my avoidance of consequences.

--
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.

Re:Cranks by Sique · 2004-12-07 13:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

Simple point is that a scientific consensus has not always been the most accurate thing in the world.

Simple point is, that science in the way we know it today is a thing developed during the 19th century. Before it there was knowledge, there was lots of speculation and there was no separation between hypothesis, theory and fact.

Even the great scientist of the late 17th and early 18th century, Isaac Newton, was more interested in alchemic experiments and metaphysical speculation than in the Physics and Mathematics where he laid the fundamentations for today's Calculus and Mechanics.

Today's scientific consensus is still lacking, and it is no replacement for a thoroughly tested theory. But it is the best thing we can get, if said theory is still missing. Just because it's not perfect you shouldn't just throw it away.

--
.sig: Sique *sigh*

insightful? by vena · 2004-12-07 13:38 · Score: 3, Insightful

this criticism is pretty slack. it ignores the point of Crichton's diatribe - that being concensus is often used when there's no hard supporting science - in favour of a rib jab. E=mc2 is a quantifiable equation, as is the distance to the sun, and the effect of malnutrition. human affect on the environment, on the other hand, is not honestly quantifiable as the historical data is severely lacking in context. regardless of the simple fact that i'd look sideways at any scientist that claims we're not affecting the global climate, i'd probably look *down* on a scientist that claims it's proven.

does that dismiss human affect on climate change? absolutely not, but there are people who believe that questioning an absolute certainty of it does dismiss it. they're wrong, they're arrogant, and they're not learning from history.

It's all good by EugeneK · 2004-12-07 13:53 · Score: 2, Funny

Jesus told Bush it's all part of the Rapture, so don't worry about it.

Re:In other news... by Archie+Steel · 2004-12-07 14:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Any time you see every scientist agree...

All scientists agree that the Earth is round.

All scientists agree that the sun is made up of Hydrogen.

All scientists agree that gravity pulls things down.

All scientists agree that smoking is bad for you.

All scientists agree that splitting the atom will produce energy.

Why is it that when all scientists agree that human activity is having an effect on Global Climate, all of a sudden your hear all these people begin to doubt them. Claiming that all that these scientists care about is their funding is ludicrous, because many of them will get funding either way. Of course, those that are really into money, like Bjorn Lomborg, will actually argue against the mounting evidence. In exchange they'll get huge grants from industries whose profits might be diminished by scientific enquiry. And those who doubt only when scientists challenge their love for their SUVs, like ostriches, will be happy to put their heads back in the sand and say: see, there's a couple of scientists who say that Global Climate change isn't happening. They must be right!

Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If Global Warming has only a 10% chance of being true, then the odds are still way too high, because the consequences are catastrophic.

So, in response to you, I say that if every scientist agrees (or at least no scientist disagrees) that Global Climate Change threatens us, then we should be very concerned. We should fund their studies, and if we find out that they misused the funds or overstated the threat in order to get more money, we can always cut that funding. In other words, unlike the most catastrophic scenarios linked to Global Warming, it's a reversible mistake.

Better safe than sorry, especially when the future of humanity is at stake.

--

Reminder: find a new sig

Re:In other news... by Analogy+Man · 2004-12-07 14:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus.

Unlike Christianity, science is not a religion. The "truth" is based on the basis of observation and data. If someone had compelling data that say North American deforestation was a natural process and not due to the timber and pulp industries cutting of trees and conversion of that land to agriculture, industry, and mini-marts, it would be published. In this case as in the case of global warming there is compelling evidence that there are human factors.

If scientists cannot agree whether mean temperatures will rise by 3 degrees or 5 degrees, it is not particularly fair to dismiss their theories outright.

Sound policy in my opinion would be to immediatly consider at least the easier reductions in our emissions. It certainly won't harm anything. In the decades when some were in denial of the harmful effects of smoking would it have been unhealthy to quit?

--
When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

Re:In other news... by king-manic · 2004-12-07 14:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

"In other news, 75% of the owners of McDonald's franchises believe that including McDonald's in your diet is not a bad idea. The other 25% had no opinion but that may be because they didn't stop munching on their Big Mac.
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.

