Global Warming Exposes New Islands in the Arctic

circletimessquare writes "The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict. What were called Nunataks or 'lonely mountains' in Inuit, trapped in the ice, only a few years ago, are now in the open ocean by kilometers. Off of Greenland, what was known previously as peninsulas have been revealed to be islands as the ice retreats. Dennis Schmitt, a modern day explorer and discoverer of one of these new islands and fluent in Inuit, has named it Uunartoq Qeqertoq: the warming island."

Comments

Islands

[certel]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. The melting is definitely something we should be concerned about.

Re:Islands

[servo335]

They said global warming didn't exist! They said there was nothing to worry about! Lets see all these "experts" debunk this!

Re:Islands

[pkbarbiedoll]

See after denying global warming exists (because heathen liberals lie about everything) they will finally acquiesce and proudly proclaim that it won't matter anyway. Jesus is coming, repent! The End Is Nigh, save yourselves! Look at the melting icecaps we used to think were a figment of your imaginations, now they are melting and it's because endtimes prophecy is being fulfilled.

Re:Islands

[Anonymous Coward]

this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict

Then the models should be considered inaccurate.

Re:Islands

[p0tat03]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice.

The lost city of Ry'leh... Run everyone, C'thulhu is coming! AHHHHHHH!

Re:Islands

[omeomi]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. The melting is definitely something we should be concerned about

Hopefully that icy place that superman goes too.

Re:Islands

[IdleTime]

Well, we just declared independence from Greenland and the new country is called GWII (Global Warming Independent island) and I have installed myself as GWIIP!

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

Nobody I know denies that the planet has cooling and warming trends, and that we are probably in a warming trend, and even that mankind has had some kind of influence.

What we argue (not deny) is how much influence mankind has had, and we call bullshit on people who think the climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords.

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

Re:Islands

[pnewhook]

Ok, so we have new islands from globabl warming. That's great! Why not get the people that had to leave their homes because their island sunk, to move to these new islands? No problem!

Re:Islands

[LordEd]

It is certain death for the unfaithful. However, I for one welcome our new C'thulhu overlord.

Re:Islands

[LordEd]

The ultimate irony would be if oil was discovered on the Global Warming island.

Re:Islands

[fluffy99]

I wholeheartedly agree with you. The earth and sun have very long cycles that span eons and looking at a mere 100 years of semi-accurate data is very myopic. I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe. IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller. Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.

Re:Islands

[AoT]

The ozone hole has nothing to do with global warming and is getting smaller precisely because we took action to make it smaller. As for how much we influence the climate,you seem to lack any justification, besides your flawed ozone argument, for believing we have little influence on the climate.

All that said, yes, Kyoto is not going to deal with the problem. However, given that we have enough poeple, such as yourself, who refuse to acknowledge the extent of the climate change problem, I hardly expect that an international treaty which includes more strict emmission curtails will ever come into being.

Re:Islands

[ScottSCY]

As I just read The Weather Makers from Tim Flannery (very good book btw), I can answer this. No, the earth would not start cooling if we cut fossil fuels. The reason for this is CO2 stay in the atmosphere for upwards of 50 years. So, we really need to start cutting drastically now to avoid huge problems by 2050; there is really nothing we can do to change the course of the next 25 years or so as I understand it. It's pretty much a given that we'll see an increase of 2 to 5 degrees.

Re:Islands

[Daddy_was_a_donkey]

I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action. If we assume man has no effect and global warming is a natural phenomenon, what's so wrong with taking steps to (a) reduce pollution and (b) reduce dependency on fossil fuels?

(a) Pollution does f*cked up things quite apart from global warming. Remember those picture of forest in Germany and Sweden, algae blooms, "clean" rivers and streams etc etc, so what's wrong with trying to reduce it?

(b) Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing. Developing new tech and their associated industries, this is a good thing. What's the problem?

Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.

Re:Islands

[AoT]

The problem is that we only have them until the sea rises,then they drop back below the water line.

Re:Islands

[pixelpusher220]

Most experts agree that if we stopped burning every fossil fuel today, it would take *decades* before we saw any significant reversal of the current trends.

It's like opening a parachute, you don't stop going down when you open the chute, it only starts to slow your decent; you're still going down fast enough to kill yourself if you landed right after opening the chute.

Or another way, if you're riding a rocket straight up and the rocket stops burning, you're still going up pretty damn fast. Eventually you'll come back down, but not immediately. The problem is if you don't stop the burn soon enough you'll end up beyond the atmosphere.

So, do we keep riding the rocket that is the climate change? (most studies have shown massive shifts in very short time scales not seen before). Or do we do what we can to mitigate the issue? Whether it's man made or not, the earth is warming up faster than at any point in the recorded history we've been able to uncover.

I'd prefer to 'air' on the side of caution since we don't have another 'earth' should this one become problematic to live on.

Re:Islands

[smellsofbikes]

>I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action.

Easy: because they figure they stand to lose more than they gain by taking action: they either think it'll cost a lot (which it might) or that they won't be particularly affected by the result of no action.

I live in Colorado. I don't give two hoots about houses being designed for earthquake surviveability or tidal wave warning systems. Why should I pay for research into these areas? I'm in good health: why should I pay for surgery for someone who can't afford medical care? I'm young: why do I care about age discrimination? Same mindset.

Re:Islands

[greg_barton]

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

Related question: If you're in a boat on a river headed for the waterfalls, if you paddle away from the falls will it give you time to think? What if you paddle towards the falls?

Re:Islands

[rilister]

Why do people feel the need to be so "smart" about this? Why is it cool to use your half-formed scientific knowledge to criticise something you clearly know nothing about? The Ozone Hole connection is the screaming give away, but before that, what is this?

"we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe"
says who? you, according to what analysis of what data? Or is it just your opinion, based on the feeling that you like being counter to "the liberal agenda"? You see, the "rallying groups" might be wrong, but don't go taking the high ground without actually contributing knowledge or, you see, you are just like them.

I've *never* flamed anyone personally on Slashdot before (call me on it, please), but it's part of a wider symptom that's going to be a real problem for US. You and me and everyone we care about.

Listen, learn, read. Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it.

Re:Islands

[kabocox]

What we argue (not deny) is how much influence mankind has had, and we call bullshit on people who think the climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords.

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

Nope. You need to define your "we" better though. Is we the US or the entire human population? If it is the entire human population, there is no telling what effects stopping or removing massive human influence would have on our environment. If it was just the US population? Pretty much the same thing. The only way to "fix" this issue is for someone to build some nuclear plant and use the energy from that to mine carbon out of the atmosphere and make oil out of it. The more that I think about it the more that the whole hydrogen fuel economy that Wired and others have been feeding us lately misses the point. Oil works fine. All we need though is to figure out how to remove the massive quantities of carbon in the air and use that to make oil, diamonds, or any thing made out of carbon. We need to research into that sort of thing rather than thinking just reducing or stopping our carbon emmisions. Why stop them? We need someone our there that will mine that carbon and sell it to complete the cycle.

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

You make great points - I want to point out, however, that I didn't say we shouldn't do something to mitigate the problem. However, at best, that's all we'll do; we won't be able to get rid of it entirely, and even if we could magically eliminate all the co2 in the air produced by burning fossil fuels, the planet would still be warming.

As a response to your (a), yes - we've done a whole lot to clean things up and we shouldn't stop now. There are areas in the U.S. that were cesspools that have been cleaned up, but there's still a lot more, but you know what would be nicer? Death penalty for littering. The whole country would look a lot better. And once that starts happening, people might be encouraged to help in other ways. You think I'm being facetious (yes, I am), but bad neighborhoods only get better when they get cleaned up and people believe that it's not hopeless.

As far as (b) is concerned, that's why I'm FOR drilling ANWR and off the gulf coast, but also for wind farms off the coast of Mass. (sorry Ted Kennedy) and development of new fuels and alternatives. There's two parts to this - certainly new sources of power are a high priority, but if we're realistic we won't get them for decades. Viable Fusion would be nice. But until then we can cut our dependence on foreign fuels NOW by expanding drilling HERE. The amount of land that would be needed is a tiny, tiny fraction of our natural preserves. As opposed to a one time or fixed fees for drilling rights, the government ought to collect a tax on each barrel produced equal to the amount the barrel would cost on the open market minus production costs - that way the companies don't benefit financially (same cost to them, more or less, than the open market).

But the point is we need to attack on both fronts. There is evidence that there's as much oil in the midwestern U.S. than in all the middle east.

As far as saving forests... well, people are wrong when they say things like "these redwoods have been here for tens of thousands of years." We ought to preserve the land, maybe, but let nature take it's course - the dominant trees in most forests cycle every few hundred to thousand years. By going in and trying to preserve a status quo, we're NOT preserving nature, we're stopping it.

I mean, look at it this way - if there's a million square miles of some wildlife preserve, and you take 100 square miles to drill to cut dependence on foreign oil by 10%, isn't it worth it? And when we suck the land dry, or create long term viable solutions, we take all the equipment off the land and let nature do what nature does best - reclaim the land on it's own.

Re:Islands

[Tanktalus]

As a member of the "Man has [little] effect" crowd, I'd rather see everyone focus on issues that we actually have, rather than fabricating new ones.

As for reduction: I'm all for electric vehicles, nuclear/wind/solar power (though those wind-powered turbines are ugly, IMO), and I live in oil-rich Alberta. The best I can do, personally, is to get the best use of the gas I use: house was built in 2001 so it's pretty energy efficient already, and I just bought a hybrid vehicle (no EVs that I know of to purchase). Yes, it's an SUV, but I also need space to hold all that comes with having an infant (car seat, stroller, diaper bag, and still gotta carry the groceries or whatever we're going out for).

As for dependent on another country's resource: I think we're pretty self-sufficient on the oil here in Alberta ;-) However, you're right - there are other technologies that can and should replace this. Great. Let's look at them. Let's develop them. I like nuclear - too bad the eco-wackos prevent their very salvation. I'm kind of unsold on hydrogen, mostly because we need another technology to create the hydrogen. To me, it looks like the potential to become a large capacity battery - nothing more. We need the other energy source to create it. I'm afraid, however, that if we don't get another technology in place, we'll end up using more fossil fuel to create the hydrogen than we'll get back out of the hydrogen, which will make things worse rather than better. I get that it's like a stepping stone - but it's a risk to take that the next generation of energy creation will be here really soon thereafter.

Personally, I'm doing it to save $$ - on my energy bills and at the pump ;-)

Re:Islands

[Flwyd]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. So that's what happened to my Frisbee!

Re:Islands

[pete.com]

the government ought to collect a tax on each barrel produced equal to the amount the barrel would cost on the open market minus production costs - that way the companies don't benefit financially (same cost to them, more or less, than the open market).

Raising taxes on a product doesn't reduce the profitability to the company. It only increases the cost to the consumer.

Re:Islands

[otis wildflower]

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

No, but if we set off some hydrogen bombs in uninhabited areas (such as the Aussie outback or Siberia), we could kick enough dust into the upper atmosphere to block sunlight... Just be sure to pack your iodine pills!

Re:Islands

[polar red]

i think it just has to do with our inborn laziness... just too fr*cking lazy to shift the economy a small bit. Also watch out for comments about damage to the economy. companies who care for the environment (and i mean not some marketing-spin) are generally more performant, just by not wasting.

Re:Islands

[sholden]

Because they consider there to be better things to "spend" $300 billion a year on?

Re:Islands

[LaughingCoder]

Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about

While all of that may be true, it is also true that they (scientists) are being used as tools by people with political agendas (most certainly including those with an agenda to "bring America down"). I wish we really could remove all the geo-political crap around this issue and get to the bottom of it from a purely scientific perspective, but with all that is at stake (economically and politically) that is simply never going to happen. It's clear to me that *both sides* are guilty of twisting the facts and exaggerating the consequences of action/inaction. To make matters worse, most of the time when this topic is discussed it decays very quickly into name calling (like "smart-arses"), which certainly doesn't foster reasonable discussion. Just read the other posts on this thread to see what I mean.

PS. Sorry, but you *did* ask someone to call you on it.

Re:Islands

[AikonMGB]

Look, if it helps all the naysayers, claim you're being patriotic, claim that you want to wean your country off the petrochemical teat, claim that you want to save you glorious forests and lakes for "the kids". You don't have to say you're doing it because you've changed your mind about global warming, you just have to do it.

That's like giving in and saying "I love really thin pancakes!" When you get down to it, you're still talking about crepes.

Aikon-

Re:Islands

[letxa2000]

Listen, learn, read. Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it.

It's not the science that some of us have problems with; it's the people that can't figure out if they want to be scientists or policy makers, and the groups that hijack science for political reasons. As soon as policy people (politicians, PACs, etc.) wrap their policy up in politically expedient science while ignoring other science that doesn't help (and even pretending it doesn't exist and that only oil-industry apologists believe in), I start getting not only suspicious about the specific science being used but about the intentions of those that are (mis)using the science.

Re:Islands

[letxa2000]

I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action. If we assume man has no effect and global warming is a natural phenomenon, what's so wrong with taking steps to (a) reduce pollution and (b) reduce dependency on fossil fuels?

Because:

a. If human-induced global warming is not correct, CO2 can hardly be classified as a pollutant.

b. We should reduce dependency on foreign energy, period. But that should be done on the political, security, and economic merits and not accomplished by some environmental excuse used to deceive the people.

Re:Islands

[ednopantz]

>I don't get why the "man has no effect" crowd are so vehemently against taking any action.

Or because "taking action" is hugely expensive, not effective, and diverts resources from real here and now problems. Just look where global warming lies on the Copenhagen Consensus project's to do list: dead last. No matter what happens, internal combustion engines are on their way out. Why burn enormous political and economic capital kicking them to the curb 10 years earlier to cut global temperatures by .005 degrees?

GW has the advantages of fueling into peoples apocalyptic fantasies while blaming fat SUV driving red-staters for all the world's problems. That's why the Guardian and BBC both run a "the sky is falling" article every single day. They love this stuff.

Re:Islands

[greengrocer]

I've taken that "world's shortest political quiz" and most seem to rate as Libertarians on it.

Libertarianism is about reason, isn't it? As a reasoned man/graphics guy, you must be aware that the way we pose a question affects how it will be answered. The way we pose a question often reflects our stance on an issue, as well. Reason, though, would not have us ask the question you phrase, but perhaps would have us ask "Is humanity contributing to this effect and would this (arguably) natural transition slow (to give humanity more time to prepare for it's consequences), stop, or reverse course if "we stopped emitting [sic] burning fossil fuels entirely."

It's my understanding that humanity has contributed significantly to CO2 concentration in the atmosphere over the last 150 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ 400kyr-2.png

I think a better question than your suggested is also, "Are we contributing to global warming and do we want to continue to do so?"

Re:Islands

[letxa2000]

I like nuclear - too bad the eco-wackos prevent their very salvation. I'm kind of unsold on hydrogen, mostly because we need another technology to create the hydrogen.

You're right in both cases. And the technology we need to create hydrogen is nuclear. To heck with the eco-wackos, we can "save the environment" with nuclear energy even if the eco-wackos fight against saving the environment the whole way. :)

Personally, I'm doing it to save $$ - on my energy bills and at the pump ;-)

And that's ultimately how/why everything in this world happens. Government cannot institute cost-ineffective technology before it's ready; and when the technology is ready, it'll be adopted even without government insistence.

Re:Islands

[div_2n]

a. If human-induced global warming is not correct, CO2 can hardly be classified as a pollutant.

Hmmmm. You should have been there to instruct the Apollo 13 crew they had nothing to worry about with CO2 poisoning then. You could have saved them a lot of time and worry.

Re:Islands

[Pentagram]

I can only assume this is a troll. Surely no one could possibly be this ignorant by accident. Still, debunking your comment might provide minor entertainment:

The earth and sun have very long cycles that span eons and looking at a mere 100 years of semi-accurate data is very myopic.

Try hundreds of thousands of years.

I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe.

How about the scientists?

IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller.

The situation with the hole in the ozone layer is improving because we took note of what the scientists were saying and reduced our release of CFCs. And this does of course have absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.

Every nation of note except the USA and Australia signed and ratified it.

Re:Islands

[MoronBob]

We have record low temps here in Utah right now. If this global warming keeps up I am not sure I can afford to heat my house.

Re:Islands

[pnewhook]

The problem is that we only have them until the sea rises,then they drop back below the water line.

Except the Arctic sea levels, where the new islands are, are actually dropping: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322. stm

Re:Islands

[catchblue22]

They should care, because climate instability caused by climate change could have a significant impact on their food supplies. Farmers rely on having a stable climate. If it suddenly starts raining too hard during their peak growing season, then crops will be lost. If the rain doesn't come at the right time, then crops will be lost. If the glaciers that feed the major rivers shrink, then the river flows will decrease during the warm/dry season, decreasing the supply of irrigation water during exactly the time when it is most needed, thus causing crops to be lost. A worldwide reduction in food supplies by even 10% would have serious impacts on civilization.

Re:Islands

[japhmi]

if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords.
I always like pointing out that Clintion signed the Kyoto Accords, but the Senate rejected it unanimously. Bush just simply revoked the signiture of a treaty that had no force in the US anyway.

Re:Islands

[Serengeti]

Except the crepes are good for you.

Re:Islands

[georgewad]

Do you have children? Grand children?

Re:Islands

[General Fault]

All of this "did we do it" type mentality makes me think of someone sleeping in a burning house. They wake up, smell smoke, and decide that they did not start a fire and go back to sleep... and die. Does it matter one way or another whether or not we are the cause for massive global climate change? If the earth is going to change in such a way that will cause mass loss of property and life, perhaps we should start trying to fix or prepare for it. Bush may not have saved us by signing the Kyoto Accords, and he may not have condemned us by not signing them, but as the rivers of suffering masses traveling across parched barren land driven from their now underwater homes, dropping dead along the way like flies, as those of us remaining have no energy or food, as the economy as you know it winks out, and the remaining nations war over the last scraps of natural resources, Bush will not be remembered nicely. Many of us greatly dislike him already.

Re:Islands

[radtea]

What we argue (not deny) is how much influence mankind has had, and we call bullshit on people who think the climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords.

So if I understand you correctly, you are claiming three things:

1) Human beings may or may not have had an influence on the Earth's climate in the past few hundred years.

2) There exist people who claim that the Earth's climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords (which is a very weird way to put it, since as I recall the support for ratification in the U.S. Senate was pretty much zero, taking it out of the President's hands.)

3) You disagree with the people described in point 2, who do not, in fact, exist.

Now, since you are clearly comfortable believing things that are contrary to known fact, why are you holding claims about global climate change to a higher standard than your ridiculous belief that there exist people who claim that the Earth's climate would be significantly different today if Bush had ignored the Senate and the constitution (hey, it wouldn't be the first time) and ratified the Kyoto Treaty?

The public debate on climate change does have a number of looney doomsayers. But for the most part scientists are pretty levelheaded about what the models say. And no one at all believes that Kyoto will have a prompt effect on the Earth's climate.

In fact, the only people I see making extravagant claims about climate disaster are people who say they do not believe in global climate change, and they always attribute those extravagant claims to un-named opponents, or they present the most extreme output of older models as if those were the results that the original modelers claimed were most probable, which is always false.

You know you're well on your way to winning a public debate when all your opponents can do is lie about what your own position is. It means that they have nothing at all left to say for themselves. They have nothing to say about the data, nothing to say about the models, no substantive critique at all.

It's rather sad, really.

Re:Islands

[DarkDaimon]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. Maybe they will find James Arness!

Re:Islands

[IceD'Bear]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. Atlantis!

Re:Islands

[AArmadillo]

Why?

- It devotes resources to fighting a strawman. Many of the "man has no effect" crowd still believe that global warming is happening, and even possibly could be due to CO2 emissions. However, the only evidence of such is correlative, the same kind of evidence used to show that carry/conceal laws reduce violence or the rise of secularism leads to moral decay like school shootings. If global warming is really caused by increased solar output or the natural flow of climate change, resources need to be dedicated to mitigating these risks instead of an all-out war against a strawman.
- It assumes that alternative energy sources are environmentally better. Nuclear is great, but still carries the risk of meltdown (almost nil with modern reactor technologies), the problem of waste, and the security risk of the reactor or its materials being used by enemies in an attack. Hydro is clean, but absolutely rapes the upstream and particularly downstream river ecosystems where it is placed. Wind is clean but unreliable, and also has a yet poorly understood effect on the planet's natural energy transfer.
- It assumes that the as of yet poorly understood effects of global warming are worth drastic costs or lifestyle changes. Even rabid environmentalists are loathe to change their lifestyle in anything but a token fashion to reduce energy usage.

I am all for reducing our impact on the environment. I drove a grand total of 400 miles last year (yes, that's 4 and two 0's, or less than two tanks of gas). My electric bill is under $60/mo even in the dead of winter when I use heat. I am all for investing sensibly in alternative energy sources and environmental research. What I am not for is putting all of the eggs in one basket for a sensationalized, polarized, poorly understood response to something we have not even confirmed is the enemy.

Re:Islands

[waif69]

They will adapt as our ancestors have before and our descendants will continue to do.

Re:Islands

[Original Replica]

"There will be no serious consequences in my life-time. "

Comments like this really make me look forward to when DisneyWorld is underwater. Unfortunately that requires that Calcutta will also be below the new sea level.

Re:Islands

[EnderWiggnz]

and where id you get this bit of insite? Ayn Rand?

Re:Islands

[coleridge78]

You fail econ. No offense. Most people do.

A smart, efficient business (which big oil certainly is) is already charging more or less the max the market will profitably bear at any given moment. They can spike prices for a few weeks during the peak summer season, or when there's some "catastrophe" in the news, because people say, "Damn, this sucks, but I know why it's going up"--because they think they *do* know, even though of course it's just profiteering. In this way they slowly raise the acceptable "steady state", with a spike and then a partial rollback.

But if there's no particularly apparent reason for it to be going up, and it keeps going up, behavior changes will be much more forthcoming because people will feel like it's a ripoff (supply and demand, in the end, is nothing but a study of human psychology--never forget this fact, people who do talk about the invisible hand endlessly and almost always get it wrong, and are usually libertarians). Most people can easily carpool or take public transport, and would start doing so if there were a sustained price increase without a good justification in the mass media.

Moral of the story is, tax on a company has comparitively little impact on the price of a product, and people who tell you it does need to go back to school.

Re:Islands

[fermion]

Taking action is hugely expensive to certain parties, and hugely profitable to others. Resources are always going to be limited, and the challange is to have a balance between current and future needs.

What we see in the global warming debate, in particular fossil fuels, is the creation of present profit at the expense of future wealth. Take the internal combustion engine. As has been shown, by the increase in the Toyota market share, innovation in this area with an eye toward elminating the need for them is hugely profitable. OTOH, companies like Ford, Chrysler, and GM are increasinly losing market share. The prevailing wisdom was that Americans wanted huge cars, and supplying these huge cars would generate huge profits and protect market share. The wisdom of that philosophy, just as the wisdom of the similar philosophy i the 70's, has been well demonstrated. So, America is losing market share because innovation seems hugely expensive. Can you imagine what might have happened if the Pilot were introduced as a hybrid, if Ford would have diverted some of those huge profits in research projects instead of the the huge bonuses?

The US has a lot of technology, and we as a country can regain out status by application of that technology to domestic projects instead of stifling progress because it will make a few people slightly less rich, possibly forcing them to fire a few domestics. We can either apply the technology to advance our manufacturing process, or sit helplessly while out economy becomes dependent on income from mercenary activities.

Re:Islands

[WED Fan]

Anyone who thinks the Kyoto accords were only about reducing greenhouse emissions needs to really look into the politics behind it. Most of the nations that signed it didn't have significant emissions to begin with.

Kyoto were as much to do about limiting industrial capitalism as they were about the environment.

The loons on the far side of this discussion don't want middle ground, or alternative views expressed. To them, this is fact, no theory. They recast opposing arguments into the most extreme, and then reattribute them. A lie told long enough...

Global warming, climate change, etc. is happening. The causes are up for debate.

This sentence gets recast by the loons as: "There is no global warming. And I'm going to keep driving my SUV."

Fast swings in climate have happened in the past. Mini ice ages have occured.

Can we live cleaner? Yes. Can we, and should we, cut back on emmissions? Yes. Will this slow climate change? Thats the question and the problem. There are those who are seriously concerned, there are those who have spotted an issue to divide to attain some other socio-political agenda, and there are those who have other motives. But, none of them will be around to see the results if we all enact Kyoto personnally. They count on the immediacy of current weather and short public attention spans to cement their ideas and create histeria.

Meanwhile, all the energy and voter good-will that could be used to cure human contolable ills, gets spent by the Sky-is-Falling crowd.

If we use that energy to educate, feed, medically treat the world's poor and disadvantaged populations. They will rise in living standard, contribute more, live cleaner locally, thus improve their living standard, contibute more...you get the picture. Or, we can spend a lot of limited voter energy and good-will on issues they can't control. It's a limited resource and we are squandering it, and the pooor and needy in the world are paying the cost.

Re:Islands

[CryBaby]

Asking if the earth would begin cooling "right now" if we stopped burning fossil fuels is an irrelevant question. First, burning fossil fuels is only one of many human activities that contribute to a greenhouse effect. We contribute to both sides of the problem by emitting greenhouse gasses while reducing the Earth's ability to absorb them. Second, an agreement to significantly reduce our emissions *signed today* would take at least a decade or two to really kick in. Maybe a decade or two after that we could see the climate reacting to the reduction. So, since you brought it up, yes, the Bush administration has indeed wasted valuable time by not pursuing any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.

I call bullshit on people who can't understand cause and effect in cycles of more than a few years and who try to apply overly simplified logic to a complex system with lots of variables and feedback mechanisms (i.e. the atmosphere and its climate).

Re:Islands

[BitHive]

This is the centrist fallacy in action. "Well, both sides have lied (or have been wrong on some points) so the truth must be somewhere in the middle." Except, you take it one step further and cast doubt on the efficacy of the pursuit of clarity. You use the fact that the issue is political to write people off as "tools" and despair of ever having access to unbiased truth, when it is in fact staring you in the face. Like with any issue, insight is gained through the critical examination of the claims presented, and the merits on which they attempt to be relevant. Inventing an unknown median state of "truthiness" based on some notion of intellectual responsibility to maintain doubt and respect "both sides" is simply avoiding the responsibility to actually think critically altogether.

This is the same thing that bugs me about "South Park Republicans", whose basic M.O. is to ridicule both parties for the worst behavior of their respective adherents, and then pat themselves on the back for reaching some kind of moral compromise.

Re:Islands

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this for casting aside "geo-political crap":

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 2/1686

That's 928 peer-reviewed papers, zero dissent - and the agreement of every major scientific body in the country.

The fact is, there is ZERO debate in the scientific community. In other words, questioning the reality of global warming is political crap. Supporting it is not. There are always people on both sides of an issue who are unreasonable, but this one is shockingly one-sided.

So who should we believe, the thousands of scientists who all agree, or the 50% or so of politicians and bullshit artists who say there is a doubt? Just because a politician can make an intuitive argument doesn't mean there is any truth to it - just that maybe he was on the debate team.

Seriously, of course most of the general public will never be able to tell the difference, because we aren't all climatologists... but do we really believe POLITICIANS more than SCIENTISTS, even when thousands of scientists all agree???

Re:Islands

[inca34]

Yes but adapting now is better for many reasons. For instance, zero waste manufacturing is more profitable than its peers that rely on dumping. For example, look at Honda and Toyota. At Honda R&D in the states they have rice fields. Why? So they can ship something back to Japan in all those shipping containers that brought cars over to the U.S. and recover money doing it. Toyota has streamlined and nearly perfected the Just In Time Manufacturing/Lean Manufacturing processes. Look at where they are now. No rational person could possibly bet against Toyota or Honda right now.

Wouldn't it suck to learn years later that we could have prevented the destruction of our home planet if only we had tried? It's not hard... we just have to try. And instead of having the bean counters decide everything, why not have a few engineers look at the waste problem. Yeah, I know, I'd rather watch American Idol and eat bonbons until I explode, too. It's a shame really. The neo-cons are really destroying everything that has made America great. Maybe the Information Age(tm) will come to the rescue, though I'm not holding my breath.

Re:Islands

[Columcille]

Why do people feel the need to be so "smart" about this? Why is it cool to use your half-formed scientific knowledge to criticise something you clearly know nothing about?

You mean like the vast majority of people on both sides of the debate, most slashdotters included?

Re:Islands

[CryBaby]

I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe.

Give me a break. Who are these "political rallying groups" to whom you refer? Greenpeace? Yeah, they have a really horrible track record of disinformation campaigns and so much political influence -- wait, that description does fit the oil companies who recently set an advertisting spending record in California to defeat our clean energy initiative. Curiously, their message on this issue is exactly what you're saying now. "Don't worry about it. There are natural explanations. The scientists only have theories. No consensus, blah blah."

Unfortunately for them, if you talk to an actual scientist or acedemic who works in this area, they will tell you that a consensus has existed for quite some time now that human contribution to global climate change is *significant*. What's of course unknown is the exact degree of significance. It could be so significant that it's now too late because we have already kicked off a feedback loop that will make this planet uninhabitable within a few decades. Does that sound extreme? It's no more extreme than the ridiculously optimistic, counterintuitive and totally unsubstantiated claim that the hundreds of millions of metric tons of pollutants we pump into the atmosphere every year have little to no effect.

IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller.

I know others have already beaten you up over this, but it bears repeating. The ozone hole is getting smaller because we *listened* to the scientists who told us it was our CFCs that were causing the problem. There was then a worldwide effort to reduce or eliminate them and, guess what? When we stopped emitting this substance, it stopped the damage to the ozone layer. The ozone/CFC issue is a supporting argument *for* the reduction of man-made pollutants within the framework of something like the Kyoto accords -- not against it. In fact, how can you live in this world, with an internet connection, and not know that? The history of the ozone hole, how it came to be and why it is now getting smaller is not a mystery or up for debate. It's not exactly simple, but there is a clear cause and effect -- just like we're now being told by the vast majority of scientists that there is a clear cause and effect relationship between man-made pollution and dangerously rapid climate change.

Re:Islands

[David_Shultz]

See after denying global warming exists (because heathen liberals lie about everything) they will finally acquiesce and proudly proclaim that it won't matter anyway. Jesus is coming, repent! The End Is Nigh, save yourselves! Look at the melting icecaps we used to think were a figment of your imaginations, now they are melting and it's because endtimes prophecy is being fulfilled.

Why was this comment modded flamebait? I thought it was an insightful and important post. Half the American population (45%) believes jesus is coming within their lifetimes. Furthermore, they believe A)this will be the best thing that could happen to them, and B) many of them believe, because it says so in the bible, that the end will eb accompanied by a warming of the earth. Given this, why should we expect them to care a whit about global warming? global warming is gods will, and furthermore it is a signal of the final (glorious) chapter in a prophecy laid down by god.

I think it is easy for slashdot users to look at a post such as the one quoted above and declare "thats flamebait -it was only intended to annoy people", because most of them are incapable of understanding where the christian nuts in the US are coming from -their views are so ridiculous that it is hard to fathom that they actualy believe what they say they do -but they do! And furthermore, so does George Bush, who sees himself as a warrior for God, appointed by divine prophecy.

Wake up and smell the coffee slashdot users. Christian beliefs are a big problem. How can you expect someone to do anything about the end of the world when, not only do they not care, they think it would be a good thing, and a fulfillment of their prophecy. This is a self-fullfilling prophecy of the worst kind imaginable.

Re:Islands

[OriginalArlen]

I live in Colorado. I don't give two hoots about houses being designed for earthquake surviveability I realise I'm taking that out of context, and you're not advocating this PoV. However, just for the saying of it: there's more reason to care about earthquake resistant buildings on the west coast than simple ethics of caring about human suffering. If California'd been flattened by the Lomo Prieta earthquake of 89, as it would have been without those building codes, how different would the world look today? Hint: technology.

Re:Islands

[smashin2345]

Why did the treaty simply allow China to be exempted from the said treaty? Seems to me the treaty was flawed more in how it was put together then anything. Make a fair treaty and I am sure you will get more signers. As for blaming the US/australia for it not going forward, that is simply ignorant. Every party could have worked to make the treaty fair and more sound for the world, but they stopped at fairness and simply said that the US should do the MOST work to improve the environment without looking at the facts that China will greatly outstrip the US in pollution, and yet just to get them to sign it we should exempt them. Why not just exempt the US/Aust, and there ya go. A treaty everyone would have signed.

Re:Islands

[vertinox]

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

No, but if we put a few nuclear bombs in an active volcano I bet it would.

You may laugh, but besides the fallout it would really work for a short period of time.

Volcanoes are the #1 reason for times of Earth's cooling.

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

I think, maybe, "tax" was the wrong word. The oil I'm referring to belongs to the people of the United States of America. I'm generally against socialism, but in this case the revenue generated from the oil owned by the American people should go to Americans - schools, healthcare, etc.

So how much do you charge Exxon for pumping a barrel of U.S. owned oil out of the ground? So the going price of oil on the open market is $X, and the amount it cost Exxon to extract that oil themselves is $Y.

My suggestion is that Exxon pay the U.S. citizens $X - $Y for the oil. That way no one can complain that Exxon is benefitting from drilling our wildlife preserves. If we charge less, then people will accuse the government of colluding with "big oil" to destroy our planet for the sake of profits. If we charge more, then Exxon will by oil on the open market, and not produce it locally. The goal is to diminish, or eliminate, the dependence on foreign oil.

That being the case, the money the U.S. people earned can be disbursed through funding of schools and healthcare, therefore LOWERING the burden on the American workers. Citizens of Alaska, for example, it's my understanding they get a stipend from the oil pumped there because the rationale is that it's their oil.

So let's call it a "fee" for goods instead of a tax. It's not meant to reduce the profit of a company, it's meant to keep it neuteral.

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

I'm not sure I agree. For example, the Kyoto accords aim to reduce greenhouse gasses by... what? 10%? That's like closing a heart surgery with a bandaid.

We could stop driving cars altoghether; even shut down every fossil burning powerplant. People themselves create carbon dioxide. The cattle we use to feed ourselves produces even more than we do. The population of the world keeps increasing, and so will the problem.

So I don't have to ask if humanity is contributing - I know we are, but my question is can we do anything about it, or are our efforts better spent on preparing for it?

Re:Islands

[pete.com]

I know in my business as my cost of doing business goes up, I just eat that increase and continue selling my services and products for the same amount. I just happily hand over more of my profit to the government in the form of the new tax. I wouldn't want to pass that along to my customers... maybe if I only eat 4 times a week my reduced cash flow will last as long as it did..... Corporations don't pay taxes, consumers do.

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

No - nowhere in my post did I say we ought not do anything.

Re:Islands

[General Fault]

So are you suggesting a new set of accords with more teeth and higher goals? If so, I whole heartedly agree. If not, your assumption that because it cannot be done perfectly and completely, it should not be done at all. It's somewhat like saying that if we cannot save everyone on earth from the effects of cancer; don't bother trying to treating this one patient. Brilliant. I am glad that scientists (and doctors) don't see it this way. By the way, how far did those nations that you mention miss their goals by? Did any of them make progress toward reducing emissions (the real goal of the accords)?

Re:Islands

[ReTay]

"All that said, yes, Kyoto is not going to deal with the problem. However, given that we have enough poeple, such as yourself, who refuse to acknowledge the extent of the climate change problem, I hardly expect that an international treaty which includes more strict emmission curtails will ever come into being"

Ok I am going to wade in here.
The latest tactic I have seen is people pretending that all discussion is over on this issue.
It is not even close to an agreement. Now climate change is a fact anyone that looks at the facts of the matter will agree that the climate swings even radically at times. The example I like to use to illustrate this is the T-Rex. Show of hands from the people that believe that the T-Rex was stomping around in snow?
Right it sucks to be cold blooded. I *think* most paleontologists agree they lived in a tropical climate.
The first response I hear is usually that the continents are drifting and the T-Rex existed when Montana and South Dakota were far further south. I would invite you to go to UCLA Berkley's quick time movie showing the drift of the continents over the last 750 million years. It shows the position of North America 65 Million years ago. It was at the roughly the same latitude as it is now but further east from its current position.
So unless you think that the Dinosaurs lived in snow you can not logically state that the climate does not change all the time and can change wildly. Then the entire matter comes down to how much effect if any man is having on the climate.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/geology/anim1.html

Re:Islands

[Maltheus]

Why would anyone want to be so dependant on another countries resource? The oil is finite, it's going to run out, this is a bad thing.

