Slashdot Mirror
More Bad News About Global Warming
IZ Reloaded writes "A UK govt report says that greenhouse gases may have more serious impacts that previously thought. Greenhouse gases it says, is causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable. From BBC: The European Union has adopted a target of preventing a rise in global average temperature of more than two Celsius. That, according to the report, might be too high, with two degrees being enough to trigger melting of the Greenland ice sheet.... A rise of two Celsius, researchers conclude, will be enough to cause:
* Decreasing crop yields in the developing and developed world
* Tripling of poor harvests in Europe and Russia
* Large-scale displacement of people in north Africa from desertification
* Up to 2.8bn people at risk of water shortage
* 97% loss of coral reefs
* Total loss of summer Arctic sea ice causing extinction of the polar bear and the walrus
* Spread of malaria in Africa and north America"
La La La La LA!!!!
Can't hear you! Not happening! No consensus!
Love,
George
[George W. Bush appears by kind co-operation of Exxon, Inc]
Eh. Worse things could happen. I'm only half-joking. If they had to resort to "extinction of the polar bear and walrus" for a seven-item list of "what could happen if there's global warming," we're not in such bad shape.
All those problems, but whats on the mind of most people here is - will it affect my WoW ping times?
liqbase
Even with the best will in the world (and that is sorely lacking
from certain countries - and thats not just a pop at the US, I'm
talking china, australia, india etc) we can't suddenly all switch
to nuclear and wind/solar/wave power overnight. CO2 will continue
to be released and the temperature is likely to go over the 2C
rise this century. I suspect the writing is on the wall for a
large part of the next generation of people on this planet , and
possibly us too if we live long enough.
Global warming is happening right now . Purely from an economic point of view, it would be both wiser and less costly if we apprehend the problem in the present and not postpone.
How much more proof do we need before those that believe in "intelligent design" finally accpet the affects of global warming.
perpetually dwelling in the -1 pits
So, I hear republicans and big oil business folks still call this a theory.
We, north of that country, just barely (and fortunately) elected a government who feels the same way.
We're having a winter heat wave here in Southern Ontario while our summers have been bloody unbearable with bad air days...weeks, high humidity and high temperatures while massive flooding and totally untypical weather hits different parts of the world.
Exactly, what are these folks not seeing when it comes to denying global warming?
It's inevitable, just what we were wanting to hear. Now we don't have to bother changing our ways, we can just sit back and wait for it, with a newly-invigorated sense of nihilism. If you were hesitating to buy that SUV you wanted, well, now, you may as well get it.
For a while I thought there would be the danger that we would have to do something....phew!
No, Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. That's just rain falling on your head. Acid rain, maybe, but rain just the same.
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
"...collates evidence presented by scientists at a conference..." In other words Hand Picked without controlling for bias. Where is the link to the actual studies that were used? What was rejected? Looks like more media based science.
"You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours."
[joke]
The hell it isn't. We paid for it.
[joke]
Ignorance is curable, stupid is forever.
Er ... if you read TFA closely, the report doesn't actually say what the headline seems to imply -- i.e., that greenhouse gases have been demonstrated to be more effective in causing global warming than previously thought. It says that the effects of global warming have been modeled to be more drastic than previously thought.
This is a subtle but vitally important distinction that the writers of the article themselves don't seem to grasp. To quote from TFA:
But Miles Allen, a lecturer on atmospheric physics at Oxford University, said assessing a "safe level" of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was "a bit like asking a doctor what's a safe number of cigarettes to smoke per day".
"There isn't one but at the same time people do smoke and live until they're 90," he told Today.
"It's one of those difficult areas where we're talking about changing degrees of risk rather than a very definite number after which we can say with absolute certainty that certain things will happen."
Given that CO2 is naturally found in the atmosphere, and was so long before humanity came on the scene, and is essential for the continuation of plant life on this planet, Allen's comparison of it to an external disease-causing agent is a very odd statement.
I'm waiting to see a study on global warming that actually takes into account the fact that we are still coming out of the last ice age (or out of the Little Ice Age); that the planet (and our species) has survived far more drastic climate change in the past; and that such climate change had nothing to do with human action. When those facts (and they are facts) are taken into account, how much actual evidence is there that the current climate change is due to human causes? Is there any at all?
I don't intend this as a troll. Seriously, if anyone can link to studies that take those facts into account, I'd very much like to read them.
