Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Endangered by Hot Air?
oldwindways writes "The BBC reports that leading climate researchers are concerned that the tone of speculation surrounding many reports (scientific as well as in the media) could be making it more difficult for legitimate science to make a case for the future. Is Hollywood to blame? Have we 'cried wolf' too many times with global warming? Or is this just a case of some researchers who are not ready to face the truth? Either way, it raises the interesting question of how greater public awareness of Global Warming might be affecting the course of research and vice versa. Not to mention what happens when public awareness is shaped by factors other than scientific findings. This is especially troubling during what some are calling the warmest US winter in years."
I supposed we should all stay quiet? We shouldn't talk about it? I guess then it won't exist at all.
Please disregard this post as it comments on the taboo subject de jour, and I would hate to make it worse.
I don't believe Hollywood speculation about global warming will stop us from taking the threat seriously.
The Hollywood speculation about evil robots has not stopped certain dedicated men and women from taking seriously all threats of domination by artificial life forms. For example, I recently caught my Roomba building an IED. When I shared that information on a forum that shall remain nameless, there were people who believed and recruited me for the Roomba Resistance.
But perhaps I've said too much.
- Greg
Start a happiness pandemic
There seems to be a bit or rivalry here going on in the press. Seems like a "not invented here problem" to me.
We can't seriously believe either side, but must stick to logic and examine all the facts. Both sides have their hysterical evangelists and paid shills.
There would be no issue with the public's misconceptions had Kevin Costner exercised more restraint
for sale
I'm a self-modifying sig virus
Is Hollywood to blame? Only the day after tomorrow will tell.
Libertarian Leaning Political Discussion Forum.
Legitimacy comes with the understanding, apparently. Hollywood to blame? "Oh, Puhhhhleeaze" (in my best drama queen ala Callas' voice) If you're going to blame anything on anyone, blame it on ignorance; excuse it and move on with our lives. (...and learn how to be less *ignorant* in the future)
Why can't people just say, "Hell.. I'm not sure which side I believe yet." ??
The problem with controversies that have become too political is there is NO WAY to get good definitive information about global warming or any other politicized issue. For every respected scientist that comes out in favor FOR global warming, there is another respected scientist that comes out against it.. Then, to add to skepticism, funding is often based on which way scientists are leaning..
Then, we have idiot Hollywood blowhards telling us if we don't believe in global warming, it's like not believing in the Holocaust or something to that effect. I do tend to believe that most Hollywood people that want to speak their minds are idiots. They're the ones that haven't gone to school or studied any amount of logic or reasoning skills.
And again.. 'some are saying this is the warmest winter on record.' Well, this fvcking winter (at least for Florida - where I am) is colder than most. And, it's NOT OVER. And, the NOAA report that the media based the 'warmest winter on record' claim tends to say this was nothing more than an AVERAGE WINTER.
So.. basically any claims made without fact or merit end up becoming better fuel for the skeptics.
Again.. I haven't decided which way I believe. Give me some real, unbiased facts, and I'll maybe make a decision. But if there's any hint of bias, I will see it and disregard said report. As far as I can tell so far, it really seems like claiming global warming in 2007 is nothing more than claiming global cooling as in the 1970's..
--- We need more Ron Paul!
>>This is especially troubling during what some are calling the warmest US winter in years."
Seeing as how this is the winter with the two coldest 3-week periods (in Anchorage, Alaska) in history - where are you getting the above statement? The US does include Alaska you know...
See now ;
Haliburton & co supporting and paying Bush & co in the u.s. presidential races and then securing no bid contracts to iraqi oil fields.
sony, warner & co creating RIAA and paying senators to further their terror regime and then getting juicy laws protecting their interests in return
Is it too hard to understand that there are HORDES of scientists who are paid and maintained by big buck industry interests ?
Is it too hard to understand that these scientists, who are in fact little more than laymen, do their payers' bidding and bark at people who are trying to fix some matters ?
There are people in this world, who care for nothing but their short term profit, you know.
The micro climate here, where i live, is too different from what it used to be 10 years ago.
No need for statistics either - for 15 years the micro climate have followed an EXACT pattern here, almost TOO exact.
However for the last 4 years, we are increasingly having erratic weather to the extremes that old people are much anxious about.
this winter, there was NO winter. really. it was spring/autumn all along.with very rare rain.
just the goings here, leave aside my relatives' my colleagues' my internet friends' experiences all over the globe are enough for me to deduce there IS something wrong with the climate all around, and there are greedy bastards spewing out fud in order to conceal it.