Because when people are dependent on something, it requires almost no effort to exploit them. Almost everyone in power has some connection to oil. Why would they want it replaced when there's no guarantee that they can control the new technology? Nobody gives up power voluntarily and people just have to realize we will only move to an alternative just before we run out of oil and not one second sooner.

Re:Islands

[lysergic.acid]

it's 'cause the man-has-no-effect camp are otherwise known as "assholes". they're the same people that after being cornered with facts and reason simply retort "well, i don't care because it won't effect me in my lifetime."

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

1) Human beings may or may not have had an influence on the Earth's climate in the past few hundred years.

Uh, no. I think I clearly said we have, or at least was asking "how much." I think by asking "how much" I clearly accept the fact that we have.

2) There exist people who claim that the Earth's climate would, right now, be different if only Bush had signed the Kyoto Accords

Yes, very many leftists blame Katrina on right wingers, especially Bush (taking the blame even if he had no choice). Perhaps they don't phrase it that way, but here's a few choice ones:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: As Hurricane Katrina dismantles Mississippi's Gulf Coast, it's worth recalling the central role that Mississippi Governor Haley Barbour played in derailing the Kyoto Protocol and kiboshing President Bush's iron-clad campaign promise to regulate CO2.

Now, you can argue he didn't come out and say it, but he certainly is relating Kyoto with Katrina.

From here: German Minister Links Katrina to Global Warming, Bush Policies.

How about this one: "Katrina's Real Name is Global Warming", with this choice quote: "In 2001, the Bush administration announced it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol that has been signed by 120 countries."

Again, why does the author include this in the article if it's not his sentiment that Kyoto and Katrina are related?

And here: "In Australia, the Greens party said Katrina was aggravated by climate change and criticised Bush for pulling out of Kyoto."

Again, the association goes Katrina as a result of global warming as a result of Bush not signing Kyoto.

The implication is clear.

Re:Islands

[i_finally_got_an_acc]

Sir, I wish I could mod you up to 11.

Re:Islands

[NoOneInParticular]

The treaty was surely flawed, but what the US and Australia should have recognized was that this was but a first step into a long march to get these emissions under control. China was exempt, not because it's not polluting, but simply because it's developing. You cannot demand from a developing nation whose people don't even have a tenth of the wealth of a developed nation to seriously cull their development on the vague promise that we will also do our bit. We are the major cause of it now, China will be the cause later.

What should have been done is the first world taking the major initial hit. That's what Kyoto was about. We're wealthy, we have a strong economy, we caused most of it, and we can take the hit. After taking the first step and thus achieving a global consensus about working towards the goal, the thumbscrews can be set to China to reduce emissions. Fail to cooperate? Emission tax on export. If we're setting the standards, we can start demanding nations to follow.

Unfortunately, the US and Australia decided that even that first step was too much, claiming it was unfair. The obese bully getting less chocolate than his starving sister, it's no fair!

Now we're up shit creek, simply because the most powerful nation refused to even take the first token step towards combatting a global problem. No global cooperation can be formed now, simply because of the inaction of the once benevolent giant. They're the biggest problem now.

Re:Islands

[SaDan]

Here's all I needed to know from that link:

Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Now, tell me how human activity is modifying our climate change from normal conditions.

While they speculate that humans have had an impact on the climate, no where in the article does it state that humans are the cause, or even the major contributor, to the increase in greenhouse gasses.

This article only states that 928 scientists think the increase in greehouse gasses are to blame for climate change. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Islands

[NoOneInParticular]

We've already got some pretty good solar energy powered devices that are capable of mining carbon out of the atmosphere and creating oil out of it. They're generally referred to as algae. Works fine, much better than that highly subsidized device called corn.

Re:Islands

[letxa2000]

If you don't see the difference between the two, it's not worth discussing with you.

Re:Islands

[dbIII]

Half the American population (45%) believes jesus is coming within their lifetimes.

Are there really 150 million followers of a radical anti-intellectual split off from the Christian Church that hates their neighbours, ARE the merchants in the temple and still call themselves "conservative"? I don't think so - that's as silly as having a Republican King.

Re:Islands

[dbIII]

Every nation of note except the USA and Australia signed and ratified it.

And Australia supported it until after our leader went to Washington and met George Bush.

Re:Islands

[Max Littlemore]

...that's as silly as having a Republican King.

Shhhhh! George may be reading! Hang on, reading? Right you are, please continue....

Re:Islands

[fluffy99]

There is one big issue with claiming that reduced CFC emissions are responsible for the increasing levels of O3 in the upper stratosphere. The global levels are continuing to drop. Since 1967, the estimated total worldwide reduction in O3 in the upper stratosphere is approximately 2%. This very slow trend has not changed. The notion of the "ozone hole getting smaller" is that that local areas of lower concentrations are not as severe or large.

The "ozone hole" is an area with lower concentrations above the antarctic region. It is this area that scientists have noted a 60-70% lower than average concentration during certain times of the year. The entire "ozone layer" (another misnomer) undergoes yearly cycles but thin spots seem to have bigger swings. Since the O3 concentrations have an observable short duration cycle, it is certainly reasonable to assume that it may also be subject to longer term cycles. Our ozone data at best stretches back 50 years.

It's also quite possible that the local and global ozone concentrations are being affected by increased solar activity. After all, ozone is primarily produced by solar activity which happens to be on the upswing.

As for the Kyoto treaty, people are very naive if they think there were no politics involved. Less industrialized nations are very eager to put limits on the US industry because is helps close the technology gap. You'd certainly sign a treaty if it put a bigger handicap on your competitors right? Even better if you can sell emissions credits. I don't disagree that lowering greenhouse emissions is a good thing. I just think the affect of man-made greenhouse gases is overstated and highly politicized. Naturally, oil industry fed politicians in the US fought this tooth and nail. The reality is that the treaty called for a meager 5.2% reduction in industrially produced CO2 world-wide.

I'm skeptical of both sides and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not the doom-gloom that environmental groups preach, or the rosy-nothing-is-wrong view espoused by our current administration. I believe man is having some measurable effect, but not the dominating cause for out climate change. Efforts to address our pollution are needed, but need to have their priorities and funding handled with a clearer view of the problem.

Re:Islands

[fluffy99]

"Scientists are not out to bring America down, or trying to stop us having fun in cool cars. They're totally regular people whose only crime is knowing about the frickin topic they're talking about, and smart-arses like you seem to hate them for it." Actually I do know a little bit about the topic, and the intelligence of my buttocks is irrelevant. You seem to be lumping me in with 90% of the population who thinks we have an "ozone hole" in our "ozone layer". Both of those are mass-media terms because it's more scary than saying localized reductions in upper stratospheric ozone concentrations. Having some experience in scientific and medical research arenas, I know pure research is driven by funding. Scientist either live off grants or work under colleges or businesses with a public image to defend. Publishing or saying anything contrary to the prevailing opinion is bad for your career. Most studies funded via grants are expected to getting a specific range of answer. I'm not saying that scientists are biased (although some are), but rather the research is towards other explanations is simply not being funded.

Re:Islands

[dpuu]

IIRC, the senate vote pertained to instructions to the US negotiators: it instructed them, amongst other things, not to come back with an agreement that didn't limit the emissions China and India. Sure, the negotiators came back with a treaty the didn't abide by all the instructions (treaties never do: the public instructions are a negotiating position): but no vote was ever taken on the result of the negotiations.

Re:Islands

[nathanh]

By the way, how far did those nations that you mention miss their goals by? Did any of them make progress toward reducing emissions (the real goal of the accords)?

Don't worry, he was lying. About half of industrialized nations reached and even exceeded their goals. More than one third have gone significantly beyond their requirements for emission reductions. David Suzuki has a nice writeup on his website.

Re:Islands

[leelapolis]

Maybe we'll find a flying saucer that crashed there 10,000 years ago?

Re:Islands

[revolu7ion]

Christian Beliefs are a big problem?

I believe that there is hope for everyone. Science and medicine has no hope for a lot of people with incurable diseases, mental illnesses. They have no hope.

Just like muslims plead with us that their religion is not a violent religion (and I agree) I ask you that you not judge Christianity by one person's view.

Jesus has done more good for our world than just about anything. It's people who mis-understand, or even worse - hide behind him to accomplish their own adgenda who have done the damage.

World Vision is just one organisation of many (yes, including many environmental organisations) who make our world a better place - can I ask if you have a sponsor child - I do. People who read and understand the Bible realise that it is humanities responsibility to take care of the earth, we are it's stewards.

So before you condemn me, my Jesus, and my faith - take a look around you at the millions of Christians who are not nuts - and who are having an incredible positive impact on our society and planet. It's always the extremists who get the press.

Re:Islands

[TempeTerra]

From Wikipedia:
Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068 (Newman et al., 2006).

Normally I wouldn't bother with such a small nitpick, but lately I'm Super Eco Ozone Hole Ranger Man.

Re:Islands

[TempeTerra]

(I already replied this to a child, but I see it's more relevant here)

Work has suggested that a detectable (and statistically significant) recovery will not occur until around 2024, with ozone levels recovering to 1980 levels by around 2068 (Newman et al., 2006).

The ozone hole is not getting smaller. I live in New Zealand, I deal with it every day when I walk out the door. Australia and New Zealand have the highest skin cancer rates in the world, because of the ozone hole which is still there.

The ozone hole has stopped getting bigger because humans stopped producing the entirely synthetic chemicals which were destroying it. It's an undeniable example of a human-caused problem which has been entirely contained by human action, and will still take decades to right itself. The ozone hole is absolutely an argument for taking immediate action to limit greenhouse emissions, if you accept that they have any contribution to global climate change. Or even on grounds of general pollution.

Re:Islands

[General Fault]

Then what is your point? Maybe I misunderstand you. Do you know of a difference in approach to addressing the problems of impending global climate change depending on for instance whether or not the recorded high levels of atmospheric CO2 are a result of human activity or of geological activity? As I see it now, human activity is the only input that we humans have any control over. Wouldn't it make sense to alter human activities to curtail the undesirable effects of global climate change? If the earth or sun is creating these undesirable effects, then releasing millions upon millions of tons of CO2 and billions upon billions of therms of energy into the atmosphere would do nothing but exacerbate the problem... no? If that is the case (and it is), then spending money and resources to change our own behavior is the very least that we can do to survive. Sure, after that we can start experimenting more on altering the other inputs to create weather control systems. But that is far more complicated and costly than what we can handle right now (scientists, prove me wrong). Even if the technology were available today, it would take decades perhaps centuries to test and understand all of the larger unintended consequences of overriding the natural balances of the Earth. Perhaps, as I said, we should simply spend our resources reducing and perhaps reversing the effect we have had on this balance.
All of that said, remember your position today. The first industries that will fail to global climate change are energy and agriculture. So, when we are cold and hungry, we'll be looking at you. You better be right, or you better stock up on food and gas for the mob. By the way, it reached freezing every night this week in San Diego! 50-75 percent of all California citrus crops were killed this week. Check out the price or oranges this spring at your local grocery store. My gas and electric bill doubled last moth due to record lows previously set in 2002 and set before in the 1890's. Records for cold weather were broken in almost every town this week.

Re:Islands

[andy314159pi]

uhhh CO2 stays in the atmosphere indefinitely. The processes that return it to the earth are geologically slow. But thanks for your misinformation.

Re:Islands

[fluffy99]

Your sig line seems appropriate. The mass media is very good at spreading fear because fear sells.

Re:Islands

[ScottSCY]

from http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/Teaching_Packs/ Key_Stage_4/Climate_Change/02p.html,

How long does carbon dioxide stay in the atmosphere? All gases stay in the atmosphere for a certain length of time before they are removed by their sinks. This time is known as the atmospheric lifetime of a gas. Carbon dioxide has an atmospheric lifetime of between 50 - 200 years. This means that carbon dioxide will be present in the atmosphere for at least 50 years before it is absorbed by a sink or becomes part of another chemical reaction. Consequently, carbon dioxide emitted into the atmosphere today could cause global warming for up to two centuries to come.

Could the multiple sites that say this, as well as the book I just read be wrong or oversimplifying the process? Yes, possible. I don't claim to be an expert; I was just saying what I read in a book. Tell me, does it make you feel good to be a jerk?

Re:Islands

[Keebler71]

It will be interesting to see what else is under the ice. The melting is definitely something we should be concerned about.

We already know... they made it into a Movie. And yes,... we should be very concerned.

Re:Islands

[AoT]

Ok I am going to wade in here.
The latest tactic I have seen is people pretending that all discussion is over on this issue.

I'll be honest here, you need to wade back out. What you are doing right now is the latest tactic. The cries of "Oh, the earth's climate has clearly changed before!" are the latest greatest nonsense to be brought against the scientific evidence.

My response. Yes, climate certainly has been different in the past. This is one of the things studied in an effort to understand how much humans have affected the climate. (note: how much, not whether or not)

This "problem" you bring up is, precisely, the evidence.

Re:Islands

[The Fourth]

As an Australian I would also like to note that we would be happy to commit to Kyoto. I'm not sure of the exact details (hey this IS Slashdot) but I would expect that being a modern western style nation -without- atomic power might have something to do with us being borderline on Kyoto. Add that to our leader living in George Bush's left pants pocket and you can imagine which way we might sway. Energy is getting a lot of attention here politically. Our issue is that energy use is growing faster than alternative sources are being created(reasons aside). The main factor for our use is Air Con. Yesterday in the Melbourne Cup temperatures reaching 50deg c(122deg f) were recorded. Thats in one of our coldest cities....

Re:Islands

[amRadioHed]

Tell that to the dinosaurs. Species are not indestructible and us humans are just as vulnerable as others. While it's true we are much smarter, that only makes the trouble we get ourselves into that much tricker to undo.

Re:Islands

[TapeCutter]

"That's 928 peer-reviewed papers, zero dissent - and the agreement of every major scientific body [in the country]. on the planet. - There all fixed :)

And if you want to speak to the horse, err scientists, you can do it here in language that is understandable to the average high school student.

Re:Islands

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

In the seventies it was the coming ice age, and we were all going to freeze in the dark as the oil ran out. Reducing pollution, conserving energy, and depending less on fossil fuels was the solution then too.

Re:Islands

[amRadioHed]

First off, the Copenhagen Consensus was founded by the author "The Skeptical Environmentalist". It may be an interesting read, but he is not in the scientific mainstream on this issue.

So now what problems do you think we should be focusing on first? The problems that are most important to American's these days are the War in Iraq, the economy and fuel prices. The environment is also on the list though it's usually closer to the bottom of the top ten. So what is one thing all these things have in common? There is one thing that is a major contributing factor to all of them, oil dependency. If we are able to develop cheap and renewable sources of energy the Neocons will have no reason to be nosing around in the affairs of the middle-east, fuel prices will go down, fuel prices have a direct impact on the economy. All that and we get a better environment.

It's pretty much a no-brainer, but sadly their are many with influence who are quite happy with circumstances as they are with energy prices so high and with constant war in the middle east. They got theirs, why should they change anything?

Re:Islands

[gfxguy]

Hmmm... maybe you missed the post I was responding to that claimed there were "they said global warming didn't exist!"

Re:Islands

[amRadioHed]

Water doesn't cause disease either, so I guess all those whiny babies in New Orleans should stop complaining, right? Cause clearly if it isn't a poison then it can't do harm.

And by the way, CO2 does cause warming, look at Venus for an extreme case. There is no way you can argue that CO2 doesn't have the potential to damage our environment no matter how far into the sand your head is buried.

Re:Islands

[CryBaby]

Since 1967, the estimated total worldwide reduction in O3 in the upper stratosphere is approximately 2%. This very slow trend has not changed.

The following NOAA report directly contradicts your statement:
INTERNATIONAL TREATY DESIGNED TO RESTORE/PROTECT OZONE LAYER WORKING, SAY SCIENTISTS

The following FAQ from the EPA contradicts your underlying implication that human activity may not be the primary cause of the depletion of "good" ozone: Brief Questions and Answers on Ozone Depletion

If you continue to research the issue, you'll find these same basic facts stated and supported over and over: 1) The depletion of "good" ozone was and is caused by man-made chemicals. 2) Treaties were signed to reduce and eventually eliminate the chemicals that cause said depletion. 3) The reduction in emissions has resulted in a measurable slowing in the rate of depletion and should eventually lead to the restoration of the ozone layer. 4) There are no alternate theories of the cause of this depletion (i.e. the significant man-made part) that are supported by evidence, including natural cyclic variations or solar activity.

An important point to keep in mind is that, even though action was taken relatively quickly to curb our ozone-depleting emissions, it is estimated that we won't see a full recovery for roughly another 60 years. I really don't know of a more poignant example of how important it is that we recognize the damage we are causing to the environment and take action to change course quickly. Time is not on our side when it comes to climate change.

As for the Kyoto treaty, people are very naive if they think there were no politics involved. Less industrialized nations are very eager to put limits on the US industry because is helps close the technology gap.

Well, a treaty is a political construct pretty much by definition, right? Anyway, I think I know what you meant. The problem with getting caught up in the political winners and losers here is that our choices sort of boil down to this: refuse to give an inch economically but suffer a worldwide economic catastrophe later (at the very least) or work seriously towards a relatively smooth transition to new sources of energy. And by "work seriously" I mean be ready to give up a few things to acheive that goal. The U.S. has enjoyed a lot of advantages over other countries by not having to pay the costs of our pollution. Giving up some of those advantages to keep our overall economic prosperity and security sounds like a reasonable political compromise to me.

The reality is that the treaty called for a meager 5.2% reduction in industrially produced CO2 world-wide.

That's better than the 0% reduction we're engaged in now, isn't it? Look, no one is going to agree to curtail emissions by 20% over night. The important thing is to get the ball rolling. Get people and governments to accept our role in climate change and to start thinking about the changes in behavior and technology that will be required to assure our survival in the future (and hopefully a comfortable survival at that!).

I'm skeptical of both sides and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not the doom-gloom that environmental groups preach, or the rosy-nothing-is-wrong view espoused by our current administration.

A couple of problems with that. First, it's the scientists and their climate models that are predicting doom and gloom if we don't make drastic changes soon. The environmentalists simply bring as much attention to the issue as they can. Second, being "somewhere in the middle" on this issue is tantamount to saying that nothing needs to change. *Not* advocating for meaningful reductions in greenhouse gasses is, in practice, not much different th

Re:Islands

[rastos1]

I live in Colorado. I don't give two hoots about houses being designed for earthquake surviveability or tidal wave warning systems. Why should I pay for research into these areas?

Perhaps because you will like to go for holidays in California and you don't want the hotel building collapse on your head? Or because your son will perhaps like moving there? Perhaps your parents might live there?

I'm in good health: why should I pay for surgery for someone who can't afford medical care?

Because you might need surgeon tommorrow. You might be unconscious in the hospital bed and everybody around (including surgeons) would say: "It's not my problem that he was hit by a bus. Why should I care?"

I'm young: why do I care about age discrimination?

Because you won't be young forever. And when you will be old, it will be too late pushing your agenda, because it goes in effect after you are dead.

Same mindset.

I guess you won't like hearing this on a transatlantic flight: "Dear passengers we are leaving US airspace. We have fuel only for 2 hours, but captain says that every plane returns to earth at some point." People should consider consequences of their actions even if it does not affect them right here, right now.

Re:Islands

[Pentagram]

Why did the treaty simply allow China to be exempted from the said treaty

It didn't. You have been misinformed.

Every party could have worked to make the treaty fair and more sound for the world, but they stopped at fairness and simply said that the US should do the MOST work to improve the environment

Well the US is the world's largest polluter by far, so surely they should cut their emissions the most? Kyoto's requirements were pretty minimal and would have been easy for the US to meet however.

without looking at the facts that China will greatly outstrip the US in pollution

Hopefully Kyoto will ensure they don't.

Re:Islands

[Calinous]

Plants and algaes are pretty efficient at mining carbon out of the atmosphere. However, the deforestation trends are worry me greatly

Re:Islands

[rumith]

As an Australian, you wouldn't want [I think] your country to comply with Kyoto right now. IIRC, despite your huge production of uranium ore, it all goes to export, and your energetics are solely based on coal which is plentiful in Australia and very cheap to extract. So until you take down your old power plants, build a nuclear one, and expect [even though insignificant] loss of income due to its consumption of uranium, it would be unwise to sign the treaty. Do it first, or at least start doing it, and sign next. :)

Re:Islands

[div_2n]

If you can't read, there's no point in arguing with you either.

pollutant:

1. something that pollutes.
2. any substance, as certain chemicals or waste products, that renders the air, soil, water, or other natural resource harmful or unsuitable for a specific purpose.

... unsuitabe for a specific purpose . . . what, like breathing?

Re:Islands

[famebait]

So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?

Wrong question. What matters is if we quit burning fossil fuels, will we be better off than if we don't?

Re:Islands

[smellsofbikes]

Methinks you didn't notice the sarcastic tone of my post.

Re:Islands

[letxa2000]

And by the way, CO2 does cause warming, look at Venus for an extreme case.

Emphasis mine.

There is no way you can argue that CO2 doesn't have the potential to damage our environment no matter how far into the sand your head is buried.

I most definitely can. Even if CO2 is causing excessive heating of the atmosphere, it's far from certain that global warming is ultimately a bad thing. There will be localized hardships and localized benefits. We do not know if the hardships will exceed the benefits. Until we have a good handle on that, running around like chickens with our heads cut off to try to avoid global warming is absurd.

As for the potential to damage our environment, the only real negative effect of CO2 is its supposed contribution to supposedly-excessive global warming. Other than that, it mostly helps plants breathe which helps us breathe. In other words, if our creation of CO2 is not creating excessive global warming--or if that global warming actually isn't harmful, on balance--then it's hard to argue that CO2 is a pollutant.

Re:Islands

[letxa2000]

... unsuitabe for a specific purpose . . . what, like breathing?

Without CO2 there are no plants, and without plants there is no O2 for us to breathe. CO2 is a necessary part of the atmosphere and other than global warming-related hype about how it's bad, there are really no negatives to CO2 in the concentrations that we are reasonably talking about.

Re:Islands

[andy314159pi]

holy crap I'm sorry that whatever institution you got that information from believes that it's accurate. That's nearly criminal that the british government is putting that misinformation out.

Re:Islands

[andy314159pi]

The 'sink' they refer to is petroleum, and it takes quite a bit of time to form petroleum. They are assuming that it becomes part of an intermediate sink like carbonic acid in the ocean, which some of it does, but most of it does not. That's why the problem is a permanent one. Well permanent from our point of view.

Re:Islands

[coleridge78]

So if the government instituted a 50% tax on some component of your business, you'd raise prices enough to cover it?

Unlikely.

Absolute statements are moronic.

Re:Islands

[TempeTerra]

It's from Non-violence: the History of a Dangerous Idea by Mark Kurlansky. I picked it as my sig recently because it was short and insightful in a general way, but it often ends up being relevant to my post as well.

I agree, the mass media is very good at spreading fear because it sells. I would add that they also spread controversy, because conflict sells. As others have said, the media tend to show both sides of a story, even if there's only one side.

Re:Islands

[pete.com]

Yes. I would have to recoup those costs somehow or go out of business or make less money for myself. How long do you think I could pay into the tax base of the government at a loss to my business? When new taxes have been added to cigarettes, gas or alchohol did all those stores just say "ahhh hell I guess we'll just have to eat it." I know grocery stores just give food away for less than the cost to farm, harvest, and transport to market. When fuel prices / taxes go up the trucking companies just say well we'll just have to deliver stuff for free now. Keep reading those economics book and listening to professors who have little / no experiance with actually running a business.

Re:Islands

[jonadab]

> They said global warming didn't exist! They said there was nothing to
> worry about! Lets see all these "experts" debunk this!

I think you misunderstood. The point that was under dispute was never whether warming ever occurs at all, but whether we can confidently say, based on the scant climatological data that we have (scarcely half a millennium worth of it) that warming is a long-term trend that will continue indefinitely.

The people who say global warming isn't a problem aren't saying it isn't happening, in the short term. They're saying that it's normal, or within the normal range of climatic activity, and that after it warms up for a bit, it'll very likely cool off again. And then probably warm up again. And cool off again.

Sure, we're experiencing currently a warm winter. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes this. And yes, the polar ice caps have at some times been rather larger than now. In the seventeenth century, for instance. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes this, either.

But the polar ice caps have also been rather *smaller* than now (possibly even entirely absent), at some point in Earth's past. I don't know of anyone who seriously disputes *that* either. The people who are all worried about global warming are convinced that it was a very, very long time ago and not relevant to today's ecology. Not everyone is so sure about that, however.

Recorded history gives so little information about the polar ice caps, we don't really have any idea what the coasts of Norway and Greenland looked like in the first millennium. Climatologists claim to be able to extrapolate it, or determine it based on circumstantial evidence (e.g., levels of oxygen in the antarctic ice), but if you ask ten experts you'll get ten different maps, so the truth is we don't actually know. We do know that in the sixteenth century people started to really notice how much colder it was getting, and it is suspected that the arctic ice had been growing for a while already then. How much, and for how long? How big was it in 1000? In 500?

In the twentieth century, a consensus was reached that the rewarming had been completed in the middle of the nineteenth century, and that Earth's temperature was now back to "normal". I'm not convinced, however, that there's such a thing as a single "normal" temperature. I think the temperature goes up and down, normally, as a matter of course, and we just haven't been watching it long enough to know what the usual limits are.

Re:Islands

[jonadab]

> many of them believe, because it says so in the bible, that the end
> will eb accompanied by a warming of the earth.

Actually, what the Bible predicts is rather a lot scarrier than even the most dire global warming predictions. Even the weather predictions alone make global warming look like child's play.

Try global multi-year drought on for starters -- no rain, anywhere in the world, for over three years. Imagine the price of food.

Then there's the hail. Hundred-pound hailstones, yo. It doesn't mention this, but I guess all the world's insurance companies would go bankrupt.

And that's all nothing compared to the seismic activity.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with some melting polar ice, though. I certainly can't see any serious Christians claiming global warming fulfills these prophesies. For one thing, all of that stuff is said to take place during the tribulation period, so there wouldn't *be* any Christians on the Earth at that point.

Re:Islands

[David_Shultz]

I believe that there is hope for everyone. Science and medicine has no hope for a lot of people with incurable diseases, mental illnesses. They have no hope.
Contradiction aside ("there is hope for everyone" and "they have no hope"), science and medicine do hold the possibility for cures to diseases and mental illnesses which today are incurable. But, shouldn't you, as a Christian, feel that your all powerful god could cure these people? It seems I have more faith than you, only my faith is in science and yours is in religion. Admittedly, it is easier to have faith in facts than fairy tales.

Just like muslims plead with us that their religion is not a violent religion (and I agree) I ask you that you not judge Christianity by one person's view.
Muslim is as muslim does. The 911 hijackers were muslim, and their deeds were done in the name of islam. Those attacks were part and parcel of what it means to be a muslim -their interpretation of the scriptures was a valid one of many. There are of course peaceful muslims -they are practicing an alternative interpretation. Some interpretations have better effects on the world than others, but they are all equally valid. All these interpretations are based on faith, which is, by definition, believing without a good reason to do so, so they all stand on equal ground. I would also add that it is a majority of muslims who sympathize with the hijackers. Where are the muslims denouncing the actions of 911? oh wait, they were cheering in the streets.

So before you condemn me, my Jesus, and my faith - take a look around you at the millions of Christians who are not nuts - and who are having an incredible positive impact on our society and planet. It's always the extremists who get the press
First and foremost, being a Christian in and of itself should immediately qualify someone as being "nuts", if we take "nuts" to mean dellusional. Christians believe in fairy tales, myths, and magic -if it weren't for the fact that so many others are suffering the same dellusions, we would immediately identify them as "nuts" (just as readily as we identify scientologists as nuts). there are several problems with religion, one being that there is no way to tell the "correct" interpretation, since the process of "having faith" is synonymous with "not thinking". All interpretations are equally valid, so the terrorist christian (look at ireland) and the humanitarian christian stand on equal footing. If anything, it is the fundamentalists who are the most correct, because they don't pick and choose their passages -they swallow their bible whole and act on it appropriately.

As a Christian, you support the process of non-thinking that allowed the hijackers to kill thousands of people and believe they were going to be rewarded for it. You similarly support other christians who are actively harming the world. Some examples today include opposition to stem cell research, opposition to STD vaccination, abstinence only sex-ed programs (especially problematic in africa), opposition to a womans right to choose, and screwy relations with the middle east. where you stand on each of these issues is somewhat irrelevant -you support the process whereby a person can hold a position for or against something that has genuine consequences for human quality of life simply as a matter of faith. this is problematic -moral concerns should be subject to rational discourse, not butting heads as a matter of faith based assertion. Your conviction that A is wrong because it says so in a holy book is not an argument, but it is accepted as such in todays discourse, and has drastic consequences for humankind.

Re:Islands

[coleridge78]

Yes. I would have to recoup those costs somehow or go out of business or make less money for myself. How long do you think I could pay into the tax base of the government at a loss to my business?

That's (in part) my point. You seem to be incapable of thinking about more than one variable at a time... try harder.

Not *all* increases can be passed along to consumers, because the price will become higher than the market will bear. The rule is psuedo-absolute (though still with an upper bound) only in examples such as cigarettes, gax, and alcohol because there is no alternative. People want/need those things, and nothing else can take their place for %99.9 of the population, given all current variables being where they are.

Now this is where it gets tricky when it comes to petroleum and gasoline: if the impetus were great enough, some of those variables likely would change, and alternatives would become available. At which point it would become analogous to industries such as, say, Sweet-Tart production, where every tax increase on isomalt can *not* be compensated by a price rise, because a lot of people will by M&Ms, sourballs, or lemonheads instead if Sweet-Tarts are ten cents more expensive. Get it?

And I've been out of college and working in businesses, including the one run by my family, for ten years. Thanks for the advice, though.

Re:Islands

[pete.com]

Wasn't this about taxing oil? My point being you cannot tax a company you tax the consumer. I need only concern myself with one thought in this discussion my cash flow. It really is pretty simple, positive cash flow *good* negative cash flow **bad** Things change all the time prices go up, prices go down, the efficiency of the company gets better, etc.... If the cost of isomalt goes up everything that uses isomalt goes up. So, in your example if all those candies used isomalt they would increase in price comparible to the amount of isomalt used in production, or the company would have to find a way to reduce costs, in which case the company still pays NO tax. Do you get it? I have no idea what candy does or does not have isomalt. Was the increase of the cost of isomalt one variable change or more.... I lost count.

Re:Islands

[coleridge78]

You do agree that consumers are only willing to pay a certain amount for a product, yes?

Do you then see that there is a limit to the cost increases that can be passed along to the consumer?

If suddenly there was a 100% tax on imported silicon boards, and you make high-tech clock radios in a plant in Texas, you are *not* going to be able to pass that along to consumers. Your competitors who either import the finished product rather than the component; and those who fabricate their boards here in the US, will have prices much lower than yours, and you willl go out of business, period, end of story.

So, you'll either change your business or go out of business, but you won't be passing along the cost to the consumer. That's all I'm getting at.

Oil, same thing. Only so much of a cost increase can be passed along to the consumer before people finally start buying more fuel efficient vehicles, including hybrids and electric cars. Or, start relying more on alternative fuels such as biomass and ethanol. Past that point, demand and hence profits will fall drastically with any more "passing of costs" to the consumer, so a smart company is willing to eat that tax, take a 1% ding in their huge profit margin to maintain demand. Does that make sense?

Re:Islands

[pete.com]

I will pass the cost in some form to the consumer, change my business so that I avoid the tax, or reduce the amount it cost me to do business while still collecting the same amount for the product. None of these options end with me paying for the tax increase, which is my point. Last time companies don't pay taxes consumers do. As I recall several years ago when a plant in Tiawan or Japan went offline (fire or explosion), This impacted the cost of producing RAM chips greatly. Immediatly RAM prices went through the roof and stayed that way for a good long time. I think they passed along this huge increase in material to the consumer, and guess what people payed it because the price increase effect the entire industry much like a tax on oil would effect the entire industry. In the case of you oil example you're right. If oil prices skyrocket more companies will begin looking into other souces of energy. The oil companies would diversify and if the price to deliver oil stayed higher than other forms of energy producing oil might just go away. I've said this same thing multiple times. You will not convince me, obviously I won't convince you, so continuing this is pointless.

Re:Islands

[coleridge78]

I will pass the cost in some form to the consumer, change my business so that I avoid the tax, or reduce the amount it cost me to do business while still collecting the same amount for the product.

The second and third options are where you actually paying the tax comes in. If "you" is not you, running a small business, but "you" being the executives of huge, multinational corporations such as, say, Exxon-Mobile, those are not really options in a short-term sense. In the long term you might be able to change your business and/or reduce other costs, but there are two things working against you:

1. Inertia, which cannot be underestimated in oligopolies where there is little true competition.
2. A lack of "fat" to trim. These sorts of companies are brutal on expenses. They are minimized wherever possible, on a large scale. The opportunities for cutting costs to any measurable degree exist almost exclusively in long-term R&D, and in day-to-day office waste that is basically impossible to expunge without costing more than is saved (people having an extra martini at lunch on the company dime, stealing reams of printer paper to take home, etc).

Re:Islands

[pete.com]

last word

Re:Islands

[revolu7ion]

science and medicine do hold the possibility for cures to diseases and mental illnesses which today are incurable Walk into a Psychiatric ward and tell me that you can feel a sense of 'hope' in there. Oh that's right - not many people have and ever really want to. We don't want to get our hands dirty... I have. My wife has, there are very few answers there.

"You have a blood clot in your brain - you've got 3 months to live" - Wow, lots of hope there. In fact after our church prayed for Mike a month after the doctors said that, they could find no blood clot. I could tell you at least 5 other stories from people i am directly connected with - millions over the globe. "where's the proof" i hear you say. Talk to them - oh, you don't know any of them? Well go to a church and ask around.

The heart of CHristianity is loving people, spreading the good news, living at peace with everyone - without compromising the gospel. If you truly interpret the Bible correctly, in context - you cannot go about killing for the IRA. That has nothing to do with Christ - merely done in his name. Defaming the very answer to the world's problems today.

I ask you: How better is society today because of the decline of religion and the rise of 'scientific thinking'? Sure there are a few more cures for diseases, but there are new viruses too that we have to develop more cure's for. How has society benefitted? Has the suicide rate decreased? Has crime subsided? Is the world a better place? Hardly.

non thinking? I think and use my mind just as much as any /. er. I have a different ethical code, a different way of thinking - but I am no mindless drone. You are very quick to box all Christians in your box. Well sorry to say that we don't fit.

Re:Islands

[David_Shultz]

"You have a blood clot in your brain - you've got 3 months to live" - Wow, lots of hope there. In fact after our church prayed for Mike a month after the doctors said that, they could find no blood clot. I could tell you at least 5 other stories from people i am directly connected with - millions over the globe. "where's the proof" i hear you say. Talk to them - oh, you don't know any of them? Well go to a church and ask around.
http://whydoesgodhateamputees.com/

non thinking? I think and use my mind just as much as any /. er. I have a different ethical code, a different way of thinking - but I am no mindless drone. You are very quick to box all Christians in your box. Well sorry to say that we don't fit.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-5752208690 443739173&q=dawkins

The heart of CHristianity is loving people, spreading the good news, living at peace with everyone - without compromising the gospel. If you truly interpret the Bible correctly, in context - you cannot go about killing for the IRA. That has nothing to do with Christ - merely done in his name. Defaming the very answer to the world's problems today.
According to you. Your interpretation is just as valid as the extremists, because they were arrived at by precisely the same process (faith, scripture), citing precisely the same "evidence". As I have noted earlier, fundamentalists are the only religious group which is more correct than any other, because all other groups are hypocritical insofar as they claim their holy text is of divine origin, and yet they pick and choose which passages they think are correct. Fundamentalists (try their best to) swallow it all.

