Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Threatened For "Climate Denial"
Forrest Kyle writes "A former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg has received multiple death threats for questioning the extent to which human activities are driving global warming. '"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor. "I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal." Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology [...] recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."'"
If he's trying to clear his name, he's doing a bad job of it.
I found an article by him in which I hoped to hear his logic and reasoning against global warming.
He claims it is just a natural cycle. That he's seen two of these in his career and he'll see one more before he dies. If his "death threat" was someone saying that he won't see temperature returning to normal before he dies, I don't think it was a death threat.
I can't find a formal report of his research but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this is his argument, he leaves out a lot of things that need to be explained to me before I let it go. Like, why are polar bears suddenly on the endangered species list? What's happening to all the snow on the tops of mountains? Where are the ice glaciers (with ice that has been around for thousands if not millions of years) going? What is his retort to the CO2 levels being their highest ever--even after looking at ice core samples?
His article only mentions a professor from MIT but not what his criticisms are.
If their work is being derided, I want to know what their work is. I'm a skeptic also, if these people are being published in newspapers, you would think that they wouldn't waste their time on death threats and counter-counter-criticisms but would instead try to get the truths they have been finding in their research out to the public. If you're conducting good science that, in and of itself, will clear your name in the end.
The more I search for information on Timothy Ball, the more he seems like he's playing just as dirty as the people he's fighting. Check out his lawsuit for a journal publishing a letter. I feel we're not hearing the full story here.
When I'm at work and I enter situations in which someone is decrying someone else and vice versa, I just present everyone with facts. If I had done research and I received death threats, I would submit to major newspapers two things: my research published with permission to reprint it & the death threats in their original form. Nothing could boost my efforts to get the truth out there more. The fact that I see a PhD and scientist spending more time saying his life is in danger than presenting me with his findings tells me a lot about what his motives are.
He was published, I guess in Ecological Complexity which I do not have access to. If anyone has papers from his work, I would love to see it--otherwise I'm going to tune this soap opera out as emotional noise in what should be a stoic process.
Question everything. Question both sides. And if you have something that is true, present it. I'm not calling him a liar, I just can't call him anything right now because all I can find are stories about who called who what.
My work here is dung.
This really begs the question: are the climate scientists who dissent really tools for corporations or are the climate scientists who advocate (consent to global warming caused by man) really tools for government/special interest groups?
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
from oil companies to speak at conferences full of other climate change deniers.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
from the original article... " the theory of man-made global warming had become a "religion", forcing alternative explanations to be ignored. "
---- mike simaska
I'm not validating the reaction, but being a professor at UofW makes me skeptical of his abilities. It's about the level of a community college in the states.
Stop with the " global warming is a political agenda driven conclusion" crapola like this. It's totally unacceptable. The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate.
Check out the wikipedia article about begging the question.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Billions of people in Bangladesh, India and China will lose their homes and be forced to illegally migrate to other countries because of the climate "scientists" who deny global warming is happening.
But that's the practical side of it.
Ignore the hurricanes, tsunamis flooding Bangladesh, and the loss of island nations worldwide, if you must. But don't call your "belief" science.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Shall anyone come to his defence?
Or will this dissident simply be left to himself because
his dissension matches the Administration's thougt?
Just a thought.
Ignore the whole thing!!!
If it is true... we're all gonna go.. no matter how much you (or we) care.
I could swear over the last few months I have seen several articles posted that agencies like the NSF are denying funds and ruining scientists who SUPPORT Global Warming. In the article the prof from MIT says the reverse. So who is lying? Both sides? Neither side?
However, I don't doubt the enviro-wackos are after anyone who can present FACTS to debunk the Global Warning religous cult as just that, a cult. Those folks like Earth First and others have done some nasty things in the past to "protect" the Earth.
"he said ... she said" has no place in science! The descent this person is facing is for good purpose ... (note: i am not talking about the death threats that is not acceptable ... however they also don't indicate he's a closet "good will hunting")
....that industry shills might resent being labeled as industry shills.
You don't get anywhere in science by ignoring evidence, improperly addressing issues regarding evidence, or telling people to simply not talk about evidence.
My feeling is that the majority of these guys are presenting and interpreting data the same way that big tobacco dealt with the data link between tobacco and cancer. In other words, improperly.
I think you mean that the other guy has Multiple Personality Disorder, which is actually being called "dissociative identity disorder" these days.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
Saying "we will not debate this" accomplishes nothing. All science is up for debate. If the science is solid, it will withstand all criticisms, no matter how ludicrous.
My blog
This raises the larger question...At what point do you stop funding the scientists investigating that the Earth is flat? At some point, the evidence becomes overwhelming and those who ignore it really are 'deniers'. I'm not sure about this particular scientist, but a lot of those skeptics are funded by the very corporations who have a vested interest in doing nothing. For how long was there a group of scientist who claimed that cigarette smoking could not be linked to any negative health effect data?
This guy actually believes he's targeted for death? When scientists on his side of the spectrum start dying off mysteriously, I'll care.
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
It's indisputable the Earth is warming. People differ as to why. Answers range from natural cycles to human activity. Perhaps it's both.
I would ask what ended the ice age 10,000 years ago? There used to be ice MILES thick over much of Europe and the US northeast. The few hundred thousand people on Earth at the time had no technology more advanced than a camp fire. What ended that ice age? Clearly the earth has warmed because of non-human causes.
That said, it does not matter why it's warming. Our house is burning and people are bickering over it being arson or lightning. If we don't do something about it the climate will continue to change and probably not in a good way. The vast number of people live where they do because they have food/water available to them there.
This is not about "fault" or people's "guilt" that we've ruined eden. It's about deciding we are gonna do something about it even if that means trying to compensate for a "natural" progression caused by the earths orbit or the sun, etc. This may mean altering our technology to reduce CO2 to make up for more solar activity or doing other more imaginative things.
The atmosphere is infinite and its ability to adjust is also infinite...So lets just pump as much poisonous crap into it as we like and not worry about it.
I mean, when has unbridled excess ever led to something bad ?
These guys are back public eye because they recently appeared in a UK Channel4 documentary called "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Basically a rehash of all the outdated silly arguments you've heard a thousand times before. You can read the RealClimate response here if you like.
But that's pretty boring, science type stuff. What's much more fun is watching the right-wing contingent defending this piece of crap, proclaiming its truth and accuracy, when the film was produced by members of the Revolutionary Communist Party! Regular contributors to the RCP's journal, "Living Marxism" no less.
What an interesting meeting of minds.
Igor Presnyakov stole my hat
I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust.
I didnt think of the Holocaust.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
It's now censorship when people choose not to fund you based on your previous "work?" Puh-lease. Lots of guys are getting funds to try to debunk theories about global warming. At some point you just have to accept responsibility for being a poor scientist, regardless of your views.
Who is RTFM and when will he help me with Unix?
Stop with the " global warming is a political agenda driven conclusion" crapola like this. It's totally unacceptable. The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9005566792 811497638&hl=en
It covers both the politicization of the issue, and many scientific facts ignored by global warming films.
-- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
Can we please stop smuggling politics in via "Science" or YROL? Slashdot has a section for politics. It shouldn't but it does, and it is intended for this sort of story. Yes, many of us do opt out of Slashdot's politics section, so your pet issue will not get as many eyeballs. Please, accept it; this is not Science.
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
people deriding them when they complain about 'both sides of the argument not being heard'. 'both sides of the argument being heard' implies that there is equal support/strength on both sides, which is simply not the case in this issue. The overwhelming consensus on this issue is that climate change is a phenomena brought about chiefly by societies burning of fossil fuels.
Not all conservatives are stupid,
but it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
- Hume
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
(Note, I also suscribe to the Global Warming is bullshit viewpoint)
... it's that the dissent is being irresponsibly over-exaggerated and manipulated by certain parties (namely the Bush administration). It's somewhat similar to holocaust or evolution denials. It's not a problem, perhaps even healthy, that there is dissent. However, if decision-makers start cherry-picking oddball positions to further their policy (like the Bush administration on the environment or evolution and Iran on the holocaust) then you have a problem. The problem is with the decision-makers, not the various individuals expressing their thoughts.
As this study shows, biologists avoid using the word "evolution" in their research proposals and reports presumably because they do not want to alienate the current US government, which is a major source of grants. So scientists clearly can be influenced, at least in which words they use to report it if not in the underlying research, by the perceived biases of government bodies which fund them.
The prediction then would be that during the Bush administration we should have seen a marked decrease in mentions of "global warming" and "climate change" in grant applications and published research. But our self-proclaimed "suppressed scholar" is claiming something quite contradictory: Both that scientists say what their funders want (with the US government being the largest single funder of basic scientific research), and also that current scientists have a biased towards claims for "global warming" and "climate change," rather than favoring the bias of the current US government against these topics - which is at least as strong its bias against "evolution."
WTF? The only logical conclusion from the (somewhat justified) claim that scientists show favor towards their funders' biases is that global climate change is more of a threat than the current scientific consensus (at least among American scientists) portrays.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Left or right wing has NOTHING to do with this. Truth does.
The greenhouse effect is real, there is no doubt. But it's also true that just a few thousands of years ago an ice age ended. The earth was warmed by enough to melt ice miles thick. What casued that? Isn't it interesting that the earth went through such a recent warming that clearly was not caused by our emissions?
You can't fight global warming (which is real) without knowing WHY it's happening. Clearly we can reduce our emissions. But what if that's not enough because it's NOT ENTIRELY THEIR FAULT?
What do we do if it's a solar cycle? We may have to think BEYOND cutting our CO2. We may need to find ways to sequester more CO2 than we make, or find clever ways to reflect solar energy.
People are so focused on "blame" they may not be seeing this is really a larger problem than it first appears.
Almost all of the skeptics or deniers only deny or are skeptical about the _cause_ of global warming, not the fact that the planet is indeed warming.
/. likes to attack these same people for not seeing things their way. It is commonplace here to attack and mod down people who present other or counter evidence, no matter how valid it may be. The media has successfully nullified the scientific process when it comes to global warming. The media and political interests are causing global warming to be such a polarizing issue that any one person, or entity looking to present evidence counter to the what the media/politicians feed us, is going to think twice. The implications of publishing an article/paper counter to what many believe to be true are far reaching and could end your career.
:) )
Like many others areas of the world/media,
All I hope for is that the scientific process can be saved from the media in the future when issues like this come up. By that I mean issues that demand action based on conclusive scientific evidence of a problem. We could all certainly be wrong about global warming and if you do not at least concede that, then you too, are contributing to the fall of one of, if not the most important advancement of our modern society, the scientific process. (Sanitation puts up a good fight for #1
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Mod parent up.
Nobody's denying that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that the levels of it are increasing. The debate is over where all this extra CO2 is coming from.
I figured since I submitted the article, I would offer my own perspective on it.
Personally, I think global warming is at least partially anthropogenic and that it is a serious threat to our civilization. Also, aside from global warming, I think that building millions of machines that pump poison into our atmosphere is a Bad Idea.
However, I am put off by the sense political fervor over global warming. There are too many unreasonable people shouting and pointing fingers and not enough reasoned scientific debate. The fact that the opinions of respected researchers are being ignored (or threatened) because it isn't the "cool thing to think" right now is troubling.
Some of you have already decided that Global Warming is/isn't anthropogenic, and that it is/isn't a threat and that we should/shouldn't do something dramatic about it. Nothing anyone says will change your mind. Any evidence that contradicts your opinon is "politcally motivated", "biased", or "dishonest". Any evidence that in any way supports your opninion is "incontrovertible truth". This is an unscientific mindset. I think this is what the professor from MIT is warning us about.
I think skepticism should be encouraged, and fantacism should be exposed and derided. Thus, I submitted this article. I don't think there was anything in the article that said global warming is or isn't the threat Al Gore claims it is. However, it seems to be true that dissenting scientists feel threatened and squelched for what they think. This is not the formula for progress or truth.
Find one by an actual climatologist and not by an author who has also warned us about the "summer of the shark". The truth is that during this global cooling scare manufactured by Time and Newsweek, real scientists were already doing research on global warming.
It's the height of ignorance to believe otherwise. If you don't trust environmentalists, perhaps you'll believe what Lindzen himself has said:
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you don't believe him, all you have to do is to look back at ANY Slashdot article on global warming in the last 5 years to see an incredible amount of vitriol and hate directed at those like myself who are highly skeptical of "Global Warming" as a man-made phenomena.
We are called "Deniers", fools, idiots, trolls, tools, apologists for "big oil", ignorant, and any number of insults that you can imagine. Our intelligence is derided, our ability to research and think critically is questioned and our honesty is doubted. We are treated much like those who "insult Islam" are treated by Muslims. With disrespect, derision, and hatred. That some of the eco-religious would choose to "take it to the next level" with death threats is NOT SURPRISING AT ALL.
There are many many scientists, not funded by big-oil, who seriously doubt or outright disagree with the conclusion reached by a few high-profile scientists in regards to the veracity of man-made global warming. Many of them have signed on to a petition that states:
You can see the petition online here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p37.htm
and a scientific abstract that further explains their position here: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Their science is sound, and after doing my due-diligence I agree with them. I will not be shouted down by eco-religious fanatics or ideological thugs, and neither will these scientists.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
Now we have eco-fanatics along with religious fanatics. How long before we have suicide bombings from eco-terrorist groups?? This just proves crazy people will always find a cause by which to justify acts of violence if/when we get rid of religion it will just be something else.
I think the invisible hand of the market has its middle finger extended
--A wise old fart named SC0RN
And you've just proven the point of the entire article. If you believe it's real, then open up the debate. If it's true, then it'll be verified and make your case that much stronger.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
It is a BS story by a small group of Bush lovers up here in Canada. The "professor" has a PHD in geography, not climate science, and has written no papers on the topic of climate.
a tor-strikes-again.html
http://canadiancynic.blogspot.com/2007/03/ejankul
I want to know where and when did the tide change ??
How is the general public supposed to tell who's lying or telling the
truth, if the hysteria changes sides so often ?
Global warming ? now you're threathened because you don't beleive in it ?
I thought we were threathened because we believed and wanted to inform the public, and get
them motivated to call down their representatives to action...which would, of course, cost
Corporations millions in lost profits....When did Paid Bloggers outpace us ?
That's it, they've ruined too many winters for me here in Canada...
I'm moving in with the Inuit. At least I'll have a white Christmas there for a change !
End of Line.
you don't understand. the gp was saying that if you disagree with him you must be right wing. that's the way things go when you bring non-political issues onto a political platform; those who agree with your position on a non-political issue will try to align their party and it's values with you while those in opposition will label you a right/left wing stooge for being aligned with the other party and it's platform. you can be a a republican all you want to but as soon as you call for environmental solutions you'll be labeled a leftist. the same holds true if your a democrat and you support the 2nd amendment.
this is the reason that slashdot should distance itself from political postings. the fact that it's a flamefest means that it's good business and that's the reason slashdot won't do the right thing.
I work for a small R&D firm, not in the environmental arena, but another analogous environment. We have a number of Phd Docs who get money from large firms. Are they corrupted by that money? Hardly. I've seen one of our docs, who was paid by a large firm to speak at a presentation, stand up and say their product sucks in front of a crowd in a conference hall. They paid for his opinion, and that's what he gave them. (although I believe his words were a bit more elegant)
All of our Docs started out saying "I'm really excited about X, lets find out all we can on it." which means they have to talk to the consumers and corporations that already have a stake. And if the corps are willing to pay for research that will improve the consumers' lives, wonderful! It's not like the consumers are going to come to us and pay for the R&D process.
So yeah, take what funded individuals say with a gain of salt, but realize that if they were not funded, then the research would not have been done, and the only people who want to pay for research are those with a vested interest. And as always, trust peer reviewed journals over the mass media.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
There was a program on channel 4 in the UK called "The Great Global Warming Scandal" a few days again which questioned the prevalent theory of CO2 emissions in regard to global warming, I thought it was quite good, as to whether it is correct I have no idea, I think I am as confused as many other people regarding this issue. This issue of global warming seems to me to have become a 'if you are not with us, you are against us', here are two links to articles regarding the program, one for, one against. take your pick. against seems to be a little less anti
I'm not a climatologist, but I am a scientist, and some of these responses (and indeed, responses all over the place) are scaring me. Global warming is not the issue. There's a very clear trend of increasing global temperatures, you can check meteorological websites and see it. There's also a very clear trend of an increase in the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, even just since they started recording it, to say nothing of what it might have been 100 or 200 years ago.
The argument is whether the global warming that we see in hard data is caused by humans. There's a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperature, but as any Pastafarian can tell you, correlation does not equal causation. That's what people should be arguing about. We KNOW temperatures are increasing, what we don't know (and it's one of those things that might be impossible to prove, as so many things are in science) is whether these increases are caused by us. If they are, then we might possiblly be able to reverse them given reductions in CO2 output and carbon sequestering. If they aren't, then rising CO2 probably isn't helping and should still be reversed, and we might also look into other solutions for it.
The Earth has cycled between hot and cold for its entire existence, and we don't know why. It might be life, it might be the planet's internal processes, it might be the Maunder Minimum.
Anyone denying that the planet is heating is living with their head up their butt. Anyone denying that the heating is caused by humans is simply skeptical, and has good reason to be. Anyone convinced that the warming of the planet is caused by humans is too credulous and should always remember that science is falsifiable and therefore can never be certain.
Evil will always win, because Good is DUMB
He was making an oblique reference to holocaust deniers, I believe. That the word "denial" is taken by these people to be associated with the holocaust strikes me as acute over-sensitivity. However, I've taken to calling them pseudo-skeptics (someone else whose name I've forgotten gave me that term) because they're not really interested in the truth. They're only interested in either supporting their preconceived notions or trying to sound smart.
As for cracking a book, you'd be better off cracking a research journal. State of Fear is a work of fiction.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Part of the problem is labelling someone a "skeptic" and assuming what they think.
I know the earth is warming.
I accept that man is affecting the rate of warming, but I wonder to what extent.
My problem is that the earth's climate is not a static model, yet all of the "science" that manages to trickle down to my CNN screen seems to assume that it is. People project that "such and such will happen in 50 years if we dont.. blah blah", and my bullshit detector goes off. That sort of malthusian talk is pure nonsense.
I don't believe in a "day after tomorrow" nightmare scenario. I don't believe teh world will end in my lifetime, or in my great-great-great-great grandkids lifetime. As far as doomsday scenarios go, we still got bigger fish to fry, IMO.
What I know is that we dont know remotely enough to understand the system, and this business of shouting-down scientists, other than through the established practice of peer review, doesn't help us out any.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Scientists should be skeptical. It is only under much scrutiny and skepticism that the truth can be truly known. Petty tactics against skeptics only serve to make the more popular global warming theories appear as dogma rather than real science.
If he's in Canada, I think that would be great irony if one migrated south and ate him for lack of sea ice to stalk seals.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Coming from an ecology based formation at the university, i have learned some principles of ecological research.
The first thing that needs to be understood is that ecology "scientists" need funding for their research (which is more often than not government-funded).
They NEED their research to make an impact in order to receive further funding for more research.
In ecology, you never have an "absolute numerical value" to your results. You will obtain a "range" of values, the minimal of that range being the "best-case scenario" and the maximum "the worst-case scenario".
Now in a research, you always "summarize" your results in the intro and/or in the conclusion of your report. In ecology, the "summary" always ONLY include the worst case scenarios.
Remember that they need to create an impact. Saying "all is normal" won't grant them further funding for additional researchs. In a sense, it even put their work as "useless".
