Slashdot Mirror
Humans are Causing Global Warming
Big_Al_B writes "A Times Online article discusses a new study comparing 7 million real world datapoints with several computer models of global warming. Each model had a possible cause associated with it." From the article: "It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "
I can't tell you whether flipping a coin will be a head or a tail, but I can tell you that if you flipped it 2000 times, close to 1000 would be heads.
Really...
And we know that in various times there has been MUCH warmer and MUCH colder periods.
We know areas covered in ice weren't and areas not have been covered in ice.
So how can you tell me we're so much HOTTER than ever before?
If you wanted to impose a few million dollars of restrictions upon society, the compelling reasons you mentioned would probably be good enough. But when you want to impose several trillion dollars worth of restrictions, the rules are a little different, it's kneejerk to make demands like "the sky is falling, lets regulate now and figure it out later". It fact, it is not only kneejerk, it is almost a sure sign that there is some very insincere political motives pushing it behind the scenes.
First prove it beyond a reasonable doubt - these studies are very compelling, but are not proof. In fact, I renember how all those computer models "proved" how the oil fires in the 1st Iraq war were going to cause massive atmospheric conditions for several years. They didn't. In fact, it turned out the main reason they were wrong is because they had political motives behind them, funny how that works isn't it.
You have to prove that the suggested remedy will solve the problem, which I have never even seen attempted. The fact that only remedy that's allowed to be considerd is Koyoto (or similar ), is a bad sign. Especially since it seems to be baisly geared to holding the US back relative to everyone else.
You half to prove that that these kind of massive restrictions are the only viable solution, which has also never been attempted. In fact there is compelling reason to believe that a far better solution would be to have a treaty requiring less restrictions on nuclear power, not more of co2 output.
Also every article I've read, incuuding this one, shure hasn't seemed to scientific. Phrases like "all rational people will agree that this is the only cuase" is so insane for something like atmospheric conditions. It sounds more like a manifesto than science. There is nothing even close to the "repeatable, measurable, testable, observable" that you see as the mantra in other fields like bioscience.