I ask you: How better is society today because of the decline of religion and the rise of 'scientific thinking'? Sure there are a few more cures for diseases, but there are new viruses too that we have to develop more cure's for. How has society benefitted? Has the suicide rate decreased? Has crime subsided? Is the world a better place? Hardly.
Wow. I can't really help you, except to say that ask any historian worth half their weight in dirt and they'll tell you that the world is indeed a better place to live in today. If anything, there is a direct correlation between a nations religiosity and their suffering, or their atheism and their positive quality of life.
http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-0624 2005.mov quicktime
http://www.samharris.org/appearances/ideacity-0624 2005.wmv wmv

If you are really a rational person, and your views are based in critical thinking, then you will not be afraid to explore fully the links I have provided. Heck, if you are capable of defending yourself on logical grounds against all the force levelled against you by those three links, then I salute you. You will be better able to debate this issue from now on.

Re:Islands

[revolu7ion]

http://www.healingsandmiracles.org/ Yeah, she must be lying - it doesn't fit into your belief system, so that's the obvious answer. I can understand why you think the way you do. The church is supposed to walk in the power and miracles that Jesus himself displayed, you take that away and people wonder why the hell you believe in this God, and what is the point? I don't know why Jesus doesn't heal everyone. But I'm thankful for the incurable (to current science) diseases and illnesses that he does.

I think it has a lot to do with your interpretation of 'better world'. Mabye it involves standard of living? It would appear at first glance that we live in a healthy, wealthy society, where owning your own home and (especially in Australia) car and home entertainment system is the achievable goal. But strangely, in general, people are less connected, more isolated by our technology, and scientific advances. Everyone has a mental illness these days, depression is a now a mere 'common cold', possibly because of an increase in correct diagnosis, but i don't believe so. It's a result of our 'better world' - our self centred better world.

This has gotten way off topic and turned into a religeous debate: My point was simple- The church (flawed as it is - tarnished it's own reputation at times) does so much good for this world - it doesn't appear you can see that. I too can look at the negatives, see only examples such as the IRA if I wanted too. But because I am actually in the church, I see and hear the positive impact we are having. In my church, government departments are turning to us saying "we don't have the answers, we don't know what to do - can you help?" and we are.

You seem very keen on denouncing something that has great value for and in society (and because it is full of people - it will always have be imperfect) - If you want to pull something down with your words, then pull something down that has no good. Child pornography, rape, hard drug addictions, suicide are all wonderful to try and stop, by all means - pull them down. Most organisations have a good and bad element - because that is humanity.

Jesus is the best thing that has ever happened to me, he has changed my life, you can't take that away by arguing over /.

I thankyou for your views, I hope I have adequately explained mine. We will have to agree to disagree on this matter. Kind regards

Re:Islands

[David_Shultz]

We will have to agree to disagree on this matter.
You wish! I'm sorry I can't agree to disagree on this matter -it is far too important. Forgive me for wanting to continue this discussion in a rational manner. I hope that you were able to review the material in the links I provided, as I have reviewed yours. If you haven't, you should -you will find them very entertaining if not enlightening, although hopefully you will find both.

http://www.healingsandmiracles.org/ Yeah, she must be lying - it doesn't fit into your belief system, so that's the obvious answer. I can understand why you think the way you do. The church is supposed to walk in the power and miracles that Jesus himself displayed, you take that away and people wonder why the hell you believe in this God, and what is the point? I don't know why Jesus doesn't heal everyone. But I'm thankful for the incurable (to current science) diseases and illnesses that he does.
I reviewed that website, and it really doesn't seem like anything beyond the scope of science has happened here. lots of people have woken up after being pronounced dead before -that is the very origin of the "wake" at funerals -to wake people up. As for her leg "growing back", I looked very carefully at the photos, and couldn't see any evidence of anything miraculous happening. It is possible that there was some growth occuring on the amputated limb that was too small for me to see. If this is the case, it hardly suggests divine intervention. Do you really believe that an all-powerful god would take months to cause a bump of flesh to grow on a nub?

Another interesting point is why these supposed "miracles" are evidence that the myth of Jesus is true. Had this lady been a muslim, it would be evidence of the power of Allah. If she were a scientologist, perhaps this would be evidence for Xenu. Doesn't this give you pause?

I think it has a lot to do with your interpretation of 'better world'. Mabye it involves standard of living? It would appear at first glance that we live in a healthy, wealthy society, where owning your own home and (especially in Australia) car and home entertainment system is the achievable goal. But strangely, in general, people are less connected, more isolated by our technology, and scientific advances. Everyone has a mental illness these days, depression is a now a mere 'common cold', possibly because of an increase in correct diagnosis, but i don't believe so. It's a result of our 'better world' - our self centred better world.
What evidence are you sing to suggest that we live in a more "self-centered" world? Is this just your intuition? I suppose I don't need to point out that your intuition on matters of whether the world is a better place is not a reliable source of information -it takes sociologists and historians to answer the question of whether we are better off.
If you are a religious person who gauges the goodness of the world, or whether we are better off, by how religious our society is, then of course we are worse off, but this is a meaningless tautology. Be careful that your intuition on the goodness of our world is not informed by your understanding of our worlds religiosity.

Re:Islands

[revolu7ion]

Yes, I have viewed your links. I found them saddening, and they incorrectly portray my Jesus.

You talk like someone who has researched Christianity very well. You can research the belief system, values and ideologies of Christianity, you can even research the people involved, it's leaders, it's history or whatever you like. But Christianity is not those things, it is Jesus. And until you meet him - you will never and could never understand. The Bible even says that (paraphrase) Jesus and the cross are considered foolishness to those who don't know Christ, but to Christians, it is the power of God.

Anyway how come you always get modded as 2 ???

You know that people asked Jesus for proof in His day? "Proove that you are who you say you are" - that's almost exactly what you're saying. "Proove that it's devine intervention at the previously mentioned website". Funny hey, 2000 years later - people still want proof.

I find it amusing that Jesus never gave those who wanted proof, anything near proof. "It's the power of demons" -thats what they (those who wanted proof) said in his day.

So can you understand that by trying to proove to me that Jesus is not the Son of God, I just laugh. Cause I never came to Christ asking (or because of) for proof - I'm not going to leave because there is (according to you) a lack of it. And I beg to differ - there is a mountain load of it, it never seems to be around for people looking for proof - just people looking for Jesus. It's actually easier to believe that it's all just a made up myth, than being real.

You know, I don't like confrontation. I prefer to leave things unsaid, rather than argue. But you are right - this is important. Because all your research must have told you what the Bible says about life after death. Well incase you haven't - I have an obligation to tell you, that if you reject Christ's love, and choose a life without Him on this earth - he will give you what you always wanted when you die. You will break his heart, and you can be without him forever - in hell. I'm not one of those "turn or burn" kinda Christians. I preach the love of God - because that's what won me over.

Can I ask you a question: why do you 'hate' Christianity so much? I mean I hate the corney-American Christian image, I hate the hypocrasy that is evident accross the globe, I hate it when the Mardi-gras is picketed by Christians waving banners about 'God hates homosexuals'... All things which are not Biblical. Can you not accept and see the good - can you even name some of the incredible things that are done in the name of Jesus?

The usual steps

[suso]

Hans Jepsen is a cartographer at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, which produces topographical maps for mining and oil companies.

Step 1: Oil companies produces global warming
Step 2: Global warming reduces ice in arctic
Step 3: Oil companies say "Cool, more room for oil"
Step 4: ???
Step 5: Profit

Re:The usual steps

[baldass_newbie]

Dude, shut up. You're going to spoil everything for the oil companies.
Report for reprogramming.

Re:The usual steps

[morgan_greywolf]

Oil companies produces global warming

Oh? Think so?

I'll bet you have a car or maybe even an SUV. I'll bet it runs on gasoline, too. And I'll bet you drive it every day. I'll bet you have a home and I'll bet you have a furnace, too.

You really do have a choice. You are at least, in part, responsible for global warming, like or not. It's not that d4 3v1l 01l c0mp4n13z are forcing you to use their products. You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap. It's the fact that the oil companies have made it plentiful, available and cheap and that they have used their powerful PACs and lobby groups to make sure that oil remains the most used energy product that relieves you of at least some of the responsibility.

Re:The usual steps

[balsy2001]

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing about a year ago. Well, I started riding my bike to work (about 8 miles each way). I know that not everyone can do that but people can do more than they think. For example, if you can take your bike once a week you will probably cut your gas consumption by around 20% (depending on how much you drive on the weekend).

Re:The usual steps

[kmac06]

You should be thanking the oil companies for making oil plentiful, available, and cheap, not demonizing them. Cheap oil is the backbone of the world's economy.

Re:The usual steps

[unix_core]

I'm sure we could have found other ways to move money around...

Re:The usual steps

[morgan_greywolf]

Thanks. I was thinking the same thing about a year ago. Well, I started riding my bike to work (about 8 miles each way). I know that not everyone can do that

I wish. Current temperature where I'm at is 23 deg. F. With the windchill, it feels like 11 deg. F. Needless to say, I did not ride my bike to work today, especially since I work 23 miles away from where I live.

My eventual plan is to move to a warmer climate and live closer to where I work and either ride a bike to work or maybe even live close enough to walk to work. If all goes to plan, this will happen before the end of the year. We'll see. :)

Re:The usual steps

[mikeabbott420]

"My eventual plan is to move to a warmer climate" my eventual plan is to have a warmer climate move to me - go global warming!

Re:The usual steps

[Sebastopol]

You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap. ...and because there are no alternatives, thanks to the companies.

OilCo's do everything in their power to make life virtually unlivable without dependence on their products. The only people who truly are free are the hippies in Marin County who live off the grid in tee-pees. I could give up my life to live in a tee-pee, because everything up to this point has been my choice, but it has been a choice between shitting behind a bush and not showering, or living in the modern world where oil is a necessity.

Another example, cities used to get money to promote mass-transit systems, until BushCo. cut those subsidies at the behest of the oil companies. This means people now have the choice of living far from work and commuting, or taking a job that pays much less somewhere else. And if they do drive, they could have a choice of driving a more fuel efficient vehicle, but due to the oil industry lobbyists and BushCo., gas standards are set to improve 5% over the next 13 years.

So you can see that there is always a choice, but the options are often so extremely far from each other as to make one option unrealistic, and the reason for this is influence of the evil (yes, evil), oil companies who care about their 10-billion a quarter earnings.

Re:The usual steps

[Dilaudid]

Gotta love it haven't you? The earnest student moaning about how awful Exxon is for selling oil, while he drinks his espresso (coffee beans flown from south america), and shows off the tan from his round the world trip (7 individual flights of an average 3000 miles, using 600 gallons of aviation fuel). I think someone once said choice begins with the individual.

Re:The usual steps

[rrohbeck]

You use their products because they are [...] cheap. And there's the crux of the matter. Environmental costs are external, i.e. they're paid for by the general public. Even more so, in this case it's the next generation and the ones after them who are going to pay.

Several countries (the US not among them) have slowly increased their taxes on fossil fuel (especially oil) products and had good success with it. Guess why European or Japanese cars are way more efficient than US cars? Guess why GM, Ford and Chrysler are slowly going down the drain? Guess why European companies are world leaders in eco technologies? These policies work, and if they are done revenue neutral there's nothing wrong with them. Unless you're a big oil company or a car manufacturer trying to sell cheap heavy truck technology as fancy SUVs.

Re:The usual steps

[mdsolar]

It is true that the costs are external but is is not so easy to adjust the price at the point of purchase to account for this. You can tax, as in Europe, and use the revenue for mitigation, but this makes a sin tax and encourages continued use to retain the now public revenue stream. And, it is hard to imagine that a tax that provides adequate mitigation would be tolerated. What is much more hopeful is that renewables are cheaper now that fossil fuels. The company I sell for has only a few places where it won't compete with utilites at the retail level and those are where renewable hydro makes retail electricity too cheap. So, the effect of the tax might push this transition a little quicker, but a really robust tax is probably out of the question and we need to mainly depend on the basic technology of renewables being superior.

Re:The usual steps

[balsy2001]

It was 10F were I live and I rode. Your comute is substantially longer than mine though.

Re:The usual steps

[geekoid]

Of course, but since the oil companies are the most profitable companies, and the most subsidized companies and have always tried to stop any regulations to make them more efficent or cleaner, it's easy to point a finger at them.

Discoverer?

[Skidge]

Can you really "discover" an island these days? I'm sure some arctic researchers in a lab somewhere saw these on recent satellite photos. Even more so, I bet the appearance of these islands was predictable, given melt rates and knowledge of what was under the ice.

Re:Discoverer?

[OctoberSky]

Why not? If C. Columbus can sail into the wrong port, land on a continent that has people and societites and history and "discover" it, then why can't these guys discover an island that no one knew existed in the first place?

Re:Discoverer?

[Chacham]

Can you really "discover" an island these days?

While at the eye-doctor yesterday, i picked upa book about discoveries. It asked, how can someone discover a tribe, being the tribe was already there?! It said it meant dioscovery in the Western sense, that it was added to the collective knowledge (of the west).

Can the island be discovered? It matters in which way. Just proving that there is a land mass there won't prove anything other than the images, as you pointed out. Actually going there, mapping it, and seeing detail otherwise unknown, however, could be termed a discovery too.

Re:Discoverer?

[theodicey]

When they're covered by permanent icepack, they're invisible from space (at least with visible light wavelengths).

There was an article a while back about explorers wading through slush to find the northernmost landmass in the world (an islet off the north coast of Greenland). He had to actually travel to the spot to be certain.

However, the Navy probably has some seafloor maps that would tell you where to look...

Re:Discoverer?

[tompaulco]

We should thank global warming, without which we might not have discovered these islands for thousands of years, (unless of course, we looked at seafloor maps which clearly identify them already.)
But most interesting of all, according to the article, is that these newly discovered islands have mountains on them. This means, that global warming has in fact lowered the sea level by hundreds if not thousands of feet in order to reveal these mountains.
Or alternatively, the islands were already there, already had peaks, but nobody knew about them and the discovery of them has nothing to do with global warming.

Re:Discoverer?

[Hoi Polloi]

If the ocean rises even 2 ft I look forward to discovering many of the new islands that will be created off the the new coast of the US. Islands like Miami, Cape Cod, New Orleans, Washington DC, Central Park NYC...

Re:Discoverer?

[tompaulco]

If the ocean rises even 2 ft I look forward to discovering many of the new islands that will be created off the the new coast of the US. Islands like Miami, Cape Cod, New Orleans, Washington DC, Central Park NYC
So you contend that the newly discovered islands were once part of a mainland, but have, due to global warming, now had ocean levels rise around them such that there is now no connecting land. Exactly how many feet has the Mean Sea Level risen in the last, say, 20 years, and why have they not updated all of the geological information to indicate that everywhere in the world is several feet less above sea level than it used to be?
On a less faceticious note, given that tides can raise or lower the sea level in an area by sometimes ten feet or more, at what point do you rename a land mass to an island? In order to really be an island should it not always have to have at least a tiny amount of water separating it from a mainland, regardless of the tide? Referencing wikipedia, I find that there is no set distinction. A body that is physically connected to a mainland by a sufficiently small amount of dry land may still be considered an island, while a fairly substantial body of dryland completely surrounded by water may sometimes still be considered part of the mainland.

Re:Discoverer?

[NatasRevol]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

About 7 cm or 3 inches.

However, the test refers to 3mm/yr = 6cm or 2+ inches in 20 years.

Though the first half of the twentieth century had a slower rise than the second half. So it could be increasing.

It might be knee high by 2050...

Re:Discoverer?

[Hoi Polloi]

Sorry, I should've had my "sarcasm" tags set. I know those islands had their true nature hidden by ice.

However, since this is based on the article in question and if you read the article you'll see this:
There is no consensus on how much Greenland's ice will melt in the near future, Dr. Alley said, and no computer model that can accurately predict the future of the ice sheet. Yet given the acceleration of tidewater-glacier melting, a sea-level rise of a foot or two in the coming decades is entirely possible, he said. That bodes ill for island nations and those who live near the coast.

If you dispute the article that is another matter. I'm just referring to it.

As far as what the definition of an island is, that sounds like the dispute over what a planet it. There doesn't seem to be a clear cutoff. The simpliest definition is a body of land, smaller than a continent, surrounded by water. I would guess this would have to be the case at low tide. This is like what the definition of a peak is, does the ridge have to drop a certain altitude between peaks? Minimum distance? Etc.

Moo

[Chacham]

For all those interested, all the OceanLand Islands are property of me, and are being sold at $499,999,999.99 each.

Not only am i chepaer than the competition, my islands are real. Please, check them out, you'll warm up to them faster than you'd think.

Re:Moo

[kcbrown]

Not only am i chepaer than the competition, my islands are real. Please, check them out, you'll warm up to them faster than you'd think.

In global-warmed Russia, islands warm up to you!

Re:Moo

[fm6]

You're getting ahead of yourself. First you declare yourself sovereign ruler of these islands, using some fancy Latin pseudo-legal mumbo-jumbo. Then you spend a couple decades trying to establish a casino and a data haven, and a couple of other lame business that for some reason have to be in the middle of nowhere. It's only after you do all these things that you can offer to sell off your "principality" for some absurd sum.

Temporary problem.

[Duncan3]

Why bother putting it on the map? Soon global warming will also put it under water too.

Problem solved! Hurray!

Excellent news!

[joshsnow]

Just before the rising water levels swamp my house, I'll be moving to one of these new Islands.

Oh, wait...

Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[KalvinB]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland

The fjords of the southern part of the island were lush and had a warmer climate at that time, possibly due to what was called the Medieval Warm Period. These remote communities thrived and lived off farming, hunting and trading with the motherland, and when the Scandinavian monarchs converted their domains to Christianity, a bishop was installed in Greenland as well. The settlements seem to have coexisted relatively peacefully with the Inuit, who had migrated southwards from the Arctic islands of North America around 1200. In 1261, Greenland became part of the Kingdom of Norway. Norway in turn entered into the Kalmar Union in 1397 and later the personal union of Denmark-Norway.

After almost five hundred years, the Scandinavian settlements simply vanished, possibly due to famine during the fifteenth century in the Little Ice Age, when climatic conditions deteriorated, and contact with Europe was lost.

----------------

So Greenland used to be green. Then it froze. Now it's turning green again. It's almost like it's a natural cycle.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[sonofagunn]

Hopefully, as ice thaws and more land is uncovered, there will be more room for plants to grow to clean CO2 out of the air.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[jesterpilot]

If you RTFWA, you'd prabably noticed Erik the Red called it 'Greenland' for the same reason Vista is called "The most secure OS in existance'.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[$RANDOMLUSER]

Self delusion?

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[A beautiful mind]

Let me make it graphic for you. There is a difference between ---/^\--- and |, where the lines signify available data and rate of warming.

The medieval warm period is a totally different curve than the current warming, and even if the same effect is partly responsible for the warming today, it is by a large margin not enough to explain the current warming trend.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[larkost]

Well.. sort of... nowadays we call it "marketing".

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[larkost]

Except that climatologists mostly have discounted the idea of a Medieval Warm Period altogether. Here is a article from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association. There never was a "Medieval Warm Period", it was bad interpretations and theories with little actual evidence to ever support them. Of course now people who have a political agenda to defend are siting it as evidence.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[Coryoth]

So Greenland used to be green. Then it froze. Now it's turning green again. It's almost like it's a natural cycle.

Greenland used to be covered in ice with a few small areas in fjords that were habitable. What evidence we have of the Norse settlements (and there is a reasonable amount) shows that they were a farily marginal colony. For instance their cows were the smallest known, due to such a short period when they could be outside in pasture. There is evidence that while kept inside barns in the winter they had to be forcefed kelp to help fatten them up/keep them alive. Doesn't sound like a lush paradise.

And on the other hand, its not as if today the Norse settlements are just starting to melt out from under the ice. The areas of Greenland that were settled by the Norse are and have been since they were rediscovered) quite green and habitable. Try looking at photos of the ruins: Hvalsey ruins, another shot of Hvalsey, ruins at Gardar, another shot of the Gardar ruins, ruins at Brattahlid, a general shot (I can't identify the location), and to round things out, a couple shots of modern day Greenland in summer. Things have looked that way for a while - the ice was always inland from these fjords. It didn't take anything special for the Norse to be able to settle there - just a little determination to survive the winters.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[tompaulco]

then why is Mars experiencing global warming too?
Just like here, the causes are due to man's trremendous affect on the natural climate of Mars.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[shmlco]

Your article fails to prove your point. To quote: "There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century."

Which doesn't mean it couldn't have been "almost" as warm, or that it wasn't a localized phenomenon in the North Atlantic similar to the little ice age theorized for Europe should the North Atlantic convection currents shut down. Or in other words, we get warmer, they get snow. Flipping the latter, it would appear that all you need are stronger convection currents pulling warmer water from the equator to affect a localized change in the Northern Atlantic, without global or hemispheric temperatures rising significantly as a result.

It would seem that people with agendas are using whatever "facts" they can find. On both sides.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[toddhisattva]

You haven't heard the news:

Dr. Lysenko has given orders that we must "get rid of the Medieval Warming Period."

Pass it on.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[raddan]

I don't know if it is entirely clear that climate change was the main driving force behind the famine in Greenland, although it was certainly a factor. According to a PBS documentary I one watched (NOVA? I can't remember), the cause of Greenland's famine was more complex. After a wide variety of scientific disciplines worked together on the problem (like climate scientists, archaeologists, and even entomologists), it became clear that the famine was greatly exacerbated by the tithing required by the Catholic church. In order to pay this tithe, Greenland's colonists were thus forced to work the land in non-sustainable ways which caused damage to the soil (erosion, nutrient loss), the result being that they simply could not feed themselves any longer.

The same thing happened in Oklahoma-- the Homestead Act encouraged a number of non-sustainable activities that damaged the local environment. To this day, Oklahoma's prairies still have not recovered. If you want to see a particularly nasty example of this, check out the Burren sometime. Completely devastated.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[Coryoth]

Indeed, further to the point of the relative hospitableness of the areas of Greenland settled by the Norse, it seems Google maps and satellite photos can come to out aid. Consider these Googlemaps images of the sites for the Western and Eastern Settlements:

Eastern settlment area, and Eastern settlment map
Western settlment area, and Western settlement map.

Just for reference, here is a zoom of the area of the Brattahlid and Gardar farms (two of the largest/richest farms), and a zoom of the Sandnes farm area from the Western settlment.

Re:Well, it is named Greenland isn't it?

[rastos1]

So Greenland used to be green. Then it froze. Now it's turning green again. It's almost like it's a natural cycle.

There used to be species known as dinosaurs. And they are extinct now. Then there used to be species known as humans. And they ...

It's almost like it's a natural cycle.
I bet that if dinosaurs could do something about their extinction, they would try.

A new location for Survivor!

[PoconoPCDoctor]

Don't let those nay-sayer global warming types make this seem like a bad thing. I see a great location for Survivor - but with a twist!

Plop down some contestants on some glacial ice in Greenland. If their piece of ice does not melt, they win! If on the other hand the island appears, those contestants have to swim to the nearest coast, ala polar bears!

Mountains of Madness

[PIPBoy3000]

Great. Now we not only have to deal with global warming, but also the release of the shoggoths from their icy tombs. Cthulu runs the oil companies, I say!

And there they go again.

[jdh41]

Its OK, they'll go under again when the sea level rises. If they don't then we can use them to put the displaced population on.

Start donating

[raju1kabir]

When can we expect the announcement about Pirate Bay trying to buy one of the new islands?

Re:Start donating

[njko]

closer than sealand

Re:Start donating

[RareButSeriousSideEf]

Arrgghh... beat me to it.

Eh.

[SatanicPuppy]

Just start buying up inland real estate, 'cause beachfront's gonna be moving.

It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative...Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive. Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."

Re:Eh.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive.

What reputable scientist ever argued that it was one or the other? Every recent study I've seen not funded by oil companies includes solar cycles as one factor, but which is not sufficient to explain the trends on its own. We expect the temperatures to go up due to solar cycles, but they don't come close to explaining the aberrant rate of increase unless there have been developments I haven't heard about.

Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."

Accepting global warming as inevitable for a time is a thing of the past. We can't turn this around in a short time period. We need to be figuring out how to deal with warming, but we also need to be figuring out if there is anything we can do to deter it before we get drastic climate shifts or before we're committed to 1,000 years of climbing temperatures around the globe.

And now the inevitable analogy. We don't look at an incident of shooting in the inner city and say, "well people have been shot now, lets not worry about catching the shooter and focus on treating the wounds." We need to work on both.

Re:Eh.

[SatanicPuppy]

I shall reiterate: "more closely related"

I don't think it's an either or situation, but if we're getting a spike that is outside the bounds of models based primarily on increased greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere, which indisputably contribute to warming, then we might want to factor in increased solar activity into our models to more accurately predict the climate trends into the next century.

Participating in fricking global warming discussions is almost completely pointless...Whatever you say, there is bound to be someone who will latch on to one word and accuse you of being a hippy or an oil company shill.

Re:Eh.

[contrapunctus]

I wonder if governments will start claiming them so they have oil drilling rights...

Re:Eh.

[A beautiful mind]

It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative.

My guess is, that when scientists are pushed, they make more conservative, more solid arguments that they are absolutely certain they can argue, instead of outrageous claims that shills make.

I could be wrong about it, but make no mistake, the climate scientists know that the common people see things as a controversy and there are huge interests in trying to make it stay that way, so I'd think that they know the best way of sorting out a controversy: solid facts.

Re:Eh.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

...but if we're getting a spike that is outside the bounds of models based primarily on increased greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere, which indisputably contribute to warming, then we might want to factor in increased solar activity into our models to more accurately predict the climate trends into the next century.

Predictions of ice melt have a very large margin of error. To call a given instance of ice retreating a "spike" that is outside the bounds of current models, is a stretch. You're also assuming that solar activity increases are not part of current models, which is not true from what I've seen.

Participating in fricking global warming discussions is almost completely pointless...Whatever you say, there is bound to be someone who will latch on to one word and accuse you of being a hippy or an oil company shill.

I accused you of no such thing. I just pointed out that your recommendations for models were already implemented many years, your recommendations for remediation were lacking, and your evaluation of this as somehow indicating a particular oversight in current models was also incorrect. For all I know you're a hippy that works for the oil companies, but I don't care. I addressed your assertions, not your motivation.

Re:Eh.

[Scarblac]

Either way, I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions" and more thought into "what steps are we going to need to take to deal with the inevitable consequences of the current warming trend."

Why would we do that? A report by the UK government said that preventing extreme climate change is much cheaper than dealing with its consequences (see e.g. a BBC news article).

Re:Eh.

[A beautiful mind]

And now the inevitable analogy. We don't look at an incident of shooting in the inner city and say, "well people have been shot now, lets not worry about catching the shooter and focus on treating the wounds." We need to work on both.

To develop your analogy more, we need to work on both especially because the shooter is a known serial killer and we have 100% certainty that he's escalating and will kill more and more people unless stopped.

Re:Eh.

[Gospodin]

...is...

You freaking pinko commie oil-loving corporatist hippy! Take that back!

Re:Eh.

[Scarblac]

But we just don't see your argument. These models have a lot of forcings that make the temperature go up, or go down. The sun's activity and atmosphere CO2 levels are obvious examples, but there are many more.

Now on some spot of the planet, ice melting is faster than predicted by these models.

What makes you say that it is the sun activity forcing that needs to be made more important?

Re:Eh.

[umStefa]

We expect the temperatures to go up due to solar cycles, but they don't come close to explaining the aberrant rate of increase unless there have been developments I haven't heard about.

Actually as far as I know none of the data on historic global warming is able give details accurate 50 or 100 year periods. We know that the earth's temperature cycles between Warm and Cold, but we don't know for sure what causes it. This leaves the scientific community unsure as to the role of natural processes and the activities of man in global warming. It is because the scientists of the world cannot completely agree (they do however agree that the planet is heating up) on the cause of global warming that politicians can sell various "solutions".

Of course in terms of additional land becoming available in the arctic this is all eventually irrelevant, because the end result of global warming is the next ice age.

Re:Eh.

[Xyleth]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comme nt.html?entrynum=611&tstamp=200701/ This guy was on another /. post recently. That article gives a pretty good, to my eyes at least, argument for why warming can't be account for by an increase in solar radiation. In short;

1. The Stratosphere, and other higher atmospheric layers, are actually cooling
2. The lower atmosphere is warming
3. Increased solar radiation would warm both the upper and lower atmosphere
4. The fact that the upper atmosphere is not warming argues against a significant contribution from increased solar radiation

Of course that is just my understanding. If anyone can explain it better I'd be interested to hear.

Re:Eh.

[JohnWiney]

As the article clearly says, the problem here is not with the climate change models, but with the models predicting how the environment will respond to the change. The models predicted a much slower response to the changes that is proving to be the case.

Re:Eh.

[SatanicPuppy]

My assertion was simply that the melt being higher than expected made an interesting data point, which might call for an adjustment of the model, thus reducing the approximations which give so much leeway to the melt predictions. This is self evident.

I also stated that we ought to spend some effort looking into dealing with the warming that is occurring and will likely continue to occur for some time to come. I, at no point, suggested that we should stop trying to reduce greenhouse emissions, but rather that we should not focus on it completely, as clearly we are quickly moving toward an immediate problem.

I fail to see how anyone but a fool or a zealot could find these statements to be anything other than common sense. They are not objectionable.

As for my recommendations for remediation being "lacking" I suppose that would be because I didn't make any. I'm not going to be developing new climate models, and I'm not going to be developing engineering plans to deal with increased seal levels, and decreased supplies of fresh water.

Re:Eh.

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the current model is obviously somewhat imprecise, and needs to be refined, and I am speculating that we may need to add more weight to the idea that a more active solar cycle is part of the reason for the imprecision of the model.

Re:Eh.

[SatanicPuppy]

While we may (possibly) still have time to prevent extreme climate change, I think we're definitely going to have enough climate change to cause problems, and if we start addressing them now, that is a much better idea than waiting until we're in a state of emergency.

I doubt we'll do it though. You can put me on the record for saying that we'll stop using fossil fuels only when a cheaper alternative is created and widely accepted, and that we won't do a damn thing to prepare for the side-effects of climate change until it's already a serious issue.

Re:Eh.

[Sique]

I don't think it's an either or situation, but if we're getting a spike that is outside the bounds of models based primarily on increased greenhouse gas composition in the atmosphere, which indisputably contribute to warming, then we might want to factor in increased solar activity into our models to more accurately predict the climate trends into the next century. The models about melting ice weren't taking in consideration the process of tidewater glaciers(*), and if they did, they didn't expect so many islands in place where they counted on peninsulas, thus increasing the area for tidewater glaciers.

It's not the influence of greenhouse gases that was not correctly accounted for, it was a not completely understood process of the actual melting of the ice together with an incorrect mapping of the actual coastline, that caused the errors.

(*) Tidewater glaciers, as explained in TFA, are glaciers, that reach into coastal waters, thus get rocked by the tides, and thus are "birthing" huge chunks of ice which then get loose and drift into the open (and warmer) ocean.

Re:Eh.

[RichMan]

> We know that the earth's temperature cycles between Warm and Cold, but we don't know for sure what causes it.

Lost the reference to the paper. But there is some theory/research into the massively long cycles. Not the 25K glaciations but the bigger cycles.

Errosion + ocean life cycles recycling carbon dioxide. A big >1M year cycle. Sort of like how the coldest/hottest parts of the year do not match the equinoxes. The thing is our releasing of the C02 from the carbon syncs is throwing it out of wack early. Expect lots of heat and ocean algae blooms.

CO2->heat->increased errosion+life cycle boom->feeds itself until C02 absorbtion rate is very large. Then it collapses and the C02 is low and major planet wide ice age shuts it all down. Eventually thermic(volcanic) releases under ice pressures slowly build up C02 and return to the beginning. I may have messed up the explanation. I need to find that paper again.

Re:Eh.

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I, at no point, suggested that we should stop trying to reduce greenhouse emissions...

You wrote in your initial post:

I think we need to start putting less thought into "how are we going to slow down our greenhouse gas emissions"

Now from your later posts it seems this was merely a poorly constructed bit of writing that did not express your true intention, but you can certainly see why someone might object to this fragment of a sentence can't you?

Now I don't want to get into a long drawn out semantic argument with you. It seems to me what you wrote was not particularly well thought out and/or the way you wrote it implied a number of things you did not intend. Whether your writing our your thinking was the origin of this imprecision is not particularly important. What we write will always be imprecise and open to some interpretation and misunderstanding. I'm not attacking you personally by calling out things you wrote, only expressing my opinions of the text that you clicked the "Submit" button for.

Re:Eh.

[Lars T.]

Isn't it funny how the Global Warming deniers first derided any predictions on the results of GW as doom-saying, and now claim that because some of them may have been too optimistic (and just pretend the more pessimistic ones never existed) they now have proof that man made greenhous gasses don't play hardly any role in GW?

Re:Eh.

[Leithauser]

I see no logic to this comment that "It's interesting that the models are proving to be conservative...Makes the case that the current warming trend is more closely related to a solar upswing (than greenhouse gas buildup) more persuasive." All the recent models account for both greenhouse gases and solar upswing, so any error could just as easily be caused by underestimating greenhouse warming as solar upswing. Models of greenhouse gas warming can be just as conservative as models of solar upswing. The most likely explanation for the underestimates of greenhouse warming is that they do not take into account all the positive feedback loops triggered by primary global warming. More importantly, there is a key piece of evidence that global warming is caused by greenhouse gases, rather than solar upswing. While ground level temperatures are increasing, upper atmosphere temperatures are decreasing. A solar upswing would heat both upper and lower atmosphere. However, greenhouse gases trap heat near the surface, preventing it from bouncing back into space. This warms the lower atmosphere while allowing the upper atmosphere to cool, just as we are observing. This puts the final nail in the coffin of the theory that increased solar radiation is responsible for the rise in Earth temperatures.

Re:Eh.

[KidMuddy]

Flamebait?! WTH? This should be +5 Funny. If only I had mod points this week.

Re:Eh.

[SatanicPuppy]

Right now our primary focus is stopping Greenhouse emissions, so suggesting that we put less thought into that and more thought into dealing with the consequences which we're going to have to face isn't unreasonable. I'm not saying we should stop worry about Greenhouse emissions, or even that we should be spending more time dealing with the consequences than trying to deal with the problem itself.

In retrospect, however, it is pretty similar to the way a lot of people try to put off doing anything in the present, by claiming that we should be working on improving things in the future. I apologize for any misunderstanding...The issue is so loaded that even relatively neutral statements take on an inflammatory tone.

Re:Eh.

[InsertCleverUsername]

Isn't it funny how the Global Warming deniers first derided any predictions on the results of GW as doom-saying, and now claim that because some of them may have been too optimistic (and just pretend the more pessimistic ones never existed) they now have proof that man made greenhouse gasses don't play hardly any role in GW? It's like they've only got one, short playbook with the same tired collection of slander, FUD, and distraction.

Remember the morphing reason we invaded Iraq?

Saddam was a nuclear threat to our very existence, with nukes ready to launch. Then it was suggested that he had weapons facilities in full operation. Then it was scaled back to weapons programs. And finally weapons programs INTENT. (Whoa, that's terrifying, isn't it? Did he want a pony too?) When the more dull-eyed Fox News viewers started to wonder if that was justification enough, they trotted out the "mass-graves/bad, bad man" defense. Fortunately there was a lot of truth in that (especially when you omit who helped him to power) so the Bush administration could stop struggling so hard to get their lies right.

Re:Eh.

[Maltheus]

preventing extreme climate change is much cheaper than dealing with its consequences

That's assuming, of course, that we can prevent it. Otherwise we're just using up the capital necessary to deal with the consequences. It's kind of the heart of the debate. You can also argue that by removing all regulations, industry might advance to the point where climate change will be relatively simple to deal with.

Re:Eh.

[wall0159]

I hope you don't mean 'we' collectively as a species. Lots of countries are changing behaivours now.

The USA and Australia are almost the only countries doing nothing. It's a damn shame, since they're the biggest polluters..

Re:Eh.

[eugene ts wong]

I apologize for any misunderstanding...The issue is so loaded that even relatively neutral statements take on an inflammatory tone.

I don't think that you should have to apologize for that. I think that you said it correctly. I think that he misinterpreted it. It's unfortunate, but it seems that you can't even say nice things. I once said something along the lines of, "Thanks for pointing that out. Sometimes you can't even see it when it is in front of your face. A million thanks!". The reader thought that I was being sarcastic. I was only trying to be humble and thankful.

I suspect that it is the Slashdot environment, plus the fact that poorly crafted comment could be accurate, but leave too much room for misinterpretation.