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
This is why we need to act now. Even if we don't do much and we only reduce the our CO2 emissions by an extra 1% (for illustrative purposes not actual figure) by doing easy things like turning our TVs off at the wall rather than putting them on standby, walking to places near our houses, not leaving our computers on all day while we are not at home etc. Then at least we will be giving our selves more of a chance to sort out this mess.
I am angry that countries like America, Austraila and China will not sign up to the Kyoto treaty as they are some of the largest contributers to CO2 emissions, and the other parts of the world that are doing thier bit to reduce emissions are then getting short changed because the good that they are doing is being made almost pointless because places like America are still polluting lots and the whole world will suffer not just America. The world is a "team game" we need to work together on this one. America (and the others) should stop thinking about thier oil centric economies and think about the future of our planet.
I am also irritated and scared that the American electorate keeps voting Bush in, he really is a moron, how can the American people trust such an idiot to run thier country. It would be much better to bring Clinton back in my view.
Michael-m.co.uk - Home of Michael Mulqueen
I don't know where the hell your getting your "data" from but as a programmer with a physics degree I am able to pick up these supposed "pseudo" scientific journals (you many have heard of Nature for example) and understand not only the data presented but the scientific arguements surrounding the conclusions. 2005 was the hottest year since accurate records began so where the hell is the cooling?? Arguing whether global warming is actually happening or going to happen has long ended, however there is still a chance someone will believe the we're coming out of an ice age go about you business ploy.
C3PO - We seem to be made to suffer. It's our lot in life.
In Russia we are having one of the COLDEST winters in history!
It looks here that not a global warming, but a global permafrost is coming!
we experienced -15 F here! and some experienced -20!
What exactly is "tripling of poor harvests"?
We'll have poor harvests that are three times as big as previous poor harvests? We'll have poor harvests three times as often as we do now? We'll have harvests that yield only one-third as much as we do now? Or something else?
And how is "poor harvests" defined?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
that you have to hold the whole world liable for the fix. Kyoto did not do this and that invalidates it. The Western world countries have gone to great extents to clean up their environments, the US is nearly a whole different country in regards to the environment since the 70s. Places where pollution was obvious but ignored are now safe.
Blaming the issue of non-compliance on oil and republicans is just playing stupid politics. If anything it is the standard lame attempt to make it appear one has a valid point but in fact doesn't.
With both China and India gearing up their economies nothing we do in the West is going to have a measurable impact. China is coming up like the old Eastern Soviet states did, ramping up without regard for the environment or people around them. You want to find the worst abuses of the environment go look towards former Soviet states. Some of those were frightening. Going on a trip and being told to stay physically away from rivers is not a great way to encourage tourists to return.
We have NASA ice cores that show more wild swings in our temperatures and more extremes than we see now. We constantly get contradicting reports about the speed, effect, and even the cause of Global Warming. I fully expect within a month or two if not sooner to have another report laying the blame on some new man made source we "just noticed". Perhaps a report claiming even more dire issues or a faster occurence of them?
After a time it gets old. What sinks the Global Warming cause more than anything is that even the GW side cannot agree on all the causes let alone all its effect. The latest report/study/article always seems to be the one with issues most glom onto while they totally ignore past articles. Heaven forbid any article that attempts to refute any GW "theorey" as the writers will be villified. There is no allowance for the other side in this argument and that by itself damages the pro-GW side even more. People have to come to understand that when one side consistently paints the other with hostile terms, actions, and name calling that the side doing so isn't telling the whole truth.
Get the whole world involved or blame the whole world. Singling out the US gets very tiring. All the world done in the US and elsewhere over the last 30 years fixing the enviornment are going to be lost as long as China and the East are ignored.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
I'm still out on what's happening, but it seems as is some of these people believe the earth has never been warmer than it was last week. Where are the predictions that we'll once again have huge grape vineyards in England like we did 500 years ago but don't now because it is too cold?
I really wish that we would search for solutions outside of prevention. Breaks are nice, but if they fail, I would like a seatbelt, an air bag, a crumple zone, and a roll cage. The simple fact of the matter is that I honestly don't think that the world has the will to slow its green house gas output.
