Slashdot Mirror
Climatologists Wager on Global Warming
coflow writes "The Guardian is carrying a story about a $10,000 bet that a pair of Russian scientists have entered with British climate expert James Annan. According to the article, the Russians believe the world will be cooler in 10 years. "If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way.""
According to the article, the Russians believe the world will be cooler in 10 years.
Unfortunately, $9,999 will have gone towards building a giant air conditioner in the middle of Moscow.
And here I thought it was 2005... Where have the last three years gone? My goodness, time does seem to fly by these days...
Global warming won't be a serious problem for a long time. But It is approaching. Those crazy Russians.... They lost ten grand.
Advance in Science.
Guess it depends on the Russian's definition of "cool".
What metric will they use to determine if the world has cooled or warmed?
"Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex, I could pinch them." --Marvin the Martian
Climatologists Wager on Global Warming:
This is a bet, so why is it under science?
The russians investigated weather control far more deeply than the USA (though the british did some experiments too, ended up flooding a small town). Maybe they're going to plunge the world into a new ice age, so they can swan about in their fur hats while the rest of us freeze.
I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I think we could use some global warming in northern Ohio. After a while, the bipolar weather patterns aren't so bad, but the winters can get pretty nasty. I realize it probably won't change too much in my lifetime, but it's a thought.
As for the climatologists, is a bet really news?
Global warming means nothing more than a bet!
Cooler or warmer, if we are the ones doing it then we are all fsck'd.
Get your Unix fortune now!
I thought I'd never say that. It's interesting how mainstream media has declared that a majority of scientists say global warming is real and directly tied into carbon emissions. When the only consensus is that things are getting warmer (opposite of when the planet was getting cooler in the 50's through 60's and causing the global cooling panic).
I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet. I have several friends in climatology, geology and astronomy who shake their heads everytime a new panic prediction is released. They're not right-wing anti-environmentalist idealogues. They're scientists who see multiple cause for global warming, man being only one of them.
The "better something than nothing" crowd loses traction with me when it comes to Kyoto. It's just a bad plan.
Real men bet on drinks and not on wee little girly-men dollahs. Listen to me now, believe me later, there is no such thing as global warming...
Freedom is strength, Ignorance is peace, War is slavery.
Obviously inspired by the 10-year Julian Simon/Paul Ehrlich wager of 1980.M Simon had Ehrlich choose five of several commodity metals. Ehrlich chose 5 metals: copper, chrome, nickel, tin, and tungsten. Simon bet that their prices would go down. Ehrlich bet they would go up. Simon won.
"To decide who wins the bet, the scientists have agreed to compare the average global surface temperature recorded by a US climate centre between 1998 and 2003, with temperatures they will record between 2012 and 2017"
/., not like anyone would listen anyway...
I'd say to RTFA next time, but this is
Scientists who stand firm on the belief that humans are causing global warming, have been involved in several bet-challenges with skeptics. Here's how two of them panned out:
"Dr Annan first challenged Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is dubious about the extent of human activity influencing the climate. Professor Lindzen had been willing to bet that global temperatures would drop over the next 20 years.
No bet was agreed on that; Dr Annan said Prof Lindzen wanted odds of 50-1 against falling temperatures, so would win $10,000 if the Earth cooled but pay out only £200 if it warmed. Seven other prominent climate change sceptics also failed to agree betting terms."- In other words, Lindzen made it so it wasn't a fair bet. He poisoned the wager.
"In May, during BBC Radio 4's Today programme, the environmental activist and Guardian columnist George Monbiot challenged Myron Ebell, a climate sceptic at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, in Washington DC, to a £5,000 bet. Mr Ebell declined, saying he had four children to put through university and did not want to take risks."- In other words, Monbiot flat out chickened out.
The thing is, what happens if (by a miracle) enough nations enact policies that cause lower greenhouse gas emissions and global warming stops? Then who wins?
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
That says global warming may well stave off the next ice age, and this wiill be no bad thing for our species. Now I suspect that this would be better acheived deliberately and with planning, rather than through polution. Whichever way it happens though, given that I live in england, a country which was covered to a depth of several kilometers in ice during the last ice age, I can't say I mind too much, however it happens.
Start your spraycans!
.....who gets the money if the climate stays the same?
$10,000 will be worth about $1.98 in today's dollars, due to the coming hyperinflation.
- Feynman bet a $1000 that no one could construct a motor no bigger than 1/64th of an inch on a side
- Hawking bet against his own theory of black holes (a subscription of Penthouse to the winner, no less)
And other similar stuff...Russian scientists make much less than $10000/year, they should start saving in case they lose. Typically they make a few hundred bucks a month.
This type of "betting" has been going on for a while now at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Weather futures lets companies and traders buy and sell the risk of high or low temperatures For example a utility company might fear that it will incur high costs if the summer weather is too hot and a softdrink maker might fear that the summer weather will be too cold. These parties can agree to trade a weather future contract that profits the utility if the weather is hot (offsetting the extras costs) and pays the drink maker if the weather is cold (offseting the lost sales). Both sides reduce their own risks. Agriculture and energy traders can also use weather futures to hedge or correct for weather-related price changes in commodities to profit from non-weather-related effects.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I am not sure about now, but 7 years ago $500/month was a VERY GOOD SALARY in Russia.
Anyone realised its not a case of the world getting warmer or colder. its a case of climate changing.
The poor old UK will sink, the equators are going to cool down, while the artic is going to warm up. Looks like this bet was fixed after all.
- http://www.milkme.co.uk
Pretty soon Earth is chock full of sunbeams...their rotting corpses heating our atmosphere.
Fortunately our handsomest politicians came up with a cheap, last minute way to combat global warming.
Ever since 2063 we drop a giant ice cube into the ocean every now and then.
Of course, since the greenhouse gases are still building up, it takes more and more ice each time.
Thus solving the problem once and for all.
Each processor would proceed sequentially as if it had been better for them not to rise against Saul.
The IPCC is as close to consensus as you get, and they attribute global warming significantly to carbon emissions, and carbon emissions such as carbon dioxide and methane are known greenhouse gases in that the laws of physics dictate their behavior.
Or would you have us believe that for some reason it just so happens to be overwhelmed by other factors than carbon emissions?
If industry PR consultants had a plausible method by which anything other than carbon emissions would be causing global warming I'd be interested in so far as that we shouldn't be contributing further to global warming since, regardless of the primary method of global warming (which you can believe differently all you want), greenhouse gases will _still_ cause earth to warm on a global scale.
Furthermore, you claim Kyoto is "just a bad plan" without reason. If it's such a bad plan, surely you have some reason to think that which you can state publicly.
So, what's your plausible alternative warming mechanism, to save face?
Actually, there's another question besides who is actually paying. How much extra they paid the "scientists" under the table (beyond the wager itself)?
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
In Soviet Russia global warming cools you!
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
The Kyoto Protocol and UNFCCC were designed to prevent global climate change. If the climate gets warm enough, ocean currents can be forced to "switch" in a way that can trigger a mini ice age.
Sorry to follow up on my own post, but I meant to add that a similar betting-pool idea for knowledge aggregation was put forth by John Brunner's brilliant (IMO) book Shockwave Rider, in 1975. (If you like SF, read it, if you haven't. There's a lot more than just the betting thing going on that still echos in modern SF fiction, plus, it is a great story, even if the writing sort of sucks. But we're used to that is SF, yes?)
I forget what 8 was for.
Just got done reading the article.
I'm personally looking forward to needing to pipe heat INTO my data center to keep it from freezing over.
After a 1 month Summer in Calif* and several years of declining temperatures, we feel the climate is cooling down from particulates more than it's heating up from CO2. Everyone knows sulfur from China's factories is reducing the amount of energy reaching Calif*. The sunsets today are a lot redder than they used to be.