Heh, water cooling!

[digitalgoddess]

Well the good news so to speak is that we'll all be dead by the time global warming, if that's truly the cause, gets serious. Makes me wonder about the state of some of the other planets in our system in relation to what's happening to ours. on another note, I want to learn Inuit...

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[raju1kabir]

I'm sorry, what debate? I am not aware of anyone who denies that the world has been getting warmer.

Or have you been listening to the oil companies' scientists-for-hire again? The same ones who just got finished cashing the cheques they received for saying that smoking cures cancer?

Preempt this, then:

[gd23ka]

Two or three weeks ago "we found out" on slashdot that Exxon contributes
to research debunking man-made global warming theories. Now we'd like to
know from who is funding the proponents of these theories ...

Indulge us.

rapid change fans the flames of evolution and

[Anonymous Coward]

those who fear it lack the sense of adventure which led man out of the dark ages.
The past has seen tropical rainforests in Canada and glaciers in the southern USA.
IMO the whole global warming brewhaha is centered in power and control. It's nothing
more than another means to wealth and prestige for those who's only life skill is
massaging the emotions of the ignorant.

I for one welcome mass extinctions and greater stress on human life!

Re:rapid change fans the flames of evolution and

[cliffmeece]

Those who fear it propose we do nothing. Those who do have that sense of adventure you speak of are the ones who want to look closely at it and plan for the future, so that we can survive the mass extinctions you predict. Survival, even in the times you mentioned, was not the product of the hardy individual relishing the thought of being able to prove himself more capable, but the product of _groups_ of hominids that either by chance or thought pre-adapted to the new environments they found themselves in.

The saphiens could imagine their future, and devised ways to survive in it, while the groups that relied on their 'hardiness' to the exclusion of planning became extinct.

Inuit Scrabble

[Basilius]

"Uunartoq Qeqertoq"

I really want to see the point values for Inuit Scrabble.

Re:Inuit Scrabble

[SurryMt]

Inuit scrabble would need a different tile distribution, as well as different point values on the letters. How common is the letter 'Q' in Inuit words?

English (American?) scrabble letter distribution and values are based on the frequency of the various letters in written English.

For example, IIRC, the Hawaiian language only has 12 letters (and a glottal stop) -- and there is no Q.

Re:Inuit Scrabble

[spaceyhackerlady]

There are versions of Scrabble in other languages, with letter frequencies and such suitably adjusted, but I can't imagine the sales of an Inuktitut version to be worth the effort of producing one.

You'd probably want to use something like the Nunavut Hansard to get an idea of letter frequencies. You would also have to adjust the rules to allow for the radically different way Inuktitut forms words.

...laura

Interesting thought

[WindBourne]

Hmmmm. Just thinking about it, I would guess that the snow and ice has probably preserved that era quit nicely. This may be an excellent opportunity to study our relatives. I would guess that we will find a few icemen (and women) if we watch carefully.

Re:Interesting thought

[Hijacked Public]

And given the previously warm climate they might even run across a few iceweasels.

Re:Interesting thought

[Coryoth]

Hmmmm. Just thinking about it, I would guess that the snow and ice has probably preserved that era quit nicely. This may be an excellent opportunity to study our relatives. I would guess that we will find a few icemen (and women) if we watch carefully.

Unforunately no, the Norse settlements were never under ice (snow in the winters at times, but not under ice). The particular areas settled were in fjords where there was no ice, indeed the area was actually quite green. Consider these Googlemaps images of the sites for the Western and Eastern Settlements:

Eastern settlment area, and Eastern settlment map
Western settlment area, and Western settlement map.

Just for reference, here is a zoom of the area of the Brattahlid and Gardar farms (two of the largest/richest farms), and a zoom of the Sadnes farm area from the Western settlment.

Don't Panic

[ibirman]

According to the article, Greenland has 630,000 cubic miles of ice. If all of it melted it will raise ocean levels by 23 feet, but the article also says we are losing only 80 cubic miles per year. At that rate it will take over 300 years to raise sea levels by a foot. This is reason for concern, but don't buy that inland beachfront yet!

Re:Don't Panic

[MillenneumMan]

Interesting. But don't forget that if Greenland ice is melting, other northern ice masses will be melting as well, and the resulting rise in water levels will be greater. Better keep that realtor's business card handy!

Re:Don't Panic

[plopez]

There may be other ramifications. I can't find the ref, but one possible side effect could be the ocena floor and the island of greeland rising and putting less pressure and distortion on the surrounding sea floor. sort of like putting pressure on the outside of a dodge ball, if the presure is reduced, it could cause the sea floor to *drop*.

The sam, on an even more massive scale, could be true of Antartica. A huge mass of ice suddenly is no longer pressing down on the continent, distorting the earth's crust. The surrounding sea floor could drop.

Net effect? Unknown.

Re:Don't Panic

[LxDengar]

I hope you're kidding. You're assuming that the rate of loss is constant, which it is certainly not. Aside from warming factors in general, this warmth melted ice on the surface, forming pools. This water then trickled down through the ice, widening crevasses as it went, thus fracturing the shelf or alowing it to move, and shatter. Take a look at Larsen Shelf in the Antarctica. This is a shelf larger than Rhode Island. http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1022-06.ht m http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImage s/images.php3?img_id=4562 http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/planetearth/ ice_melt_010117.html

Re:Don't Panic

[electroniceric]

Well put. One of the worst failures of models of climate change has been the reaction of sea and land ice to warming. And the failure has been that the predictions were too conservative. Yet, shockingly, there hasn't been a media outcry about how the models were all wrong and melting could well be happening faster than we think.

Re:Don't Panic

[hamburger lady]

thing is, as ice melts the earth's albedo drops. that means more energy from the sun is absorbed, causing the rate of ice melt to go up higher and higher.

Re:Don't Panic

[Pfhreak]

Of course there hasn't been an outcry that the models were too conservative: the GW deniers are using the inacuracy of the predictions as "proof" that GW is bunk. (I've seen comments in responce to this very article to that effect.) Never mind that the failure is on the side of things being even faster/worse than originally predicted, the models weren't dead-on accurate, so the whole thing must be a sham. The media has proven itself complicit with denying GW, creating the impression that there's no scientific concensus of such when there clearly is, serving as a mouthpiece for GW deniers' bogus arguments without presenting the scientists' rebuttals and evidence to the contrary, etc. They know where their advertising income comes from: car manufacturers and big oil, who have a vested interest in hindering acceptance of GW, since widespread acceptance would lead to widespread effort to amelorate the situation by exploring more fuel-efficient vehicles and manufacturing methods, alternative fuels, etc. which would wean us away from dependence on big oil.

Re:Don't Panic

[Mad Dog Manley]

At that rate it will take over 300 years to raise sea levels by a foot.

Ah, but you are assuming a constant rate of melt. All the studies on Arctic melting rates has concluded that the Arctic ice (incl Greenland) is melting at an accelerating rate. Thus, the increase in melting ice will be exponential. It is almost certain that levels will rise at least foot within 100 years, not 300 years. And they are very likely to rise 4 or 5 feet in the 100 years after that.

Re:Don't Panic

[The Fourth]

New Scientist were running a article on the Glaciers on Greenland that were melting. The speed was accelerating far faster than they though. Apparently the meltwater was running under the glacier and providing lubrication sppeding up it;s marh in to the ocean. The meltwater was also taking warm(er) water beneath the ice and causing erosion of the sub surface ice down there opening up huge caverns. I don't think linear mathematics apply to this situation. Also don't forget all the other knock on effects. Each year it gets hotter, the oceans warm up. The ice shelves are warming from above and below. I suspect we will see more scientific studies showing these accelerative effects accumulating.

Re:Don't Panic

[NetNed]

300 years for a foot? Wouldn't evaporation over the same time make that foot unnoticeable? Warmer temperatures would mean higher levels of evaporation I would think.

If you take a glass with ice and fill it to the rim with water, does the melting ice make the water flow over the rim? So how is it that the cubes of the earth are going to flood us all?

I don't deny global warming, but some of the studies out there don't seem to be based on multiple factors or do not focus on the real issues (or causes) that might be of concern.

Re:Don't Panic

[dzelenka]

Don't assume that the climate changes everywhere at the same rate. The ice mass in the southern hemisphere is actually growing. The net is a slight loss globally. At the current rate of decrease we will see almost an inch rise in sea level in 100 years.

The danger is in a potential exponential change, but we aren't measuring that yet. Most of the hysteria is about worst case scenarios.

Google Maps

[Xzzy]

Took a few minutes (the map in the article isn't really all that good), but I dug up a photo of the island in google maps:

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&z=10&ll=71.476542, -21.726837&spn=0.209418,1.203003&t=k&om=1

Still shows it as connected.. but only barely.

I lost count.

[Rob T Firefly]

Are we breaking even?

Re:I lost count.

[hey!]

Well, you might get some objection to relocating people from the Calcutta area to Greenland.

Re:preemptive replies

[Anonymous Coward]

"2.Please explain your assertion that climatologists have a vested interest in anthropogenic global warming being true."

Scientists need to do research. The funding for all research is limited, so more serious issues tend to receive a larger portion of funding. The more serious the climatologists make their issues seem, the more funding they receive.

And since it's how they get paid and make their living, they have a vested interest.

Your failure to understand this makes YOU stupid.

Re:preemptive replies

[Hijacked Public]

Man, I am so glad you posted that. It will be a relief to not have to wade through post after post of exactly the same pointless dreck that has been in every other global climate change themed story, here and everywhere else.

A nice, refreshing, intelligent discussion of the topic, with no hyperbole from either side, will be the result I'm sure.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Sloppy]

You're right. We need to stay open to the possibility that temperatures staying the same (or even cooling) may be the cause of all this ice melting. ;-)

Someone should tell the car companies

[erko]

Someone should tell the car companies about this global warming "theory".

"Chrysler questions climate change"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6247371.stm

The mainstream press should also be more critical in situations like this. The public should know that a blowhard's comments don't compare to scientific data. If anyone still disagrees, there is more than enough data presented in the movie "An Inconvenient Truth".

Re:Someone should tell the car companies

[LotsOfPhil]

Speaking of "An Inconvenient Truth," this reminded me of all the before and after pictures of glaciers and such. Here are a few: melt

Denver

[Arrowroot, son of Ar]

Please bear in mind as you spread your FUD, that although global warming is a given, you can't look at some islands in the Arctic and proclaim "The world is melting! The world is melting!". You have to look at the entire model. I'm sure the people of Denver and the Midwest would like some of their global warming

Re:Denver

[TrappedByMyself]

Denver is cold? In the winter? APOCALYPSE!!

Re:Denver

[t0rkm3]

Ummm... Let me know when St. Louis get hit by it's first hurricane. That's gotta pass by me first (NE Okla.) and I sure don't want to be around when a hurricane makes it that far inland.

Around here, when a storm makes it that far inland it's referred to as a thunderstorm, or perhaps a supercell.

Re:Denver

[fuego451]

I'm sure the people of Denver and the Midwest would like some of their global warming.

Amen to that. Temps here in northeastern Oklahoma have been below freezing since Friday night along with up to 2" of ice on everything. I did a rough estimate of ~10+ tons of ice on my roof. 11:56:42 CST right now and 18F (-8C). NWS is saying we will make it up to 38F on Thursday; t-shirt weather for sure.

Re:Denver

[blackdragon7777]

I agree. I could use some global warming here in Seattle. It's been a week of snow and ice on the ground and roads here.

Fossils?

[KidSock]

Not to detract from the issue but is this not a good opportunity to go fossil hunting? Covered in ice there might be more than just fossilized bone as well (but we'd better be quick about it because once exposed to air there really won't be anything but bone).

Re:Fossils?

[tiedyejeremy]

I'm feeling a rare foods smorgasbord...

SHOTGUN!

[DarthVain]

Canada calls Shotgun! Those islands are now the soverign soil of Canada! Hurray!

Re:SHOTGUN!

[the phantom]

Well, while you are rushing to the passenger's seat, the US has called "dibs," and is already on its way with a fleet of nuclear destroyers.

I'm not worried.

[headplant]

By the time global warming gets really bad, I'll be kicking back in my condo on the moon.

Is it obvious yet?

[inviolet]

"The New York Times has a sobering article about the rapidly accelerating pace of glacial melting across the arctic, focusing on the discovery of new islands and the fact that this is occurring far faster than climate scientist's models predict.

Seeing as how this is the 10,000th time this sort of thing has happened, can we at least all agree that:

• global warming is real, and its consequences are mounting, but
• climate models are teh suck

Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.

But, nevertheless, the planet is getting steadily warmer.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

Exactly. I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.

The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before. We've also had glaciers down to the Ohio River (in the USA) before too. Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.

I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda. My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause. It's all politics, FUD, and money at the moment.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Alioth]

You're missing the one thing most of the detractors miss: climate prediction != weather prediction. Climatologists make no such claim that "Year X will be a busy/quiet/indifferent year for $FOO weather".

An analogy: Take a pan of water on a gas stove. Weather prediction is predicting exactly where the eddy currents will appear in the heating water, and how many there may be in a particular time period. Climate prediction on the other hand is giving a forecast such as - If we put a lid on the pan, it will reach boiling point 10% quicker, or, if we turn the heat up by X% it will boil Y minutes sooner.

The climate models are actually doing quite well. The British Met Office's Hadley Climate Centre model has been validated by using it to predict general climate conditions (things like average global temperature, NOT the number of hurricanes in a given year) by rolling it back fifty or sixty years, and given the data about atmospheric composition and the rate of change of the atmosphere, how closely this resembles today's conditions when the model is run. If you look at the Met.Office's website, you'll find the model closely matches reality. Therefore, you can say with a reasonable degree of confidence that if the rate of CO2 emissions (i.e. putting the lid on the pan) continues at a certain rate, it is likely to have a certain result on global average temperatures.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Danathar]

One Scientist said it well (can't remember his name)

"Don't confuse climate with weather, climate is the background in which weather operates. Local weather phenomenon is VERY hard to correlate directly to global climate.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season.

I saw lots of sensationalist claptrap that discussed climate models and somehow extrapolated from that that 2006 would have more hurricanes than 2005. I saw statements from environmentalist nut cases, and even televangelists to that affect. I did not see a lot of actual scientists predicting 2006 would have an increased number of hurricanes, only generalized talk about overall hurricane rates going up over the next century if certain other trends continue. Perhaps you should be complaining about the sensationalist information sources you seem to read/watch/listen to, rather than actual climate models. I've never even seen a global climate model that claimed it could predict overall storm trends within the period of a single year.

Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.

Isn't that what a lot of science is? Finding correlations, proposing causation, and then testing for it with predictions? You could just as well apply the same statement to all of science. If you only pay attention to untested hypothesis as reported by the local news entertainment franchise then you are going to have problems.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[HoneyBeeSpace]

Actually climate models are *not* 'teh suck'. They have problems just like any other piece of incredibly complex software, but they allow us to learn about things that we otherwise could not study. As for hurricanes, that comment shows a general lack of understanding of climate, weather, and climate models. There is scientific consensus that there is no (know yet) link between climate change and hurricane FREQUENCY. Due to the scientific method being what it is, this may change. That does not mean we are now wrong or teh suck, merely that the scientific method works. There is a known link between hurricane STRENGTH and LONGEVITY and ocean temperatures.

The climate model I work with (EdGCM) doesn't have a dynamic ocean, but that is because it needs to be simple enough so you can download it and run it on your laptop. It does have a 9 layer atmosphere and is in general agreement with the ensemble runs of most of the other GCMs out there.

The EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.

Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[hawkfish]

The usual aphorism is:

"Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get."

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[bill_kress]

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing--models suck.

It occurs to me that humans have a problem perceiving changes in the rate of change of their environment.

If you are used to stocks moving within a certain range, you are virtually unable to conceive of a price crash outside that range--therefore people repeatedly walk blindly into stock-market crashes.

I think scientists throw out "Radical" models because those models are so outside their experience. Nobody would think it possible that the water would rise enough to obliterate hundreds of square miles of New York, Florida, Seattle and San Fransisco within our lifetimes, so if someone presented a model that suggested such a scenario, it would never propagate to us.

I'm not suggesting that such a scenario has ever been considered--just that if it is a possible scenario, we'd never hear about it except on the back page of a supermarket rag...

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[kabocox]

* global warming is real, and its consequences are mounting, but
        * climate models are teh suck

Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.

Last Friday, I finally watched Al Gore's so called Inconvenient Truth. Half of it was poor Al didn't get elected Prez and an undertone of Al was our Prez he'd have focused on this issue. The other half were of glaciers and ice melting giving birth to alot more land area. Um, sorry Al, I don't want to preserve glaciers. I want more land area.

The only part of the film that concerned me was the estimated sea level change and the usable land changing. That's the only issue that I need to care about or worry about. I don't care about more often natural storms. (That was just adding to the scare mongering of the eco religion.) I also don't care about wildlife. I only care about species that humanity can make use of. Everything else is waste or window dressing. Land area changes do have effects.

I got out of HS in 96 and the global warming was all we still need to look at it by all the repected scientists. All the end of the world people were the fringe. Friday, I tried looking through google for some sources of non human global warming. I couldn't find any thing. Every search result was global warming end of the world caused by humans. Grr. I was trying to find actual science numbers and find out what the latest numbers were. Apparently, now it's popular for global warming in the science press and most of the public press as well. It is hard to find or narrow down your information to non human stuff though if you are actually just looking for the other side of the coin. I don't really care about global warming. Why? It'll screw up the planet and cause a global government to fix it. Massive econonimc and social changes will take place as well as a couple of wars. As long as we don't nuke ourselves, the end result should be a more socially evovled eco aware humanity that keeps and eye on its natural resources. Individually our lives could be a living hell through it, but hey it'll get better.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[theodicey]

Climate models are not the same as ice sheet models. They work on different spatial scales (climate models: world, ice sheet model: Antarctica/Greenland) and different time scales. In an ideal world they would both work perfectly, but sorry, you can't just make science work like that.

If you bothered to do a bit of cursory research into climate change (like seeing Al Gore's movie), you would learn that while climate models have been shockingly accurate, ice sheet models are poor for specific and challenging reasons, like nonlinear feedbacks from ice sheet reflectance, meltwater-induced ice slippage, etc. Current ice sheet models are a very conservative estimate of the potential damage from global warming.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda.

There is about as much a "global warming" agenda as there is a "gay" agenda. Of course, both are part of the "liberal media" conspiracy.

I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.

This is not true. A good number of them tell us we should have been alarmed a while back and now are approaching the PoNR.

Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.

It entirely evident that humans have contributed to changes in the cycle that are FAR beyond what used to be considered "natural". Think of it more like a tire going downhill as a natuarl cycle. Then put of a motor on it, and you have a motor-cycle. Which is not only a good metaphor for what is happening, but also a good part of our contribution to said acceleration.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[t0rkm3]

Care to use your expertise in the field to explain this?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/06052 3085540.htm/

Not trying to be a troll, but on one hand, people are bitching about the inaccuracy of modeling and others are waving their hands saying that modeling has nothing to do with predictions.

I understand that there are different specifics for models, perhaps you can give a synopsis?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[HoneyBeeSpace]

Disclaimer of course... I work as a programmer in the field. Not a scientist, and not an expert on hurricanes, but here is my take on the article.

It never mentions 'climate change' or 'global warming'. It simply says that hurricanes are "...strongly related to a climate pattern known as the multi-decadal signal". This is neither weather prediction nor making estimates of the effects of climate change. We know that when the Pacific is in an El Nino or La Nina phase and also depending on Atlantic currents that certain global patterns are more likely. Is it a local effect within 10 days to 2 weeks? No, then it isn't a weather forecast. It also has very little to do with GCMs, as you don't need a predictive model to tell you this, we can look at historical trends of hurricanes correlated to ENSO events.

Now, will a global change in climate have an effect on the El Nino / La Nina cycles? Will it change them? Will it change what happens when they occur? Will it affect Atlantic currents day-to-day or these year-long trends that come and go? Will it change the wind patterns? That is an entirely different question and not discussed by me nor in that article.

Note that the article does support my original statement that warmer ocean temperatures are positively correlated to increased hurricane strength, and also that

Hope this helps.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Bastian]

Are you aware that in the past 15 or 20 years there has not been a single peer-reviewed paper that calls the assertion that humans are contributing to global warming into question? All the flap about this being 100% natural

*Depends on ignoring any concept of scale or rate
*Comes from politicians, people who have a vested interest in us not doing anything about the problem, or people gullible enough to believe them
*Often relies on logical fallacies, with affirming the consequent being particularly popular.

As for your suggestion that we shouldn't be doing anything because the climate models haven't been perfected yet, I'd suggest that that's about as smart as ignoring a tsunami warning because the system isn't 100% accurate, or ignoring a fire alarm because it might be a drill.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[w3woody]

But, nevertheless, the planet is getting steadily warmer.

And how do we know this? Because the models tell us.

Erp?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

I never said that we should ignore all this and just go about our business. Not once.

I did mention that I do conserve, and encourage others to do the same. I used to work with atmospheric research scientists, and while they all had differing opinions about "global warming", none of them would even think of giving up their SUVs (and I did ask, "Why not lead by example if you believe in your research?").

I am 100% for the improvement of our current climate models. Just because we don't know 100% what's going on with our planet, doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to see where we're going.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

Sounds like you have connections to info that might persuade me to rethink my position. Please shoot some links into this thread for a reply, even if they aren't URLs.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[LWATCDR]

"Note that the article does support my original statement that warmer ocean temperatures are positively correlated to increased hurricane strength, a"
I have seen some other studies that point to another concept.
Temperature differential is what drives hurricane strength not absolute temperature.
Like any heat engine it is the difference in tempter that drives hurricanes.
Historically one of the intense storm cycles happened during one of the coolest periods of time. Since global warming and cooling seem to effect the poles more then the equator it is very possible that the warming cycle will weaken the storm cycles.
What warmer weather may encourage is for storms to live longer and go farther north.
Frankly this is a BIG area of who knows.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

Sure...you said..I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.

Here's a link to an article that mentions how current models don't even predict how quickly glaciers are currently melting. Hence, change is happening faster than the models predict, hence....*ALARM*. Now wake up and try to do something productive today.

HAND!

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[OriginalArlen]

*sigh* cite, please? Which particular GCM's output are you thinking of, and which particular *weather* phenomena are you referring to? You know there's a difference between weather and climate, right? You know what "detection and attribution" means, yes?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

That's great and all, but it just proves the point that the models aren't working reliably. Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate? Or is the model based off of incorrect data and assumptions?

Let's get to the point where we can reproduce past climate events based on the data we have, then start making predictions.

Sorry if I'm being too realistic.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[NoOneInParticular]

Not really. The best indicator for global warming are the glaciers and snow caps on mountains. The snows on the Kilimanjaro are gone, glaciers in the US, the Alps, Africa, the Himalaya, are all decaying rapidly. Most of these have been there for 11,000 years or more.

Glaciers are ice, the ice is melting almost everywhere, must be the temperature. Ice was 11,000 years old. Must be the hottest we've encountered in 11,000 years. See, no models needed. It's not that difficult.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

Sorry if I'm being too realistic.

You consider waiting for the 100% (perfect) surety of a model before taking any kind of action to be "realistic"?

You do realize that the only 100% (perfect) model for the earth's climate is the earth itself? And it only "models" in real time.

Hence, you have "models" that aren't, and will never be as perfect as you want them to be (before taking any action). That's not in the slightest bit "realistic".
--
Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?

Nope. It's melting faster than the imperfect model used to predict the future. It is melting 100% as fast as the 100% perfect model says it will. Unfortunately, that "model" only works in real time, and despite being terribly accurate, doesn't tell us what's going to happen next.

You call for surety is a call to constant inaction. Do you understand this?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

Nope. It's melting faster than the imperfect model used to predict the future. It is melting 100% as fast as the 100% perfect model says it will. Unfortunately, that "model" only works in real time, and despite being terribly accurate, doesn't tell us what's going to happen next.

Uh, duh? Exactly what I was trying to get across, thank you.

The models are too far off to make any type of prediction. It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement. It just has to be good enough, and the current models are anything but that.

Here, executive summary for you: FIX THE MODELS.

Did you understand that?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

Woohoo, now we're making progress.

It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement. It just has to be good enough, and the current models are anything but that.

The point of the twice-linked story, and the issue that I took with your original comment, is simply this...even given your "climate cabal"...the models are underpredicting the change of this particular aspect (glacial loss) of the problem (climate change to the hotter direction). Given the conspiracy you aluded to earlier, one would think the models would say things are worse than they are. Instead, things are happening faster than the models predict.

While I agree that having better models would be useful, there is indeed (to use your phrase) "cause for alarm". While drastic change is not yet, IMHO, warranted, it's certainly not too early to start doing something, and well past the time to say, "I'm not going to believe anything is happening until the models are perfect."
--
It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement.
--vs--
Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?

That would seem to be a "requirement", at least in my reading.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

It doesn't have to be 100% accurate, which I never claimed was a requirement.
--vs--
Is the ice melting faster than predicted with a model that's 100% accurate?

That would seem to be a "requirement", at least in my reading.

You really need to brush up on your English, unless it is your second (or third, or fourth, etc) language.

Different contexts. The question was to highlight the fact that we cannot model anything that even remotely resembles a climate for a planet. The second is true, I never demanded that a model be 100% accurate. I'm not stupid, I know we'll never reach 100%, but the closer we get, the better.

Models that underpredict change are just worthless. It's not a model if it doesn't represent reality. Right now we have simulations of how we think the climate works. Gotta get closer to reality in the models or simulations, which is what I've been saying all along.

The best anyone can do with the current models is figure out where they're wrong, which probably will lead to another dataset no one thought of before, and/or higher resolution of current datasets. This is a good thing, because we are a very long way off to knowing how this planet ticks when it comes to the climate.

While I agree that having better models would be useful, there is indeed (to use your phrase) "cause for alarm". While drastic change is not yet, IMHO, warranted, it's certainly not too early to start doing something, and well past the time to say, "I'm not going to believe anything is happening until the models are perfect."

So, we are in agreement with my original thoughts in my first post regarding better models are needed.

I stated in my original post that I do conserve, and encourage others to do the same. So, we're in agreement on that issue as well.

What's your beef?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[philipgar]

obvious if the US shuts down production immediately and ceases to produce any more green house gases, we could stop the trend too, right?

The problem isn't whether we're the cause, the question is . . . WHAT IS THE SOLUTION? While I don't know the models, and am not a climatologists, do any models suggest that if every country in the world immediately stopped production of excess greenhouse gases that we'd stop global warming? In a still unrealistic model, what if every country reduces ourselves to producing half the green house gases? Does this actually accomplish anything, other than move the time when problems start back a couple years?

Unfortunately, the ramifications of an immediate drop in green house gas production on the worlds economy would be huge. Energy production (as we know it currently) is directly tied to green house gas production. If we drop it, we drop production, at least initially. There are no if ands or buts about it. Also the only way to force such cutbacks is through authortarian rules, so maybe a kyoto dictatorship. That sounds like fun. And where does that leave us? Now, not only is global warming still going to occur (just a few years later if we're lucky), but we don't have the production and economic capabilities to stop it.

While Kyoto proposed a direct drop of green house gases (essentially it was a bunch of countries trying to punish the US for being more prosperous than them), that would just result in degrading the world economy. What if instead of cutting production we put money into researching methods to combat global warming? With the funds saved by not going onto a Kyoto-like agreement such research is not out of the question.

Of course a manmade solution wouldn't be natural, and so forth. Well, honestly, I don't care. My concern is whether or not my house is in the middle of the atlantic ocean in 50 years. I imagine the odds of finding a solution to global warming is far far far cheaper than the solutions that environmentalists provide, and would likely be far more effective!

Phil

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Truth_Quark]

I'm all for research into global climate, but it's very clear that the models we currently have are not up to the task of telling us if we have cause to be alarmed yet.

Be alarmed. Greenhouse gas levels are greater than at any time in the past few million years. Temperatures will certainly rise rapidly to levels greater than at any time in the past few million years. The consequences of this are very dire. I such cases you don't wait for an exact description of the consequences, you get alarmed and act, because delaying worsens the consequences. The temperature takes about half a century to respond to greenhouse gasses increases, so most of the disaster is in the post. So waiting until it gets bad is not going to work.

The planet has been warmer than it currently is plenty of times before.

Possibly at a couple of points in the last 7 ice ages. But we are within 1C of the warmest that humanity has ever co-existed with.

Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.

Utter bollocks. Have you not heard of the greenhouse effect? It causes warming!
Greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing. It's caused by humans.
This is not a mystery. The greenhouse effect is very well understood.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[geekoid]

no, it's pretty much confirmed that warmer ocean temperture equals more huricane or higher magnitude.

so, why were't they here in 2006 you are asking.(I hope so because that would be the obvious question.)

Increase in temperatuse aloe created more wind sheers; which 'top' huricanes.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

The question was to highlight the fact that we cannot model anything that even remotely resembles a climate for a planet.

This is not true....depending on how pedantic you want to get about "remotely resembles". We already have this stuff.

Models that underpredict change are just worthless.

I would disagree. If a model predicts the opposite of what is happening, *that* would be worthless. Since we are getting closer, they are obviously not worthless.

What's your beef?
--
Obviously there's a cycle, and it's possible humans have added (or even subtracted) from various aspects of the cycle.
--

It's not "possible", it's all but proven. "Possible" is about as weak a word as you can get. We are seeing unprecedented changes in certain atmospheric conditions. On a general level, we see a correlation between historical changes and climate. Right now we are far outside the bounds on those historical atmospheric conditions.

--
I conserve where I can, and encourage others to do the same. However, I'm not a fan of the whole "global warming" agenda.
--

The "global warming agenda" is to build better models...or...what? What is it you aren't a fan of?

--
My personal thoughts are that we are witnessing the transition from one phase of our climate to another, and entirely too many people are jumping to conclusions about what is the real cause.
--
But the data would suggest that the "transition" is from a "pre-industrial" atmosphere to a "post-industrial" atmosphere...with a climate that could very well change radically to adapt....even to point of making said climate very inhospitable to the major cause of that quick change...the species responsible for the change.

You seem to think that the "agenda" people are making up data to fit pre-conceived notions. The data was already there (i.e. a warming planet and pretty much out of control changes in CO2 levles). The explanation and the *exact* models is where the work needs to be done.

There is very little argument about what is happening (hotter) or why (us)....well...very little argument in the professional circles...once you get to the layman level..the argument become fierce. BTW, you do know about the rather well confirmed "there's-no-issue-here agenda", yes?

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

I'm going to make this short and sweet for you:

Show me a model that can be fed data from 20 years ago, or whatever reasonable time frame you like, and have that model spit out current climate conditions. If we can get to that point, I'd believe what the models predict for future events. Until then, we either have poor/incomplete models, or poor/incomplete data sets.

We are seeing unprecedented changes in certain atmospheric conditions. On a general level, we see a correlation between historical changes and climate. Right now we are far outside the bounds on those historical atmospheric conditions.

No, we are witnessing unprecedented changes in atmospheric conditions compared to previously recorded conditions. The planet has had a hell of a lot of changes to its climate over tens of thousands of years, this is fact.

The "global warming agenda" is to build better models...or...what? What is it you aren't a fan of?

I'm definitely a fan of better models. Spreading FUD for political/research gains is the wrong way to go about getting those models. It's just plain ignorant.

But the data would suggest that the "transition" is from a "pre-industrial" atmosphere to a "post-industrial" atmosphere...with a climate that could very well change radically to adapt....even to point of making said climate very inhospitable to the major cause of that quick change...the species responsible for the change.

That's a complete load of crap. We don't have enough data to make any conclusions regarding our impact on a planetary scale, and if it's even a negative impact. Wait another 200 years, with improved data collection capabilities and a much better sample of data, and then maybe we'll have a better idea. Even then, it's still not enough for truely long term predictions.

There is very little argument about what is happening (hotter) or why (us)....well...very little argument in the professional circles...once you get to the layman level..the argument become fierce.

There's plenty of argument amoung people with half a brain who don't have to fight for funding to keep food on the table.

I've had plenty of conversations with scientists in the field of atmospheric research (used to work with about 30 of them), and I can tell you that nothing is for certian at this point in time. There isn't enough data for anything but guesses at this point.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

Oh, well then. Maybe we should all just off ourselves and do the world a favor?

Or, we can do what we can to conserve and reduce our impact, and get some real fucking data to make decisions about how to go about existing on the planet.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

There's plenty of argument amoung people with half a brain who don't have to fight for funding to keep food on the table.

Correct, all the argument is from laypeople who don't do this for a living..or are being paid to argue against it (using faaar more FUD than people who actually build models). You want better models...but think people trying to build them shouldn't be paid for it? How, pray tell, does the science get better if there is not draw for the scientists? That doesn't really compute.

Regardless, take care and I apprecaite the discussion.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

I'm completely for better models, and paying our scientists well. The FUD campaign to scare money into research is a very bad way to do business, IMHO, because it can backfire badly.

Yes, thanks for the civil discussion as well. :-)

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

I hate to do it, but...uh....here's the latest news. Looks like the latest models and recent data paints an even worse picture.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/2 4/2352218

You're not out of the woods on this one yet. :-)

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[Wah]

Apples meet Oranges. From the paper itself.

A theory is described based on resonant thermal diffusion waves in the sun that explains many details of the
paleotemperature record for the last 5.3 million years. These include the observed periodicities, the relative strengths
of each observed cycle, and the sudden emergence in time for the 100 thousand year cycle. Other prior work
suggesting a link between terrestrial paleoclimate and solar luminosity variations has not provided any specific
mechanism. The particular mechanism described here has been demonstrated empirically, although not previously
invoked in the solar context. The theory, while not without its own unresolved issues, also lacks most of the problems
associated with Milankovitch cycle theory.

We aren't talking about paleoclimate changes here. This conversation was not about ice ages occuring at periodic intervals. That's what his paper is about. It is an attempt at an explanation for why there was a change in ice age intervals.

It does nothing to talk about what we are seeing here, which is a rapid change in temperature outside the bounds of historically measured ice age changes. The scale of his research (in the 41,000 to 100,000 year range) is also well outside the bounds of what we are talking about. That is...the changes we are seeing now are happening far too quickly to be explained by such a gradual phenomena.

Finally, and most damning...no where in his paper does he suggest this cycle explains what we are seeing now.

Re:Is it obvious yet?

[SaDan]

This conversation was about climate change. Ice ages are climate change.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

It appears libertarians and objectivists like the grandparent poster for some reason find global warming inconsistent with their religion - er, sorry, politics - and feel the need to mouth off against it at any given opportunity, whether or not they get paid for it.

I guess you can't expect much from a mind that actually thinks Ayn Rand is insightful.

Oh, no, new islands!

[jdavidb]

I recognize that global warming may be a serious threat, and this may be a good sign that there is a problem, but it's just hard to feel that a sentence like "something is occurring faster than models predict" is a tragedy for anybody other than the modelers.

Re:Oh, no, new islands!

[tehcyder]

I recognize that global warming may be a serious threat, and this may be a good sign that there is a problem, but it's just hard to feel that a sentence like "something is occurring faster than models predict" is a tragedy for anybody other than the modelers.

I don't think you'd be saying that if the model was of when a huge fucking asteriod was going to hit the Earth.

The end is nigh

[ZombieSquirrel]

I saw some ass hate on Fox New the other day saying that global warming was good for the economy. Knowing that there are many in this country (including our own freaking president) who feel similarly, I can't help but think it might be too late. I honestly don't think the human animal can over come its greed and hunger for power. It might be time to accept the great purge is coming. Now, if only there was away to make sure that only the idiots perish.

Re:The end is nigh

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, if only there was away to make sure that only the idiots perish.

It's called "natural selection" because it's built in to nature. Give it time, it'll work.

Re:preemptive replies

[ProfessionalCookie]

Ok, I'm ready let go of my karma...

1. Yeah that would be stupid. See #4
2. Funding. This is true of many fields. It's typically viewed as harder to get funding if your results are inconclusive or show nothing. Just read any old science journal, how often do you find articles stating that experiments were done and nothing was found. Plus, in science it's fun to believe what is popular. $Popular != $Correct
3. Way to attack the source and not the science. I suppose next you'll say there is no science behind those sources- at least none non you want to consider.
4. Does anyone actually say that? If they do you're right that's pretty dumb. Then again keep in mind that 'could' and 'does' are not lexically equivalent (neither are 'can never happen' and 'isn't happening right now').