It's the reason why today, we are hearing a lot less about the "ozone layer". In the 80s and early 90s, the problem was on the news everywhere all the time. Now we barelly even hear about it. See, the ozone layer is currently slowly re-building according to other researchs. Scientists gave the worst case scenario and what has been observed by others comes down to the fact that the problem wasn't as big as observed.
I strongly suspect the same thing with the green-house effect and rising temperatures. When a day is anormaly high (even if not even record-breaking) or if there are a higher number of typhoons and tornados (even if not record breaking) media are quick to "blame it on rising temperatures".
It's the ecological disaster of the decade... it's shocking... it's what the media wants, it's what the reserchers want as it's basically a ticket to funding.
Now comes another researcher that looks at it from a different perspective and comes to the conclusion that the worst case scenario is improbable and tends on the other side of the spectrum, where the "problem" is actually normal climate variation in the long term.
His views contradict the majority of other reserchers and invalidates some of what they are saying.
If they can't discredit his methodology, they'll discredit his research itself. Fail that, they will discredit the researcher himself.
I've read multiple catastrophe-scenarios over a number of ecological studies.
- In the 80s, i've read that if we continued to cut down trees at the speed we were doing, that no more trees would exist on the planet by 2010. It won't be the case.
- I've read in older studies that no petrolum would exist in the world by 2005. It was not the case.
- I've read that California would dissapear by 2000 from earthquakes. Did not happen.
- I've read that New York will be submerged by rising sea water by 2020. I doubt it will be the case.
There IS a problem with rising temperatures. The problem however is NOT what you are led to beleive by ecologists.
The lesson i've learned when listening to ecologists and catastrophe scenarios is:
Take their numbers, divide by 3 to 4, make an approximation of what the REAL problem is.
The lack of drinkable water in some countries (even the U.S. is lacking in some of it's regions) is a more urgent problem than rising temperatures. But it isn't as popular, hence it does not bring enough money...
Think about it,
Specialists in hydrology, climatology, ecology, oceanology, geology and almost all the other "...gy" discipline can gain funding if their researchs include "rising temperatures" in them.
Conclusion,
I don't know anything about this particular researcher or his studies. But he has raised an interesting point: you CAN be placed aside, discredited and have your funding CUT if you go against the ideas of the majority of other researchers.
Only to someone who's looking for such an infraction. The word denier is very apt. They deny the truth. However, for sake of argument, let's just agree to call them pseudo-skeptics. True skeptics are actually interested in the truth and not in reinforcing their preconceived notions or trying to sound smart.
(Although I'll agree that there are some environmentalists who will get quite bent out of shape. The less you actually know about the topic the more likely you are to resort to anger. That's why it is much more common on the pseudo-skeptic side of the aisle. You know, things like claiming that the word "denier" is a holocaust reference. I'm just sayin'...)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
However, I hope it goes without saying that I condemn and reject utterly and without hesitation any sort of intimidation, threats or violence against people just because they profoundly misunderstand a chunk of science, regardless of it's significance. If we were to go around killing off that portion the species that don't grasp how science works at this particular point in history, we would have a very small population left (with a terrible gender imbalance.) Violence is bad, just as the truth is good.
If the science is right, as I think it is, this will gradually come to be accepted by the world. There will always people who assert some sort of supernatural causation, or who never hear the truth, or can't or won't understand; that's the way we are; but I do think we have a good chance of actually getting in front of the avalanche, putting our collective backs to it and greatly reducing the impact. Did you know that from 2010, all new power-stations in the EU will produce zero carbon emissions? Just as a f'rinstance. Just one straw in the wind, but never underestimate the power of a large number of people moving in the same direction at once.... (or the power of natural selection or the invisible hand of the market ;)
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
I'm not commenting on Global Warming but as far as Polar Bears go.l ?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.htm
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Cutting CO2 emmisions could be bad? Explain.
There's people who say that global warming is just a result of the fact that temperatures are taken in the cities, and that cities are much hotter than they used to be. Just go downtown, in a large city, and then go 100 miles outside the city, and the temperature in the city will just about always be hotter. I'm not sure how much of a temperature difference can be accounted for like this, but anybody who lives downtown in a major city can tell you its much hotter there then outside the city.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
As everybody knows, the true cause of global warming is a lack of pirates in the world.
So earthquakes are caused by increased CO2 emissions as well? News to me.
Oh poor guy, persecuted for his beliefs.
Is playing the victim of threats and conspiracies going to be the next tactic for those who can't produce actual evidence for their ideas?
Oh wait I forgot, it always has been.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tim_Bal l
Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). [1] Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG). [2] Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy. [3]
Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science. [4] Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations. [5]
The links to PR companies is what bothers me. PR companies have studied and refined group psychology for decades, centuries even if you look at how it evolved from greek study of rhetoric, and it has even gotten us into wars like the 1st gulf war ( http://www.prwatch.org/books/tsigfy10.html ). They make Hitler's propaganda team look ineffecient in comparison. Stalin would be envious of them. Having observed PR campaigns for decades, this is a very high level and well funded campaign. I see their tactic - attacking global warming advocates as emotional and vindictive. Basically taking the science out of global warming and turning themselves into victims, because everyone likes a victim. I wish I wasn't so skeptical and negative but having seen PR companies in action, this has all the hallmarks of a PR campaign. The best PR goes unnoticed, it's not obvious to those uniniatied in PR tactics, but it is most definitely happening.
I personally only want to see peer reviewed data, nothing else matters. The PR companies want to take this to the people rather than to the journals.
2 years and no mod points. Join reddit. Because openness is good.
While I am concerned about the future of our planet and our species' place upon it, I am growing increasingly sceptical of the wild claims surrounding a looming global warming catastrophe.
My main area of surprise and shock was learning that past concentrations of carbon dioxide were much higher than they are today, as revealed in the interview below:
RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota
JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer
I have come to learn that these past carbon dioxide concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals:
My interest in past CO2 concentrations began by reading a (somewhat) more partisan summary of this information:
I have also seen a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigous universities):
And I have also seen a growing political backlash against scientifically-unfounded runaway global warming panic:
When I see interviews such as
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Does he? Oh, yeah. He gets grant money from the NSF, NASA, and the DOE. Yeah, no grant money there.
You get grant money for doing novel research - not for toeing the line. Anyone who thinks otherwise has never applied for a grant.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Given the vitriol I've witnessed, I have no doubt that people doing work that might contradict greenhouse-gas driven anthropogenic global warming receive all sorts of threats and probably funding problems. Surely anyone who put their name out there as an anthropogenic global warming critic is going to receive threats from loonies, and surely there are at least some anthropogenic global warming critics who's research is being de-funded, but that doesn't mean the two are related. Their research could be being de-funded because it's bad research.
It seems to me that anyone who wants to be civil about the debate over global warming (rather than taking up arms in a useless flame-war) needs to look at one thing; peer-reviewed scientific literature.
Likewise, to make the case regarding political bias affecting research into global warming, what one needs to look at is submitted papers and grant proposals. Let's not hear one side complain about how they're being repressed; let's see evidence of repression. Do you have a history of quality research, and had your quality grant proposal rejected because the research you proposed could contradict the theory of anthropogenic global warming? If so, put the information out there for people to judge. Did you submit a quality research paper to journals, only to have it rejected due to political bias, not the quality of the paper? Put it out there. The laymen might not be able to evaluate all this on their own, but there are still plenty of unbiased scientists and organizations that would review these cases carefully if these claims were advanced with appropriate evidence.
Is research being suppressed? I don't know, it wouldn't surprise me either way, given how politicized this topic is. But if they want to make a case for it, the thing that they need that's been lacking so far is substantial evidence.
Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
It's no secret that Global Warming is the new trump card. Having had experience with the EPA in California, you can't deny it. It's a known "fact" that Global Warming is happening. While I don't disagree I disagree with the cause. Sadly you can't disagree otherwise you are anti-Planet, pro-destruction.
We have doubled the amount of biologically-available nitrogen in the ecosphere through the use of fertilizers and fossil fuels.
Nobody expected that could be done just by what we decided to add to cultivated arable land, and it took just a hundred years.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
The web site that published this article (without, I might add, any kind of actual verifiable data) also carries right-wing & Christian blogging. This is just another typical media outlet misrepresenting the nature of the scientific debate. In fact, it's these kinds of media outlets that are the real problem - they tell a lie of a world unaffected by our presence, promoting inaction when action is required.
Beer is proof that God loves us, and wants us to be happy.
If you search back in your memory, you'll find that it's certain politicians who made this into a media issue. Who heard of climate change 20 years ago EXCEPT for scientists working on it?
The motives for these politicians who are NOT scientist to wade into this arena can only be guessed at. Of course, contributions and lobbyists are amont the likely suspects. What's inexplicable to me is why much of the right leaning ranks picked up on this obscure topic as a hot button issue almost at big as abortion.
The only explanation I can think of, it that it's a push back against those green-leaning environmentalist.
In the context, the media only serves to amplify the adversarial stances. They should not have the bulk of the blame placed on them.
Bah whatever, I don't see much of science from him but some complaints about how he is a victim and the such. Seems he has as much of a hard time proving he was threatened to death as he has to prove that this whole global warming stuff is just a cycle.
Whatever happened to real scientists, I am kind of tired of how politized this became. Fact is the world's average temperature got higher. And the climate has really become crazy you might check this year's news about weather and stuff if you like.
Current evidence points out that the green house effect should be taken seriously. And there's little research from scientists to get another conclussion. There is a big chance that the unnatural increase of CO2 which is a worldwide change to the atmosphere might be affecting the world's temperature, we could even guess that changing a planet's atmosphere has effect on the planet...
Shall reducing emissions be the solution? Who knows? I doubt we have time to fix the issue, maybe gore would have helped the environment more if he brought this during the clinton period instead of trying to use as an electoral campaign...
But CO2 is not the only thing industries are dumping into the air, and eventually they getting cleaner might become the best option both for the environment and the economy.
Copyright infringement is "piracy" in the same way DRM is "consumer rape"
the carbon dioxide and warmer temperature will sure prepare the coming generations for Martian climate.
Sorry, never heard of you up to now. This reminds me of the kind of protests we get a certain self appointed commentator regarding OSS zealots and how he has to sleep with a gun under his pillow after criticising 'Linux'. The fact is the big money is in denying global warming and it is those who affirm this that have been pressured into silence.
The function of such alarmist FUD is a cynical attempt to paint your opponents with what you are. It's my disinterested opinion that the 'climate change' isn't happening crowd, realising they haven't a leg to stand on, have resorted to the argumentum ad personam. That is when you can't attack your opponents views attack his integrity.
davecb5620@gmail.com
Human caused global warming is a myth and will be proven so within the next 15-20 years. This will be the biggest modern embarrassment for the scientific community.
--Colin LeMahieu
Can you actually demonstrate that the media is having any effect on the scientific community? The scientists I have talked to over the years consider science journalism to be one step above tabloid journalism.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Whatever the causes of Global Warming, we still need to deal with it.
..if it's just man made, then wahoo! lets change our practises and fix the problem.
..I mean, it doesn't matter who or what is responsible, it'll still kill us so we need to do something about it.
All these people arguing that it isn't man made are shooting themselves in the foot if they are trying to use that as a reason NOT to cut emmisions etc..
If it's not man made then WooHoo! We still need to change our practises as much as possible to combat the effect.
Mars is warming also. Claims that global warming on Earth is caused by solely humans are false. Are we somehow to make a leap of faith that my SUV is now causing Mars to warm? Don't buy into the hype. Don't you believe it for one second.
Sealand.
Sealand is very much still above water.
New Orleans, however, is a different story, though it's mostly been pumped dry by now.
Causality 2: Do you deny that?
(Implied) Causality 3: Do you deny that?
Where is this "correlation" that you're describing? I'm talking causes.
Do a google search on "Ben Hocking". I'm not a back seat scientist. I might not be that credentialed, but I do have an MS in astrophysics, a Masters of Computer Science and I will soon have a Ph.D. in CS. I've also published several articles in Journal of Neuroscience and have written two grant proposals to the NIH. What are your credentials?
Skeptics are great - they look for the truth. Pseudo-skeptics who only look to prove their preconceived ideas or try to make themselves look smart give real skeptics a bad name.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
No, nobody is arguing about that. Maybe you are, but nobody else is.
Loads of climatologists said it was mostly down to the sun. It's on Youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk
Deleted
Greenpeace and the initial environmental movement was a truly noble cause. I am very happy to see the progress that has been made to clean up the pollution of streams and rivers, reduction of smog and sulfur emissions from factories and power plants, reduced tailpipe emissions, etc.
2 811497638&hl=en
But now that we've 'solved' these problems, the Environmental Movement has become the Environmental Industry that is making more and more shrill claims that have little to no basis in either science or reality. They have to if the new employees of the Environmental Industry want to keep their jobs. The most absurd is that CO2 is causing global warming where all the evidence and hard proof shows that the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere is a lagging indicator of global climate change... a lagging indicator by 800 years. Yet they still claim that the link between atmospheric CO2 levels and global warming are directly connected - and leave their audience to conclude that the rise of CO2 caused the rise in temperature, when in fact the exact opposite is the case. Rising global temperatures will cause a gradual increase in CO2.
Look at it this way: to burn a carbon atom, you must combine 1 carbon atom with 2 oxygen atoms to make the CO2 molecule. If CO2 was in fact rising at the dangerous rate that some claim, we would actually be running out of oxygen. We should be screaming to save the oxygen! The thing is that the entire carbon myth is simply that, a myth.
When you overlap the global climate changes with the solar activity and sun spots, it is an absolutely perfect match. The trends overlap each other and fit together perfectly. Yet, somehow people REFUSE to believe that Global Warming is actually caused by, of all things, THE SUN!
Holy crap! The SUN is actually responsible for Global Warming? STOP THE PRESSES!!!
Don't listen to me though, decide for yourself:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900556679
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
There are extremists in defense of global warming. However, the basic science behind anthropogenic global warming is solid. The cure is uncertain, but the problem is real. As for your comments about scientists getting things wrong sometimes, you're right. However, very rarely has there been such unanimity as there is with AGW. What's even crazier than to believe a bunch of scientists is to believe a bunch of economists who claim that trying to reduce CO2 output will cripple the US economy. Additionally, there is no such unanimity with economists. Many think it will actually benefit the US economy!
It seems like we're in basic agreement. I'm not claiming to know what the solution is, but I am tired of these pseudo-skeptics who like to pretend that it's the height of "arrogance" to assume that humans can have any influence on the environment.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I find it somewhat hard to believe that his funding disappeared because of his skepticism. If he needs more funding to continue his natural-cycle research I suggest he move to the US and petition the National Center for Public Policy Research (http://www.nationalcenter.org/) for funding; I guarantee they'll fall over themselves just to increase their roster of climatologists to from 2 to 3.
I'm not going to watch that trash. If you've watched it and there's a name and article, then give it to me. Spare me the pain of having to watch that. (Clue: Youtube is not a journal.)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
both sides of the argument being heard' implies that there is equal support/strength on both sides,
No, it does not. Care to explain exactly why both sides must be equally supported or of equal strength in order to justify "being heard"? Does "Linux" get to be heard because it is equally supported by enthusiasts compared to Windows, or that is has as much mindshare or marketshare? Does the political minority get to be shut out because they are the minority?
The overwhelming consensus on this issue is that climate change is a phenomena brought about chiefly by societies burning of fossil fuels.
And we know that consensus is exactly how proper science is done, right? We all know the consensus is never wrong, right?
Consensus has been wrong about major issues. Such as the shape of the world, the safety of chemicals such as formaldehyde, the lethality of others, etc..
Yes, a million scientists can be wrong. So can a billion, or a trillion. What you, and others, are doing by arguing that "consensus says" is committing the fallacy argument of appeal to majority. Scientific "truth" (such as it exists) is truth regardless of the numbers who agree or disagree, believe or not.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Trolls happen. Buy a gate & dog and move on.
Table-ized A.I.
seems to be "I know you are but what am I."
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great _global_warming_swindle/index.html
So is this now blasphemy?
Mars is actually a cold wasteland. Not a hot desert.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
There are currently NINE articles on the front page of the DrudgeReport related to global warming. It has been an equally popular topic for several months now too. Any coverage to this extent is going to shape the opinions of the readers through what articles are presented. Now these readers are also editors of other news organizations or even CEOs at huge corporations. They read these articles day in and out and form an opinion based on what they read. They act on that information in some cases.
Really, to ask what effect the media has is ridiculous. If Drudge dropped global warming today and replaced with with equal coverage of the doomsday scenario of an Asteroid hitting Earth, I bet world would shift its collective focus to that almost overnight. Watch how fast Global warming is not an issue when/if we find something that will strike Earth in the next 50 years.
The media can easily and does decide what is important to and for the masses.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
To accuse anyone who uses the word "denial" as trying to add "connotations" to the holocaust (which I'm sure is what he was implying) is like using the term "racist" or "misogynist" where there's little proof of either. IMNSHO, it weakens your case.
Nevertheless, I do appreciate your distinction between "connotation" and "reference". I am, perhaps, somewhat sensitive to this issue for being accused of dragging the holocaust into it when I've used that term in the past. In respect of that, I've started using the term "pseudo-skeptic". I assume that has no such connotation.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"Can you name one climatologist who disagrees with that statement?"
Please name one climatologist who a)wasn't already an environmentalist before becoming a "climatologist"
or, b)doesn't have a vested interest in believing humans are causing the latest rise in temp (ie. grant money)
I suggest an alternate category for you. Not evolution or flat earth, but rather thermodynamics. In the late 1800's, Max Plank delved into thermodynamics in great detail. At the time he was derided because "everything that needed to be known was known". Einstein has credited his work as one of the underpinnings of relativity. A revolutionary break in science that turned much of what people thought they knew about thermodynamics on its head.
Consensus is not proof. In particular, with science, the devil is in the details.
I'm glad you aren't stupid enough to believe that climate change is not real. I suggest you look at the Vostok data. There you will see that this type of climate change has been happening for at least half a million years. You need to look at Vostock to go back more than 100,000 years. You see Greenland's ice all melted the last time this happened. It is pretty likely it will all melt this time too. You will also see that CO2 followed temperature each of the last four times the earth went through a climate change cycle, nearly identical to the current cycle. There weren't many SUV's 300,000 years ago. Must have been something else.
By sticking YOUR head in the sand and pretending that doing something about CO2 is actually doing something, you are ignoring the very real and very frightening fact that this has happened before without any help from humans. What pisses off those of us who are skeptics is the amount of money being wasted chasing the illusion of Kyoto while nature moves inexorably forward to a conclusion that will be devastating for all of us.
Cheers
JE
Amongst scientists, yes. That is what is in question. Amongst lay people and pseudo-skeptics there is the illusion that the first is in question.
I'm curious. Perhaps I'm not reading carefully enough, but I don't see where you challenged anything I said. Where do you think I was not entirely accurate?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Farting cows produce methan.
Methane is a greenhouse gas.
Do you really think having millions of farting cows will not alter global temp?
Forest act as carbon dioxide sinks. Forests are being cut down at an alarming rate.
Do you really think destroying millions of acres of forests will not have an affect on global temp?
Maybe humans should just die. No humans = no problems for environment.
Anyone remember reading about how scientists in the '40's thought that detonating an atomic devices would cause a chain reaction in the atmosphere which would burn the planet to a crisp? What if they were right? What if this chain reaction just needed time to catalyse?
Another though. There is alot more asphalt and concrete on the surface of the planet, sucking up the sun's heat all day. Could these be the cause of global warming? Maybe.
Better yet, why is there even an argument about this. Think about it. Warmer climate, more evaporation, more evaporation more moisture in the atmoshpere. Warmer, more humid, more vegetation growth, more food...