"

And your basically saying "I have no credible proof of my side of the agrument, so it must mean all the credible proof is magically hidden from us".

There as much money to be maid refuting global warming (Halberton and the auto-industry would dearly love to see a credible study refuting climate change) as there are supporting global warming.

--
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 14:56 · Score: 5, Informative

Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen.

It won't get published for reasons such as poor methodology, maths etc. Not because you view is 'forbidden' or not politically correct. You are simply suffering under a conspiracy theory view of Science if you believe otherwise. In fact, while perhaps not in Science, oil-industry funded research, and some not funded by the oil industry, which argues against the consensus of climate change, has been published. It's rare, true, but this rarity is because the bulk of the evidence points in the opposite direction, not because of some grand conspiracy aimed at ensuring funding for climatic research.

> What's controversial about this issue? By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot.

I'm neither religious, not a zealot, and it's called a rhetorical question. I'm asking (as should be clear from the rest of the passage), "where does the controversy here come from?" My point is that there is little scientifc controversy. The controversy is largely injected at the political level.

Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue.

Again, I'm not going to reject out of hand any discussion based on evidence and a scientific understanding of that evidence out of hand. Quite the opposite, I genuinely hope that we are all wrong! I hope to wake up tomorrow and that it was all a bad dream, a mass delusions of the world scientific community caused by some faulty maths somewhere down the line. And you know why I hope this? It's because, at our current state of knowledge, the conclusion that we are headed for a very nasty time climatically is ineluctable and because I have children. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand on this one.

[I]f one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation

I consider myself fairly politically aware, but I'm quite unable to see how shifting from oil to uranium amounts to a dismantling of Western Civilization. Perhaps you can clear that one up for me? Again the opposite is true, it's through technological advance alone that we are going to beat this one. We have to move away from this C19th energy source.

What a swell guy... by Eric+Damron · 2004-12-07 15:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

You might want to think of someone other than yourself for a change. Our children and our children's children maybe...

--
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!

Re:In other news... by letxa2000 · 2004-12-07 15:20 · Score: 3, Insightful

Me: Any time you see every scientist agree... You: All scientists agree that the Earth is round. All scientists agree that the sun is made up of Hydrogen. All scientists agree that gravity pulls things down. All scientists agree that smoking is bad for you. All scientists agree that splitting the atom will produce energy.

I knew that was coming when I posted it. That's why my original post was written "Any time you see every scientist agree on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious." The issues you mentioned are not controversial.

Convenient quoting on your part. Usually indicative of an agenda.

Why is it that when all scientists agree that human activity is having an effect on Global Climate, all of a sudden your hear all these people begin to doubt them.

If all scientists truly agreed that human activity is having an effect on global climate (lower case is fine) then I don't think you'd have a lot of people doubting them (not just beginning, we've doubted them for a long time!). The fact is that all scientists do not agree this is true. The only thing this article proves is that the collection of articles they selected from the subset of scientific literature that they deemed worthy of reviewing supports their conclusion. You don't even have to be a scientist to recognize just how hokey the whole basis for this article is.

Claiming that all that these scientists care about is their funding is ludicrous

I'm not claiming it's the only thing they care about. But you're naive if you think it doesn't enter their mind.

... because many of them will get funding either way.

Oh really? Who is going to fund research proving that global warming is not real. Industry, that's about it. So they'll be quickly labeled an industry stooge by their colleagues (just as you did in your message) and their standing in the community will go down. Not because they're wrong but because they're going against the grain.

And those that would (or would have) funded research to prove that global warming is not ocurring has already done that. We know that there is a lot of doubt regarding global warming. Anyone with an open mind and critical thinking skills can recognize that there is more than reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of the predictions of the pro-global warming crowd. As their models become "more accurate" their predictions of natural calamities slowly become less and less severe. And they spend more time engaging in gloom and doom and explaining why the satellite record doesn't confirm their predictions than actually getting real science done.

In exchange they'll get huge grants from industries whose profits might be diminished by scientific enquiry.

Or by "junk science." Take your pick of terms.

Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If Global Warming has only a 10% chance of being true, then the odds are still way too high, because the consequences are catastrophic.

