Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

A Stark Warning On Climate Change

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the that's-not-good dept.

cliffski writes "In a report based on computer predictions, UK government advisor Professor David King said that an increase of even three degrees Celsius would cause drought and famine and threaten millions of lives The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. A government report based on computer modeling projects a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops, about 400 million more people at risk of hunger and between 1.2bn and 3bn more people at risk of water stress."

84 of 926 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by 4nik8r · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This isn't really happening. Move along.

    1. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In a report based on computer predictions...

      Of course it is happening - computer predictions are never wrong. Statisticians never abuse stats (look at all of those Microsoft-sponsored independent surveys that conclusively find that Microsoft is the most secure platform and nobody sane uses Linux).

      The fact that the climate data has shown that there has been no warming for the past five years (actually a slight downtrend), which follows a 30-year mild warming trend, is irrelevant to any really good computer prediction.

      The best data has shown that warming is a poor term and ultimately has caused those who use it to lose credibility with much of the scientific community who is not politically motivated. Greenhouse gas emmissions appear to raise the standard deviation of climate variance, not "cause warming." If you're interested in understanding warming/cooling processes, you have to study solar cycles. During the past five years, radio engineers who have to contend with active solar cycles have had a bit of a vacation as the sun is in the bottom of its current cycle. It's expected to start getting more active around 2007-2008.

      If you don't understand standard deviation, think of it as a measurement of how far something sways from the center. A tiny standard deviation in global temperatures would be consistent with very minor temp. changes. What greenhouse gasses seem to do from current models is push that variance wider, so we have greater heating AND cooling. Greater climate volatility.

      The only problem is that the current climate is nowhere near the volatility the planet has experienced for much of its history (as we're still officially at the conclusion of a minor ice age and have seen climate variance moderated by that event). Those who scream warming are ignoring both scientific and statistical grounds and are usually seeking additional funding from scared politicians. Selling "studying greater variance in climate models" isn't scary and unfortunately too many politicians don't care about it if it is true but not a doomsday scenario.

      Imagine the success you have when you explain that the climate is less variable than it usually is, and the sun causes all the warming cycles. See the problem? Excuse me while I go write my grant to KEEP THE SUN FROM EXPLODING which will probably happen if my grant isn't funded...

    2. Re:Well... by Xaositecte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The best data has shown that warming is a poor term and ultimately has caused those who use it to lose credibility with much of the scientific community who is not politically motivated.

      Both sides of the Global Warming "Debate" always include an "Overwhelming support from the Scientific Community" line in their arguements. You'll note a large number of official, relevant scientific agencies are on the record as supporting the global warming theory, and individual scientists in related fields oppose the theory.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro versy

      The argument at hand isn't whether warming is occuring - according to collected data global temperatures HAVE been raising considerably in the past 50 years - the argument is over whether humans are causing it, or if it's a natural process.

      If you've got a source that explains what you're talking about better, feel free to cite it.

  2. Time for a little balance to the propaganda by JonTurner · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy") precisely because the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow and boom, consume all the energy the like and spew unlimited amounts of who-know-what into the atmosphere, but America would have to shrink it's economy to comply.

    No wonder it's been called the "Stop America Protocol."

    1. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by kawika · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's true, the US still consumes a disproportionate share of energy, epecially considering that we are outsourcing all our energy-intensive manufacturing to China. That's because oil is still way too cheap. There's no reason to optimize the use of a commodity that's cheap.

      As long as small-penised men are still buying Hummers and soccer moms are buying Expeditions, oil is too cheap. As long as business are saying, "Hey we just have to pay the increase and pass it along because it's the cost of doing business," rather than thinking about ways to reduce and optimize their energy use, oil is too cheap.

      We need gas at $5 a gallon for a year or two to change those habits. In the process, $5 gas will also bring sanity to commuting patterns and solve the problem of building new roads. And it won't be the end of the world, our economy will survive and adapt the way it did in the late 1970s.

    2. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by B_Realll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because he was comparing countries with growing economies (our actual competitors), unlike say... most of Europe.

      --
      now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb.
    3. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by lbrandy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The way things are going in America, what with the offshore prison camps, pervasive domestic surveillence, corporations trampling individual rights by suing their customers, and runaway executive power, maybe it should be stopped.

      Not that the Chinese/Indian alternatives are necessarily better, but America is rapidly deteriorating.

      This nonsense is never going to end. Do you realize this is the exact reason that public support isn't behind Kyoto here? It's because of people like you.... Because it is so easy to convince people that Kyoto isn't about climate.. it's about people who don't like America and want to punish it. When you bring up Guantanomo Bay in a discussion about Kyoto, every single rational person opposed to Kyoto is going to roll their eyes. Let's keep in mind those rational people are the ones that can be convinced, and make it happen... yet here I am.. having to listen to some guy ramble on about nebulous nonsense generalized into alamarmist and unrelated propaganda..

      As to your other, weaker, point... congratulations.. no one is perfect. What does that prove? "Maybe" it should be stopped? And who fills that void... the next upcoming ideal nation? Then we can wait for the next centuries "utopia" to fail.. And we'll just keep destroying all the unperfect nations, one after another, until we finally get it right.

    4. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1, Insightful
      Well boo fucking hoo. America would -- shock -- have to care! And, like, not shit on the rest of the world, but take a bit of shit _from_ the rest of the world. Cry me a river.

      Oh, we're not crying, we're ignoring you. I'm an environmentalist, but Kyoto is a retarded scheme that results in 1) no improvements given it ignores the two biggest countries in the world, and 2) large cash donations to Russia. It's stupid, it won't work, it isn't working. When you get a better plan, let us know.

    5. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Jearil · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I have to assume you don't live in the US, or if you do, perhaps it's in a major metropolitan area. You're probably one of those people from Europe, I'll guess the UK for my example, who feels the need to look down his nose at the vast majority of americans who don't use public transport or their own two good legs.

      You see the thing is, the US is actually a rather large country. Depending on who you ask, it's between the 3rd and 4th largest country. Larger countries include Russia and possibly Canada and China (depending on if we're including in-land water or not). Now if you'll note, large portions of China is unpopulated. Most of the population occures along the coast. Canada has a very large portion of the country that is not populated as well. I have limited knowledge of Russia, so I just will not comment on it.

      In the US, people are very spread out. Our rail system pales to other countries, especially ones with advanced modern rail systems such as Japan. Rail in the US is used mainly for freight shipping between distant parts of the country and not as much for passenger. I know for myself a round-trip train ticket from Albany, NY to NYC would cost around $150. The same trip would be equivilant to about $60 in gas. I'm all for the environment, but the cost of rail is not the way to solve it.

      So the train is expensive; let's try one of your other suggestions. Walking is free, so there goes that difficulty. I mean I won't be walking to NYC, but let's think more local. Due to increased housing costs, I'm forced to live in a more remote area. I currently have a 30 minute drive to work each day; which is very unfortunate. A 30 minute drive equates to approx. 20 miles. The average human can walk at about 4 miles per hour. So, if I start walking at about 3am, I could make it to work on time to be at my desk at 8. Granted when I leave at 5 I won't be home until 10, but that does give me 5 hours of sleep before I have to put the hiking boots back on. Hmm, still not very effective.

      Ok, last option: "drive there is something that gets double digit miles per gallon." So, the goal with this statement is to drive something that gets 10MPG. Well alright. This one seems the most feasable, but most likely the one with the biggest tongue in cheek if you will. 10MPG.. hmm. I'm not sure if I can recall the last vehicle that got less than 10. I think my uncle had a really large RV camper thing that got 8.. it was like driving a house, but when you're paying about 50 cents per mile, he ended up just leaving it at home. I actually don't know of a single car/truck/SUV that gets less than 10. The lowest I can remember seeing is about 17, and that's a guzzler.

      Let's modify it to maybe cars that get 30. That's pretty basic for a regular gas-powered car. My car currently gets about 26MPG since it's 11 years old. So I'll conceed I have room for improvement there. However, I'm also not generating 2 tons of waste through buying a new car every 2 years.. I hear such things are popular in Europe.

      The point is, public transport just isn't available in a very large portion of the US. I don't have the option for a bus or train. There isn't one anywhere near my house that would take me to work. A lot of Americans have the same issue. We would use it, if it was around, but it's not. The reason it isn't available is because the geographical distance is just too large to cover with an effective public transport. It's unfortunate, but how it currently is.

      I do think that people in the US should start purchasing less SUV's and monster trucks and perhaps more compacts and hybrids. Pointless SUVs carrying around just 1 person most of the time pisses me off when I see them on the road. It will probably happen sooner or later, considering gas prices keep rising, but it takes time for things to get replaced.

      In the meantime, consider that perhaps people in the US are not as lucky as you to be living in such a tiny country where public transport is readily available. Being tolerant of other people's cultures and having empathy for their situation may not be as satisfying as assuming they're wrong and placing yourself on a holy pedistool above them, but it really does help make you look like less of an ass.

    6. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      offshore prison camps, pervasive domestic surveillence, corporations trampling individual rights by suing their customers, and runaway executive power, maybe it should be stopped.