From this point on, yes, i will look upon these fud spreaders with an evil eye - it is readily deductable that such people have hidden agendas.
Read radical news here
Global Warming?? I live in Maryland and we just got the heaviest snowfall of the winter, midway thru MARCH.
All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
I've got a bachelor's in physics, and although that doesn't make me a climate scientist, i think it at least qualifies me to evaluate scientific arguments on the basis of merit. . I've never read any of these papers, because I don't have the time to make myself an expert on another field. I consider myself a climate change agnostic - I have no idea whether or not it's happening.
When I hear "oh noes we are all going to die unless we stop global climate change," however, I am very skeptical. My mind puts such arguments in the same bin as the overpopulation fears of the 70's. I'll take Julian Simon over Paul Ehrlich any day. The fact that scientists who disagree are called "deniers" and "shills of industry" pushes me further away from seriously considering global warming as a possible threat, because ad hominem attacks are not science. I've read enough stories like this one, written by a candian newspaper, to at least consider myself extremely skeptical of claims that the earth is getting warmer, humans are to blame, and that drastic changes are necessasry.
That said, I know all too well that people can make terrible arguments in support of true statements. Therefore, Until I read a series of papers about global climate change, papers that publish all of their source data, algorithms used in simulations, justifications for the use of those algorithms, and statistical analysis by qualified statisticians, I will refrain from forming a solid opinion one way or the other. Of course, the chances of that happening are exactly zero, because I don't have time to spend doing something like that. So I'll remain skeptical.
My blog
Just like cold fusion, the amount of uninformed people making extremist claims about this diffuses the issue. And the main people making these claims are politically-motivated. Either they are politicians themselves, or talk show hosts, news paper writers, etc.
What we need is a good, honest look at climate trends. Because words like "global warming" and "el niño" are so overused, diffused, and politicized, we have to look at this purely as a scientific study about climate trends, and the study has to be carried out by multiple parties.
Warmest winter in the US? The second link does not make that statement. World, yes. http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm
but it did seem like a warmer winter, here in Chicago
It's time mother nature died from exposure. She's taken enough people in the same fashion!
How was this the warmest winter? The December to February temperature was near average and February 2007 was in the bottom 2/3rds in temperature over the past 113 years.
/ feb/feb07.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007
Here in New Zealand, we have just had a very cool summer, following on from a very cool winter. Where's some of that global warming stuff? Could have used it at the beach!
To think that we (as a human race) have a very good understanding of long-term climatic processes is just arrogance. We have models which we are always refining, but they will always just be speculation. We look back mockingly at how ignorant some scientists were 40 years ago (eg. during the 1960s many/most geologists did not accept tectonic plate theory). It is silly to think that people forty years from now won't be doing the same about us. That should be particularly true of climatic modelling. There is no robust equation for climate. People essentially just sit down and tweak the models until they get the results they expect, then use them to generate best case and worst case analysis. That folks, is hardly science.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
You know what will get me to buy into the global warming hype? It's if they can get countries such as China and India to play by the rules of the CO2 reduction pacts. Currently they are exempt under Kyoto! If you think job outsourcing is currently bad in the U.S. just wait until we sign onto this. The jobs and the pollution will simply go over there where pollution controls are more lax, thus costing us jobs and taxes for the government, while actually increasing industrial emissions.
Until someone can get the emerging polluters to get on board with the 21st century, it seems like this is just an attempt to flog the U.S. economy. It doesn't matter what the science says if the pollution output relocates to China and India.
Don't mix up science with politics. Whether it is happening or not has been established by scientists. Whether it was anyone's fault (and more importantly, whether we're going to do anything about it) is a political issue.
;P .
:>
First of all, you can start by calling it "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming". If we just focus our efforts on the slow increase of merely one factor of the complex global climate system -- average temperature -- we're not going to convince anyone that there's been a significant man-made difference. However, if we could start focusing on how the climate of individual regions has changed drastically, it becomes much simpler to see and establish causality on how man-made activity has beat back glaciers, leveled mountains, polluted ecosystems, etc.
Anyway, now that we're playing politics, anything goes, including Hollywood sensationalizing. Just remember to draw clear lines between scientifically-proved fact and political slander
It sucks that science is getting attacked by political groups lately. But in the end, this will hopefully be helpful for science. People will fund "scientific" studies such as "Industrial activity has No Correlation with Climate Change" and "Creationism Explains the Origin of Species" and science will be bolstered when the data disproves these null hypotheses, which is after all how scientific method works in the first place
You mean http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-452066547 4899458831
RIP global warming.