Even if *WE* are the cause of GCC there isn't a whole hell of alot we can do about it now. If we stopped burning stuff, everything I mean, the problem isn't just going to go away. We are one of the most adaptable species on this rock and we will adapt to the new environment.
Or maybe we should start killing each other off in larger numbers so that the environmental impact is less. I say that we start with anyone wearing the color pink....
"...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
Don't bother, the exact quote "The mechanism for carbon dioxide IR trapping has been known since 1935 and it's not up for debate." has been posted about a dozen times in response to this article, he has obviously made up his mind and will not listen to any evidence that would contradict his beliefs.
Taken from a post in the forum on MediaLens : Tim Ball was captioned as the University of Winnipeg. In fact he left in 1996 since when he has run political campaigns through two organisations he helped found: the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the Friends of Science which, according to their websites aim to run "a proactive grassroots campaign to counter the Kyoto Protocol"; and "encourage and assist the Canadian Federal Government to re-evaluate the Kyoto Protocol". He appeared on a Channel 4 documentary last week in an attempt to debunk climate-change theories. The roll-call for interviewees becomes very enlightening when you start to look at their backgrounds and sources of funding (coupled with the past agenda of the documentary maker himself) and the way the sole climatologist was taken out of context through cunning editing. If there was genuinely a case for the contrary, then this kind of trickery is unnecessary, so just what IS the deal here!? More here...
I am curious if there is any data with respect to water vapor levels in the atmosphere over time. Water vapor, having a strong IR absorbance, is the other major greenhouse gas naturally occurring which is produced naturally (transpiration, evaporation) and artificially (industrial cooling towers, combustion, etc.) Despite anyone's particular leanings as to cause (anthropogenic, cyclic, or otherwise) I wonder if increased water vapor levels are contributing. It may also be noted that as temperature rises, water vapor levels would increase, perhaps enhancing any warming trend.
Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
Read the entire article and not just the abstract which he admits "is tantalizing for its ambiguity."
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science." Yeah....welcome to MODERN 'Science'.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Part of the problem is that the media is simply irresponsible about science in general. They're just looking for sensationalistic and scary stories that sound like science fiction plots. You could have a single minor study that suggested that there might be a couple distinct branches of "homo sapiens", and the nightly news would suddenly be reporting that "scientists have proven that you might not be human". They take these things out of context, report them out of proportion, and sometimes just get the facts flat-out wrong.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=900556679
The movie was produced by the BBC4 and is titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It shows an honest, reasoned response to the Global Warming Scare on a point-by-point basis from scientists and at least one journalist. The scientists all have credentials out the whazoo and are recognized leaders and contributors in their respective fields. A few of them have their names on the IPCC report (the report the Warmingistas always cite) and one has even sued to have his name taken off the document.
Particularly chilling (no pun intended) is the part that shows how the IPCC policy-wonks have redacted the IPCC report to remove comments from the scientists that explicitly state there is no proveable link between man-made CO2 and global warming.
As a technical person, I have always suspected the "consensus" results "proving" man-made Global Warming have been primarily a political scam. For one thing, science rarely (if ever) deals in absolutes, and complex models always deal in probabilities rather than yes/no answers. Further, as an undergraduate engineer, I spent plenty of time in college science labs doing experiments to acquaint myself with the scientific method. Working in simple straight-forward conditions:
- Indoor lab,
- Properly calibrated equipment,
- One simple, universally-accepted equation,
- One single variable,
we (me and all the other undergraduates) never got an exact match between the equations and the real world. There was always a fudge-factor. This experience has taught me that anyone who thinks scientists can model the entire world and get every equation and every theoretical assumption correct (down to a degree Celcius with no fudge-factor) is either ignorant or just a shill. They have the kind of faith that would put any religious bigot to shame.Timothy Ball is an industry shill who has been debunked repeatedly. Please see the excellent CBC Fifth Estate documentary "The Denial Machine" http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html you can even watch it online.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
If we keep on this fossil fueled path we're going to choke to death on our own smoke.
So this guy happens to be an expert in climatology. Based upon available data and his expertise, he states that there is insufficient evidence that humans are the cause of global warming and, in fact, the evidence tends towards a natural cycle. So what happens here on slashdot? People who have no clue about climate science beyond what they learn on PBS are calling him all kinds of names.
I think this adds a great deal of weight to his claim about how he as been treated.
Just because you are an expert in one field of science or engineering does not make you an expert in another. So just just the fuck up, please.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Where is the evidence that CO2 is the cause of the global warming?
CO2 fiasco is just fuelled by the governments so that they can increase Taxation.
Specially in EU. It is just an easy way to take away your hard earned dosh...
Is the earth warming up? Yes.
Is the cause for warming CO2? NO.
If you want the know the real reason for the warming just get your head out of your ass and look up into the sky............
How do you interpret those words? I do not feel that the context changes them other than to give him room to please the fossil fuel companies that support him. Seriously: tell me how you interpret this phrase: "At some level, it has never been widely contested."
Keep in mind, that he also wrote (as you yourself quoted):
So, educate me. What did he really mean?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"and it's not up for debate."
Mr. Galileo, the earth is the center of the universe. We've known this for the 7,000 years the earth has existed, and it's not up for debate.
I have a vague feeling that if the world hasn't warmed appreciably in the next five years, you'll see more and more people questioning what will by then be total orthodoxy. People seem to like stabbing at dinosaurs, and while global warming is just now garnering the peak of its acceptance, it will eventually lose vocal advocates if it doesn't produce an identifiable calamity. Much like "political correctness" was both embraced and eventually derided within the course of a decade, anthropogenic warming will lose its edge.
This isn't to say that it's bad science, or will be replaced by a better theory, just that, like a celebrity, overexposure will tire people of it.
It has got really nasty and personal.
That's because it's not science anymore. It's politics.
And where there's politics you find the absolute worst of the human race.
I admire anyone who stands against the tide, but don't act surprised when humanity shows it's true, filthy, rotten colors. Most people are lower than shit and worth even less.
Top Ten Reasons Why We Should Ignore GW:
(Warning - may cause nightmares)
10. Al Gore has a private jet.
9. Fighting GW might increase taxes.
8. Some scientists proclaim it's natural.
7. The rest predicted we were headed into an Ice Age - aka flipfloppers.
6. Granpappy says hottest year in Saskatoon was in ought five.
5. It was soooo cold just the other day.
4. Liberals made it up to make money.
3. Hippies made it up because they're dirty hippies.
2. The barrier reef is just depressed - SAD?
1. Who are we to question G-d?
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?ide=4 ;-)
My rights don't end where your feelings begin.
Depends on what was done about it, but I can't help thinking "better safe than sorry." When our greatgrandchildren look back on this time 100 years from now, I'd rather them laugh at our paranoia (or whatever you might call incorrect and alarmist views on climate change) than lament our complacency.
How about them cursing you for having trashed the economy so their standard of living is far below that of your time - and no resources are available for solving whatever the REAL problems of their day are - while instituting a global totalitarian repression to accomplish the "better safe" goals?
Kyoto alone talks about cutting the global economy by about a third for an "improvement" predicted (even by its advocates) to be too small to measure.
What good is insurance if you spend so much on it that you have nothing left to live on? Don't you think you need to actually do enough research to have some confidence in the results before instituting such costly measures?
Don't you think you should at LEAST get the models working to the point that they actually track the historic record of global temperature before taking draconian measures based on their predictions of the future?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
If by "nobody" you mean "none of the studies being published in the peer reviewed journals" and by "that" you mean "the proposition that humans are contributing to CO2 levels" then I agree.
If by "nobody" you mean "nobody", then I disagree. Where are all these newspaper articles and random pundit shoutings coming from if not from journalists and pundits?
If by "that" you mean "the extent to which humans are contributing to CO2 levels" then I couldn't disagree more. This is still a very live issue within the scientific community. Every study I've seen on carbon levels, sinking, and emissions is working toward pinpointing the magnitude of the human component of the problem. This is still a [b]very[/b] live issue.
Grandiose statements like what you're saying are only muddying the waters in the global warming situation. Yes, given all the hard data a sane society would be doing a lot more to cover its ass than we are. But trying to reduce the situation to black-and-white and exaggerating the degree to which there's agreement is doing nothing but setting up straw men so the anti global warming crowd can knock them down and say "Look, see, we're right!"
So, I've perused the article you referred to. It's a pretty good paper. It calls into question some of the conclusions of Mann et al., but mostly supports the IPCC TAR. I asked for a paper that disputes AGW. This doesn't appear to be one - if I've missed something (I scanned it rather quickly), let me know. I really liked Figure 3.
Huh. I just realized that it's hosted by junkscience. Since junkscience is funded by fossil-fuel companies, I guess they must see something that I don't see. Please tell me what it is - I'm genuinely interested.
You're drawing a connection where there isn't one. I never said the quote proved that they were almost in complete agreement that it is primarily anthropogenic in nature. That I've never read an article by a climatologist who disputes this is why I said they're almost in complete agreement. Funny, I thought that was clear - I guess not.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Well, I guess if Bush can muzzle scientists who talk about global warming then I guess it's OK for the global warming scientists to lean on their dissenters.
"You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
oh, it indeed will stop.. if we produce enough to make it 60-70deg outside all the time, i'm sure we'll all die out (more or less), and after another few thousand years it will likely (mind you, i'm not sure if we won't trigger something silly like mass vaporization of ocean water thus creation a steam bath, who's to say. Venus is not a nice place to live in either case, if you want to see what greenhouse gases can do) start cooling down, or 'swinging back' again.
I'm unsure how this would help your argument, though, or make it a valid retort (unless you consider this acceptable of course)
regardless, i'm not really into fearmongering, but statements like yours seem somewhat trivially true.
I would also be interested in that. However, just as with the theory of evolution, there is only consensus on the general concepts. There is, and most likely always will be, debate on the specifics. Nevertheless, a clear-cut list of factors from a group would be welcome.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The problems begin when one group begins to point fingers at another group, while exempting some on the basis of economical excuse-making.
How many of these hippies screaming for the Kyoto treaty understand that it exempts China(THE WORLDS LARGEST POLLUTER) on the basis of China being a "Developing Nation"? In my mind, once you build an Aircraft Carrier and a few Submarines, you aint "developing" no mo'.
They exempted China a few other nations, because they know if they try to tax them for polution, they are likely to get their accustions shoved up their asses and twisted.
Only in America(land of the guilt-trip)can one be counted on to empty their wallet in if they choose to drive a vehicle that doesn't cave in if you lean on it.
Fuck em'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
No hostility. No hatred, downright or otherwise. One guy was shocked and said "but the ice cores blah blah blah" which surprised me since he has a very low-paying job, I didn't expect such an intelligent response from a clerk.
Where do you live, that you have people freaking out over global warming denial? Around here, people are more upset about the recent decision to close the state landfill to yard waste...
If global warming is due to increased CO2 production from man, then would it not also be true that a smaller population base would have a smaller impact?
r apolated_world_population_history.png
That would suggest that our current rate of mortality (in adults and children), being vastly reduced by modern medical practices, are sideline contributors to the problem at large.
Imagine, what would world population numbers be like without man's own interference? 1 maybe 2 billion people? How much pollution is created to sustain the infrastructures for supporting 4-5 billion additional people?
Modern medicines impact can easily be seen when viewing graphs of world population numbers. Take away 4 billion people, their fossil fuel consumptions, the deforestation and watershed damage incurred to support them, and we could be talking about a whole different ballgame altogether.
Now am I saying that I don't like modern medicine? Heck no. But that doesn't remove it from being partially responsible.
Graph of global population estimates : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c4/Ext
Invention of Penicillin : 1928, widespread use 1943. Compare that to the graph.... interesting?
It's difficult not to be skeptical when Canada just had it's coldest February in 28 years. http://www.thestar.com/News/article/188324 We had days where the temperature was around -40 C with the wind chill, and we were being warned about exposing our skin for longer than necessary for fear of frostbite. We did have a milder than normal winter overall, but it's difficult to feel panic about global warming when we're still getting record cold spells.
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much." - Oscar Wilde
How do gun-shot fatalities help explain cancer deaths? They don't. Why do you think that the current warming trend must have the same causes as much more gradual warming trends in the past?
I've heard this before. Ten years ago, I heard that we'd see it in 5 years. Ten years later and the hottest ten years on record have happened in the last ten years.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Over simplification. Thats the whole problem. Climate is way more complex than just "add CO2, temp increases" as if temperature was based solely on co2 levels. Just because its higher today than ever does not mean its the only cause of the current warming trend. Really it makes you (and others) sounds like cult zealots, and some of us aren't dumb enough to buy it. Seriously, 30 years ago it was global cooling and we were overdue for an ice age. Now its obvious all glaciers and both polar caps are melting and the sea is going to rise 20 feet any minute now. Sea levels raise and lower, glaciers advance and retreat, and the phenomenon is not well understood, and people who claim its figured out, and the science is "settled", are being met with deserved cynicism. IMHO
That said, it does not matter why it's warming.
It does if you mean to change it.
Put aside the whole "consensus" crap for a moment and think about this. Assume for sake of discussion the following:
1) Earth is warming
2) Mankind has had zero impact on it
If you wish to make an impact, you have a large hurdle in that you've not been able to make any despite believing you have. If the warming is entirely natural, then all the changes you thought we had made to the climate did not happen and all of your science, models, theories about how to stop it are completely incorrect (as if they are now) and useful only as a list of "well this didn't make a difference". Useful, yes but not in the frame of making things different. You'd have a roughly equal chance of making it worse if you could impact it at all.
Furthermore, if it is entirely natural, or that man's impact is statistically and demonstrably zero in effect, then where we should focus our efforts in coping with the natural cycle is in adjusting ourselves to the new climate.
It also matters what the cause is in another area. If Mankind didn't cause it, then the political and moral force of a lot of environmental regulations are dropped in the crapper. It is one of the reasons I've been advocating making changes for reasons that have nothing to do with GW. There are plenty of non-GW caused changes we should be making that we do not. By tying nearly the whole of emissions control, fuel economy, and so forth to anthropogenic GW, the entire foundation could and would fall like a house of cards if/when it is determined that lo and behold we humans didn't do it. It's a dangerous position to build upon. Particularly since the anthropogenic part is not fully finished and certain. No, consensus does not mean correctness. As mentioned elsewhere, scientists have in the majority been completely wrong before.
The cause of global warming is all theory, not fact. In science, theories must be falsifiable in order to stand a chance at validity. Where is the falsifiability of AGW? How does one prove humans did not cause GW? How does one prove that solar forcing, or orbital changes, or any other "natural" causes were no the source, at that a combination of them?
In truth, we can't without experimentation. Models do not count. They are not proven accurate enough to even be considered as experimentation. This problem is taking hold in more places than climatology. Models and other computer simulations are not a valid substitute for confirmational experiments. So how does one conduct actual experiments? The same way we always have. But it does require more than hiring a programmer to make a program that takes your inputs and spits out an output according to a list of algorithms.
It means building environments and validating the theories that make up the portions of the whole. It means taking these and integrating the portions into larger experiments. Yes, that means bigger laboratories and more "hard thought". But hey isn't this supposed to be important enough to justify that? If you can't build it up, you can't say you truly understand it.
There has yet to be a single GW model that has been demonstrated to accurately model the past climate changes, let alone today's alleged ones. As such no model on climate today is valid evidence of anything other than programming and money being spent. Today's climate models are no more valid than a Simcity or Civlizations game is.
I've been researching climate effects for a couple decades with the express desire to create a warming climate condition. The first model I played with was in the 1980's. The model can output pretty much what you want it to. Any halfway decent programmer knows that. They area gross simplification built upon a chosen set of rules. All of them. ANyone that tries to tell you otherwise is ignorant of the sheer complexity of our climate. Even small scale climates are non-trivial. If you want to make your model accurate you need to have a repeatable
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
One thing to recognize is that at least six things have been happening since the "global cooling" scare:
* a reduction of global cooling effects due to a decreased reliance on smog technologies (remember when acid rain was the big issue?) which we know cause dramatic climate cooling (volcanoes have a huge effect, so it's obvious we also have a huge effect since we can produce more smog than a volcano)
* The sun has been getting hotter (as witnessed by the rise in temperatures of Mars and Jupiter)
* an increase in C02
* Deforestation
* Increase in urbanization and "heat islands"
* fish stocks and other sea life has been decreasing.
Global warming correlates to all of these (including the decrease in number of pirates;-]). Singling out an increase in CO2 as the one and only and final cause of global warming is just bad science. Why can't *all* these things be the cause? If we focus on C02 alone, we may end up making the problem worse by decreasing CO2 at the expense of the others.
It amuses me that for any given city in North America or Europe, we can't get tomorrow's weather correct (much less a five day forecast), but we believe we can get a 30 year prediction for the whole world. This is especially the case when we're dealing with a system as complex as the earth.
Any programmer should be sympathetic. A single line of code (or even a single constant), buried in a 10,000 line program can have a major impact on the security, stability, and functionality of an application. Climate is several order of magnitudes more complex than our most complex programs. Seemingly insignificant effects can have a major impact.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
(and what the long term consequences of higher CO2 levels will actually be)
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
The movie was produced by the BBC4
It was actually produced by Channel 4 - not connected to the BBC at all, it's a commercial TV station (and in my opinion, probably the UK's best commercial station).
1) Why does CO2 rise after temperature, in the historical record, if it causes it?
2) Why did the Wengeman report conclude that Mann's hockey stick was statistically unsound, if it is correct?
3) What caused the Medieval Warm period, and the little ice age, and the Holocene warming? Not the industrial revolution, surely?
4) Why did temperatures go up from 1800 to 1940, then fall from 1940 to 1975 (prompting the Global Cooling panic) and then rise from 1975 to now?
5) If its not the Sun that causes temperature variations, why are they so closely correlated with solar activity.
I really want to know the answer. Please do tell us.
I'm not talking about the masses. I'm talking about the scientific community.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If the process was de-politicized something would of probably been done about global worming 10 - 15 years ago
Politics is how people make decisions about issues that have collective effect. I know it's a dirty word in Slashdot, and politicians (ironically) like to talk about "getting beyond politics," but when you have a heterogeneous society with many competing interests, politics is a necessity.
The scientific community is rife with its own politics, and history has shown that unpopular scientific theories and the people who believe them frequently get treated very poorly. Sometimes the dissenters are later vindicated, sometimes they are proven to be on the wrong side of an argument. I think what makes the issue of global warming different from most is that the public is paying very close attention to this debate, unlike many burning conflicts that are only of interest to scientists.
I also disagree that anything would have been done about global warming in the absence of wealthy lobby groups. Americans have always been an optimistic (sometimes ludicrously so) people. We'd rather pay less money for fuel now and have faith that someone will come up with a solution in the 11th Hour. It's our way.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Read the rest of my comment. "Global totalitarian repression" is along the lines of "violent revolution." So I would definitly say that is going too far.
Did I miss something? Has research stopped? Is anyone even advocating that we stop researching climate change?
Which "draconian" measures are you talking about, exactly?
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
the reverse astroturf anti-non-conspiracy scientist coercion cover-up scandal!
Someone may have already mentioned this, but does anyone else think that there's nothing wrong with being emotionally charged on this issue? I mean, surely it's good to consider all sides and whatnot - but there are times for consideration and there are times that demand more urgent action. If it's just a "yes it's happening/no it's not" kind of argument, that's one thing - but if one way could kill me while the other way means I have to spend a few thousand dollars more on a more environmentally friendly car, I have only one thing to ask: cash, check, or charge?