Sorry, that's extremism talking. If there is a 10% chance of it being true and it's going to cost a trillion dollars worldwide to fix the problem then we had better be avoiding at least $10 trillion worth of damage. If not then it was not a worthwhile investment. It may be cheaper to just move the people that live too close to the ocean than to try to keep the ocean from rising and pay a little more in insurance for the supposedly more frequent severe storms.

Not to mention no-one really knows what the consequences of global warming is if it's true. All we have are models created by scientists that find themselves, quite frankly, in a position of power and public importance that scientists would not normally find themselves.

So, in response to you, I say that if every scientist agrees (or at least no scientist disagrees) that Global Climate Change threatens us, then we should be very concerned.

Re:In other news... by jmorris42 · 2004-12-07 15:34 · Score: 2, Insightful

> You are simply suffering under a conspiracy theory view of Science if
> you believe otherwise.

Ignore the political biases of the Global Warming crowd, ignore everything but blatent self interest, and unless you want to be laughed at you must admit that scientists are human and subject to act in their self interest. At this point in the game, if someone DID debunk Global Warming and managed to get published, how many climatologists would still have careers since every last one of them has staked their professional reputations on this theory being fact? No, at this point is is illogical to expect reason from the scientists on this issue. Religion clouded their judgement and now they are in too deep to even consider whether they were wrong.

> Again, I'm not going to reject out of hand any discussion based on
> evidence and a scientific understanding of that evidence out of hand.

Ok, then consider these items:

1. Sunspot activity has been increasing over most of the 20th century. If Mr. Sun is responsible it is natural climate change.

2. To the best of my knowledge, No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century without a lot of unexplained fudge factors to make it come out right. No model exists which has been allowed to run into the future and then checked with what actually happened a decade later has produced a match.

3. Very few records of long term tempratures exist where the measuring station is not now inside a urban heat dome.

Taken together, just those three items means we can't say with confidence the temp is actually currently rising globally, and even if it is we can't say whether our actions are responsible. And we can't make any sort of meaningful predictions as to how much it might go up, whether other forces will act to accelerate or moderate any rise, etc. Basically all we CAN say is global and regional tempratures change over time and they may or may not be changing now.

Yes there is also a lot of very compelling evidence on the other side, but not enough to call the matter settled, and in my opinion not enough to justify preemtive war against ourselves that will certainly cause massive social and economic harm.

> I'm quite unable to see how shifting from oil to uranium amounts to a
> dismantling of Western Civilization.

Why not call for Fusion power while you are at it. Too many (so called) Scientists are just as religiously opposed to anything related to the N word to seriously consider it as an option. To get a paniced retreat from fossil fuels would require the Global Warming zealots to be in political ascendence and that means they would say no to more reactors.

I'd say build reactors to get us away from depending on Middle Eastern Oil, and that argument is equally valid whether Global Warming is real, natural, wrong or an outright hoax. And if the Earth does start warming we can always just orbit some mylar sheets and block a fraction of a percent of the Sun until we rebalance, problems we create by being overly clever primates we can probably fix the same way, especially ones that operate over such a long time horizon.

--
Democrat delenda est

Re:Nero fiddling by Capsaicin · 2004-12-07 15:36 · Score: 2, Insightful

What I am trying to say is, people have made careers out of studying global warming. If they all suddenly came out with research showing that global warming doesn't exist or is naturally occurring, it would be the end of their careers. Grant money would dry up. Most people are unwilling to self-terminate their careers, so they engineer research (intentionally or not), that will assure them more grant money and continuance of their field of study.

As has been pointed out above, there is more money out there available to people to want to show that global warming is not a result of human activity. If you could come up with a plausible mechanism which explains the observed climatic changes, and totally discounts anthropogenic causes, you would not be wanting for funding.

In any case your reply is not really pertinent to my post. Your theory doesn't explain, for instance, the climatic change that has already been observed, nor why the insurance industry (which does not fund itself by grants) is so concerned about the impact of climate change.

Scepticism is ususally a very healthy thing. When it is coupled with a conspiracy theory, however, it can be pathological. It really is a bit late in the piece to be indulging in this kind of fantasy my friend.