Seems odd but here is why. The ocean currents carry water from the Polar regions to the Tropics. The reason Northern latitudes are able to sustain large populations is because of the moderating affect of the ocean. If the Polar latitudes warm up suffciently all the ice melts and the process that was sending heavy dense water down to the tropics is disrupted and the Polar regions get really cold and and Ice Age comes along. I don't think there is rational person that doesn't believe we are modifying the environment but this process has happened over and over through history. The Sun is in a very active state and has been pumping out a lot of heat at the same time so I think the chance of this happening isn't so remote. In the 1600-1800s there was a pronounced cooling in Northern Europe and it may be on the way again once the Planet heats up enough to start the cycle all over again. The Earth is very dynamic and climate change is inevitable. Evidence of vineyards in England has been found but you won't be growing any grapes there today!
We *are* releasing a ton of gasses, much more than can be reabsorbed, and two giant economies, india and china, are just the past few years really bumping up the volume on what they burn.
So combine that with the aforementioned geophysical realities, and it looks like more warming coming to me. How long it will last I don't know because of political wildcards. All you can do is guess, but there's only enough oil for some countries to have a robust middle class, not enough for all nations. Anyone can do the math there, it's not that hidden or weird or debateable any longer. There is x-amount projected global demand, with y amount proven reserves/refinery capacity, etc. They aren't the same number and x is a lot larger. That and other strategic minerals, etc. We just *may* have a tremendous global warfare period over natural resources and availability (some contend it has started already),and if this happens, the amount of fires started (call them megafires, as in regional sized) and resultant release of even more gasses plus extra heat that will get trapped WILL be catastrophic. and large wars have started over much less than large nations economic survival.
I think it pays to remember that "leaders" in these various very large nations by and large tend to be *quite mad*. I am pointing in all directions right now, no favorites. You cannot predict what they might do or how things might spiral out of control.
I tend to think at best, just for a SWAG, we have to go on past planetary history. We usually wind up with major wars fought by major powers with whatever the major weapons of that time period were. It has eventually always happened. I see nothing that convinces me todays humans are any better than yesterdays humans in that regard. So the combination of lame hoomannz and natural cyclical warming trends should indicate for the next generation or more we will have _more warming_.
Do you mean the pro-warming scientists or the anti-warming scientists?
Grants from the Sierra Club spend just as well as grants from Exxon, and carry the same risk of biasing a scientist to report what he thinks his patron wants to hear.
I'd be interested in an analysis of the source of funds for climate scientists. How much is coming from the evil corporations, how much from scaremongering environmentalists, and how much from supposedly apolitical government agencies?
Also, you must not underestimate the power of peer review and tenure decisions to bias scientific research. The academic world is tough on people who undermine articles of "progressive" faith.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Total Russian GDP decreased by %50.
"Sure there's porn and piracy on the Web but there's probably a downside too."
is an old korean scientist that will build a bewoulf cluster of huge air conditioning overlords, running linux. Other then that, I can't see how the comments can go more berserk...
I don't make those kinds of bets anymore, not since I lot the Brittney Spears virginity thing...
I'm sorry. ./ you are no longer my homepage.
But
Interesting how you were still afraid to risk your karma on that statement.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
Here's a study that says that oil and gas will run out too fast and prevent any type of doomsday global warming. Actually, it's not the fact that oil will run out, it's the fact that oil and gas will peak and so we won't be able consume them at a fast enough rate.
That is of course if we don't replace the depleted oil with coal, which may be a possibility. But even still, it seems as if there are enough signs of global warming already and the oceans will be releasing so much CO2 that even if we stop using fossil fuels today there will still be net CO2 emissions.
"Back in my day, a cup of coffee usta cost $3. $10,000 doesn't go very far these days."
You just made at least one foe!
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
The coldness from the ice coming down from the north pole is keeping it cooler further down.
Pentium 4's will be obsolete and not in mainstream usage.
Windows has detected an undetectable error.
Have we in the left boiled down to blaming Bush for everything? Unfortunately this view doesn't win votes against Bush. As long as there is no credible opponent and vision we are doomed.
While recent US-Siberian weather experience might help both sides' gut feel, this wager nevertheless highlights a stark confrontation over mechanism and nature of climate change. I think it is great. Perhaps the real scientific process may at last actually begin to engage on "global warming" after years of herd mentality, "seize the means" opportunism, PC and academic incest. BTW, before any of you "flame on" - google/RTF issues referred by the Russians. It is an interesting bet: both sides clearly feel they have an advantage, and there is real risk - climate change is dicey. The Russians have assessed climate history on several items and are taking a ride on the next solar cycle - the bet it not as outrageous as a dyed-in-the-wool, born again GHG "warmer" might believe...
While it may seem easy to dismiss any FSU organization as a corrupt sock puppet, they often do have fundamentally different vantage points. And they can have guts, just ask any French or German...
What if it stays exactly the same?
I confess that my life goal is to write so clearly and so well that every person who hates the truth would be aware of my writing and regard me as a personal foe. Not a very realistic goal, however. Most of that is just my own limitations as an author, but it is also true that people who speak too much truth are rarely widely known. One of the primary tactics of haters of the truth is to actively suppress its dissemination.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
will the singularity due in 2012 nullify this bet?
It seems to me that the British scientist who is wagering that the Earth will get warmer could better spend his $10,000 doing something more productive. Like, oh, say, trying to halt global warming?
How many of you remember, as I do, the early eighties, when we were hearing about the coming ice age? Now it's global warming. I would love to just smack the hell out of the people who come up with these studies. We do not have accurate data on past tempuratures, and we are talkind geological time, ie. human life span pales... I'm sick of it, and I rejct your reality, and insert my own.
No one here gets out alive
Here's hoping that the two parties have agreed on which data will decide the bet.
While it's safe to say that the preponderance of the data favor warming over the last 50 years, it's also safe to say that individual measurements have been all over the place. Sea, air, and troposphere measurements aren't consistent, and the year-to-year noise is larger than the signal.
I'll post as my actual account to second your comment. I've moved to the google start page, and removed my desktop rss feed of /. (replaced with digg).
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
I'd like to know if the threat of climate change has affected real estate markets in coastal areas. At some point rising sea levels will start imposing costs on homeowners in those areas, which will hurt the property values. Is that part of anybody's thinking today?
Arctic Melting Fast; May Swamp U.S. Coasts by 2099
org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
Yeah, I hate the damn western CO2 conspiracy. It seems like whenever I hear a western scientist speak, everything that comes out of his mouth is carbon dioxide.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
Why do people keep saying things like this? There are only 2 countries in the UN that refuse to join the Kyoto Protocol: the US and Australia.
Yes, the the protocol imposes different targets on different countries, but this is as you'd expect. For example, you would never expect India, which puts out one-fifth of the CO2 of the US despite having 3.6 times the population, to cut its emissions by the same percentage. Ditto China, which puts out 40% less CO2 than the US, but has 4.4 times more people. And Brazil! Brazil has 62% of the US's population, and 5% of the CO2 emissions. Look for yourself.
You could more plausibly argue the opposite: that every country should be allowed to emit, say, 20 tons of CO2 per capita. That sounds fair. But that would mean allowing massive increases by every undeveloped country, while imposing cuts on the US. Because developed countries are responsible for many times more per-capita emissions than undeveloped ones.
The Kyoto Protocol targets aren't especially difficult anyway. The US target was a 7% decrease over 20 years. That's 0.35% p.a. And less than the reduction target accepted by the European Union (8%). The idea, obviously, is not to make countries shut down important industries, but to encourage the use of cleaner technologies where they are appropriate. To begin taking steps in the right direction.
But Republicans apparently believe that the environment is nothing more than an infinitely exploitable resource, so while 153 countries do their part, the world's #1 greenhouse gas polluter continues to belch out 25% of the world's CO2.
I should buy some cement.
"Interesting how you were still afraid to risk your karma on that statement."
Or he never registerred. I read Slashdot for well over a year before I before I actually registerred a nickname.