      Great statement, in that it illustrates the same problem as Kyoto. When you have a global problem, be it pollution, global climate variance, suppression of civil liberties, etc., you can't just criticize a single nation while excusing all others and expect to be credible, let alone promote a viable solution.

      Consider increasing climate variance: did you know that one single China coal fire accounts for more than 2% of the world's annual CO2 emmissions? More than all the cars and trucks in the United States? And until recently, they didn't do a damn thing about this fire and many others like it? Bovine methane emmissions are even more significant. Some of the strongest data has attributed abnormal variance in climate conditions to the very presence of agriculture.

      Really, agriculture is not normal, and anything not normal practiced on a global scale is certain to alter "natural" cycles. If you went after the parato source in climate variance, you'd stop all agriculture (both plants and animals), cease all energy production (as it generates non-natural heat as a byproduct) and terminate civilization. Interestingly, there are quite a few in the global "warming" community that quietly advocate this nihlistic pursuit, and some who are not so quiet. Fortunately, enouhg clear-headed scientists understand that history has never been a dull, "normal and natural" trend with no variance. Life in the universe is nothing but extremes - great booms, tremendous catastrophies intermixed with brief moments of calm.

      Your use of a computer to read this thread is abnormal and has had a subsequent impact on the environment. What do you intend to do about it? Wait for someone to take it away from you? Smash it with a hammer now (already too late)? Or try to help advance technologies that counteract the impact civilization, energy production and agriculture create?

      Back to the illogic of the previous poster, if the surveillance of communications is a concern and the US is too extreme, you're in serious trouble. Much recent commentary has discussed how the EU is quite comfortable with much more aggressive surveillance and its populace doesn't raise a peep. Stupid Americans who don't understand there are bad people is their assessment. And then include China, India, Russia or any other major nation in your comparison - the US's efforts are trivial. Does this make it acceptable? Perhaps not, but you need to stop arguing on the basis that the US is the worst when you've inverted reality. The same applies for CO2 emmissions, prison camps, womens rights, gay rights, corporate trampling (go to China where a state-controlled corporation can select your farm and have you removed or shot for resisting when they want to build their factory and refuse to compensate you for it).

      I'd agree that many of the issues mentioned here are important ones to deal with. Try an objective standard, understand the trade-offs you are proposing (nothing *ever* comes without a cost), and approach it logically that way. If you can't without badmouthing things you don't understand, don't be surprised that rational people will not treat you seriously.

    7. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "Yes, the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy") precisely because the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India."

      1. The developed nations have already had a free century or so to develop with "no such restrictions".

      2. The developed nations have already become comparatively rich as a result.

      3. The developed nations are responsible for the great majority of the CO2 emissions to date, and continue to be the main contributors today, especially on a per-capita basis.

      You miss the whole point of the Kyoto Protocol. It is a deal that goes something like:

      The developed nations are the ones responsible for most of the problem, and they are the ones with the money to implement solutions, so they should try to cut back first. They are the ones who can afford to come up with technical solutions. IF successful meeting the Kyoto goals by 2012 or so, THEN the developing countries will also be bound to the agreement to cut or stabilize their emissions, even though they are just starting to ramp up their production.

      How can someone from a developed country possibly go to a country like China or India and suggest they should be the ones to cut back on greenhouse gas emissions? It would be like pulling up on your Hummer beside someone on a bicycle and suggesting they should really cut back on breathing so hard and eating so much food.

      Yeah, the Kyoto Protocol is asking alot of the developed nations. But it is the only way that people in the developing world would ever take us seriously if we ask them to cut back. Why shouldn't we of the industrialized world go first, given that we were and are the source of most of the problem to date?

      What kind of self-centred world do you live in where you can pig out on 3/4 of a pizza, and then tell your buddies they need to cut back if they think there isn't enough pizza to go around? And you've been doing the same thing to them for the last decade or so, and your matress is stuffed with cash? If you can come up with a fair solution that doesn't involve cutting back on your own consumption first (or paying for more of the next pizza), I'd like to hear it. You also might have a future in international diplomacy.

      Here, let me put it in terms you might care about: what if half the midwest of the United States becomes unfarmable desert as a result of global climate change? What if hurricanes like Katrina become the norm every year along the US Gulf and Atlantic coasts? Kyoto is a small but significant attempt at an international agreement that could mitigate the problem. It isn't enough on its own (alot of the change is inevitable now), but at least it can help avoid making the problem that much worse, and it establishes a framework for making bigger efforts. Hell, it is a two-for-one for the U.S. anyway -- anything that reduces foreign U.S. oil dependence (e.g., conservation) is a good thing. Your Prez just made it a key point of his State of the Union address. Aiming for Kyoto targets is almost a parallel goal.

    8. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Illbay · · Score: 2, Insightful
      ...America, what with the offshore prison camps,...

      As opposed to China, with a vast system of ONSHORE prison camps.

      ...pervasive domestic surveillence,...

      As opposed to China, with...

      Oh, c'mon, this is too easy.

      --
      Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced.
    9. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Oh please ... this whole arguement is completely backward and stupid. The dependency of the economy of the USA on fossil fuels is set to contribute to our undoing. Saying we can't 'cut emissions because it will hurt our economy' is akin to saying we can't divert from driving off a downed bridge, because going around it will add an hour to our trip.

      To make the coming situation worse, the current administration is running up the National Debt so high (Bush and Co. have increased the debt by about 50%!!!) that when we *have* to make the change, we won't have the capital to do it (not to mention, deal with the cost of natural disasters brought on by climate change). In short, we'll be f'cked over, and have a long, hard, crawl out of an incredible mess that will leave us a spent power. You talk about giving China a leg up, we are doing it now with short-sightedness.

      China has the chance to build its infrastructure without the fossil-fuel and emission inertia in place in US economy. If it makes you feel better, I suspect that they too will take the quick and short-sighted approach to building their economy (f'cking the planet over even more) and not fully exploit their change to leave us in their wake.

    10. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Insightful

      translation: "refuses to devolve our economy"

      lol... Not to mention how much severe environmental problems would devolve your economy... :-p

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    11. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My accord hybrid averages 28mpg on my 15 mile commute to work (it has only 938 miles on it). Don't get me wrong, on the highway it's great, I've seen it average >40, but during morning and afternoon rush it's stop and go once I get to the interstate. There are a few cars that will do better (some not hybrids), but not so many.

      A prius for example, gets really good mileage all the time, but 0-60 in something like 16 seconds is kind of dangerous considering I turn left from a residential road onto a 4-lane 65mph highway. It's crowded, there's no light, and no one slows down (not in Texas). I've seen two german shepards and a human crammed in to one, but I'm not sure you could put much else in there. I'd have to have my wife drive a bigger car, but then if you do the math on the miles she puts on her car to get to the stores and daily maintenance, that'd be a loser too.

      Everything seems easy when it involves changing other people's habits. Some things the US SHOULD change are how we zone new construction. Down here in Austin they dump 3 square miles of residential buildings in burbclaves and stuff shopping and what not >5 miles down aforementioned major highway. There's no concept of "the corner store", you've GOT to drive. The nearest IKEA will be the same distance as grocery shopping...that's probably not the best design. I've seen this similar problem in many states, not just Texas. (California to name one)

    12. Re:Time for a little balance to the propaganda by WhiplashII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As someone else pointed out - this is not the way to grow an economy. The classic fallacy is demonstrated like this:

      Man notices that whenever a window glass is broken, people are employed fixing it, making new glass, cleaning up, etc. He then proceeds to destroy all glass everywhere. Is society better off? Then he starts burning down houses so people can build new ones, etc. Society crumbles, and production actually declines (because people cannot just spend there time building houses, they also have to spend time finding a shelter every night since theydon't have a house).

      There are 2 ways to improve an economy (without outside assistance): Make more stuff per worker (productivity increases, such as using computers), or Make stuff last longer (decrease depreciation of assets). That's it - and your recomendation fits neither.

      The way to argue for environmental awareness is to say "not all the costs are realized, and it will decrease productivity in the long run (almost certainly true) and increase depreciation (provably true)." That way you can figure out how much effort should really be put into this.

      For example, does environmental work trump building a more durable car? Well, you would need to weigh the benefits of having more people able to drive (which saves probably about 10% of their lifespan, and so increases the economy by roughly 10%) against the downside that people may live 10% shorter lives. It is not a simple question, so how do we calculate it?

      Alright, we are not going to try to find a "smart guy" to tell us the answer, because the economy is far too complex for anyone to understand all of it. Instead, we are going to vote - everyone gets a vote dependant on how much of the economy they control (because of course the people that are responsible for a section of the economy are best informed about the value), and people can also give people a percntage of their votes based on their usage of different sections of the economy. And, just to throw in a curve ball, instead of calling them votes we will call them dollars...

      And that is the system we use - it does have problems, but it beats all other systems proposed to date by a wide margin.

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
  3. Wait just a second... by StevenHenderson · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The US refuses to cut emissions and those of India and China are rising. Come on, now. Failure to sign Kyoto does not directly imply a direct refusal to cut emissions. It just prevents direct government support of such programs.

