Another 150,000 Years of CO2 Data

An anonymous reader writes, "We've known since 2004 that the past 440,000 years have shown atmospheric carbon dioxide levels varying between about 200 and 300 ppmv, the difference in extremes being the difference between advancing ice sheets and our current clime. In 2005 the data were analyzed back to 650,000 years and were found to be much the same — Al Gore was proud to be able to show that then-new analysis in his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth. Now all 800,000 years of the ice column have been analyzed, and the data show much the same pattern, according to the researcher: 'When carbon dioxide changed there was always an accompanying climate change. Over the last 200 years human activity has increased carbon dioxide to well outside the natural range' — to 380 ppmv."

Comments

I think what Al is really trying to say

[Timesprout]

is that he invented the ice age

Oh shit...

[Skiron]

...time to light up a fag [cigarette to you foreigners].

Steve Irwin Video is out!!!!

[Kiaser Wilhelm II]

Corrupt.org got an exclusive copy of the tape. What else is there to say? Very painful death.

Proof the Slashdot Moderation System is Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

Soo.... (Score:5, Insightful)

We're at a CO2 level even highter that what we had during the height of the ice age, yet the arctic glaciers that swept through all of Europe and North America somehow are not advancing on us at the alarming rate they should be?

You mean, we have no idea how to properly predict climatology? Any changes we attempt to make may be a moot point, because the planet in the end may have complete control?

Article=Troll (Score:2, Troll)

Look, the ONLY point of articles like this is to bring the libertarians out of the woodwork so they can dance around in a circle chanting their magic chant that makes oil last forever and the Earth be inhabitable forever. Which is great, you know, I've always been a big fan of that whole Kachina thing. But it does make for slightly dull viewing after a while, especially given that everyone else will duly be trolled and write long fact-filled refutations of the libertarian's chant, which is futile, because you can't refute faith. And so the circle of chanting Libertarians droning on about the 'global warming controversy' and oil sands will be surrounded by a much larger circle of other people dancing round in the other direction and quoting numbers.

It's like a great revolving pinwheel of futility.

*sigh*

Amazing, absolutely amazing.

Slashdot moderation goals:
1) Promote quality, discourage crap.
2) Make Slashdot as readable as possible for as many people as possible.

Goal number one: failed miserably.
Goal number two: ... ohhh wait... I think I finally see what is going on here... I'd say this goal has been roughly achieved, but was the goal really desireable? It is just in too much of a conflict with goal number one.

Lack of continuity and the abundance of crap clearly show that the moderation system has not achieved its goals. I think my quotes above are a perfect example.

Thread continuity alone should be enough to kill the current moderation system (especially with pagination broken in many views already).

Yet this post, through the wisdom of the moderation system, will fade into obscurity, its point lost.

Re:An Inconvenient Agreement: Bill O'Reilly &

[Profane MuthaFucka]

They fucked that up royally. Take a look at the trillions that the conservative government has borrowed to fund their wars.

LOOK at the money, you FUCK. Trillions. Wasted. I hate you.

I hate you personally. Just stay the fuck away from me, you sociopath. Fucking wrecked my country, and I hate you for it.

Re:An Inconvenient Agreement: Bill O'Reilly &

[glider524]

Yes, I came across this in Wikipedia a while back: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I believe this event helped to usher in a big long-term promotion wave of pro-business, pro-executive branch authoritarianism. The Fairness Doctrine falling was a fairly major contributor of a decades-long sea change in politics that started back in 1987. That's when Republicans got control of the committee overseeing the FCC and shut down the general rules on raw partisanship and personal attacks on political subjects in the media. I can't tell you how many people (like my dad, a few coworkers, etc.) have been directly peppered--and I would say slowly corrupted--with a drumbeat of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck and Fox News types in the world. It used to be if you broadcast to millions, you sort of had to attempt to actually be "fair and balanced" (totally unlike what Fox News is). You had to let public figures have equal unobstructed time to respond when he was attacked and basically lied about. That was gone after the Fairness Doctrine was done away with. Colbert has is right.. now people who watch/listen to these shows become perpetually perturbed, fierce, angry, and brainwashed that the world has simple solutions. The simple solution being to have a strong leader who can make instant decisions based on convictions without a lot of 'endless' debate or fussy accountability.

Offtopic I know, but here are some beefs with Fox and other conservatives that make me shake my head at the state of popular media in the country:

1. They use hyperbolic, inflammatory commentary spoken by the actual news reporters as they read current events.
2. Telling people what they want to hear. Basically the sentiment is, "If only all the stupid people would just get out of the way...". Feeds on people's daily sense of frustration.
3. Straw-man argumentative premises. Supports calling domestic spying "Terrorist Surveillance", and tax cuts for the rich "Tax Relief".
4. Fringe people are found and presented as examples of the Left's core beliefs.
5. Sound-byte, meaningless stories are found and presented only to irritate and enflame (One headline story: "Men's group demanding right to not to have to support their biological children since women have right to abortions, claim it's not fair").
6. Salacious news stories on murders, rapes, trials, celebrities, etc. Encourages an extremist-response view to crime ('kill them all, and let God sort them out' attitude).
7. 'Expert' guests that are given softball questions to provide prepared, propagandistic answers to. Reminds me of a state sponsored speech in Soviet Russia. ("So, how do you think the President should cope with people who don't want to defend the country?")
8. Over-simplification of most political, cultural, economic, civil liberty realities. Offers simplistic solutions which betray the political and cultural complexities about the subject in this country or the world. Truth is far more complex and consequences would be had by demagogs. (kill them all, nuke'em, let them starve, torture them all, etc.)
9. Accusatory tone toward all the 'liberal biased media' of mainstream press, drumbeat of 'corrupt and spineless Democrats', etc.
10. Outright partisan cheerleading for Republican party and Bush. Very excusatory of missteps and lack of wise strategic political judgment. Obviously questionably illegal programs (domestic wiretapping, phone record listings, financial record listings, torture, CIA identify revealing) are given a free pass.
11. Misleading and missing facts in the story. Example: supports the claim that the President did brief congress on domestic wiretapping.
12. Alarmist stories on possible terrorism. Example: FBI recently arrested some stooges down in Florida who were recorded taking a fake oath to Al-Qaeda administered by an undercover agent. They have no money, no