--
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke

Re:In other news... by Xabraxas · 2004-12-07 15:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

If the earth is warming because it is SUPPOSED to be warming, say due to the documented increase in sunspot activity being related to increased solar output, then Kyoto means destroying our economy just to boost the self esteem of a few hippy freaks.

Are you utterly clueless? Have you seen the Los Angeles skyline, or worse Mexico City? Decreasing emissions is beneficial whether or not they cause global warming. The first thing the government should be thinking about is the health of the people, not the economy.

--
Time makes more converts than reason

Re:In other news... by Mr_Matt · 2004-12-07 15:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Are you an atmospheric scientist? You make some good points, but your general attitude leads me to believe that you don't have much experience in dealing with scientists. To wit:

Scientists think about funding, but pushing an agenda to acheive funding is ultimately a career-limiting move when the political pendulum shifts, as it has in recent years. And as with most things, the scientific ego supercedes the need to seek acceptance through funding - scientists will push theories they believe in, and try to swing funding their way, not vice versa.
Have you actually read any of the literature regarding climate change? It doesn't sound like it - you don't see much politicizing in peer-reviewed journals. Certainly the exacting of personal/institutional spats occurs, but the literature certainly doesn't read the way you imply it does.
I don't think stating that no scientific paper reviewed discounts anthropomorphic climate change will have a chilling effect on climate research: scientists are well aware that correlation is not the same as causation, after all. When reliable evidence that supports the theory that climate change occurs independent of human activity surfaces, it will be published. When reliable evidence that supports the theory that climate change occurs because of human activity, it will also be published. Until then, we'll continue to study the mechanisms behind climate change and look for links. It's just that simple.
The Science article merely states that the bulk of peer-reviewed literature allows for the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, nothing more. Anything you read into it sounds more like your agenda than anything else.

Anyways, take it as you will - I doubt seriously you're prepared to think critically about this topic. But making blanket statements accusing scientists of massive malfeasance to further a political agenda that counters your own smacks more of conspiracy theory than a reasoned argument, and it certainly doesn't impress the average scientific Slashdot reader.

--

But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.

Re:In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-12-07 16:24 · Score: 3, Insightful

Ignore the political biases of the Global Warming crowd, ignore everything but blatent self interest, and unless you want to be laughed at you must admit that scientists are human and subject to act in their self interest.

I started off by arguing that self-interest would lead scientists from accepting the much more lucrative funding which is available to the skeptics. In any case you cleary are indulging a consipracy view here, which leaves little room for sane discussion, so next topic.

Sunspot activity

You really believe this isn't (has been) incorporated into the models?

No computer models exists that can be loaded with 1900 and then allowed to run and produce the 20th century.

Two things. 1. Agree, computer models are just complex models. I'm unconvinced that the specific predictions being made will come to pass. On the other hand, it is beyond doubt that singificantly altering the constitution of the atmosphere will have climatic implications. It is also beyond doubt that climatic changes, which are not inconsistent with theoretical predictions are being observed. You need also to remember the geological record.

2. Your statement seems to indicate that you are confusing a model with a simulation.

Very few records of long term tempratures exist where the measuring station is not now inside a urban heat dome.

A valid argument in 1989, but no longer in 2004. You will find peer reviewed papers from this era pointing that out (which argues against your conspiracy theory). In the meantime the instrumental record has been corrected for this effect. There's no longer any doubt about warming. Nowadays even the most extremist skeptic only argues about the anthropogenic nature thereof.

Why not call for Fusion power while you are at it.

Simple. It's not a proven technology (or any technology). I might as well called for solar, wind etc. power. But you haven't answered my question, which was "how does moving from oil to uranium amount to a dismantling of Western Civilization?"

Being overly clever primates we can probably fix the same way, especially ones that operate over such a long time horizon.

Yes, but what about immediate time problems like global warming? We think we are overly clever primates, but the very fact that we are still arguing about whether a problem exists, rather than getting on and fixing it would seem to evidence the opposite.

Re:In other news... by Mr_Matt · 2004-12-07 16:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

All scientists that I've met have, thus far, been human.

Man, could I show you a thing or two, then... :)

"Think twice about publishing your anti-global warming research because everyone disagrees with you."