    Also, we are lucky to be in a country where being green is good for business. I can think of some companies that are making a pretty penny off cutting emissions and helping others to do so.

  4. mod up by JeanBaptiste · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I like the part how it will shift pollution from being produced by America to being produced by developing third world countries, those that have the fewest restrictions on pollutants (as well as worker safety) and those that are least equipped to clean it up.

    Maybe something needs to be done legally to fix the problem if it is in fact a problem...... maybe not, but either way Kyoto was a really poorly designed contract.

  5. A guess, even an educated one... by GWSuperfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...is still just a guess. "A government report based on computer modeling..." So- a projection from the government based on a computer model says that this is what might happen if the global temperature were to rise 3 degrees. Of course, given that computer models are just themselves guesses about how the various systems that affect climate and weather interact anyway, I remain unimpressed. I'll be taking this with more than a grain of salt. Can someone pick me up a salt lick?

    --
    Fight psychopharmacological mccarthyism. http://www.norml.org/
    1. Re:A guess, even an educated one... by Decaff · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ...is still just a guess. "A government report based on computer modeling..." So- a projection from the government based on a computer model says that this is what might happen if the global temperature were to rise 3 degrees. Of course, given that computer models are just themselves guesses about how the various systems that affect climate and weather interact anyway, I remain unimpressed. I'll be taking this with more than a grain of salt. Can someone pick me up a salt lick?

      I'm glad you are so confident. I am not. The models (the so-called 'guesses') have been developed and refined over decades, and based on data that goes back for millenia. Almost all scientific work is based on this sort of 'guess'.

      Even if you still label it a 'guess', surely you should be concerned that so many guesses from so many who have studied this matter are pointing in the same direction.

  6. Exactly by JonTurner · · Score: 1, Insightful

    You know, I was reading this great book from the 1960's that described, with lots of charts and graphs and equations, how the world population would soon reach a BILLION people and there was no way agriculture could keep up and feed them. There would be mass death in every country in the 1980s due to a lack of food...

    Except that the 1980s came and went and showed it to be completely wrong. The world has never had more food, or higher quality food thanks in large part to American agriculture.

    Move along, nothing to see here. Just more America-hating handwringing.

  7. What's the point? by Luscious868 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No. There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are. Ultimately, our species is time limited on this planet anyway. Weather it is a large asteroid, nukes, the environment or the dieing sun, something is going to make this planet uninhabitable at some point. Let's spend less time fighting with each other and more time figuring out how we can get our species off of this lovely little rock and onto the next one because that's our only hope for survival in the end.

    1. Re:What's the point? by Billosaur · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Climate change was occurring long before our species arrived here, has been occurring ever since, and will continue to occur long after we're gone. Are we contributing to it? Yes. Does it really matter in the end? No. There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are.

      From BBC News: The scientists making the predictions admit that the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated that their calculations are necessarily uncertain.

      This uncertainty has led critics to accuse them of either exaggerating the threats to the planet, or under-playing them.

      In the end, as I've said many times, we know how bits and pieces of things work, but we don't know how the system functions as a whole. This is very true in medicine, but especially true when it comes to climatology or any planetary science. Listen, you can take the base principles of physics, chemistry, etc. and create any kind of picture you want as to how a mechanism works, as long as it doesn't violate those principles. It doesn't mean you understand how the actual system works -- you only have a theory which happens to explain it in gross detail.

      Look at Venus: we know the CO2 level there is extremely high, that the planet is scorchingly hot and devoid of large amounts of water. We can extrapolate from that and from experiments here that the Greenhouse Effect may have caused current conditions there. We can further theorize that a similar catastrophe awaits us here if we don't do anything. The problem is, we don't know how Venus got that way, or really how long it has been like that. We haven't studied it in detail geologically, so we can't be certain that Venus hasn't always been like this.

      Yes, CO2 causes the Greenhouse Effect to trap more heat and raise global temperature. According to current theories, the Earth's biosphere has a mechanism for dealing with this, but of course that mechanism is affected by the things we do to it. It's folly to think we're having no effect on the climate, but it's also folly to say we're pushing it to the brink of catastrophe. The truth, as always, probably lies somewhere in the middle. I for one don't see the harm in reducing our CO2 emmissions; it seems like a sensible thing to do, given the fact that we have technologies available that could eliminate our need to use fossil fuels. We really don't need a debate over climate change to see that this is a good idea on general principles.

      --
      GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
    2. Re:What's the point? by zerojoker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you basically say that we can f*** up everything and shouldn't care because in the end it doesn't matter at all?
      I just don't get this type of thinking. Look at it from a computer scientist standpoint:
      1.) Let's assume that there might or might not be a direct link between greenhouse emissions and global warming
      a) Say we do nothing and there is no direct link -> We f*** up big time
      b) Say we do something and there is a direct link -> We might have chance
      c) Say we do something and there is no direct link ->
      Then global warming would still occur but we would be more efficient with energy, would be able to get our energy from more cleaner sources, would be less dependent on oil from the middle east etc. etc.
      The USofA have by far the biggest energy-per-capita consumption world wide. Other developed nations i.e. Europe doesn't even come close. I mean its not that we would have to do great sacrifices to cut down energy consumption. Switching from an SUV to a more efficient car is not that hard.
      Then the costs for our economy. People always say that saving energy would come at a loss of economical growth. That is very difficult to predict. All we would do is to artifically increase the price of one good (energ). It does not neccesarily mean that this would cost jobs. Some industries may suffer but there is the chance that other industries will grow or complete new industries will develop i.e. companys that will focus and help others to be more efficient in energy consumption, companies that develop solar panels that specialise in wind energy etc etc.

  8. Re:Good News & Bad News by jeps · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Just a pitty the millions dying of starvation probably won't be the ones responsible for the climate change in the first place.

    Actually, I was trying to be Insightful, not Funny.
    Actually, you failed at both.

    --
    Jeps

  9. Re:How could that be ? by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The difference is that humans are well adapted to large variances in temperature and climate. A whole lot of the other life on this planet isn't, including many of our favorite crops. If the temperature reaches a point where corn, wheat, rice, etc aren't able to tolerate it, it can have a dramatic impact on humans.

    --
    This guy's the limit!
  10. If you want Kyoto to happen... by oni · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The problem with Kyoto is that many in the US saw it as unfair. Imagine if someone did a study that showed that internet usage was linked to obesity. So they want to pass a law that curbs internet use. Under this law, slashdot users, who are on the internet 15 hours a day, they need to cut their usage down to 5 hours. But meanwhile people who spend their time on ebay and click on banner adds, so they only spend 4 hours a day online, they don't have to cut down at all. And even worse, your little brother, who hasn't been using the internet only because he was too young, he isn't under any restriction at all. He's just hitting the age where he's going to start using the internet even more than you, but the law wont make him give up anything.

    Does any of that sound fair?

    1. Re:If you want Kyoto to happen... by ezavada · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Imagine if someone did a study that showed that internet usage was linked to obesity.

      This is an extremely flawed analogy, because the harm (obesity) falls on the actor (the internet user). Whereas with global climate change, the harm falls on everyone. A better example would be if pouring chemicals into the groundwater were linked to increased cancer rates in anyone who drank water. Strangely enough, the people affected in those cases tend to get upset and bring lawsuits that are extremely costly to the perpetrators. In some cases it's even outright illegal. That sounds fair to me.

    2. Re:If you want Kyoto to happen... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem with Kyoto is that many in the US saw it as unfair.

      I see the problem as being that it will destroy our economy AND THEN after we've reduced our carbon emissions and delayed global warming by ONE YEAR, we won't be able to afford to deal with the INEVITABLE damage from global warming.

      Kyoto was stupid. Just because some idiots ratified it, that doesn't make it any less stupid. As your mother probably said to you, "Just because the other kids are jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, you think that means you should??"

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  11. And something I never hear discussed..... by King_TJ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Since we know our supplies of fossil fuels are reaching depletion, has anyone actually tried calculating the total amount of future "damage" possible to do by burning all of what's feasibly left to use?

    It seems to me that most of the people spreading fear of global warming trends are acting as if, without new legislation and drastic changes, we'll keep on creating this pollution indefinitely.

    In reality, it seems to me that once gas prices rise to only another $2-3 per gallon (due to demand outstripping supply), the motivation will be there for some serious change anyway. The most likely alternatives for power generation are things like nuclear plants, and for cars, maybe hydrogen - which would nullify most of these concerns.

    1. Re:And something I never hear discussed..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      More expensive options, yes. As in more energy-intensive as well.

      Take the amount of oil in the tar sands or oil shale or whatever hard-to-extract deposit that you want. Divide by 50%, given you have to burn a lot of that energy just to get it OUT (digging equipment, trucks, conveyor belts, mills, employees, etc.).

      Now burn another 50% of it transporting it to market.

      Not much left being produced after overhead is there? My point is yes the oil sands are profitable, but it takes energy to get it out as well, like any other mineral extraction. It's not going to support us like the Dubai oil fields, where the oil bubbles up under its own pressure.