If we really are considering all sides then we also have to consider the more extreme end of those individuals who say that we're so far beyond fixing this crazy thing that there's not too much we can do. And if there's even the slightest possibility that things are that bad, then I'm all for everyone getting emotional and cutting down on the sit-around-and-consider mindset.
If someone's swinging a bat at my head, I tend not to just stand there scratching my chin and thinking, "Hmmm... should I duck? Try to block it? There's certainly a possibility that I could JUMP high enough that it will miss me... nah that's silly. Well what if I just let it hit me? It may not do much damage..." I just react.
Now, I'm not a crazy environmentalist. I just value my head and don't want it getting hit by bats. And though I like my head, I don't think there are as many people depending on it as there are depending on, you know, the planet.
Whether all of the specifics of global warming are true or not, I've yet to hear a single positive redeeming argument in favor of all the pollution we're belching out. I'm sure even the skeptics would prefer not to eat anything caught in the Mississippi River or breathe the air during LA rush hour if they can help it. The alarmists are saying, "DUCK!" while the skeptics are saying, "Why should I?" If the alarmists are wrong and we listened to them, then what harm came? If the skeptics are wrong and we listened... I call dibs on the oxygen tank.
So, to me at least, it seems to be kind of a moot point to be skeptical. On many levels.
WTF? I read that whole biased piece by a staff writer at the Dickson Herald and I could not find one quote from Gore calling for censorship. He just pointed out that no peer reviewed studies disagreed with the premise of anthropogenic global warming, while 53% of newspaper articles did.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
I'm not being sanctimonious, but I'm not going to waste my time watching some infomercial. Have you watched "An Inconvenient Truth" yet or are you too sanctimonious?
I already know that Steve McIntyre and Dr. Ross McKitrick are not climatologists. Are any of them?
Prof. Tim Patterson: GeologistProf. Edward J Wegman: Statistician
Prof. Bob Carter: Marine Geophysicist
Dr. Willie Soon: Astrophysicist
Dr. Madhya Khandekar: ???
Prof. Wibjorn Karlen: Paleoclimatologist
Dr. Henrik Svensmark: Physicist
Dr. Dick Morgan: Law Professor?
Dr. Fred Goldberg: Physicist
Hans H.J. Labohm: Economist
Steve McIntyre: Mineralogist
Dr. Ross McKitrick: Economist
Dr. Chris Landsea: Meteorologist
OK. So I've had to do a lot of work to get one name. Prof. Karlen is a climatologist. So, what was his contribution? If I do a Scirus search, I don't find much, but perhaps I'm not searching on the right terms. He wrote a paper in 1973 on Holocene climatic variations and another in 2000 on high-altitude fresh waters.
Ahah. I did another Scirus search and found this article. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be anything there. I really wish I knew what he had written as every other article I can find only deals with the holocene. Although the title is suggestive, it wouldn't be the first time that what one would infer from a title did not agree with the conclusions.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
This letter is from Carl Wunsch, who appeared in this program, to the producer. I haven't got explicit permission to repost it here personally, but I grabbed it off another public forum where it was posted with permission:
Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP
10 March 2007
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about
your Channel 4 film "The Global Warming Swindle." Fundamentally,
I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that
was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and
subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with
the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked
to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way
the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---
in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication
in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be
so tendentious, so unbalanced?
I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because
I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable
climate-change stories in the
British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf
Stream could disappear, among others.
When a journalist approaches me suggesting a "critical approach" to a
technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we
are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious,
and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, "critical" does
not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of
the science. The scientific subjects described in the email,
and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated,
worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the
public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words "polemic", or
"swindle" appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have
instantly declined to be involved.
I spent hours in the interview describing
many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change,
and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get
exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially
truly catastrophic issues, such as
the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the
preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that
global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious
discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.
What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which
there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why
many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely
accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples,
it's hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one:
a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only
a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to
infer that means it couldn't really matter. But even a beginning
meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases
are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director
not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that
piece of disinformation.
An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context:
I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more
carbon dioxide than it absorbs -- thus exacerbating the greenhouse
gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It
was used in the film, through its context, to imply
that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that
therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which
are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.
I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters
and do understand something of the ways in whi
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Plants will grow somewhat but the growth of ANY organism is limited by the most limited requirement.
A plant is not all carbon. Where's the nitrogen from? The ground. But the uptake of this is limited by what is close enough to the roots. After that, it's diffusion and mixing.
The sad part is that you believe what you wrote.
Man-made CO2 represents 4% of the annual output of CO2 on the planet. 96% of all CO2 is generated by natural causes.
The Earth has gone through more massive changes in it's history than you seem to be capable of conceiving. CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm in the past. Yes, we have a bunch of arctic ice cores that may indicate CO2 levels have been mostly invariable in the past, but, as one PhD Chemist I know pointed out, "All that may be measuring is the level of CO2 dissolution in water at 0 degrees C." In other words, CO2 in ice is more likely to be the function of how well CO2 dissolves into ice water than any other mechanism like atmospheric density.
I'm not saying that there aren't some signs of warming, but I am highly skeptical of the supposed disastrous consequences.
Sea levels are "noticeably rising"? Not according to the 1841 sea level marking in Tasmania found here. Even the IPCC only claims a maximum of 15 millimeters over the 6000 year average. If you can see 2/3rds of an inch difference, more power to you, but calling it "Noticeably Rising" is a vast overstatement. The 2007 IPCC report is claiming a maximum rise of about 18 inches, or about the same as during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Al Gore is claiming 20 feet, but he also claims to have created the Internet...
Weather, overall, is not getting worse. The 1930's saw worse hurricanes then even the 2005 season. The difference being that now we can name storms 2,000 miles out to sea that never touch land, whereas, the 1930's used ships that passed storms in the ocean and very few storms were measured until land-fall. In fact, the largest hurricane (Typhoon Tip) occurred in 1979, in the midst of a "slow period". In 2005, the increase in Atlantic hurricanes was matched by a decrease in Pacific Typhoons (hurricanes), meaning that overall, the number barely increased. The link to storms and global warming is hotly debated.
In fact, were anthropogenic global warming a reality, we'd find that storm severity would decrease because storms are driven by the heat engine effect, namely the flow of heat from the equator towards the poles. Global Warming, as predicted by the models and climate scientists, indicates that the majority of warming occurs at the upper latitudes, with the largest increases at the poles. This means that the gradient of temperature from equator to poles would be less, and thus, the storms would decrease in severity. In fact, this was the prediction published in several papers up until about 1999, when they suddenly reversed themselves.
I could speculate that it was because they had seen a record storm year with the 1998 El Nino season, and they wanted to use the connection between strong storms and global warming to sell the science, but that would be a correlation vs. causation fallicy. Of course, in 2006, those same scientists predicted a "killer" Atlantic hurricane season, and not one single hurricane touched North American soil. (Yes, one storm was a hurricane when it approached Cuba, but by the time it made landfall it had been downgraded to a tropical storm.) Suddenly we were back to the climate scientists, and they actually said, "The reason we had so few hurricanes was because of global warming." So, now we have global warming if there's more hurricanes, global warming if there's less hurricanes, and, we must assume, global warming if there's no hurricanes. That's called non-falsifiable, and there's a name for its practice, but it's not science. The word is religion.
Is the Earth warming up? Satellite measurements continue to show, at most, a mild and limited warming, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, and mostly in the middle latitudes. Claiming that glaciers melting (which they are)
Life, the Universe, and Everything... in my image.
Cities == more furnaces, air conditioners, car engine heat , incandescent lights ?
... but there could be other 'logical' factors too.
I'm not saying that CO2 might not be a factor
Chuckle, chuckle chuckle.
6 /s /sun_activity.html
a rminexplodes.htm
3 434
If any of you care to do any of the most basic research on the history of climate studies, you will find some very strong "opinions" with regards to human induced climate change.
I do not think, or at least I haven't found one scientist yet that doesn't think the climate is changing.
Everyone agrees on that.
The human part is the sticky issue. I don't believe for example burning fossil fuels is making the sort of climate changes I have witnessed.
I DO know that when you follow THE MONEY on the issue here is what I come up with:
1) Hollywood has made millions off the idea.
2) Al Gore, has made a VERY comfortable living proclaiming it to be so, with a carbon "footprint" even George Bush would be impressed with, even though he has absolutely no expertise scientifically as a proponent of the idea.
3) Every major university institution is giving position and power to those who "TOW THE LINE" about human induced climate change based on Federal funding and NSF grants, which is very lucrative.
4) Every major prediction proclaimed since this idea has come about has been revised every year. Nobody it would seem can predict climatic change, even though, everyone working on the very lucrative professionally and financially idea of human induced climate change, has got the "research numbers down pat" they all assure us.
Contrast that sort of "fish bowl" science research with those in the astrophysics/solar weather fields that say our sun has/is going "berzerk" in the past 30 years.
http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/118
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/
http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNote
http://www.spacew.com/astroalert.html
The solar cycles are completly out of "whack" right now.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/15sep_sol
The suns behavior is anything but predictable and just this past January I was looking at beautiful aurora while I was visiting Chicago, IL.
Every major planet in the solars system is ALSO experiencing a warming trend.
http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/
That could be due to all of the human colonies we have on mars for example as well as Jupitor's moons.
There is plenty of evidence for alternative explanations to climate change.
So why are we not hearing them?
ANSWER: No money to be made.
I mean look at some of the truly outrageous projects given considered SERIOUS thought by proponents of global warming:
http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=8897
HOW MUCH do you think a project like that would cost and WHO DO you think is going to get the money for it?
It sure isn't the third world countries who are being asked to starve to death and endure this climate change.
There is no suggestion of planting more trees either as you can't make money off of planting trees. It costs too much.
I SEMLL A RAT.
-Hackus
-Hackus
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
A former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg was murdered yesterday by a dangerous gang of natural disasters. More news at 11.
See, in particular, this account of his credentials. He's an emeritus prof. of geography, U Winnipeg, 1988-96; I haven't found his prior history, but he hasn't been an academic climatologist in the the last 20 years and most likely never was (if he were, why was his last professorship as an geographer?) He only published four peer-reviewed papers on climatology and the last was published at least 11 years ago. I can see no good reason for treating Ball as credible. The Independent article mentioned cites no sources beyond Ball; it is simply rumour, repackaged. Another version of this article appears in the Canada Free Press, a right-wing authoritarian rag which also published Ball's earlier claims; this appears to be the source.
Why was this run at all?
I love you, too. xxoo
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
long after anyone figures out whether or not global warming is caused by man.
/.. Here's a quote to think about and put you into the proper frame of mind:
So I suggest everyone quiet down, sit back and enjoy another latte' and find something to do other than spewing venom on
"Apres moi, le Deluge!"
- Louis Quatorze, second-to-last King of France
I recall Tim. He is not one to be dismissed lightly. He can speak with authority on this topic. Question everything, no?
Actually, that citation does not support my claim, but neither does he directly refute it. As far as I can tell, that's one of his tactics. Try to find where he's said something definitive.
Furthermore, I'm not one of these "the sky is falling" alarmists. I'm just saying that we are mainly to blame. That does not exaggerate the problem. It states the cause.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
OK, let me give you a little bit of argument why the guy may have at least some basis for asking questions. So far, all the global warming folks have been going after the industrial world and car drivers (noddy summary :-).
:-). It's not going to be dealt with sufficiently by nibbling at the margins only.
So why is NOBODY looking at the global warming costs of meat production? I'm not a veggie, but I was shocked to discover that about 27% (yes, over a quarter) of the global warming problem originates in meat production. How do you think a cow fart (methane) gets so much energy?
The issue here, however, is political. Farming is already ridiculously oversubsidised, and it's ironic that the subsidies have resulted in creating quite a power block (i.e. with your tax money), and not just in France. It's thus much easier to go after car drivers because they're easy to target and have nowhere to go (example: London, with the costliest public transport system per mile in the world). And they don't cost that many votes because they've already been made to feel guilty for causing the worlds' ills.
Another little idea for you: I would suggest you start checking how much income the Government gets from your gas bill. I don't think you're so naive to think any Government is going to cut off a major revenue stream to please some greenies, not without finding another path to claw back that income (i.e. again your own money).
I'm not really in the mood for digging out the matching facts for you (sorry, I know it's an easy way out but it's late) but it may be some consolation that I believed the original arguments as well, without asking extra questions.
That was, until I had the pleasure to meet one of the people on their way to speak at Davos. This specific guy gets invited every year precisely because he doesn't swallow the original arguments either and he isn't shy to ask the questions everyone else is trying to avoid (to the point of upsetting the UK delegate who started to take it personally
Worse, it deludes us in thinking we're dealing with the problem.
PS: note that I don't argue with the fact that Gloabl Warming is taking place, only with that our beloved politicians are too wedded to their votes to really deal with the key issues. I prefer clarity and transparancy, and this means debate and tough questions. Hounding someone because (s)he stimulates debate shows there's a couple of things we're not being told, and it's worth examining that. I can remember a similar attitude when some people questioned WMD evidence..
Ask questions - because they don't want you to..
Insert
The heat from those sources has negligible impact on the global mean temperature.
Those furnaces, air conditioners, lights, etc. do draw electrical power and produce CO2 at power plants, though.
Given the story you are commenting in the context of, you'd have to be amazingly, passionately, non-objective to not see how moronic you sound for asking this (rhetorical?) question.
He does not say "primarily". Neither will he ever refute it. I recently watched him on Larry King and noticed this technique in action. If what he believes is true will upset the fossil-fuel companies, he deflects the question to something he is willing to say. Read the transcript. It's educational.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
You can not reverse a non-linear chaotic system. Whenever you hear someone say otherwise you can not win the argument because you are arguing with emotion.
I would readily accept the prevailing scientific view if the issue hadn't become ultra-politicized, with Evangelicals believing that it doesn't exist, and Greens believing that it does. This puts it squarely in the realm of issues that seem to have transcended their original scientific domain and descended into a public fray of warring factions, like Creation/Evolution and sexual psychology.
So pardon me if you've already concluded one way or the other, and if you interpret my uncertainties on the subject as a "middle of the road" position that's just as, if not more, dangerously heretic as that of your diametrical opponents. But if you're looking for a recruit and think I can be swayed by a luringly sound argument, as opposed to bashed into the ground for the miscreant that I am, feel free to chime in.
Here are some facts that I've been able to filter in from my exposure to the issue:
1. It's an important issue. It might be a dud, but it might mean global devastation. So I should definitely care, on the chance that it's indeed a preventable global disaster.
2. Nobody seems to dispute that temperature levels are currently rising.
3. Nobody seems to dispute that temperature levels have a history of "natural" wild swings, for whatever consolation their natural origin might be to the species that goes extinct during a glaciation period.
4. The positive, or fact-finding, debate is centered on what percentage of the current rate of increase is due to mankind generally and industrialization specifically. The normative, or what-to-do-about-it, debate is centered on how much we should cut back by on CO2 emissions to try to correct it.
5. Very little attention seems to be paid to alternative methods of compensating for increasing temperatures, perhaps because such methods are in fact unworkable. However it seems to me that research into such methods would be very appealing at face value, since it sidesteps the positive debate entirely, in that the methods would work whether or not the greenhouse effect due to industrialization accounts for the bulk of the temperature rise. Very little comes up about this in popular writings about global warming. Perhaps I should try to inform myself more, on the off chance that this particular area of research hasn't yet become politicized.
6. Extremists at both ends have ulterior motives. Religious fundamentalists propose that God is clearly in the driver's seat when it comes to the health of the planet, and to do anything in that department is to deny it, or worse, to interfere with his plans. Ultra- environmentalists favor de-industrialization per se, so an impending doom that leads in that direction is convenient at a minimum.
7. The costs involved are enormous. The possible damage to coastal cities from rising sea levels are atrocious, and the worldwide costs of compliance with CO2 reduction standards are highly onerous.
If extremists are behind the bad science, the externality potential is huge. Bible holders may as well have you risk drowning in seawater, and environmentalists may as well have you go poor, if that furthers their goals, at little non-generalized loss to them.
In fact, what if they're ironically both wrong? What if global warming ends up melting the polar caps in spite of significant CO2 reductions, because we largely ignored the problem on one side, and largely overlooked other causes of warming on the other (or maybe accepted them since they were natural?)
Then I'll really be pissed.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
He always chooses his words carefully. Still, find an example where he disputes the claim that humans are primarily responsible.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Again, use a bathtub and repeat the experiment.
Now, after your house is flooded, you'll begin to appreciate what global warming means to 1/4 of the world's population.
Math and physics are methods of understanding how the world works.
In practise, many higher mathematicians are religious, of course, but that's another story.
Here is another higher experiment for you: Take the contents of two freezers full of ice - or go to 7-11 - and fill your bathtub with 3/4 water and 1/4 ice. Notice how the ice floats and the bathtub water level is not displaced fully, and is below the rim.
Now go away for a day - I recommend a beach area, since it will disappear before you retire.
Come back and see that the water (not counting transpiration or evaporation - maybe you should seal it with plastic from dead animals) is now LOWER than the rim. Ice not only floats, it occupies more space in a frozen form (especially with ice bubbles) than in a liquid form.
Now sit in the water.
Congratulations - you just emulated a tsunami effect on a post-global-warming environment.
The resulting water on your floor is due to the tsunami (your body) but is caused by global warming melting the ice and raising sea levels.
It also desalinates the water, causing it to react differently. Which bodes not well for certain global cooling methods in our oceans.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Ben Hocking: MS, CS
Ben Hocking: Ph.D (soon), CS
I'm not being sanctimonious, but you're not a climatologist. I'm not saying any research you've done is worthless, but don't you dare even TRY to use your own credentials as de facto proof of your claims after making this post.
Sony ha
What we should be debating are the scope(s), cause(s), repercussions and remedies. There's almost no reason* to debate whether or not there have been climate changes - we've all seen them to some degree or another.
One of the things I personally find interesting are micro-climates. Take your backyard for instance. Minor changes like a simple tree (or awning if you're not a greenie) can have significant impacts on the immediate area. Show those deniers some very obvious climate changes on a scale that they can grasp -- instead of planting a tree or two, go asphalt their backyard...they just might get it the next time they go out back to BBQ.
We do have an effect on climate change, both positive and negative. Perioddotdotdot
* Almost no reason; why pick at the low hanging fruit that everyone else is grabbing at? Fight! Fight! Fight!
See www.realclimate.org for scientists who say their views are misrepresented on "The Great Global Warming Swindle".
I've spent enough time watching stuff on youtube to realize that you can't believe everything you see. The fact is, there is almost no dispute that the climate is warming. The
only real controversy is the issue of what's causing it.
I agree completely...we are so close to things like pervasive nanotech that it would be foolish to revert to 18th-century levels of industry. If we continue our current exponential growth levels, we will accomplish things like fusion, nanotech, etc. that will make hydrocarbons irrelevant, and global warming irrelevant as well. If we commit to the Kyoto path of reducing world economic levels, we will end up stagnating and declining as we never reach critical economic mass on such technologies.
Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.
An old quote from Lindzen, one of about three names dropped regularly by MMGW deniers. Despite his sob story, Lindzen isn't exactly having a hard time looking for work; as there are plenty of free-market economist groups who are directly threatened by the notion that companies may have to be responsible for their effects on the world.
Meanwhile, Lindzen's own widely-peddled MMGW denial has caused federal funds for GW to shrink under a Republican and industry-loving legislature.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
i find this notion fascinating -- I can't think of any other situation in which funneling research and development into more efficient and automated technology has resulted in anything other than economic progress. The entire western world is built on replacing the cheap, easy and obvious method of doing things with expensive but vastly more scalable and efficient technology.