Again, you're not reading the literature. Plenty of people win their spurs from publishing theories that dispute anthropogenic climate changes, or by positing hypotheses that negate any warming that might occur. Google for the 'Iris Hypothesis' by Richard Lindzen - makes for great reading, and even better back-and-forth literature articles. FWIW, not even Lindzen out-and-out discounts global warming, but he obviously doesn't think much of it, and he's done just fine from publishing his research.

At no time in human history have scientists had so much influence on politics as global warming scientists do today.

Yeah, because everybody signed that Kyoto Accord and put it into action, right? C'mon - your statement is ludicrous and you know it. Scientists have little influence on politics unless they've found a way to blow people up.

So why the hell did Science publish this silly article that proves nothing?

To sell ads, maybe? To encourage further discussion from the scientists that suspect that global warming is hooey but haven't found proof yet? To keep the thing interesting? Scientists read dozens of new articles every month, and a little light entertainment is sometimes just what the doctor ordered. :)

We already know that climate change occurs independent of human activity. Or are we to believe that the climate was static until we humans started messing things up?

No, no, no, read that carefully now. What I said was no paper has been published which posits that climate change is (as in, is now) independent of human activity. Certainly before humans existed, climate change was independent of human activity. The global warming debate boils down to whether or not this is still the case. Stop playing semantics.

Althought right now we aren't really discussing global warming but whether every scientist agrees with it.

Again, that's not what the Science article says. I know plenty of scientists who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change (I myself have reservations about the magnitude of any human impact) but, that doesn't mean that we don't agree that global warming is a possibility. Why? Because nobody's proven otherwise. Neither do we necessarily believe that global warming must exist (which is what you think the Science article claims) because again, nobody's demonstrated the link past a first-order radiative affect.

The average scientific reader of Slashdot? Hahaha.

You should have gleaned this by now, but I mean what I write when I write it, because I try to write carefully. I didn't say the average scientific reader of Slashdot, I said the average scientific Slashdot reader. The former puts the emphasis on 'reader of Slashdot' while the latter puts the emphasis on 'scientific'. There's plenty of scientists who read Slashdot, and more often than not, we wonder why we even bother when we read the comments. No doubt some other scientist is out there rolling their eyes at my charging at windmills, but hey, this is what I do after a few whiskey sours. :) But laugh if you will.

Anyways, this is a tempest in a teapot - the Science article merely states that there exists a scientific consensus that global warming hasn't been disproven. Perhaps their angle is suspect, but nothing else, and I wouldn't get all hot and bothered about it if I were you. :)

--

But what does my opinion matter, I just vote here. It's not like I have any money or anything.

Hard to Justify by bill_mcgonigle · 2004-12-07 16:42 · Score: 2, Informative

Most people don't feel like spending green on being green. They'd rather have a plasma TV set.

I bought a $1300 fridge that runs on $40 of electricity a year. Extra insulation, new design, better motors, whathaveyou.

Now the payback period on that is almost ten years. Worthwhile as the fridge should last at least that long. But in the meantime I've lost opportunity on that money and I don't have a plasma tv set.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Re:In other news... by Nilmat · 2004-12-07 16:44 · Score: 5, Informative

Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen. And of course after that you will be blacklisted so you can change careers because you will never be accepted as a 'real scientist' again, because all 'real scientists' believe in Global Warming about like Christians believe in the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Let me introduce myself. I'm a reviewer for a number of peer-reviewed journals and, broadly speaking, a climate change scientist. If a journal sent me a paper to review that questioned some aspect of current theories onglobal climate change, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand. If the methodology and data were there and matched the conclusions, I wouldn't hesitate to recommend publication. From past conversations with my colleagues, I know lots of other scientists feel the same way. Look, ultimately it's not that hard to get something published in a peer-reviewed journal of some kind. If scientists were finding evidence refuting global climate warming, it would be published.

Since I don't feel like finding another post to attach this to, here's a response to a couple of other points:

1) Forget the whole theory that global warming is simply an artifact of urban heat islands. We fixed that particular problem with the data in the early 1990s. The urban heat island effect is without a doubt the best-understood phenomenon in climatology, and even with the effects removed climate is still warming.