      And while we don't know how much oil is left, it doesn't mean we have to be gluttonous and use as much as it as we can. If we do conserve, perhaps there'll be enough for our children's lifetimes, or grandchildren's. As of right now, the generation being born is expected to have a DROP in the standard of living as the generation before it. This is unheard of, and is the sun setting on the modern economy.

      We should be making an effort at putting that energy into foward-looking sustainable projects, but instead we're saying "There's plenty of oil, go about your business". And this is with an assured drop in production within the next 50 years. But just how desperate do we need to get to make changes?

      This global procrastination really is like masturbation: in the end we're only fucking ourselves.

  12. Numbers by 1000101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops"

    A little more accuracy might help their cause. Those numbers are laughable.

  13. What about Canada? by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Canada actually consumes more energy per person than the US and also produces more CO2 per person.
    Simple question is why wasn't Canada mentioned?
    I am all for the US reducing Green house emissions. I think that we should start building a lot more nuclear power plants, use as much bio diesel as is practical, use solar where practical, and wind in the few areas where that makes sense.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:What about Canada? by heli0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      "Canada doesn't get mentioned in these things because we look like the "good guys" because we signed Kyoto."

      http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.h tml?id=2bb92ea7-3bb2-4826-a62e-7637bebb1323&k=5302 4
      Under the Kyoto treaty, Canada is committed to a six per cent cut in emissions from 1990 levels by 2012. Yet emissions have risen by 30 per cent. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has said the target is impossible to meet.


      Would the US also get a pass if we ratified this treaty and then completely ignored it?

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    2. Re:What about Canada? by JasonBee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree with you - unfortunately our new conservative minority government takes a US style approach and is eyeing the Kyoto Protocol as a limiting option. That's the Alberta advantage at work. Oil and the money invested is what drives the conversation here. It's also hard to be seriously concerned when we're shielded from the worst impact by our median standard of living.

      I think Global warming will not be an issue we seriously address unless it's as an addendum to our future retrospective on "where we went wrong".

      History proves far too frequently (Rwanda - Darfur?) that we tend to react far too late when it comes to community sacrifice on the prevention end. Even when faced with obvious need to act if it's too much work on the part of people unaffected by the problems then there is "no problem."

      I find the debate has grown tiresome and protracted. Even well researched and extremely well supported arguments can be laid waste by opposing views that amount to name-calling. I have to add that I'm a paid-up member of GreenPeace - I'm not hopelessly cynical. I think we're better off asking society to put on training wheels when it comes to climate action. Addressing global warming is tantamount to asking for a PhD level discussion when everyone's busy watching Jerry Springer so to speak.

      No level of action can combat the cold-war thinking that prevails now. A few years of concentrated misinformation (a la Cheney style) can wipe out all the really useful public awareness built up to date. Until we're all in agreement we may as well beg to differ.

      What separates the aware from the non-aware is or ability to prepare for the worst. Better get started now...you'll be better off than your neighbors, and if the problems appear locally, you'll have a head start.

      I remember a line from the "Feed the World" anthem back in the 80s (to raise funds for the starving masses in Ethiopia.

      "And the Christmas bells that ring
      There are the clanging chimes of doom
      Well tonight thank God it's them instead of you"

      We epitomize the spirit of that last line. It's only made mor ironic that it was sung by Bono - a proponent of debt relief.

      At some point it may be you - the science is pretty clear on that. Ask someone who lives in Nunavut or the Netherlands.

      JB

  14. Because Computer Can Predict with 100% Accuracy by canter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Ah yes, a "government report based on computer modelling". Because we all know computers never make mistakes right? Let's just not mention the boatload of assumptions necessary to pull off a weather/food/hunger/thirst/death model. It will work as perfectly as the computer 's weather model in "The Day After Tomorrow". Its just a really fancy spreadsheet.

    And I love how America "refuses" to cut its emissions, yet China and India's emissions are simply growing. Why wasn't it written that they, too refuse to cut their emissions? Kyoto was a joke.

    This whole thing reminds me of a Robert Heinlein quote: "When in fear, or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout."

  15. you're living in a dreamland by penguin-collective · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, the US refuses to cut levels (translation: "refuses to devolve our economy")

    There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

    the absurd Kyoto Protocol would put no such restrictions on developing nations such as China and India. They could grow and boom, consume all the energy the like and spew unlimited amounts of who-know-what into the atmosphere, but America would have to shrink it's economy to comply.

    The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.

    Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

    1. Re:you're living in a dreamland by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency,

      Good point. The problem is that those things cost money which you later admit US doesn't have much of anymore. Modernization of transportation is greatly needed, and the US is starting to move in that direction with more fuel efficient cars, hybrids, etc... What's really needed though is good mass transportation. The problem is that in the US there is a lot of ground to cover unlike many places in Europe. Something like high speed rail between cities would be great, but the costs are huge.

      The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations

      I agree totally. After 9/11 the gov. should've just let the US economy go through a recession and rebalance itself. Instead they lowered rates and China stepped in and started buying bonds so we ended up with a huge housing bubble and then the housing ATM. Eventually the recession that should've happened then will eventually come due.

      I used to really worry about China owning so much of the US debt, and how they had us by the balls until I realized we have them in nearly the same situation. If China were to dump all it's US debt and force our interest rates to sky rocket, basically crushing the US economy, it hurts them just as much. They are killing one of their biggest customers at that point. I guess they could just say screw it and do something like that anyways and play the odds that they come out ahead at the end of the day.

    2. Re:you're living in a dreamland by gerf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy".

      Cool! Let's look at your logic, and play "follow the money"

      In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure,

      Yes, there would be vast capital expenditures to update many existing systems. But remember, "Follow the Money!" Where does updated transportation come from? Taxes, in some cases, and restrictions on vehicle emissions in others. Making vehicles or other equipment emit fewer emissions costs money in R&D, and manufacturing changes. Billions of dollars of overhead to attain the same performance, but with reduced carbon use.

      it would improve efficiency,

      Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.

      it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses),

      This is assuming the plan of action involves alternative fuel sources. Nuclear is an example of this, despite being controversial in itself, and possibly causing immense damage itself in the event of an unlikely accident.

      and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs.

      True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.

      Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

      I disagree. Everyone suffers finacial losses when the government requires massive changes in the infrastructure of the country. BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.

      then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

      How naive. You're betting on the good will of a crackpot communist country, and a country that refuses to sign the nuke proliferation treaty. They don't care about carbon, they're just happy to be able to force us to give them jobs.

      I agree that it would be nice to cut carbon emissions. But the argument remains China/India/etc may be able to spend a minimal amount of money to reduce CO2 emissions, whereas the US may have to spend a substantial amount more to reduce emissions the same amount. But, the US would be required to, and the developing nations would not.

      Overall this would create an incentive for companies to move to developing nations. If you think your jobs are being outsourced now, you'd have another thing coming. And don't argue that it hasn't affected Europe; France is just showing an example of protectionist labor laws that exist in Europe.

    3. Re:you're living in a dreamland by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D, it would result in modernization of our transportation and manufacturing infrastructure, it would improve efficiency, it would lessen dependence on foreign oil (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs. Pretty much the only people who lose are the big oil companies, some powerful US politicians, and the military.

      Why hasn't the US already switched away from oil? Because it's cheap compared to competitive technologies. Even adding in the war subsidy (a hundred or two billion dollars a year), I think you'd only add a dollar or so to the price of gas in the US (ignoring whether demand drops as a result). Also, despite all the talk of "modernizing" transportation, I have to side somewhat with the "peak oil" people here. I think a oil-based transportation infrastructure is more capable at current oil prices than the alternatives.

      The US economy is already in deep trouble; it's living on borrowed money, provided by China and other nations, while China, India, and other nations are already booming.

      Given that Japan and Europe which are far greener also suffer from the same problem, this indicates that the issue of national debt isn't related to oil consumption, but rather how governments borrow to fund regular spending.

      Furthermore, those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon. But the solution is simple: everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere; when such payments are set up, then India and China will probably be willing to agree to strong limits on their emissions.

      Then India and China should have chosen to be the advanced countries rather than be the ones catching up. China probably should get some slack since they are aggressively working on reducing their population.

    4. Re:you're living in a dreamland by aluminum_geek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You make an interesting point, but I don't think I agree.

      You are making the argument that by forcing the economy to shift to a new, more efficient system, it would spurt economic growth. We live in a (mostly) capitalist system, and if it was in a corporations economic best interest, they would have already done it. The one thing history has shown time and time again is companies only do what's in their best financial interest.

      There have been designs for more environmentally efficient systems for decades. The reason they haven't been put in use is because of the prohibitive cost, and worse performance. If american corporations instituted more environmentally friendly systems, they would have to raise the costs of products to make ends meet. Higher cost, less demand, and I believe that is what the original comment meant when he referred to "devolve our economy."