In all fairness those aren't very convincing replies.

Oh- and for all you GW (and I don't mean Bush) scaremongers who continue to have haydays with warmer than usually temps make a note of this last weeks weather across the US.

Will this bring out the Alien Hunters?

[tiedyejeremy]

I know that that meteors are supposedly easy to spot on ice fields...
I know the extra water will be bad for the coastal cities and such, but I tend to be a half full kind of guy and am interested about what things might be discovered.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

Or that Global Warming is some word the media pumped up to represent so much more than it really should.

To me, it seems evident that the Earth is indeed warming and the Arctic is melting. It also seems reasonable to think that we have done nothing but aide and hasten that process. At the same time, we are naive to think we have any control over the weather and that we can stop, or curve the effects of what has been set in motion, man made or not.

That being said, we will and should continue to look at the facts and figures as we move towards a green society. At the same time, we are not certain what is causing this heating, be it greenhouse gases, or just weather. Earth has seen numerous global weather changes/ice ages and it will see many more.

Global Warming or Global Weather Change? They are different in my eyes. Perhaps one aides/causes the other(probably), but nonetheless, in the end, it is weather.

Re:preemptive replies

[tiedyejeremy]

1) rather than worrying about blame or calling names, shouldn't we all be planning how to deal with it?
2) Who cares about climatoligists? See #1, above.
3) Starting to sound like the Democrats claiming they have to introduce draft bills to combat the warmongering Republicans
4) See #1, again.

I know, you're just itching for a fight, so I'm responding in jest, but seriously, calling people stupid does little to help us move forward and lots to drive a wedge between two sides who should be focusing on a common enemy.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Anonymous Coward]

I realize you think the science is fully conclusive on the subject, and that no debate is required, but ask yourself, is scaring the population (which, to steal a quote is comprised of "panicky animals") really the responsible way to go about making the point? I fear an overreaction that could make things vastly worse.

Ultimately my point is, people like me who desire intelligent, open minded discussion don't bother listening to people like you anymore, because even if I had stone-cold dead on proof Global Warming wasn't happening, you stopped listening to ME a long time ago.

I don't know why you think rushing to a conclusion about the how and why of CLIMATE CHANGE which is what real scientists call it these days, is a good idea. All you do with your vitriol and fear mongering is to shut out discussion of the topic. Which as we all know is what science is about...

And you'll notice, at no time did I even imply Global climate change wasn't occurring, I simply asked why you think forcing your conclusions on those of us who desire intelligent discussion of the subject is a good idea.

water, water everywhere

[The Fun Guy]

Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.

"That corresponds to three times the volume of all the glaciers in the Alps," Dr. Boggild said. "If you lose that much volume you'd definitely see new islands appear."

.. .. which would subsequently disappear again as the oceans continued to rise.

People laughed at me when I bought coastline in Kansas. Who'll be laughing last?

Re:water, water everywhere

[Derek Pomery]

I know this is a joke, but let's say we somehow managed in some science fiction scenario to melt all the ice in Greenland and Antarctica.
http://m8y.org/images/world_noice.jpg
You'd end up with something like that.
You bought a bit too far inland. :)
Used this toy.
http://www.ens-lyon.fr/Planet-Terre/Infosciences/H istoire/Eustatisme/Applets/index.html

Re:preemptive replies

[Xyleth]

Actually, as far as I understand the science, what happened the last few days in the US is entierly expected as a consequence of Global Warming. YOu don't just get warmer weather, you get more extreme weather as the extra energy in the system pushes things further from it's balance point. Global Warming is a misnomer as its far too simple and encourages thinking along the lines of 'its cold here so Global Warming can't possibly be happening'. Global Climate Change is a better term.

You just had to do that, didn't you?

[plopez]

You just sent me off chasing Lovecraft related links for the past 1/2 hour.

Damn you..... :)

Re:You just had to do that, didn't you?

[corbettw]

A half-hour? Better make a sanity roll, then.

Global Warming in General- why debate?

[RyoShin]

Since this will devolve into a debate about global warming in general, I'd like to jump the gun a bit.

I'm not entirely certain if global warming is entirely the cause of humans. The limited research and reading I've done makes me learn towards the side that says it is, but my degree-in-earning is Computer Science, not Environmental Science, so I won't rule without doing far more research.

However, I think there are two facts that can't be denied by anyone:
1) The Earth is, in general, becoming warmer.
2) Polution and trash from humans is affecting the environment in some negative manner.

I know of no person who will deny that CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons- say that three times fast) affected the ozone layer (oddly, I haven't heard much about that in the Global Warming blurbs I see on Slashdot daily), though I'm sure a few exist, mainly in the industry that made their money off such things. No one thinks smog is a good thing.

So, whether we like it or not, humans are contributing in some form to the degredation of the environment, which can include global warming- I'll let the scientists hash out just how much. So, with that in mind, something should be done. Perhaps not the far-reaching suggestions some of the more "hardcore" environmentalists suggest, but a gradual process to decrease trash and pollutants would be useful.

As the saying goes, "A pinch of prevention is worth a pound of cure". Or something like that.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[drew]

oddly, I haven't heard much about that in the Global Warming blurbs I see on Slashdot daily

That's because the ozone hole isn't actually related to global warming. It might also have to do with the fact that CFCs were phased out of use something like 15 years ago, and the ozone hole mostly disappeared within a decade after that.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[RyoShin]

I knew that CFCs were banned long ago, but I didn't know what reaction the ozone layer had to that (mainly because I didn't think of it until today). Nor did I know if global warming had an impact on it.

Thanks for the info.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[benzapp]

You are forgetting one other piece of data: it is not merely the earth that is warming, but so too is every other planet in the solar system. Polar ice caps on Mars are much smaller than they were just a few years ago.

That said, pollution should be eliminated, but I fear that may not help us anytime soon as we may be unable to control what is really happening.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[w3woody]

Just to address the CFC thing: it appears that the whole CFC debate is following the same trajectory as the debate on DDT half a century ago, or using Alar. A "huge problem" was discovered; people were villanized, we got rid of the chemical, everyone is happy.

Now the question is how many decades will pass before people start saying "well, you know, CFCs weren't really that bad after all, and look at all of the problems we created without it?" (That's the stage where we are at with DDT: the "hey, DDT wasn't that bad, and by eliminating it, we caused millions of deaths" stage.)

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[OriginalArlen]

Great post, but you blew it in the first line... no, I don't think anyone thinks global warming is the cause of humans. These days we mostly cause each other...

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[drago177]

Your comment was moded up but I dont see any replies. This backs up my theory that almost everyone reading /. agrees with you, but very few do anything about it (with the American population even worse). What can we do? Who knows the most important outlets for this cause? To me, the only thing I have been able to think of is political solutions (after reading Collapse...Jared Diamond) - voted for Gore & Kerry, and *donated* to both them and green pty as well ($ is probably more powerful than a vote). Bush has spent $400 billion to create a terrorist state, while removing us from Kyoto. Whos with me that we HAVE to remove corporate sponsorship of the presidency?

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[NoOneInParticular]

It's quite a stretch to extrapolate three Mars-years (about six earth years) of observations of the Mars polar ice cap behaviour to every other planet in the solar system. Is this normal? Is this weird? With three years, that's hard to tell. Then: is Venus heating up? Is Mercury? Is Jupiter? Where's the evidence?

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[Guzzitza]

Why debate? .. Is a good question. The evidence supporting climate change seems overwhelming and in cases such as this - alarming. Yet even on /., a site which is, in its simplest form, a community of people with more scientific and technical knowledge/interests than your average Joe.. there are those who still try and argue that nothing should be done, or its got nothing to do with human activity, or Al gore is teh suck so therefore global warming is BS. I think its a psychological issue. Why in the face of overwhelming evidence do people try and deny what is occurring and, more importantly, argue against taking action "till we know for sure". Well I think there are two types of people who argue against global warming: 1) Those that stand to lose financially if the global attitude and approach to the environment changed 2) And secondly, those that enjoy their current way of life, eg. their SUV for the baby seat. These people may be well educated, they may even post on /. They are capable of having some understanding of the science behind the evidence and the warnings - yet in spite of this they try and deny the evidence and ignore the warnings. I believe perhaps their sub-conscious suppresses the fact that really they agree with the evidence, and the warnings - but if the conscious were to accept that, it would create a massive internal conflict: Because people will always try and avoid the feeling of guilt, they don't like feeling they have contributed to this major problem - and they don't want to give up their comfortable life of the SUV and air conditioner to change it. So they suppress their understanding, and deny the evidence, to avoid the guilt, to avoid the feeling of doom, to avoid feeling obligated to sacrifice the lifestyle - and instead they become the people with those hollow arguments: "the models aren't perfect so we cant know for sure"," its all cyclical..really", "ïts too late to do anything anyway", "its just political nonsense" .. etc.. etc.. etc. The issue is, this is not a conscious process, so just telling the people who fall in category 2 that they are only arguing in the face of overwhelming evidence because their subconscious is trying to help them avoid a massive internal conflict, wont solve the problem.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[TempeTerra]

Spot on, except that the ozone hole is still there and as big as ever. I don't think it's growing due to, as you say, the phasing out of CFCs. I live in New Zealand, and it's a very real problem. Wikipedia doesn't expect the hole to repair itself fully until after 2050 (i.e. somebody made a guess).

The lesson: it's much faster to make an environmental disaster than it is to fix it.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[khallow]

Why debate? .. Is a good question. The evidence supporting climate change seems overwhelming and in cases such as this - alarming.

The evidence is not overwhelming. And you still have to demonstrate two things, that climate change is more harmful than the cost of mitigating it, and that it is sufficiently urgent to act now rather than gather info for a more sophisticated response down the road.

I think its a psychological issue. Why in the face of overwhelming evidence do people try and deny what is occurring and, more importantly, argue against taking action "till we know for sure". Well I think there are two types of people who argue against global warming: 1) Those that stand to lose financially if the global attitude and approach to the environment changed 2) And secondly, those that enjoy their current way of life, eg. their SUV for the baby seat.

Or choice 3) they have some compulsive need to demonize people who don't agree with their belief system.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[khallow]

Perhaps not the far-reaching suggestions some of the more "hardcore" environmentalists suggest, but a gradual process to decrease trash and pollutants would be useful.

Actually this will have almost no positive effect on global warming. Sulfates and soot actually reduce solar heating and more trash results only in a mild increase in methane production and I presume a mild amount of carbon sequestering (burying carbon in landfills). The costs of prevention here are significant. They might be worth the cost, but I don't think the case has been properly made for that.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[Guzzitza]

Congratulations! youré anexample of the type of person I'm talking about. You want me to demonstrate firstly: " That climate change is more damaging than the cost of mitigating it."

The only way you will know for sure what effects climate change will have, is to sit back and let it happen - which you are willing to do, because you're not quite sure whether the cost of changing the way we are living will outweight the negative consequences of doing nothing. Ok what, so if climate change only leads to the death of what, 10,000 people, does that outweight 1 Billion dollars spend in R&D to mitigate change? Or what about things like the Artic, how much value do you put on that? Give us a price mate, clearly you have some ideas about what is worth saving and what isn't. Whats the most expensive item on your list? Please do tell, how much are you willing to spend to stop the artic melting, I'd like a figure, or how about how much you'd like to spend to ensure where your family lives doesnt end up under water??

Also, Demonstrate it's... sufficiently urgent to act now rather than gather info for a more sophisticated response down the road."

Right, "sufficiently urgent", are you a politician? 95 out of 100 cliamte change researchers agree that global warming is a) real, b) happening now c) requires action. James Hansen is the worlds leading researcher on global warming, has been researching for over 30 years, oh yeah and by the way he is head of NASA institute that studies climate change. Hansen has theory that we have 10 years to change what we are doing until it becomes unstoppable. Now if the worlds leading researcher of global warming, is saying its "sufficiently urgent" to start acting now, what further info are you waiting for? You wanna wait till it cant be stopped? Explain to be what the benefit is of waiting for a more sophisticated response, when right now we know what can be done to halt the process? Please tell me what a more sophisticated response will do for us? And you cant say a) save money, or b ) not impact my lifestyle - because unfortunately, those things shouldnt be more important to you than stopping something that has the potential to destroy the current environment you live in.

Finally, I am not attacking a "belief system" - denying that global warming is real or a threat is not a "belief system", its a belief, and I am interested in discussing what would lead people who are not educated in the area of global warming (yeah that means you) to disregard what the world leading researchers in the field of global warming are recommending.

Maybe the use of analogy will reiterate the stupidity of the "lets wait and see" approach.. How about if you had cancer, the Doctors tell you that its a tumor in your brain, they know its bad, but they cant predict how quickly it will progress or what effects it will have on your ability to live. They tell you that without treatment, you may live 2 - 5 years, or maybe 10, who knows? Or they can treat you with radiation, its not pleasant, and its costly but they are confident having the treatment is the best option in prolonging the length and quality of your life. Your third option, is to wait 2 years because there may be a new treatment thats created which is less of a pain than the radiation treatment. You'll run the risk of the cancer spreading and you dieing, and also the likelihood of losing quality of life due to your brain being attacked - but on the plus, you'll save money, and you wont have the unpleasant treatment - but then, you may die waiting for the new easy option treatment to be created.

Honestly, try and tell me you would sit and wait for a magical new treatment, and risk your life, and your quality of life - when there is already a solution available. You cant. No one would. You'd be lying. But thats what your arguing to do with cliamte change, just wing it, ignore the experts, because it costs too much, you like your SUV, maybe someone will invent some new clean energy source in the next 20 years.... Its stupid. You wouldnt risk it with your own life, so why the hell are you happy to risk it with something that doesnt effect just you, but EVERYONE? Because you dont want to make the personal sacrifice - and thats lame!

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[khallow]

Congratulations! youré anexample of the type of person I'm talking about. You want me to demonstrate firstly: " That climate change is more damaging than the cost of mitigating it."

Absolutely.

The only way you will know for sure what effects climate change will have, is to sit back and let it happen - which you are willing to do, because you're not quite sure whether the cost of changing the way we are living will outweight the negative consequences of doing nothing. Ok what, so if climate change only leads to the death of what, 10,000 people, does that outweight 1 Billion dollars spend in R&D to mitigate change? Or what about things like the Artic, how much value do you put on that? Give us a price mate, clearly you have some ideas about what is worth saving and what isn't. Whats the most expensive item on your list? Please do tell, how much are you willing to spend to stop the artic melting, I'd like a figure, or how about how much you'd like to spend to ensure where your family lives doesnt end up under water??

We have more options than that. But yea, I think letting global warming run out some more is part of the solution. The current problems to me seem to be first, how harmful is global warming? Ie, how much harm will a 1 degree Celsius rise cause and how much warming should we expect? Second, develope economically viable substitute technologies for carbon sources. Third, develope viable incentives to switch away from CO2 emitting technologies. I'm interested in the carbon markets that the EU set up. They still have some design problems. Particularly, the hard upper limits result in overly volatile market activity (CO2 allotments are very cheap until you hit the limit, then they suddenly they become expensive). By making the limits softer (ie, the market will permit an increase of the overall allotment of CO2 emissions, but at ever increasing cost), one can both allow for the possibility that generating CO2 over the limit is necessary for some vital economic process and simultaneously pay for ways to absorb the resulting release of CO2. Finally, will there be a problem? We have limited oil reserves and improving alternatives. Any problem might correct itself without interference.

Also, Demonstrate it's... sufficiently urgent to act now rather than gather info for a more sophisticated response down the road." Right, "sufficiently urgent", are you a politician? 95 out of 100 cliamte change researchers agree that global warming is a) real, b) happening now c) requires action.

What does "action" mean here? If it means "immediate additional study", then yes, I agree. If it means, "immediate reduction in CO2 emissions", then no, they don't agree on that. I grant that a) and b) are occuring.

James Hansen is the worlds leading researcher on global warming, has been researching for over 30 years, oh yeah and by the way he is head of NASA institute that studies climate change. Hansen has theory that we have 10 years to change what we are doing until it becomes unstoppable. Now if the worlds leading researcher of global warming, is saying its "sufficiently urgent" to start acting now, what further info are you waiting for? You wanna wait till it cant be stopped? Explain to be what the benefit is of waiting for a more sophisticated response, when right now we know what can be done to halt the process? Please tell me what a more sophisticated response will do for us? And you cant say a) save money, or b ) not impact my lifestyle - because unfortunately, those things shouldnt be more important to you than stopping something that has the potential to destroy the current environment you live in.

Evidence would be good. There's a lot of theories out there. Without evidence, Mr. Hansen's opinion is as good as anyone else's.

Also, I note the start of your "lifestyle" demonization. We're not critiquing the "we must act now" school of thought, we're "protecting our lifestyles".

Maybe the use of ana

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[benzapp]

Christ, you lazy bastard... do a fucking google search.

This turned up on the first page.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warmin g_021009.html

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[drew]

Odd, that's not what Al Gore said in "An Inconvenient Truth", and I thought for sure that everything in that movie was completely true. (Well, except for the bunk about the pine beetles. And the diseases that are caused by global warming. But everything else has to be 100% true, right?)

Seriously, though, I know it isn't expected to recover fully for a long time to come, but everything I had read up until this point led me to believe that it began recovering much more quickly than anyone expected, and that it had already improved substantially from what it was 20 years ago.

Re:Global Warming in General- why debate?

[TempeTerra]

Huh. Thanks for the reply, I think I'm the only person in the world who hasn't seen That Movie yet. I guess that explains why I keep hearing about the miraculous and mythical disappearance of the ozone hole.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

It is just as likely to be cyclical (see Wikipedia entry on "Greenland")

The Medieval warm period was fairly regional, and GLOBAL temperatures at the time were fairly well-maintained. That is a red herring. You are either ignorant or shilling.

or due to sun activity, or other long term and non-mankind effects.

The thing is that many of mankind's effects are far outstripping some of nature's effects. For example we strongly suspect that volcanic CO2 is a significant force in climate, yet we (humans) put out several times as much CO2 as all volcanoes combined, every year. We also create numerous compounds which nature would probably never create, and which there has never been any sign that nature could create - so to argue that our impact is probably negligible is to deliberately ignore several important reasons why our impact is different and probably greater than any prior species.

In fact we have had such a dramatic effect on the planet's surface, especially through deforestation, that it would be extremely foolish to assume that we have not changed global weather significantly. We do things that we KNOW affect global weather - when a huge fire sweeps through and takes out a forest for a while, we know that makes changes. Yet when we wipe out forests so that we can grow food and raise cattle, we act like that will not make any difference. Clearly this is inconsistent at best, but is probably deliberate hypocrisy in the majority of cases.

Mankind isn't the Star (pun intended) in this movie, no matter what Al Gore believes.

Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Martin Blank]

The issue is not whether there is warming (there quite clearly is), but whether its major cause is anthropogenic or a result of natural events.

Honestly, I don't see the world's ecology getting much better almost no matter what happens. In the race to use biodiesel, Europe is subsidizing the destruction of huge swaths of rain forest in Indonesia and other Pacific island regions. In the race to become free of nuclear influence, several nations are ditching their reactors which produce no output of greenhouse gases and installing natgas plants. There are a few interesting concepts coming around for solar, but they still require proof of concept before they're usabl Coal seam fires in China put out as much CO2 as the entire US vehicle fleet, but the efforts spent to deal with that are cursory at best. Cities in India, Mexico, and South America pour smoke into the air from fires and vehicles with extremely poor (if any) emission controls.

There is no combination of courage and logic on a large enough scale to put together the right set of technologies to deal with global warming, even if it is mostly anthropogenic.

The End Is Nigh!

[cdrguru]

We can all run around saying "The end is coming", or we can actually figure out what is happening. When climatologists believe there is a linear trend and there is evidence of an exponential trend it is clear someone hasn't figured out the system behind the observations.

We can then either make up stories about what might be happening or we can devote significant resources to learning. As of yet, I have heard of nothing being done to figure out what is going on. The entire debate is political/religious. You either "believe" in Global Warming or you do not. If you do not, you must be some right-wing Christian nutjob that thinks the Earth is 4,000 years old. If you believe in Global Warming, you must be a sandal-wearing unwashed hippy and so on and so forth. Either way, the "other side" is composed of nuts and heretics.

It is clear from the last three years that nobody has a model for what is happening. Sure, it might be human induced, but if it is nobody has a practical idea for what would make it stop. The only real solution on that would be a return to about 1850 levels of population and energy use. Unlikely we are going to really implement a plan to kill off 90% of the world's population next week. Or that the West is going return to subsistance farming real soon.

So how about some real, non-political studies where the people aren't going in to prove what they "know" is happening? I don't see this happening and I don't see any motivation for it to ever happen.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[A beautiful mind]

I mean really, the jury is still out on Global Warming for many and posting articles with headlines like this is irresponsible.

A good lawyer (corporate shills) might be able to convince the jury (the public) that we have reasonable doubt (controversy) that the suspect (human CO2 contribution) didn't commit murder (global warming), but as we all know making the jury believe something does not make it the truth, it is only a dependent on the skills of a lawyer, the intelligence of the jury and the available evidence.

As the evidence mounts the intelligence of the jury has to decrease in order to the lawyer to reach the result he wants.

a question you missed

[mr_death]

5. Given that the climate scientist's models aren't predicting very well right now (by the climate scientist's own admission), why is so much faith put in the predictive ability of the models further down the road?

I'll be the first to admit that adding CO2 to a closed system can raise the temperature; the real question is "how much?" and "what other factors are involved?". Constant curve-fitting of the climate models (euphemistically called "calibrating" and "tweaking") to make CO2 the primary driver of temperature may not be the right approach.

Re:a question you missed

[niiler]

What we have to realize is that there is no one model of global warming. Rather there are dozens of teams of climatologists, physicists, physical oceanographers, and atmospheric scientists working on their own versions of Global Climate Models (GCM), Thermospheric/Ionospheric... Global Coupling Models (TIGCMs for all you space weather types out there), etc... All of the ones I am aware of show that Global Warming will be an issue in the next 50 to 100 years in that sea level will rise, climate zones will shift, and possibly, the ocean conveyer (thermohaline circulation) will be affected. Temperature anomalies from model to model differ as indicated here. And this is one of the inputs into other aspects of the models such as "how much ice from Greenland do we think will melt". Scientists are at great pains to only include known data into their models and as such, most models tend to be conservative. In fact most of these models are being tweaked and modified on a daily or weekly basis as new information becomes available. As an example of this, see this on how methane emissions may have been seriously mis-estimated both in source and amount.

Complaining about the lack of accuracy in these models is like complaining about the fact that modern weather forecasting can't tell you exactly what hour a storm that is two weeks off will hit, and how much rain will fall. Weather forecasting is exponentially better than it was 30 years ago and has saved the lives of seamen, mountaineers, and others. (In fact much of the goal of weather forecasting was specifically to save lives.). These models will continue to improve as we learn more, and if we actually act on their predictions, we can stand to benefit.

Re:a question you missed

[mr_death]

What we have to realize is that there is no one model of global warming.

Ok, so which model do I believe? Is it a vote? With no agreement on what a model should look like, doesn't that indicate that this isn't a mature area of research? And if that is so, shouldn't we hold off on trillion dollar bets like Kyoto?

Complaining about the lack of accuracy in these models is like complaining about the fact that modern weather forecasting can't tell you exactly what hour a storm that is two weeks off will hit, and how much rain will fall.

So when do we get a prediction that can be validated? When do we know that the predictions of a model can be trusted? When will the models not need constant tweaking?

I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but I do have an expertise in modeling the prices of securities. If I modeled the way the climate scientists do, the market would hand me my head on a platter. There are boatloads of security models (some probably in your spam email box right now) that work great when looking backward, but promptly blow up when used to predict future price moves.

The discipline of the market is a cruel taskmaster. My fear is that the climate scientists haven't been held to a similar discipline. Only when they have do we have real confidence in their models.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

Or rather we feel the need to think for ourselves and come to our own conclusions.

Don't forget that not to long ago, everyone _knew_ the world was flat.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Blappo]

"We can be part of the solution"

And how is calling people ignorant shills being part of the solution?

Lets get this straight

[jkiol]

Global Warming = Fact Green House gases are the cause, is a theory. Another is Solar Variation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_activity#Global _warming

Re:Lets get this straight

[syphax]

That article states, among other things, "More recently, a study and review of existing literature published in Nature in Sept. 2006 suggests that the evidence is solidly on the side of solar brightness having relatively little effect on global climate, and downplays the likelihood of significant shifts in solar output over long periods of time."

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Billosaur]

It has long been known that the Greenhouse Effect exists, causing temperatures to rise by trapping heat. The more gases that trap infrared radiation that exist in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained and the faster the atmospheric temperature rises. This is mitigated by other factors, but the basic mechanism is pretty simple. I think the why question has a pretty decent answer, making the real question: Is this part of a natural warming trend, part of the natural fluctuation that happens after an ice age, or has the current warming trend been triggered, or is it being accelerated, by the rate of Greenhouse emissions?

I think it's safe to say that claiming our activities have no impact is facetious at best; adding Greenhouse gases to the atmosphere is altering a natural process by overloading the atmospheric system and causing the other systems that provide re-uptake and moderation of these gases to be stretched to their limits more quickly. In the end, the question becomes: is the natural system capable of absorbing the extra gases we create, or are we pushing the global systems toward catastrophic failure?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

I know this of course. So can nuclear winter, an asteroid, or a really bad hemorrhoid!

I know it is serious, but I also know it is coming and that I can survive because of that.

If you are trying to say that weather can kill us all, then you need to not watch an Inconvenient Truth, but rather a special or two on Nuclear Winter.

Re:preemptive replies

[LxDengar]

Um, you think there's a LOT of money for research of this kind? Like, bags of cash sitting around, just waiting for the next scientist to come up with a climate study? You really need to get out more.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

Forcing my conclusions? No. I expressed my doubts.

As for discussion on the subject - While many in my position may reject new evidence or discussion on the subject, I certainly do not. I welcome any discussion on the subject as long as whomever I am speaking too is able to think critically on his own convictions on the matter.

Lack of information

[ziggy_co]

We still lack a great deal of information that would allow us the ability to make sound decisions concerning global warming. There is strong indications that human actions are taking a toll on the climate, but to what extent is still up for discussion. While rising ocean water is a massive problem for coastal territories, dumping a tremendous amount of fresh water the ocean will change the salinity and with it the density of water potentially altering currents. This could be catastrophic because ocean currents are the worlds most efficient means of transferring energy from the equator to the poles. Interruption in this could change weather patterns around the world if altered considerably. Can't wait to see how this works out in a decade of two.

Woohoo!

[Xaroth]

Uunartoq Qeqertoq - Finally! Something to do with all those Q's and U's in Scrabble!

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

Yes, yes, you are so much smarter than all the sheep, I know.

Proper usage of "Inuit"

[berj]

A minor nit.. but it bears pointing out:

Inuit is the general term for the people (it literally means "The people")
Inuk is the singular
Inuktitut is a general term for the languages of said people (for the Inuit living in northern Canada.. apparently in Greenland it's a different one)

It's a little more complicated than I'm making it out to be.. but it's certainly not correct to say that "such and such is a word in Inuit"

We Made It

[Valdrax]

How about "We are screwed"?

Is is just me, or does that strike anyone else as the kind of funny name that you'd see in a Niven book?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

Wait a second... Let us read what you wrote about me again.

Yes, yes, you are so much smarter than all the sheep, I know.

Who is the sheep in this discussion?

Nonsense

[OriginalArlen]

Amplification of warming at the poles is predicted by all current GCMs (global climate models.) This is not a surprise to anyone who's been following the science.

More detail than you ever wanted: here, here, here and especially here, from last week.

Re:Nonsense

[marx]

The warming is actually only amplified in the north pole, not the south (as can be seen on the maps you link to). The reason is that some of the sea is uncovered during the summer in the north pole, while it isn't in the south pole, since there's land there.

Re:Nonsense

[OriginalArlen]

You're right, of course, I can plead posting in a great hurry in the middle of what we laughingly call a "high priority issue" at work. Involving a large bank. Good fun, but doesn't make for accurate posts ;)

Re:Nonsense

[ralphbecket]

The science at the Real Climate site is often called into question. For balance, readers should also take a look at, say, Climate Audit.

Re:Nonsense

[OriginalArlen]

"balance"? This is science, not some greasy local election! Balance emerges through peer review and replication (or refutation) of results, and testing against predictions. "Balance", honestly, what a dumb idea.

Re:Pfft...

[ziggy_co]

The Bible says that in the end times everything will burn up, but that perspective isn't in the DVD. Technically may be true when the sun becomes a red giant in its death throws.

Re:Global climate has always been static...

[greginnj]

The fact that climate is now changing after billions of years of being exactly the same is proof positive that the rich countries must be punished and all their wealth transferred to third-world dictators.

Wow, who's proposing that solution? From what I was reading, the global-warming alarmists are all demanding that we immediately stop subsidizing the big oil oligopoly and their lobbyists, and immediately start subsidizing alternative fuels, wind power, hydrogen infrastructure, etc., so that these companies can succeed, grow exponentially, hire their own lobbyists, and become the next oligopoly. All of which will benefit ... the rich countries where all these high-tech startups are located, not to mention the ancillary suppliers involved in converting the entire developed-world automotive fleet to a new fuel system.

I don't see many third-world dictators building the next practical fuel cell. From what I see, they're either using their oil holdings to extract short-term political leverage, or telling the Kyoto people to piss up a rope because they haven't finished industrializing yet and need to burn mass quantities of fossil fuels to catch up with us.

I smell new movies

[Nonillion]

Arctic warming eh.. I guess we better get some one to pick up that Blob we dumped there in the 50's and contain that Thing we blew apart in the 80's before it's too late..

Why is Greenland named Greenland

[pete.com]

If the planet is warmer than it has ever been why is Greenland named as such?

Re:Why is Greenland named Greenland

[jackbird]

because it's Greenland, not Greenearth.

Re:Why is Greenland named Greenland

[tinkerghost]

Because they were trying to sucker people into immigrating to it.

Re:Why is Greenland named Greenland

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

After seeing people ask this question in every single article about global warming, is it possible they are not trolling?

I'm of a similar mind

[DG]

I'm in a similar boat as you.

1) We've seen (or have records of) climatic variations within recorded history larger than what we're seeing today, in ages when our environmental impact due to human activity was much smaller that it is today. Clearly the climate does not *require* human activity to induce large-scale changes.

2) Proving causality between human activity and *this* particular climate swing is tenuous at best, especially seeing as we cannot explain the "natural" mechanisms for historical climate swings yet.

3) But it is also true that, with our population being the largest it has ever been, and with our high level of industrialization, that we (as a species) are positioned to produce significant influence on climate. We may or may not be influencing climate today; we may or may not have influenced climate in the past, but there are enough of us that we have made localized effects for sure, and perhaps even global effects.

4) Therefore, it seems prudent to take steps to reduce our environmental footprint - and I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who'd take the position that increasing levels of environmental stewardship is a *bad* thing.

5) The key, however, is rate of adoption. I simply see no reason whatsoever to panic. And truth be told, we *are* getting better with time. Modern cars pollute a tiny fraction of what they once did. Recycling programmes have gone from novelty to commonplace. Houses are better insulated, and now there is a major push on to improve the power efficiency of lighting. As long as these and similar initiatives continue, I think things will work out just fine.

DG

Re:I'm of a similar mind

[ivan256]

The key, however, is rate of adoption. I simply see no reason whatsoever to panic. And truth be told, we *are* getting better with time. Modern cars pollute a tiny fraction of what they once did. Recycling programmes have gone from novelty to commonplace. Houses are better insulated, and now there is a major push on to improve the power efficiency of lighting. As long as these and similar initiatives continue, I think things will work out just fine.

Yet something that could have 10x greater an effect is still opposed by "environmentalists" everywhere: Nuclear Power.

Oh well.

You rarely hear talk of carbon sequestration technology either. If it doesn't get people out of their SUV, or turn people into hippies, most people don't actually care about the environment at all.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

I realize you think the science is fully conclusive on the subject, and that no debate is required, but ask yourself, is scaring the population (which, to steal a quote is comprised of "panicky animals") really the responsible way to go about making the point?

I realize the potential validity of this statement. On the other hand, if global warming does continue in its course (THIS has by no means been proven) then all of our coastlines will be under water. I'd say it's pretty valid to be concerned, and to realize that if we even CAN do anything, then anything we can do needs to be done NOW before it IS too late.

I fear an overreaction that could make things vastly worse.

I'm not clear on this scenario. Are you suggesting that people will just give up, and then pollute more or something? Because otherwise an overreaction can only improve this situation. And frankly, we will not see an overreaction. There are just so many environmentally-unfriendly things we're doing I can't imagine anything but an underreaction occurring.

And you'll notice, at no time did I even imply Global climate change wasn't occurring, I simply asked why you think forcing your conclusions on those of us who desire intelligent discussion of the subject is a good idea.

I do notice, because I do read whole comments. Why do I think that people need to be forced to be made aware that global warming IS happening? First, because it IS happening. The Medieval Warm Period was a localized event, but this is clearly happening across the globe. There are a very few small areas of localized cooling but they are simply the exception that proves the rule. The fact that there is only this one Medieval Warm Period which has ended up being worth pointing to as a counterexample to global warming is simply another datum in support of the concept of global warming - otherwise localized warming events would not be so scarce. Of course, the fact that it's localized also invalidates it entirely as a counterexample.

Second, because the longer we continue as we are today, the worse we are making any problems, if in fact we do have a measurable negative effect. I believe that we do, but I am open to discussion on the topic, unlike the issue of whether or not the globe is warming, because all reasonable and rational evidence points to the fact that it is in fact warming. Why continue to argue about something that is, for all useful intents and purposes, proven? We now must answer two OTHER questions. The first is whether or not we are a major contributing factor. This will tell us if we in fact have any hope at instituting climate change. Theory states that it's always going to be harder to take greenhouse gases out of the atmosphere than it is to put them in. If we aren't really making a big difference with our output then it's unlikely that we can actually do anything to reverse the problem. Thus the second question is what, if anything, we should do about global warming.

I don't take issue with the sensationalism surrounding global warming simply because of the penalties for being wrong if it in fact is a real force - and again I am convinced that it is. I do not want to stifle anyone but I feel free to express my opinions. If sometimes that is in language that people do not appreciate, well, I don't give a shit because I'm not getting paid for this crap, and frankly anyone who would ignore my message because of a few expletives or intolerance for people with their heads in the sand is not useful to the mission of preventing the majority of human settlements ending up underwater and they can fuck off anyway.

Thank you for asking me the questions, instead of assuming you knew the answers. I appreciate the hell out of that.

MOD PARENT UP

[businessnerd]

The parent is right. Global warming argument aside, no one wants to live in a garabage dump.

p.s. No offense to the residents of Staten Island

Re:MOD PARENT UP

[businessnerd]

The funny thing is, I grew up in NJ. :)

Regional?

[XanC]

The Medieval warm period was fairly regional, and GLOBAL temperatures at the time were fairly well-maintained. That is a red herring. You are either ignorant or shilling.

Does this island near Greenland span the entire globe? No? This whole article is about REGIONAL warming in the Greenland area.

Re:Regional?

[drinkypoo]

Does this island near Greenland span the entire globe? No? This whole article is about REGIONAL warming in the Greenland area.

No, it is not. Nice try, though. This article is about GLOBAL warming and how one of its REGIONAL EFFECTS is the uncovering of these islands. I suppose when the ice melts and slides off a certain very cold continent, raising ocean levels forty to sixty meters and submerging them again, you'll call that regional warming too?

You aren't so much ignorant as you're an idiot or a shill, because this is something that could have been deduced simply by actually reading (and understanding) the FA.

keep abusing moderation sheeple

[drinkypoo]

Someone who you disagree with is automatically trolling! Hooray for Slashdot!

Interestingly enough, this time I didn't even order anyone around, I just asked them to stop and got trolled down anyway.

Mod me down and I shall become more powerful than you can possible imagine.

link through google maps

[savaget]

http://www.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&z=11&l l=71.502266,-21.821594&spn=0.129185,0.444946&t=k&o m=1

Simple experiment to try at home

[samj]

1. Grab an iced drink and hang on to it.
2. Observe the temperature stay relatively constant so long as there's ice, and that ice melts quicker as there is less of it.
3. When the ice is gone observe that your refreshing drink is now warm as piss and you have to go find another new one.