2) Sunspot activity doesn't explain most of the climate change story either. It's part of the story, but definitely not all of it. If you want to check out a paper on the subject, I suggest the following (I know its a few years old, but the findings haven't changed subsantially since this paper):
Cedric Bertrand, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Potential Role of Solar Variability as an Agent for Climate Change, Climatic Change, Volume 43, Issue 2, October 1999, Pages 387 - 411

note: I'm not telling you to believe the paper. Just to read it. If you understand enough about what's going on to do so, please feel free to poke holes in it. That's part of science.

Re:In other news... by MillionthMonkey · 2004-12-07 17:13 · Score: 2

Wow, that's an impressive wall you've constructed around your mind to avoid confronting the truth.

First you start with "There you go again, implying that only those that question global warming could be influenced by vested interests. That's just plain naive." So I'm reading this, and I figure I'll be conciliatory, and grant that, yeah, even though that's not what I said, it's a big world, billions of people, lots of vested interests in it, so I'm sure there are at least some vested interests to be found on both sides of any issue, even a severely lopsided issue like this one where all the scientists in the world are on one side. I don't want to appear "naive", you know.

But that was a mistake, because then you shift right into "gotcha" mode: "So there are vested interests behind the neutral observers and scientists? Just how neutral and scientific are these people supposed to be when they are backed by vested interests? That's kind of like expecting a Microsoft employee to be vocally supporting Linux."

You guys are like unsinkable rubber ducks.

Re:In other news... by gmknobl · 2004-12-07 17:18 · Score: 2, Interesting

Scientific debate is good but there are two possible reasons why something is in very high agreement:

They are paid to give this opinion - as you suggest
They are right

The first option is unlikely, and in this instance, wrong! There are several noted studies that "show" that global warming is not really all that bad, is normal, or that there just isn't enough evidence to support it at this time. Unfortunately for them, these guys are the ones who really are paid for their opinions by oil companies and their subsidiaries. Google this to find what I'm talking about or attend a presidential press conference.

However, funding for the ones mentioned in this study does come from many different sources for the people that are finding there is evidence that we are now in global warming. Again, Google if you want to find the different organizations involved.

So, when you have an agreement on the meaning of given evidence from many sources that use good, sound, scientific reasoning to come to their results, you have what must be viewed as a high likelihood that the conclusions reached are correct.

In other words, since it isn't essentially one source/industry paying for the results; since the opposing viewpoint is paid essentially by one industry and frequently is viewed by suspicion by the academic review process, the only option left with any high degree of certainty is...

2 - They're coming to the same conclusion because that conclusion is correct!

It helps that good science is impossed but I'm sure someone will point out how nearly unanimous scientific agreement has been wrong in the past. So I'll just say that it is highly likely but not certain that we are experiencing global warming / greenhouse effect right now.

If you don't feel that's the case, go out and smoke a few gross of cigarettes for many years and find out if, indeed, cigarettes don't cause health problems such as cancer. Same type of argument exists there too.

Who's the religious nut? by mr_e_cat · 2004-12-07 18:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

but at core, Global Warming is religion

You are using a conspiracy theory to argue against a scientific theory. You may be right but your arguments are less than rigorous.

I would like to see some actual scientific rebuttal of the available evidence for global warming (and there is some, Ice cores, melting glaciers etc. Also there is no doubt that CO2 levels are much higher).

Fight science with science. Not just a conspiracy theory.

Re:In other news... by neuroinf · 2004-12-07 18:49 · Score: 2, Interesting

Definitely worth a read: http://www.lomborg.com/ for a solid statistical analysis of environment trends. Also I don't think the mathematical analysis underlying the classic global warming curve stands up to analysis. Just because a whole lot of people believe something doesn't mean it is true.

Re:Ozone is a sign of a process, not THE process by MillionthMonkey · 2004-12-07 19:16 · Score: 2, Informative

The ozone either breaks down in time, or absorbs some more UV, and breaks apart again. The real defense against UV is the O2, NOT the 03!

Did they teach you about two things called rate and equilibrium?

