Slashdot Mirror
Study Finds World Warmth Edging to Ancient Levels
Krishna Dagli writes to mention a decades-long study by NASA scientists. According to the research, global temperatures are reaching highs not seen in thousands of years. From the article: "One of the findings from this collaboration is that the Western Equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans are now as warm as, or warmer than, at any prior time in the Holocene. The Holocene is the relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. The Western Pacific and Indian Oceans are important because, as these researchers show, temperature change there is indicative of global temperature change. Therefore, by inference, the world as a whole is now as warm as, or warmer than, at any time in the Holocene. According to Lea, 'The Western Pacific is important for another reason, too: it is a major source of heat for the world's oceans and for the global atmosphere.'"
How do scientists determine the temperatures from millions of years ago and what range of error do these readings fall within?
Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ - Exercise for the rest of us.
n/t
Save the Universe! Just say NO to irreversible processes!
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
The Holocene is the relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age.
Holo-(s)cene? Ohhhh boy. Cue the Matrix jokes...
OK, so the weather is a big funky. Nothing that hasn't happened before (the dinosaur meteor is far greater than even a nuclear war would be). Just wait a bit for the singularity. Everything changes once you reach that.
World Warmth Wrath Wreaked!
If you haven't seen An Inconvenient Truth, yet, do try. Like Al Gore, it's a bit clunky, but there's a lot of truth in there and shouldn't be discounted just because you may not like the presenter.
My belief is, we'll keep right on going in this direction until we feel sufficient pain* to stop. Famine and flooding will certainly increase the likelihood of conflict. Darfur as depicted in the film was an eye opener, the severe drought which may be caused by warming now appears more likely the root of conflict as people scrabble for remaining water and land.
It may become the view that USA and Europe, have had it good long enough and they should cut down on emissions first. It will come to a head when cities like Shanghai are under water and each country is blaming the other for the fine mess things are in. Those who have dipped deepest and longest into the carbon fuels trough the will have an uncomfortable time of it.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
NASA Study Finds World Warmth Edging Ancient Levels
Sep. 25, 2006
A new study by NASA scientists finds that the world's temperature is reaching a level that has not been seen in thousands of years.
The study, led by James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, N.Y., along with scientists from other organizations concludes that, because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels in the current interglacial period, which has lasted nearly 12,000 years. An "interglacial period" is a time in the Earth's history when the area of Earth covered by glaciers was similar or smaller than at the present time. Recent warming is forcing species of plants and animals to move toward the north and south poles.
Image right: Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows average temperatures from 2001-2005 compared to a base period of temperatures from 1951-1980. Dark red indicates the greatest warming and purple indicates the greatest cooling. Click image to enlarge. Credit: NASA
The study used temperatures around the world taken during the last century. Scientists concluded that these data showed the Earth has been warming at the remarkably rapid rate of approximately 0.36 Fahrenheit (0.2 Celsius) per decade for the past 30 years.
"This evidence implies that we are getting close to dangerous levels of human-made pollution," said Hansen. In recent decades, human-made greenhouse gases have become the largest climate change factor. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and warm the surface. Some greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone, occur naturally, while others are due to human activities.
Image left: Because of a rapid warming trend over the past 30 years, the Earth is now reaching and passing through the warmest levels seen in the last 12,000 years. This color-coded map shows a progression of changing global surface temperatures from 1880 to 2005, the warmest ranked year on record. Dark red indicates the greatest warming and dark blue indicates the greatest cooling. Click image to view animation. Credit: NASA
The study notes that the world's warming is greatest at high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere, and it is larger over land than over ocean areas. The enhanced warming at high latitudes is attributed to effects of ice and snow. As the Earth warms, snow and ice melt, uncovering darker surfaces that absorb more sunlight and increase warming, a process called a positive feedback. Warming is less over ocean than over land because of the great heat capacity of the deep-mixing ocean, which causes warming to occur more slowly there.
Hansen and his colleagues in New York collaborated with David Lea and Martin Medina-Elizade of UCSB to obtain comparisons of recent temperatures with the history of the Earth over the past million years. The California researchers obtained a record of tropical ocean surface temperatures from the magnesium content in the shells of microscopic sea surface animals, as recorded in ocean sediments.
Image left: Data from this study reveal that the Earth has been warming approximately 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.36 Fahrenheit) per decade for the past 30 years. This rapid warming has brought global temperature to within about one degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) of the maximum estimated temperature during the past million years. Credit: NASA
One of the findings from this collaboration is that the Western Equatorial Pacific and Indian Oceans are now as warm as, or warmer than, at any prior time in the Holocene. The Holocene is the relatively warm period that has existed for almost 12,000 years, since the end of the last major ice age. The Western Pacific and Indian Oceans are important because, as these researchers show, temperature c
we're already experiencing late falls, and slightly earlier springs. Two years running now the ground hasn't reliably frozen solid until well into november. Therefore, while I feel for those of you living 2 ft above sea level in Florida, I believe I speak on behalf of many residents of Upstate NY, Minnesota, Saskatchewan, etc., when I say, "Good".
the more accurate the calculations became, the more the concepts tended to vanish into thin air. R. S. Mulliken
So what caused the planet to heat up at the end of the last ice age? Any chance it could be the same thing this go around?
... were a real problem. I'm so glad Atlantis was destroyed, or else who knows where we'd be since we are only now jsut approaching those Atlantean high temps of 12K years ago.
Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"
I never knew that Bush not signing the Kyoto Treaty would have such an effect that it would raise temperatures in the past as well!
Oh, wait, you mean that's not what happened? Okay. So that means the temperatures were that high before manufacturing and automobiles? Gee, imagine that.
Seriously, though. This is the kind of information that I try to show to the 'OMG WORLD IS GOING TO END IN TEN YEARS' crowd, but they never seem to want to look at it objectively. The earth has had some really hot periods - it hs also had some really cold periods - all BEFORE mankind started to add their marginal extra amount of pollutants into the air.
I'm not saying that pollution is okay, but I do think that it has less to do with long term global climate shifts than others would have you believe.
Love sees no species.
that archeologists have found all sorts of Automobiles and factories that are thousands of years old
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
I'll say it again and again, until you listen or someone can find a single argument against it.
Stop hiding behind false excuses and "Be carefull with our planet, we have only one"(TM)
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Global warming is becoming a huge threat to humanity. I blame the Liberals.
We've pumped coal, oil and gas that used to lie buried all into the atmosphere as CO2 and other byproducts at industrial scales for over a century. All that stuff used to live on the Earth during hotter climates, converting CO2 etc into themselves, then dying to be buried. We shouldn't be surprised when returning the gas they cleaned from our atmosphere returns us to the climates that preceeded them. Which we did not adapt to live in ourselves. And which have never changed so quickly, far outpacing the rate of human evolution, even if we were still as subject to natural evolution.
All that spells "extinction", or at best "civilization collapse".
--
make install -not war
The Earth's climate changes. It's inevitable. It's happened before.
Now, I'm not saying that humans are helping things a long any, but there is NO way to do as the t-shirts say and "Stop Global Warming". Even if we reduce emmisions, we are still a threat of the Earth if by sheer numbers alone. We have far overshot the carrying capacity and are damaging the Earth, but I don't see all the environmentalists supporting, uh, "population correction".
There is way to much hype surrounding global warming. The global climate is getting warmer: fact. This is solely the fault of humanity and only humanity can stop it: fiction.
I'm not saying to screw with the Earth as much as we can, I'm just saying that the climate change is inevitable, especially considering the unfathomable amount of humans on this planet.
Anyone else think the comments just weren't rendering right before they turned off ABP and saw ads?
Serously though, with the coming rise in ocean levels you want to be at least above 30 to 40 feet(10 to 15 meters) above current ocean levels, preferably at a higher lattitude, like say Canada, if you want to have something to leave to the kids. :-)
And if you want to make them wealthy, buy a lot of land that will still BE land.
New Orleans is in a very BAD long term position, amortising over 30 years, you're likely to find your real-estate holdings underwater. (If you want to see how bad it can get, just look at the Champlain sea and the fact that the mid western praries are prime flat growing land because they were UNDERWATER.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Seriously. You ever see that George Carlin bit about how humans *love* disasters (natural and otherwise), no matter what they may say to the contrary?
It's true. We are naturally self-destructive creatures. Why fight it? Why worry? You're a human. Adapt. Or...do the other thing.
They need better computers. This one's /.'ed.
Well, if the earth cools off every few thousand years it all balances out right? Its not like the earth is going to go supernova or anything. If it gets hotter then I wouldn't mind anyway because I'm really cold natured. Of course, I also have central heating and AC. Science just doesn't suck. I remember when I used to watch the Mr. Wizard guy do all the science things. TV is cool too.
Quick everyone! Start arrrr talking like pirates arrrr before it be too late, me maties.
"I am going to speak today about the most media-hyped environmental issue of all time, global warming. I have spoken more about global warming than any other politician in Washington today. My speech will be a bit different from the previous seven floor speeches, as I focus not only on the science, but on the media's coverage of climate change." --SENATOR JAMES INHOFE CHAIRMAN, SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE, SENATE FLOOR SPEECH DELIVERED MONDAY SEPTEMBER 25, 2006
He's right. This issue is being played so much by the media it is hard to get honest science. All in the name of money -- either from the latest blockbuster movie or a never-ending fountain of grant money.
Where's George Carlin when you need him?
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
People who keep repeating that climate change is a conspiracy remind me of someone who has just been told they have a cancer and are in denial. WAKE UP! Ugh.
And another thing, how have we come to such a situation where these anti-evolutionist climate change deniers congregate to /.?
Not only do their numbers seem to be increasing, but I see people after all this time still engaging their mindless trolls!
This is the 21st century, we are a global society and as such I am personally confident that it is not a forgone conclusion that the human race is destined for a 'Bladerunner' future dystopia. However, the first step in avoiding such a fate is to acknowledge the true state of our reality. (...cue the trolls to say I'm somehow advocating the downfall of western civilization) ugh...
Oops, forgot the actual link.
= 263759
http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
One point people usually don't notice: more CO2 means bigger crops, and vegetables, and trees etc. So, yeah, maybe coastal cities will end up underwater and many areas will be a little more desertified, but food will become more plenty, and areas currently unusable because they're frozen will be able to hold human life. I'm not sure the net effect of all these changes, when we look at them as a whole, is negative. Maybe it is, but that's not clear.
Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
Interesting stuff. I've also heard that "the debtae" over global warming is not whether it's happening, but whether we should 1) focus on slowing/reversing it; or 2) focus on adapting to the warmer Earth.
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Instead of everyone spending all afternoon typing out the same pro/anti Warming,US,Oil,Bush arguments, we all just go re-read the last global warming thread, and spend the time we've saved doing some kind of service job (washing dishes, etc) and donate that money to our favorite charity.
We would earn millions.
The most inconvenient truth is that the earth temperature changes.
It appears that it has been both much warmer and much colder at different times in the past.
This time we're getting warmer, some people want to blame, some people want to do something.
I'm still waiting for someone to explain how this expected behaviour is really a problem. Sure we might be causing it this time, but it was probaly gonna do this anyway.
Lets look at what a 5C temperature change will bring. My limited understanding is it will shift the type of vegetation/wildlife in each area and alter weather patterns. Is this really a problem?
I think we need to blame the humans and there damn body heat production.
1)Stop burning all fossil fuels period. That means, we halt all energy generation and transportation not powered by wind, water or animals.
2) Stop tearing down trees and pouring concrete. Trees convert CO2 to O2 and concrete reflects energy while killing trees.
3) Halt any process, manufacturing or otherwise that produces greenhouse gases especially CO2, fluorocarbons & methane. After billions die and all economies are ruined we won't even be able to complain on slashdot. And if we then enter another ice age, what then?
Kudos on pointing out what I see as the obvious. But I have it under good authority that you will soon be moderated down as Overrated because the /. group think totally disagrees with your statements.
Rather than try look for temperature indicators, changes in amounts of ice are a far better indicator of global warmining for a long time still.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
More data equals more confidence. If you dredge up thousands and thousands of ice cores, mud cores or what have you, take all the data and plot a histogram of it, you usually get a nice bell shaped curve. If you've got lots and lots and lots and lots of data, which these guys do, you can safely say that the middle of the bell curve is the mean of your data.
Of course, as you mention, there is a margin of error. However, by a happy chance of mathematics, the more data you get, the more confident you become that the temperature was within so many standard deviations of the mean. The bell curve won't change shape, in fact you want it to stay the same. And if it does, that means, on average, the temperature or whatever was in and around the mean value.
Basically if you get enough data, i.e. do enough experiments, you can tell the doubters to stick their unsubstanciated opinion where the maths don't shine.
May the Maths Be with you!
The point is, sure if you live in Canada or UK, your quality of life should remain high, but thinking like that only delays the inevitable. Better to act now while we still have time? Your attitude advocates doing nothing, which is not acceptable with what we know about what is occuring.
..but WTF here is mine. I would argue that since the earth is a closed-system, and us humans are a product of this system, that anything that we may do can never be construed as "unnatural". It's not like we were beamed to this planet from some other one, and then proceeded to destroy the ecological balance of this "Eden".
We evolved from other animals, any of which would, in our shoes, behave the same way we do. So we like electricity, automobiles, and such...how can this be defined as unnatural, and therefore be construed as BAD?
Whatever we may or may not do will effect the earth this way or that, we, as all other plants and animals, will, like always, evolve to survive in the new conditions that are forever being created by this mudball Earth. IMO, we cannot separate our actions from the rest of nature.
We are just doing what we were gifted to do to survive. If the planet warms, big deal. All that means is some variant of us more adapted to a hotter planet will thrive and displace us, until, of course, the earth cools again as it wavers up and down in the galactic plane.
never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
And if we then enter another ice age, what then?
We'll all move to Ecuador. It'll still be warm there, right?
I, for one, welcome our new gigantic dragonfly overlords.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meganeura
The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Not only that, we are accelerating this process even faster by clear cutting the worlds forests, tapping ground water, and speeding up desertification.
Man, that's the first time this phrase has *ever* been used to reference something that Inhofe has said. Usually we (Oklahomans) have to apologize for him when in learned company. And trying to imagine him "focusing on the science" is a strangely comical mental exercise.
This issue is being played so much by the media it is hard to get honest science.
Please. So the media is somehow controlling the puppet strings of the reviewers, authors, and reviewers of Nature, Science, and hundreds of other professional journals? The "honest science" is there for the reviewing if you're interested. If you're skeptical of the popular presentation of the results, you're free to not listen to it and go to the original sources.
Instead of everyone spending all afternoon typing out the same pro/anti Warming,US,Oil,Bush arguments
This is what makes our country great! We can sit around and argue all day and not have to accomplish anything!
If the last time it got this warm was thousands of years ago, then doesn't that mean that after that, it cooled off for a very long time? Wasn't there even an ice age in there somewhere? Doesn't this contradict the scientists claiming that this warming trend is irreversible? Doesn't this data show that in fact, this exact same trend did reverse, thousands of years ago, before it started warming up again to get us to where we are today?
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The last time they were able to grow crops in Greenland was during the time of the Vikings.8 ,434356,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,151
Where's George Carlin when you need him?
Here ya go:
The planet is fine. The people are fucked.
I will
more media hype than anything. Over the last 100 yrs (yes, since 1895), the media has flopped from global warming to global ice age scares. There seems to always be a scientist somewhere that believes one or the other theory, convenient for the media to pick up whenever they feel the winds of fear should change. Just read:
Fire and Ice
Ice samples taken by Dr. Richard Alley and described in his book the Two Mile Time Machine show changes of 5 deg celsius in a period of a few years. Why we think that this warming trend is unprecedented in the face of good evidence otherwise is amusing. Dr. Alley proposes that our current stable period of relatively stable climate is actually the anomaly. An interesting idea and worthy of reading.
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
Global Warming is Science Fact. Pure and simple. There are few who would state otherwise in the scientific community and as another poster put it they are mostly on the Phillip Morris payroll.
Now unfortunately global warming has caused enough changes in our world that it has become an issue of economic advantage. That is to say there is much money to be made on both sides of the "debate". That won't change. This is the curse of ignorance.
When politics becomes science that may be undesirable. When science becomes politicized that means there is opportunity for progress.
.. of Manbearpig have been reported all across the world.
Experts believe that due to the weight of manbearpig, an increase in their population will lead to the land getting pushed down into the sea, effectively rising sea levels.
my capcha was condom
I would think that plate tectonics would really disrupt any attempt to determine global sea level this way. We find aquatic fossils on mountain tops not because the sea level used to be higher than the mountain, but because the sea floor got pushed up to form the mountain.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
http://www.grist.org/pdf/AbruptClimateChange2003.
"There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global warming will occur during the 21st century. Because changes have been gradual so far, and are projected to be similarly gradual in the future, the effects of global warming have the potential to be manageable for most nations...
1) Food shortages due to decreases in net global agricultural production
2) Decreased availability and quality of fresh water in key regions due to shifted precipitation patters, causing more frequent floods and droughts
3) Disrupted access to energy supplies due to extensive sea ice and storminess
As global and local carrying capacities are reduced, tensions could mount around the world, leading to two fundamental strategies: defensive and offensive. Nations with the resources to do so may build virtual fortresses around their countries, preserving resources for themselves. Less fortunate nations especially those with ancient enmities with their neighbors, may initiate in struggles for access to food, clean water, or energy. Unlikely alliances could be formed as defense priorities shift and the goal is resources for survival rather than religion, ideology, or national honor.
This scenario poses new challenges for the United States, and suggests several steps to be taken:
Health Insurance Quotes
He said past millions of years, not 'past 1000 years'.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
I did some quick analysis of ice core data and I see a flaw. Looking here, I see that they can see C02 data starting a couple of decades before before 1950. I would like to see ice core data covering 1980 to now. How do we know that the PPM is being read right? Lets see the Ice Core to Modern temperature reading corrolation. How about ice core to atmospheric CO2 concentrations? Anyone know where some more modern data sets are?
In God we trust, all others require data.
OK, I'm convinced.
The world is heating up. It's heating up faster than the species can naturally adapt to. What does this mean? How much will sea level rise, taking into account: melting ice sheets, saltwater's coefficient of expansion, average landmass coefficient of expansion, increased evaporation and water vapor carrying capacity of the atmosphere, increasing albedo due to cloud cover, decreasing albedo due to vanishing ice sheets, and whatever else I haven't thought of here? What effect will climate change have on the amount of arable land? Will increasing desertification in some areas be less than offset, equally offset, or more than offset by temperate zones closer to the poles than previously existed? How much of an increase in annual storm damage can we expect worldwide?
Translate all this into cost in human lives and cost in money. What are we at risk for? What will happen if we don't change anything, and assume that exploitation of fossil fuels continues to grow at its current rate?
Is it physically possible for anything we do at this point to affect the warming trend? Assuming that all fossil fuel use worldwide stopped tomorrow, what impact would that have on climate change? Would it be enough to avoid the calamities often predicted? What if it dropped by 50%? 25%? 0%, but the rate of growth stopped increasing? What if the rate of growth dropped to zero?
Conversely, what would the cost be in human lives and money for each of those scenarios? Where do the two graphs cross? What's the minimum cost we can achieve through reduction of CO2 emissions while still maintaining reasonable technology levels?
Can we devise a way to re-sequester atmospheric CO2? What would the cost of development and deployment of such a scheme be? Would it be greater or less than the cost of eliminating fossil fuel usage?
Is the cost of any change-mitigation strategy less than or more than the cost of implementing strategies to cope with the effects of climate change, rather than trying to change the fact of climate change? What might some of these strategies be?
If I haven't made the point yet, it's all about cost/benefit. The altogether too common thought that "I don't care why it's happening, but if there's any chance to help, shouldn't we DO SOMETHING?" is ridiculous. That's the kind of thinking that has led to MTBE contaminated groundwater and a resurgence in malaria (via banning DDT). No, we shouldn't just "do something," we should do something that a) we have solid reason to believe will be useful, and b) won't cause more problems than it solves.