The US is not going to relocate its populace into central locations and build a massive public transport project. China (or any other developing nation for the matter) is not going to tell 1.3 billion people that are always on the verge of a violent revolution to come out of poverty slowly so that they don't dump green house gases with their inefficient industries. Hell, even the modest targets set up by Kyoto are going to be a struggle for most nations to reach. Simply put, the world is addicted and the addiction isn't going to stop. If the threat truly is sever and looming, hitting the breaks as hard as we can muster is a nice first step, but it sure as hell shouldn't be the last.
Billions of people are coming out of poverty and starting to really consume for the first time. These people simply well not accept being told they can't live like the people in first world nations do. Older first world nations like the US are already built on an infrastructure that is both physical and political that precludes massive societal alterations to truly reduce green house gas output. Even the EU has limits as to how far they can cut back. Combine these factors and it is pretty clear we can't back peddle. We can slow and delay which are good first steps, but with 3-4 billion or so people coming out of poverty, that is about all we can do.
I think we need a three fold strategy.
First, we need to delay. Reducing output and gathering climate data is something that has already been initiated. This is a trend that needs to continue in so much as far is possible, but it can't be the only thing that is done.
Second, we need alternative technologies to that can maintain our standard of living while reducing emissions. Perhaps more importantly, we need to have these technologies in place such that they can be transferred to rising third world nations. 1.3 billion Chinese can not live like Europeans, much less Americans, and have the same inefficiency that they suffer with now. Fusion, fissions, clean coal technology, hybrids, all of these things are steps in the right direction.
Third, we should seriously consider the possibility that the first two steps are not going to work and seriously consider methods to terraform Earth to maintain the status quo, or at least to blunt serious and dramatic changes. If we can say with some level of certainty that our climate models are good enough to link humans to global warming and foresee serious consequences in the future, we need to take those same models and predict ways to offset those changes. I find it hard to believe that we have enough power to warm the planet, yet lack the power to cool it. If this really is a grave concern, money should start being funneled into global climate control now. An international treaty organization should begin hammering out the framework for altering the global weather in a manner that is agreeable to as many as possible.
In my opinion, it isn't enough to simply demand the insane and expect 3-4 billion poor to rise out of poverty, but do it such that they do it without creating a global impact. The wave is coming. If we truly have convinced ourselves that it is upon us, we need to recognize the fact that 3-4 billion people going through an industrial revolution is messy at best, and prepare in ways that recognize that environmentalism alone isn't enough to stop what is coming.
China signed AND ratified the Kyoto protocol.
The US signed the Kyoto protocol, but did not ratify it.
Australia signed nor ratified the Kyoto protocol.
The US population is aging and having fewer kids. The European population is aging even faster and having even fewer kids. Except that the European Arabs are young and having lots of kids. Mix it all together and let me know if you figure it out...
I18N == Intergalacticization
try RealClimate.org and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
I've read all the papers (a few in summary form only) from the conference on which this report is based. The BBC report accurately reflects what I have read.
"Theres lots of studies and they all say different things, so we're going to listen to the one which makes us the most profit".
I'm not sure if I feel sorry for these people or myself. These people will be dead in 30-40 years so not see the worse of it, I on the other hand have another 50-60 if I keep myself in a good condition. If the current models are correct I should exprience quite extreme weather by the time I get old enough for a brisk cold to be quite risky for my heatlh..
Profit comes before damage if you're not going to live to see the damage it's self.
I like muppets.
Oh no! You didn't close the [joke] tag properly! Everything you've said or typed since you wrote this post has been a joke!
Close it quick!
Here in New York (USA), the energy sector has been decentralized, so we can choose our suppliers for electricity. I've chosen one that is entirely based on wind and hydro power. Sure, it costs me an extra $10-$20/month, but it is one small thing that _I_ can do.
We keep looking to governments to impose a change on us, but what are we doing about it for ourselves?
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
The question is not whether or not the Earth will survive. It is whether or not my future grandchildren will survive. It is not whether or not life will continue, it is whether or not our lives will continue. It's not a question of whether or not global warming causes are natural or not. It's whether we can do anything about it.
Once again various aspect of a huge and diverse issue are conflated...
Many studies (including anylising ice cores which contain atmospheric records going back millenia) have shown that CO2 has risien since the industrial revolution and temperatures have risen too. The evidence it there go and read the papers.
It's not just about survival of the species, if we as a species just wanted to survive we would still be living in caves. We are intelligent, which means that we are aware of others, society and some kind of collective good.