Let's face it our climate has been changing since pre-industrial revolution, so how much are we really affecting change? This is not clear (you have scientist & businesses on both sides), but it is really annoying when you get the Al Gore political types who are the worst offenders of global warming ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html ).
Forget the argument of affecting global warming - how about stop polluting our planet and reduce our carbon foot-print, so our children have a clean place to live in. Let's stop selling the fear and giving idiot politicians more clout to push their personal agendas.
Last year's winter was very warm too. So obviously your claims have no merit. jk
God spoke to me.
At least if the general public is aware of the issue, it provides those equipped
to know more precisely, and politicians assigned to take the lead on fixing
the issue, with the mandate and resources to gather better information on
the problem and to take significant measures.
Without public awareness, people pointing out a large but nebulous
problem tend to be labeled lunatics.
I'll take all manner of exaggeration and minimization as a side effect
of more public awareness, and thus more political action.
It is crystal clear to the well informed that we are way, way, way,
way underperforming on the necessary, effective actions on this issue,
so more action is all good.
These days, with the Internet and Google available, there is really no excuse for a person
of average mental wattage not to be well informed.
The real question and challenge is whether they WANT to be well informed on
a given topic.
So it's a GOOD THING that people now want to be well informed about climate
change and what to do about it.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Have we 'cried wolf' too many times with global warming?
"Crying wolf" applies if people repeatedly warn about something and it doesn't come to pass; it implies that there is evidence of incompetence or deliberate deception, based on repeated incorrect predictions.
In the history of climate research, scientists have seriously warned about global warming only once so far. The evidence is strong, the consequences are potentially devastating, and it appears to be happening faster than anybody initially thought.
If anything, boneheads that ask questions like you do still don't get how f*cking serious this is. Even if, against the odds, global warming turns out to be less of a threat than current scientific consensus says, acting decisively is completely justified.
Since global warming is so politicized and proof as to the extent of human responsibility for it is so tenuous, why don't environmentalists go after things that everyone can agree is bad for the planet and 100% caused by humans? Water pollution, deforestation, acid rain, smog, reliance on fossil fuels... the list goes on and on. And as an awesome bonus, fixing some of these problems would also reduce our greenhouse gas footprint, thus killing two birds with one stone.
Does anyone know why environmentalists keep beating the global warming horse when it's clear that people aren't going to listen?
Rob
Even if humans are not contributing to global warming in any way, the steps that can be taken to fight global warming would lead to less pollution and more efficient use of energy. How is this a bad thing?
Even those who support fossil fuel derived energy and the like are not immune to the cancer it causes...
>However for the last 4 years, we are increasingly having erratic weather to the extremes that old people are much anxious about.
>
>this winter, there was NO winter. really. it was spring/autumn all along.with very rare rain.
A major reason global warming will take hold of public opinion is that people are beginning to think about it *every* time the weather does something unexpected. Doubly so if it feels unusually warm. Even if people are skeptical, the idea will cross their synapses.
I'm not saying this proves or disproves any actual effects of global warming. I just think it will be a self-reinforcing idea for most people. And that's a tough thing to shake.
Rabid foaming at the mouth flame war in 3.....2......1......
"Some books contain the machinery required to create and sustain universes."-Tycho
See this video from Channel 4 for some critical commentary on global warming, and different scientists' beliefs on how/if we can stop it.
The movie The Great Global Warming Swindle is a fraud. The filmmaker has been convicted in the past of "creative editing". And sure enough, Professor Carl Wunsch from MIT, who is shown in key moments of the movie, is crying foul.
Another funny fact: many of the "scientists" shown in the movie are introduced as members of renowned academic institutions... which they left long ago. In other words, the movie is misrepresenting lobbyists as scientists. That should speak volumes about the integrity of the filmmakers.
As for the science in the movie, I'll let Real Climate debunk it.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that the system in question is very complex and rather chaotic. The doomsday predictions are well within the range of outcomes of credible models. For instance, the film The Day After Tomorrow, stripped of the over-dramatization, actually presents a real possibility which is a better explanation for the frozen mammoth (with buttercups in teeth and stomach) than the original papers on the subject (hypothesizing volcanic eruption and rapidly expanding CO2). That does not mean the outcome is probable. But, the sum total of nasty, improbable outcomes, though still not overly likely, is worrisome.