(And this completely ignores the rather thorny ethical/legal/social/moral problem of "who decides what sacrifices have to be made by whom." This is a question the US has traditionally answered with "those who can afford not to make sacrifices don't have to," but perhaps there's a better method than increasing cost to allocate such sacrifices)
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
You can take global climate change completely out of the picture and it *still* is a good idea to look for alternatives to petroleum. Oner, economics. The way it is set up now, this industry sucks a huge amount of cash out of the world and puts it into the hands of relatively few people, and at least in the USA, is a big factor in balance of trade and our ...strange...foreign policy decisions. We need to break the back of that economic dependence and get the cash out to different people. That's my opinion on it anyway. I am rather tired of black suited insane megalomaniacs and fundy mullahs and others of that oil soaked political ilk having their hands on extra billions and billions to play around with, because they just get into..mischief..with it. There's a big tie in with petroleum and the more heinous parts of the military industrial complex and the wars for profits that are always breaking out. One of the ways we can help reduce that is to stop giving them cash for petroleum, and to lessen our dependence on petroleum. I am for a mass decentralization of energy sources basically, using the huge variety of alternatives that we have developed already and that look to be on the horizon.
The next is more immediate and long lasting. The cities keep people soaking 24/7/365 in saturated poison. Petroleum burns dirty, really filthy, I don't care which engine you are talking about, and the obvious health detriments are there to *see* because you can see how dirty the air is, let alone measuring it with instruments. When the air gets chunky styled in a variery of designer colors and fragrances, you know it falls into the "not good for you" category.
The worst part of global warming is the impact that climate change is having on sensitive species such as the Pacific Northwest Tree Octopus. http://zapatopi.net/treeoctopus/ Get involved and help protect this rare species!
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
Maybe we should start funding heavily the research that allows us all to live in the space stations and maybe even on Mars. Then if earth becomes uninhabitable for a few thousand years, we can all go on a nice long vacation!
Just because you can't see any clear motivation, doesn't mean their isn't one.
Their motivation may stem from any of the following:
Now I don't know how many of these motivations apply to how many climatologists... but I also know that I am not a climatologist (or even an academician) and so I cannot possibly imagine all of their pressures and motivations. And neither can you.
Therefore, the idea that "I don't see an obvious motivation to lie, so why are y'all so skeptical?" is perilously useless.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Well, just because there is global warming doesn't mean it has anything to do with humans. Or...wait maybe it does...I got it! The world can only handle so many humans on it at one time and then desides to purge.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
This pro-global warming theory is from the same James Hansen of NASA who used to agree with the warming skeptics, and before that he completely disagreed with the skeptics. So, who knows when he'll change sides next? This guy is great. From a previous Cato Institute article:
"NASA's James Hansen now predicts precisely the same, small amount of warming in the next 50 years that the much-derided 'climate skeptics' predicted all along. According to both the skeptics and Mr. Hansen, the planet is destined for a mere 0.7 degree Centigrade (1.25 degree Fahrenheit) warming between now and 2050."
Full article: NASA Extinguishes Global-Warming Fire
It's certainly credible (not the same thing as true) that scientists are predominantly left-wing and like the idea of findings that strengthen the socialist politics of the Kyoto Protocol. It's also credible that scientists are as a group selfish and like the idea of a scientific disaster that they will be called on to help fix.
Whether these things are true or not is a different kettle of fish. But these hypotheses are at least credible.
I'm not sure how a post that includes the term "anti-evolutionist climate change deniers" is not modded Troll, but you may consider me a pro-evolution climate change skeptic if you like. I'm not sure where this category fits in to your worldview.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
I'm not worried about global warming, still a bit nervous about global cooling.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
I work with complex scripts well enough to know that setting one cascade off, often causes a cascade in another process that's much more responsive to change.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
Looking at this, one might suspect that the idea of investing human efforts costing $trillion$ in order to effect (at best) a couple degrees of temperature is, well, ludicrous.
M yr_Climate_Change.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1b/65_
Personally, on an epochal scale, I find it credible that Humanity only exists because of a brief cooling and a fortunate spin of the every-so-often mass extinction roulette wheel. Let's be honest: crying about animal extinctions is stupid; several times in earth's history it's suffered a nearly-total die-off of extant species. Hell, our existence is almost assuredly predicated on it.
To get back to the point, I'm still not sure where global-warming (advocates? what would I call them? Cassandras?) get the idea that (human optimal climate) = (climate now) = (some sort of static point at which the Earth's climate should stick)?
Finally, like *any* creature on earth, Humans seem programmed to breed until the local carrying capacity is exceeded (through exhaustion of food resources for example, or in our case, eventual fouling of our living area), and then suffer a mass die-off.
You claim humans are somehow endowed with "intellect", and thus should be able to break the cycle? Unless you're willing to impose an enviro communism that determines breeding allowances per person, and rip resources by force from one person to give to another, I'd argue that you're simply being naive.
-Styopa
I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why?
/.? Not only do their numbers seem to be increasing, but I see people after all this time still engaging their mindless trolls!
Let me give you an answer that I was seriously given in a casual discussion... "most of them are liberals." Yes, someone actually said that to me.
Have we lost faith in the scientific process? Do we disbelieve that it is possible to make hypotheses and discover through investigation the nature of our reality?
No, people have lost faith in people being honest. Some do actually not believe that the scientific method is useful, but in my opinion, most have had a serious break down of faith in those who don't share their opinions, to tell them anything without having an ulterior motive. While I personally don't have distrust of the people saying global warming is happening, I am aware of this level of skepticism in myself in regards to other things.
And another thing, how have we come to such a situation where these anti-evolutionist climate change deniers congregate to
Writing off other people as trolls when they are saying what they sincerely believe keeps the animosity and the distrust alive. Granted, having the same debate over and over again is pointless.
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Look at the arrogance we show when we think that we can do anything to stop global weather cycles that happen over thousands and millions of years.
The warming and cooling cycles are going to occur regardless of our advances in clean energy, or whatever rabbit they pull out of the hat that will "save us".
The human race has been reduced to 1M and surely it will happen again.
I'm sure that will change their minds. You should teach a course in debate!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
On a general basis, yes, it's more likely the Earth has been warming for the past umpty thousand years because of some natural cycle or other. There are tons of them, from natural fluctuations in greenhouse gas and particulate content of the atmosphere, to fluctuations in cloud cover, the effects of continental drift, variations in the Earth's orbit, and variations of the Sun's output. Since we are talking small variations in temperature -- changes of 0.3% or so -- the causes can be pretty subtle.
But is it also possible that human-generated CO2 is what's driving the most recent warming? Sure. The data are pretty suggestive. And anyway, on general principles it's almost impossible for human-generated CO2 to not at least initially raise the temperature of the atmosphere. Where the debate comes in is how much it would raise the temperature, and what the response of the Earth's various systems will be, and how this will affect climate. Will the temperature continue to rise, or will some mechanism stabilize it, or even (surprising as that may seem) cause it to fall? Is any human-generated increase in temperature an addition to a stable baseline, or is it on top of a natural increase, or is it being masked by a natural decrease going on at the same time? How will the ecosystem respond to a temperature change, both in the short term (centuries) and long term (millenia)? These are all difficult questions to answer, as they are right at (or in some cases beyond) the limit of our ability to measure and predict.
Would it make sense to take drastic action to cut CO2 emissions to fend off global catastrophe of the sort Hollywood predicts? I doubt it. CO2 emission is so fundamental to a combustion-based economy that you could not, say, eliminate it, or even cut it by 50% immediately without doing at least as much damage to the world economy as climate change itself would. Also of course Hollywood predicts the results of climate change wildly incorrectly: there is no way to gather enough energy in a short time to have a world-wide hurricane, or instant continent-wide glaciation, the Earth's axis tipping over, 500-foot tidal waves sinking all the seaboard cities of the world, et cetera. Climate change certainly means weather patterns will shift, and that means New York City could by 2100 experience as many thunderstorms and hurricanes as Miami, or England could over the next thousand years glaciate over the way Greenland is, or the American Midwest could over the next few centuries turn into an extension of the Sonoran desert. These are all serious enough, but they do not obviously equate to mass extinction of life, let alone the extinction of human life. I'd say we're still more likely to get bumped off by, say, a new virus as deadly as AIDS and as easily spread as influenza.
But would it make sense to take sober, sensible steps to limit CO2 emissions? Raise fuel efficiency standards, invest in research into non-combustion energy technologies, build more nukes, promote energy efficiency? Duh, of course. These things make sense anyway, from any perspective that realizes human beings must affect the ecosphere, and that, unless you know what you're doing, it's just inadvisable to throw monkey wrenches randomly into complex machinery upon which your life depends.
Would it also make sense to think about the inevitability of climate change? Realize, for example, that we cannot guarantee that the Midwest will always be a nice rainy breadbasket and Siberia a frozen waste, and plan our political and sociological systems accordingly. Of course. Even if human-generated CO2 turns out not to cause global warming, we already know the Earth's climate is more variable than we might have thought. Some other variation will surely come along sooner or later.
Unfortunately CO2-driven climate change seems to have become some kind of weird virulent meme that makes ordinary people foam at the mouth. You get one side that shrieks 'The End is Nigh!' like some kind of
The Earth is getting warmer. OK, where I live used to be under a mile of ice. I can live with the Earth warming up a bit.
It is Bush's, Republican's, Big Oil's or Man's fault.
Um no, Man has just about as much control over the Earth warming and then cooling and then warming as I have control over my wife.
Man can do something about it....doubtful.
Man SHOULD do something about it. Even more doubtful, I wouldn't want to upset Greenpeace for interferring with Earth's Natural processes.
Holo-(s)cene? Ohhhh boy. Cue the Matrix jokes...... homo-(s)cene.
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
i coulda sworn when i was a kid there was occasionally a cool day, even in the summer
;) its the end of september and 100 degrees outside in the shade, yesterday i came home and a neighbor cat was passed out panting in my driveway! (had to park my hummer in the street!, which took up half the road..)
now its so damn hot all the time
Therefore, the idea that "I don't see an obvious motivation to lie, so why are y'all so skeptical?" is perilously useless.
Well, compare that to the opposite view (that climate change is not happening). Here there is a quite understandable incentive to lie, since many of the corporations whose use of fossil fuels is the alleged cause of climate change are extremely valuable funding sources.
Both groups make claims, more or less, to scientific credibility and objective truth: one is claiming X and the other not X. (I should say that many of the claims are only qualified support: "studies support X" rather than "X is true", etc.)