I'm not rushing to his defense, I'm just tired of rash conclusions being drawn from incomplete information.
"Derp de derp."
I must be missing why this story is such a big deal?
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
1. Spend another $10,000 on cheap Siberian tundra
2. Global warming
3. ????
4. Profit
I have no trouble accepting that carbon emissions could cause warming, however the evidence isn't there yet.
That's a highly imprecise statement. Are you claiming that there is no evidence? Are you saying that there is evidence, but it isn't strong enough to warrant action? Or are you saying that there is evidence, but it doesn't prove the theory beyond a reasonable doubt?
So, what level of evidence of anthropogenic global warming would you be satisfied with for taking strong immediate action? Do you have to be 100% certain? 90% certain? 50% certain? 10% certain? 1% certain?
Given the downside of global warming--hundreds of millions of people displaced, millions killed, and large parts of the most productive lands becoming uninhabitable--even if there is only a 1% chance given the evidence as it is, it warrants taking strong, immediate action. We spend much less on far sillier risks in daily life.
As far as decision makers and the public are concerned, the message that the media are presenting is accutate: global warming is sufficiently well proven to warrant action.
The rate of change is what is more important in this scenario. Both polar regions tell the tale. It has dramatically sped up just in the past few years, it is not very gradual any longer. And it is a double whammy in those areas, once the ground areas switch from brilliant white reflect the heat ice and snow, to open exposed dark rock that absorbs the heat, it further increases the rate of radical change, ie, more ice melts right there. It goes faster and faster then. I was just an hour ago reading about greenlands massive glaciers, biologists and geologists are freaking out, they are melting so rapidly there that they keep finding new plants, etc growing, where just a few years ago it was totally barren. The problem is, if the polar regions radically melt, it slows or stops ocean thermal currents, which tend to make the 'moderate' climate areas where most humans live-moderate. If the gulf stream slows more from the arctic dumping melted icewater into it, it will make northern europe wicked cold, and cause the southern US to become unbearably hot and probably cause droughts followed by an increase in super hurricanes from the gulf regions not being able to shed excess heat.
this would just *suck*
If these changes were to take 1000 years (joe random big number), swell, we can gradually adapt to it, I wouldn't see any large problems with it,but if it takes a decade or two (joe random very small number) to drastically alter the climate, I doubt it will be pleasant. Unfortunately, the academic articles that have come out semi recently point to a profound and fast rate of change in both polar regions. This is just raw data, it is not disputable either. The rest of the planet is bound to follow.
The second and tangential part of the whole greenhouse gas debate is only partly of interest to global warming, but is primarily a health issue. The planet is becoming more urbanised, and urban areas become little micro climates and tend to trap poisonous gasses *right there*. I live rural and you can see it and smell it when you aren't used to it, whenever I am forced to go into atlanta it stinks and the air is foul, it is poisonous really, and THAT is 99% man made,and I doubt you'd get much in the way of scientific support to dispute that. If for only that reason alone, we should be pushing for alternatives to petroleum products and coal whenever possible, either replacements, more efficient use (dropping demand and burning cleaner) or by reducing the needs (better designed buildings with triple the insulation for example, etc).
In Post-Soviet Russia, Inflation fights you!
What not to lose from make outlandish wager with foolish Western academic?
Ten years from now, $10,000 will, perhaps, buy you a nice lunch...
In mean time, enjoy perks associated with Academic Celebrity!
whether or not the US population as a whole gets the message that burning Arab Juice is Un-American. I predict that they will and that successive US governments will make a considerable effort to reduce the amount of imported liquid hydrocarbon fuels. The main result will, thankfully, be a reduction in the rate of Global Warming. International Treaties == Nothing, [Patriot|National]ism == Everything.
It's not just this story (which isn't an actual story), but it's the whole.. "Video Card Roundup" type fluff that /. has been vomiting on to the front page in the past.. well, forever really. I guess I'm just now getting sick of the same old /. crap.
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
We all know about global warming, but there is also the theory of "global dimming", which been backed up by extensive research. The global dimming theory says that the true extent of global warming is being masked by pollution particles, which block out UV rays and therefore prevents them from warming the planet. The cruel irony is that if we move to a %100 renewable, non-pulluting energy existance, these UV blocking particles will dissipate back to natural levels, thus allowing more UV to bounce around in the greenhouse, and exposing us to the full effect of global warming!
The greenhouse particles exist for greater than 100 years, meaning the only solution would be to remove both the greenhouse particles and the UV blocking particles, how that may be achieved is unclear.
The Russians, as always, have made a wager they can't lose. If the Earth is hotter in 10 years - it hasn't been this hot this long this way since before the last Ice Age - the $10K they're betting will be worth a lot less, maybe nothing. If it's cooler, and we return to "normal", the US will blow off all talk of climate change, even if it's temporary or we're going Ice Age (like after the Thermohaline Current drops the Gulf Stream to the Mediterranean, and London looks like Petrograd). Then the US dollar will climb to heights unknown, as US industry says "I told you so". Then the Russians buy some cheap land in Mississippi, and just wait for the coastline to creep up.
--
make install -not war
Kyoto is a bad plan because it is a consumer pays treaty, not a producer pays treaty. CO2 is tagged specifically by the consumers of the product, not the producers. This was done pretty much to screw the USA.
Forget Bush, even Clinton wouldn't sign off on it without major changes.
The right way to do Kyoto would be to charge those nations that export carbon fuels with the CO2, not the nations that import them. Thus, Saudi Arabia, Venezuala, Nigeria should get whacked with Kyoto charges, because they produce all the CO2. If those nations want to avoid Kyoto taxes, they should either sink all this CO2 they produce, or, make a more CO2 efficient energy system.
This is my sig.
If you think rioting and wars are the result of a clean tommorow...
Jesus Christ, you are the hugest tool I have ever met.
Yes, the people who think differently about answers to global warming are against clean tomorrows, and broil kittens in a stew!
If you really want to bet on future climate being warmer, just invest in real-estate in near arctic regions (I bet even if it doesn't get warmer, technologycan still make northern Canada or Siberia much more inhabitable than in hte past.)
Clinton did sign it. He just never sent it to the Senate for ratification after it made it clear that it would never pass it.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Same here, but I'd assume someone whose homepage is /. likely has an account.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
New Zealand's trustworthy treasury says the government's Kyoto Kaper will cost the pacifist islands only $303 million, although other estimates put the eventual cost at anywhere between $500 million to $1.2 billion. That's for a population of just four million. If similar debts were incurred by Australia and the US, we'd be looking--based on relative population size--at these remarkable figures:
... or satisfy the environmental lobby industry and thereby avoid negative press for day?
NZ: $303 million. Australia: $1.5 billion. US: $22 billion.
NZ: $500 million. Australia: $2.5 billion. US: $37 billion.
NZ: $1.2 billion. Australia: $6 billion. US: $90 billion.
(Most of that cash, by the way, would be sent to Russia, who you might remember from such environmental successes as Chernobyl.) A group of Kiwi industrialists sensibly want the government to ditch its Kyoto policy. An election due later this year, however, may see the government itself ditched.
Per-capita, Kyoto is costing NZ about what the war in Iraq is costing the US.
Reform tyrannies, thru example, and promote historic firsts in freedom throughout the most dangerous region in the world
Decisions, decisions.
Dotslash will miss you, sugar. Truly you were the best of us.
I hope you aren't suggesting that cities and states subsrcribing to the Kyoto plan is evidence for how great it is. That just doesn't make sense. I'm here to tell you that cities and states enact dumb laws quite often.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.
Sky rocketing markets, wars over energy rights, mass unemployment and rioting as a result of that unemployment
Except that those prognostications are utterly wrong: a reduction in energy usage doesn't produce unemployment or result in wars or rioting. If anything at all, in increases employment, both in the development of more energy efficient technologies, and ultimately in the service sector (where automation is replaced with manual labor).
Yes we have a tremendous amount to lose if we're wrong.