Many models, though not being able to predict real outcomes with certainty, do show a high likelihood that the climate will become highly unstable for a least a period of time. Weather models have not gotten good at predicting long range weather, but studies of the mathematics of chaos have at least made it possible to say when the weather can be predicted accurately and when it cannot, essentially picking out singularities in the models and degrees of instability in the actual weather systems. As global warming is put into the climate models, they become increasingly chaotic and increasingly unpredictable.
I think saying "the sky is falling" is going a bit far, but saying that we are likely in for a bumpy ride and maybe some major turbulence (please remain seated and fasten your seat belts) is quite warranted.
Then the question becomes: OK, what do we do about it? We cannot evacuate the coastlines due to a non-zero probability of catastrophic sea-level rises and increasing hurricane threats, especially while evacuating other areas for other non-zero threats. What we can do is a little risk management. In our small farming operations, we are laying groundwork for water storage and collection in case of extended drought, for (at least short term) utility independence in case the massive ice storm we got hit by this year is not isolated, and looking at storing seeds for hardier varieties of plants in case of climate drift. We are also looking at working through the Agricultural Extension and other means to encourage farmers to be more versatile in the face of change. It was not long ago here that the Ag Extension would not talk to farmers unless you had at least 40 acres and were raising beef cattle. Extended droughts have hurt beef here immensely and caused them to shift their policy toward greater versatility.
Shoring up coastal areas, better storm preparation, some real thought on what to do if climate change causes an upsurge in disease carrying mosquitoes in currently quiet areas, and so forth, are also probably quite warranted. Recent events show we are not prepared for what is happening now, let alone for possible increases, so these actions are prudent in any case.
Is the scientific basis for saying it should be happening.
The simple fact is that carbon dioxide has an extremely strong infrared absorbance and will act like the glass panes of a greenhouse. Very effectively.
It's about the same as knowing there is gravity so you can predict an apple will fall when released.
Couple that with knowing humans are spewing billions of tons of it into the atmosphere - with rates of release increasing every day - and you have a very solid basis to say that the effects of global warming will get stronger. Period.
You can argue all you want that the weather conditions people are seeing now are not global warming. And maybe they aren't. But global warming is happening and the trends will be for stronger effects.
How strong those effects are and will be can be debated, but the fact that they are coming cannot.
I get "Troll" while "Lots of people have something to gain by hyping global warming. Politicians looking for power, actors trying to look "caring", socialists making another attempt to weaken the United States." above gets +5 Insightful? Sheesh.
Thank you. The link I posted was working a few days ago. I should have checked first.
First of all, like everything else we like to bitch about here on Slashdot, it comes down to money. There's gold in them thar hills! What you're actually hearing is the gearing up of industry to support products that are "environmentally friendly". Not that there's anything wrong with that.
The problem with this question and the increasing vocalization of man made climate change die hards is this:
1. Regardless of the causation of climate change, there seems to be universal agreement that it is happening. To the degree that we don't want to be like the vast majority of critters that have ever been on this planet and become extinct, we should focus on ways of planning to adapt to the possible outcomes of climate change. Arguing over who is responsible, at some level, is simply counterproductive.
2. Once man made global warming becomes politically attractive we will begin to spend lots of tax payer money to reduce our impact on the environment. This invariably will siphon away money from other places or prevent that money from being used for something that could do more good. I don't mean to sound cold or uncaring, or even worse, ignorant on the subject of climate change. What I am suggesting is that there are a limited amount of funds to be used for what amounts to public works projects. Will funding for reducing man's impact on the environment do more good than, say, AIDS prevention? Folks smarter than me with more letters after their name than I have suggest that it will not.
Bottom line: There are more rational ways to go about this process of identifying problems and developing solutions but causes have always needed some flash and sizzle to sell to your average American. Right now, man made climate change is about as sexy an idea as you can think of that has many supporters in the scientific community. Think about it, you have natural disasters, money hungry multinational corporations, underdog scientists, Hurricane Katrina, talk of cute animals going extinct, Al Gore, dramatic film clips, the idea that the big corps are fucking it up for the common man, themes of Armageddon, etc. It actually sounds like it has elements of every thrill movie ever made. I mean, goddammit! That's a show!
So can we sit down, be rational, and allow scientists to conduct their research without having to deal with the celebrity of what they're researching? 'Fraid not.
If you feel I've said things that are provocative, watch the TED Talks lectures from the brilliant physicist David Deutsch and the thought provoking economist Bjorn Lomborg for more information.