One then has to make a choice. One view, the absolutist one, is that no conclusions are trustworthy for the reasons you stated and I expanded on.
Another (potentially error-prone) approach requires making a choice and determining who is more likely to be correct. With this in mind, choosing the group that has the least motivation to lie (rather than no motivation) seems like a plausible strategy.
A. The earth's orbit is elliptical. Not only is it an ellipse but the eccentricity, or variance from being circular, is not constant. B. The earth's orbit and the earth's axial rotation when in this orbit begins to resemble a spirograph http://physics.indstate.edu/west/zoorings/ThreeD%2 0Images/Spirograph%203D.JPG, which has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years.
C. Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles explain: "The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years."
D. Earth's climate graph shows no distinct pattern. Earth's glacial coverage has gone from historic minimum to maximum in the period of 100 years. It is nonsense to claim that our temperature will continue to rise or even fall for that matter. It is a flip of a coin.
I do not concur with human-caused global warming. I feel it is hysteric, unfounded, and egocentric. I also do not bother watching media hype movies starring washed up politicians who claim they are making a documentary while ignoring an entire side of the debate.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
Because they are paid trolls, from PR firms financied by certain oil firms.
Not anymore they don't... damn those replicators.
A. The earth's orbit is elliptical. Not only is it an ellipse but the eccentricity, or variance from being circular, is not constant.
2 0Images/Spirograph%203D.JPG, which has a cycle of approximately 26,000 years.
B. The earth's orbit and the earth's axial rotation when in this orbit begins to resemble a spirograph http://physics.indstate.edu/west/zoorings/ThreeD%
C. Milankovitch cycles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles explain: "The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000 year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years."
D. Earth's climate graph shows no distinct pattern. Earth's glacial coverage has gone from historic minimum to maximum in the period of 100 years. It is nonsense to claim that our temperature will continue to rise or even fall for that matter. It is a flip of a coin.
I do not concur with human-caused global warming. I feel it is hysteric, unfounded, and egocentric. I also do not bother watching media hype movies starring washed up politicians who claim they are making a documentary while ignoring an entire side of the debate.
Anything can, could, and will happen.
Credible? Or possible? Its possible that most scientists are left wing and support Kyoto because it has "socialist" politics. But if you can prove scientists are "mostly" left wing politically you then need to prove that:
I know you believe these four items are true, but I think that item four can be interpreted either way. But I wonder why, exactly, a "Leftist" is inherently opposed to CO 2 emmisions. I am what you would call a Leftist, and I don't oppose industry! A lot of this conflict comes from the fact that those on the left tend to favor government regulation of industry and those on the right oppose it. The science seems to imply that these emmissions are doing real harm and the free market is not going to save us from this, in the highly likely senario that this is a real problem. (see: the tragedy of the commons) What, exactly, is the cause of your scepticism here? The evidence seems to be pretty strong that this is really happening. What makes you doubt it?
But honestly, I don't see how changing our energy policy could be a bad thing here. Industry isn't going to just give up and fold because of emmissions restrictions anymore than forumla 1 stopped when they banned turbochargers. The end result is more research, cleaner air and less dependance on foreign oil. The industry doesn't want to do it because they believe it will hurt their bottom line. They are right of course, in the short term emission caps will require more investment in r&d, hurting short term profits. But dammit, they aren't just going to close the doors and give up!
Sig removed because it was obnoxious
Why does global warming always mean worse weather, war, etc?
Why can't it be better? Whats the focus on the negative here?
Noone talks about increased length of shoreline, Chicks wearing less clothing
etc.
I have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change. Why?
One word: funding.
Have we lost faith in the scientific process? Do we disbelieve that it is possible to make hypotheses and discover through investigation the nature of our reality?
Um, I take it that most people are just fed up with scientists and the entire global warming debate at all. They've been fedup since shortly after global warming has been announced to be a really long term problem. Most early research (70s and 80s) was stating nothing to worry about for a good 200-300 years and more like 1,000-2,000 down the line. Let's be honest. Humanity isn't at the stage, yet to objectively defend itself against really long term threats. We are fairly good at personal survival, and regional survival. China is our longest lasting cultural entity that we have. Their government has gone through many changes. We need a governmental/social structure that will last/have actual real power 500-1,000 years down the line. The only institution that I can really think of lasting that long is the Cathloic church. We need an organization devoted to preserving humanity against all unlikely and likely long term threats.
People who keep repeating that climate change is a conspiracy remind me of someone who has just been told they have a cancer and are in denial. WAKE UP! Ugh.
Back to my "funding" again. It slightly is a conspiracy, but not in the tradional sense. We really should design and build long term monitoring of the Earth's biosphere. I mean build a system to monitor this planet for a good 1-2K years. We really should have built such a system in the mid 60s or early 70s even if the system had to double as a spy stat network. The truth is we don't know. I've been fedup with the subject after trying to stay somewhat current. I took numerous HS classes in the early 90s. They were still not sure and every scientist wanted funding to establish a longer term base line. Our knowledgable people didn't think that we had nearly enough data. From what I've seen since then. I still think that we don't have enough data, but political folks are wanting to cut funding of all that long term monitoring. Which means, that to ensure future support they have to show a need/cause to the politicans. I'm kinda mixed myself. I think that alot of global climating monitoring should be cut and we should build several really long term stats to do the monitoring instead of all the Phds doing field work. We have alot of brain power that I think should be redirected to other uses. If we could extend the human life span to 200-300 years then we would start taking a more serious interest in global warming if only for personal survival.
That's what Pluto thought
"The last thing I want to do is deal with a bunch of people who want something."
Major Major
Can anyone explain why 12,000 years is a relevant period of time to care about the maximum temperature? TFA's study looked back 12,000 years. Mammals have been around 65'ish million years, right?
That's an ice age in important drivers of the world's economy, not the same as global cooling. Global warming could indeed cause local cold temperatures, already there is evidence of cooling of parts of the ocean likely due to melting artic and landed ice/glaciers.
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/pressrel eases/20031208a.html
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v428/n6985/ab s/nature02470.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html
http://biocab.org/Cosmic_Rays_Graph.html#anchor_77
http://biocab.org/Global_Warming.html#anchor_32
Now I'd like to see someone try to blame the system wide warming on our driving SUV's. I'm sure someone out there will. LOL!!!!
Here's a very informative speech delivered this past Monday on the US Senate floor by senator James Inhofe Chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. It's not your normal uninformed rant we've come to expect from our politicians. http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759
Why does it even matter. Do you shit where you eat because it is cheaper? Do you dispute that the current state of pollution and insustrial waste is good for us. The rate we change the system would have to be a cost benifit anlysis but just as a matter of principle we should clean things up. In the long run the efficiency gained from cleaner processes will be more profitable in the long run anyway. It is just that nobody sees beyond their own time horizon anymore. Remember "We do not own the earth we borrow it form our children"
Scientists can lie just like anybody else. The key lies in the level of punishment that results from lying:
When a politician lies, they get elected. And *maybe* impeached later on. (Bill Clinton)
When a corporation lies, they lose a tiny fraction of the income generated by the lie. (Enron, Big Tobacco, Microsoft)
When a scientist lies, they get about a year or two before they're caught. At which point they lose all standing among fellow scientists, get barred from all reputable journals, and often lose their university/institute jobs.
Summarized: when a scientist gets caught in a lie, their life is over. When a corporation is caught in a lie, they lose a small part of their illegitimate gains. Who has more incentive to lie?
The implied question is, "If that sort of climate change was possible ten thousand years ago, what makes you so sure that humans are the cause of current climate change?"
Which is the same question I keep seeing get asked over and over again. Here's the answer: it doesn't freaking matter. Here are two questions that I think people should spend more time mulling over:
1) Do we, as a species, WANT global temperatures to reach levels not seen since the Holocene period ?
2) If the answer to the above is "No", is there anything that we, as a species, can do to help PREVENT that from occurring?
How we got here doesn't matter. What we do now does. Some think we're helpless and that the climate's gonna do what the climate's gonna do whether or not they buy an SUV, so they buy an SUV.
Personally, I disagree.
"UNIX" is never having to say you're sorry.
Don't take into account that one volcano spits more shit into the air that man can in a few hundred years. Or the fact that we are in a 10 year cycle with increased solar activity. Hell take a look at Mars and it's polar caps. They come and go like the tides. Last time I checked the republicans didn't have a car on mars.... Oh crap they do have one car on mars. Never mind maybe global warming is a real threat. We have no control on our climate and Al Gore spews more co2 gas than a small third world country.
What the Hell???? A Suprise party for ME !!
The truth is scary thats why. Contrary to what you wish, human instinct doesn't evolve much. People prefer to put their head in the ground and wish the problem to go away. Hopefully there will be a couple of major hurricanes ripping up the east coast before the warming trend moves beyond repair. And yes there is a beyond repair, which is when enough ground is visible at the poles to make the process self feeding. Downfall of western civilization, well it won't be limited to a particular continent. Even if you think you can't be sure either way, how long do you want to do nothing? Personally I would rather try to do something about it before my house is permanently submerged; Which is about 3 degrees average temperature away. I would also like to be able to visit tropical islands on holiday.
Or maybe wait for the Rapture! I hear it has better theme music.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Fantastic, eh?
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Thousands of years in a 4.5 billion year history.
I'm quaking in my boots.
'Cause that's way easier than reducing carbon emissions. Can't touch that sacred carbon, no sir.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Give to singinst.org. Give to mind-brain.org. Give to imminst.org. Volunteer. work. Don't hope! WORK!
Damn that Ar-Pharazon and his desire for immortality! We'd still have a flat earth if it wasn't for him!
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
... of what I said above.
I have to wonder if these people have actually ever sat down and asked themselves if these scientists(western scientists of course) who live in the west, were raised in the west, and who probably would have extremely difficult lives given their outspokenness under say, an Islamic government, or many of the eastern government/society types for that matter... I just have to wonder if they've ever asked themselves what they think these scientists hope to achieve by collapsing the west?
If you ask me, the corporations who have subverted our political system by turning the representatives of the people into representatives of corporations and special interest, pose a signifigant threat to western civilization. A threat that people like that person you quote rarely if ever takes into account(unless of course the corporation can be somehow by some stretch of the imagination be associated with the "left").