Outlawing child labor didn't result in an energy or manufacturing crisis, it resulted in a more educated society while causing all the industries that relied on child labor to invest in better tools that wound up being MORE effective and profitable.
All that environmental concerns accomplish is to change the economic incentives so that the market has the motivation to cover the startup costs of technologies we know will be more productive in the long run anyways. Building more efficient and cleaner power plants and vehicles is a great idea that we know will benefit all aspects of the economy and society. So why not make it profitable for the market to move to that stage sooner rather than later?
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Nuke it until it glows, and then use that light to guide us? Just a thought.
Seriously, the fact that I feel my blood pressure going up during these discussions is evidence that I'm not being entirely rational - whether or not I'm right. I try to avoid these discussions for just that reason, but then I have to wait on some simulation results and I think, oh, why not? (Of course, I could actually be writing up the results I already have...)
That's it. I'm outta here. Take over for me?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
If you'd like to study climate change yourself, 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.
Space and Computers.
You aren't much of an alarmist are you? Disappear before I retire, plastic from dead animals, mathmeticians are religious? You are equating flooding and tsunamis in your analysis, which aren't the same. I asked if you had statistics indicating how much worse tsunamis would be if the sea level rose an inch or two (due to the effect of melting ice). You said it is much more probably, without any quantification of what much more is. In what fields do you have a degree or degrees? You make some very simple mistakes. If WATER (not ice) didn't occupy more space in a frozen form, it wouldn't float in the first place. The fact that it occupies more space in a frozen form is precisely why it floats. The volume of water an object displaces is such that the weight of the water displaced is equal to the weight of the object. If the densities were exactly the same for ice and water, ice would displace the same volume of water (in other words, not float).
So you've decided that there isn't enough evidence to support anthropogenic climate change. Fine. I'm not going to try to change your mind. But what's the solution being presented by most GW proponents? Reduce carbon emissions. How? By reducing our consumption of fossil fuels.
Can you think of *any* other benefits to reducing consumption of fossil fuels?
- conservation is cheaper than consumption
- reduce energy imports as a component of our trade imbalance
- reduce money going to states known to support terrorism either officially or unofficially
- provide incentives for alternative energy technology and production by American companies
- reduce air pollution
Is any (or all of them together) of those goals worth pursuing in its own right? Is there really any reason at all to be against reduction of dependence on fossil fuel energy *if you aren't in the fossil fuel industry*?
Kudos to the guy for standing up to the global warming fanatics. "Global Warming' is a subject where demagoguery prevails over reason. Talk shows, magazines, newspapers, and bloggers insist that everyone knows global warming is real, 'most scientists' agree that we are the cause, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is obviously ignorant, unenlightened, uncaring, selfish, and not very bright. The truth is that the earth has been warming for 10,000 years since the last ice age and no one actually KNOWS why. When some tiny intellect trots out the latest mumbo jumbo about CO2 levels and the greenhouse effect, they are attempting to claim (though they don't know it) that some computer model somewhere shows that the measured increase in CO2 over the last 40 years will increase global surface temperatures. The models are so poor and filled with so many assumptions that any such claim is meaningless. Things that affect global surface temperatures include variations in the sun's output, particulates in the atmosphere, cloud cover, atmospheric composition, variations in energy released from thermonuclear reactions in the earth's core, ocean circulation patterns, tectonic plate movements, and movements of the earth's magnetic pole. We can't possibly predict the future direction of ANY of these with our present knowledge. The next time someone starts talking about methane emissions from cows leading to global warming and rising sea levels, walk away. The earth may be warming but we are just going along for the ride.
.00315 percent to .00375 percent since measurements began in 1958...but there is a LOT of question about whether that has any effect on global surface temperatures or what those levels are in relation to historical levels prior to when measurement began. The evidence that the earth is warming seems fairly solid as well as the evidence that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since measurements began in 1958. What is troubling are all of the people who want to connect those two things together as cause and effect. For example, there seems to be an assumption that co2 levels have increased solely due to the burning of fossil fuels by humans. There may be massive natural releases of carbon into the atomosphere occurring all over the planet that we are simply unaware of. For example, crustal plates contain a lot of the relatively light carbon that is likely to ultimately be released as a gas into the atmosphere by tectonic plate subduction processes that occur daily. Or massive natural gas seeps may be occurring on the ocean floor somewhere. Or massive deposits of carbonate rock may be dissolving. The co2 data actually suggests that some sort of natural process is at least contributing since the increase since 1958 is linear with a nearly constant slope while global fossil fuel consumption has increased dramatically since 1958. If we assume that co2 increases are entirely due to human fossil fuel use and that natural uptake of co2 is relatively constant, then the atmospheric co2 concentration should be increasing non-linearly to reflect the increased fossil fuel consumption since 1958. In fact, though, the measured global co2 concentration has increased completely linearly since 1968 and only slightly non-linearly between 1958 and 1968.
we don't know what the effect of CO2 increases on surface temperatures will be. The temps may increase by 0.4F, 4F, 40F, 0.004F, or they may decrease by 4F. The predicted increase is based on computer modeling that is simply not good enough to predict this with the information available. Computer models have gotten better and better. We routinely get weather forecasts, based on the models, that are fairly accurate to 3 and 4 days into the future. But predictions 10 years out based on changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, are far beyond the ability of the modelling. And 100 years out...laughable.
This is about respect for the truth, not about some politicized rush to action, based on false information. That never leads to a good result. There is no question that atmospheric co2 concentrations have increased from
Mars (National Geographic): Pluto (MIT): Note: Pluto is currently moving away from the Sun. That it is warming indicates that something doesn't fit into the "Solar Constant" dismissal theories.
Jupiter (Space.com): Triton (MIT): Clearly, the oil industry must have infiltrated these august publications; or, these entities are all simply industry stooges. Because it cannot possibly be anything other than anthropogenic global warming is happening on Earth.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.
It's interesting how many contributors in this simply dismiss dissenting claims on the global warming issue with nothing but personal attacks , or with individual claims, presented without any references whatsoever, to the effect that what the dissenters say is rubbish. Bearing in mind that some of those dissenters are people with long trajectories and very solid reputations in the climatology field (if the BBC program is to be believed in that respect), something that most contributors to this forum probably can't claim, such dismissive opinions come across as dogmatic and intolerant, such as would expected from anachronic religious leaders.
If you guys are going to dismiss dissenting views from some experts in field on which you probably have, at best, a passing familiarity, at the very least you would have to put forth serious references to support why you are dismissing them. I am really looking forward to that, for I have yet to see any high profile climatologist claiming that the opinions presented in the BBC program are rubbish.
If you see it on TV (whether pro or con), it's probably exagerated if not false.
If you read it in a newspaper, it's probably exagerated or false.
If you read it on an Internet blog, it's probably exagerated or false.
If you see it in a film that may or may not have won a lot of awards, it's...you guessed it.
The point is, both the mainstream and alternative media are doing a horrible job covering global warming. It's pretty obvious why. The self interest of these organizations AND individuals is to gain advertising revenue, eyeballs, comments, etc. They do this by generating controversy. If they can't find controversy, they'll manufacture it (by "creative" editing, cherry picking, and a host of other techniques). Add into this a host of political interests pushing extreme views even further through advertising dollars and the like, and well... Hence crap like the ice age doom stories that appears in the msm during the 70s and early 80s but weren't taken seriously by the scientific establishment. Hence crap like the more recent doom and gloom scenerios projecting all coastal cities under 20 feet of water by 2050 or whatever.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Science tells us the climate system is very complicated, with a large number of inputs and feedbacks, many of which we only crudely understand. We know enough to know tham anthropogenic emmisions (primarily CO2 and methane) ARE an input to the system. They have to be. That these are greenhouse gases is practicaly indisputable. Too much of our understanding of thermodynamics and other areas of physics would have to be flat out WRONG for them not to be ghgs. Likewise, too much of our understanding of the carbon cycle would have to be flat out WRONG for these emissions to be completely unrelated to increases in atmospheric concentration. We know what we're doing is having an effect. The real question is not "are we influencing climate, yes or no," it's "how much?" followed by "what will it cost, and what, if anything should we do about it?"
Scientists are hard at work on the first question. This is extremely difficult research, basically trying to isolate all the variables in the climate system and pin down some reasonable ranges. We have extremely good understanding of the basic thermodynamics of greenhouse gases, solar irradience and so on. We have less good understanding of some of the feedbacks (such as the ocean's role as heatsink and carbon sink/source. We have incredibly poor understanding of biological feedbacks, glacial melt processes and their impact, and in other areas. Nevertheless, scientists understand enough to be concerned. Alarmed to the point of demanding some kind of Luddite elimination of technology and progress? Not so much. But concerned that we're engaging in risky behavior and have no insurance policy.
The second question is not one climate scientists can answer. However, their research is vital because if we don't know how much of an effect we have on climate, we cannot estimate what effect our activities will have in the future. Basically, we NEED sound sound climate science as a basis for formulating different scenerios and performing cost/benefit analyses. I am deeply unhappy with the state of the public debate because, by being trapped between extremes we cannot possibly make sensible decisions that may exist outside of the false dichotomy of "doom doom DOOM vs everything's rosy."
I am upset with environmentalist advocates because they all too frequently don't understand what they're advocating. They don't demonstrate a good understanding of the uncertainties, and they frequently don't understand the costs they're imposing on others. By overstating the case, and jumping to massive government imposition as the solution they invite backlash, make it easy for critics to charge "religious nonsense," and quite possibly paralyze the public will feelings that the problem is too big, and since big daddy government should fix it I don't need to take personal responsibili
The vast majority of the increase in CO2 accumulated in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times (about 100 ppm) is due to man-made CO2. The Earth has gone through more massive changes in it's history than you seem to be capable of conceiving. That's nice. It is, however, irrelevant to the question of whether we want the changes that are coming over the next century or two. CO2 levels have been as high as 7000ppm in the past. So? Do you want to live in the Cambrian period? Sea levels are "noticeably rising"? [...] Even the IPCC only claims a maximum of 15 millimeters over the 6000 year average. I can't find that figure, and I don't know why you think that's relevant to global warming.
They claim about 200 mm (8 inches) over just the time since 1870 or so (see Figure SPM-3b), with a maximum rise of 22 cm (also ~8 inches) for the 20th century. The 2007 IPCC report is claiming a maximum rise of about 18 inches, or about the same as during the Medieval Climate Optimum. Again, I don't know where that figure came from, or whether it's supposed to refer to a historical rise or a future projection. In fact, were anthropogenic global warming a reality, we'd find that storm severity would decrease because storms are driven by the heat engine effect, namely the flow of heat from the equator towards the poles. That is far from accepted. Most climate science predicts increased storm severity. In fact, this was the prediction published in several papers up until about 1999, when they suddenly reversed themselves. Oh, a conspiracy theory. Well, let's see what those papers are, and what the later papers citing them had to say. Of course, in 2006, those same scientists predicted a "killer" Atlantic hurricane season, and not one single hurricane touched North American soil. You will note that hurricane intensity for any given year depends strongly on El Nino/La Nina, which was not predicted for 2006. Suddenly we were back to the climate scientists, and they actually said, "The reason we had so few hurricanes was because of global warming." Who said that? And was it the same climate scientists as those who said that hurricances will increase due to global warming? So, now we have global warming if there's more hurricanes, global warming if there's less hurricanes, and, we must assume, global warming if there's no hurricanes. That's called non-falsifiable, and there's a name for its practice, but it's not science. The word is religion. Yeah yeah, "science = religion", the last refuge of the intellectually lazy Slashdotter.
The fact is that there is disagreement within the scientific community on this matter. Most of them are leaning towards "global warming has a small to medium increase in hurricane intensity', but you can still find people on different sides of the spectrum. For that matter, you can always find at least a few people on any side of the spectrum in pretty much any field. Is the Earth warming up? Satellite measurements continue to show, at most, a mild and limited warming, mostly in the Northern Hemisphere, and mostly in the middle latitudes. Observations show global warming of 0.5-0.7 degrees C over the last hundred years, with an accelerated rate of warming in the last 40, and different amounts of warming in different locations (more at higher latitudes). Will it also cause problems? Probably. But we have no way of knowing for certain. It will have some benefits, and some problems, and right now the problems appear to outweigh the benefits, which is why pretty much all major governments are paying attention to the issue.
Well, if you live in the Rockies, I wouldn't worry.
... now that will not be fun for anyone near it.
If you live, as many Americans do, within a few miles of the coast - or in 95 percent of Florida, you probably will care.
Of more concern are plant and animal migrations - yes, I said plant migrations, that was not a mistype.
And changes in weather patterns.
The increased energy and frequency of hurricanes and other energy-involved events will probably impact you the most.
Unless the trans-Atlantic conveyor belt shuts down
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I am an infamous skeptic of claims made both extremes of the spectrum on almost any issue. But much of my skepticism of the people who rail against the widespread consensus that global warming is happening is that manmade causes are one of the primary drivers of climate change are based on two basic factors:
1) No serious scientist questions that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase the atmosphere's greenhouse effect. This is a well understood scientific principle whose effect has been demonstrated on the earth and on other planets in our solar system. It makes sense to me that pumping ever more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, while simultaneously eliminating the plant life that processes carbon dioxide into oxygen will increase the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is just common sense. The main legitimate scientific debates center around (a) how much of the increased carbon dioxide levels we have observed are due to natural versus human-made causes; and (b) how much, how quickly and how persistently the change in carbon dioxide levels will affect the global temperature.
2) I have yet to find a legitimate climate scientist who disputes the idea that humans are changing the global climate who is not either funded by the energy or forestry products industries or who does not have a personal ax to grid with the global consensus on climate change. For instance, here are the scientists that have been presented in this forum as opposing the consensus:
Richard Lindzen is on the oil company payroll. He charges them $2,500 per day when he consults for them. His testimony before the U.S. Senate was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC.
Christopher Landsea doesn't question that increasing greenhouse gases are causing global warming, only that they are already contributing to increasing hurricane strength (which truly is being debated by reputable scientists).
Frederick Seitz was last president of the National Academy of Science in 1969, before global warming was even a theory. He was born in 1911, which makes him about 96 years old, so he probably isn't doing much groundbreaking research. He is a gun for hire, who has done research for the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company (we know how honest THEIR research is!). He also is a founder and board member for the George C. Marshall Institute, which gets its funding from the Exxon Education Foundation, the American Petroleum Institute, among other corporate interests. He is also affiliated with the infamous Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which circulated a completely farcical petition of scientists opposing the thinking behind those who think the earth is warming due to human factors. The petition was circulate din 1998, before much of what is currently known about climate change was measured and understood. Among the "scientists" who signed the petition were "Mickey Mouse", lobbyists for Petroleum Institute who had no scientific background whatsoever, etc.
Timothy Ball heads the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), which was set up on the initiative of the High Park Group, a Toronto-based lobby organization whose clients include the Canadian Electricity Association and the Canadian Gas Association. The NRSP refuses to reveal who funds directly it. Ball also formerly headed the activist organization Friends of Science, which also refuses to reveal where it gets its funding. Both organizations have been criticized as being controlled by energy industry lobbyists.
Find me a real, honest skeptic of global warming or stop circulating these hired gun jokers' arguments!
For those interested in hearing from actual scientists (rather than U.N. political hacks and social pseudo-scientists), and notable figures such as one of the original founders of Greenpeace who accurately dub environmentalists as humanity haters, I highly recommend this film, done by private Channel 4 in the U.K.:
8 11497638
:) And do you think that somehow the earth has had such a temperature before Man arrived?
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=9005566792
Some things you won't hear from the shrill Global Warming propagandists:
-- Natural CO2 emissions trail warming/cooling. An effect, not a cause
-- Vastly more CO2 is emitted naturally than by human production
-- It doesn't matter anyway. CO2 is irrelevant to the earth's temperature
-- Water Vapor is a radically more important "greenhouse gas"
-- Cosmic radiation affects cloud formation, which in turn affects temperature
-- Solar output massively affects terrestrial weather directly
-- Solar ouput indirectly affects terrestrial weather by affecting how cosmic radiation ultimately reaches the earth, affecting cloud formation
-- The earth's climate is always changing, and underwent massive swings in both directions millions of years before humanity even walked the earth
-- Ice ages are bad. If one was on the way, there is absolutely nothing mankind could do currently to stop it.
Oh, and incidentally, here's a classic question: What do you think the "ideal temperature" of the earth should be?
Even super-critical-of-Kyoto analyses put the GDP impact in 2010 (if we had adopted under Clinton) at 400 Bn, which is less than a third of projected 2010 GDP... and that calculation uses a base gas price of $1.10, with a Kyoto impact of about 0.40... since the base gas price is slightly less than double the $1.10, we can expect the impact (in the worst-case-scenario, without technological discoveries and improvements) to be significantly lower than the $400 Bn.
Furthermore, this 'study' totally ignores the economic positives associated with alternative source development -- it only looks at the negative impacts. Any wonder, since it was funded by the DoE, which is a stomping-ground for energy lobbyists?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Cyanide kills by disrupting the aerobic respiration process, so it kills very quickly (seconds). It's basically suffocating every cell in your body, simultaneously.
I put them in the same category as "Creation Scientists" and Flat Earthers.
I seem to recall there was a time when the Round Earthers were the "nutjobs".
What scares me is how so many posts (and the scientific community) froth at the mouth like rabid dogs at anyone who is skeptical. So a couple of colleagues disagree...C'est la vie.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
Lamest. Car Analogy. Ever. (on /. no less)
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Couldn't get more objective. I'm trying to look past the rhetoric and passion in the article. And it wasn't a rhetorical question. I was respnding to the implication that research has stopped and some totalitarian eco-fascist regime is taking over. It just isn't true nor is it objective.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
I keep seeing things like the above ("I personally only want to see peer reviewed data, nothing else matters.") that lead me to think that people really misunderstand the whole peer review process and what it means.
When you submit a paper for publication, the journal's editor typically sends the paper out to a relatively small group of other scientists for the purpose of answering the question "Should I publish this paper in the journal". The scientists are typically from the field, and usually have published in the journal previously -- i.e., they have a pretty good sense about the kind of papers that "fit" in the journal. The reviewers usually send back the article with lots of comments about how well the article is (or isn't) written, including grammar errors, other articles which the author should consider, critiques of the methodology or analysis, etc. They might even suggest that another journal would be a better place for the article to be published -- and explain why.
One thing that those anonymous reviewers DON'T EVER DO, however, is re-run the experiment/analysis with the goal of confirming or validating the conclusions of the paper. That is done *after* the paper is published, when another scientist reads the paper and says to himself either "Hey, I can use that!!" or "Hey, that's ridiculous!!" and attempts to confirm the results. If he can't, he gets to write his own paper (which is *also* usually peer-reviewed) that explains what is wrong with the original article.
So "peer reviewed" doesn't mean "true" or "confirmed" -- it really just means that the editor of a journal that requires peer review thought that the article was worth publishing. A "peer reviewed" article might be nothing more than easily disproved propaganda if an editor decides to take an advocacy position, has an axe to grind, or is an idiot...
Perhaps we should start burning propagandists. At least the debates would be more restrained, and they're more or less carbon-neutral.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Halton Arp disagrees that galaxy and quasar redshift has a cosmological origin. In fact, disagrees that the Universe experienced a Big Bang at all.
So why is Halton Arp able to get a job in astrophyisics at all, if scientists are so keen to ostracize researchers who don't "toe the line?" He's a fellow at the Max Planck Institute of Astrophysics, one of the most prestigious institutes in the world, and yet is a "Big Bang denier."