    5. Re:you're living in a dreamland by ScentCone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      everybody should pay for the carbon they have already emitted into the atmosphere

      Does that include all of the coal and wood that Europe burned for thousand+ years before they colonized North America? And, are you going to take into account the net increase in trees we plant in the US, as opposed the complete clear-cutting that's going on across all of Asia and Central/South America? How about countries that profit from exporting carbon to other places (say, Venezuela to China)? They're never going to burn as much as China, but their economy completely depends on it. I'd like to see the ledger sheet you've got in mind to take all of that, and the past emissions you refer to, into account. Oh... and "pay" to whom? At what rate? Do we pay (to whom, the UN?) for emissions 200 years ago at some rate equal to the per capita value of those emissions back then? Adjusted how, to current dollars? Do you adjust for changing life expectancy during those years? Please expand on that.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    6. Re:you're living in a dreamland by Dachannien · · Score: 4, Insightful

      (thereby also reducing the need for military expenses), and it would create lots of new economic activity and jobs

      Okay, let me get this straight - public and private expenditure to meet environmental regulations is good for the economy, but public expenditure to maintain the military is bad for the economy? Military spending has historically been a big positive for the economy, as long as debt is properly managed. (Admittedly, the debt is certainly not being properly managed at the moment, but the drop in taxable income and the increase in public expenditure to meet new environmental regs wouldn't help that situation out any.)

      those other nations are rightfully arguing that it is not fair that the US has achieved its current economic strength by emitting carbon without restrictions and now they are supposed to limit their economies by not being allowed to emit equal amounts of carbon.

      If the intent of Kyoto is to help the environment, then fairness shouldn't enter into it. The reason why China and India support Kyoto now is that it gives them a huge comparative advantage over the US, by letting them continue to emit high levels of CO2 at the expense of the environment. The US gets demonized for opposing such an arrangement, while China and India (which are already heavy polluters, and which release far more CO2 per dollar GDP than the US or EU) are defended for supporting an agreement that not only benefits them economically, but also allows them to continue harming the environment.

      That's not fair. That's screwed up.

    7. Re:you're living in a dreamland by ivan256 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What about a crackpot capitalist country that refuses to sign treaties on anti-personnel mines, war crimes

      What's crackpot about not being clinically stupid? We still use mines in the Korean DMZ, so how can we sign a treaty agreeing not to use them?

      How can we sign warcrimes treaties that would either reclasify past actions as warcrimes retroactively, or allow for politically motivated, junk prosecutions? There was a time when European countries cared about their soverignty. I think you guys are due for another war as soon as you remember why that's important.

    8. Re:you're living in a dreamland by Jtheletter · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Efficiency is not directly correlated to emissions. Though they're both ideals pushed for by environmentalists and conservationists, they often oppose each other.

      In most cases better efficiency results in fewer emmisions. This is true of almost any system. Why? Because running the system for the same amount of time now consumes less fuel and therefore expels fewer emissions. Explain to me how getting 40 mpg from your car does not result in less emissions than getting 20 mpg from your car assuming you're driving the about the same amount. And no one I know of drives proportionally more linearly with costs just because it's suddenly cheaper to drive more, their transportation routine (work, school, etc) is mostly set.

      True, new activity would be present. However, most of it would be because of higher overhead costs for companies. They then raise their prices to account for it, and inflation ensues. Also, higher energy costs hurt the little guy, even if he has kept his job this far.

      Um, and gas increasing by $1/gallon in 18 months (not there yet but soon!) isn't an increase in energy costs? Home heating - be it from natural gas or oil - increasing by 30% in one year isn't an increase in costs? The US dependance on foriegn oil sources requiring us to play policeman in the middle east to ensure a ready supply of a limited resource and costing us nearly a trillion dollars per year in military spending to do so isn't an increase in costs? Our current practices aren't sustainable and they are leading to massive cost increases and inflation NOW. How does changing to renewable/alternative/or just plain local energy sources make that any worse? Self-sufficiency used to be part of the American mindset, relying on massive amounts of energy imports and huge deficits funded by other countries is not a valid method of being self-sufficient. I'm not advocating pure isolationism, but we're well past any sort of balance between relying on our own sources of energy and those of other countries.

      BTW, how does the military lose? What the hell are you talking about.

      S/he was talking about the fact that if we don't need oil from the middle east we have fewer political reasons to be deploying such huge forces there. Thus the trillions of dollars of military spending can be scaled back, ergo military would lose, assuming it actually allowed such scaling back to occur. The shift from Cold War to War Against Terror is an example of how a new threat is found/manufactured to keep justifying the huge costs of the military/industrial complex. Those industries are in it for profit, not altruism, they will push to keep their industry alive, not rejoice in closing down because it might mean more peace in the world. However in theory if you reduce the need to have the largest standing military in the world with the most bases in the most countries, then you can also reduce military spending, whether or not the establishment would allow that to happen is a different issue.

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    9. Re:you're living in a dreamland by EastCoastSurfer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think a recession will eventually come b/c you can only live so long on debt. Low rates and nearly free money have allowed the economy to continue along. With rates as low as they were the economy should've been booming. Instead housing boomed and the rest of the economy limpled along.

      As soon as rates go up people quit purchasing and debts come due. Housing is a great example of this. At one point someone could get their dog a 500k loan to buy an 1000sqft house (overpriced?). Or someone could go out and borrow money with a adjustable rate against the paper gains in their house. When poeple are living on debt, as rates go up they are going to have to tighten their spending habits a lot. A few months back the amount americans saved vs. what they earned during the previous month was a negative number! That doesn't leave a lot of cushion for the now rising rates.

  16. WOW what an amazing citation from out of your ass! by way2trivial · · Score: 2, Insightful
    um.. in 1959,
    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=1959+world+po pulation we had either
    3 billion in 1959

    1959, Earth had five billion people.

    World Statistics Population: 2.997 billion population by decade ...

    our population had doubled from 3 billion to 6 billion in only 40 years (1959 to 1999

    so what 1960's book predicted a population of ONE billion real soon now?

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  17. Doesn't matter by gorbachev · · Score: 2, Insightful

    [paraphrasing the mentality of much of the industrial world]

    I'm rich, I'll survive. Who cares about all those poor people abroad.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
  18. 3C+ in Canada for more grains! by RingDev · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "a 3C rise would cause a drop worldwide of between 20 and 400 million tonnes in cereal crops"

    And a 3C rise would open up vast un(der)farmed plains in the northern Mid-West and Canada. Yeah, some currently farmed areas would have significant problems, others would likely see it as a huge benefit. And from what I've heard on climate change, it's not likely that the entire Earth is going to heat up. It's much more likely that some places will get hotter, and others colder as water currents and wind patterns change.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  19. Re:That's just economic naivetee by chill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Those are meaningless numbers. Try dividing by population. The population of China is something like 5 times than of the US (I haven't bothered looking it up, but I think that's close) which puts China at around 1/10 of the emissions of the US, that's a fraction by my definition.

    Bullshit. Those are the only numbers that count. Do you really think the atmosphere looks down and says "well, they are #3 in total, pumpung 3,000 metric tons of carbon out but there are so many of them so it doesn't count as much"?

    Total count is all that matters to the planet, not "per capita" or any other political, feel-good number.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  20. no overpopulation problem; only underwealth by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We don't have "too many people" in the world. Every problem that is commonly attributed to "overpopulation" is actually a problem of having too little money. Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem. The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.

    Yeah, I know, you were just making a throw-away comment, but the only reason it was funny is because lots of people think there really is a problem with "overpopulation".

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth by misleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only wackos and flakes think the USA or Japan has an overpopulation problem.

      Overpopulation is about the Earth as a whole, not any particular high density area. Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.

      The population density in Japan is greater than just about anywhere, and yet they have none of the problems attributed to overpopulation.

      As long as you don't mind being packed in with your neighbors like sardines.

      Note that the population density of Japan is not supported by Japan's own land. They import almost all of their natural resources as well as much labor. The world simply could not support too many "Japans."

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    2. Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Although high density does lend itself to problems with pollution and disease.

      Oh, totally, dude! That's why I don't build aqueducts and hospitals until later, when I have plenty of Wonders, temples, cathedrals, and coliseums to keep the people happy. In fact, I might not even build hospitals until I get recycling and mass transit, to cut down on the pollution.

      OK, segueing into a more serious note, it's not density that is a problem so much as it is limited global resources. The article mentions drought. Water is going to be one of those resources in short supply and high demand later this century. Drinking water. I shit you not. And (getting back to your point about pollution) we're not helping matters with the way we let nasty things seep into the water table. And that's just us. I don't even want to think about what China is doing to its water table.

      This shit is too scary to really even think of. I just try to forget and hunker down in my little life and enjoy that the best I can, and hope I'm long gone before the shit really hits the fan.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    3. Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Interesting idea. But.

      How much acreage would we need to devote to these reservoirs? Would recoverable rainwater be enough? And aren't water tables natural reservoirs in a sense? Why don't we just stop polluting them?

