Slashdot Mirror
Public Relations Firm Shapes Opinion with Fake Science
Ironsides submitted this BBC link about a conference on climate change and global warming. When you read it, you'll note that there's a real conference with real scientists being held a few days later. So what is this, if it's not the real conference? This is a fake, public relations "conference", organized by a corporate lobbying group, specifically to create doubt about an issue of considerable public importance. So the real scientists doing real work meet on Feb 1-3, the fake ones being paid for their opinions schedule a press opportunity for Jan 27, and the press covers them as if both their opinions should be given equal weight. Jon Stewart's media criticism applies: You're hurting [the world].
The BBC article seems to take this Scientific Alliance (even the name drips of corporate PR'ism) at face value, either that or the British sense of sarcasm so dry as to be beyond subtle.
So, I looked them up myself and found the following links pretty quickly:
SourceWatch and GMwatch which seem to coroborate the claims of duplicitousness in the original submission.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
Go here for consensus
Here for the global cooling myth.
I begin to wonder what is hurting more, an objector, or a bad arguing proponents.
As a "tree-hugger", I begin to think the latter.
"Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
You ought to read this. Then take a look at the rest of the site, and see what real climate scientists are saying. It has not one shred of hysteria in it, but plenty of it ought to worry you.
Sustainability and energy independence essay
No. There is no difference between someone saying something for money and someone saying something because they believe the knowledge it imparts will keep us from destroying ourselfs. None at all.
Well, I posted it down below, here's the link so people can find it quicker. http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=137608 &cid=11508081
Thats about what I posted, the only thing I'm not completely shure about is how I worder "Choice Quote" originally. I forget what I originally put the title down as, I think it was along the lines of "Climate Change Scientist Disenters" or something like that.
As for what michael did to it, I'm pissed. As for what these guys say, since all I've ever heard anyone talk about is "We're all going to die and it's ?ALL YOUR FAULT (imaginie someone poking you in chest with their pointer finger as you read that last part)" (or seems that way) I'd like to at least here what these guys say. Seems like anytime anyone says something against global warming the get killed in the press. Always makes me interested when someone says that and makes me want to listen more.
As for the definition of Global Warming, I have heard it is something like this:
Global Warming is the Theory that humans are the cause of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and that said increase will cause the average temperature of the planet to increase.
If anyone else can elaborate, please do. As for the poles and all the glaciers melting and what not, that has yet to be proved. If they get a lot warmer, they will. But GW also predicts some areas will get warmer (such as the poles), and some will get colder. Last I checked, the majority of the antartic was getting colder, I'd like to hear if any of the several thousand glaciers in other parts of the world are expanding as well.
Lets see, to cover anything else that may come up, I drive a honda acord (2004). I was looking at the civic hybrid, but it felt to "plasticy" to me to be a good car. That and the fact that the dash was mesmerizing (and would have caused me to get into an accident) led me to get the accord instead. If I had known about the 2005 accord hybrid I would have waited to look at that (still need to take a peek at it). Mainly for the extra fuel economy is why I considered it. I do know several people who drive SUVs. They use them as intended. Just last week a lot of them went to West Virginia for skiing and it snowed. The 4WD helped them a lot more than the 2WD did for us. Also on the camping we do monthly it helps out a lot as well. I realize that a lot of idiots use the SUVs only in cities where they could get by with a smaller car, but I don't know any (yet) that do.
Well, that's what I have to say, it's a bit of a ramble, but that's how I think.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
"How long have we been recording CO2 levels?"
o und/scena rios/found/fig2.html
We have been measuring CO2 levels for at least 50 years. Not a long time geographically. We have a suitably accurate record of the global average CO2 concetration for over a thousand years. Rather longer. Regardless, the trend from both recorded CO2 concentrations and measurements of historic concentrations from Antarctic ice cores demonstrate a very clear spike in CO2 levels around the time of the industrial revolution.
Here, if you feel the USGCP (US Global Change Research Program) is a reasonably credible source:
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/nacc/backgr
If you doubt the spike exists then you have not been paying any attention. The spike in CO2 levels exists and any credible scientist will agree with that.
If you still choose to ignore the CO2 spike, despite relevant data then you are beyond hope and should seriously consider crawling under a rock since you are clearly serving no useful purpose among those who would like to continue breathing oxygen (that's O2, notice the striking lack of C).
Let's hope that there's intelligent life somewhere out in space 'Cause there's bugger-all down here on Earth.
The worst case scenario does not predict that the temperature will rise 1F. The worst case scenario predicts that the temperature will rise exponentially due to positive feedback, well beyond the temperature at which life on earth can survive (this is called the "runaway greenhouse" if you want to find out more about that theory). This theory doesn't have too much creditability yet, since there are so many variables that affect the earth's climate, but you did ask for the worst-case scenario.
The worst case scenario that a reasonable percentage of scientists believe is going to happen in about a century is a rise of the mean temperature of around 10C (18F). This will have a bunch of ramifications, most of which I doubt we have even realized yet.
As society gets bigger, it's going to require more energy. Unless we look to energy sources that involve less greenhouse gas emission, the problem is only going to get worse. No matter how much easier it will become to manage the problem (and I doubt it will; the greenhouse effect was first attributed to atmospheric gasses in the mid-19th century by Fourier, and it's no easier to manage now than it was then), there's still the matter of actually doing something about it!