Maybe it's because Halton Arp actually does credible research, unlike these people. Still, Dr. Arp is not able to get funding for research into his alternative ideas about the origins of redshift. He does that on his own time. But he is also actively engaged in stellar evolution research where his ideas about redshift don't come into play. Maybe these geologists and economists should take a hint from Arp.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Except that creationism isn't science because it isn't falsifiable. In theory, you could conduct an experiment on the Earth where you control the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and measure the changes in temperature. If the results don't match what the skeptics say they should be, then you've provided evidence that their model is not accurate and hence falsifiable.
As for a flat Earth, it's quite a bit less complicated to take a picture from orbit and show the sphericalness (do I get credit for coining that word?) of Earth. Of course, I'm sure you can find some geometric system where the Earth really is flat.
Just because you've been labeled an industry stooge doesn't mean you aren't one.
It's like the spanish inquisition all over again. Go against the "mainstream belief" and suffer the consequences.
Perception is reality
Well, wait about 2-3 years and you can buy a plug-in hybrid that gets 100 mpg.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You are good at reciting nothing more than what you have heard, with probably little understanding. You don't answer questions, you just throw out more alarmist crap. I better go get ready for the impending doom, I believe I only live 11 ft above sea level. Prime tsunami territory and I actually saw some of the local plants are evolving to not have feet.
CO2's plain fucking nasty. Smells like shit, gives you cancer, makes you brain dead. Nasty-assed smog and gasses and other shit sticking in the air, casting big black clouds of death over cities. Climate change is something we can NEVER stop, but we can stop tossing garbage into our lungs.
Before the current reports about earth CO2 problems, variable sun explantions were being suggested as better models for ice ages than the tiny orbit variations that had been the best timing fit before (not great but...).
Now we observe martian icecaps melting, suddenly 2 Jupiter redspots...and suggestions that Earth warming might have to do with the sun, not just manmade CO2. The "minor variations in planet orbits" amounts seem less likely to be able to explain these effects than small solar variation. Yes, there is warming of the Earth, but traceback to CO2 is the question. The models get calibrated by observed variation, and are I suspect not clean evidence that CO2 rather than the sun explains...
Sometimes, you just have to laugh.
Ball is a propagandist for "Natural Resources Stewardship Project", formerly for "Friends of Science". Both oxymoronically named groups, funded by carbon producing industry. They exist to lobby politicians and fund propaganda pieces. They don't exist to further extend knowledge.
Anyone threatening this lobbyist is playing into his hands and is thus an idiot. If there were real threats, they should be turned over to law enforcement and those behind them should be charged. We should go back to ignoring Ball.
Also skepticism is good. But most of these self identified "skeptics" are nothing more than propagandist who are clearly being disengenous much of the time, quoting the work of real scientist completely out of context in an attempt to fit the facts to the message they are paid to sell.
Case in point is the "Climate Swindle" program that is mentiond in the original article, that misrepresented Carl Wunschs views:
"
In the part of the "Swindle" film where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous---because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important --- diametrically opposite to the point I was making --- which is that global warming is both real and threatening in many different ways, some unexpected.
"
Do emotions run high? Yes, because some of us are tired of being lied to by industry spin doctors. The issues here are important and we need real science to provide to most likely and realistic outcomes and best course of action. Paid lobbyist that are merely engaged in the process to inject a "Preach the controversy" message hard enough to ensure that no action gets taken are only a detriment.
BTW these guy attack the issue from any angle they can come up with. Recently Balls organization published a piece indicating that we are on a global gooling cycle in recent years (using 1998 as a base comparison). Do I need to point out the issues with that claim? This is not science it is propaganda that routinely misrepresents fact.
We shouldn't give this spin doctor any more attention and we shouldn't give him the label of skeptic which he certainly doesn't deserve. I imagine his favorite film is: "Thank you for smoking".
I think people are too materialistic so we should raise the prices on 50"+ big screen TVs and fancy cars. An extra tax would be good too. That way people would start thinking about being more like me for a change! That'll show 'em good.
You honestly think that pumping tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has no effect?
I'll assume you mean trillions or billions of tons. honestly pomping ten tons into the atmo of this planet has no effect on the planetary scale, no. Sure it does, do you honestly think it has one and only one effect, and that nothing else changes?
We know for a fact that increased CO2 means highly increased plant growth. Plant growth ranges from a 50% increase to a 100% increase with a 600ppm CO2 concentration on the low end - and for some like pine trees 170% or more increase in biomass at only 400ppm CO2. Plants store CO2 (as we all do). More plant life means more animal life. All of which pulls CO2 from the atmosphere. Further, there are additional effects that are tropospheric that are happening that counteract CO2's "effect" on temperature.
The question is what the *net* effect, if any, there is. If I piss in the ocean while swimming my local temperature will increase slightly for a short period of time, as will the salinity of my locale. But that doesn't mean the entire ocean suffers, or that my change is permanent or even long-term.
To give you an idea of the scale we are talking about, in 2000 the average estimated (yes, estimated, we don't know for fact) annual human carbon (CO2) output was 5.5Gt (giga-ton). The It is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt of carbon (CO2). All told the ocean is estimated at about 40,000Gt. Annually (according to bio-records) the ocean and atmosphere exchange about 240 Gt of carbon. Annually the surface vegetation (i.e. plant life) swaps some 60 Gt of carbon. That is an annual exchange of about 300Gt of carbon. If the exchange rates vary by as little as 1% the annual variance could be 3Gt/year. If a non-anthropogenic change in the natural carbon exchange rate occurred where the atmosphere picked up 2% more than usual, how would we know? We wouldn't. And that would be more than the estimated human contribution of about 3 Gt per year net.
So let us just explore a few thoughts here. If CO2 levels doubled, plant life could increase by 50% to 100% (assuming we let it) How much of the roughly 60Gt vegetation locked carbon would have to increase to soak up the difference? Just think about it.
It may suprise you to know but the likelihood is that the Earth's atmosphere is not so fragile as to be severely impacted by a 1% change. The anthropogenic GW proponents claim it is but provide no experimental or historical evidence of it. They also want to limit discussion of temperatures and levels of CO2 to only the last 100 years, and claim everything is based off of it. This is persisted despite knowing that in the longer history of the Earth that CO2 level increases have lagged warming by some 800 years. - www.realclimate.org even talks about this. If we take their comments about an 800 year lag (over a 5000 year warming period), and assume (they do not say otherwise last I knew and the site has DB issues atm) that this can be applied to more than one warming period, then we should be able to extrapolate backward by looking at when the warming began and when the CO2 increase began. If we go back to the start of the CO2 rise, and then backtrack 800 years what will we or do we find in the temperature record as we know it?
Sea levels are noticably rising,
And falling. Over the last century it has been shown that the global average (global sea level isn't level) has been a decrease, with an annual variation of about 8 inches. Eight inches.
Furthermore, the long term average for seal level on this planet is much higher than it is now. Much higher. Yet the end of the last ice age some 18,000 years ago had sea level nearly 400 feet lower than today, and it has been rising ever since. Some 120,000 years ago it was several meters higher than it is today. All of this is before man was keeping track of this kind of stuff, and ages before we deserved even so much as a thought about our carbon footprint as a species.
"Sea level is higher now
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
So let me get this straight. In response to a story about a scientist complaining that he's being compared to holocaust deniers for questioning global warming someone posts comparing him to a holocaust denier. This then gets modded +5 insightful? Way to prove the author's point slashdot!
If the polar bear population is declining why are the Inuit saying otherwise...
l ?id=1ea8233f-14da-4a44-b839-b71a9e5df868&k=5287
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.htm
> The latest government survey of polar bears roaming the
> vast Arctic expanses of northern Quebec, Labrador and
> southern Baffin Island show the population of polar bears
> has jumped to 2,100 animals from around 800 in the mid-1980s.
>
> As recently as three years ago, a less official count
> placed the number at 1,400.
>
> The Inuit have always insisted the bears' demise was
> greatly exaggerated by scientists doing projections based
> on fly-over counts, but their input was usually dismissed
> as the ramblings of self-interested hunters.
>
> As Nunavut government biologist Mitch Taylor observed in a
> front-page story in the Nunatsiaq News last month, "the Inuit
> were right. There aren't just a few more bears. There are a
> hell of a lot more bears."
The Nimby Rousseau Banana Luddite saboteur terrorists are a nasty bunch.
Not to mention the unibomber. Anti-industrial civilization - and took it out by bombing university professors, computer store owners, software researchers, aircraft, and a host of others.
The left is noted for "direct action" of this sort. (I was almost blown up myself back during the Vietnam conflict, when the research institute I worked for - involved in remote sensing - was bombed.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Please explain, if this dumbass is right, just why the fucking glaciers are melting all over the planet. I live in Switzeland. The Glaciers are receading at 100 meters a year, in places. So why is that? Did big oil make the ice more slippery, or what?
Sometime in the early 70's the TV show In Search Of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Search_of... interviewed a bunch of climate scientists who were all convinced that the Earth was descending into another ice age because of the growth of glaciers and polar ice, and dropping global temp averages. They had all kinds of cool graphs and charts and experts to testify to the fact too...20 years later we are on the brink of some global warming catastrophe. That was the shortest ice age ever...I still don't think "climate scientists" know any more today than they did 20 years ago. But it is kind of like flag burning and gay marriage *ducks*. As long as we aren't talking about really important stuff like global health-care, poverty, war, the disintegration of the Bill of Rights then who gives a fuck? I mean we cannot even figure out simple shit like chronic back pain, and here we are pretending to know something about why the Earth's temperature is changing...nice. Help stop global warming, turn off your T.V.
"All those moments, will be lost in time...like tears in rain..."
Abstract at http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=5170&p age=105
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
plants use seed broadcasting, transmission via burrs and seedpods in animal fur, and animal digestive systems (they move and the resultant organic wastes provide a ready source of fertilizer for a hardened seed.
Now, I don't mind fighting an unarmed man if need be, but don't question me about the science when you obviously don't even have first year biology.
Again, as I stated, animals and plants are already migrating north and south (depending on equatorial location) due to global warming. Forests are impacted worldwide.
And ignoring it won't make a difference. Reality is a harsh mistress, and the earth cares little about your position on global warming - in fact, it's a ball in space, and you're breathing the vapors it's wrapped in. Denying science doesn't make you right, just as denying the world is round doesn't change a thing. (actually, the earth is an oblate spheroid, but you can think of it as round).
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
view of global warming within the scientific community, which are backed by a lot of evidence so he should expect some resistance.
Similarly, if someone came out and claimed that there is no such thing as conservation of energy, or that our models for gravity are all wrong, people aren't going to want to hear it. Generally, you only see big sea changes within fields of science when there is some crisis, when what everyone thought the basic principles were just aren't holding up. This isn't true for climate science, where people are still pretty confident that measurements indicate continually rising temperatures, probably from human cause.
So, in any case he should expect to have his views marginalized unless he can give a reason to be treated otherwise. There's no such thing as equal time for both sides of an argument in science.
If people get abnormally hostile about this issue, consider the stakes that are involved.
CSS++
Don't blame me -- I voted for Roslin.
eldavojohn wrote - "His article only mentions a professor from MIT but not what his criticisms are." The MIT professor is Richard Lindzen. He is a physicist and Professor of Meteorology at MIT. Google him to learn more. ----- misleb wrote "Depends on what was done about it, but I can't help thinking better safe than sorry." The problem with this logic is that it assumes there is no cost to "doing something." "Doing something" in this case means slowing the world economy, dooming billions to continued poverty, granting arbitrary power to foreign and domestic bureaucracies, and slowing the very engine that makes innovation possible. "Doing something" just to be "better safe than sorry" in the 1960s meant stopping the expansion of nuclear energy in the US - if we hadn't done that, and had instead moved forward with France and Japan (generating 80% of electricity from nuclear now) the US would now be generating 40% less CO2. "Doing something" for Nobel-Prize-winning chemist Paul Crutzen means pumping millions of tons of Sulfur into the atmosphere (to help reflect sunlight). The US has spent the last 40 years reducing the emission of this powerful pollutant (creates acid rain), but when Al Gore calls climate change "the greatest spiritual challenge mankind has ever confronted" anything is on the table. http://tinyurl.com/3xkxf2 "Doing something" about Global Cooling in the 1970s meant "melting the arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers". http://tinyurl.com/yqzd4a ----- The greatest threat to humanity is not human-induced climate change, it is abuse of power by grasping bureaucrats. Add up all the fatalities of all the natural disasters of the 20th century and you will have a fraction of the number killed by abuse Marxist governments. Like the Marxists in the 20th century, climate alarmists favor central control over individual liberty, claim scientific support for their harebrained schemes, and command sympathy from many among American academia, celebrities, and trustifarians. http://tinyurl.com/22hy4u
The whole point of the documentary was not to say theres no global warming, it was to say that CO2 was not the principal driver. Global warming is not denied anywhere, they repeatedly show graphs displaying the current upward trend that's been happening since 1975.
They also show parts of "An Inconvenient Truth" where Al Gore is overlaying a graph of Global temperature with atmospheric CO2 concentration. What he (AG) didn't say was that there was a phase lag of 800 years between peaks of temp and peaks of CO2. The theory they gave behind that was that the oceans take a very long time to heat up, and as they do so they release CO2. When the oceans cool they can absorb more CO2 so the CO2 concentration drops. See part 3/8 of the youtube link earlier. Go on its only 9 mins of your life. You might learn something.
I highly suggest you look at 4/8 as well as it goes on to ask what might be the primary driver if not CO2. Here you will learn about cloud formation by cosmic rays and how solar activity/sun spots can influence cosmic rays and therefore cloud formation. In short, solar activity = less cosmic rays reaching upper atmosphere and therefore less cloud and more warming.
I don't see why you post pointing out hardly any of them are climatologists. The documentary explores data from many scientific disciplines.
I didn't say that; that was CastrTroy.
Anyway, as far as local heating of cities, the effects you mention do contribute, but are not the main sources of the urban heat island effect. Wikipedia has a nice discussion of the main sources.
Well, when you put it that way, the Kyoto folks hardly seem alarmist at all.
A house.
MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie "An Inconvenient Truth."
But more importantly, Mad Magazine's Alfred E. Neuman has always maintained the wisdom of: "What, me worry?"
I often see the "better safe than sorry" argument.
Then I think about what some have proposed with a fair bit of certainty, and others claim is an impossibility - namely the so-called "clash of civilisations", hastened by migration to Europe.
Why is "better safe than sorry" an important principle and point in the climate debate, yet completely false in the migration debate?
I am genuinely wondering. In both cases there is a _claimed_ and _proposed_ mechanism for mass death, that appears to have a reasonable probability (though not a complete 100% certainty) of occuring, but the principles to apply appear completely different.
Though I realise that social conditioning prevent most people from parsing this question.
While you're predicting the future, do you have any investment advice?
I think the threshhold on your sarcasm filter is set a little high. On a side note, I'm not a biologist and took no biology past 101, but in a class of 200+ for BIO101, I was one of the seven highest grades. The only reason I know, is that it got me out of taking the final, just thought it was ironic. Anyhow, you have convinced me, since are so compelling in the way you sidestep questions with more and more and more and more useless info not relevant to the discussion. When does nature evict me off of my property. We already determined it was before I "retire", but how much before?
"better safe than sorry."
If you honestly believe in global warming, I have ocean front property and carbon credits to sell you in Arizona.
Respect the Constitution
The debate whenever this and a few other "Hot Topics" are mentioned really confuses me.
Let's say that this is a natural cycle, or let's say your' almost certain it's not happening at all...
Why would anyone not try to fix it anyway? If it's natural, let's stop it because it's going to mean a whole lot of death and destruction. If there is even a small chance that it might happen--why wouldn't you error on the side of caution?
The only reason I can imagine is money. Somebody is afraid that it will effect their personal financial situation. Although this will be true for some, it will also effect others positively. New technologies employ more engineers to research and deploy them. A change from the larger concentrations of oil money to smaller companies and individuals can't hurt and can help quite a lot. This happens all the time, it's part of life.
There is another possible alternative--some people seem to take it as a religious matter (at least the vast majority of supporters for climate change denial seem to be Christians). The only argument I've heard is that God made the earth, and we can't do any damage.
If anyone out there believes this, you really REALLY haven't thought it out. Bush alone (or any US president, or dozens of people in Russia) could make the entire planet unlivable--does anyone question this? If you are a Christian--be wary of anyone telling you that people cannot effect a change in the earth's environment--they are manipulating you via your belief in the worst way, probably for personal gain.
There are sound economic reasons why global warming will never be a threat.
The U.S. economy is about to implode, due to an overuse of trading off short-term benefits for long-term problems. Most Slashdotters will be familiar with the specifics: corporations won't train entry-level people, it's unsustainable to run an economy entirely on services while creating/manufacturing nothing, etc.
An implosion of the U.S. economy will likely take the world economy with it.
Once lots of people die off from poverty-related causes, and industrial production plummets to a tiny fraction of today's levels, then CO2 emissions will be drastically reduced, mitigating further warming.
Problem solved!
While your thoughts are in the right place they cannot amount to any real impact until we take care of the larger problem: that there is an organized group of individuals whose sole purpose is to create debt, maintain debt, keep people in debt, and work those people until they die of debt.
Supporting evidence is contained in the discussion of two NYTimes articles referenced in these journal entries.
While I value environmental protection as much as the next living and breathing human being I recognize that, until we solve the problem of centralized financial enslavement of the population, then these issues will never, can never, be addressed from an objective and unbiased point of view. While the reigning financial monopolists are still in control then every issue is just as likely another bounce in the game of sh*tter tennis (aka Kansas City Shuffle).
the NPG electrode was replaced with carbon blac
Maybe he does have a bad reputation but that doesn't mean you can dismiss out of hand the information he is presenting. Watch it first and then tell me you still think CO2 is the primary driver for global warming. Specifically parts 3 and 4 are quite interesting.
Let me guess, a Harvard grad? ...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
thanks for the info
Blame it on the Carbon atom. If it wasn't such a great catalyst for storing energy, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with :-p
Life is not for the lazy.
That's what shits me about the denialists. The overwhelming weight of scientific opinion is against them, but there's still a chance that they're right. But it's all about risk. The USA spends an enormous fraction of its economy (more than anyone except probably North Korea) on its army as insurance against military threats. Why not insure against other security threats too?
And, frankly, the idea that cutting greenhouse emissions is going to doom the US economy is rubbish. The energy sector represents only a small fraction of the economy.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's not the problem of the accused to have to defend against exaggerations of the alarmists, but rather the alarmists to defend the alarms they've sounded. The "emotional noise" you discount from this author summarily describes what the bulk of us "deniers" have been presented as "cold hard fact" from the every-expanding "scientific" community - everything from ex-presidential candidates, to B-grade Hollywood "stars" to common weather-folk, to botanists, to ear-eye-nose & throat specialists... and hey, some actual climatologists too.
The fact that so many people are casting blame on such idiotic things as a particular type of car, or a particular presidential candidate, or what sneakers you wear really does more harm than good for the entire argument.
Although none of this is new. 35 years ago a similarly-minded bunch of people all rallied around another cause - the 'Peace' movement, in order to try to sway otherwise sound-minded people into believing that if we all just got along, the world's problems would all magically disappear.
Today's battle-cry over the temperature of 6,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Kg of what is otherwise known as "earth" sounds like one more "bad trip" brought on from one-too-many magic mushrooms.
Computer models are wonderful things. We use them all the time to great success in a variety of industries. Everyone of those modeling mechanisms is tested every time a product comes off the production line. Boeing still subjects its plane to destructive tests to make sure that predicted failure points happen as predicted.