      You're talking about a gargantuan infrastructure.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:no overpopulation problem; only underwealth by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Unfortunately, you have no idea what you're talking about. You should actually GO to one of these countries. There's far more environmental degradation precisely because people cannot AFFORD (there's that "underwealth" thing again) to protect the environment. We *can* afford a world full of rich people. We can't afford a world full of poor people.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  21. broken window fallacy by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no evidence that cutting the levels of CO2 emissions would "devolve [the US] economy". In fact, the opposite is far more plausible: the move to energy efficient technologies would spur new R&D,

    You *do* realize that you're pushing the broken window fallacy, right? I wouldn't want someone to attempt propaganda innocently.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  22. Re:That's just economic naivetee by lbrandy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those are meaningless numbers. Try dividing by population. The population of China is something like 5 times than of the US (I haven't bothered looking it up, but I think that's close) which puts China at around 1/10 of the emissions of the US, that's a fraction by my definition.

    Ah yes, the classic per-capita-retort. Well, being a reformed student of statistics... allow me to go ahead and tell you why using "per-capita" pollution is also meaningless. First, and foremost, the US is not the #1 polluter per capita.... take at look at such irresponsible nations as Paraguay, Luxeombourg, Australia, and Canada if that is your metric... these obviously irresponsible polluters all put more junk into the air, per person, then the United States does.

    More seriously, pollution can be viewed in economic terms. Per capita, yes, the United States pumps out alot more junk than the EU, China, and India.. by pretty sizable margins.. however, what do you "get" in return? Well... only 32% of the worlds GDP, for 25% of it's pollution. Given the contribution to the world economy, that makes the US one of the most effecient and least polluting nations in the world..

    In fact, over the years, the US has become more and more effecient at creating GDP with the same amount of pollution. The average US person, by far, is the most productive and effecient machine for turning energy into useful things with the minimum pollution. In that respect, the US is the most energy effecient country in the world.

    The bottomline here is me and you could go back and forth all day using different metrics to divide up the numbers (read: the blame) however we want... the CO2 molecules in the air don't have labels. The US pumps out 25% of the worlds greenhouse gasses, has 32% of it's GDP, and has 5% of it's population. Depending on how you slice it, the US can look either really good, or really bad... but it's still a numbers blame-game.

  23. Re:Good News & Bad News by iggymanz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    actually, the population growth of the wealthier people is slowing, and going negative even for some whole wealthy countries. It's the poor who continue breeding. There is no "global economic system", countries have economic systems. We PAY for the goods and services of people in other countries, and without our money they would be much worse off. The reason 90% of the people in poverty are in that situation is because of their evil stupid ignorant governments and/or religious leaders.

  24. does matter by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    But it does matter. Feel free to argue that the rich are only interested in themselves (that's bullshit, of course, but go ahead and make the argument if it makes you happy). But after you've reduced your carbon emissions, good people like yourself will have less money to help the poor (who are, as you point out, the ones who will truly suffer -- but that's the case whether global warming happens or not).

    The real question here is this inequality: $(global warming damage with carbon reduction) - $(cost of carbon reduction) $(global warming damage without carbon reduction). Costs matter. For example, for a small fraction of the cost of carbon reduction ($100M), we could supply EVERYONE WORLDWIDE with clean water. If you poo-poo this, you probably have as much clean water as you could possibly want.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  25. I almost forgot by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Somalia got some attention back in the 90s. It still is a so called failed state.

    Yes, and in many ways it's the most advanced of the poor African countries. In other ways, it's not, but all told, Somalia is probably better-off without being a traditional state. The structure of Somalian society is not appropriate for a central government. The fact that statists (feel free to count yourself among them) call it a "failed state" says more about them than it does about Somalia.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  26. You pesky Yanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's amazing how you're so full of contradictions. Self-deluded and self-centric to the point of obesity. Wake me up when New York is Submerged York.

    I thought slashdot had more sensible people. Nah you're just a bunch of f***ed up nerds intent on destroying our world just like your big boss is.

  27. Re:China's emissions are NOT rising by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Funny, but people seem to be missing the point that China's unregulated pollution is being exploited (and caused) by the rest of the world that buys the cheap junk they make (everything) and encourages the problems of pollution, poor living conditions, etc.
    Until people wake up and realise that we all live on the same planet, blame will continue to be shuffled, and nothing will be fixed.

    Whether we make our planet uninhabitable now, or in a few thousand years it is inevitable with our current attitudes.

  28. Freeman Dyson's take on Kyoto by jmichaelg · · Score: 3, Insightful
    It's not just Freeman, but a lot of other scientists have problems with Kyoto. Their letter includes this comment:
    Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.
    But heck, Edward Lorenz knew that back in the early 60's. He found that even simple non-linear models produce unpredictable output. Adding complexities to attempt to model the real world just aggravates the underlying modeling problem. Those of you who think computer models can see far into the future would be well served by reading his paper in which he writes:
    When our results concerning the instability of nonperiodic flow are applied to the atmosphere, which is ostensibly nonperiodic, they indicate that predictions of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the incompleteness of weather observations, precise very-long range forecasting would seem to be non-existent.
    It's worth noting that not one climate model that doesn't incorporate climate data from 1960 on has autonomously forecast the climate since 1960. And yet we have folks telling us what the next century is going to look like.

  29. selection of quotes - dire by tota · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In 10+ years of slashdot reading, I don't think I have ever read so many pathetic posts for one story!
    Here are some of the best quotes:

    1) Dozens of posts about how unfair it is to let China and India polute so much. Funny that one, since we are talking about a cumulative effect, anyone care to calculate the total polution per capita since the industrial revolution? Hint: China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.
    But any excuse to blame it on others when you do/don't want to make a difficult decision works for some leaders.

    2) "...absurd Kyoto Protocol..."
    "..America would have to shrink it's economy.."
    "..you cannot maintain economic growth and at the same time reduce your carbon.."
    "..Countries in Europe are also failing to meet their targets.."
    "..the Kyoto Accords are a socialist mandate.."
    We have some Fox-news specialists at hand here, great!
    FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth. Never mind.
    We haven't found a perfect solution to an imperfect world, so let's do nothing and keep burning it. That makes sense.
    Keep putting your head in the sand until you can't get out - no-one will hear you when the water rushes in!

    3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one. As if we can just ride this or hope that we develop the technology to correct it in time. 3C average on the scale of the earth is gigantic. This is just a question of scale: how big is the Earth compared to your living room? How much energy does it take to warm (or cool) 1 cubic meter of water (1 ton)? How many tons are we talking about? Google around.

    4) "The models are wrong" or "There are forces at work here that are a lot bigger and lot more powerful than we are" (...): implying that either the problem is not real or that the Earth ecosystem has been adapting for billions of years and will continue to do so. Maybe so, but the fact is that the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct. Dinosaurs are so 'last extinction event', we are so much more clever.
    I won't try to pretend that we know for sure that the situation is just as serious, but all the signs are there.

    5) Random:
    (warming) "...more favorable to the growing of fruits and vegetables. Good for everyone"
    "..would open up vast un(der)farmed plains in the northern Mid-West and Canada"
    Silly me! Let's launch a 'freedom to polute' site.

    "..African nations where slaughter of their own population is commonplace..." (as an excuse for not doing it here either)

    "...it is simply just a natural phenomenon like the Northern Lights."
    (someone who needs to do a bit more reading)

    "This data is being supressed by hysterical, global-warming cultists, like those found frequenting Slashdot"
    The good old conspriacy theories. There aren't any good slashdot stories without one of them.

    "So essentially the 'models' 'predicting' global warming actually only predict climate CHANGE"
    We are screwing with the climate but it could go either way. Well, here is the news: either way is bad. Any drastic change is bad, and that is what the data suggests.

    Summary: lots of posts not making any sense and most of them using some off-topic reason for not doing anything.

    --
    TODO: 753) write sig.
    1. Re:selection of quotes - dire by argStyopa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1) China has only just started and has more inhabitants than Europe and the USA put together. Their (mostly poor) citizens are the most likely to suffer from our (western-made) polution.

      Either pollution is a problem, or it isn't. It's not just a problem for some people on earth, and not for others. If you contend that Global Warming is 'catastrophic' doesn't it seem pedantic to then say "But those guys over there should get a chance to pollute since they haven't had their turn yet." WTF?
      China and India don't have to make the same mistakes the rest of us made; they don't have to claw their way technologically through some sort of wierd forced-industrial-evolution process. Since all the Greenies INSIST that upgrading our infrastructure will be somehow (insert hand-waving here) beneficial to our economy, why wouldn't it be also beneficial to China or India? Why would one imagine that they aren't somehow clever enough to likewise reap these mysterious benefits of gigantic, government-mandated conformance?
      Oh, and I'd love to see a link that provides proof (or even credible SUGGESTION) that their citizens are the "most likely to suffer". A pulled-from-the-ass statistic if I've ever heard one.

      2) ...FYI: this story was not about America or capitalism. Oh, and some other economies have done quite well at reducing emissions whilst maintaining growth....
      Firstly, you're being pretty disingenuous if you believe that the story was not pointed directly at the darn Americans who aren't buying into Kyoto.
      And as far as reducing emissions plus maintaining growth: Really? Who?
      Last time I checked, none of the larger advanced economies was actually conforming to their Kyoto targets (excepting countries whose industrial bases essentially collapsed), and none of them that are even close are anywhere near economically healthy.