No, we (as in "the people") only have to gain from lowered carbon emissions: we get a cleaner environment, less risk from global warming, reduced chance of conflict over energy, and more employment. Who stands to lose are the existing energy companies and manufacturers, who have a huge investment in old energy technologies and production methods; any change to the status quo threatens their business big time.
Who is going to enter a bet with me? I am 47 years old and I believe that I am going to live next 100 years. If I die before 2105 I'll pay you $1.000.000 .
"You do realize that just because a majority of people believe one thing does not make it true, right?"
Your belief, and anyone else's belief is irrelevant to science in regards to a "scientific conclusion". Let me explain it to you historically with one of your own example, "At another, people thought atoms consisted of a proton with electrons orbiting around it."
This is not true, because it is inaccurate. No scientist thought or believed that atoms consisted of electrons orbiting atoms. It is more accurate to say that at one time, the best theory, which had the fewest weaknesses and was based upon empirical data and scientific methodology, was the model that electrons orbited protons. Yet even then, this theory was known to have weakeness, like the electron radiating because it was accelerating, but there was no better theory so this was the "scientific conclusion".
Now we physicists have gone even further, down to the level of quarks and leptons. The physics that describes this is "quantum field theory", and the model is called the "standard model". No scientist believes that atoms are made out of quarks and leptons becuase this believe is unnecessary. It is more accurate to say that scientists have concluded based upon empirical data and scientific methodology that the best theory with the fewest weaknesses is the standard model. Yet even now, without a better theory, this theory is known to have weakenesses. For instance, it can explain neither mass, nor neutrino oscillations, nor gravity.
One of the hottest topics in physics is the search for the next best model to describe the atom. Would physicist's be so eager to search for something they did not believe in? The answer is neither 'yes' or 'no', but rather 'belief is unnecessary in science to scientific conclusions'.
Similarly, no scientist believes in global warming. Their belief is irrelevant. It is more accurate to say that the best theory that describes the climate and the recent climate changes, is a climatological theory which includes the theory called "global warming", because this theory has the fewest weaknesses and is based upon scientific methodology and empirical data. To dispute this, you must show, using the scientific methodology of climatologist's, that there is a theory that better fits the empirical data and has fewer weakness than the previously prevailing theory, "global warming". Even though I am a physics graduate student in an accredited PhD program, I do not possess the scientific background that includes the scientific methodology and empirical data of the climatologists. Thus, I cannot dispute this. I will hazard a guess that neither can you, nor can 'certain politicians' (even if they right fancy books and news articles) nor anyone else who is not trained in the scientific methodology of the climatologists and their empirical data.
All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions".
~Kevin
Vegas should offer bets on this also. They allow betting on everything else. However, with all those lights it may be a case of conflicts of interest.
Table-ized A.I.
I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but I think we could use some global warming in northern Ohio.
I hate the term "Global Warming" - as you demonstrate, it just doesn't seem to get the point across. Perhaps "Climate Disruption" or maybe "Cascading Temperature Fluctuation Catastrophe" or "Global Badness" would do a little better in places like Ohio.
It's not about warming. It's about drought, flooding, contaminated water supply, crop failures, extinction, loss of glaciers outside the poles, complete death of coral reefs, poor air quality, and all the aspects of life that these things affect in the aggregate. Sure, this won't all happen in your lifetime, but much of it will. Regardless of whether the Russians win $10K in 10 years, the reefs are dying, the glaciers are melting - they aren't issues "somewhere down the road from now."
Of course, I just got back from a trip to northern Ohio. It was 97 degrees in the shade.
Not that I post on slashdot or anything.
Different AC here. I enjoy reading /. but see no advantage in registering. The benefit is to the owners of /. which is why they so heavily favor non-AC posts. Score:1 AC posts are SO much better than Score:3 subscribing kharma whores.
/. AND have no tracability of the ID & posts back to the meat you. Of course, for some whose profession touches upon the subject matter, the visability is a good thing. In my line of work, that is not the case. All downside, no upside.
Don't register unless you both want to benefit the owners of
PS: My "home" page is blank. Where do I want to go today? Who the fuck knows and none of your damn business regardless (/rant to nobody in particular).
My post: +5 Insightful.
Yours: -1 Flamebait.
Who's the mindless driveler here?
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Global average temperatures have risen, as pirate population has been steadily declining over the past century. Not to mention rising natural disaster occurances.
Once and for all!
If Asia had better air quality, we'd be much worse off...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
ideafutures trades in all kinds of predictions, albeit not in hard currency. You can probably find several global warming related claims there.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
I seem to recall that the sodium lamps actually came into use in part to help astronomers. IIRC, they have a very narrow spectrum that is easily filtered, unlike broad spectrum white lights.
--ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
If our generation finishes up the oil now, we avoid some lower standard of living for ourselves, well mainly for the developed world since the 3rd world doesn't seem to profit much.
However our children and grandchildren will have to suffer then. Even if new sources of energy are put into use (I hope for nuclear fusion), oil remains a very valuable raw material for chemical industry. Finishing it up now puts a very heavy burden on coming generations.
Your attitude, alas shared by many mainly in the USA believing in some god given right on personal well being at the cost of others, is plainly shortsighted and egoistic, not giving a damn about others and about coming generations.
I think we should be teaching our children about intelligent warming.
Clearly the Global Climate is very very complex, too complex in fact to be explaned by simple scientific rules.
However if we accept that the earth is intellegent then all the complexity goes away and we can marvel at the wonder.
Is it not best to accept the simplest possible explanation for all this complex data ?
Clearly to combat global warming we must appease this intelligence the only problem is how to do this ?
As a Pastafarian myself, I believe that only the opening of a huge number of Bistros serving Linguini can slow global warming and restore many of the worlds top tourist destinations to the proper temperature and humidity.
Of course I am prepared to offer 2^64 Gnocci to any so called scientist who can 'prove me wrong'.
BC is warmer than Ohio
Maybe there's a simple explanation for the bet. Maybe the Bush administration gave the Russian scientists $20,000. Sure, the Russians will have to pay $10,000 in 10 years, but the money buys those who want greenhouse gases 10 years of public relations.
1. They're scientists who have this opinion
2. They're Russian scientists who have this opinion
After so many years of Cold War where Russians were depicted as being able to conquer space with slide rules, pencils and inherent Russian scienceness it seems to be a filip to have one of these Uber scientists on board.
[% slash_sig_val.text %]
In 2020 the US dollar will be worthless.
Kind of reminds me of late 19th century stories in which a character is living a "respectable" lifestyle on a £1000/year inheritance, which would be something like $128K in today's money. For that matter in 1890 the equivalent of $1000 2005 dollars was 8£ 5 shillings.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
"If the temperature drops Dr Annan will stump up the $10,000 (now equivalent to about £5,800) in 2018. If the Earth continues to warm, the money will go the other way."
Thanks for telling us how a wager works!
A poster to the extropy-chat mailing list pointed out that James Annan also created a global warming claim on the Foresight Exchange that people can bid on:
3 0
http://www.ideosphere.com/fx-bin/Claim?claim=GW20
If I'm reading the current bid correctly, global average temperatures are predicted to rise 0.72 degrees celsius by 2032.
There's also a Nature news item covering this.
There's plenty of other wagers similar to this one on longbets.org, except the loser pays money to a charity instead of to the winner.
A few examples:
* A $20,000 bet between Mitchell Kapor (founder of Lotus) and Ray Kurzweil on whether or not the Turing Test will be passed by 2029
* A $10,000 bet between Esther Dyson and Bill Campbell on whether or not Russia will be the world leader in software development by 2012
* A $2,000 bet on whether or not someone alive in the year 2000 will still be alive in 2150
* A $2,000 bet between Craig Mundie (Microsoft CTO) and Eric Schmit (Google CEO) on whether or not commercial passengers will routinely fly in pilotless airplanes by 2030
MOD UP... Parent points out basic facts GP ignored that directly conflict with his statement (ie: that China, India etc are included).