When the weather can be predicted further than a week out, I will start to lend credence to Climate models. Until such time, those scientists who espout faith in their GCM for timelines > 10 years (and I would like to say > 1 week) are FOS. Recognizing the limitations of your model are fundamental to being a relevant. Those who fail to recognize the limitations of their models are either Fools or Snake oil salesmen. From Neither would I take advice.
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
Pat Michaels, for instance, has said (in a C'ville article) that humans are responsible, but that he thinks technology will automatically fix the problem. It seems to me that Lindzen says things that can be taken either way. I.e., he's deliberately vague. Maybe it's just me, though. You've taken the time and given me a lot, and I appreciate it. However, I've decided that I'm going to try to bow out of this debate. For whatever reason, I am too emotionally involved in it.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
We need to shift off of fossil fuels anyway for strategic, economic, environmental, and geopolitical reasons: - De-funding terrorist petrostates - Neutering the Big Oil lobby - Removing the possibility of OPEC style embargo politics - Creation of a native energy industry increases GDP and keeps the money in-country - Expanding biofuel use eliminates the need to subsidize farms and farmers - Co2 from biofuel was in the air months prior, so no net CO2 gain. - Clean Coal tech such as emissions scrubbing and carbon sequestering has gotten to the point where it is viable as a greenish energy source, and the US has coal coming out its.. seams. - Nuclear has gotten a lot safer. Slowing/eliminating human inputs to climate change is just the cherry on the un-fossil sundae.
~!J!
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
The movie was produced by the BBC4 and is titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It shows an honest, reasoned response to the Global Warming Scare on a point-by-point basis from scientists and at least one journalist. The scientists all have credentials out the whazoo and are recognized leaders and contributors in their respective fields.
There seems to be plenty of dishonesty in that production as well... /03/swindled/
Read more about it http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007
Apparently, Carl Wunsch (one of the scientists in the film) was misled into thinking the feature was going to be a balanced look at the issues (the producers have a history of doing this)
His response after viewing the finished production includes the following:
At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.
His full response...
14 February, 2007Perhaps that is the framing as far as you are concerned, but the article is about Lindzen and other deniers. So according to Dr. Lindzen:
"To say that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical science."
Source: San Diego Union Tribune 2007
It's amazing what you can buy for $2,500, huh?
I haven't proposed violating conservation of matter. The phrase you missed would be *biologically available* nitrogen, which is naturally occurring after what is known as nitrogen fixing, normally done by certain soil bacteria alone as well as in symbiosis with a certain family of green plants (legumes) and a little bit by lightning. N2 is biochemically useless.
When the stats on anthropogenic nitrogen came out, most scientists were caught off-guard. My point addresed the idea that we shouldn't worry about the CO2, the fluctuations were have been small, etc... Well, kiddies, the beginning of this nitrogen increase started out small. In the decade between 1980 and 1990 we deposited as much fertilizer into the system as the entire previous history of agriculture. It's a j-curve. Nature doesn't do well in the short term with things like that.
Yes, the earth will heal itself if we screw up. But how much damage tdo we have to do before we learn on these things? We distinguish ourselves as a species not by being the tallest, or fastest, or strongest, or the most spots, or longest noses, but by being the cleverest. But we seem to never learn when it comes to soiling our own nest, and the nests of thousands of other species while we're at it.
And thanks for the red herring about plate tectonics, which has nothing to do with anything we're discussing here.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
You know, I think I've read most of these posts before, many years ago. Well, at least the same templates were used back then. Remember when we had RWARS over whether emacs was the worst editor ever made or if, in fact, it was even an editor? Change a few words here and there and voila! You've transformed the discussion into the current GW "debate" with no more (or less) sense or (in) valid opinions from (or perceived by) either side. Welcome to history repeating itself.
He is basically stating a problem with the media that transcends this issue: in the name of "balance" the media portrays both sides of an issue, no matter how few or how crazy the supporters of one side might be, as equal.
I'd say that's actually a good way to present an issue fairly, without tacitly conceding that a majority opinion on something makes it more likely to be true; provided, of course, that you actually present both sides of the argument, and not just their conclusions. Stating "some people believe X; others don't" is completely useless. Stating "some people believe X for the reason that A; while others criticise that study/argument on the grounds that B, and cite C in favor of their position. The X-ists, on the other hand, claim that C is inaccurate/fallacious because D."
You don't have to go into all the details of the specific evidence cited; just give a quick summary of the back and forth, why each side believes what it does and what the other side has to say in response. If you do that, the crazies will stand out for themselves (for having weak responses to criticisms against them), and any rational person will be able to see that; and irrational people will believe whatever they want to anyway, so no need to worry about them.
Do do anything else is to give credence to the idea that just because most people believe something, it's probably right; and there's a real slippery slope to dogmatism there.
Disclaimer: I trust the present scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is happening, but I'm not so attached to that idea that my worldview would be horribly shaken if that turned out to be false.
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
I'm a geologist (a scientist that studies the earth, mostly as very ancient history). Sea level rises and falls naturally over a range of 400-600 ft. Right now it's close to the typical maximum. However, most of North America has been under water at various times in the past. Humans didn't even exist then. There's lots of scientific literature to contradict the anthropogenic assumption about global warming, but it doesn't seem fashionable for people to read or reference it.
Most of the easily recoverable resources of the earth have been squandered. That is a compelling argument for conservation, not just of fossil fuels, but of everything. The biggest argument to my mind against the burning of petroleum is not global warming, but the need for plastic feedstock. Without modern manufacturing we will all live in the fourth world.
Global warming is probably natural. Wasting more resources fighting nature is foolish.
Of course, what do I know? I just spent 12 years in college trying to figure out what I didn't know.
rhb
The current global warming trend is caused by human activity, primarily the use of fossil fuels. That is an absolute fact. It's about as well established as Newtonian physics at this point.
I bet you make fun of people who proselytize what you call "religion", don't you?
How does your blind faith explain the shrinking ice caps on Mars?
And I doubt you'd understand the irony of ever learning that Newtonian physics has actually been replaced by relativistic physics, since Newtonian physics only applies to a small subset of reality.
That's the gist of climatology today.
If you're a scientist and predict catastrophy, your follow-on research will get funded.
If you're a scientist and your research predicts "Eh, global warming won't hurt anyone, and might even make some major land masses much more productive agriculturaly", your grant money dries up.
You can't really with a straight face say our huge decades long and expensive military presence and cost in the middle east has nothing to do with oil. Yes, it IS an energy cost that is hidden inside of general taxes and *should* be included in calculating what energy really costs. And it is considerable, both in terms of dollars and in terms of blood.
Iraq-evile tyrannical dictator-also an ocean of oil, man we need a huge war there to save those folks! Cost, over a trillion before they are done most likely
Zimbabwe-evile tyrannical dictator-no oil-ho hum, another harsh press release condemning evile dictator policies and so forth, cost, a few dollars
Just a coincidence they chose iraq? I don't think so....
The movie he and others worked on is viewable on Google Video in its completion (warning...around 1 hr long):
Link (Google Video)
Interestingly, I just finished watching it. The hardest part to watch was the issue being faced in Africa with those without electricity...it hit close to home as I've done volunteer work in Mexico just at the beginning of this year and saw how difficult life without electricity can be! I'd say watch it fully, and feel free to comment...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
At this point, his behavior is basically like shouting "fire" in a crowded theater: he is giving politicians and corporations an excuse to claim that there is scientific disagreement when, for practical purposes, there isn't.
If he wants to engage in a scientific debate, he can express himself in cautious, technical terms, like scientists with non-mainstream views have always done. But to challenge scientific mainstream opinion on such an important matter using plain language means that he is either seeking controversy or simply a shill.
Death threats are never acceptable, but comparing him to a holocaust denier seems justified to me.
Can you believe the nerve of all those people who want you to go back to seventeenth century technology? They're idiots. Maybe reading by the light of a CFL powered by a wind turbine was good enough for Abraham Lincoln, but how can these modern-day Luddites really expect us to endure such harsh, demeaning conditions? Especially now that we have those wonderfully modern incandescent bulbs and coal-fired power plants.
Next thing you know, the bastards will be telling us that we should be driving electric cars across the Potomac, like Washington did.
[Hints: Don't confuse "exponential growth" with "exponential technological progress". Don't confuse "reduction in greenhouse gas emissions" with "reduction in economic activity".]
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Supporters of Global Warming show all the symptoms of a fanatical religion.
sqribbles.blogspot.com/.
And this is what the debate is really about. It would be nice if it were an honest debate, where the anti GW people primarily believed that the facts were wrong. As it happens, the anti GW movement is largely driven by those who realize that state action is the only plausible remedy (whether this is strong regulation, or a lighter scheme like tradeable pollution permits). The idea that state regulation will lead to some sort of "global totalitarianism" is not well-founded. But the anti-GW movement is largely driven by some libertarians and conservatives who would rather consign us to a fiery future than allow an expansion of state power. The very same people seem convinced that GW is a plot to increase state power. It's not. When people let their politics get in the way of the facts, bad things happen.
By now the scientific consensus is so overwhelming that it is simply irrational to believe that GW is not happening. And it's not the case that there is a scientists' conspiracy to install statism. Scientists are simply doing their jobs. It's up to the rest of us to deal with the facts that they have uncovered.
Instead of pretending that established facts don't exist, the right would better spend its time trying to work for its favoured solutions. For example, tradeable pollution permits are a market friendly way of helping solve the problem. In fact, those who love the market should be pushing for such a solution, since the existence of pollution is recognised by economists the world over as a market failure, Correcting for market failures makes the market work more efficiently, and what conservative could be against that? These are all reasonable political proposals. Suggesting that GW does not exist or is not man made is no longer a reasonable position.
As it is, the right is painting itself into a corner. If the right holds that GW does not exist, and the left that it does, then the left has already won and will only consolidate its victory and its favoured solutions. Better for the right to accept a strategic retreat and work for the solution they want, instead of pretending the problem doesn't exist or that we can't do anything.
"by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
And the solution is not to allow American industry to return to child labor, it's to continue to eliminate child labor elsewhere. It's a short-term economic solution that sacrifices significantly greater long-term benefits, both economic and social. But stockholders don't have to worry about the global economy, or the literacy rate in Cambodia, or the economic potential of customers from that region in 40 years.
All we can do is artificially increase the short-term monetary cost of such poor decisions so that the non-monetary cost can be taken into account by the market.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
The climate change, global warming research industry scientists, publications, etc will have to skip several years of research funding in order to buy/build a massive wind/solar energy generating farm in the middle USA. Following that, since they will have proven by deed their global warming belief, I will believe.
I reserve my skepticism until they prove their belief by their actions.
Thanks! Next time I'm on the "Price is Right", this useful cheat sheet might win me a Plinko chip.
Best Free Utilities for Windows
I believe the climate is due to normal cycle, and due to human intervention. I don't think that it is all due to man because I believe we may of had a mini cycle of global warming, just like we have had mini cycles of so called ice ages in the past. Climatology is by definition the study of long-term climate trends, and it will indeed be many decades or longer before any type conclusion about the existence of global warming or its causes can be determined to be true or false. If forecasters can't reliably tell us what will happen in two to three months from now, why would anyone trust that they know what will happen with the weather in 5, 50, or 100 years from now?
Mother nature has a mind of her own. I have seen quite a few meteorologists red in the face saying "oops! I didn't see that coming! Sorry!" Yes our Earth has too many people, and too much pollution. Plus we may need to think about better things to power our world. But I don't believe the public is totally at fault for any of this. Politics is at fault. They are the ones that keep big brother oil, and coal company's in business. They are also the ones that turned a blind eye for all of these years while these companies polluted our water and air. They may of fined them, for allowing their waste to leave the stacks at alarming rates, and made them clean the spills, but you want to say that the public did this, the public is to blame? Get real. The public can only use what is available to them.
Maybe Al Gore shouldn't have had four kids then.
I swear, that fat fuck does EVERYTHING he tells us peons not to do, from breeding like a mink, to flying around in private jets, to building multiple energy-guzzling mansions, to cruising around in five-SUV motorcades. Until he lives by the rules he's pushing on the rest of us, I have to assume the lying bag of shit has some ulterior motive.
"Boy have you ever touched an area of denial there. The Global-Warmingists will tell you with a perfectly straight face that weather is chaotic but climate is not, of course they can't tell you what "secret-sauce" does the magic."
The "secret sauce" is statistics, this link describes how it is used in climatology. Here are a couple more examples of science that use "secret sauce" in a similar manner...
The quantum world is mathematically perfect chaos, yet our reality emerges from it and our physical laws are derived from it using the same "secret sauce".
The three body problem is a chaotic system with no anylitical solution and yet we can still manage to fly space probes all over the solar system with mind boggling accuracy, again by using the same "secret sauce".
The Sun is one big ball of chaotic plasma...
The "magic" is simple and recipies for "secret sauce" can be found at the heart of all scientific disiplines. In the end your troll has nothing to do with science, maths or "Global-Warmingists", it is your own psudeo-skepticisim that is preventing you from looking behind the curtain.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Your article may show that polar bear populations are increasing over the last 20 years, but the grandparent poster ACTUALLY asked, "Why are polar bears suddenly on the endangered species list?" The answer is quite simple: A human listed them there.
The question is whether or not global warming is a man made phenomena? And indeed it's true that this question is emotionally and politically charged. Whenever this question is asked though, I hear very few relevant responses. Indeed, it's as if this has become a religious debate, with the only answers being the same circular type that we're used to hearing in nearly all religious debates.
Look, I'm with you guys, lets clean up the environment. Lets rid our oil dependency. But what if global warming actually is a natural phenomena?
I hear the typical argument "better safe than sorry". Well, if global warming is indeed being caused by the sun, which also seems to be warming Mars, then where will your argument get us if we focus our resources on energy only to find out that there's nothing we can do about it? The question must be answered before it can be solved!
If this is a natural, irreversible phenomena, then we're all screwed unless we figure out ways to protect ourselves from a potential extinction level event. And laughing at the skeptics while we focus narrow mindedly on prevention might just get me and my two children killed in the long run. And for what? To prove you're right? C'mon, this is science for crying out loud, we're never right, and that's kind of the point! You can't sweep the questions under the rug and call it science!
And here's a long shot for everyone who believes our government can do no evil... If you knew the world was doomed, would it benefit you to tell the people? Think riots, mass hysteria, war, etc. Would it not be better to save as many people as you can, while still keeping things quiet? And do you think the people would accept the notion that you're using OUR resources to save, well of course, your own ass, family, and friends? You simply couldn't tell everyone that global warming is irreversible, instead you would need a smoke screen. A smoke screen that hides your intentions, while giving people a sense of hope at the same time would be ideal. And c'mon, public lotteries to determine who lives is for the movies!
Indeed, this is a horrible thought, and you may think yourself better than to resort to this type of plan, but do you really think your neighbor, guy down the street, or public officials would give a rat's ass about you if it meant saving their own necks? Sadly, this is a plan that I myself might think of if it meant my own survival. If you think there's any, possible, even somewhat slim chance that something like this might be going on, then It might cause you to question the true motives behind the miles and miles of underground government top secret compounds that exist in almost every state in this country. If you don't think they're hiding anything, then you might instead question what they're hiding from?
And one final tidbit to chew on... Obviously the government wants to protect it's own ass, so if they're really so worried about preventing global warming, then why are they spending so little on science and energy? And what are they spending the rest of that federal money on? http://www.truemajority.org/csba/priorities.php
Do a Google search, I immediately found this interesting URL: http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Bases.html I'm sure you can find plenty more.
This the second post on this thread I've seen where you focus on the plants. It's stupid. For one thing, the world already produces enough food to feed every single human. The problems of starvation are problems of transportation and politics. The number one health problem throughout the world is not starvation, it is clean fresh water. CO2 does nothing to help that.
Second, there is no causative correlation between biomass and biodiversity. Biomass increases in a single organism lifetime--you can grow a whole forest in 30 years. But they'll all be the same trees you planted. Biodiversity requires long periods of time to develop. If you're concerned about biodiversity, the only way to preserve it is to protect old ecosystems. Once again CO2 does nothing to help that.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
I don't know enough about the subject to comment on whether global warming is a real thing or not. But I keep coming back to this: what do 90% of scientists have to gain by claiming that human beings are warming the planet? I can't think of a single thing. If this is a conspiracy then what the fuck is the goal? I can see plently of reasons for claiming that "we just don't know enough yet" or "Burning fossil fuels has no effect on the atmosphere" and they all have to do with money, who has it , and who will get more of it. This guy may or may not have a legitimate position on global warming, but most of the people I have seen contradicting conventional wisdom are somehow financially connected to the oil business. Is this guy?
Ken
Wait, what experience?
Oh, ok. That is actually, in the large scheme of things, some pretty damn minor scientific experience. May I humbly submit that perhaps thousands of professional scientists holding Ph.D.s and years of research experience might have an ok handle on the concept of precision (which you so indelicately call the "fudge factor").
To know your precision you have to know the realm of your data. In the case of the global average temperature of the Earth's biosphere, the realm is only a few degrees over the last several thousand years. In other words predicting to within a degree Celsius is not at all precise. There's a huge fudge factor--like saying that you predict you'll measure gravitational acceleration to be somewhere between 8 and 11 m/s^2.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
You're missing the grand social experiment known as communism. They attempted to show that capitalism was outmoded etc. What resulted were/are some of the worlds most repressive regimes, combined with starvation, mass graves, and environmental disasters on a scale that the US can't even imagine. This was the result of "research" showing that capitalism was inefficient and not the proper way to move on etc etc. Highly political research too I must add, research that many people found flawed and questioned, and always highly controversial. I'm sure the great great grandchildren of the revolution are quite thankful that it happened.
Now this example is a bit of a stretch as it's comparing a social science to a more "hard" science (with global climate change). However the proposals that have come out to date have been highly politically charged. Few people think that investing in alternative fuels and looking at reducing power consumption are a bad thing. That is not the issue. The issue is draconian proposals such as Kyoto which would have the effect of cutting off a huge chunk of the economy. It would likely result in severe depressions around the globe. This could actually prove counter-productive in the end. While I am not an economist, it is likely that with a major economic collapse, one of the first things to be cut would be research. Companies that can't maintain a profit need to save money somehow, and long term investments become out of the question. This could end up in a situation where a proposal such as Kyoto, which has been admitted to not do enough to save the earth from "global warming", actually ending up doing more HARM to the earths environment than good due to less research being expended in slowing warming etc.
Most proposals for curbing the effects of global warming have been called highly risky as they try and combat it with expensive ideas or ideas that are unproven and tamper with the earths environment directly. However, while some of those proposals may be risky, I doubt it is riskier than drastically cutting off production.
Phil
I have no idea what communism has to do with anything I've said.
Indeed, Kyoto may be the wrong policy -- I have no idea, as I've never read it nor have I advocated it.
But the notion that there is simply no way we can address large-scale problems without economic ruin is simply silly -- we've gone through much more dramatic economic and technological revolutions than voluntarily switching energy sources gradually to clean/renewable ones would require. Energy is so intimately tied to some of the most volatile yet critical political and economic issues today that any significant shift towards independence and efficiency would have dramatic benefits outside the energy sector, letting us save hundreds of billions in military costs as well as lowering the risk on many investments. Lowering risk is usually a pretty fantastic way to increase profit for ANY market.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
I have watched it, and sensed it was bad, and went online afterwards, and found that none of the "new theories" the program used to explain global warming were new at all. In fact, they have all been considered by modern theories that blame humans, e.g. the IPCC's Fourth Assessment.
So, it seems that some people think that sea-level and temperature rising is not that bad? It's the economy we should worry about? Life without SUV's and 50" plasma TV's isn't worth living.