      3) "3C isn't that bad". Right, this is the most clueless one
      Really? I understand some climate data was determined from tree-rings in wood frozen in Greenland glaciers...but wait, that means that there were trees in Greenland? 3C would certainly be disastrous, I'm sure...well, unless you visit Central Park in New York city, (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/425725030010 .2.1.gif) where the Mean temps were 2-3 degrees C higher 180 years ago. I mean, we can all recall the tens of thousands of people dead, the icecaps melted, cities were wiped out, human advancement faltered, and the mass human and animal die-offs of 1820, can't we? I mean, 3C...it MUST be a disaster, right?
      What EnviroNazis can't seem to grasp is that if you don't come to the situation with preconceptions (say, for example, cherry-picking data from the climatological record to produce a 'hockey stick' graph), it's very hard to draw conclusions - the 'trend' doesn't exceed the 'noise', which statistically means you usually need more data to be confident about the results. To spend $TRILLIONS$ on such flimsy conclusions is irresponsible and frankly stupid. It's like noticing that the weather's been getting cooler the last few days, and promptly bricking up all your windows and doors, and then wrapping your whole house in thermal blankets. Yes, that would be stupid.

      4) the last time on record there was a dramatic climate shift was when the dinosaurs went extinct.
      Really?
      "The approach allows for the identification of thirty extreme wet periods and thirty-five extreme dry periods in the 1,425-year precipitation reconstruction and 30 extreme cool periods and 26 extreme warm periods in 2,262-year temperature reconstruction." (Colorado Plateau) ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/treering/re constructions/northamerica/usa/colorado-plateau200 5.txt
      "Temperature maxima during the Me

      --
      -Styopa
  30. Re:That's just economic naivetee by dfjghsk · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I agree with you.. but your GDP % is way off:

    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ us.html#Econ
    http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ xx.html#Econ

    US GDP (PPP): $12.41 trillion
    World GDP (PPP): $59.59 trillion
    Therefore: US = 21% of GWP

    --
    Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
  31. Re:More recommended reading by shotfeel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is certainly a good idea to read what people on both sides of the debate are saying. Personally, it disturbs me when I read articles like the one in the write-up. Lets begin with,

    Scientists admit the Earth's mechanisms are so complicated their calculations are uncertain.

    So we start with an uncertain model stating a potential 3 degree C increase in temperature with no data given on the reliability of that number -that's not science. For a model to be scientifically valid it not only needs to be tested and found reliable, one also needs to do the extra step in determining variablity in outcome. AFAIK that hasn't been done to a sufficient degree.

    Then, based on the results from this model, we use a second untested model with unknown reliability/variability and make another prediction on how this 3 degree change will alter crops on a global level and further how this extrapolates to starving people. What are the assumptions being made? Are we assuming farming techniques are unchanged?

    Then we take the results of that model and create policy. Anyone who works with computer modeling should be squirming uncomfortably in their chairs at this point.

    I'm not saying its all bad. We do need to act on what our best data tells us, but we really need to know how much stock to put in the analysis. So far that has been sadly lacking. IMO it has a great deal to do with the current political climate where any uncertainty shown is enough to get some people to completely ignore the results. OTOH I think its misleading to be presenting these things as "given" without more information.

  32. No, the cat does not "got my tongue." by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A billion will starve? Bzzzt! Sorry, that's not how that works. This is an economics question, not a climate one.

    Which, of course, is why Julian Simon, bless his soul, has destroyed climate scientists decade after decade as they made their grotesquely wild predictions.

    It's government intervention that causes economic hurt and mass starvation on all but the shortest of time scales. And on the shortest of time scales, a throbbing economy is best fit to respond to emergencies.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  33. Can we get past this? by TheNucleon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    OK, let's see if we can get past this...

    The world is getting warmer. The world is very big, so a small change (e.g., 1 degree Celsius) is a big deal. About this fact, there is little to no dissent.

    Mankind is contributing to this change. There is disagreement about how much, but don't be fooled - we are having an impact, and why shouldn't we? There are six billion of us, and rapidly growing. We think that our legacy of burning wood, coal, and now petroleum products, is going to have no impact, and that the exotic chemicals we have used (e.g., CFCs) have no role in this? Come on. Don't make me Google it for you, do the work.

    This change IS going to make a difference. Did it cause Katrina? I don't know. Could it cause floods, rise of global sea levels, famine, thirst, and the loss of thousands of species? Probably. Is it already killing polar bears, bleaching coral, and melting permafrost? Yep. Already.

    I want to move on to "how much _really_ is a result of our actions" and "what can we do now".

    Despite the misinformation campaign from a particular political agenda, this is NOT a political issue, and it IS something to be concerned about. Our lives are on the line, and people are still engaging in lobbyist games and misleading science, just to, what? Get some more power and money for a generation, so the next one can perish? Do we have no conscience at all?

    So, please, certain fellow folks in the US, bring the arguments. Tell me how it's OK for a country with 4 percent of the world's population to produce the most emissions, because we don't want to "slow" our economy. Tell me why we should ignore the problem because, of course, there's a big "scientific conspiracy". Tell me how it's OK, because India and China are doing it too, right? I mean, if other people are doing it, it's not "fair" if we can't. Tell me that the permafrost would have "melted anyhow". Tell me about the volcanoes, and that they put out more emissions than we do, which, of course, makes ours "OK".

    And, please send all these arguments to /dev/null. Because it's time for the rest of us to talk seriously about what is going on.

    I am not an alarmist. I am not part of a left-wing conspiracy. There are people who know 1,000,000 times more than I do (and more than you do...) about climate change and our role in it. And many, many of them believe there is a real issue, one that could get deadly serious in the not too distant future. Maybe they have a point? Have you checked it out - I mean, really, with an open mind, and not through the filter of the talking points you heard on AM radio this morning?

    --
    My comments are my own, and do not represent the views of my employer, my spouse, my children, or my cats.
    1. Re:Can we get past this? by Blakey+Rat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I seem to recall that every other time we (meaning mankind) have tried to "fix" an ecological problem, we end up making it about a dozen times worse. See Australia, for instance.

      There's about 4 layers here:

      1) Convince me that global warming is happening

      2) Convince me that it's due to human activity

      3) Convince me that it *can* be 'solved' or at least reduced

      4) Convince me that working to 'solve' it won't make things worse like it has in the past.

      Right now I'm somewhere between number 1 and 2 there.

      --
      Comment of the year
    2. Re:Can we get past this? by coopex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot probably the most important point, that global warming is as harmful as it is asserted.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    3. Re:Can we get past this? by RedWizzard · · Score: 1, Insightful
      1) Convince me that global warming is happening

      2) Convince me that it's due to human activity

      Right now I'm somewhere between number 1 and 2 there.

      You don't yet believe human activity is a major factor? There is irrefutable evidence from ice cores that atmospheric CO2 levels are the highest they've been in at least 100,000 years, by a large margin. Where do you think that CO2 is comming from? Or do you doubt the greenhouse warming mechanism?
  34. Re:More recommended reading by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it's worth noticing that there are more than 2 sides to the climate change debate - and there's more than one debate. But if we frame the debate as "if we reduce Greenhouse pollution, will the climate remain more stable than if we don't", there are 2 sides. One side has most of the experts, saying "yes". The other side has some experts, and most of the stakeholders in the factors most of the experts say contribute to the change. The side warning that the problem is imminent and dire has been right before about atmospheric pollution, including the acceptable economic costs of stopping the change by stopping the pollution. The other side has never been right about anything scientific except extracting the most money from the smallest investment.

    And the stakes riding on that disagreement are human civilization, and survival of the species as we know it - as well as many other species.

    So I encourage everyone to take as broad a look as we can. The proportions and facts are there to be found. I'm not as optimistic about the ability of billions of industrialized people to make wise decisions about uncertainty, but that's all we've got.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  35. Re:More recommended reading by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yes, if you don't have a good argument, attack the messenger ("professional network of Greenhouse deniers") using religious terminology and conspiratorial implications, not the message.

    Issues:

    There are serious climatologists who believe the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is worthless. This is not to say that it might not happen or be happening, but that the issue is driven by speculation (primarily in the form of models which canbot be calibrated due to dramatic problems with the historical temperature record - especially before 1850 when thermometers started to be widely used). Furthermore, it has become highly politicized, with non-specialists (some of whom are qualified non-the-less) jumping in on both sides. I know some of these scientists, and they either don't publish, or have jumped to industry because then they can do their science without the threat of losing their funding due to their conclusions.

    As an interesting side note, one of these guys approached Enron to see if they wanted him to provide his global warming expertise on their side. Their reaction was that they didn't want skeptics - they expected to make money on the carbon trading systems and disruptions caused by CO2 emissions control! So don't assume that industry, even the energy industry, is one sided on this.

    The climate record does show a significant amount of warming in the 20th century BEFORE most of the CO2 rise. The "hockey stick" graph has been at least partly refuted.