The fact the we and the planet have survived worse is no excuse for engendering flooding on a massive scale, extreme weather and a range of other effects that will kill millions, cause wars and famine (sorry, sounding a bit biblical here...). Surviving is not enough, we as individuals and as a species seek to better our lot, and now it is turning out that that is much more closely coupled to the rest of nature than we ever imagined.
Many civilisations have risen and collapsed, some partly due to environmental changes. Have we come this far, taken our first steps into space, decoded the human genome, to say "Bring it On" to the next major global environmental change? Whilst we may survive, much of what we have achieved will be lost and if you think it can't happen the ancient Greeks - 2000 years ago - knew the Earth was spherical and it's diameter. But 500 years ago people believed the earth was flat...
Art is the mathematics of emotion
At the moment the water systems are designed for a particular catchment of water over a period of time, but with the average summer temperature rising, it evaporates quicker than it's collected, aka drought.
OK, I just did, actually.
147 GT total carbon emitted annually (all sources)
5 GT carbon annually comes from combustion ("human and natural") - let's be generous and blame it all on humans (data from Cunningham et al. Environmental Science textbook, p. 68 in the 9th edition; Ricklefs' Ecology has similar figures)
Kyoto calls for 5% (or so - hell, let's make it 10%) reduction of anthropogenic emissions - that's 0.5 GT
Conclusion: in the grand scheme of things (assuming greenhouse gases ARE to blame), Kyoto protocol amounts to a 50 cent rebate on $150 - only to get that rebate, you need to do 20 pushups, send forms in via certified mail and swear off meat forever. Still sounds like a good deal?
On the other hand, boosting biomass sequestration globally (by chopping down "old-growth" forests and replacing them with tree farms) by lousy 3% will fully offset ALL human carbon emissions. Sure, I propose that with a tongue in cheek, but the idea is still sound.
And has anyone calculated carbon emissions for dollar GDP for U.S. and China, which is curiously exempt from Kyoto? I'll bet anyone $20 that China emits a whole lot more on per-dollar basis.
By 2050, industrialized nations will be emitting little CO2. By 2100, if necessary, we will be pumping it back into the ground. These projections consistently assume that emissions are going to go up, up, and up. They won't.
The only things that are going to go up up up are petro prices. The only "tipping point" we are approaching is the point where renewables become cheaper than dino power.
Yes, the world is going to warm a couple of degrees, and sea levels will rise a few feet. No, this will not be the apocalypse. Simply put, adaption is cheap, while prevention is hideously expensive at the moment. In twenty years, it will not be.
I've been reading up on this whole issue, and it seems that because of the lines drawn in the scientific fields about this issue, and the general unpredictability of global weather patterns, Doom and Gloom scenarios that keep popping up should be moderated. After all, screaming "We're all gonna DIE! (may take several centuries)" isn't very productive.
And the data is, geologically speaking, insufficient. A century is no more than a sneeze not only to the planet, but to EVERY SPECIES ON IT. It's like looking at an apple with a worm in it and immediately announcing that "All apples are suffering from a worm infestation because of us, and if we do nothing, surely ALL THE APPLES WILL HAVE WORMS IN THEM (eventually)". It's empirical data, not necessarily backed by theory.
Certainly the facts are inconclusive. A bold statement, I agree, but:
Interesting. On the facts above, it's sheer hubris to claim that anything that we do now can damage the planet in the short, medium or even long term. I mean, looking at it, was there a hole in the ozone layer before we could measure it? Antartica certainly was not always covered in ice (although that could be location, not climate).
Then you look at the other side of the argument, which is mainly common sense
It seems a little ridiculous to be making such a ruckus about this. The change will have to be made. So stop fiddling and start it. One of the recommendations made by the NASA expert (who's currently out of favour) gave a presentation at the White House where the reduction of soot (which has a similar, if maybe not as long term, effect as CO2) could be started in to. No more name calling, just common sense... man, I wish there was more of it about
Rational thought is the only true freedom
Citizens of the US: It's time to make your government take actions to stop global warming. You, the US, are the biggest contributor to global warming. In spite of this fact, the US does nothing. Join the EU and the rest of the world.