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
We go back and forth argueing about whether global warming exists or not. In the short term we have seen temperatures rise, maybe its the natural cycle, maybe not. But wouldn't the smart choice be to take the advice and change what we can to avoid melting our planet, even if we are wrong?
What does it hurt, to cut green house gases and the range of other recommendations...
What will it help if the scientific predictions are right?
Its simple, error on the side of caution, don't argue the opposite of scientific theorum and disregard it completely. The idea is to consider it as true and act accordingly to help the planet. Maybe they are wrong and it is the cycle the planet goes through but on the other hand, the NE US could become a tropical climate and Florida becomes a f***in desert, all because you guys HAVE to have definitive evidence???
Again, error on the side of caution.
I strongly recommend that everyone here read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. Yes, it's fiction, but strewn throughout the novel are links to factual data about global warming. The story's protagonist is convinced that although the Earth is warming, it has nothing to do with humans.
The references prompted me to read more about the matter. I'll let you draw your own conclusions. Very interesting stuff.
It's sad that Alex P Keaton In Da has to piss in the ocean and cause this. Get a job FAG!!!
I always find it interesting to see how much argument goes into this. In some ways it's a lot like trying to convince someone to believe in a god. We aren't going to be 100% confident that global warming is a problem until it's probably too late. However it seems to me that there are plenty of good reasons to consider rethinking our fossil fuel enconomy (geo-political, pollution, scarcity, global warming, congestion). Even if global warming turns out not to be an issue, we should be trying to improve our world energy situation. Not much bad can happen if we try to reduce carbon emissions, while plenty of bad can (or may occur) if we continue the way we are. Now I know there are arguments that we might damage the global economy if we try and limit our fossil fuel use. To me this discounts the one resource we should have plenty of: human ingenuity. Humanity has to figure out an alternative to the fossil fuel economy or as the developing world grows, we will have serious problem, global warming or not. It will just be more like Road Warrior than Water World :)
A common theme among Leftists today is that the West is responsible for holding down the developing world. Kyoto is a way to redress this inequity. Frankly, even if the science is true, I think Kyoto is largely driven by this. You may not want to punish the West and reward the developing world, but many Leftists do.
The global warming claim is twofold: first, that it exists; second, that it is caused by manmade emissions. Both claims are at least somewhat controversial, the second more so than the first. It wouldn't be a big deal except that we're preparing to spent hundreds of billions of dollars on the assumption that the claims are correct.
Well, I see how it could be a bad thing. It will cost the economy countless billions of dollars, for example. This is OK if we get a clear benefit, but let's consider the benefits you cite:
Of course not. But they will have to raise prices, which causes inflation and likely reduces demand for their products. They may have to lay off employees if demand falls enough, causing unemployment. So you're right, in that industry won't just "fold". But you're wrong that it will have no effect. I have no problem doing certain pro-environmental regulations if the net benefit is clear, but it's just incorrect to assume that there will be no cost and only benefit to Kyoto.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
I have to question the science, since the same people said we were going into a global
ice age about 10-15 years prior. While the data is pointing to warming, and they may
be right, the amounts they're talking to don't mesh to anything except models- and it's
the same data they used to make the ice age predictions with.
So, which is it, and WHY did you get it wrong with the other analysis?
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"Getting cleaner" isn't the same as "clean enough". It needs to "get" a whole lot cleaner, something most right-wingnuts refuse to understand.
This thread, and any on global warming, is hilarious, in a bad way. If you believe the "scientists" you are a liberal academian? If you don't believe them you are in denial? WTF is wrong with people these days. Why does everything have to be so damn hyper-partisan. It shouldn't make a freakin' difference what American politcal machinery you are affiliated with.
It doesn't take a stretch of the imagination to conceded that humans could be affecting global temperatures. On that note, it can't be said with great certainty that global temperatures would be any lower if humans never evolved (or were created, whatever; I'm not even going down that path). What we do know that greenhouse gases are being emitted in ever greater quantities and it is overwhelmingly do to human actions. So instead of sticking our collective heads in the sand (looking for more oil to burn), let's do something proactive and fix it as a precaution in case the "liberal academics" weren't actually promoting an agenda.
(The soapbox is now free for useful debate.)
The trouble in Darfur, Sudan is a classic example of this.
The two groups here are settled African-speaking agriculturalists, and semi-nomadic Arabic speakers.
As desertification takes its toll, the arable land is less and less, and hence the nomads start to encroach on the farmers. The defining event was the failing rains and ensuing famine in 1983 and 1984.
Of course, as with most human conflicts, the reasons are complex, and there are other factors contributing to this, such as regional powers meddling with the issue. However, the weather is a preciptiating factor here.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Yes they might be lying. I suspect it more likely that some or all of them are simply mistaken.
It only takes one trivial mistake somewhere in the core climate theory in order to mislead the whole world of climatologists.
The mistake might even have been planted intentionally.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
I can't wait for this latest trendy scare to go the way of eugenics and Halley's comet ending life on Earth and whatever the ideologues are using for their agendas. I can't wait to lord it over little lackwit shit stains like you who think you know so much, but really know nothing at all. I am going to stuff the crow down the throats of people like you without mercy. With a fucking plunger. I will use the internet to endlessly dog the celebrity cocksuckers who bought into this as well.
Yes, very insightfull. Well actually more like "guts" +1. Arcite, you dare to say what a lot here have tought, and found too difficult to express. As for answers? Well, look at them, no one seems to have an conclusive answer. Prolly we all are scared shitless for what we'll see in our lifetime. And as we know, fright will divide the men from the mice. The men will get angry and the mice will think of ways of denying until its too late.
Ok, men and mice, take it from here...
The American Thinker has the link to what I believe is the actual report being discussed. It's always nice to be able to get to the actual source material, instead of reading what someone else is telling you it contains.
We can say that the Earth is getting warmer, but people aren't sure why. What you do depends on why - if human-created CO2 is the cause, the solution is to get CO2 out of the air and reduce our production of it - by switching fuel sources, increasing energy efficiency, and increasing the amount of growing areas. If we aren't causing the changes, however, changing the earth's climate cycles might be the wrong thing to do - if not all cycles are stable and consistent with habitation, we have the potential (perhaps) to drive ourselves out of existence in ways we don't even know. In that case, the response would be to mitigate the effects rather than change the cycles. Reducing human CO2 emissions would help (by minimally perturbing the natural climate cycle), but the main consequences would not necessarily be changed by doing so. In that scenario, changing CO2 concentrations would be spending resources better used to mitigate the effects of global warming.
The problem with your analogy is that putting out a fire in your living room has only one reasonable course of action (well maybe two - getting out being the other one), and the consequences of the actions for continued residence in the house are predictable, whereas with global warming (human or not) the consequences of our actions (now and in the future) are less easily predicted.
From the article:
What the article fails to mention is that the entire human contribution to global warming is about half a degree Celsius. (0.48 C http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2004/) So we have a ways to go before everyone dies.
The problem is that this system has a bit of momentum to it. Currently we're on a train barreling down the tracks and some guy with binoculars has just told us the bridge is out ahead, and we're still pushing forward. But we're not pushing quite as hard as we were, and that seems like progress to me.
NOAA has a video on global warming that does not match their written conclusion.p rint=1&1=1&2=2&3=3
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20060925/?
If the warming is due to pollution, then why does eastern China and Africa warm up first, followed by Latin America? Why does North America and Europe warm up last?
Wouldn't the industrialized areas warm up first? (If for no other reason, than because they have the greatest density of pollutants.)
Why does the hot-spot off Western Latin America look like El Nino? Are they claiming that pollution is causing El Nino?
Something most left-wingnuts refuse to understand is that "clean enough" depends on the trade-offs you're willing to make to get there. You can have pristine, 100% natural air (not the same as "clean air" in the emissions sense) - simply by getting rid of all industry, all manmade fires, etc. 99% of humanity would die, which is the trade-off. I'm willing to pay a little for a big reduction in air pollution. I may not be willing to pay a lot for a small reduction, though. I'm definitely not willing to say that any reduction in pollution is automatically a good idea.
...following the principles of Heisenburger's Uncertain Cat...
"Rising carbon levels could cause serious ecosystem problem in the future. Changes of an unspecified nature will have to be made if we want to preserve our civilization. We'll have to at least look into reducing carbon consumption---conserving fossil fuels and using more renewables, to start with."
"You want us to halt all energy generation and transport not powered by renewables?"
"No, what kind of an idiot would--"
"You'll kill billions. Not to mention the effect on the economy!"
If you could loosen your grip on your Canyonero just ever so slightly, you'd notice that smaller changes now can obviate the need for larger changes later. If carbon emissions continue to grow, it won't be liberals destroying society, it'll be rising waters; it'll be massive migration; it'll be ever more violent storm seasons.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
It's incredible how close the thoughts "we can't change carbon emissions; it'll destroy the economy!" and "what's a few billion here and there dead in a massive die-off?" are, isn't it? Since they have in common an unwillingness to do a damned thing about it.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
And it only takes a thing called "money" to mislead the whole world, period. I suspect it more likely that the corporations are simply misleading everyone.
A Microsoft nerd with hurt feelings comparing a large commercial company, i.e. Micorosoft, to the scientific establishment is a bit less than ingenious. I'll leave as an excercide for you to work out why, sunshine.
Yes, and if they had done this study a 1000 years ago they would have come to the same conclusion. Ever since the last ice age, the earth has been warming. Nobody disputes that because it is obvious that we are no longer in an ice age. What is in dispute is whether or not humans are the cause and whether or not anything can or should be done about it.
"Climate modeling isn't scientific"
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
I don't think the funding angle works. If a scientist publishes a bad paper and other scientists can not duplicate his results then his standing diminshes and his funding dries up.
On the other hand any scientist who writes a paper debunking global warming instantly becomes rich because the right wing and the corporations throw money at him like it's going out of business. Look at how rich the global warming debunkers have become. Look at how well their books sell.
There is a very large group of very rich people who are opposed all environmental regulation and emission reductions. They are willing to pay a lot of money to try and influence the public and they pay for a lot of research that puts their point of view forward.