This is a very serious issue that needs to be responded to immediately, and given its size it is unfortunately the responsibility of the US to lead the way on this one (though they have done a woefully inadequate job so far).

More generally people need to get better at risk management and focus on things that will certainly affect them (global warming, privacy, etc.), even if less interesting than the more sensational yet relatively insignificant 'global issues' (terrorism, nuclear energy, etc.).

solution?

[c6gunner]

It seems that the two biggest gloom-and-doom scenarios these days (aside from global warming itself) is that the ice will melt causing the oceans to rise, and that we're going to run out of fresh water.

Anyone else seeing a way to kill two birds with one stone here?

Why not start creating man-made lakes, and towing icebergs into 'em? Yes it's a lot of work, but if we're going to need the water anyway, and we don't want to lose too much of our shoreline...well, why the hell not? It'd be extremely easy to do in north america, and much of northern europe and asia. And if we're feeling really charitable, we could start towing the southern ice-caps up to africa and the middle-east. They could certainly use some fresh-water.

Re:solution?

[spun]

A lovely idea, but we don't really have the technology to haul around thousands of cubic miles of ice, nor anywhere to put them. Think about it. Cubic miles. Thousands of them. More fresh water than all the lakes and rivers put together. Nothing we can do in the hauling department is going to make a dent in this problem.

Re:solution?

[c6gunner]

That's not really true. This technology for instance could be easily adapted to propel icebergs. In addition to that, Ocean currents could also be utilized. Granted the iceberg won't move very fast, but what's the hurry? Even if you lose a third of it's mass along the way, that's still a hell of a lot of fresh water for the nations that need it, and a net decrease in the amount that the oceans will rise in the future. And this is assuming that you decide to latch on to massive icebergs. There's also the option of harvesting the ice in place and using large tankers to transport it. In fact, this is already done in northern parts of Canada in order to produce bottled water. We're just talking about a much larger scale.

Re:solution?

[spun]

Oh, there's no doubt we can move some icebergs around. I think you are failing to properly estimate the size of the problem. Moving a few icebergs isn't going to cut it. Cubic miles. I don't think you grasp what the phrase "thousands of cubic miles" really means. It's like thinking that just because we've managed to cut off a few mountain tops in West Virginia that we could pick up the entire Rocky mountain chain and drop it down in Europe.

The whole icebergs for fresh water thing might be a good idea by itself, without regards to global warming, but I think other methods of obtaining fresh water are actually cheaper, which is why you don't see it being done. I just don't think any amount of ice we could reasonably haul around would amount to more than a fart in hurricane as far as global waqrming is concerned.

Re:solution?

[OriginalArlen]

OK, do the math on how many icebergs you'd need to tow to shore and then carry overland to the site of the new lake to lower the global sea level 1cm. For extra points, discuss the implications for the local ecosystems where you dump this ice, and calculate the amount of energy required to do the moving.

Now consider that if Greenland lets go, we're looking at 6m-7m sealevel rise, so multiply your figures by 600 and 700.

Re:solution?

[c6gunner]

Hey, a semi-useful suggestion from an AC! Will wonders never cease.

I know you were being sarcastic, but there are actually ways this could be done without radiation. Even better, instead of kicking up dust, we could build a large diffuser in space, and set it on a solar orbit that keeps it constantly between the earth and the sun.

Ofcourse, assuming that we really are the cause of global warming, it'd make more sense to prevent it, and it would be cheaper in the long run. However, one of the reasons I don't buy into all this hysteria is because even if over the next 50 years the climate really goes to shit, we've got the technology to fix it.

Re:solution?

[rrohbeck]

Why not start creating man-made lakes Schwarzenegger is trying to do that in California. He just hasn't figured out the towing part yet.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[terrymr]

Yes and now the mistake is thinking that the earth is 3 dimensional.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[c6gunner]

Ah, yes, well, THERE's a good way to win people over!

"You're all too stupid to understand what I'm saying. So, like, I KNOW I'm right, and I'm gonna ignore all you stupid people. Because you're stupid."

Way to go buds. That beautiful mind of yours is really working overtime today.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[tinkerghost]

Hmm, the greeks knew the diameter of the earth to within 10% - calculated with nothing more than a couple of protractors, wells, & plumbobs. Hmm, 2500 - 3K years is not too long ago in geological terms.
FWIW, mostly it was the Catholic church that insisted the earth was flat - the Chinese, Arabs, and IIRC Myans all knew differently.
As for coming to your own conclusion, that's fine. But use actual facts - recorded temperatures, leafpore counts, snowfall records, weather reposts (The British Royal Navy has excellent daily weather records dating back to almost the beginning of the Navy), and glacial migration/formation.
There is very little scientific debate on the specific question of "Is the Earth in a warming trend?" The answer is yes. There is a substantial debate reguarding the causes of that & the influence that humanity is having on the trend, but not on the existance of the trend.
Most politicians being vocal against GW take the debate of cause & declare that there is a dispute about the trend. There isn't. There is a distinct trend towards a higher mean temperature on the earth. Now, go ahead and debate the cause of the trend, but don't claim there isn't a trend.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Darby]

Who is the sheep in this discussion?

Well, if you're going to keep repeating tired old nonsense like:

"Don't forget that not to long ago, everyone _knew_ the world was flat."

then you quite clearly are one.

I mean how out of touch with reality do you have to be to repeat a lie that old and tired out and so completely disproven?

Seriously, dude, you're a sheep. It doesn't take much sense at all to know that you were lying on that old chestnut and you don't even have that much.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

I did not claim there was not a trend, just doubts over its cause. The Earth is flat reference did not need to be dissected... did you really have any doubt in what I was trying to say?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[flyonthewall]

I realise the parent was meant to be funny.

One question that must be asked though is what is going to be the impact of all that fresh water apparently gushing into the Atlantic?

I seem to recall that toward the end of the last period something similar (e.g. large amount of fresh water) happened and plunged NA right back in ice for a thousand years or so. Then again might we be forcing the system so much that even a halt (or diversion) of the Gulf stream will have little impact?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

That statement goes to the point of showing that the world was convinced of something even though it was ultimately wrong. Not saying that that is the case in this discussion at all, but it is beneficial to us all to challenge these issues continuously.

Especially be concerned...

[hump_]

if Brendan Fraser shows up in Return of Encino Man. Heyyyyy buuuuuudddyyy.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

And how is calling people ignorant shills being part of the solution?

How is misquoting me part of the solution? I suggested that people were ignorant or shills - and they were.

The word ignorant does not automatically have a negative connotation no matter how those ignorant of the meaning of the word would like to color it. Ignorance is a correctable condition from which we all suffer to differing degrees.

Anyway, it's part of the solution because people need to know that these people are in fact talking out of their asses. I may not be able to change the mind of the people who are telling you lies (whether they know they're lies or not, they are responsible for them, or should be) but I can help people understand that they are full of shit, and why they are full of shit.

I am attempting to spread the word. As I learn new things I change my mind about them but so far there's been absolutely nothing to convince me that global warming is not real (and yes I DO read the reports by the naysayers as well as those who support my personal beliefs, because that is part of the process of science) and in fact every bit of evidence points to the concept that yes, humans are if not causing then at least exacerbating the problem of warming of the globe.

If anyone actually has any compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd love to see it, instead of all the jackasses pointing to Greenland and the localized Medieval Warm Period which is obviously not a useful counterexample. In fact it only serves to prove that the opponents of the global warming theory are willing to clutch at any straw to support their destructive lifestyle even though anyone with two neurons to rub together can see why it is not a useful example. I frankly don't care if people are ignorant (don't know it was localized), stupid (can't understand what localized means) or shilling (know but are using it as an example anyway, to support their personal goals and greed) because the result is the same - those people are part of the problem. I am part of the solution - I'm NOT the whole solution. It's not enough to point out stupidity, ignorance, or hypocrisy. It is necessary to come up with an idea of what to do about the actual problem, and do something about it. I'm simply working one angle, because it's the approach to which I am best-suited (not being a climatologist, or a rich mofo, or any of the other groups of people who are qualified to approach the problem from other directions.)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

An agenda to "bring America down"?

[benhocking]

most certainly including those with an agenda to "bring America down"

Who are these people with this agenda, and how are they influencing scientists? Do you realize how paranoid you sound?

It's clear to me that *both sides* are guilty of twisting the facts and exaggerating the consequences of action/inaction.

It's clear to me that *one side* is horrendously guilty of twisting the facts, and that occasionally media types (who are hardly on the other side) are guilty of playing chicken little. However, if you actually RTFJs, you'll find the side that does not tend to twist the facts nor exaggerate the consequences. (I'm talking about the science, not the literal politics. Gripe about Kyoto to your hearts content, but don't paint scientists as pawns.)

Seriously, try reading a journal dedicated to climatology. If you're not able to understand it, then please don't argue about the science.

Re:An agenda to "bring America down"?

[LaughingCoder]

Who are these people with this agenda, and how are they influencing scientists? Do you realize how paranoid you sound?

I said nothing about "influencing scientists". I said the scientists are tools. There are inarguably countries in the world whose governments would very much like to see America's global powers diminished. Heck, there are even large blocks of people in the U.S. who would like to see that. To believe otherwise would be naive. I was merely pointing out that groups with those interests are fervently beating the Kyoto drum, along with using any other mechanism they can grasp to limit/reduce American power. This is not paranoia, but is simply an acknowledgment of reality. Of course it does *not* mean that most of the people worried about Global Warming have political or economic agendas, only that it is a convenient weapon for those who do. That is in essence at the root of my comment, lamenting this fact, because it makes it much more difficult to discuss this topic, to learn "the truth".

Seriously, try reading a journal dedicated to climatology. If you're not able to understand it, then please don't argue about the science.

Would you please point out where in my comment I argued about or questioned the science? I did nothing of the kind.

Re:An agenda to "bring America down"?

[RicktheBrick]

I am looking at a weather map and a lot of Canada has highs in the -10 degrees or below. All of the coastline across from Greenland has highs in the -10 degrees. I would think that all stationary water would be freezing at that temperature. The most northern region has highs at -30 degrees. Is 60 to 70 degrees below the freezing point too warm?

Re:An agenda to "bring America down"?

[LaughingCoder]

Umm, perhaps he was referring to Farenheit? "Every child" knows that -30 degrees F would indeed be 60 degrees below freezing on that scale.

Re:An agenda to "bring America down"?

[General Fault]

The parent poster has demonstrated the greatest problem with calling the current phenomenon Global Warming. These people think, "oh well, the earth will get a couple of degrees warmer, what's the big deal? I can start building a beach dream home in Greenland. Great". I prefer to use Global Climate Change or Massive Global Climate Change to describe the chaotic effects of adding billions of therms of energy to a balanced system, then adding billions of tons of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses that increase the energy retention from the sun by billions upon billions of therms. Such a description would indeed describe global warming as the overall energy of the atmosphere and oceans are increased. It also describes the mostly unpredictable chaotic extremes in all directions that would occur.

Re:An agenda to "bring America down"?

[LaughingCoder]

Can you name one such "group"?

I'll name three: Cuba, Russia, China. All 3 of these countries are ratified signatories of Kyoto. Now do you honestly believe these 3 countries are paragons of environmental awareness and stewardship? Have they done anything in their history that shows they respect and are concerned about the environment? Or could their motives perhaps be more political in nature? Could they possibly be signing Kyoto to bring political pressure and/or embarrassment on the U.S? I think that explanation, given their respective track records on the environment and, for that matter, human rights, is much more likely. This is not paranoia, it is realism.

Re:An agenda to "bring America down"?

[LaughingCoder]

Here is another small thread elsewhere in /. that basically says the same thing, only with more detail. Some (many?) of the Kyoto signatories are using it purely as a weapon against the U.S.. Or, to be less "paranoid-sounding", they are using Kyoto purely to promote their own self-interests, *not* out of any desire to protect the environment: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=217278 &cid=17643104

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Archangel Michael]

"Even if we didn't CAUSE this problem we have to deal with it. We can be part of the solution, or part of the precipitate (and that means we drop out and are left lying around on the bottom of the flask, just a bit of excess, rejected sludge.)"

So, what you are saying is, even if we aren't actually part of the problem, we can do something about it. Wow, what an incredible leap.

Let us assume for the moment that mankind has had negligible effect on global warming and most of it is indeed cyclic, and or caused by the sun or other major contributors, you are saying the "solution" that is proposed is something mankind can achieve?

I see that kind of reasoning as delusions of grandeur, that man can affect the world more than nature itself.

Article is wrong

[maroberts]

With 27,555 miles of coastline a.....

a) Coastline being a fractal is technically infinite in length
b) Since new islands are being discovered, the real length of greenlands coast is not known.

Shall stop being picky now...

Society needs to learn as a whole.

[suso]

You really do have a choice.

First of all, I was just making a joke and I was generalizing the way a lot of people think about the problem.

Secondly. I think that most people are placing too much of the responsibility in the hands of individuals. Global warming is a problem we are facing as a society more than as an individual. Honestly ask yourself this: Do you think that 99% of the population is going to be convinced to change their habits anytime in the next 50 years. This is a guestimate of probably what it would take to reverse 100+ years of build up to this problem. Society as a whole will procrastinate and be slow to change. Where society will learn is how it has always learned, a major catastrophic event will occur and people will learn after that. Think about big events and periods of time like the Bubonic Plague, slavery and even the Great Depression in the US. Those are events that society learns from. Its more up to the heads of government to guide people in the right direction after the event occurs. And to learn the most from whatever caused it.

So I hate to say it, but I'm afraid that the only way you're going to change everybody is for everybody to go through whatever results from Global Warming. Its sad, but probably true. The best thing that those in the know can do is prepare and hope for the best.

See you on the other side.

Re:Society needs to learn as a whole.

[ml10422]

All there is is individuals. To really change society, you have to convince individuals to change their behavior. Change enough individuals and you will see aggregate results.

The government is just a bunch of individuals that we entrust with a lot of power. Government can do things to help, but, in its actual track record it has done a lot of things to create environmental problems. As a society, we have gotten lazy about trying to force other people to do what we see as right instead of convincing them to do what we see as right.

Man has little effect?

[benhocking]

As a member of the "Man has [little] effect" crowd, I'd rather see everyone focus on issues that we actually have, rather than fabricating new ones.

So, why do you think that Bill O'Reilly, GW Bush, and (gasp, finally!) ExxonMobil disagree with you? Is it just because they're a bunch of envirowackos trying to destroy the economy?

Re:Man has little effect?

[amRadioHed]

Holy crap that O'Reilly article is scary. Could he possibly write an entire article that I agree with him on? Say it ain't so! Thank god he included this gem, "Once again, Mr. Bush seems like an honest man". Whew, I feel better.

I am Canadian

[BurningTyger]

And I for one, welcome global warming here in Canada for all the fresh water, new land, warmer beaches ...

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[larkost]

Actually... no. I don't really know how this got into textbooks, but if Christopher Columbus had to fight at all to get people to believe that the world was round then he was dealing with imbeciles.

By the the third century BC not only was it known that the world was round, but Eratosthenes (a Greek mathematician) had already put out a reasonably good estimate of what the circumference was. In fact all of the navigational techniques that Christopher Columbus used depended on the fact that the world was round, and sailors certainly would have long observed that the tops of distant object appeared over the horizon before the sea-level parts, and that being higher (like in a crows nest) let you see things sooner.

If you read Wikipedia's entry on this idea they conclude that the idea that this view of historical knowledge did not come into fashion until the 19th century. The people in the Middle Ages knew better.

Can I be the First to say?

[l33t_f33t]

Can I be the First to say...MINE!

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

Let us assume for the moment that mankind has had negligible effect on global warming and most of it is indeed cyclic, and or caused by the sun or other major contributors, you are saying the "solution" that is proposed is something mankind can achieve?

What makes you say it isn't? Arguably we've never really tried to make persistent changes to global weather, everything we've done has been inadvertent such as deforestation for agriculture and cattle-raising. Which, incidentally, is probably the most destructive thing we do, although polluting oceans which is having severe repercussions regarding oceanic algae (the primary source of oxygen) is right up there.

Let us assume for the moment that mankind has had negligible effect on global warming and most of it is indeed cyclic, and or caused by the sun or other major contributors, you are saying the "solution" that is proposed is something mankind can achieve?

You can assume that. I am assuming nothing.

We may indeed find out that there is nothing we can do. However, if there is something we can do, we will not find it by sitting around arguing about stupid shit like who caused the most global warming, etc etc.

I see that kind of reasoning as delusions of grandeur, that man can affect the world more than nature itself.

I see you as a shill who has some kind of agenda that depends on denying the human influence on global climate, which I'm afraid is likely very real. Again, the deforestation is probably enough by itself to have a major impact, since trees provide global cooling in the process of respiration. They also filter out a lot of pollutants, like soot, dust, et cetera; not just by the fact that the stuff sticks to the trees as they respirate, but also because they slow down winds, which causes the winds to drop more of what they are carrying.

Keep in mind that we have done MANY things that nature never does. Nature doesn't make nuclear bombs and drop them on planets, although it does make nuclear furnaces which radiate a lot of energy. Nature doesn't make a lot of the persistent chemicals and compounds that we make, like Poly-Ester Glycol which we find in bath gel/body wash and which can persist for literally three centuries in our environment. That's just an example. And we put out more CO2 than all volcanoes put together. We bred cows to be efficient on a particular type of feed and the result is that their flatulence is a major source of greenhouse gas - and I am not making this shit up either.

No, I'm afraid that believing that we DON'T have an influence on nature is the unfounded position, though rather than being arrogant, it is ignorant.

Sun, not Earth

[benhocking]

The Sun reached its solar maxima in 2001, and its solar minima in 2006 (of its dominant 11 year cycle). The Earth, however, has continued to heat.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Blappo]

Thank you, but you missed my point. Name calling in any guise is not being part of the solution. You can rely on the very thin defense of being "misquoted" (and, to be pedantic, I didn't quote you, so you weren't misquoted) or you can simply admit you made a bad choice. But you won't. Your kind never admit that they messed up, they write page long diatribes about what they think while calling others ignorant or shills, or worse. When all you had to say was "You know what, you're right, it isn't part of the solution" because while you may be right that calling someonoe ignorant is not necessarily a problem, it's also not a good thing.

Let's burn some karma!

[UncleRage]

On one side we have the tree hugging liberals vilifying corporate America for abusing natural resources and thereby sending us screaming into a charbroiled future.

On the other side, we've got the bible beating make a dollar conservatives lambasting the silly liberals for over exaggerating a natural cycle in global climate.

Near the middle, where most people reside, we've got people drawing on the words of their choice of experts to help prop them up.

The funny thing to me is that everyone always looks at it from their own point, regardless of their voiced motives; and it always comes down to "Won't someone think of the children?!?!".

Here's my answer to the ultimate question: No, I won't.

You see, the children are the real problem, here. There's too damn many of them. And all of you tree huggers and bible bashers keep having more.

Want to know the real problem? It's deforestation to accommodate more people. It's using said deforested land as a home for cattle, sheep, bullfrogs, or whatever the hell your next generation of gene multipliers need to eat. Then. once you've cut down enough trees to build your homes and make enough college lined paper, paper folders, wooden pencils and school desks so that your children can go to school, you need to lots of fossil fuel to drive those same kids back and forth to all of the pointless activities that those kids have to go to. And of course, take all yourselves to Disney World.

Then, you need to extend your lives through medical science. Live longer! Of course that comes at a hefty price, so we need to build more facilities to produce more stuff so that more people will buy it and we can then spread the wealth around so that everyone gets their share. Then, we can live longer. More jobs means more insurance means longer lives and better quality of living. Why? So you can spend more time with all of the additional little ravenous mouths that you simply cannot stop making.

Finally, once you've acquired enough stuff so that you feel satisfied, multiplied your genes enough times so that you've achieved your sense of immortality; well, now it's time to start wagging the finger at all the people that are still acquiring and multiplying and the like.

The real problem here is your need to reproduce. Rich or poor, everyone's gotta have another three or four versions of themselves who will provide them with an extra 8 or nine grandthings before you die. All of them spending their lives sucking up natural resources and cluttering up the world around them. Then you want me to change my life. Great. Fuck you.

Here's my thing: I think the earth is great. Be a real shame to continue fucking up a pretty thing. But... if it happens, oh well. I won't be here. And since I don't, nor ever will, have kids... I'm not worried about the dogshit pile that we've left them with. Further more, if we manage to wipe ourselves out in a horrific display of acid rain and toxic waste... it's okay. Give the earth several million years and it'll be like we were never here.

Meanwhile, for all the liberal bed wetters in my area that scream and cry about global warming and then run organized wind tower projects out of the area under the NIMBY plan: Fuck you. And for those conservative cry babies ranting and raving about poor economy and high taxes while taking the moral high ground on disallowing birth control in public schools: Fuck you.

You all get what you deserve.

And yes, I do realize that someone is ready to state that my points here are overly simplistic. At the same time I'm sure that someone has already thought, "Jebus, he's a wordy mother fucker." And to both of you: Fuck you.

Want to save the world? Quit making so many damn carbon copies of yerself. We're (the human race) not so damn important or special that we have a right to kill everything off to satisfy our own inferiority complexes. Can't handle that? Fine, kill the world in a smudge ridden fireball. I don't care. I'm ju

Re:Let's burn some karma!

[nudeatom]

As I have no mod points at the moment, I will post a hearty agreement. Over population is a huge factor in global warming and various other global concerns;shortage of food, rapid spread of disease, etc. Problem is, who decides who lives and who dies? Global Lottery anyone?

Re:Let's burn some karma!

[geekoid]

A) there are not too many people.

B) the answer to your issues are all political

" Further more, if we manage to wipe ourselves out in a horrific display of acid rain and toxic waste... it's okay."
as one of those inhabitants I say no, it's NOT ok. I want are species to continue.

ON a personal level, you can go jump of a bridge for all I car.

finally:
FUCK YOU.

Re:Let's burn some karma!

[UncleRage]

If "are" species is doomed to the kind guttural grunts that your post suggests... really, it's okay if we don't make it.

And on a personal level; really, don't have children. Yours should not be the dominant life form of this planet.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Darby]

That statement goes to the point of showing that the world was convinced of something even though it was ultimately wrong.

The point you're apparently *still* failing to get is that the world was never convinced of any such thing.
*That* is the idiotic lie you're repeating.

The radius of the earth has been known for thousands of years.
And no, Columbus did not buck the common belief.
Everybody knew the world was round. Columbus claimed the radius was far smaller than it is and he was wrong.

So seriously, if you're so unable to figure out something that simple and freaking obvious, then your ability to think rationally is very much in question.
Or rather, your ability to buy into idiotic nonsense which is contrary to all facts and any reasonable conclusion just becasue you were told it was true by some authority figure has been clearly demonstrated.

Not saying that that is the case in this discussion at all, but it is beneficial to us all to challenge these issues continuously.

Yet you're the one who is refusing to think. You keep repeating a ridiculous lie which 5 minutes of research would have proven false. Hell, 5 minutes of thought would have demonstrated the extreme unlikelyhood of it.

So, yes, challenging stupid beliefs is good. Maybe you should actually try it instead of using your unquestioned, stupid, beliefs as if they were reasonable to try and make a point?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Archangel Michael]

"I see you as a shill who has some kind of agenda that depends on denying the human influence on global climate, which I'm afraid is likely very real."

I'm nobody's shill. And I don't see your opinion as fact either. I'm afraid I have a much broader view of things than most, not that means anything here.

So let me summarize my view.

1) We may, or may not have anything to do with global warming.
2) We may, or may not be a significant contributor to global warming
3) We can do better in regard to poisoning the well, regardless of the effect on Global Warming.

Defining things as "good" and "not good" for the environment is much more useful than running around saying "global warming", at least with me. Now your average populace might be a different story, since they are generally more interested in Britney's bits than anything really important.

It seems to be the MO of the left to declare everything an "emergency" or a "crisis". "Health Care Crisis", "Homeless Crisis", "Welfare Crisis", "Social Security Emergency", except for the real threats to mankind, such as the Islamofacists in the Middle East, who are hell bent on destroying everything.

I'll worry about global warming just as soon as Jihad with the west is over, thank you very much.

It's Lex Luther's Fault.

[frogstar_robot]

He has this little weakness for beachfront property see? So he bought all of this worthless glacier and............

Re:It's Lex Luther's Fault.

[andrewd18]

Nice reference (I'm still grinning), but the name is spelled "Luthor".

There's no agenda

[brunes69]

I wish people would just wake up and ask themselves a simple question:

What if there were no humans?

Would the planet be:

a) Better off as a whole for other animals in it
b) The same
c) Worse off?

I think the answer is obviously not (c), seeing how humanity has not really done much beneficial for any species except their own (well.. perhaps rats).

As such, sure, we can't be certain that humans are making global warming worse - but we can be sure as hell we aren't making it any better, especially not by dumping megatons of pollution into the atmosphere that certainly would not be there if it weren't for us.

Re:There's no agenda

[SaDan]

If there were no humans, the planet would still get warm, then cold, and back. Meteors would still slam into us occasionally, volcanoes would still blow up every once in a while.

If humans hadn't pumped tons of CO2 into the atmo, would we already be well into the beginning of another ice age? Can any model tell us that answer?

I used to work with some research scientists who did nothing but atmospheric research. I didn't see any of them giving up their SUVs.

Re:There's no agenda

[brunes69]

You're missing the point.

The point is, we can't KNOW that we're making anything worse, but we DO KNOW we're not making it better.

The whole goal should be to reduce our impact on the planet as much as possible - to make nature progress as if no humans ever existed. Does that mean that global warming will happen significantly less? Who the hell knows - we're making too much of an impact.

Humans are the only species on the planet who have the capacity to modify their actions to affect future outcomes - this is because humans INVENTED the future - it didn't exist for anyone until some human conceptualized the fact that there is "a time after right now". As such, we should have a moral imperative to try to not change the future of the planet beyond what it would be without us.

Re:There's no agenda

[jez9999]

'The planet' has no (discernable) sentience, and as such doesn't think of itself as better or worse off under any circumstance. Most humans, however, would think of themselves as worse off if they didn't exist.

Re:There's no agenda

[SaDan]

And you think I'm missing some kind of point?

If we have no way of knowing if we are making it worse, how do you measure the amount we can make it better?

We KNOW we are 100% capable of completely destroying nearly all life on this planet. The goal should be to find a balance between humans and the rest of the environment.

YOU are part of the problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you use incandescent light bulbs? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your PC on 24/7? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your laser printer on all day? Then YOU are part of the problem (laser printers suck more juice than all other computer components combined; they're mini space heaters).

Do you Drive an SUV? Then YOU are even more of the problem and a sociopath as well. Do you race to the next red light instead of taking your foot off the gas? Not only are you part of the problem, then you are an idiot to boot.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then please stop fucking up my planet. Thank you.

Re:YOU are part of the problem

[Columcille]

Glad to know I am finally making a difference in something. :)

Re:YOU are part of the problem

[AoT]

Do you use incandescent light bulbs? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your PC on 24/7? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your laser printer on all day? Then YOU are part of the problem (laser printers suck more juice than all other computer components combined; they're mini space heaters).

Do you Drive an SUV? Then YOU are even more of the problem and a sociopath as well. Do you race to the next red light instead of taking your foot off the gas? Not only are you part of the problem, then you are an idiot to boot.

If you answered "yes" to any of these questions, then please stop fucking up my planet. Thank you.

Not to burst your little bubble, but no, I don't do any of those things. In fact I try to go one step further and unplug appliances when they aren't in use so as to use less power. It's not all me being a selfless person. I save a crap-load of money by not using as much energy and by not having a car.

And, no, doing these things does not make a person a sociopath, not does it necessarily make them a bad person. Individual circumstances differ and what is easy for me is not so easy for others.

Re:YOU are part of the problem

[j-pimp]

Do you use incandescent light bulbs? Then YOU are part of the problem.

Some people aver very photosensetive. Thankfully I am not.

Do you leave your PC on 24/7? Then YOU are part of the problem. Do you leave your laser printer on all day? Then YOU are part of the problem (laser printers suck more juice than all other computer components combined; they're mini space heaters).

I access my PC 24/7. Don't laser printers go to sleep?

Do you Drive an SUV? Then YOU are even more of the problem and a sociopath as well. Do you race to the next red light instead of taking your foot off the gas? Not only are you part of the problem, then you are an idiot to boot.

SUV drivers might be sociopaths, but eventually gas will get so expensive that there ways will change.

I don't race to the red light but I defend all those that do, especially taxi drivers in Manhattan (New York City). If you are making a right on a corner, race to the red light. There are parking lots on the side streets and someone pulling out might get ahead of you. If your behaviour gets too aggressive, a pedestrian will kick your fenders. Eventually you will almost hit someone in combat boots and a trench coat. That person will hopefully have the good sense to drop kick the hood. You will then re-evaluate your driving methods.

The true sociopaths are the double parkers and those that park in bus lanes. That is truly antisocial behaviour. If I were Mayor of a town I would make those people all spend a night in jail. Repeat offenders would eventually spend a year in jail.

Re:YOU are part of the problem

[sundy58]

Do you post on forums everywhere with your arrogant ignorant bullshit? Not part of it! YOU ARE the problem!

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Archangel Michael]

"The war for oil is a war for the beast
The war on terror is a war on peace"

Some of us actually see the war for what it really is. We are not at war with terrorism or terrorists, because terrorism is a tactic used by those that employ it. IRA bombers, Islamofacists, socialist rebels, drug cartels are all terrorists, who target civilians to get headlines in support of their cause.

There is no peace, and wont be anytime soon. Too many people have agendas.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

When all you had to say was "You know what, you're right, it isn't part of the solution" because while you may be right that calling someonoe ignorant is not necessarily a problem, it's also not a good thing.

Frankly I cannot be bothered to hold people's hands. Why use paragraphs when a single word will do? These people are "ignorant" by the literal meaning of the word. If I want to avoid offending everyone then my comment must be more disclaimer than content. I do not believe that you, myself, or anyone else has the right not to be offended.

Realizing one's ignorance is the first step to correcting it. There is no other word that means ignorant that does not have the same stigma attached to it. Why do you think it is wrong to call things what they are? I could tell you that "you need to initiate cardio-pulmonary resuscitation" but it would probably be a whole lot more efficient if I just told you "start CPR!" Efficiency is one of my values. I will continue to maintain it by using the language correctly. Those who refuse to learn their own language are not interesting to me - these people will typically also refuse to deal with the facts, so they can not help me or anyone else deal with actual situations.

Clarify

[Khammurabi]

Why would we do that? A report by the UK government said that preventing extreme climate change is much cheaper than dealing with its consequences

True, prevention is most likely cheaper. However, businesses stand to lose a ton of money following all the limits and restrictions, so they will lobby. While overall it would be cheaper to prevent the underlying causes, most big businesses stand to make more money letting it happen and have the average joes pick up the check. People may vote, but politicians listen to lobbyists more often.

Re:Clarify

[NoOneInParticular]

Not all over the globe. Interestingly, in the Netherlands, a group of 70 captains of industry urged the new government currently being formed to make more and stronger regulations for industry in order to combat global warming. This was all on personal title, and included notorious polluters such as head-honchos from Shell. The problems they are facing is that without regulations, the industry itself cannot implement the necessary changes because they will be undercut by competition that couldn't care less.

Any explanation for this irrational behaviour from any lurking libertarian here?

Liberals, Stop Making Problems

[airship]

I wish you doom-saying liberals would stop saying that the ice is melting. Quit relying on your own senses and recognize that it's all about perception. Choose to perceive that the ice isn't melting and the problem will go away.

And we were welcomed as liberators in Iraq, too. Really, we were.

Thinkofthecartographers

[M0b1u5]

At least the cartographers can now do an accurate job. They've been fuxorin' slack in the past, I say!

Arctic warming's a GOOD thing: the infamous North-West Passage should shortly open up for shipping.

Re:Thinkofthecartographers

[geekoid]

Because if it makes the rich richer, then by God nothing else matters.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

Ok sorry then. Please continue to argue the non issue here. Did you misunderstand my point?

It was merely an reference to a common "saying" that almost everyone here has probably heard and understands. It is a common phrase that is tossed around to keep people open minded on a subject. Sorry for alluding to the most common and most likely to be understood reference for that point.

Yes, you are correct, the world, generally speaking, knew the world was not flat. Forgive my transgressions against your well documented facts.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

Defining things as "good" and "not good" for the environment is much more useful than running around saying "global warming", at least with me.

What? That makes no sense. Things aren't just "good" or "not good" because of some intrinsic property. They're good or not good because of their effects. Global warming is an effect. If CO2 emissions didn't cause global warming, then they wouldn't be as bad (although CO2 levels have repercussions for human health and even one's state of mind.)

But, if I can just tell you "CO2 emissions are bad mmkay" and have you blindly accept what I tell you, then you're just a sheep who will be turned when the NEXT person tells you something, and I have no use for you anyway.

It seems to be the MO of the left to declare everything an "emergency" or a "crisis". "Health Care Crisis", "Homeless Crisis", "Welfare Crisis", "Social Security Emergency", except for the real threats to mankind, such as the Islamofacists in the Middle East, who are hell bent on destroying everything.

Oh well, so much for the respect I had for you. The Islamic extremists who want to bomb things have primarily been motivated by the whole fucking world trying to fuck with them. We had financial interests in those areas so we made friends with certain people, some of whom were VERY BAD PEOPLE and we KNEW that they were a bunch of assholes (like likes like, of course) and we PUT THEM IN POWER through a combination of political maneuvering, assassination, and funding. We did this in order to accomplish our financial goals. For instance, Osama Bin Laden (who's been doing business with the Bush family at least since Bush Sr. got his evil claws on the presidency) was paid a large sum of money to halt drug production because the Taleban was considered to be responsible for Afghani opium exports. Well, it worked for just one year, and then production picked up as if it had never been slowed down. Meanwhile that money became availble for Taleban terrorism. I shouldn't even have to go into the fact that we placed Saddam Hussein in power in order to wipe out a certain Shah.

We in the US have sold arms (at varying times) to practically everyone, and if you look back at our military history, more than half of the military actions we've been in (or been involved with, like the contra rebels arms scandal) have been direct results of our financial interests.

We created the islamic fascists in much the way al gore created the internet - they were present, but we made them relevant. We trained and funded these people and now we are reaping the fruits of our labors.

Uunartoq Qeqertoq distribution?

[gosand]

When I first glanced at the summary, what first caught my eye before I read anything was "Uunartoq Qeqertoq" at the bottom. I immediately thought "ok, now they are going a little too far with naming these Linux apps!" I swear, at first glance I thought it was some new derivation of Ubuntu or something.

Or, maybe it was due to Martian summer

[benhocking]

The southern hemisphere of Mars is where most of the CO2 resides and it was moving into its summer in 2002, the date on the report that gets circulated by so-called "skeptics". The Martian "year" is 687 days, so we only have about 3 Martian years' worth of data. Hardly enough to make any claims (or counter-claims) of "Martian warming".

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

Some of us actually see the war for what it really is.

What war? It's impossible to actually declare war on a concept. You can refer to an initiative against something as a war, but it doesn't make it one. It only convinces the ignorant and easily led that something is being done.

If you've been on a plane recently, you should know that we're not actually serious about security. For instance, the cigarette lighters which are supposed to be a threat to airline security... I took one through a security checkpoint accidentally last time I flew. Got off the plane, and I was digging out my smokes and was about to ask if anyone had any matches and... there was my lighter. Take off your shoes and run them through the scanner? What's to stop me from having something in the bottom of my sock? Take out your laptop and run it through the scanner? Given a laptop with two batteries, I can make a bomb that will look like the second battery on an X-Ray. All fucking bullshit. All done to make you feel like they're doing something.

We are not at war with terrorism or terrorists, because terrorism is a tactic used by those that employ it. IRA bombers, Islamofacists, socialist rebels, drug cartels are all terrorists, who target civilians to get headlines in support of their cause.

Drug cartels are pretty much focused on flying under the radar (sometimes literally) and fighting with other cartels and drug enforcement agents... except where they are one with fascists, like the Taleban. But in their case the drugs are a means to an end other than money.