I'm going to ignore your silly troll, that got modded up, and provide some truth admist the $EMOTION-mongering:
Here is the data (mostly from 2002): Greenhouse gas emissions. As a point of information, while the US totally dominates total greenhouse emissions, we aren't #1 per capita, we are just #6. We are behind Paraguay, Luxembourg, Jamacia, Belize, and Australia. And before Canada gets all high and mighty, we are at 23.35, and you are at 23.11. And, for the record, the US has done alot to cut back on its GHG emissions, despite the fact that it is not part of Kyoto. Therefore, the quote "In spite of this fact, the US does nothing." is catagorically false. You may decide we haven't done enough, and I'd probably agree.
You have no right to damage the Earth! It's not yours.
Tell that to Luxembourg. Har har.
"Some estimates suggest the Chinese fires could be accounting for as much as 2-3% of the annual world emissions of CO2 from burning fossil fuels."
Link
Fact is, if you clamp down on US carbon emissions, the manufacturing sector will only accelerate its moves to other countries that have no such limits. If you make it so every KWH of electricity costs $100, then suddenly it becomes economically viable to build transmission lines from China. Without very harsh controls on everything, the economy will simply ooze into another direction that is not so heavily taxed or controlled.
People like you are always demanding more and more proof that global warming is a problem and that pollution and waste is a problem. Prove to me that it isn't! Prove to me that fresh water hasn't needed to be more and more treated and refined to make in potable. Prove to me that toxic air in the cities haven't caused health problems, prove to me that acid rain hasn't had an affect on the ecosystem, prove to me that pesticide use has killed multitudes of wildlife and poisened ground water and rivers, prove to me that it's okay to keep raising acceptable limits for toxins so we don't have to change the way we do things. Even if you discount global warming there are a score of other reasons for people to smarten the fuck up and stop polluting the planet. What level of toxic water and air are we willing to live with today in order to live our McLifestyle? And how does it affect our children?
http://crimespree.ca/ - photography, mountain biking
You forgot to mention that simply signing a treaty does nothing - most of the member nations who signed it years ago have failed to meet their obligations. It's simply a pointless treaty.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Your raving makes no sense. If reducing pollution is somehow going to destroy the world economy, wouldn't that provide sufficient "adversity" to motivate exploitation of other energy sources?
And how is it that no previous fuel transition caused such catastrophic results? By your alarmist thinking, Londoners should still be heating their homes with soft coal -- "Burn coke? Might as well just hand the Empire over to the French!"
Mind the Gap
Canada is a lot higher north than US too. So we spend more energy on heating. (I guess we also spend less on A/C. I guess I don't really have a point)
The science just isn't there. There oceans aren't rising. It's all just a bunch of pseudo-science.1 /qid=1138630037/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-0985358-9739217?_ encoding=UTF8
The people doing these studies (on both sides) only continue to get funding as long as the "prove" the point the people funding want them to prove.
Try reading "The Skeptical Environmentals." http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0521010683/sr=1-
Many studies (including anylising ice cores which contain atmospheric records going back millenia) have shown that CO2 has risien since the industrial revolution and temperatures have risen too. The evidence it there go and read the papers.
First off, I have read the papers.
Second, as you may have heard elsewhere, correlation is not causation.
Third, while the CO2 rises from those studies are large, they are not accompanied by a correspondingly large rise in global temperatures. In fact, I recall at least one study that expressed surprise at how small the temperature rise was compared to the rise in CO2 levels.
Fourth, the rises in temperature since the onset of the Industrial Revolution are significantly less than those (documented in those very same studies you mention) from various periods in pre-industrial and in pre-human times.
So my question remains: What evidence is there that takes the factors I mentioned into account that supports the idea that humans affect global temperatures?
How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
The US touts itself as the last Super Power, a world leader. It's not about how much you pollute or not. It's about how you set the agenda. By not signing to Kyoto, that's a huge signal to the rest of the world that "you" (the US) don't give a rats arse about it and are quite happy to ride that SUV into oblivion.
thankyou and goodnight.
Patriotism is a virtue of the vicious
I remember watching documentary called Phenomenon: The Lost Archives about how from Florida to south of texas would be underwater, california gone too. And yes, a huge world population drop between now and 2050. At the time it seemed like the ramblings of a crack head but to day it is very plausible.
Therefore forget the instant freeze of "The day after tomorrow" and prepare for the instant flood.
Companies have only one goal:get rich quick.