You are correct in remembering that

3 02 + UV -> 2 03

but also

CFC + UV -> Cl* (Cl radicals)

and then

Cl* + O3 -> ClO* + O2
ClO* + ClO* -> Cl2O2
Cl2O2 + UV -> 2Cl* + O2
overall: 2O3 -> 3O2

Chlorine is very effective in catalyzing the decomposition of O3 into O2 faster than UV can turn O2 into O3. Given a constant flux of UV, the equilibrium concentration of ozone relative to normal oxygen is much lower in the presence of chlorine radicals.

Re:In other news... by xenobyte · 2004-12-07 19:26 · Score: 2, Informative

If Global Warming has only a 10% chance of being true, then the odds are still way too high, because the consequences are catastrophic.

Catastrophic? - How do you (or anyone else) know that?

It is an undiputed fact that the Earths climate has been wildly different at different times through the eras and life always managed to survive.

It is also a fact that man is the most adaptable living creature ever discovered; we've been able to live everywhere on this planets surface, plus in the air, under the water and even in space and on the moon. We as a species will survive any climate change given enough warning to adapt (using technology if nessesary).

Now IMHO instead of blindly trying to return the climate state to the level of 'the good old days' we should rather accept the changes (which still may be natural, and which in any case has happened naturally before and may again) and begin the adaption process. The sooner the better.

Sure, things will be different but it doesn't mean it'll be worse (or catastrophic), and it might even be a change for the better in way we cannot imagine at the moment (due to lack of data).

--
"For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." -- H.L. Mencken (1880-1956) --

Re:In other news... by bentcd · 2004-12-07 20:25 · Score: 2, Funny

All scientists once believed the Earth was flat, was supported on pillars or carried by Atlas etc.
Ah, I see your problem. You are confusing "scientists" with "religious nuts". The former base their theories on observations and critical thinking while the latter just go on wonky rants for no reason whatsoever.

--
sigs are hazardous to your health

The problem with this position by Martin+Spamer · 2004-12-07 21:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

is that all these are consensus despite the evidence, global warming is a consensus because of the evidence.

Re:In other news... by Mant · 2004-12-07 21:41 · Score: 4, Insightful

No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse.

Some scientists in the environmental areas do subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis, but even that has many levels. At it's most basic it means treating the whole ecosystem as a macro-organism. It doesn't mean you think the Earth is one living creature, or you are some tree-hugging hippy, just because some of those people believe in the more extreme end of the hypothesis.

Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press.

You must have missed that whole Slashdot thread based on a Wired article, about how media's desire to show both sides of the argument in cases like global warming meant they had to hunt around for people on the "humans have no effect side". The mainstream press was out there looking for these guys, but all they could find was people in the pay of companies. The whole thing was about how they got a disproportionately large amount of media coverage in the name of balanced reporting.

Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.

Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it,

If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility.

If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defence as provided for in the Constitution.

It would be nice if life always gave us all the information we need before making a decision. Sometimes though, it doesn't. You have to try and assess the risks, and potential consequences, if you wait too long for proof, it will be too late.

Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.

Because all those other countries that signed up are head straight for economic chaos, right? Kyoto has flaws, but those aren't an excuse for doing nothing because you don't want to upset big business. It looks to the rest of the world like the US Government isn't just showing some scepticism, which would be no bad thing, but sticking its fingers in its ears and going 'la la la' to the topic. As irrationally opposed to the concept as these fiendish "worse than Gaian" types whose danger you highlight for us.

Re:In other news... by bw_bur · 2004-12-07 22:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm a scientist (though not a climatologist) and I find it incredibly frustrating to read posts like this.

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 is pretty offensive. Research is not a "gravy train": it's something we do because it's stimulating, challenging and interesting. Scientists don't want to spend their lives working on ideas that they know are wrong.

That's not to say that they we are never wrong, and many of the greatest leaps in our understanding came about when someone went against the general consensus. However, what you're suggesting is that scientists are wilfully suppressing the truth because it's in their own personal interest.

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.

There is an excellent response to this point later in the thread, by someone involved in scientific publishing.

Any time you see every scientist agree (or at least no scientist disagree) on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious.

Why? The subject is only controversial because (if true) it means we have to make some painful changes to our lifestyles. Just because that's hard to swallow doesn't make it a conspiracy by the scientific community.