If the sea-level would by some miracle (not because of the pollution, ofcourse, why would it have anything to do with this purely random event) happen to rise. So what? The tundras would be now fertile and habitable.
Well, I just wonder, what might THAT do to the economy, if we had to rebuild our coastal cities and agriculture few hundred mails to the north. Wonder if the priorities would be building more SUV's (which actually might come handy then) and plasma-screens or trying to evacuate the people and rebuilding cities.
While the doomsayers might be wrong, I doubt it would hurt us to be more safe than sorry. Pollution, even if it didn't cause this global warming, hardly does any good? And I even think that life might be worth living without all these lovely toys we have. And we can't never build enough toys for everyone. And spending resources to get more toys, will take those resources from somebody else.
I had to pick one post to reply to, so it might as well be yours...
The movie was produced by the BBC4 and is titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle.".
The movie was broadcast and commissioned by Channel 4 (not the BBC), and produced by WAGTV, an independent production company. Channel 4 and WAGTV each have somewhat chequered histories concerning the quality of their science documentaries.
Not that the BBC is the arbiter of fair and balanced documentary-making these days, either, but that's a whole other thread...
It shows an honest, reasoned response to the Global Warming Scare on a point-by-point basis from scientists and at least one journalist. The scientists all have credentials out the whazoo and are recognized leaders and contributors in their respective fields.
...which are generally not climatology. In any case, at least one of the scientists used claims to have been misrepresented. The producer of the programme has previously been chastised by the UK broadcast regulators for his biased editing of interviews with scientists in other, broadly anti-science, documentaries.
Further, as an undergraduate engineer, I spent plenty of time in college science labs doing experiments to acquaint myself with the scientific method. Working in simple straight-forward conditions:
we (me and all the other undergraduates) never got an exact match between the equations and the real world. There was always a fudge-factor.
This is also telling. It's no surprise that undergraduate experiments go that way, as at that point you're still developing your experimental skills. I'm hoping, though, that you don't believe that there was really only one single variable in your experiments, that there was no measurement (or calibration) error, and that you did incorporate the measurement errors in your calculations. These uncertainties often mount up (probably explaining your 'fudge-factor', in combination with undergraduate inaccuracy), and that is one reason why experimental results (and model predictions) should be cited with some estimate of confidence intervals - just as the measurements and predictions in the IPCC report from February are.
The mayans knew it, the ancient greeks knew it.
The catholic church taught otherwise.
These nutjobs called any other idea idiotic and the people espusing them nutjobs. That didn't make them nutjobs.
That is not true. Just because something is non-linear and chaotic does not necessarily mean that you cannot restore it to state A once it's moved from state A to state B.
That's theoretically correct, but irrelevant here. CO2 emissions remain in the atmosphere for centuries and there is no way to "scrub" them, so even without non-linearities or hysteresis or feedback mechanisms, we will have to live with global warming for centuries to come.
I've seen so many fraudsters that I'm too quick to put others in that group that don't belong. You are correct that people who aren't technically climatologists can do excellent work in that field. Of course, many others take work by these people and try to make them say things they aren't saying. For example, one of those cited published work that questioned the validity of the "hockey stick" shape but basically agreed with the underlying premise that global warming was anthropogenic.
I really need to avoid these topics as, for whatever reason, I've too emotionally charged up by those who don't understand the basic science. I'm no ways near as bothered by those who don't understand the basic science behind evolution, by comparison.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
I'll accept that there are several legitimate scientists (and even climatologists) who dispute the degree of an effect humans are having on global warming. You've proven what I asked you to prove. I say this because I want you to realize that I know I've moved the goal-post here. It still seems to me, however, that (a) most scientists in climatology (or related fields) think that humans are the primary cause behind global warming, and (b) all scientists in climatology acknowledge that we are contributing at least somewhat to global warming.
Again, I'm conceding the original point.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Proud product of public schools. By the way, I just got off the phone with your village...
The shock, hostility and downright hatred you will come across will very quickly render claims of death threats highly believable. Is this guy a jerk? Maybe. Is his science on-par? I have no clue. But, there is no denying the fact that this has become such an emotionally charged issue that climatology is probably the hardest field to do real science in today.
I think the shock and hatred is very logical. After all, many of us are convinced that we're changing the world for the worse and are coming to demand action against it. Somebody who's still doubting the evidence we have is obviously either a devil trying to destroy Earth as we know it, or an ignorant bastard who can't be made to realize the facts (what we have for facts anyway).
The latter explanation is, I think, applicable to most of humanity. I for one certainly find it very frustrating that nothing still continues to be done about climate change and people still fail to understand it. I admit being angry at deniers. It's understandable, good and *essential* that the state of our only planet is an emotionally charged issue!
It doesn't help in the least that the deniers seem to be the same group who seem to think god takes care of us after all, and by the way the Bible says we're expected to mess with the nature as we like.
That is not true. Can you point to one instance where someone doing proper, scientific research (meaning: not just making shit up) has lost grant funding for not predicting global warming? You can't. In fact, anyone who did would still be able to get fat stacks of cash from the oil industry, or don't you remember that story?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Yes, I believe some of the tree-hugging hippie types would like us to go back to the 17th century; I realize not everyone has that as their goal. But it is naive to assume that the "drastic" cuts in carbon emissions demanded by the current Al-Gorish wave of global warming activists will not reduce economic activity. Hydrocarbons are what dragged us from the 17th century, and restricting or eliminating their use will return us to that economic environment.
Done. Decades ago.
Don't you think you need to actually do enough research to have some confidence in the results before instituting such costly measures?
I wonder exactly what you would think is "enough research".
How about them cursing you for having trashed the economy so their standard of living is far below that of your time - and no resources are available for solving whatever the REAL problems of their day are - while instituting a global totalitarian repression to accomplish the "better safe" goals?
Fossil fuels are finite. On a timescale of hundreds of years, we will need to change to other energy sources. Burning the last lump of coal and then asking what's next would be omgd stupid. I think we can figure out how to change energy sources without resorting to "global totalitarian repression".
-- Sig failure, no sig in search path.
Regardless which side of the global warming debate scientifically proves their point, the debate about global warming is very good. Especially since in the 1970's there were numerous "scares" about a coming ice-age based on extrapolations of cooling trends from 1940-1965. A lot of the same scientists are not on the "global warming" bandwagon.
On one side they note that the northern hemisphere polar ice caps, glaciers, permfrost, etc are melting. Others are noting that in Antartica a large amount of new ice has been forming.
The way I see it makes sense to have this debate so that each side of the argument can present their Scientific proof and debate the details. Until that time we will just have the mainstream media pushing any agenda that goes against those in various areas of power that they do not support.
Of course one thing that I have yet to see discussed are the various volcanic eruptions we have had in the last 30 years since the 1970's "ice-age" scare. I remember that when both Mt St. Helens and Pinatabo erupted, both were said to have released a much toxic gases, greenhouse gases, as well as everything that is released as molten rock cools. Each eruption was said to have released more greenhouse, toxic, and noxous gases into the atmosphere than all that man has done over man's total existance on this planet.
Of course, on Earth it's "man made global warming," but it's the sun for other 7 (8 if you count Pluto) planets.
i vescience/sunblamedforwarmingofearthandotherworlds ;_ylt=ApB5JHKLzixl9LW9qHP7HRWyvtEF
Remember people, the "science is closed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070312/sc_l
What, you phoned Pottstown, PA? My mother taught in the local private school where I went.
Or did you mean Arlington, TX? Yeah, I was born in San Antonio, TX, at Lackland AFB, had a rattlesnake in my crib (true story), my dad was in the USAF and we lived there for a while.
Or did you mean Grosse Isle, MI? Fairly wealthy community there.
Maybe you meant the private school my parents were teachers at in Kaslo, BC?
Or perhaps you're referring to the public school in Trail, BC?
My dad was a university prof at Marlboro College in Vermont later - and I work at the UW (#1 in most US News & World Report rankings in a number of subjects, including my specific department).
Don't try to teach me. I've learned from better.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
I suppose acid rain is about as well established as Newtonian physics at this point as well.
Don't know how old you are, but I know this is beyond the recollection of the average slashdot user, I seem to remember the alarmism surrounding global cooling/dimming in the 70's and early 80's. But what caused me to answer your post instead of just skim through and move on to another topic was the acid rain rant. During the anti-Reagan, anti-corporate 80's, one topic that got a lot of mileage and coverage was acid rain. I recall articles claiming how over 50% of lakes in northeast states were beyond saving because of the amount of acid rain contamination, how a large percentage (close to and soon to surpass 10%) were so contaminated that all the fish in those lakes would be dead in just a few years, and how in the 50%+ contaminated lakes, the lakes would be so contaminated within 10 years that it would be too late to save them and all the fish in these lakes would be dead within the ten years, and in the remaining lakes, they faced the same dire consequences but with a slightly longer time span.
One of the alarmists at that time was a Kennedy, raising the alarm over the poisoned lakes in New York State.
I do a lot of freshwater fishing in New York State, and have yet to run across a lake or stream that I haven't been able to catch fish in. Haven't heard anything in the news, or at the local fishing or outdoors lobbying organizations about the dangers of fishing in an acid-rain contaminated lake and it containing no fish or dead fish.
As for some of the other posts, it's either extremely naive or disingenious for slashdotters to suggest the only impact of taking action on global warming would be an across the board tax. Any tax attempting to favor one technology or a handful of technologies over fossil fuels must deal with the fact that Saudi net costs on a barrel of oil is less than $1.00 USD. So any attempt to raise prices of oil would have to deal with oil prices in the last year averaging perhaps $60 USD per barrel being lowered to $1.50 or $1.25 per barrel where Saudi Arabia would still be turning a profit and will have effectively co-opted the market because everyone else has a higher cost than the retail selling price of Saudi oil.
I also see others commenting on where our money is currently going (middle east) to purchase the oil. One reminder is that it is the environmentalists that are effectively keeping newer Alaskan reserves from coming online, as well as new gulf reserves off the coasts of Florida and California as well. And someone commenting on why the polar bear has been placed on the endangered species list (did they do that already, or was it a recommendation?), when the concern may be on polar bears in Alaskan waters, where on the other hand polar bears are increasing their numbers elsewhere, including native Alaskans and native Canadians increasing quotas due to increasing numbers of polar bear in their regions. Didn't know there was a sub-species genetically different in Alaskan waters than the ones found in northern Canada.
One last observation is the misinformation or denial that an across the board carbon tax would be all that is required to comply with Kyoto or other restrictions. Europe has already floated a $40 per ticket airline flight tax for carbon emissions. They have already heard from Porsche that Porsche may be forced to stop production in order to comply with emission requirements, more recently we are hearing about a propos
The very article you cite explains why the climate of different planets changes for different reasons. (It also does not claim that all of the planets are warming.) In few if any of the cases is the warming due to "the Sun", and few if any of the planets are experiencing climate change for the same reasons.
What point were you trying to make again?
Cheap energy is what brought about the industrial revolution, but that source of energy has changed a number of times and many times in that process (early on it was water, then coal/steam, then electricity and oil) and the level of efficiency of that energy use has improved. Look at today's fridges, for example - they are both cheaper and more energy efficient. Also look at industrial processes - saving energy can often provide a saving that can improve profits and/or benefit the consumer in terms of cheaper goods. This process has been going on for 200 hundred years and there is no reason to stop it now. The ideal is to look for processes that improve energy efficiency, reduce costs, and then free up capital to use to improve the economy.
As an example the US savings rate is currently very low and there may be a future issue with the level of funding required to keep social security going. If homes were much more energy efficient (e.g. through better insulation) in such a way that payback periods on the investment in those measures was short then it would free up money for people to put into higher savings, 401K plans and so on. So this would actually benefit the economy long term. Alternatively the saved money could be used by people buying goods and services rather than using mortgage equity withdrawl. Again this would probably be a net benefit to the economy. As a side effect heating and cooling would require less fossil fuel inputs and less CO2 would be produced and the environment would benefit.
As another example if cars were more efficient then less oil would be imported meaning a lower trade deficit. People might also save on their monthly gasoline bills. Again this could be used for spending on other goods and services or be saved.
So saving the environment need not mean wrecking the economy. Sure you can find ways to save the environment AND wreck it, but the best schemes to look at are the ones that align economic aims of efficiency with beneficial environmental effects.
If you look at US GDP/barrel of oil this has improved over the last 30 years. There are other measure to look at, though, which are standard of living and quality of life. Ideally we want to maximise GDP, standard of living (measured in terms of things like decent housing, good schools, health care, things to mow your lawn, etc) and quality of life (measured additionally as things like good work/life balance and less tangible things) together with protecting the environment. I.e. no return to the 17th century, but rather onwards.
Yeah, if the price of energy rose by 25%, absolutely nobody would start thinking about using less energy for a change.
Sure, people would use less energy. But here's a simple fact: We'd be poorer for it.
Let's look at the opposite: There are all sorts of processes that depend on energy that aren't economical right now. If the price of energy drops 20%. Recyclable Aluminum cans gain economy over plastic bottles. Ethanol and hydrogen become cheaper to produce. Desalination becomes economical in many areas, dropping the cost of food. Heck, hydroponics gain, fresh fruits and vegetables from North Dakota, in North Dakota, in the wintertime. The possibilites are enormous.
But then, there's all sorts of neat technologies out there that aren't practical because they're electricity/energy hungry.
I don't read AC A human right
The glaciation and polar bears and ice core by a faCO2 samples don't in themselves prove global warming.
However, the simple edict of common sense is, if 6 billion people keep burning carbon for energy at western consumption rates, while clearing rainforests and polluting the seas and demanding 50 pieces of tuppaware and a ne Mac or PC every year and wide screen TVs with 15.7 holographic sound that makes espresso just like you can buy at Barstucks, we're all fucked.
Either the planet warms up and we drown loads of agricultural land, or the oil (and eventually the coal, or uranium or whatever else) runs out and we wind up stuck in some pre-industrial agrarian existence. Probably a bit of both is the most likely scenario.
The only thing that will save civilisation as we know it is if HIV goes atmospheric and Ebola restrains itself a bit, then both spread like wildfire across the globe to cut the global population to something around 600 million.
Good luck.
"I hope you like Guinness, Sir. I find it a refreshing substitute for, er... food." Col. Jack O'Neil, SG-1
yes -> "As for the military presence that's a completely different thing."....so I said no, it is a direct energy cost. It isn't different at all, it is a cost for making sure that some big US oil companies can continue with their energy cartel action. They get a massive mercenary force to protect their interests paid for by the US tax payer and wrapped up in a flag and false patriotism, encouraged by media propaganda and bribed off "energy insiders" government sock puppets at the very highest levels. And they are this close right now to ripping off the bulk of iraq's oil instead of letting the poor people there use it for their rebuilding.
j uhasz.php
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/13/opinion/ed
If you meant something different, sure, I missed it, and you can enlighten me so I can understand better, but that is how I read it for my response.
"Companies that can't maintain a profit need to save money somehow, and long term investments become out of the question."
No companies that can't maintain a profit need to go out of business they way the market gods intend. Currently we have a situation where it is cheaper to buy a congressman than to fix your business model. E.g. Municipal Wifi and Sip VoIP phones like the Nokia e61 basically render mobile phone companies obsolete, so what to they do? Try and change the law to make municipal Wifi illegal.
Sourcewatch offers a bit of illuminating data. Since the site is built on media wiki software, I advise a gander at the article's history too.
What wasn't discussed by the Telegraph is that other associations the former professor has may be a motivating force for his hate mail. There are those who believe that astroturfing for Oil Corporations is not the most honourable of activities.
Rush Limbaugh is a perfect real world example of an oxycontinmoron
Nevermind, guess you have never heard that joke. I didn't get any calls from actual villages that you have lived in.
secondly as to causality;
It seems that there are just too many Z's in climatology for causality to ever be assumed; in fact, considering the time scales involved in climatology, is it even possible for humans to ever demonstrate that the computer models predict anything real with reasonable confidence?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
Blah, blah, blah, and butterflys, you expect me to swallow your simplistic explination as "proof" that thousands of scientists are just dumb fucks who don't understand maths. You will convince me you have a serious argument when you write a paper and submit it, in particular you should aim to pull the 2007 IPCC-SPM attribution graph to bits, I belive it is figure SPM-2.
"...a chaotic system can be as regualar as any non-chaotic system under certain parameters..."
Not quite, and that is the whole point. The statistics of a chaotic system can be regular, ie: climate is the regular statistical behaviour of the chaotic system we call weather. When these "parameters" are regular the chaotic system is said to be in "dynamic equilibrium", if you destabalise that state then the system can flip all over the place until it settles down into another "dynamic equilibrium". From paleoclimatology we also know that rapid change goes hand in hand with massive extinctions.
"...is it even possible for humans to ever demonstrate that the computer models predict anything real with reasonable confidence?"
Yes, "polar amplification" and the "hockey stick" are two that spring to mind. If you followed the science you would know that the biggest failure in the 2001 IPCC model predictions is methane levels (they were predicted to rise but have remained stable for some unknown reason). Many of the other predictions have turned out to be on the conservative side, as you would expect from a report agreed apon by every national science body on the planet.
"Firstly it seems that you assume that a series of events that display apparent randomness as chaotic, and a series that has little randomness as non-chaotic"
I did not mean to imply chaos theory is synonomous with random number theory (I don't actually see the word random in my post?). You will find that a chaotic system has no random inputs, you will also find the examples I chose are chaotic systems. To deny that climate models are usefull is to deny that finite element analysis is useful and considering the success of FEA in other fields, that stance is just plain silly. Also if you are right in claiming climate models are useless then how do you explain the predictions mentioned above, beginers luck?
If you really want to pick holes then attack the quality of the data or the resolution of the simulation, both need to improve if we are to solve puzzles such as the "missing methane". In other words be a skeptic, attack your own arguments as vigourosly as you attack others.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
The fad term "global warming" is applied to al the evil things mankind does to the environment.
Does the earth go through cyclic changes in temperature? Absolutrely.
Is it the end of the world as ascribed by the eco people? Of course not (and that's why I call GW BS)
And there was an interesting study I heard on the radio that the glariers melting were a natural part of offsetting the rise in temps, that occur naturally.
The point is, GW is NOT hard accept fact, but that doesn't mean we (mankind) can't help do something to offset the effects
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Even if they did, that has nothing to do with the fact that GW is real. And there was an interesting study I heard on the radio that the glariers melting were a natural part of offsetting the rise in temps, that occur naturally. The current rise in temperature is not natural. Glaciers will melt either way, of course. Melting glaciers have several feedbacks. The main feedback is to accelerate warming by decreasing the Earth's reflectivity. There are probably other feedbacks that act to slow the warming, but they are not as strong (barring a freshwater flux that shuts down the North Atlantic circulation, and even that won't really offset global warming — it will cool the Northern Hemisphere but warm the Southern.
PS: Look at your own link, under "attribution".
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This one:
"Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun's activity is the common thread linking all these baking events."
This article then goes on to "disprove" the obvious. IT'S THE SUN. The attempt was laughable. Milk shot through my nose when I read about the guy saying "this must be a coincidence!" Couldn't stop laughing.
I didn't quote this article because it says "the sun is the cause," I quoted it because it shows silly "scientists" trying to blame warming on all the planets on something other than the obvious source- THE SUN. They must do this to protect their pet theory.
If a bunch of planets are warming up, and they have the same sun, WHY IS THIS NOT THE MAIN FACTOR BEING CONSIDERED?
"Oh, it's the axial tilt of that planet!" "My, the red spot is kicking up dust! That must be the greenhouse effect on that planet!" "But on Earth, it's man!" "Goly oh Gee, it's a coincidence!"
Rubbish! IT'S THE SUN!