We should keep in mind that there are good economic incentives built into the funding system for scientists to overstate their case. There are plenty of examples of this in action:
(i) the advantages of a reusable Shuttle.
(ii) the advantages of a Space station.
(iii) the exaggerated AIDS risk, where the NIH kept on promising a million infected Americans every year, for nearly two decades, before it came true. This one has the distinction from the two above that fighting AIDS is a worthwhile cause that was not properly funded until alarmist statements were made.
(iv) the risk of meteorites hitting earth.
(v) the risks of overpopulation (see Malthus).
(vi) the risks of shortages (see the Ehlrich-Simon wager).
(vii) the benefits of the next $20B megasuperduper-cyclotron (still waiting for my muon toaster oven).
(viii) the benefits of artificial intelligence.
and on and on.
The publicity seekers have been talking about global warming of several degrees C as a fact since the mid 1990s. Examining the literature the picture is different: global warning of just half a degree C was conclusively proven only a couple of years back.
So to sum it up, the risks of global warming are overstated by the scientific press. Something to keep in mind is that tempering the claims of global warming does not mean completely ignoring them (like Dubya does today or Regan did with AIDS in his time).
The difference between the theories of the standard model and global warming is that the scientists behind global warming are lobbying for society to change (at the point of goverenment's gun in most cases) on the basis of their current understanding. There are three problems with this. First, few, if any, of the advocates for changing society will acknowledge any uncertainty or potential for error in their conclusions, or doubts about the effects or possible solutions. This is simply disingenuous. It is certainly not "science" as you have described it. Second, many of the scientists advancing these theories have a direct financial interest in reaching the conclusions they do. Imagine an NRDC-funded climatologist reaching the conclusion that global warming is benign or even helpful to the entire ecosystem. Would they get future funding? Of course not. No one gets funding for saying "the sky is NOT falling". Further, even if someone did make the assertion, it would is so broad as to be indefensible. Which brings me to the third point. Many scientists have reached the conclusion that global warming is harmful to the entire ecosystem. That statement is just as broad and just as indefensible. That's the basis for "doing something about it". Yet that's heard on the nightly news very frequently, coming for supposedly reputable scientists.
Even if we accept the truth of the statement that the planet is warming, even if we further stipulate that mankind's actions represent a significant factor in that warming, where is the science that says that's an unequivocal "bad thing"? Or even sufficiently "bad" that it justifies using force to change individual people's choices?
As you say, these are all models. We can play semantic games with whether scientists "believe" in the models they produce and use, but I think the term applies reasonably well. Not one of the models can predict the future and that, my friend, is a fact.
That would kill the oil trade (or drive up the prices a lot) and completely devastate the global industry. It's a completely stupid idea because it's not the fault of e.g. the OPEC how you use the oil.
Besides, it's not like the countries are drilling the oil themselves, usually it's big US-based companies doing the drilling. They'd have to pay the countries for your Kyoto taxes or they'd lose their drilling rights as the countries won't take a loss on that. So a lot of oil fields become unaccessible. That means less oil production. And that means too little oil to keep the global industries working! Would you want to pay fifty bucks for a gallon of fuel (and comparable prices for other oil-based goods)? Forcing the consumers to reduce their output is fine because they can reach that goal by using more efficient plants instead of shutting down vital parts of the global economy. The CO2 emission differs vastly depending on the processing plant. When you don't burn it and use it only to extract certain chemicals you don't cause CO2 at all while using up oil.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
Second, many of the scientists advancing these theories have a direct financial interest in reaching the conclusions they do.
No, not really. The scientists are paid (via research grants, etc.) to research into the climate. You can do research into the climate and come up with conclusions no matter whether they support global warming as man-made or not. In fact some researchers get grants and produce papers which suggest that the current theories are not correct.
No one gets funding for saying "the sky is NOT falling".Nor do they get funded to say it is. They get funded to conduct research. I have actually talked to some climatologists. They do research. Some are concerned that there are bad things around the corner, and believe me very many hope that there models show that nothing bad will in fact happen as they have to live in this world, raise their children, and so on.
where is the science that says that's an unequivocal "bad thing"?It may not be unequivocally bad, but it does represent movement into a type of global climate of which we still cannot make absolute predictions due to deficiencies of the modelling at the moment. The status quo is not perfect, but at least we know what it is. With global climate change we are heading into the unknown. The unknown makes a lot of people fairly nervous.
The Climate of Man I
The Climate of Man II
The Climate of Man III
Interview with the author
There is nothing so silly as other peoples traditions, and nothing so sacred as our own.
The world isn't running out of oil, its running out of cheap, easy to extract oil. It doesn't help that Iraq's oil production is now in a shambles thanks to George W.
I should take that at face value; that is, as pure uninformed flamebait. Instead, I'll take a moment to correct you on two points:
First, Oil production is not in shambles. Production was at 2.5 million bpd "Before U.S.-led forces defeated Saddam Hussein".
The latest figures show that oil production is now at 2.75 - 2.85 million bpd . This is up from about 2.3 million bpd last month.
Not "in shambles".
Second, I assume you're being semantically dense when you blame the temporary damage to Iraq's oil production on George W.
In spite of the fact that little damage was done to Iraq's oil fields during the war itself, looting and sabotage after the war ended was highly destructive, accounting for perhaps 80 percent of total damage. Starting in mid-May 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -- which had the lead in restoring Iraq's oil output to pre-war levels -- began a major effort to ramp up production in the country. On April 22, 2003, the first oil production since the start of the war began at the Rumaila field, with the restart of an important gas/oil separation plant (GOSP). In May 2004, Iraq's Qarmat Ali water injection facility reportedly was 75 percent operational again, helping boost production from Rumaila and other southern oil fields. (Taken from the DOE factbook.)
Contrary to common misbelief, the US did not invade Iraq to steal their oil. The US currently purchases about 25% of Iraq's exports, or about 600,000 bpd. This puts Iraq at number six as a supplier to the US, behind Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela, each over 1.5 million bpd. Iraq is a bit player in this game.
But I'm happy to see that they're finally free of Saddam.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Well, no, that's just Clinton being a shrewd politician. He signed it to satisfy his own basis, but then didn't send it to the Senate knowing that the treaty sucked. If he really wanted to make an issue out of it, he would have sent it and forced a debate, as he did with many other forms of legislation.
Clinton's thing was to sign it, then, not send it to the Senate until he got more concessions.
This is my sig.
Kyoto: We couldn't possibly burden the impoverished oil producing companies and countries with the costs associated with their defective CO2 laden product, so instead we'll charge the consumers.
No other form of energy in the United States is as heavily subsidized or untaxed as much as petroleum is. If we did not have these subsidies or untaxed on other forms of energy, most likely what would happen would be that the cost of oil would drop because of real competition.
This is my sig.
Let's all now pray the world continues to warm, for otherwise the Russian science will be bankrupt in ten years.
17779 eligible voters in a district, 17779 'vote' as one. This is Russia.
It's worth noting that the Guardian Unlimited is traditionally left-of-center in its reporting and editorials. They've been reporting on the effects of climate change for quite some time. Some articles, including this, are genuinely interesting and thought-provoking while others, like the one we are commenting on here, deserve only a passing notice.
The kind of bet described, hot or cold in 15 years, is no more than the toss of a coin. The Guardian probably published it to continue stirring the debate on climate change.
The Pentagon report referred to above is available here. Hope their server doesn't overheat. It's conclusions are chilling (no pun intended) and no doubt caught the U.S. Administration's attention. It also gives good insight into how the developed nations actually view climate change. As a national-security issue. It's worth a read.
Don't lump the whole United States together we are more divisive regionally now than ever. Where I live in Humboldt county, CA many of us are talking about holding a new consitutional convention and seeing if any more of the northwest wishes to leave the emerging US theocracy.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
"Not "in shambles".