The root cause of Islamic terrorism is not fascism. Well, it is, but it's not Islamic fascism. It's American fascism in the name of capitalism that's the problem. We force people to do business with us and if they do not play along then we start killing people, or we fund someone else to come in and kill them. Then we frequently abandon those people and let them be torn apart. Either way, we then wonder why people are mad at us! It's a direct result of two things; technological progress and our constant tendency to fuck with people. Many of our earliest military actions were in central and south america, actually doing shit like bombarding towns with cannon fire to convince them to sell their fruit to the United Fruit Conglomerate. Things haven't changed much in that regard, but now our reach is much further, so we can fuck up more countries, and furthermore a single individual has more ability to kill more people with a single action with every passing year. So we're carrying on business-as-usual but the times have changed and it's no longer a sustainable business model.

If we want to end terrorism all we have to do is stop fucking up the planet's politics, to help with diplomatic solutions and to help enforce those solutions rather than to simply jump in and apply force to every problem, and over time the problem will solve itself. Instead we simply apply the hammer to every problem whether it's a nail or not. The result is that sometimes the nail is pounded flat, and sometimes it's a screw and it gets bent instead of being driven in, and sometimes it's a fucking blasting cap and we blow our hand off (and the board in half.) Then we blame the problem on the board the whatever-it-was was formerly stuck in, and go get a bigger hammer.

Re:One more

[Bastian]

I should also point out that in almost every case when something about global warming takes the climatological community by surprise, it's that they've discovered yet another way in which it looks like humans are accelerating it or another way in which the climate is changing *faster* than they thought it would. If you're really going to make any inferences from the inaccuracy of climate models, they should follow history and conclude that things are worse than we think, not better.

Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[Rob Y.]

...and I just bought a hybrid vehicle... Yes, it's an SUV, but I also need space to hold all that comes with having an infant (car seat, stroller, diaper bag, and still gotta carry the groceries or whatever we're going out for).

I just love this kind of self-justification. You don't 'need' an SUV. I think you could carry all that stuff pretty easily in a small hatchback - or a minivan - or any of several vehicle types that have plenty of room for such everyday suburban needs. You bought an SUV because the culture, fed by the car companies, taught you to *want* an SUV.

Now you may *need* 4 wheel drive up there in Alberta, but you certainly don't *need* a big, heavy truck.

Re:Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[Kevster]

I concur. My wife and I have a '95 Nissan Sentra which carries all those things fine (we have a 4-month-old daughter). If you need to carry somewhat more, get a tiny trailer which you can hitch up only when you need it. A car with a trailer gets better mileage than an SUV of any description, due to the superior aerodynamics. If you need to carry much more on occasion, *rent* a truck. BTW, our Sentra gets ~52 MP(Canadian)G at 90 KM/h with cruise control. I'm hoping to hold on to it until I can get a plug-in hybrid of some kind.

Re:Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[sulfur_lad]

Also agree here. As another proud Albertan I pride myself on being a curmudgeon, but I'd call myself a practical and progressive one at least, and I don't work in the Oil industry. I drive a Corolla and take my entire mobile DJ Rig (2 turntables, case with mixer, cables and other stuff, records, monitor and amp, rented speakers and tripods) on the road no problem. I take the same Corolla skiing (haven't managed to spin out and fly off the Sunshine Road yet), mountain biking, rock climbing etc on lots of backcountry roads. All involve lots of gear. It's handled the crappy winter roads we get occasionally (anymore) without missing a beat, I see more SUVs in the ditch. 4WD/AWD is not safer, it just lets you accelerate faster on the slick; it's how you use the technology of course that's the ticket. I don't even have ABS. I commend you on getting a hybrid SUV: they will get you roughly the same gas mileage as my Corolla, which is impressive. Think about the kind of mileage (kilometerage?) you'd get out of a hybrid the size of my car...

We bought an older house for Calgary last year (built 1987), and one of the first things we did was replace the furnace with a more efficient one. This year we'll be doing more energy upgrades. Yes, this will cost money, but my bills go down so it must eventually pay off, and I feel better at using less. It bugs me to no end to see neighbours who weekly produce 4-6 bags of garbage, when our entire household can't fill one, even when we have parties.

This comment is made elsewhere in this discussion: Nobody wants to live in a dump. Choosing a hybrid or low consumption vehicle is great. Whether it affects the climate or not (I don't see how it can be ignored), nobody wants to walk around breathing like they're following a diesel pickup. People are stupid if they refuse to help out for political / business reasons. How about the practicality of having a clean house? I don't want to come home to filth, and small efforts make a big difference in coming home to my house, not to mention removing fire and health hazards like garbage and dust. Same thing should apply to all of us living on the planet. It's the only one we've got, better safe than sorry, because this one doesn't have an insurance policy that I'm aware of.

Re:Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[TrevorB]

Joining in on the crowd here. My wife and I have a smaller sized sedan, a '96 Saturn SL1, that works just fine for two kids and groceries. (I don't think I'll go Saturn next time though)

It's very rare that we need more than this. A month ago I bought three chairs from IKEA, and there was no way they'd fit in the car (note to self, next time try opening boxes). But home delivery was $39. Easily cheaper than a vehicle twice as expensive.

Re:Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[Baki]

When I was 5 (from 0 to 5) my parents had a trabant, which is about the same size as a tiny fiat 500.
Somehow they managed, transporting me with all that baby stuff, shopping, going on camping holyday (I remember as a 5 year old sitting on sleeping bags with my had against the roof :). Now I don't say that something a bit more spacious is not justified and better suited, but it doesn't need to be any bigger than a small hatchback even if you have 2 small children.

Re:Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[DavidHumus]

You insensitive clod!

Haven't you heard of the obesity problem? Maybe he really does need an SUV for his baby.

Re:Who needs an SUV to carry a car seat?

[eugene ts wong]

Ikea is an awesome store when it comes to environmental issues. They save at every step of the process. In the GVRD, the Richmond Ikea offers a discount off of your purchase when you arrive by transit, and if I recall correctly, the special public transit bus actually drops you off in front of their store. The home delivery is free, if I recall correctly.

Actually...

[mengel]

The major global-warming related scientific predictions that I saw said that tropical storms/hurricaines/typhoons/etc. would be more extreme, not more frequent.

And if you look worldwide, rather than at just the Atlantic, they were, this last season.

The Atlantic didn't have many hurricanes, which is usual in an El Nino year.

Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Period?

[The Monster]

That was when Greenland was green. Strangely, there isn't any evidence of higher CO2 in the atmosphere then.

Effect of a tax on supply

[tepples]

Raising taxes on a product doesn't reduce the profitability to the company. It only increases the cost to the consumer.

Tax on the sale of a good moves the supply curve up, and the quantity demanded will become smaller. The relative price elasticity between supply and demand determines whether the seller or the buyer bears the brunt of the tax. What you say is true only when demand is much less elastic than supply.

Re:Effect of a tax on supply

[pete.com]

The price of oil tripled, at its high point, demand barely dropped.

Re:Effect of a tax on supply

[tepples]

The price of oil tripled, at its high point, demand barely dropped.

True, oil demand is short-term inelastic. But for all goods, demand tends to be more elastic in the long term as buyers are able to plan ahead to buy substitutes.

Could be... Thicker or Thinner?

[The Monster]

According to the article, Greenland has 630,000 cubic miles of ice. If all of it melted it will raise ocean levels by 23 feet, but the article also says we are losing only 80 cubic miles per year.

Hmmm...

Carl Egede Boggild, a professor of snow-and-ice physics at the University Center of Svalbard, said Greenland could be losing more than 80 cubic miles of ice per year.

And monkeys could fly out of my ass. Funny, though, according to this article in The Register:

While the edges of the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets in Greenland's interior are getting thicker, according to satellite data collected over the last 11 years. On average the ice sheets have got thicker by about six centimetres each year, the researchers say.

. . .

Re:Could be... Thicker or Thinner?

[hamburger lady]

While the edges of the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets in Greenland's interior are getting thicker, according to satellite data collected over the last 11 years. On average the ice sheets have got thicker by about six centimetres each year, the researchers say.

strangely enough, that was actually predicted by climate models. melting water on the edges of the sheet evaporate causing precipitation over the center of the sheet, thickening the middle. it forms an ice dome which then overloads itself and collapses. whereas overall the sheet is thinning.

it's like pointing to one small part on the back of your head and saying your hair is getting thicker while the obvious giant bald spot on the top keeps getting bigger and bigger...

Damn old media.

[macsox]

This is a situation tailor-made for taking advantage of new internet tools -- namely, Google Earth. What about the geographic web, Google? Why not include a link to a .kml from the article, NY Times? Why is this so difficult?

The mods must be crazy!

[Generic Player]

Did you even read what you copy and pasted? THE SOUTHERN PART of the island was "lush". Like is now. Like it has been for as long as we know. Greenland was never green, it was named that for marketing reasons (seriously). We've taken 200,000 year old ice core samples from the ice sheets covering most of Greenland, it was not green a few hundred years ago.

More Honesty in Climate Science

[bill_mcgonigle]

Seriously. Every year there's a new twist that the models missed by a mile. Most recently, it was the 2006 quiet hurricane season. Anyone who claims to predict planetary weather by studying past correllations and making guesses at future causations, is doing the academic equivalent of hunting for venture capital.

Well put. We shouldn't stop our efforts to improve renewables and get to a fusion (or temporarily fission) based system, even if it's just for national security reasons, but there is a *lot* of scare science out there too, and it gets too much attention.

Last year they were telling me that the increased Labrador Currents were going to deflect the Gulf Stream so that Europe would suffer a mini ice-age. This year the EU commission on climate change is telling me that the North Sea beaches are going to be the new Riviera.

I just wish these folks had the honesty to say, "we're not really sure - this is one possible scenario". They can still say, "but it's important to get better guesses so we still need more funding," we'll understand.

I think they're at risk now of having the ruse called - just as the Hurricane Center is now the butt of jokes. Then the funding will really start drying up, just when we need some real climate science the most.

View the whole picture

[benhocking]

OK, the O'Reilly article isn't the best. It's been awhile, and I misremembered the exact tenor. Here is a choice comment, however:

With the tremendous technology that's developing, we should be able to get away from fossil fuel if we can.

As for the Bush article:

In a move that will have profound consequences not only for the polar bear but potentially for America's polluting industries, the Administration declared last night that the polar bear should be added to its endangered species list because of the drastic melting of its habitat.

The move would trigger mandatory legal safeguards that could potentially force US industries to cut their carbon dioxide output.

ExxonMobil story:

"[W]hen it comes to the issue of climate change....the potential risks to society could prove to be significant, so despite the areas of uncertainties that do exist, it is prudent to develop and implement strategies that address the potential risks....Consistent with this approach, we should take steps now to reduce emissions in effective and meaningful ways."

Sure, these aren't ringing endorsements of global warming theories. But, considering the sources, how else would they have worded their acceptance of current science?

Clearly, the tide of opinion is changing amongst the few remaining hold outs in the public eye. That's because any other position is unsupportable.

Re:View the whole picture

[amRadioHed]

You're a dumbass. WTF do you think they bring up CO2 emissions?

New islands?

[arpad1]

If global warming is causing the water in the oceans to expand and islands in the Sunderbads to disappear, why is this island emerging? If this isn't a volcanic island then what's causing it to show up?

Re:Pfft...

[bill_mcgonigle]

And stupid people outbreed what little intelligence the human race has left.

People who claim to be intelligent and have 2 or fewer children either aren't (they don't understand basic evolution theory) or they're selfish (they'd rather not do the work to promote their genes - to heck with societal improvement, or even supplying their contribution to the future workforce they expect will be there to get them French Fries when they're 90).

If you're into the collective intelligence thing, maybe we're just breeding the selfish out of the gene pool.

Obligatory WoW reference

[Ogive17]

Maybe I'm the only WoW player who didn't take the day off from work... but I think we should call the new islands "Outland"

Only One Q

[dunc78]

Sorry, you there is only one Q in Scrabble, therefore anything with 4 q's is a non-starter :) I'll save my Q for quazar on a triple word score.

ROT13

[argent]

My first thought was "man, what does all that ROT13 text on Usenet mean in Inuit?".

So there is no confusion

[pkbarbiedoll]

I can't say I am suprised that it was modded down so. People insecure in their beliefs often have knee-jerk reactions to things they find threatening. For whatever it's worth (and it's not worth much) I am a Christian myself. I believe in evolution and big bang, no problems reconciling that with my understanding of God. But some of my fellow believers need a MAJOR attitude adjustment and reality check when it comes to current events.

In any case, Thanks for responding. :o)

Re:So there is no confusion

[David_Shultz]

So what makes you a christian? You don't believe what christians are supposed to believe (creation story for example), so maybe you should stop flying under their banner. Do you believe there was a magic man named jesus, who was nailed to a cross thus removing "sin" from humankind (and that "original sin" was started by eating an apple, and this sin was passed down through the male line)? If you don't believe this nonsense, then why call yourself a christian? Is it because you believe in so called "christian values"? Well guess what, all those values are available to non-christians as well -nothing about doing good to others, and not lying, cheating, or stealing, is inherently christian. I think you should stop supporting this backwards religious thinking. You are supporting their nonsense by flying under their banner by calling yourself a christian. If you don't believe this christian nonsense, then you are not a christian -you are a christianity-flag waving hypocrit. You are a christian by name only, probably because you were raised by christians. By continuing to call yourself a christian, you support their backwards thinking that admittedly you disagree with. You can't have your cake and eat it too -either the christians are right, or they are wrong- so pick a side. You are committing intellectual dishonesty of the most egregious kind.

Re:So there is no confusion

[pkbarbiedoll]

whoooaa... hang on a second. First and foremost I think for myself. Honestly, I think your personal attack on me is odd, assuming you're not christian.. I mean really, a non-christian dictating what christianity should or shouldn't be.. odd.

Most fundamentalist christians wouldn't have a thing to do with me for many reasons, but they (or you) will not dictate my spirituality to me. Jesus was alive and was nailed to a cross beside two criminals, that I believe. Crucifixion was common practice in those days. Christ was perceived a political threat to the Romans and was killed for it. Yes I happen believe he was devine, too. You're free to think differently.

I also try to live by what he said was the greatest law of all, which is love. So many xians conflate love with old covenant law, such as we hear from those godhatesfags freaks. Christ was very much a radical peace loving liberal in his time. That is why I choose to identify with Christianity. Between you and I, I can't stand the christian church and organized religion of all stripes. I hate religious fundamentalism (whether it comes from christians or muslims or atheists or __________). So yes, I try to follow Christ but that does not mean I have all the answers. If you study the Christian church in early American history you'll see that many many christians believed in evolution and thought creationism (as it's taught now) was bullshit. Fundamentalists do not own God, even though they may act like it.

Re:So there is no confusion

[alshithead]

Insightful? Maybe inciteful. Yes, I know that's not a real word.

I didn't know that someone had dictated rules as to what does or doesn't constitute being a Christian. Where can I find this all encompassing document? I know many people who don't believe in a literal reading of the bible but THEY consider themselves to be Christians. I consider them to be Christians if they believe that Jesus Christ was the son of God. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't surprise me at all to find that a large proportion of Christians look at a lot of the old testament as not being literal. Some do, but I think most of them don't. Do you hate just Christians or adherents of all religions? What is the problem with allowing people to have their beliefs as long as they don't try to foist them upon you?

Disclaimer: I am not religious but I try to respect others' religions as long as they understand I have no wish to be converted to theirs.

Re:So there is no confusion

[DarkProphet]

The parent comment is why we need a (+1, Troll) moderation.

I hope the parent's comment gets modded up all the way to +5 so that everyone can see just how intolerant this representative slice of the slashdot community can be, and how sad such ignorance is. This sort of argument is invariably trotted out by some bigot every time any religious reference is made here, and only serves as an example that you don't have to be religious to be a fanatic.

You have a right to your opinion, and to voice it. You have a right to civil disagreement. Hell, you have the right to publicly display your ignorance and intolerance if that is your wont. But what, exactly, gives you the right to publicly harass someone on the grounds that their belief system does not match yours? What is your problem with Christians, specifically? Why the ardent fervor over followers of a guy whose teachings basically amount to 'play nice, here's how'? Perhaps the devil's in the details. Were you molested by a Catholic priest? Did your parents raise you to believe the Crusaders want to murder you? Something else traumatic? What is your damage?

It is clear that you do not want to talk about intellectual honesty. You failed to mention a few other traits not inherently Christian: hypocrisy, ignorance, and hyperbole just to name a few. Perhaps in the future you would do well to use your brain -- God given, or grown by accident -- before posting a comment that clearly doesn't serve to paint you in an 'intellectual' light. Or you can simply participate in a self-congratulatory circle-jerk with your like-minded brethren. After all, you can't have your cake and eat it too, right?

Your choice.

Re:So there is no confusion

[Chris Burke]

You can't have your cake and eat it too -either the christians are right, or they are wrong- so pick a side. You are committing intellectual dishonesty of the most egregious kind.

No, you are the one committing a terrible logical error known as the "false dichotomy". If you were not completely ignorant of religion as a historical entity, you would understand that there are thousands of different beliefs. You would then realize on your own the folly of grouping them all together based on what one super-conservative fundamentalist sub-group thinks, and declaring that anyone who doesn't agree can't call themselves by the same name. Well, that's what they think too, and the one thing they share with you is that they are also ignorant bigots.

There are extremist idiots of every stripe, every philosophy has its xenophobic hatemongers, every sect has its deliberately ignorant. Again, history shows this as surely as anything. So does your post.

Just an fyi, in case you feel the need at some point to open your mind at which point this may make sense to you, but for many of us Christians there is nothing unusal or contradictory believing in God and the big bang, evolution, and global warming.

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

No no, you got it wrong. Simply believing anything religious is "intellectual dishonesty" to me and I suppose many other atheists. If you can't say what exactly makes you believe, if you can't present your evidence to others, if you can't build a logical argument about why you believe.. You shouldn't believe. You shouldn't fool yourself, and "yourself" is the easiest person to fool.

The poster wasn't really intolerant either. Not tolerating somebody is very separate from simply disagreeing with him. It should be that ideas struggle together, not the people having ideas. Sadly, when people have ideas that they can't defend logically, they tend to take their ideas personally and see any threat to their idea as a threat towards their person.

By the way, the grandparent never called names or targeted a person in his post while you start your post by labeling him a bigot. I think the GP, while not really taking care about being nice, was truly insightful. And he does have a point. The group of people calling themselves christian are so diverse that there just isn't anything "christian" anymore. Some christians say peace, others say holy war. Being a christian doesn't say anything about one's beliefs, other than Jesus was a divine son of god (which seems to be the only common thing).

Many of the teachings of Jesus were nice, intelligent and good. I'd seriously appreciate someone who said they were studying and following the teachings of Jesus, without believing in any godly origins stuff. Quite frankly, there are better teachers out there though, ones who speak much more clearly, so maybe this is why people have other gurus. I like reading Dalai Lama myself - we're kind of speaking the same language. Trying to read the Bible, translated as it may be, I find myself usually completely stupefied about what Jesus is actually trying to say. You'd think the son of god could drive a point across.

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

whooaa.. First and foremost, the GP was not attacking your person. He was merely showing the error of your ways.

Who then should dictate what christianity should or should be? The least common denominator seems to be "Jesus was a son of a god", which I find a bit unsatisfying. Different christians have given me very different answers, and I'm left wondering if anything "christian" exists, or if it's simply a word used to mean the people who believe the above clause about Jesus.

There's no reason to disbelieve that Jesus existed, gave some good teachings, and was crucified. That itself is no basis for any spirituality. Several other people exist and give good teachings. Love is great, and the same teaching of Love is found in all religions that survive today. Your belief that J is divine is what I find weird and call "intellectual dishonesty" (unless you can present your evidence for the fact to others).

And.. I can't resist.. Why is it that Jesus was a radical peace-loving liberal, but today christians are the ones who seem to hate the radical peace-loving liberals of our time?

Please, try to find your own path, and only follow Christ when it agrees with your own morals. I personally think J. Christ was a bit rude several times. For example at the pool where he cured one man but left all of the others to suffer while he could have helped them too.

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

there are thousands of different beliefs.

Yeah, and each of them is either right or wrong. Whenever two beliefs disagree, only one of them can be right. There are thousands of different beliefs, so a person claiming he has the correct one without giving sufficient evidence for it sure sounds quite ignorant.

Reading this you might think you "don't have all the answers". That's something I hear often from religious people. However, it seems clear to me that none of us have any answers, so pretending to have even some, while not completely understanding them, is also "intellectual dishonesty". This is why I like atheism (which, as christianity, means slightly different things to different people). To me it means that we sincerely don't have any answers at all, and all that we have are guesses. Some guesses are better than others, and which they are can be told apart by the evidence.

Last but not least, there is a huge contradiction in believing in what the Bible says and the big bang and evolution. These things are in complete disagreement. Now I've been told that christians think the Bible has more value than the other religions' books, which is weird considering the above. If I see ten errors on the first page of a book, I tend not to trust the book a whole lot.

Re:So there is no confusion

[pkbarbiedoll]

Different christians have given me very different answers ...

Why is it that Jesus was a radical peace-loving liberal, but today christians are the ones who seem to hate the radical peace-loving liberals of our time

Why is it that you acknowledge that different christians share differing beliefs, yet go on to characterize all christians as being narrow minded, anti-liberal twats? Who here is being intellectually dishonest?

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

Why is it that you acknowledge that different christians share differing beliefs, yet go on to characterize all christians as being narrow minded, anti-liberal twats? Who here is being intellectually dishonest?

I apologise, should have been more careful with that. Anyway, for what I know, religion and conservatism seem to go hand-in-hand. At least where I live, and most of the time. Sure there are exceptions, and I'm expecting that to be the case :).

I'm also a victim of the phenomenon that not knowing what christianity is, I DO get ideas from people who are actively advertising their state of being christians. My (unavoidable?) bad.

Re:So there is no confusion

[Chris Burke]

Yeah, and each of them is either right or wrong. Whenever two beliefs disagree, only one of them can be right. There are thousands of different beliefs, so a person claiming he has the correct one without giving sufficient evidence for it sure sounds quite ignorant.

You mean like the person I replied to?

"Whenever two beliefs disagree, only one of them can be right" is also a false dichotomy, by the way. There are many beliefs, and many of them can capture aspects of the truth that others do not, while those others reveal some truth. An example in the sciences would be Newtonian physics, which is not "wrong", it's just limited to what it was possible for Newton to know about at the time. It captures aspects of the truth.

If you mean that there is only one capital-T Truth, then I agree, but many belief systems have as part of them the idea that it is impossible for humans to actually know the capital-T Truth completely, which is itself an aspect of truth that they capture, exemplifying what I was saying about how "right/wrong" is a limiting false dichotomy.

This is why I like atheism (which, as christianity, means slightly different things to different people). To me it means that we sincerely don't have any answers at all, and all that we have are guesses. Some guesses are better than others, and which they are can be told apart by the evidence.

Which is what I would call Agnosticism, as Atheism seems to be the rejection of God and spiritual beliefs, as in I know there isn't one, as opposed to I don't know. Anyway, Agnosticism is a belief I can respect for its acknowledgement that capital-T Truth is a difficult thing to search for and something we should all be very leary of claiming to have found.

Last but not least, there is a huge contradiction in believing in what the Bible says and the big bang and evolution. These things are in complete disagreement. Now I've been told that christians think the Bible has more value than the other religions' books, which is weird considering the above. If I see ten errors on the first page of a book, I tend not to trust the book a whole lot.

No, that is certainly least. The word translated as "day" also means "age" in Hebrew, assume some artistic license, aka metaphor, in describing in just a few paragraphs the act of creation of the universe which is what any physicist would do describing the Big Bang to a modern high-school educated audience much less peasants thousands of years ago, and bam you're done. There's only two groups of people who feel the need to take every word of Genesis as though it were literally true, and that's Fundamentalist Christians, and anti-Christians. I find it funny how often those two groups are in agreement.

Now Fundamentalists should theoretically know better and thus they have my greatest ire, but others may not. The Bible makes it clear that we can not fully understand capital-T Truth, God must speak to us in metaphor for us to understand, Jesus talks in parables all the time and explicitly states that we will not understand completely, so trying to turn Genesis into a physics textbook is like trying to turn Lord of the Rings into socio-economics textbook. It was never meant to be that, so judging it based on that is foolish, and actually using it as if it were a physics textbook is even more foolish.

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

If you mean that there is only one capital-T Truth, then I agree, but many belief systems have as part of them the idea that it is impossible for humans to actually know the capital-T Truth completely, which is itself an aspect of truth that they capture, exemplifying what I was saying about how "right/wrong" is a limiting false dichotomy.

Yeah, I mean there is only one Truth. But I also mean that the nature of the said truth is not unlike our common truths that are bound by our understanding of logic. Saying that "sky is blue", while not the whole truth, has to either be true or untrue at a certain time in one location. No matter what, the sky cannot be both blue and unblue at the same time, same place. Certainly this is more difficult with morals - you could say that christianity forbids killing, and you can say it allows it, both claims being not clearly untrue. Such might be a useful policy, but the Truth, as a system of this universe, must either allow beings to kill other beings or not.

I also think that the Truth *can* be found and understood. Every single part of it. One can't ever be certain about achieving that, though, even while evidence toward some truth might be overwhelming. It is not the nature of truths to be unintelligible!

Which is what I would call Agnosticism, as Atheism seems to be the rejection of God and spiritual beliefs, as in I know there isn't one, as opposed to I don't know.

I think I'm an atheist because I actively reject all things that don't seem to be supported by evidence. I am *convinced* that there isn't a god. But I certainly can't prove that, and I must admit that a god is indeed possible. You could say it's a play with words, but personally I think agnosticists are funny to discredit evidence and actively think that there might be a god!

The word translated as "day" also means "age" in Hebrew, assume some artistic license, aka metaphor, in describing in just a few paragraphs the act of creation of the universe which is what any physicist would do describing the Big Bang to a modern high-school educated audience much less peasants thousands of years ago, and bam you're done.

The Genesis describes things being created in a funny sequence. First the Earth and only then create the stars, man before the animals (in the second account of things that also disagrees with the first one, on the second page!) et cetera. It's unrelated to the creation happening in seven days or seven ages. Now I think we agree that said text shouldn't be taken literally, but I'm left wondering how else can a text reliably carry information. What is the value of Genesis, if it got all the facts wrong? Isn't it weird to value a writing that is clearly wrong on all aspects that we can actually test?

Bible certainly speaks a lot in metaphors. Personally I think that the Mediterranean 2000 years ago was so vastly different culturally that we can't have much chance of understanding biblical metaphors the same way the writers did. That in addition to all the translation problems.

I think the comparison between the Bible and the Lord of the Rings is somewhat justified too =). With all the weird metaphors and other difficulties, indeed having to choose which parts to take literally and which not to, I'm happy I've found a book that can be taken literally, speaks clearly, makes sense and is all so relevant. That book is "Ancient Wisdom, Modern World - ethics for the new millennium" by the current Dalai Lama. Why should an older book be any better than a new one? Actually it's really very logical that new books are better.

Re:So there is no confusion

[DarkProphet]

Perhaps it is intellectual dishonesty to make the assumption that people are unable to define their belief nor formulate a logical argument for that belief? Bigotry is the intolerance of a group because the group's beliefs conflict with one's own belief system. The logical fallacy is expecting a person to present a logical argument to someone who refuses to accept it no matter how sound it may be. It is impossible to rationalize to the irrational. I am sure you would agree.

I suppose we must simply agree that it comes down to the old cliche: "different strokes for different folks".

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

Perhaps it is intellectual dishonesty to make the assumption that people are unable to define their belief nor formulate a logical argument for that belief? Bigotry is the intolerance of a group because the group's beliefs conflict with one's own belief system.

It is not an assumption, but rather something I've found out in every single discussion about religion I've had.

Define? Yeah, people can usually define their belief vaguely, but come on, those beliefs have holes in them. What's the nature of the Bible? What's the significance of baptizing? What is the significance of other rituals? The christians I've spoken with tend to answer that those things are significant, but they don't really know why (not in these words, though!). Or the answer is "because Bible says so", even when the Bible says other things they don't believe in.

Logical argument? Think evidence. Please provide a logical, waterproof argument on why it had to be the daddy of Jesus who created the world, and not Odin or Väinämöinen or Eru. And indeed, what makes you think the world actually came to be instead of simply having been here all the time? I'm sorry, I haven't heard one good, logical argument that would follow evidence. Not even from the creationist group.

Indeed, creationism as it is is no basis for spirituality. Even if they'd manage to prove that there is an intelligent designer (I don't think they will), there'd be no logical reason to assume he was the god of the Bible.

I like to think I'm intolerant towards the religion, not the group. Love the sinner, hate the sin =). I try not to have a belief system, and try to be most careful to succumb to real evidence whenever I meet it. I'd say I'm against all belief systems. If there's no evidence about something, why indeed "believe" something? One can guess, and should guess, but should know that it's a wild guess.

Oh well, you're probably right that I wouldn't accept someone else's ideas about what's "evidence" and what's not. Religious people really bring up evidence like "I've searched my feelings and I know it to be true". Now it's not that illogical to go by that, but I wouldn't trust my feelings. I know they have been mistaken before.

Ultimately, be it whatever evidence at all, I try to remain a wee bit uncertain about things. Newtonian gravity seems pretty damn well established for v << c, but I don't believe in it. Rather, guess that it's right, or am convinced that the next thing I'll experience will probably obey Newtonian gravity.

And no, I don't have to agree to your interpretation of that old cliché! :). It has its virtues though, letting people of "different strokes" live together in peace. Certainly there has to be one and only one Truth about things.

Re:So there is no confusion

[DarkProphet]

It is not an assumption, but rather something I've found out in every single discussion about religion I've had.

Then you simply haven't had enough! ;-)

Define? Yeah, people can usually define their belief vaguely, but come on, those beliefs have holes in them. What's the nature of the Bible? What's the significance of baptizing? What is the significance of other rituals? The christians I've spoken with tend to answer that those things are significant, but they don't really know why (not in these words, though!). Or the answer is "because Bible says so", even when the Bible says other things they don't believe in.

Yes, some people don't know ritual significance. Not everyone is a Priest either. Some (maybe not even most) people do know what the significance is. It sounds like you are frustrated with people who claim to be of a certain religion, but seem to be in some ways ignorant of it. That is a legitimate complaint. But hey, they bible is like a thousand pages long. You can't really expect everyone to quite literally memorize it "chapter and verse".

Logical argument? Think evidence. Please provide a logical, waterproof argument on why it had to be the daddy of Jesus who created the world, and not Odin or Väinämöinen or Eru. And indeed, what makes you think the world actually came to be instead of simply having been here all the time? I'm sorry, I haven't heard one good, logical argument that would follow evidence. Not even from the creationist group.

Well the Big Bang theory is a pretty good way to describe how the universe was created. Personally I believe its pretty close to correct, though it might be a while before we get the whole quantum mechanics and string theory mess sorted through. But even the theory itself fails to properly explain what caused the Big Bang to begin with -- you know, its 'turtles all the way down'. For lack of a more scientific answer to that question, perhaps it was the hand of God. Thats how I've always rationalized it. A truly all powerful and all knowing being could certainly cause our creation with just that single stroke. Does that mean it was the Judeo-Christian "god"? Not really, but all of a sudden we know for sure that there is a God, people of any particular faith would likely claim it is "their" religion's god anyway.

Indeed, creationism as it is is no basis for spirituality. Even if they'd manage to prove that there is an intelligent designer (I don't think they will), there'd be no logical reason to assume he was the god of the Bible.

I fully agree. But, I'd tell it you that it WAS my god after all. Just like just about everyone else, I'd imagine.

I like to think I'm intolerant towards the religion, not the group. Love the sinner, hate the sin =). I try not to have a belief system, and try to be most careful to succumb to real evidence whenever I meet it. I'd say I'm against all belief systems. If there's no evidence about something, why indeed "believe" something? One can guess, and should guess, but should know that it's a wild guess.

And sometimes a wild guess is enough to bring comfort to an otherwise troubled heart and mind. There are reasons why blind faith can be good that defy logic, because indeed mankind defies logic. It is our nature to challenge the status quo. That is a fact to be celebrated. If not for it, we'd likely still live up in the trees.

Oh well, you're probably right that I wouldn't accept someone else's ideas about what's "evidence" and what's not. Religious people really bring up evidence like "I've searched my feelings and I know it to be true". Now it's not that illogical to go by that, but I wouldn't trust my feelings. I know they have been mistaken before.

True enough, and its hard when your feelings betray you. Although we have been mislead by "facts" that turn out to be wrong, too. I am pretty sure there must be a Star Trek:TOS plot arc that explores thi

Re:So there is no confusion

[jlehtira]

Yes, some people don't know ritual significance. Not everyone is a Priest either.

I read a piece from the national leader of a charismatic sect. I read a book written by a bishop. Both circled around the significance of baptizing, calling it "significant" but not coming near to touch the question why. Does one go to heaven once baptized? Can one go to heaven without being baptized? What if that someone was an infant who could not have been baptized yet? The answer to these questions is never yes or no, it's always "undefined". And when it isn't undef, it's what comforts someone the most.

In a way I like it that way too. Man, it would be scary if priests claimed to know exactly what happens when. And, let's face it, our society is surviving partly because people simply don't know the existing loopholes and are living by their interpretation of "the rules", while no rules really exist.. But it does not satisfy the scientific mind the least bit.

Well the Big Bang theory is a pretty good way to describe how the universe was created. Personally I believe its pretty close to correct, though it might be a while before we get the whole quantum mechanics and string theory mess sorted through. But even the theory itself fails to properly explain what caused the Big Bang to begin with -- you know, its 'turtles all the way down'. For lack of a more scientific answer to that question, perhaps it was the hand of God.

Let's assume for a moment that a bang is what happens whenever matter becomes dense enough. Dense enough being so much that it only happens in BigBang-like conditions. We get a pulsating universe. OR, assume that matter simply slips through other matter when hot enough / fast enough, and our universe is pulsating like before, only now it doesn't stop to wait for a "bang"! We're inventing new laws of nature here, but it's still better than going for a God, because these guesses of ours allow us to keep other laws of nature we're convinced about (like the conservation of energy). A god, if omnipotent or world-creating, would need to break the conservation of energy. As you can see, I myself solve the problem of the beginning by guessing that there never was one :).

And sometimes a wild guess is enough to bring comfort to an otherwise troubled heart and mind. There are reasons why blind faith can be good that defy logic, because indeed mankind defies logic. It is our nature to challenge the status quo. That is a fact to be celebrated. If not for it, we'd likely still live up in the trees.

Very true. But sometimes the same superstitions can be dangerous. Religion has its virtues, but it needs to stay out of politics and other forums where decisions need to be based on facts.

If you mean to say that as a species, we fool around and do stupid things and this itself turns out to be good and valuable as our terrible mistakes become our best lessons in life, I kindof agree with you. Probably we will continue to fool around, destroy stuff and learn from it. But if I can change things the slightest, maybe the probable climate change will be a wee bit less disastrous than without that? I'm with the let's-minimize-the-fuckups crowd (Not that disastrous would be disastrous. Some people die, rest of them adjust, as it has always been. Business as normal.)

One possible reason for my dislike of religion seems to be that religious people seem to be slower to learn from their mistakes. "That tragedy was the will of God, let's try again." "Our holy reign is constantly threatened by pagan people (whom we fail to notice are just like us), and they need to be smited!" Religion helps people to be certain about things, while an intelligent man is full of doubt. (As an outsider, I can't really tell if USA is suffering from religion or egomaniacism, but they're definitely not learning from their past wars a lot.)

Aha! So you have a belief system after all!

If you define "belief system" so that it includes all l

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Archangel Michael]

"Global warming is an effect. If CO2 emissions didn't cause global warming, then they wouldn't be as bad"

You are assuming the conclusion. You don't know that CO2 IS causing global warming, you only SUSPECT it is. CO2 is necessary for life, as is O2 is. O2 is a corrosive molecule that causes all sorts of problems, even considered a Poison. O2 is a waste product of Plants, which happen to be useful for animals, just as Manure is a waste product of animals and yet is useful for plants.

Because you believe that CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming, you have decided what is best for everyone, I get it. You know better than anyone else, and know exactly how to fix it. Lets start by leading by example, mkay? You give up meat, petroleum based transportation, electricity ..... first. Then, you can send me a note by carrier pigeon, and I'll join you and Ted Kazinski.

"The Islamic extremists who want to bomb things have primarily been motivated by the whole fucking world trying to fuck with them."