I don't have stats but I bet right now there is more money in doing research that debunks global warming then research that supports it.
evil is as evil does
"In the 70s scientists were predicting an ice age"
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
what I have always wondered is how about the long term financial stability of the corporations. It is quite obvious that new emission laws and a mandatory reduction in fossil fuel usage will be expensive in the short term. But haven't they done studies of the consequences of global warming to their companies? If global warming is a reality is quite possible that the consequences of it are catastrophic. I would think that drastic climate change will cause a breakdown of the economic structures we now enjoy. Some corporations might be able to adjust but not all of them will. Those corporations that can't adapt will suffer tremendous loses and maybe even bankrupcy.
Assuming this as true, I can think of few likely explanations for the current corporate attitude:
Honestly I have a hard time believing that the last 100 years of human development have had no consequences on the climate. when I see this http://www.darksky.org/images/satelite/ida_asp_02. gif Picture, and then think that only 100 or so years ago most of that map was almost completly black. Although this is picture have very little to do with climate change(on the surface at least), it clearly shows that we can have a huge impact on earth. Weather is too late or not, we are about to find out.
It's all about finding better ways
Don't you mean promoted or awarded a medal?
Lose income? Maybe in fairy land.
The problem in the US is the unholy cluster fuck of big media, fortune 500 companies, and the GOP political machine. The gullible maroons in this country don't stand a chance.
USA will be the Brazil of the new millenium--a powerful elite controlling huge resources while the majority of the population lives in ignorance and squalor.
USA #1... yes you are! Yes you are, you cute little thing! Those big bad scientists are all after glory, they don't care about real science, that's right! Come and snuggle up here between Big Tobacco and Big Oil, because we care and luv you!
Yeah, just look at the effect global warming is having on severe hurricanes this year.
Oh, wait...
Well, for this to be acceptable fact, we'd have to admit that the earth is older than 12,000 years - but as every Good Christian has read and memorized from creationist texts, it's only been 4,000 years since God created the world. So this whole global warming thing must be a hoax invented by these heretical 'scientists' to debase Conservative Christian Values.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
Global Warming is no big woop, eventually we'll have a Ice age to even things out which always occurs in cycles far more frequently than what the real fuck up is going to be. The geo magnetic flip of the poles! for a time we'll we exposed more to the solar winds because of thr transitional flip of the poles from north to south and south to north. So when this happens then you can freak out, as for global warming bah it's totally an over reaction by a bunch of hippie toten bush haters from the US. Just move to higer ground and you'll have no issue. I mean come on! for the last 5 years people were indicating the danger of a hurricane poses to new orlens, i saw it on discovery back in 2000 where a guy was on burbon street with a pole to indicate where the water level was if a H5 hit. So don't give me a "oh we didn't know" from those people who lived there. Fuckers you lived in a "bowl", and should you go back and should it be rebuilt. fuck no! You learn and move on.
The majority of the best scientific minds in the world are not climatologists, and therefore shouldn't be expected to know much if any more than the average joe about global warming. Not that I am saying the climatologists are stupid, just that there are a lot of other fields, many of which are quite large, and so I would be extremely surprised if the distribution of the best scientific minds was so screwy that more than half were in climatology.
That said, skepticism is a very very large part of science. And it should be. Otherwise, on the (mercifully rare) occasions when scientists do deliberately falsify things, or even just plain make a vital mistake, we wouldn't catch it. Be careful casting aspersion on those who are not yet convinced of global warming. Too much and you stray into a realm of dogma instead of science, where the scientists are the sacred keepers of unquestionable knowledge. Perhaps the people denying climate change are neither mindless nor trolls, but merely skeptics.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
One trivial mistake, and everyone else would just take the result on faith? You really have no idea how this "science" thing works, do you?
North pole has no "ground". Just a note. And unless you're on the coasts, don't worry about your house. If you are, well... time to sell while the sellin's good!
Well said that man.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.
Grant money and fame create sub-conscious motivations that bias modern science every bit as much as "corporate funding". The simple fact is that no one understands the mechanisms that cause ice ages and interglacial periods. Those who predict future behavior without understanding causation are selling snake oil. Its no more complicated than that.
And yet scientists still lie and falsify results.
Regardless, it doesn't require deliberate falsification - it can be the result of errors and self-delusion - just wanting the result to be true.
If you read many of the climate reconstruction papers you will see that their level of statistical knowledge is remarkably limited and they make serious statistical errors because they don't seem to know what an I(1) process is and how to treat it statistically.
(An I(1) process is, broadly speaking, one that is trending like, say, current temperatures. With I(1) processes standard regression analysis leads to 'spurious correlation' and overstated significance with consequent erroneous conclusions.)
Stephan
that there is a network of registered slashdot users that are paid modest amounts of money, by global warming F.U.D P.R companies, to either make anti-global warming posts or use their mod-points to prop up said antiglobal warming posts?
Hey, wow. Since the Holocene period you say? I've never seen one myself. So did all this happen just last week?
I'm getting hot flashes.
Stephan
Do y'all wish it were cooling instead? The one certainty is that static is not allowed.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
have yet to see a credible answer as to why the majority of the best scientific minds in the world would somehow be involved in a conspiracy of inventing climate change.
:)
Probably not invented, but possibly exaggerated. Anybody remember the Y2K bug?
It's true that the name was a bit of a PR gimmick. The vikings did farm in Greenland though and, as the link shows, the climate changed and a farming life could no longer be maintained. There were other factors to be sure but eventually the climate did the settlers in.a nd/
http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenl
Weatherman : 'Dude, the weather is gonna get warmer and warmer! We are all doomed!'
Me : 'OMFG! How hot will it be in my garden next summer? Should I buy higher albedo tinfoil for my hat?'
Weatherman : 'Hard to say, dude. Weather is a chaotic system and cannot be predicted with any accuracy!'
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
On February 19th of this year, CBS News's "60 Minutes" produced a segment on the North Pole. The segment was a completely one-sided report, alleging rapid and unprecedented melting at the polar cap. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/16/60minute s/main1323169.shtml
It even featured correspondent Scott Pelley claiming that the ice in Greenland was melting so fast, that he barely got off an ice-berg before it collapsed into the water.
"60 Minutes" failed to inform its viewers that a 2005 study by a scientist named Ola Johannessen and his colleagues showing that the interior of Greenland is gaining ice and mass and that according to scientists, the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's than today.
On March 19th of this year "60 Minutes" profiled NASA scientist and alarmist James Hansen, who was once again making allegations of being censored by the Bush administration. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minute s/main1415985.shtml
In this segment, objectivity and balance were again tossed aside in favor of a one-sided glowing profile of Hansen.
The "60 Minutes" segment made no mention of Hansen's partisan ties to former Democrat Vice President Al Gore or Hansen's receiving of a grant of a quarter of a million dollars from the left-wing Heinz Foundation run by Teresa Heinz Kerry. There was also no mention of Hansen's subsequent endorsement of her husband John Kerry for President in 2004. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/dai_complete.pdf
Many in the media dwell on any industry support given to so-called climate skeptics, but the same media completely fail to note Hansen's huge grant from the left-wing Heinz Foundation. http://www.heinzawards.net/speechDetail.asp?speech ID=6
The foundation's money originated from the Heinz family ketchup fortune. So it appears that the media makes a distinction between oil money and ketchup money.
"60 Minutes" also did not inform viewers that Hansen appeared to concede in a 2003 issue of Natural Science that the use of "extreme scenarios" to dramatize climate change "may have been appropriate at one time" to drive the public's attention to the issue. http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh 6.html
Why would "60 Minutes" ignore the basic tenets of journalism, which call for objectivity and balance in sourcing, and do such one-sided segments? The answer was provided by correspondent Scott Pelley. Pelley told the CBS News website that he justified excluding scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism from his segments because he considers skeptics to be the equivalent of "Holocaust deniers." http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/03/22/publiceye/ entry1431768.shtml
This year also saw a New York Times reporter write a children's book entitled" The North Pole Was Here." The author of the book, New York Times reporter Andrew Revkin, wrote that it may someday be "easier to sail to than stand on" the North Pole in summer. So here we have a very prominent environmental reporter for the New York Times who is promoting aspects of global warming alarmism in a book aimed at children.
Educate yourself. Read the entire speech here... http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id= 263759
Just because a person doesn't like dictatorships, it doesn't mean they are opposed to all forms of government. Academics may be less trusting of industry (and a whole lot of other things - organized religion, simple-minded patriotism, etc.) but that's their job. Academics are supposed to take a hard look at the world and figure out what makes sense and what doesn't.
You seem to be restating your previous point. An academic will have certain views. To the extent that it is possible to measure an overall trend, those views may coincide with views associated with "the left". One of the views associated with the left is a distrust of corporate leadership. But that's just a re-statement of your previous point.
Whether the publicity is free has no relevance. Furthermore, publicity is valuable only for generating a feeling of pride in one's work that would be completely undermined by involvement in a cynical conspiracy.If everyone already agrees (that is, they're on the "bandwagon") then there is no need for a conspiracy.
That would be a symptom of the conspiracy but not a cause. Furthermore, it would undermine the conspiracy by bringing people with false loyalty into the conspiracy.I doubt that either is "fun" but the ultimate satisfaction to a scientist comes from being correct about something important. Forming a conspiracy will not increase the probably that global warming is correct or that global warming is important.
You don't go into science for arbitrary personal power (that's what MBA's are for), the power comes from the correctness of your ideas. Anyway, the vast majority of academics have no more desire to dismantle all current industry than they do to dismantle all current government. There's a huge difference between wanting to dismantle something and wanting to subject it to checks and balances.
So far nothing you've mentioned makes it plausible that there is a large scale conspiracy among climatologists. Sure, it's possible but just about anything is possible. What you need to show is that it's probable. Maybe you've been listening to the right-wing religious conservatives too long to know the difference but, believe me, possible and probable are not the same thing.
Keep this stuff in mind when you leave your offices. Turn those electricity-wasting air-warming boxes off at night. Or at least make them Zzzz.
Simpy
More data helps deal with random error. If there is a systemmatic error you can constrain the mean all you want with extra data, but it might still be a long ways off.