I think you're projecting by Tau+Zero · 2004-12-08 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

In a blatant examples of seeing others as you see yourself, you wrote:

No, at this point is is illogical to expect reason from the scientists on this issue. Religion clouded their judgement and now they are in too deep to even consider whether they were wrong.

Oh, yeah. Like the General Relativity skeptics refused to consider themselves wrong after the 1919 solar eclipse showed that gravity bends light. Or like skeptic geologists refused to consider themselves wrong when continental drift was proven. Or the doctors who had been skeptical of the infectious theory of ulcers refused to consider themselves wrong when helicobacter pylorii was discovered, cultured and proven to be capable of causing ulcers by infection (and of curing ulcers using antibiotics to kill the infection). They all stuck to their orthodoxy to save their careers.

Oh, wait, none of that happened. So why are you claiming that scientists are close-minded?

There are a few things that are known beyond any principled denial:

Earth is roughly 50 degrees F warmer than a body with its absorptive characteristics would be at our distance from the Sun, absent other influences. (Venus is an extreme example.) This proves the greenhouse effect.
The greenhouse effect is due to a number of gases in the atmosphere, including carbon dioxide.
Adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, particularly non-condensible ones, will have a warming effect on the Earth.

Now, you can have principled disputes about the interactions of mechanisms at work (greenhouse vs. reflective clouds), but you cannot deny that increasing the concentration of the most important non-condensible greenhouse gas by a large fraction is certain to do something. I see you dismissing the entire concept as religious dogma; it appears to me that your dismissal is itself dogma, like the political attempt to dismiss evolution from biology classes.

You also engage in non-sequiturs.

Yes there is also a lot of very compelling evidence on the other side, but not enough to call the matter settled, and in my opinion not enough to justify preemtive war against ourselves that will certainly cause massive social and economic harm.

You are using a claim of economic damage to deny a scientific conclusion which suggests a need for action. Well, gee, if I posit a scientific conclusion about the way that cholera and typhoid are spread it might suggest a need for billions of dollars of investment in water treatment systems! Our budgets are too tight, so by your "reasoning" my conclusion has to be wrong.

Or maybe it's time for you to realize that the world isn't always as you like it. In other words, grow up.

--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.

Re:In other news... by ccmay · 2004-12-08 17:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Can you and your thinkalike buddies fix it them so the rest of us is ok? (sic)

Can you? Or your thinkalike buddies?

Even if I grant that global warming is occurring, do you have a shred of proof that things like the Kyoto Protocol will result in a net benefit to the welfare of most people? Ever hear of unintended consequences?

Poverty kills, and if there is one thing we can take as near certain based on experience, it is that collectivist prescriptions from the watermelon Left will result in increased poverty and misery.

--
Too much Law; not enough Order.

Re:I imagine someone has picked this up before, bu by Jim_Callahan · 2004-12-11 22:04 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, if you put it that way, then I guess the duty comes out more on the lines of "know enough to judge who actually knows what they're doing". For instance, simple empirical test tell me that the 'expert' who tells me what the wether is going to be like tomorrow is unreliable at best, making his analyses useless. Likewise, I know that I can trust the guy who built my house on how to build houses, because my house hasn't fallen down yet. The ideal, the state to be achieved, is to be educated enough in the everything to be able to make that kind of call with everyone.

Yeah, it's practically impossible. But I'm getting closer every day. And if I can't judge the reliability of my source, I just refrain from judging the analysis as well.

In all honesty, you seem to do the same thing, you just have a more regular criterion for trusting people's judgement. If "it's their *job* to study it" then you accept. I guess that's more efficient than my way, but I'm going to hold off on adopting it, as it would force me to become a member of at least 100 different religious groups. After all, it's the *job* of a fundamentalist southern baptist preacher to tell me what god wants, but I'm still not entirely certain of his assessment that the world will be a better place if we burn out all the gays and non-whites.

Just my 2 cents, eh.

--
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~

Re:In other news... by js7a · 2004-12-12 22:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

For questions of analyzing global warming the satellite record is still the better choice of datasets.

Has it occured to you that the greenhouse gasses keep the heat trapped at the lower portion of the troposphere, away from the satellites?

149 of 1,200 comments (clear)