There is comedy in the fact that you are comparing todays production against prewar production when Iraqi oil was embargoed, the U.N. was messing in it with Oil for food, and sanctions made fixing infrastructure difficult at best. Iraqi oil production was in a shambles before the war and its still in a shambles after the war. You can blame the prewar situation on Saddam but it was more due to U.S. and U.N. sanctions. The before situation certainly originated with George H.W. Bush and the after originated with George W. Bush though Clinton contributed in the middle.
Also quoting the number for ONE good month and declaring victory is silly since Iraqi production gyrates wildly month to month based on the success of sabotage and insurgent attacks.
Its a simple fact the U.S. isn't going to double Iraqi oil production in the current climate like Cheney was telling everyone they would.
"Contrary to common misbelief, the US did not invade Iraq to steal their oil."
Well in the short term the coalition provisional authority did in fact steal it. They took the money from oil sales and transfered it in to the pockets of American contractors and Bush adminsitration cronies like Halliburton. Here is just one of many examples write up. Here is another article on rampant fraud under the CPA and its puppet government under Allawi.
That said I'm sure all the war profiteering was just a side show.
I'm more inclined to think rather than "steal" Iraqi oil the U.S. was seeking more to "control" Iraqi oil and further completely dominate militarily the worlds biggest oil producing region Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq and Iran.
Control comes in three forms and always has EVERY time the U.S. and Britain have intervened in an oil producing country in the last century, Iran in the 50's was another classic example of the tactics I describe below:
A. Topple a hostile government and install a friendly puppet government you can manipulate. The Iraqi government is completely dependent on the U.S. to stay in power so the U.S. can dictate and manipulate it at will.
B. Maintain military bases in the dominated country so if it strays to far out of line you can threaten and if necessary topple the government again and install a new and better puppet.
C. Insure U.S. and British oil companies and even more important oil field service companies like Halliburton are given the inside track for the contracts to service the oil fields and produce and sell the oil. If you have U.S. companies on the ground in the oil fields the U.S. controls and profits from the oil. You need enough blackmail influence to insure they don't give the contracts to anyone else.
Its always been the U.S. objective to insure they have enough military bases in the region that they can intimidate the governments there and block any strategic movies in to the region by Russia and China. Saudi bases didn't work well because the Saudi's put to many restrictions on them. The current bases in Iraq are much better since the weak Iraqi government can't dictate to the U.S. what it does there. They are also better suited to intimidate and attack the next two targets on the list Syria and Iran.
Iran in the 50's is a great historical reference to see exactly how this policy works. U.S. overthrew a sovereign government, installed the despotic Shah, and insured U.S. oil companies were given the contracts to control Iran's oil production. Prior to this the oil fields were in British hands and they were taking the lions share of the profits. The Iranians got fed up with the Brisish taking all the profits and nationalized them. The CIA, with British prodding, toppled the government, and then the oil contracts went in to U.S. hands and the British were ticked. Google search for TPAJAX which is the CIA codeword for one of the other grand schemes for taking
@de_machina
Global Warming Doubt Dispelled? Not Really Friday, August 19, 2005 By Steven Milloy
... In fact, the Antarctic has been cooling," adds Singer.
Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression.
"Satellite and weather-balloon research released today removes a last bastion of scientific doubt about global warming, researchers say," reported USA Today on Aug.12.
Certainly the USA Today report was partially correct - the researchers did, in fact, "say" [read "claim"] that "the last bastion of scientific doubt" had been removed. But claims and reality often don't match up.
Three papers published in the journal Science last week purport to debunk an important argument advanced by skeptics of the notion of catastrophic, manmade global warming. The skeptics' argument is that while temperatures measured on the Earth's surface seem to indicate that global temperatures have increased at a rate of about 0.20 degrees Centigrade per decade (deg. C/decade) since the 1970s, temperatures measured in the atmosphere by satellite and weather balloons have shown only a relatively insignificant amount of warming for the same time period (about 0.09 deg. C/decade).
The implication of the skeptics' argument is that whatever warming seems to be happening on the Earth's surface, similar warming isn't happening in the atmosphere. This might mean that any observed surface warming is more likely due to the urban heat island effect -- where the heat-retaining properties of concrete and asphalt in urban areas artificially increase local temperatures -- rather than increasing atmospheric levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
One of the new Science studies reported that the satellites had drifted in orbit, causing errors in temperature measurement. Corrections to the satellite data, according to the researchers, would increase the atmospheric warming estimate to 0.19 deg. C/decade -- more in line with the 0.20 deg. C/decade warming of the Earth's surface. Another study reported that heating from tropical sunlight had skewed the balloon temperature measurements.
Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, one of the studies' authors, told USA Today that, "Once corrected, the satellite and balloon temperatures align with other surface and upper atmosphere measures, as well as climate change models."
So is it really game-set-match in favor of the global warming alarmists? Not so fast, say the skeptics.
When University of Alabama-Huntsville researcher Roy Spencer, a prominent climatologist, factored the newly reported corrections into his calculations, his estimate of atmospheric warming was only 0.12 deg. C/decade -- higher than the prior estimate of 0.09 deg. C/decade, but well below the Science study estimate of 0.19 deg C/decade and the surface temperature estimate of 0.20 deg. C/decade.
As to the claimed errors in the weather balloon measurements, Spencer says that no other effort to adjust the balloon data has produced warming estimates as high as those reported in the new study and that it will take time for the research community to form opinions about whether the new adjustments advocated are justified.
Climate expert Dr. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project says the temperature adjustments are "not a big deal."
"Greenhouse theory says (and the models calculate) that the atmospheric trend should be 30 percent greater than the surface trend -- and it isn't," says Singer. "Furthermore, the models predict that polar [temperature] trends should greatly exceed the tropical values -- and they clearly don't
Singer also had some related thoughts concerning the gloom-and-doom forecasts concerning future temperatures.
Last January, a study in the journal Nature estimated that a doubling of atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide would increase global temperatures anywhere from 1.9 degrees Ce
You could have seriously simplified all that pseudo-scientific blather into simply stating what the real question is:
Are humans impacting the global climate in any significant way?
Once that is known then we can decide what questions to ask next. So far no one has answered the question other than guessing. However educated those guesses are, nothing has been proven.
Didn't you see?
He won 10,000. And I always believe people who've won 10,000.
(actually quoted that way, his rather "apocalytic" view of the public-at-large is highly ironic and quite funny.)
"This is not true, because it is inaccurate. No scientist thought or believed that atoms consisted of electrons orbiting atoms."
Nor is that what he said. If you weren't a fucking moron perhaps you could read that he said electrons orbiting protons.
Back in the 1970s someone bet the enivromentalist gadfly Paul Erlich (Population Bomb) that commodity prices would be lower in 20 years. Erlich was predicting huge inflation due to population pressures, but lost the bet. Every commodity was substabtially cheaper in inflation-adjusted dollars due to increased extraction efficiencies. Even today's high oil prices are lower than in the past when adjusted fore inflation.
Please look back at my origional post. You will see that I did not say "most scientists believed atoms consisted of electrons orbiting protons", I said "most people believed...". I considered arguing that there was a time when the best available model accepted by scientists was that electrons orbited protons. But the guy I was talking to was most obviously not a scientistst and obviously was taking this in as a belief, not merely "the best model". Thus I felt arguing about beliefs of people would be more effective.
"All you have is your beliefs, which you are free to have, so long as you are aware that they are both irrelevant and unnecesary to the scientific discussion of "scientific conclusions". "
Are you implying that I said I believe global warming won't happen? I did not. The only belief I even implied was a belief in the scientific method.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
I'm personally looking forward to needing to pipe heat INTO my data center to keep it from freezing over.
I don't think that will be nessecary, with the 64 core Intel Pentium 8's with SSE11 and 256bit extensions that we will undoubtably have in 2018.
I find it interesting that a Russian and an Englishman are making a bet apparently using US dollars. I think they are betting as much on the future value of our dollar (low) as on the climate.