Say you're interested in the average global temperature 20,000 years ago. You figure out a method for estimating the temperature. For example, looking at the the ratio of O16 to O18 in the ice, since water formed with O18 evaporates at higher temperatures. From this you might get an increase of 1 degree, with a standard deviation of 1 deg. Then you say with something like 68% confidence the actual mean was 0 and 2 deg. However, your benefactor says that's not good enough, especially because the present day observed temperature trend over the past 100 years is about 1 deg; the same error described by your confidence interval.
So then you take more data and analyze it and find a mean of 0.9 deg (there we see that random error affecting the first measurement) with a standard deviation of 0.25 deg. Now we can say with something like 98% confidence (2 stdev's) that the change was between 0.4 and 1.4 degrees and your benefactor is happy.
Then some jerk from another university does a different study using tree growth rings (note: I don't think this method is actually useful for such long timescales, but we'll pretend it is for the discussion) and comes up with an 0.9 deg decrease with a standard deviation of 0.25 deg. What happened?
One of you is wrong. Somebody has a systemmatic error. You may not have read the ratio of O16 to O18 accurately. Or it may be that there was a greater difference between the temperature at the poles and the equator (note there are no trees at the poles and not much ice at the equator...these hypothetical methods can not be directly compared) in the past than at the present, and that caused the results of the two methods to differ. Perhaps your samples were tainted during handling. Etc.
Furthermore, none of that precludes Stephen Hawking building a time machine and sending back weather stations to a variety of locations in the past whic find the 20,000 year temperature trend to actually globally be 10 degree (Oh no we're screwed) or -10 degree (quick, burn more coal, it's an ice age!); showing that both methods have major systemmatic errors.
The OP had a legitimate question and I'm not exactly sure of the answer or how much dissenting data there is (I have seen some). However, I do know much more of the debate is over systemmatic error than random error. For example, when someone claims a study by Exxon is wrong, they are usually claiming a systemmatic error (intentional or accidental). I would say at least as much of the debate is not about errors, but the degree of human influence versus natural effects, which is why many people have brought up points like the receding polar ice caps on Mars over the last decade and the increase in solar activity over that past 100 years.
Do you understand the nature of knowledge, such that advanced concepts build upon earlier concepts which build upon basic concepts? What if some very basic assumption about our climate models is false?
For example, over a period of 100 years, a 0.05% error in something like cloud reflectivity could easily compound into the kind of calculated temperature rise presently being predicted.
FATMOUSE + YOU = FATMOUSE
Right, and things only get to be considered "basic concepts" because lots of people have double checked them, and seperately derived them, and challenged them. And if you can show that a "basic concept" is wrong, you get a Nobel prize. If you like, I'll give tyou five examples off the top of my head.
"For example, over a period of 100 years, a 0.05% error in something like cloud reflectivity could easily compound into the kind of calculated temperature rise presently being predicted."
The core argument here isn't a 0.05% error in an assumption. It's not a slight difference somebodies guess.
In the past hundred years, worldwide temperatures appear to have been increasing a thousand times faster than they have at any time previously.
I do not claim to have a scientific background. But what are the risks of doing nothing to prevent global warming. In a word - catastrophic. Even if we try to do something it might be too late to prevent seas rising anywhere from 20 to 40 feet, but we'd be damned stupid if we simply keep buying Hummers, Navigators, building McMansions big enough to house three Brady Bunch families when only 4 people are living in the house, et cetera, ad infinitum, now wouldn't we?
Even if you feel "An Inconvenient Truth" was just a clever movie, doesn't it make you think there might be a good reason to try and DO SOMETHING?
The clue store is still open, and if you hurry you can still buy one.
"Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair" - George Washington
Well, also note that in science the truth is the one thing that changes. In the 60's all dinosaurs were cold blooded and you were in danger of a lack of a career, or a passing grade if you suggested otherwise. By the end of the 80's it was then believed that dinosaurs which had long necks must be warm booded (because someone had the hutzpah to point out that a critter needs the high blood pressure only available to warm blooded creatures if they were to be capable of lifting their necks and for blood flow to reach the brain). Anyway, that aside, science is the process of testing and retesting hypotheses in an effort to find out how things work etc. That process indicates a necessity for the truth to keep changing. Personally, I'd like to see a whole lot more retesting than focssing on the new. That and forcing bleeding edge scientists to do an advanced degree in philosophy (or at least beat them with a common sense stick).
So, as there seems to be a whole lot of "new findings" flying around, I'd hazard a guess that they've come up with a whole bunch of observations and are tossing out a new truth with supporting hypotheses. Time will determine what happens to them. However, that shouldn't mean you should discount them, they may be right, and it would behove us to think about how to proceed.
There are two problems with this observation. I don't know if it's just a misreporting by the news media, but the warmest temperature in the past 12,000 years isn't that signficant when it dates from the end of the last ice age. Seems to me that you'd expect temperatures to climb over that time period and for now to be warmer than then.
The second problem is why they don't extend this result over the ice age itself? Surely if it's the warmest it's been in the past 12k years, then it's the warmest it's been since the last ice age started, right?
a) The graph and text speak of temperature variations in tenths of a degree. We must assume then that temperature measurements over the past century have always been of that accuracy or better. Further we must assume that the temperature readings from magnesium content in sediment are of a similar accuracy. Is that correct?
b) While time for the past century is easily ascertained, we must assume that the age of the sediment is also accurate. We must also assume that the relatively brief geological span of time (12,000 yrs) is representative of the entirety of Earth's climatic history. Like the stock market, a small snippet of the overall history is adequate to forecast both past and future behaviour. Is this correct?
Note:
i) It is, of course, a given that any anomolous temperature deviations are the result of human activity. No such deviations have ever occured without human intervention.
ii) It is also a given that we completely understand the Earth's atmospheric chemistry and climatic thermodynamics (e.g. heat capacity of the oceans). The latter is of course all the more impressive since we have explored so little of it. The former is revealed by the precise way in which we yearly predict the behaviour of the ozone hole, for example.
iii) Naturally, our grasp of climate dynamics is unquestioned. Witness the precision with which we predict intemperate yearly weather patterns such as hurricane frequency, average snowfalls, etc.
The astute realestate investor will purchase property up North. By carefully watching the creep of plant and insect species north (which we have presumably been doing for some time), it is possible to maximize profits by buying just in time for the arrival of the most alluring species while avoiding the nastier types.
The more astute reader will realise that taking a huge salt pill after reading the article will alleviate ulcerations due to the ingestion wild extrapolations, arrogance of assumptions, the hiding of variance and error, and foregone politically correct conclusions.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
GP: "No, I'm just so disillusioned by society that I don't think anything is done honestly anymore."
"I would have to agree with this....[slashdotters] completely believe a scientific report on a political issue like global climate change"
How can people be so ignorant about the line between science and politics. In case you have trouble I will spell it out...Science informs Policy. The science is sound and if people like the above two posters actually understood the difference between scientific findings and the (sometimes dishonest) action taken as a response to the findings they may see a reason for hope. However I doubt it, it is much simpler to throw your arms in the air and shout "you are all money hungry liars" or "I'm too stupid to understand".
"- and yes, these days, it is a political issue"
There is nothing new about this, take a look at the political and legal shitfight between Edison and the Gas companies in the early 1900 or Galileo and the Pope if you want something older. The reason that it is a "political issue" is because the conclusion that mankinds CO2 emmissions are causing the globe to rapidly warm is scientifically very strong (much stronger than the economic models used as justification for political inaction). Certain powerfull groups are looking down the barrel of significant change to their profitable status quo (fossil fuels on one side, insurance on the other), of course there will be political dishonesty, psuedo-science and FUD but how is any of that a reason for joe-public to ignore genuine findings?
Those who argue against the conclusion that anthropogenic climate warming is occuring at an unprecedented rate are either ignorant, intellectually lazy or belong in the same camp as the creationists. The reason I say that is because the science does not back them up, not one single paper in the last 10yrs has dipsputed the basic fact that we are warming the planet via our emmissions. And yes, what governments and corporations do or don't do about that conclusion is by definition political. There are still plenty of things science doesn't know about the climate, studying these things will make our understanding (and thus our predictions) stronger, burrying ones head in the sand crying "it's all too hard, I can't trust anyone" is a pathetic excuse for intellectual apathy.
Never has my sig seemed so appropriate.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
It doesn't matter what we do to the Earth. Jesus is coming for us all pretty son, and then human hisory will end, so nothing we do maters.
Ugh, scary, but some people really think this way. And they're all elected to the government right now.
You've got a friend in Japan: http://www.jlist.com
These are the same people who brought us "evolution". How can we ever trust them?
If you want an example of how funding actually works just look at a few years ago when the US government released a incomplete report saying that obiesty had over taken smoking as the leading cause, the report was later corrected. the people working on obeisty related research had a field day, they started lobbing for huge amounts of increased funding and people who kept saying that something was wrong with paper were knocked aside as freaks.
BTW thoses that speak out against the modification of the raw data used to prove global warming do not get rich, a few do from books and speeches same as there are people pushing global warming who are getting rich from movies, books and lecture. Most are just punished and ridiculed, just look at Seitz. If you want to see how scientist deal with people who challenge the thing "most scientists agree" with just look at Robin Warren and Barry Marsha and what they had to do to fight the thinking of most scientists and the funding they were getting.
The kid in American Beauty summed it up the best. "Never underestimate the power of denial".
People don't like feeling guilty about driving their cars on unnecessary journeys. They would rather live in denial than either changing their behaviour, or driving around in the full knowledge that they are personally contributing to the problem.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
It's natural to be afraid of changes but really, what difference changing climate does? Sit back and enjoy the show I say. On average, humans aren't going anywhere anyway and those selected few who are can take care of themselves. Really, can you see average human being doing much else with noticeable effect on the whole with their lives than multiplying?
Those who think we are something else than natural phenomenon are fooling themselves. Our population curve, use of resources and space shows no higher intelligence than what bacteria have.
"What happens if she's "motivated" to support certain drugs? Or my insurance company? What if she believes..."
Google the phrases "second opinion" and "hippocratic oath".
"So what if scientists, journalists or politicians are motivated by..."
Google the phrases "scientific method", "republic of science" and throw in "machivilian" for balance.