Right. And if Israel wasn't in the middle east, everything else would be perfect, and they would leave us alone. Please explain the muslim outrage in Bali, the plight of the muslims in Darfur? Kosovo, Chechnia, Khashmire, Spain, England, Netherlands .......

While I agree with you that the US has dealt with some unsavory people, (saddam, shaw of Iran, Bin Ladin etc), we can hardly be blamed for the rise of Islam in the world. Actually the whole world is screwed up because of power hungry people and oppression, as that seems part and parcel to the human condition. Sheeple like Tyrants for some reason.

As for the cause / result, those were all based on decisions of previous presidents and administrations going way way back, to the treaty of Tripoli which clearly outlines the problem we have to this day, namely Article 11 which states ....

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

The US government is not religious, but the treaty was being made by a RELIGIOUS STATE. We therefore even today cannot fight a "religious" war, which is why we fight "terrorist" and not "Islamofacists"

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Blappo]

So in other words, you've just said "I see what you're saying and the reasoning behind it, but rather than contribute to the solution, I'll be a bombastic, opinion spewing, curse tossing cunt, because even though I KNOW I'M RIGHT, IT'S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO PROVE HOW RIGHT I AM RATHER THAN ACTUALLY TAKE THE TIME AND MAKE THE EFFORT TO CONVINCE THOSE WHO DISAGREE WITH ME.

Oh, grow up

[benhocking]

Why else would they be talking about reducing carbon emissions? These are people who have resisted all talk of this in the past. If it will make you happy, I'll admit that the articles weren't as strongly worded as I remembered. However, in the context of who is saying it and what they've said in the past, these statements clearly mark a paradigm shift for them.

It does make me wonder - where is your venom coming from? I suspect that you're the one who is afraid of the truth. The time for sticking your head in the sand is coming to a close.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

I must honestly admit that I can't quite tell if you are misunderstanding sarcasm here or not, so I'll just assume you did get the sarcasm, and proceed on that assumption.

The sheep, I would think, is the person who goes out to read only texts that agree with his pre-conceived notions, written by people pushing an agenda, and taking them at face value, and then claiming himself educated and superior.

Re:Pfft...

[Tom]

Selfish is a pretty common trait among the intelligent. Among other things, lying requires more brains than telling the truth (because you have to remember your lies and construct non-conflicting storylines instead of just accessing memory), and some of the greatest fraudsters in history were very smart people. A good part of the hacker community regularily walks a fine line between curiosity and criminal actions. Much of what I used to do on the 'net for fun 10 years ago is a crime today.

There's also another story here: Intelligent people often educate instead of breed. You can raise 2, 3 maybe 5 or so children to be good humans. Or you can write a book and teach your lessons to thousands. Even if only 1% of them become good people due to your book, you still contributed more.

The problem is that a lot of the dangerously witty people also know that. Which is why the xian right today tries to "get them" as early as possible. Kindergarden age, school age at most. Indoctrinate, indoctrinate. It's very hard to get something that's been shoved into them for 10, 15 years out of someone.

If I can prevent one of these camps from happening, if I can teach some people what I've learned so they don't have to - then I believe I have contributed more to the general intelligence than if I breed more.

The only thing that doesn't account for is the genetic aspect of intelligence, and the final ruling is still out on how large exactly that is.

How do you use scientists without influence?

[benhocking]

Perhaps I misinterpreted your comments, but you said "(scientists) are being used as tools". Perhaps you meant to say "science" instead of "scientists". Easy mistake to make.

And, yes, sure there are external powers who would like to "bring America down", and even internal powers who would like to "see America's global powers diminished" (not the same thing). However, many deniers seem to have this viewpoint of a vast conspiracy involving scientists to destroy America. I apologize for lumping you in with them.

The Answer Might be No

[mdsolar]

"So here's a question: if we stopped emitting burning fossil fuels entirely, right now, would the earth start cooling?"

We don't really know. About half the CO2 from fossil fuels we put into the air is not staying there. Most people think that is is disolving in the oceans, which are getting more acidic, but the accounting is hard to do. If we stop burning fossil fuels, and avoid deforestation and such, it could be that some portion of a current over concentration in the astmosphere with respect to disolved CO2 in the oceans will be disolved in the oceans and atmospheric the CO2 concentration will drop leading to cooling.

On the other hand, the acceleration of the atmospheric CO2 concentration looks more like time to the power of time rather than going like the rate of increase of fossil fuel burning. This is a hint, because the concentration fluctuates. This could mean simply that sinks for CO2 are saturating, but you would still get some reduction in the CO2 concentration if we stopped burning fossil fuels now. This could also mean that new souces of CO2 are beginning to dominate our contribution through fossil fuel burning. Potential sources are forest fires, of which there have been a lot, or rotting thawed permafrost, or just generally increased rotting owing to warmer temperatures. Destabilzation of methane trapped in ocean sediments might also be a large warming triggered source.

We do know that it is not so hard to stop burning fossil fuels. You can look at my journal entries to see something incredibly easy. Since it costs little to convert to renewables, and might even save some money, why sweat these questions? Just convert and see if that does the trick.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

You are assuming the conclusion. You don't know that CO2 IS causing global warming, you only SUSPECT it is.

We know beyond the shadow of a doubt that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and while correlation does not imply causation, we have seen that global temperatures tend to rise after global CO2 levels rise.

CO2 is necessary for life, as is O2 is.

Yes, that's nice. However, you must take into consideration the amount of CO2. for example:

Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies and is between 0.03% (300 ppm) to 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on location and in exhaled air approximately 4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume), it is immediately dangerous to the life and health of plants, humans and other animals. The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an 8-hour work day is 0.5% (5000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues would be significantly less. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Biolo gy)

Water is also necessary for life, but you can drown in as little as two inches of water if you are unconscious. Congratulations on your specious argument. You also make the logical fallacy of the argument from fallacy.

Because you believe that CO2 is the primary cause of Global Warming

This is a logical fallacy known as a "straw man" - you have set up and are now attacking a point which I never made. I said it was a cause. That's TWO! TWO logical fallacies! HA HA HA! (You can see I watched a lot of Sesame Street as a kid.)

I will skip the rest of that paragraph since it begins with a logical fallacy...

"The Islamic extremists who want to bomb things have primarily been motivated by the whole fucking world trying to fuck with them."

Right. And if Israel wasn't in the middle east, everything else would be perfect, and they would leave us alone. Please explain the muslim outrage in Bali, the plight of the muslims in Darfur? Kosovo, Chechnia, Khashmire, Spain, England, Netherlands .......

The issue isn't them leaving us alone, it's us leaving them alone. The egg came before the chicken (at least, the egg-laying chicken) and we went in and fucked with them, the US can more or less be credited with creating the modern israel/palestine situation. We imposed our view of the way things should be there and now WE are paying for it. Did we do some good there? Maybe. Did we do it in a sensible way? Probably not. Have we made good decisions since then? Fuck no.

While I agree with you that the US has dealt with some unsavory people, (saddam, shaw of Iran, Bin Ladin etc), we can hardly be blamed for the rise of Islam in the world.

Uh, the rise of Islam isn't even a bad thing! It's the rise of the radicals that presents a problem. I mean both their book and "our" book (as in, Christians, who founded this nation and whose narrow-minded worldview still haunts us today) tell us to go out and kill the unbelievers. Does that mean Christianity is evil and should be destroyed? (This is a rhetorical question, since I don't want to have the debate - I have my own views on the question, but don't want to go into them now.)

The US government is not religious, but the treaty was being made by a RELIGIOUS STATE. We therefore even today cannot fight a "religious" war, which is why we fight "terrorist" and not "Islamofacists"

Actually we're fighting Islamic Extremists who also happen to be terrorists and we haven't really been shy about admitting that - but our assertion is that we're f

10 yard penalty, no more science for you

[benhocking]

Please go read up on the difference between weather and climate. Unfortunately, people on both sides of this issue frequently get these concepts confused.

Re: But I have to use oil to get a paycheck

[vertinox]

It's not that d4 3v1l 01l c0mp4n13z are forcing you to use their products. You use their products because they are plentiful, available, and cheap.

Seriously, I'm not sure if you live in the states or not but 95% of Americans have to drive to earn their income.

I could in theory use public transportation since I live in a big city in the North East, but many of Americans have to drive to get to work and have no choice.

Secondly, if I could afford a hybrid or pure electric I would buy one in a heart beat, but I can't.

So no... Gasoline is not a choice right now unless we want to be unemployed.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

So you call me a sheep, when really, you do not know if I am one based on your own definition. You are just as guilty of being a sheep in this discussion as I. How am I to know you have not read up on anything that presents facts that disprove Global Warming? I have no idea.

With all fairness most people have not researched anything on their own with regard to Global Warming. They listen to what the media tells them and they connect the dots with various assumptions. How many people watched Gores film, formed an opinion on Global Warming, never bothered to research anything themselves, and then start beating the Global Warming drum? That number could be and probably is in the millions... now those are the sheep.

It is better to demand definitive proof rather than blindly agree with a documentary or what the media tells us. No?

So have they found oil yet?

[Maltheus]

Hopefully these islands have enough black gold to keep the ole U.S. of A running for another 100 years. Yee-haw!

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

So how many climatology classes have you taken, then?

Melting

[jeffsenter]

What matters in terms of rising sea levels is ice on land melting (not sea ice). Greenland has a bunch of ice on land that is melting at an alarming rate of over 80 cubic miles per year. Antarctica is the other massive source of ice on land and its land-based ice is melting quickly too. It also appears that in recent years the rate of melting ice and moving of glaciers on land in Greenland and Antarctica is accelerating. The BBC has an article on ice loss in Antarctica, which is losing 152 cubic km of ice a year - about 36 cubic miles. The whole world may be losing around 120 cubic miles of ice a year and in future years will be losing more annually. This rate causes a sea level rise of a small fraction of an inch right now, but a rise in the sea level of even say six inches would be a very bad thing, especially for places like Florida. The rate of the melting is increasing so it is hard to say how much sea levels will rise in the next 30 to 100 years.

Re:The 4 Stages of Global Warming Denial

[gfxguy]

Actually, since I don't deny humans are contributing, I'd put myself squarely at #3. But then ACs tend to have poor reading comprehension.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

None. It is not my area of expertise. I am not qualified to know definitively what is going on either way, based on the information available to me. Of course I am still going to discuss my current views with others to try to form a better understanding of the subject. My opinions are not written in stone and I would happy if I was presented evidence that caused me to reverse my opinion. It has happened before and I hope it happens again.

Also, your reply makes little sense as I never alluded that my opinions are better/worse than anyone else's. What exactly are you trying to get across to me? Please let me know, as I am now very interested. I ask you please email me instead though, as this is unnecessary at this point. My email is my username @gmail.

NO FOSSIL HUNTING!

[misanthrope101]

Those fossils really aren't old, because the Earth is only 4,000 years old. Those "fossils" you speak of were planted by Satan to fool us into believing in evilution. Next you'll be buying into global warming. Fool!

Re:NO FOSSIL HUNTING!

[geekoid]

Satan was created by God because God hates you.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Archangel Michael]

"The issue isn't them leaving us alone, it's us leaving them alone."

You don't know your history. Everyone messes with everyone. In this case, the Muslim Pirates were attacking US based shipping from Muslim Freindly countries. We attacked those countries, because of the attacks on our ships. (over simplified version).

They mess with us, we mess with them, they escalate, we escalate. Even if we withdraw completely from the world, it wouldn't end.

stepitup2007.org

[mdsolar]

For those interested in the politics of global warming, http://stepitup2007.org/ is having a great big get together on April 14.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Archangel Michael]

"I mean both their book and "our" book (as in, Christians, who founded this nation and whose narrow-minded worldview still haunts us today) tell us to go out and kill the unbelievers."

Uh huh. Having read Torah every year for many many years, I can assure you that there is no "general commandment" to kill all unbelievers, as there is in the Koran.

Moderate muslims are offended by what the Quran says because they dont know anything about their own religion. Most have only seen a Quran in arabic and a lot of them dont even pray 5 times a day-they're barely muslim. Why defend a religion when you dont even know what its about? Here are some more verses from the "peaceful religion" that respects human rights and where women have a high status:

Death for apostasy:
Sura 4:89 They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,"

Sura 5:33: "Those who make war with Allah and his messenger will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. That is how they will be treated in this world, and in the next they will have an awful doom."

Sura 5:51: O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and protectors: They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he amongst you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them. Verily Allah guideth not a people unjust.

Upswing in solar cycle

[deadlock911]

I have read over and over and OVER again that "the sun and earth have thousand year warming and cooling cycles" and that "the warming we are experiencing now is just the warming cycle"
OK OK ill play that game...so if this cycle is thousands of years long then what temperature can we expect to reach by the END of this warming cycle?
We have seen temperature increases that THREATEN TO DESTROY our ecosystem in less than 100 years! If the same happens for the next 1000 years you can expect earth to look a lot like Venus.
Enjoy your snow days (while they last)

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[drinkypoo]

Here are some more verses from the "peaceful religion" that respects human rights and where women have a high status:

Okay now you are REALLY full of shit, because I specifically said that both religion's works of holy writ suggest that the followers go out and commit acts of violence.

This is another straw man, where you are attacking a viewpoint I do not hold.

But to actually address what you posted, what's actually so wrong with those verses? 4:89 doesn't say you should kill people unless they convert to your religion and then turn away from it again; this is considerably less violent than many things suggested in the bible. 5:33 is a statement of prophecy, not a suggestion that you go out and harm people. 5:51 says not to trust the followers of another faith; Christians believe that anyone who doesn't believe what they believe is a Heretic, so what's the difference?

All three of these religions have a common root so at their core they're all patriarchal bullshit.

What is under the islands?

[Bora Horza Gobuchol]

Hopefully not methane fluxes. If they do (and they exist in huge amounts under the Siberian permafrost, which is also melting, we're seriously screwed.

I did the math . . .

[dr_davel]

. . . and the 23 foot figure isn't right. 630,000 cubic miles works out to about a 2.3 foot rise in global sea level. I think the 23 foot figure is what happens if Antarctica's ice cap melts. Anyhow, while I think it's a fascinating story, and that the rate of Greenland's ice melting is a really interesting science problem, and that sea level rise is going to continue to accelerate due to human causes *pauses for breath*, it goes to show you that you can't really believe any specific detail in an article, even in the NY times.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

None. It is not my area of expertise. I am not qualified to know definitively what is going on either way, based on the information available to me.

Yet you still seem to think you are justified in calling the entire field of climatology "sheep"? Because they pretty much all believe you are wrong, and that global warming is real and man-made. As I'm told, the only real debates are about whether or not it's too late to do anything about it.

they're stuck

[misanthrope101]

Well, if you're right-wing, you're sort of stuck when it comes to this issue. All of the environmentalists are left-wing, and some of them are pretty far-left-wing. Our political environment is extremely polarized, and you'd be pilloried for saying "you know, Al Gore has a point on this one" in a group of conservatives. They don't want to admit, ever, that any left-wing person is right on anything. On top of that, the right wing is largely populist, and heavily evangelical, both movements that have always, always been distrustful of science and academia. It isn't stupidity, but ideology. Their entire political environment feeds into the idea that the average man in the street is smarter than the pointy-head intellectual.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[moore.dustin]

Of course not! How insulting. I was calling you and yours a sheep if anything! I made it quite clear that what I was saying, after you called _me_ a sheep, was that I am as much as a sheep for not being convinced as you are for being convinced. Of course I am convinced, neither of us is/are. The sheep are the people, no matter their belief either way, believe what they do based on what other people have told them and not information or research they sought themselves. They do not form their own opinions and rather pass on the conclusions from others as their own - having no real idea if the position they hold is right or wrong.

I believe the climatologists and the scientific community as a whole are shepherds if anything. The sheep of these shepherds being all mankind and not just who believes in what scientist X believes.

Quibble about reporting

[jrootham]

The phrase "Inuit language" is inappropriate. What to call languages spoken by the Inuit is not simple.

Christian beliefs and warming

[mdsolar]

It is true that there have been some who argue that stewardship of the Earth is unimportant owing to the immanance of the apocalypse. The disposable Earth theory, I guess. However Rev. Leith Anderson, President of the National Association of Evangelicals is a signatory to Climate Change: An Evangelical Call to Action http://www.npr.org/documents/2006/feb/evangelical/ calltoaction.pdf.

There is a diversity of views among christians, but the statement here is pretty stong.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

So relying on experts in a field you are not yourself an expert in makes you a sheep?

Adapt or Die

[TapeCutter]

"They will adapt as our ancestors have before and our descendants will continue to do."

Because CO2 has a ~50yr time lag between release and full effect, "adapt or die" are the options we a choosing for our desendents who have no say in the matter and cannot undo what we have done. I don't see a lot of adapting going on, so I presume we have chosen "die".

The global harvest is declining, and it's only going to get worse. Since most westeners have never grown or slaughtered thier own food, the biggest problem they can imagine is adapting to rising sea levels.

Re:Adapt or Die

[ccmay]

The global harvest is declining, and it's only going to get worse. Since most westeners have never grown or slaughtered thier own food, the biggest problem they can imagine is adapting to rising sea levels.

Whatever other consequences of global warming may be, this is not one of them.

Number one, I call bullshit on the "declining harvest" allegation. Prove it.

Number two, global warming would open up vast new tracts of land in Siberia and Canada to farming. Look at any globe.

Re:Adapt or Die

[TapeCutter]

"Number one, I call bullshit on the "declining harvest" allegation.

Here is some data in the form of maps, on Australia's agricultural problems and their connection to shifting weather patterns. Here are the rainfall and temprature outlooks from monthly weather predictions for the same periods, judge for yourself how well they match. For the EU and US, I don't have the links bookmarked and haven't investigated in as much depth, I suggest you look for yourself, NOAA and the Britsh MET office are good places to start, CSIRO for more on Australia. 2006 was a bad year for agriculture world wide and 2007 is shaping up to be worse (not to say that some reginos did not benifit but they were much smaller than the losses). For something really "alarming" look into the collapse of fisheries, particularly in the Atlantic.

As can be seen from the archives in my link, Australia is getting wetter in the NW, and drier in the SE (a recently expotential trend that started in the 50's), but over the entire continent the average rainfall is fairly stable (which BTW, is a good match for what climate models predict). While the NW may "one day" be arable land, at the moment it's mainly desert and mangroves. OTOH: The Murry-Darling basin that covers much of the SE is our "breadbasket", this year the river stopped and more topsoil than normal blew away. As just one example of the crop damage, this year our grain harvest is down 62%. That equates to roughly 17M tons lost from the world's 3rd largest producer.

"Number two, global warming would open up vast new tracts of land in Siberia and Canada to farming. Look at any globe."

This demonstrates my point about westeners and their understanding of where a hamburger comes from. What do you suggest we eat while we wait for the mud to dry into arable land? The "real" problem is over population: AGW, peak oil, the sixth great extinction are mearly symptoms, why aggravate the symptoms and hasten our own extinction?

Prove it.

This is not the kind of thing that can be resolved by a slashdot post, you need to either STFU or spend time and look for yourself, politicians will tell you everything is either fine, or can be easily fixed if you vote them into power. Since a "one stop shops" for these kind of statistics dosen't exist outside of expensive think tank reports, all I can do is steer you to available evidence. As evidence I suggest you look at historical supply/demand ratios in the international grain, livestock, seafood and fruit markets, particularly the historical stocks/use ratio's as seen in the second graph in this disscussion on wheat, that ratio in particular is a measure of how long before the cupboard is empty of that particular comodity and there won't be anymore if we decided to eat our seed crop. (I chose wheat since it is often used as grain feed for livestock in overcrowded or winter padocks) Philosophically I can't "prove" anything about the "real world" and neither can you, in the interest of my own spare time (and because it's how science works), before I go digging for more sources I would like to see some contra evidence.

While on the subject of proof, I suggest you look at the philosophy of skeptisim and think of climate, fisheries and agriculture predictions/observations as the biosphere's medical diagnosis/symptoms, nobody can claim certainty but I reckon smokers are only fooling themselves.

Re:Adapt or Die

[ccmay]

As evidence I suggest you look at historical supply/demand ratios in the international grain, livestock, seafood and fruit markets, particularly the historical stocks/use ratio's as seen in the second graph in this disscussion on wheat, that ratio in particular is a measure of how long before the cupboard is empty of that particular comodity and there won't be anymore if we decided to eat our seed crop.

I note from the first graph in that story that worldwide wheat production in 2006 was higher than in all but three prior years. The fluctuations are mere statistical noise overlaid on the general trend of increasing grain production. I also note that the stocks/use ratio in the second graph was almost as low in 1965 and 1972 as it is today, and yet worldwide food production is vastly greater since then. In fact, just this week I read that last year was the first time ever that the world had more overweight people than malnourished people.

Also, the article you cited makes the point that US farmers produced 8% less wheat last year in large part because they were growing significantly more corn to make ethanol. If it comes down to the choice between filling one's fuel tank, and putting bread on one's table, the prices of the various commodities will reflect it instantly. Farmers will return to growing wheat in the twinkling of an eye if they can make more money doing so.

Your talk of "our own extinction" is laughable twaddle. Mankind and our descendants will outlast the cockroaches.

-ccm

Re:preemptive replies

[sanctimonius hypocrt]

Any notable weather event is a consequence of Global Warming.

Re:Arrrr!

[dzelenka]

RAmen!

Re:preemptive replies

[NoOneInParticular]

So you're saying that also all tenured climatologists are making up global warming so that they get funding to make up more things, this all to avoid teaching a bit more?

It was too late 100 years ago.....

[cheekyboy]

Face its too late,

You cannot have a global populate grow from an average of 500million over 100000s of years, to a massive 6 billion with out either...

a) massive climate change
b) massive populate deaths due to not enough food/weather/disease.

It will happen.

Ever tried putting 1000 fish in a 5 sq meter fish tank, THEY MOSTLY DIE!!!!

100% blame goes to pure capitalism which has no idea on the laws of physics. You cannot grow 20%/yr FOREVER!!!

Re:It was too late 100 years ago.....

[gfxguy]

I agreed with you up until 100% blame goes to pure capitalism which has no idea on the laws of physics.

Which, frankly, makes no sense. What does physics have to do with population? And why is it that most capitalistic countries have lower population growth rates than most third world non-democracies if capitalism is to blame for population growth?

Australian contribution is nothing...

[cheekyboy]

It doesnt matter that australia doesnt sign, we make .1 contribution.

We make less pollution than all of Shanghai/Beiging put together.

Total green house gases per person is not meaning full for small populations.

At least we dont eat whales like the ps3 fan bois.

Archimedes law

[rumith]

Disclaimer: I am not a "there's no problem with global warming" type. My comment concerns only a specific stupid article, which, due to the ignorance of the journalist that wrote it, could happen to be on any side of the argument. I can tell you what fuels the skeptical attitude of many people to the whole global warming issue. It's stupid newspaper articles that say something like this: "If all the ice in the Arctics melts, then we'll surely drown". Perhaps I misunderstand something, but due to the effect mentioned in the subject, nothing at all would happen: the Northern polar cap is situated in ocean. OTOH, if the Arctical cap melts, then we're in a very big trouble already, due to other disasters.

Re:Pfft...

[tehcyder]

Selfish is a pretty common trait among the intelligent.

Only in the sense that selfishness is a pretty universal human attribute. You're just as likely to be selfish and stupid, as selfish and clever.

Among other things, lying requires more brains than telling the truth (because you have to remember your lies and construct non-conflicting storylines instead of just accessing memory)

This is simply not true, most people who lie do so out of laziness or fear with no thinking involved. You may be right about elaborate lies, confidence tricks and so on, but most lying is done by stupid people who can't foresee the consequences.

Re:preemptive replies

[Xyleth]

Again, as I understand the science, not entierly true. Notable, as you call them, weather events would happen regardless of Global Climate change. What climate change does is make them more likely to occur. So while you can't blame any individual event on climate change you can pin an increased over all frequency of such events on it.

I'll admit that it might be an approximation...

[benhocking]

How many years did Newton's laws hold up again (yes they are correct BUT they don't tell the full story either)?

I'll freely admit that AGW models are only an approximation, and are not even as good as Newton's approximations. The point is that the old science has already been thrown out, and those who would call themselves progressive are wanting to return to it. That's not progressive, that's regressive.

How many years did people (even the greatest minds of the time) think the Earth was the center of the universe?

0 years after the scientific method was employed. (I.e., we had already switched to a heliocentric model by that point.)

Scientists are not the exalted ones and they can be wrong no matter how many of them agree.

Right. It's possible that they're wrong. It's far less likely that you're right. For every 1 Einstein turning science on its head (and barely changing existing methodologies where they were being used), there's probably 10,000 Timecubers.

If I came up to you and said, go ahead and jump across the Grand Canyon - it's a much shorter way to get across. Don't pay attention to the millions of scientists who have said you'll fall to certain death. I have this theory that says that you can get all the way across, just like Wile E. Coyote, as long as you don't look down. After all, look at Newton and those crazy geocentrists. Would you jump?

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

There is a substantial debate reguarding the causes of that & the influence that humanity is having on the trend, but not on the existance of the trend.

In the media, perhaps. Not among the scientists who actually study the stuff.

Re:So I Guess the Verdict Is In

[Goaway]

The issue is not whether there is warming (there quite clearly is), but whether its major cause is anthropogenic or a result of natural events.

This is not an "issue" among the scientists who actually study this stuff, only in the media.

Dr. Falken?

[cyberkahn]

Professor Stephen W. Falken is that you? If we aren't here will nature start over with the Bees next time?

For bloody goondess sakes.

[jotaeleemeese]

The data analyzed is of hundreds of thousends of years.

Stop parading your ingorance. It is not a pretty sight.

Re:For bloody goondess sakes.

[fluffy99]

Can you cite what data are you referring to? I'm curious how we have reliable data from that far back. It's only since the 1960's that we have even looked at ozone. We can get generalized temperature from historical records, but nothing as accurate as a worldwide average within 5 degrees. Ice core samples perhaps?

Re:Pfft...

[bill_mcgonigle]

All good points. Thanks for the reply.

Parading your ignorance buddy?

[jotaeleemeese]

It is not pretty.

Putting aside your despicable disregard for biological diversity and you obvious ignorance regarding extintions in very short spans of time, sea level rising would affect so many people (a couple of meters would do) that is mind bogling to find sociopath like you that seem untroubled by this.

Shanghai and Lagos, the largest cities of China and Nigeria, are less than two meters above sea level, as is 20 percent of the population and farmland of Egypt, just for starters.

What a load of bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

And in such short sentence.

Our ancestors had thousend or millions of years to adapt to slow climatic changes.

Our *direct* descendents one or two generations down the line, and perhaps ourselves, would have to adapt to dramatic golbal climatic changes happening during 200 or 300 years.

We may not have enough time to adapt buddy.

Great.

[jotaeleemeese]

So Africa can finally go down the drain (since most arable land there would become useless).

I fail to see how Canada and Russia haveing more arable land would make any difference to the poorest of the poor. After all the abundancy of food in the US today has not solved the food distribution problems.

How can we drill into your skull......

[jotaeleemeese]

.... the the problem is the speed of the change, not necessarily the change itself?

And how can we drill into your skull that the amounts of CO2 being released in the athmosphere by human activity have no parallel in the history of the planet?

But you will say there is contorversy regarding this because a few wackos paid by oil companies and rapturists say it ain't so.

We are fucking doomed.

Quoting the Copenhagen Consensus....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... in matters of climate change is like quoting the KKK in matters of racial harmony.

To think....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... that when I grew up we did not have a car. How did we all survive???

Re:Arctic Isles/Global Warming ala xtain fundies

[Neddy_Ludd]

Amen, David. I'd still like to know where Jesus is coming back from. More importantly - what kind of Messiah (as in 'son of G-d') would actually approve of:
- the blatant destruction of this planet through corporate and special interest groups?
- the current trend in/with this neocon xtain schtick as 'proclaimed' and 'practiced' by the so called (xtain) 45% of the US population?
- the ethnocentric belief that 'their G-d' is the only G-d? What of the billions of people who are NOT all that familiar w/ the Western Model of Salvation? (see below)

Top 10 Signs that you are a CHRISTIAN FUNDIE

10 - You vigorously deny the existence of thousands of gods claimed by other religions, but feel outraged when someone denies the existence of your god.

9 - You feel insulted and "dehumanized" when scientists say that people evolved from lesser life forms, but you have no problem with the Biblical claim that we were created from dirt.

8 - You laugh at polytheists, but you have no problem believing in a trinity god.

7 - Your face turns purple when you hear of the "atrocities" attributed to allah, but you don't even flinch when hearing about how G-d/Jehovah slaughtered all the babies of Egypt in "Exodus" and ordered the elimination of entire ethnic groups in "Joshua" including women and children, and even trees.

6 - You laugh at Hindu beliefs that deify humans, and Greek claims about gods sleeping with women, but you have no problem believing that the Holy Spirit impregnated Mary, who then gave birth to a man-god who got killed, came back to life and then ascended into the sky.

5 - You are willing to spend your life looking for little loop-holes in the scientifically established age of the Earth (4.55 billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by pre-historic tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that the Earth is a couple of generations old.

4 - You believe that the entire population of this planet with the exception of those who share your beliefs -- though excluding those in all rival sects -- will spend Eternity in an infinite Hell of Suffering. And yet you consider your religion the most "tolerant" and "loving".

3 - While modern science, history, geology, biology, and physics have failed to convince you otherwise, some idiot rolling around on the floor speaking in "tongues" may be all the evidence you need to prove Christianity.

2 - You define 0.01% as a "high success rate" when it comes to answered prayers. You consider that to be evidence that prayer works. And you think that the remaining 99.99% FAILURE was simply the will of G-d.

1 - You actually know a lot less than many Atheists and Agnostics do about the Bible, Christianity, and church history -- but still call yourself a Christian.

Shalom all!

-Neddy

Positive feedback....

[jotaeleemeese]

.... and anybody that knows how positive feedback in any system works, should be genuinely worried abouts these development.

Heresy and orthodoxy

[ednopantz]

Nah, it is more like quoting Martin Luther on matters of Catholic theology. The Copenhagen Consensus people are heretics because they don't buy into the apocalyptic mythology that informs today's environmental movement.

That and they ask hard questions like: Cut global temps by .05 degrees or cut AIDS by 90% You have enough political capital to do one. Choose.

Put the question that way and suddenly reasonable people don't see radical change to the global economy as a priority.

Re:Pfft...

[Tom]

Granted on the first point.

Disagree on the second. Yes, the simple "white lies" are easy, but they are also trivial to catch. I've done some experiments during psychology seminars - with a bit of training and calibration to the test person, you can fairly accurately spot it when someone is lying on simple questions (mostly it's yes/no questions that are being used in these demonstrations). My own accuracy rate is about 75%, others are better.

Maybe I should have elaborated a bit. Of course telling lies is easy. But telling convincing lies that will hold up to some scrutiny is far from trivial.

Re:Pfft...

[geekoid]

That doesn't take smarts, it takes crazy.

Many very smart people go through there life and are quite honest.

People seem to think you must be well recognized to be smart. Like saying 'Britny Spears is smart because she is on the TV guide.'.

And telling lies people will believe is not that hard. The best lise won't be scrutinzed at all. Every huckser as always depended on that.

Re:Pfft...

[Tom]

Now you're twisting words.

I didn't say that every smart person is a liar, or that every liar is smart. Read back to the original posting, please.

Likewise, I made no statement about recognition. In our current media landscape, recognition is a mix of connections (knowing a producer who can put you on TV) and simple luck. There's millions of movies on YouTube and Co. and the next Star Wars Kid is not going to be determined by any formula or system, but by Ia Chaos.

uneducated

[i18rabbit]

i am boggled at the ignorance of people anymore. it's scary what the educational systems have done to people ... they have tricked them into thinking they have foundation to think. 1. what purpose is their in mocking Christianity or those that believe in it, or the "End Times"? do "you people" really think you know so much as to know the essentials of Christianity are false or silly? do "you people" really think "evolution" is science? here's some education for you "science types": evolution is the most insane "belief system" there is - and it was taught to you for a reason - despite the fact that there are no facts to support it. no one has ever seen a dog give birth to a cat or butterfly. yes, there are variations between species, but those that "believe" in the "evolution religion" have no evidence at all that variations lead to new species. furthermore, most all, if not all, genetic mutations are for the worse. furthermore, there are no records of "missing links" - they remain missing, and the reasonable conclusion is that they don't exist. species are distinctly different from one another - despite any similarities - and there are no fossil records of "smooth transitions". furthermore, genetics is in a state of devolution - the errors that get encoded over generations build up over time - all species are headed for extinction sooner or later - DNA never overcame entropy. it's like copying one floppy disk to another - sooner or later, errors will build up - and it is doubtful that the 100,000th copy of a copy will have contain "E=mc2" when the first floppy only contained 2+2=4. a) it is not reasonable to assume that every species "evolved" - 1st you'd have to "believe" that genetic mutations can actually benefit an animal beyond the rest that did not mutate - do you have any evidence that this is possible? all genetic mutations i have ever seen and know of have been detrimental to the animals functionality/survivability. b) 2nd, you'd have to "believe" that both a male and female of a species mutated into a new species at or about the same time, and in the same area - so there could be sex/offspring to carry on the mutation. c) 3rd, you'd have to "believe" that brothers and sisters could have sex and create a new lineage of the mutated species without the birth defects of this new incestual lineage ending the lineage. d) 4th, you'd have to believe that DNA is evolving, when science and data clearly show DNA is devolving and building up with errors over time. 2) people always blame "religions" as the cause of the most death/war on earth - but if you dig a bit deeper - you will find that the root is people that "follow" and can't think things thru for themselves. 3) i see the term "fossil fuel" used everywhere - which is one of the most ridiculous terms i ever heard - do "you people" really think the zillions of barrels of oil on earth are from "fossils"??? what a joke. there's oil over a dozen miles deep in the earth - beneath solid bedrock miles deep - and who knows just how deep the oil goes ... the point is - this is all "belief" - not fact, not even good theoretical science. you just digest whatever BigOil propaganda that is thrown your way without critical thinking. 4) all this blabber about "global warming" and "Kyoto" and "emissions" and "scientists" only goes to show how "you people" are locked into stupified indoctrinated paradigms that go nowhere. social structures are pyramidal in design - and those at the top control what you see, read, and hear; and it's all nonsense. "free energy" has been around for a long time, and as long as "you people" bicker about stupid nonsense - the people that develop it will keep getting murdered by those at or near the capstone of our social pyramid. 5) America "going down" is a fact - and it has to do with the fact that those at or near the capstone of our social structure on earth (the banksters, old european royalty, global corporate monopolists) have to do these things to any people that get too smart, too ad

Here's the basic science

[benhocking]

• CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. Absorbing infrared radiation results in a net increase in thermal equilibrium. That results in hotter temperatures. (I've had several physics courses in thermodynamics - I know what I'm talking about.)
• Historically, over the last 800,000 years (including several ice ages), CO2 levels have varied from approximately 180 ppmv (ice age) to 280 ppmv ("normal" temperatures). Currently we're at about 380 ppmv. Carbon isotope ratios of C13/C12 independently verify that the overwhelming majority (about 98%) of the increase in CO2 is due to burning fossil fuels.

AFAIK, there is no debate on either of these two issues. The only debate is over how much worse it will get. The few scientists who challenge global warming do not challenge these two points, to the best of my knowledge. The only thing I've gotten from reading the "challengers" is that they think that sooner, rather than later, hidden systems will kick in that will counteract our influence. Other than wishful thinking, I have no idea what they're basing this on (as I can't find any journal articles that support this idea).

Socialism starves poor brown people

[ccmay]

So Africa can finally go down the drain (since most arable land there would become useless).

Actually, some models of climate change suggest that the Sahara Desert could see increased rainfall and return to its former status as a relatively lush savanna. Ought to be just the thing for growing crops where nothing grew before.

After all the abundancy of food in the US today has not solved the food distribution problems.

We have solved it quite handily within our own country, thanks to capitalism. You can buy oranges in Fairbanks and king crab in Miami any day of the year.

"Food distribution problems" in the Third World are typically a function of the degree to which a nation adheres to socialist economic principles. We will be reading about them in Venezuela any day now, mark my words.

There is a bright side...

[generalphilips]

At least this makes up for some of the islands reportedly lost to global warming: http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,341669, 00.html.