Nobody would build a hybrid with a 120V socket capable to drive power tools and a microwave. That's because it would kill some of the same company's other business: Portable generators, regular cars, trucks and SUVs. (Not to mention the housing business since you could live in your car in style!)
You won't see a solar rechargeable Cell phone/MP3/Flashlight/am~fm radio/garage door openner/Car key for at least 40 years. Why? because it would kill the disposable battery business. (BTW: did you know that a AA has more juice than a C or D cell! look at the specs on the rechargeables.)
It's all about creating waste to for us to consume more to drive profits.
Were all gonna drown for these assholes' profits.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
But "per capita" doesn't stop America from being so damnbig, and therefore significant in the debate.
... and then they built the supercollider.
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that the only way to fight flamebait is with MORE flamebait.
PR firms are noted for producing bovine excrement. They are really good at polishing it to make it look good, but it doesn't change its essence. If you want to know where climate scientists stand, you should read stuff written by climate scientists.
Sorry, but that's an outright lie. See Myth #1 (and read the rest). You can find the Keeling curve and atmospheric composition data derived from the Vostok ice core (going back 650,000 years) at The Ergosphere.Sustainability and energy independence essay
This is a serious issue, about which there is real disagreement. There is so little
.... ).
data, some excellent research, and an enormous amount of hype.
Why do we have to put up with:
Politcally inspired science, state the conclusion required,
justify it by any means neccesary
(data dredging, change acceptance criterea for hypothesis
Government type agencies frittering away their credibility on scientific issues.
This damnable 'knee jerk' response to arguments: "Who paid for the research/study."
rather than answering the questions raised, particularly when referred to
statistical analysis.
Treating modelling output as though it were data.
Data analysis which lacks any confidence just having the words 'may' and 'might'
added, so that the lack of knowledge is hidden.
Major details hidden down in the subscripts while speculation and hype get the
headlines.
>> In Russia we are having one of the COLDEST winters in history!
... the balmy UK winters will start to look more like those of Siberia.
It's only the planetary average temperature that will increase with global warming, and not by a lot.
In contrast, local temperatures will both increase and decrease in a far more complicated pattern across the world, and by comparatively large amounts. Although simulations vary quite a lot in their predictions, the areas of major change are quite clear.
Northern Europe seems quite likely to suffer the largest downward changes, because an early consequence of the melting of the Greenland glaciers and surrounding ice shelves will be that the "Atlantic Conveyor" (a closed circuit of ocean currents) will grind to a halt. The Gulf Stream is already slowing, and there is absolutely no way to reverse this trend. The inevitable result will be that the quite warm climate in the coastal European countries up at around 50-60 degrees North will plunge towards the deep continental average
Likewise, the equatorial hot spots are expected to rise in temperature by a lot more than the planetary average, with quite appalling consequences for their populations. Anyone who thinks that "2 degrees of global warming" will be barely noticeable in Africa is confusing "global" with "local".
"The question of whether machines can think is no more interesting than [] whether submarines can swim" - Dijkstra
Does anyone else find it upsetting that so many educated people would just ignore any evidence opposing a theory with such huge implications?
Let's say I roll dice with the normal six sides numbered 1 to 6. You can't predict any one roll, but you can do very well at predicting the distribution of results of 100,000 roles, presuming the dice aren't loaded. So "predicting the weather in five days" you'll be very poor at, but "predicting the long term weather" you'll be fairly excellent at.
Now let's load the dice. Let's put an off-center weight in that makes them 50% more likely to come up 6s than anything else. If you know how the dice have been loaded, you'll still only be negligably - if at all - better at predicting the roll in five days (although if 6s are considered "hot," the odds are a bit better for a "hot" outcome, and you can bet on that and win over time, although it's uncertain for any given day). But knowing how the dice are loaded, you'll still be able to do as excellently as before at predicting the long-term results.
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide by 30-40-50% loads the dice. (When I went to school the logic of rolling dice was taught by 8th grade. With a post like "but we can't even predict the weather in 5 days" I have to wonder: Are you lacking basic math education, or do you know better and just expect to sway the uneducated people who've modded you up?)
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
I suppose it is easy to make fun of someone without really understanding that person and what they stand for. Bush's energy policy is not about oil, it's about funding for development in new technologies that will solve the polution problems, and incentives to use these new technologies when they do become available. New ways to produce ethanol, research in Hydrogen, new clean burning coal powerplants, tax credits for hybrid vehicles, solar power, etc. None of these things happen magically through the world barter system setup by Koyoto, it requires dedicated people who are willing to invest the time for a better tomorrow.