What nobody mentioned is that Russia has utmost interest in global warming. They hope rising temperatures will make the northern passage ice-free for most of the year, so the northern shoreline of Siberia can be serviced by regular ships starting either from the Kola peninsula or the port of Vladivostok.
That would allow much easier exploitiation of Siberia's huge mineral resources. That could make Russia one of the world's richest country, the area is so full of natural treasures. State could provide free vodka for every russian citizen then.
Nowadays, however the northern sea-route can only be served by ship caravans, which are led by nuclear icebreakers, as the ice is sometimes 5 meters (yards) thick. Speed is 2 knots on good days and the entire journey is thousands of nm. The villages and cities in northern Siberia suffer from extreme low temperatures and lack of good transport access. If the icebreaker is late, they may freeze when the boiler's oil reserves run out.
E.g. the raising of Yarkov's frozen mammoth was delayed by several weeks because the resupply fleet was late and the port city of 20.000 people did not dare to part with 7 tons of fuel needed for the giant crane helicopter, even during the mildest time of the winter.
The Baikhal-Amur northern branch line of the Trans-Siberian railway was built with huge costs incurred during the USSR era but it proved to be unusable and impossible to maintain due to extreme cold breaking all the metal. It's not Alaska, it's Alaska on the square, or the cube, that bad.
Many russian scientists hope the global warming is real and it will help melt and access their vast northern land, without regard for the grave consequences in the rest of the world.
Where I live, there are two such sodium lamps nearby. Somewhat fortunately, they're obscured. But they're still bright enough to make getting to sleep somewhat annoying. And its all so that a double handful or so of cars can see at night. Silly me, I use my headlights for such purposes.
/. crowd, I understand that the lights are also useful for pedestrians. If there were a lot of these, I might allow that their benefits outweigh the costs. There aren't that many, however. So I'm thinking that some simple, cheap handheld lights would suffice for them.)
(Yes, for the nitpick
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
At least you went to an unbaised source with experience in the field of study. No, you linked to CATO. Which would be a think tank and FUCKING POLITICAL LOBBY GROUP, mostly for economic issues. But most importantly, as a lobby group, the truth is what they tell you the truth is. Truth doesn't really concern itself with facts, but how selective discussion of those facts can be rewarded, politically and economically.
...and, if read, it shows you to be an ax grinding jackass and borderline troll!
You might as well have included a link to Focus on the Family, or The 700 Club, because they know fuck all about climate study.
By the way, your blog sucks. http://myopinionmatters.blogspot.com/
Apparently, you need to learn the difference between the count of glaciers vs. size of glaciers.It is why the GP refers to Antarctica "Monster" glaciers. All alpine glaciers (whose total count is much higher than the total number on Antarctica) are receding. In addition, glaciers on greenland are receding.
"The ocean temperatures are rising"
And you thought the Texans were distorting data? More reading material for you.
which leads to
Anyway, what's the crime here? About 0.11 C of ocean warming in 40 years. That's 0.027C per decade, which is several times lower than the initial estimates for ocean warming that got this issue onto the front burner in the first place. The bottom line is that warming of the next 100 years is going to be wimpy. That can be gleaned from another model used in the same paper, which does not have volcanoes and assumes the sun is constant. It gives an ocean warming rate that corresponds to about 0.6C in the next 100 years, which translates to a total global warming only around 1.4C. This is far from the 5.8C making the newspapers these days.
So now your debate is not that ocean warming is occurring, but the degree of it? In fact, here is a more telling link. Why the man would call himself an authority and then threaten to sue because experts in the field declared him a 2-bit player, is beside me. Reminds me of a SCO type guy.
Yes, BS needs to be stopped, but I would say that I will listen to real experts, rather than self-proclaimed nobodies.
How funny. I have multiple degrees all in science(Microbio/genetic engineering and Computer Science). I have worked at C.D.C., IBM Watson, Bell Labs, and US West AT, all in research positions.
Oh, on a side note, I have been a registered libertarian since 1994 (as well as voted that way except for the last election), and yet, I would never refer to CATO for science.
As to your believing in the scientific method, I seriously doubt that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The very fact that you do not understand the difference between engineering and science proves that you are full of bull. Being a janitor is not the same as a research position.
Mathematics is made of 50 percent formulas, 50 percent proofs, and 50 percent imagination.
You are getting worked into a lather over somebody who himself, does not seem to understand the difference between Engineering vs. Science. And after reading his other postings, he is simply regurgitating from political scienctists who have already been discredited in the field. Time to move on.
But I'm happy to see that they're finally free of Saddam.
It's kind of cute how naive you are.
If midwest smokestacks make acid rain in New England, where does Ohio get those "bipolar weather patterns?" Maybe it's shipped downwind from Seattle by sunlight-deprived Nirvana junkies. Anyway, it explains what, until now, I had written off as some inexplicably anti-social behavior in Ohio last year.
Now that we've identified the problem, can we get a few volunteers to make sure Ohio takes its medication for that bipolar thing before we let it into a voting booth again?
I'm thinking my first attempt to answer you was a little verbose, let me try shorter and simple.
"War for oil" doesn't mean the U.S. occupies country, pulls tankers in harbor and ships oil to U.S. for free. That would tick off the U.S. oil companies which have vast political clout as much as the host company and the world.
Its way more subtle than that.
"War for oil" mean the U.S. takes down hostile government, installs friendly/puppet government the U.S. can dominate politically and militarily. The U.S. then insures U.S. oil companies and more importantly U.S. oil field service companies (a.k.a. Halliburton) get the contracts to control and develop the oil fields and get to profit mightily from its sale. The victim country also understands that if it tries to nationalize the field, or replace the U.S. companies with French, Russian or Chinese companies they run a high risk the U.S. will topple that government and install a new one to insure the U.S. always gets the outcome and control it craves so much.
Its also VERY important to the U.S. that it makes sure oil is traded in U.S. dollars and not Euros because this makes the dollar the dominant world currency which is critical to U.S. economic survival, especially with as much money as the U.S. has to borrow every year.
@de_machina
The first law of economics: supply & demand determines prices. Hence, reducing our usage of oil will REDUCE the price of oil.
I registered so I could have it always be flat mode with a threshold of 0, and so that AC posts were shown fairly. (I can't remember if AC starts at +1 or if logged in starts at 0 for me, but they are even). And who the hell modded my comments above "Insightful"? It may be "Insightful," but first and foremost, it's offtopic. Moderation isn't to reward posters who agree with you, it's to weed out spam and trolls, and make the discussion more readable. My post should be at -1 by now, so that only people interested in all /. conversation, whether on or off topic can read it, but those only interested in the topic at hand, and therefore reading at 0 or 1 will have it filtered out. In fact, I should have posted that with no karma bonus so that it would have started lower. I'm leaving karma bonus on now so that future mods can see it. Please downmod my first post first, then this one, if you wish.
I hate grammar Nazi's.
It's kind of sad how stupid you are.
Fuck it
heh, I guess it's just a bonus I never put /. as my start page :)
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
even if they right fancy books and news articles
l34rn y0ur h0m0nym5!! 0wn3d!!
"It didn't make sense to try to set limits for China they are still to far away from reaching."
Setting limits BEFORE you reach them is the BEST way.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
The earth is cooler than it has been for much of it's life. The earth was a much hotter and more humid place during the time of the dinosaurs. If you look back at climate history for a few million years you will see that the earth is always getting warmer and colder in cycles. It's natural, and it happened long before the automobile.
In fact, the earth had more carbon dioxide than oxygen when life began. The fact is that as much as we might like to think we are so powerfull we can permanently change the earths climate it just isn't so. It is a very complex system but like all things in nature it has checks and balances. If one variable (like CO2) increases the temperature, other variables balance it out.
We have some dread fascination with global disasters. In the 60's it was global nuclear annihalation. In the 70's and 80's it was acid rain. In the 90's it was global warming and asteroids.