    The system in fact *is* too complicated and, importantly, undersampled for reasonable predictions to be made now. The "good" data is of way too short a time period to even deal with the shortest of natural climate factors. New, major factors are discovered frequently on both sides of the argument. Climatology as a predictive science is in its infancy. Don't be fooled by what models are saying - they don't even represent current understanding due to their poor calibration data, low temporal and spatial resolution, and the presence of a large number of calibration parameters. Furthermore, almost all quotes from the UN commission (IPCC) come from the heavily politicized introduction, not the carefully guarded language and details of the main report (which has lots of ifs, buts qualifications).

    Science magazine, in particular, brands as scientific heretics anyone who doesn't already agree with the conclusion that significant man-caused global warming is happening and about to get worth. Read their editorials and you will see. They are biased.

    There is a built-in bias in the rewards system, as there is in many areas of human endevour. Global warming fears generate money for climatologists, as long as they don't rock the boat. More money than the field would get if alarmist predictions weren't getting lots of public attention. Naturally this leads to distortion in the scientific process. The good thing about science is that it will correct this. The bad thing is that it might take decades or centuries.

    Watch out when you bash the US for not entering Kyoto, which is a fraud and a Trojan horse. Note that even the "environment loving" Democrats voted overwhelmingly against the treaty (I think the Senate vote was 99-0). Even using the models it is based on, it would not be possible, after 100 years, to measure the effect of Kyoto on global mean temperature. Its real purposes are two:

    1 - improve European competitiveness over the US

    2 - put in place a framework for much more drastic cutbacks - to about 60% of 1990 carbon emissions. With corrent or accurately forseeable technology, this would lead to world wide global depression (see next point), and would be impossible to enforce. Furthermore, not that the two largest and nations with very rapid economic growth (China and India) are not requireed to sacrifice for it.

    The real killer in Kyoto or similar approaches is that it is hubristic and arrogant. To see this, imagine that we had tried to put this in place in a period of more global stability -

    --

    The only good weather is bad weather.

  36. Re:More recommended reading by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Lindzen uses his credentials to make Greenhouse denials in public.

    Why does it sound to me like you're trying to lump him in with holocaust deniers?

    His credentials, which you are dismissing, are directly relevant to climatology. He's come to a different conclusion than you have; why should I dismiss his opinion just because you consider him a heretic?

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
  37. Paleoclimate & the Debate by Kipper+the+Llama · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's important to remember that global temperatures have been much colder and much warmer than they are now in the past 100 million years--I figure that a the most recent ~2.2% of Earth's history is a good enough starting point for us. Furthermore, if we look at the Sloss [cratonic] sequences, there's been a vast variation in sea level during that time, also. A common rebuttal to pointing this out is that our current climate change is happening at an "above average" rate. However, these models assume a gradualist model of climate change. Furthermore, there is no reason--given human records--to assume climactic gradualism based on the principle of uniformitarianism. Also there is good paleoclimatic evidence for drastic, relatively sudden shifts before [http://www.whoi.edu/institutes/occi/currenttopics /climatechange_wef.html%5D.



    From the "next Ice Age" scare of the 70's, to the billions-dead famines predicted for the 80's, environmental groups have relied on pseudo-science and scare tactics to effect policy change. Current climate change is not monolithic--global temperatures fell slightly in the 1990s, and for another example last year's unusually warm Atlantic Ocean was accompanied by an unusually cool Pacific. Furthermore, CO2 levels are only weakly correlated to climate change in the paleoclimate record.



    In any case, I've had my geologist rant out.

  38. Re:As I posted before... by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As someone who agrees that global warming is a problem, and that this R&D should be done, let me take the devil's advocate position.

    The state of the economy shouldn't just be based on the GDP. The GDP is just a proxy for all economic activity, which basically means how well we're doing at getting the stuff people want to the people who want it. If carbon emissions weren't a problem, and we still spent trillions of dollars working on making sure that carbon wasn't put into the atmosphere, that would be trillions of dollars spent on something that people didn't really want, and those resources could therefore have been spent more wisely.

    There would be some benefits, of course. More fuel efficient cars, more renewable energy capacity, more efficient appliances. Those are going to offset part of the money we put into it, even if we don't reap the benefits of a saner climate (which I think we will).

    --

    You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

  39. Re:The sky is falling! by deesine · · Score: 2, Insightful
    LOL, so true.

    Someone's message from a similar thread a couple days ago said "it's like we're hard wired to believe in these [apocalyptic events]". I think he was riffing on Chriton's meme here.

    I wonder how many /.'ers, if asked what the most pressing issue for them was, would answer global warming: Instead of say cancer, aids, bird flu, war, economy, spiritual wellbeing, etc. I realize I'm combining personal and communal items. But really, global warming! To the point for some of them where the mere sight of an SUV on the highway makes them flush with anger. That's sad...and not healthy.

    Ask a Protestant Christian why they believe in the rapture, and after several more questions you'll eventually arrive at the answer, faith. Faith that what is written in the Bible, and their interpretation of it, is true.

    When someone says that the earth will soon be unkind to humans because of their own behavior, but can't prove it, then you're accepting that on faith.

    I will admit that I'm not immune from this type of faith. But I try to place it in a positive theory, with its test that has been going on for tens of thousands of years, man. I have faith in man's ingenuity and drive to survive.

    Let's all just wait another 10 years, and see what happens. I mean this isn't a hollywood movie where global warming/cooling kills us in 2 weeks! Everything I've read places time increments in the decades. So let's just wait, and study this more.

    --
    damaged by dogma
  40. Re:More recommended reading by PunXX0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a bit hypocritical of you to call out one logical fallacy while engaged in another. Stating that people tend to fall for the appeal to authority may be true, but attacking Lindzen by calling him a Greenhouse denier is Argumentum ad Hominem of the first degree. Fundamentally, you aren't addressing the content of his argument. If you want to be officious about the rules of Logic, then don't run afoul of them yourself.

    j

  41. Everything's going to be fine! by Spasmodeus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    All the alarmism about global warming, and also about "peak oil" has had me worried lately. But suddenly I realized there's nothing to worry about!

    When we run out of oil in twenty years, we'll stop producing greenhouse gasses, and global warming will be abated!

    Problem solved!

  42. US refuses to cut...? by rdean400 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Saying that the U.S. refuses to cut greenhouse emissions is ignorant. Presumably it's based on the U.S.'s refusal to join the Kyoto Protocols over fears of competitive imbalance (e.g., several fast-growing economies wouldn't be party to the protocol as "developing nations"). That's not the same.

    I don't necessarily agree with the U.S. position, but I think any discussion about policy should require a fundamental sense of honesty that is missing from statements like the "U.S. refuses to cut greenhouse emissions."

  43. Re:Global Warming Could Kill as much as the holoca by susano_otter · · Score: 2, Insightful

    First, the Holocaust actually happened. Its antecedents, workings, and results have been documented, studied, and well-understood for some time.

    On the other hand, "hundreds of millions to billions of people are famished or killed over [global warming]" is a hypothetical future scenario, that has not happened yet and may--may--not happen at all. Not only that, but its antecedents and workings are not yet well-understood, nor have they yet been well-documented or thoroughly understood. And its results, in some hypothetical future, can only be guessed at, even by experts--they're just making educated guesses.

    So at the moment, you're accusing anybody who dissents from the mainstream on climate change worse than a Nazi, even though Nazis actually did perpetrate the holocaust, and we presently have no real evidence that global warming will play out the way you expect nor have the impact on human survival that you expect.

    And this is why Nazi comparisons always kill a debate. Because they always seem to be accompanied by exactly this sort of unthinking, heinous disregard for common sense, and blind hatred of dissenters.

    (Personally, I suspect you are a big hypocrite: Enthusiastically admiring how Galileo stuck it to the mainstream scientists of his time, while equally enthusiastically denouncing any scientist who questions the mainstream on global warming today.)

    --

    Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  44. I've often wondered by syukton · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've often wondered about the actual heat impact of all our combustion engines expelling hot exhaust gases into the atmosphere. Nevermind the progressive warming caused by heat trapped under a layer of greenhouse gases, I'm talking about the mere fact that automobile exhaust, jet exhaust, and other internal-combustion engine exhausts are just plain hot. Does that make a difference? Also, we're changing the albedo of the earth every time we cut down a forest or build a new highway...how does that figure into global warming? Does the heat transfer between hot asphalt and the air amount to any measurable quantity which we could attribute at least partially to global warming? Would we be better off if we had white roads with black lines? Seriously, anyone have any idea about these questions?

    --
    Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
  45. Fucked up FUD by M0b1u5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is so funny: plugging information that is just wrong, into computer models that are nothing but guesses, and massaging the results until they meet your "OMG PONIES!!!11 We're all going to fry" scenario.

    Not only dot we not understand our climate, we can't measure it properly, can't even tell what it was like in the past (with accuracy) and so far can't MAKE EVEN A SINGLE ACCURATE FUTURE PREDICTION. Oh but wait, that's right, 3 Degrees C will kill us all.

    *SIGH*

    Wake me in a hundred years someone please.

    --
    How many escape pods are there? "NONE,SIR!" You counted them? "TWICE, SIR!"