"22 astronauts were born in Ohio. What is it about your state that makes people want to flee the Earth?" Stephen Colbert
causing global warming at a rate that is unsustainable.
Sweet! If it's unsustainable won't it just peter out on its own? The self-healing earth is a wonderful thing...
Tell that to Luxembourg.
Well if you had the slightest idea about Luxembourg, you'd know it's not only a very small country, but also one which has about half of it's workforce come into the country across the borders every day. If you added those people into the calculation, per-capita consumption would be much much lower. The same goes for tobacco and alcohol btw. And yes, those foreigners do buy their stuff in Luxembourg, since it's much cheaper there than in their own countries, due to lower taxes.
Disclaimer: Yes, I'm from Luxembourg
What good is a polar bear? You can't eat them. And ask any polar bear and I'll bet he would tell you he would rather live in a zoo and be fed every day without having to work. And speaking of work, look at all the jobs that are being created by those factories that are generating all that beneficial smoke. Those jobs with their ever increasing salaries wouldn't even exist if the government insisted on unnecessary pollution control. If we can sacrifice the polar bear just this once, no american will ever have to worry about finding gainful employment. We are creating so many jobs under this president that we have send many of them overseas just to keep up with demand. As the tundra thaws and factories pop up all over the previously frozen wasteland we will be getting rich making crappy little plastic and electronic things that every kid just has to have. And the best part is that Dubya has made it so that we don't even have to build those plastic and electronic things! All we have to do is get a patent on something that sounds vaguely similar or appears to be related and then collect royalties when some actually produces something. We don't even have to be able to actually build what we are patenting anymore. Just doodle some futuristic looking junk on a cocktail napkin. Cha-ching! God Bless America and death to all bears.
Pretty much all nuclear plants are economically unviable. The French goverment, the greatest proponent of nuclear power in the Western World, pretty much is broken due to subsidies given to the nuclear industry.
The same goes for the nuclear industry in the US, UK, Japan and let not mention China, they still use socialism and communism in many instances, power supply is one of them (i.e. entirley subsidized by the state).
Our only salvation lies in changing our attitue towards energy:
-We have to save energy: we waste far too much of the enrgey produced: oil producers burn gas as a byproduct of oil production, people waste energy at home in household appliances that are on standby, a lot of power generated gets lost on the transmission phase (consequence with our love of centralized megaporjects).
-We have to descentralize the production of energy: why is it that every single new house is not fitted with solar panels to produce elcetricity and a small wind turbine? Why do we keep insisting in building megaprojects (oil, nuclear, that is immaterial). were the transmission lines are going to consume most of the generated power instead of looking at smaller scale local projects? Why is that governments are not taxing cavalier waste of energy? (yse, you SUVs are an energetic abomination).
-We have to use renwable source of energy: Brazil is showing the way here, but it is not the only possibility.
Why not? Well, simple, look at the leadership of the most poluting country in the world. That pretty much explains everything.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That's just a lie, and why you think you could pawn it off is beyond me.
Then the respected and peeer reviewed journals Science and Nature are also lying.
you're so arrogantly convinced of the superiority of your sources
Yes. I am arrogantly convinced that the above mentioned journals are a superior to your slashdot rant as sources of scientific information. Guilty as charged.
that's what you really mean, and you're too much of a coward to say it.
That's an impressive logical leap. Is that the sort of logic you used to come up with your views on GW in the first place? I'm just asking becuase it would explain a lot.
You've allowed your petty concerns to be influenced by the apocalyptic reporting.
You mean to tell me that you are gonna say that my desire to not see the coastline change is a petty concern? Do you have any clue how many people will be made homeless? How much our country's GDP will be affected by the problems it will create in port services? These aren't petty concerns, whatever else you may have read into my comment.
Why you don't is a result of your ignorance to human behavior I guess.
Why I don't care about reporters is because I'm not trying to make a public case via a media campaign about GW. I'm talking to one guy in an internet forum. Our discussion is limited to whether or not GW is real and whether or not it's bad. Reporters have nothing to add to either of those questions. Your preoccupation with reporters and people attacking republicans and people who don't know what causes GW and all the rest is a distraction from the real meat of this discussion.
-Tom