It may come as a surprise to you but you are not the first person on the planet to ask these questions and you certainly won't be the last. You are wasting everyones time here until you take some small steps to educate yourself on how others have dealt with the same dilemma. You can start with the phrases above and get back to us, maybe then you can post something that actually deserves an insightfull mod.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
RealClimate.org is an excellent source for busting the myths that appear with nauseating regularity in every climate related thread on slashdot.
RealClimate was started and is run by some of the best climate researchers on the planet, the study in TFA is by Hansen, yet another respected scientist that claims politicians have recently attempted to gag him.
The scientists predicted an ice age myth was made popular by a novel (ie: a work of fiction). A certain senator was so impressed with the novel that he intoduced the authour to a senate committee as an "expert on climate change" and asked him to advise them on the subject.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/19/the-smo ke-behind-the-deniers-fire-3/
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2006/09/19/the-smo ke-behind-the-deniers-fire-3/
The thing is... all the time I find someone that says "ho, climate change is not that bad, yada yada" they always refer to some thing the nefew of the aunt of the mother-in-law read somewhere.
And its good (even if it feels bad) to know that people know that a misinformation war is going on, we are lobbyed to believe we shouldnt do nothing about it!
I'm trying to get modded "Interesting Flamebait Informative and Insightful Redundant Troll" *-* Please Help *-*
I don't think the funding angle works. If a scientist publishes a bad paper and other scientists can not duplicate his results then his standing diminshes and his funding dries up.
What bad paper? I'm mainly talking that to actually give a "good" paper and not a "political" paper it would require long term 30-50 years of monitoring and then a big paper near the end of scientist's life. That we've been giving these guys funding since the 70s. I'd wait until 2020 or 2030 before making any long term decisions on this short term data collected. I'd actually believe that we know next to nothing about long term global/local climate data. Give them another 200-300 years and then we'll start scratching the surface.
On the other hand any scientist who writes a paper debunking global warming instantly becomes rich because the right wing and the corporations throw money at him like it's going out of business.
I'm not quite sure of that claim. I know that our US companies are too short sighted. We need a few companies that are looking at the long term. I'd honestly bet that most of them aren't pouring money into debuking global warming per se, but to refine what they really want to know. The corporates want to know if it'll really be as bad as religious "global warming" will end all the good first world civilizations on the planet crowd make it out to be. They really don't want that crowd making any rules or regulations that their industries have to follow. That's basic common sense right there.
I don't have stats but I bet right now there is more money in doing research that debunks global warming then research that supports it.
That's an "evil" statement right there. When I say "funding," I mean for more research doing the same long term monitoring. I don't mean that any given scientist is for or against global warming. I mean that we just need alot more long term data. The funding is just so the basics take place not for political reports.
Total midyear population, 1950-2050.
In the 1960s, global population growth was around 2%. Doubling every thirty years or so; very bad. However, the growth rate peaked at 2.19% in 1963, and has never been higher. It's been steadily decreasing, and it's now around 1.17%. (Doubling every sixty years.) The number of children actually born in a given year peaked in 1989, and has been decreasing since then.
This isn't to say that overpopulation is taking care of itself; these things happen because people fight to make birth control available and so forth. The trend can be encouraged or discouraged by public policy decisions. And, of course, there's no guarantee that ten billion people (the likely asymptote) will be living comfortably here.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Yes, the earth was once much warmer. New York City was underwater then. If you're not shilling for Voluntary Human Extinction, I'd expect you to have a bit of concern for how disastrous this would be for our civilization. (Which, personally, I'm kind of fond of.) Where does this ridiculously long view come from? It's like someone considered environmentalists looking fifty or a hundred years in the future and said, "oh yeah? well, in a hundred million years, it won't matter!".
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Small changes? Try getting the billions of people on planet earth to make those changes. Your small changes would only effect you. To make an effect on the entire earth and reverse a global trend takes big changes globally.
Why would 65 million years be a better time period? Our ancestors weren't humans 65 million years ago. I'm pretty sure they weren't even primates. And anyway, it's been considerably warmer than it was before the last ice age, but when it was, Manhattan was under water.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
GW -
just a quick note to let you know our plan to diminish (that means weaken) the influence of science and rationality (smarts) is working real good, at least judging from a sample of the more gullible segment of Slashdot (a site on the internets).
We've got people, at least the simpler ones, thinking they can dismiss any science they hear about as "having an agenda". This helps them avoid dealing with evidence contrary (agin') to their delusions (beliefs).
The faith-based era is just around the corner: hallelujah!
Love,
Karl
Clearly this is one time that the moniker fits your persona. Cowards like you need the anonymity of the Internet because if you ever spoke like this in public, you'd get your teeth kicked in, if not literally, than intellectually.
And what if you're wrong? Ever considered the possibility? Why do you have so much hate and bile for people who are concerned about the world? "Stuff crow down our throats with a plunger?" You are clearly some sort of psychopath. Be a man and sign your name to this, if you're so proud as to take a stand, plungerman.
If narrow minded twits like you had their way back in the day of the plague, you would have dismissed the "scientific" thinking of the day and resented the "government intrusion" that precluded you from dumping your pissbucket out your front window. Newsflash, jackass, this isn't Halley's comet, it's the air you breathe and the filter between you and solar radiation. If you can't bear to even consider the possibility of climate change in the face of mountains of scientific evidence, then at least do the world a favor and keep your vaporous angry ramblings up your ass.
The point is that changes will happen. These changes could include a massive die-off, which I think we can agree is an undesirable outcome.
But you're right; to avert these scenarios, global cooperation would be needed. Disparate nations would have to, over the bleating objections of industry, pass regulation for which the payoff would be the aversion of a long-term disaster. And as we all know, that sort of thing could never happen.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
When a scientist lies, they get about a year or two before they're caught. At which point they lose all standing among fellow scientists, get barred from all reputable journals, and often lose their university/institute jobs.
I'm not sure this is at all accurate. For studies in very popular areas that do not move into new ground, maybe you're right. If you publish bogus data in the area of global warming, likely someone will catch you. What happens after that, however is by no means certain. You might get appointed to a cushy job in the executive branch of our government.
Anecdotally, my girlfriend was a biochemist. She studied neuromuscular diseases, cancer, and a variety of other subjects relating to genetics. In the course of her employment on various projects at two very well respected universities and one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world, she was asked to lie or falsify data at almost every one. Much of the time this was simply use a methodology that was obviously designed to skew the results and then sign off on a paper that failed to mention the nonstandard methodology and implied a more normal one. In other cases it was, increase all these numbers by 10% to make it seem more dramatic.
She reported several instances of this to the project heads (who usually had no actual involvement in the projects other than signing them). The result was a lot more concern about the possibility of her telling anyone than about stopping the falsification. None of the scientists involved lost their jobs and none of the papers were redacted. This includes studies in some very prestigious journals. Eventually my girlfriend left the field entirely in disgust. They hired on a young chinese woman to replace her at her last job who, one former coworker noted, was quiet and submissive and needed a sponsor to stay in the country.
The problem with the scientific community in the US is that so much of it is influenced by a single organization, the US government. They collect disproportionately high taxes and then attach stings to it to influence research before giving it back. Those that lie to get supposedly spectacular results get more money. Those that don't, don't get more grants. Doing research without grants is nearly impossible.
That does not mean that all scientific studies are lies, but it does make me more skeptical than you seem to be. In this particular case, I'd say there has been enough studies from around the world and reproduction of results to warrant treating many of them as established facts. In other cases, however, I'm not nearly as certain.
Just a nitpick: how come he didn't use them to save his reign?
My book, podcast
If you compare the amount of funding by the US govt to the amount of funding by corporations, right wing thinktanks, and right wing foundations you will find that the US govt is lagging far behind.
If you want to debunk global warming you don't even need to do research. There are billions of dollars available to anybody who wants to say there is no such thing as global warming. Penn and Teller did an episode debunking it, Micheal Crighton wrote a book, there have been countless TV shows about it. You don't even need to be a scientist and the right wing will throw money at you.
Imagine if you were a scientists? I am sure Exxon would prefer to get a scientist on the air rather then John Stossel and they would be willing to pay big bucks for the privledge.
evil is as evil does
"Give them another 200-300 years and then we'll start scratching the surface"
Yea, that's a good idea. Do nothing for the next 200 or three hudred years.
"I'd honestly bet that most of them aren't pouring money into debuking global warming per se, but to refine what they really want to know."
Wow. I am shocked at your naivete. You are a rare breed my friend. Somebody who is convinced that corporations are out to get at the truth rather then chase the next quarters profits. How cute. I was going to say the world needs more people like but actually I don't so. Corporations need more people like you but the world could use less of you.
"The corporates want to know if it'll really be as bad as religious "global warming" will end all the good first world civilizations on the planet crowd make it out to be."
Capitalism and free markets are more of a religion then global warming will ever be. At least global warming is being subject to scientific process and peer review.
"They really don't want that crowd making any rules or regulations that their industries have to follow."
LOL. They don't want anybody to making any rules or regulations their industries have to follow.
"When I say "funding," I mean for more research doing the same long term monitoring. "
When I say funding I mean "getting money to write a paper". There are buckets of money waiting for any scientist who are ready to say global warming does not exist or that it's good for us or that nothing should be done about it.
I find it interesting that your crowd has run that course too. You guys went from "it doesn't exist" to "it's good for us" to "we can't do anything about it anyway".
"The funding is just so the basics take place not for political reports."
What are you like 10 years old or something? Everything a corporation does is political. They spend billions buying and selling politicians. They buy scientists and papers too. That's why there is so much money available for any scientist that wants to debunk global warming.
evil is as evil does
Being demoted doesn't do anything to the actual ball of rock. Besides, without the IAU, who will make Earth not a planet?
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
you'll still have a hard time moving all the crops over there. That's a fact that the "NEW GREEN BELT" people forget.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
"This person claimed that their decision making process was to assume all members of society were lying."
Quit putting your words in the parent poster's mouth. Those are your words not his. You have just failed the reading comprehension portion of the slashdot experience. The writer stated that he felt nothing is honestly done, not that everything done is a lie.
As this writer to whom you are replying pointed out.
"Nice attempt to paint his comment as like unto Epimenides' Paradox [wikipedia.org], but it fails in that "honesty" and "truthfulness" are not the same thing."
There exist a host of truths that are not lies but are very misleading.