I don't worry about it. Even if the ice caps melt and the seawater rises it won't be the end. Because areas that are currently uninhabitable like northern canada, siberia, antarctica, would be warm enough to sustain crops and for people to live in larger numbers. It would open shipping lanes through the north pole that would cut down on the cost of the global economy and open up new paths to our neighbors. We would gain as much land as we would loose to flooding. And the northern lattitudes have some of the most fertile soil in the world thanks to glacial action.
Very well said.
Your central thesis, however, is that the US is acting from primarily a selfish, greedy motivation. I don't think that that's true.
Under Saddam, Iraq had historically produced oil at about the same levels that they've just now reached again this August. The proceeds from those sales, apparently, went straight to Saddam and family, with a bit siphoned off for UN bribes. The US has replaced Saddam with a representative form of government, which is now free to tell them to get the hell out, and refuse to sell oil to the US. I don't see that the US would have any choice in the matter but to comply, unless the UN told them to go in and enforce something again.
The scenario we have now: The US, UK, Australia, and the rest of the Coalition took a big risk, politically, militarily, economically, in enforcing the UN mandate. They increased worldwide security by eliminating a large funding source of Islamic terrorists. They toppled a murderous dictator, and have paved the way for the election of a representative government. The Iraqi people are days (weeks?) away from proposing their own constitution.
The US has undertaken the monumental task of rebuilding the oil infrastructure (most of which was destroyed not by coalition forces, but by Saddam's or by sympathetic, reactionary Islamic forces) to allow Iraq to return to economic viability as soon as possible. The US is not asking for anything in return. (I've heard proposals that Iraq "pay back" the US for the cost of the war out of its oil proceeds -- I do not support that proposal.) I'm sure that US firms will make proposals to help explore the estimated 90% of Iraq's oil resources which have yet to be surveyed. Firms from other countries will do so, as well.
The Iraqis are free to determine who wins those contracts.
I hope that this gives US firms more opportunities in the future. That would be a nice outcome. I hope some British, Australian, and German firms get some opportunities, as well. But it's not the reason we went to war.
Time will tell. Continue to watch what happens to the oil economy in Iraq. If it becomes a massive siphon into US gas tanks, or US oil companies, then I'll be proven wrong.
I fully expect US troops to remain present in Iraq for many years to come. Hell, they're still in Germany, and it's been 60 years since they last fought to liberate that country from its oppressive dictator.
The US has a long history of doing the right thing, for the right reasons -- much to the dismay of the pundits of the day. History, by and large, is on its side. I have a feeling that it will be in this conflict, as well.
The cure for cancer is coming: Reovirus
Why don't you make yourself useful? Now you should set your scoring to add negative points to your foes and freaks, and my posts will disappear from your visibility. Honest, I won't miss you. I'm not writing for fools.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
It's reassuring to see that the moderation system is doing its job... some of the time, at least.
--
Sick of pompous windbags? Change "Karma Bonus" modifier to -1 penalty.
"which is now free to tell them to get the hell out, and refuse to sell oil to the US."
Yea maybe someday. It ain't gonna happen anytime soon. The day the Iraqi government does that there are about a dozen actors in the region inside and outside of Iraq that would pounce and either seize power or split the country in to a 3 part civil war. All the Kurds and many Shia's already want to split Iraq in to 3 countries which is why the constitution wrangling continues. The Kurds want to take the oil fields in the north and secede and the Shia's want to take the oil fields in the south and create a Taliban style Islamic republic and leave the Sunni's in the middle in poverty.
Any Iraqi leader that isn't naive knows that if they did start crossing the U.S. they run a high risk that the CIA would start working to topple them either through a coup or election rigging. The CIA has done this scores of times since World War II. I really doubt with as much blood and gold as the U.S. has invested in this that they are going to walk away with a democratically elected Islamic fundamentalist government allied with Iran selling all their oil to China and with French and Russian companies running their fields, and with no military bases in Iraq or Saudi Arabia.
If could happen but if it does it just shows how badly the Bush administration thought this out, or rather didn't think this thing out past Shock and Awe, pulling down Saddam's statue, and the roses. Or maybe it just shows how incompetent they really are. The voting dynamics were obvious before the invasion. 60% of the popluation are Shia and most of them are devout Mulsims. Thats why George W.'s dad left Saddam in power the first time around. He knew Saddam was better than another fundamentalist Islamic government which is what you get putting democracy in Iraq.
Watching Charlie Rose recently a guest completely nailed it. The U.S. didn't win the Iraq war after 300 billion dollars 1800 dead and thousands wounded. Iran did and they didn't have to lift a finger. Chalibi may have well been an Iranian agent whose mission was to sucker the U.S. in to taking down Saddam for them, using false WMD charges and the Bush administration fell for it hook, line and sinker.
"The US has undertaken the monumental task of rebuilding the oil infrastructure....The US is not asking for anything in return."
I really doubt that. If the U.S. rebuilds it, it will only be if Halliburton gets the lion's share of the contracts and it will mostly probably be paid for with Iraqi oil revenue, which is just a back door way to take Iraqi oil revenue and put it in American pockets. Halliburton are specialists at defrauding their customers.
"The US has a long history of doing the right thing, for the right reasons -- much to the dismay of the pundits of the day."
That is completely ridiculous. The U.S. has done the wrong thing countless times for more than a century, certainly as far back as the Spanish American War. Did anyone in school ever teach you about the Phillipine America War. Probably not.
The U.S. overthrown countless sovereign and popular governments and replaced them with ruthless right wing dictators, whose only qualification was their willingness to kill leftists.
I think your problem is you get all your news and history from U.S. biased sources which ALWAYS belabor all the good and completely brush under the rug all the bad. The media and education system in pretty much every country does that. No one ever burdens schoolchildren with facing the fact their country isn't perfect, they'd rather fill them with the heroic history of Washington crossing the Delaware and D-Day. They don't ever tell kids the U.S. killed and tortured hundreds of thousand up to a million Filipinos trying to crush an anti occupation insurgency like the one in Iraq today.
@de_machina
Here is an interesting article rebutting the expanding glaciers claim.
I don't have any limits in mind at all.
I was merely commenting on the human nature in regards to limits.
I'll admit that I'm surprised that you asked me for limit suggestions. Your comments suggest that you already had a certain limit in mind, at least for some people. I was basically responding to your expressed desire to wait before applying those limits to others.
You would have made more sense to me, had you espoused setting the same limits for each person now, or insisted on waiting the same for everyone.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
"You know, you do live in America and you ARE free to move south where it's warmer"
Yes, but you have to show your travel papers to fly.
True story:
My wife and I were flying a coupld of weeks ago and each had a boarding pass and Virginia driver license.
We each showed both our license and boarding pass to the first security person, our boarding pass to the person at the metal-detector gate, and our boarding pass to the person when we boarded the plane.
Inadvertently, my wife had the boarding pass that I should have had, and I had a boarding pass that I would need for a later flight from a different airport.
No one (including us) noticed until after my wife was half-way down the ramp to get on the plane and the computer rejected my pass.
In other words, after our passes were (ostensibly) checked THREE TIMES, they didn't notice that my wife's license didn't match her boarding pass, or that she was obviously female and her boarding pass had an obviously male name, or that my boarding pass wasn't even for that airport (I guess that the third check caught that one).
(sigh) My tax dollars at work.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
Whether it is a tax that goes through the IRS (although I do really think that the TSA recieves lots of Federal funding) or a tax that goes from me to the airline to the security, it is still a tax, in my mind.
Security at airports is a substantially bigger hassle than when you last flew. My experience hasn't shown it to be effective, and I'm not even trained to get past the security.
Example: There is NO real security for keeping risky people off a risky flight, because I can buy a ticket under a fake name and my real name. Use the real name to get past security to the gate area, and the fake name ticket will get me on the airplane.
IMO, the security at airports is designed for elections, not for security.