We can already count lost sheep. Yanking this off the firehose even though it was slowly rising:
i ence&article=UPI-1-20070316-15391700-bc-us-climate change-crops.xml. This is of interest not just because this indicates that warming is not good for crops, at least in the way that we grow them now, but that attempts to reduce warming through substituting biofuels for fossil fuels may be squeezed by this effect.
m _wrapper&Itemid=182.s -selling-solar.html
Science Daily is reporting that researchers at the Carnegie Institution and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have found that crop losses owing to global warming exceeded $100 billion between 1981 and 2002 http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Sc
The estimated cost of crop losses is about 25% of the cost of the Iraq war so far http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=co
--
Do something: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
So what if we've just had the warmest winter in years? That means absolutely nothing on its own, particularly when you consider the fact thta it's an El Nino (El Nina? I forget wihch is wihch) year, and that the respective seasons are going to be less severe. Maybe some people remember how mild last summer was? I don't believe there was a single day last summer when I didn't feel comfortable to wear long sleeves.
The reason global warming has no credibility is because of reactionaries, yes, but also because the arguments made have not been internally or scientificially consistent for 30 years. You cry wolf long enough bolstering your points with manipulated data, and nobody is going to believe a word you say. Whether it's 'global cooling' from 30 years ago, 'global warming' a year ago, or what they're calling 'global climate change' today (yeah, apparently calling it global warming or cooling doesn't work anymore, because nobody believes a word of it), it doesn't matter the slightest.
It's inconsequential to most people, in no small part to the fact that we've passed a dozen 'population extinction' dates for not only Earth becoming a huge desert, ocean, or desert, but claims that the world's population is going to surpass what the planet can provide (claims which often go hand-in-hand with the global warming hysteria). Nevermind the readily observeable information that while not only Earth's climate is getting warmer, so is Mar's - due to the rotational temperature changes in the Sun. IE, there's not a fucking thing we can do about it, and worrying about it, let alone doing anything for it, is just reactionary fear mongering.
"Global warming" is the Left's "imminent emergency" scenario which they utilize to the greatest political end economic manipulation as possible - just like the Right's "war on terror" is its "imminent emergency".
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Like Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart (a nurse by training, if you can believe that):
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits. . . Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."
As long as the public faces of the global warming scare are building vast energy-hogging mansions, flying around the world in private jets, and shooting down alternative-power proposals that clash with their refined aesthetic sensibilities, I will assume they are all power-crazed liars and mountebanks of the ilk of Christine Stewart.
We are being asked to overturn the very edifice of free-market capitalism, on the basis of wild speculation about the significance of mere statistical noise, teased out of scant and questionable data by grant-chasing academics, and shouted hysterically by power-mad left-wing politicians who won't abide by the same draconian regulations they advocate for the rest of us. No thanks. I'm going to keep living my life as I please.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
We've lived under the constant spectre of doom and gloom for a long time. Everything is bad, bad for us, and going to cause the death of civilization as we know it. Even just enumerating the big bad ones would take me a while; I caught the tail end of nuclear doom, just in time for a segue into environmental doom. I remember the tail end of "Communism is going to crush us". I remember numerous predictions that basically had us all dead by now. I know we were supposed to run out of oil in the mid-90s. I remember when the Japanese were going to crush us with their mighty economy. I remember how our school system was going to doom us. (That story hasn't changed much in 20 years, really.) I remember how Reagan's policies were going to cause certain world war. We've been on the verge of major plague now for years and years, bird flu is merely the latest virus du jour. I remember just this last year stories about the interest rates going up and how that was bad and going to hurt the economy, followed a few short weeks later by stories about how the interest rates going down was bad and was going to hurt the economy. So help me, I've seen stories about the low unemployment rate being proof our economy was doomed!
I remember more doom than I can even enumerate in a single paragraph.
I also think it's important to point out the ever-increasing sophistication of marketing techniques, especially as they increasingly feed back into politics and these claims of doom. Regardless of the truth of global warming, many people are selling global warming doom. Why are they selling it? Because it's being bought. The news sells doom, because bad news brings more eyeballs. Doom, doom, doom everywhere.
And only a vanishing fraction of what we're being sold, be it doom, consumer product claims, or politicians is true. After a while, we can't help but notice this, and I think the general public is becoming increasingly suspicious of this sort of selling, on all levels. What's so special about today's predictions of doom? Why should I trust that this shampoo will make me sexy? I think this skepticism is all of a kind.
I don't know how this is going to turn out in the end, but at least for the topic at hand, I think you can expect a growing AGW backlash over the next few months. For some reason, in these past few months AGW-advocates turned up the volume to eleven and starting selling like never before, and I think they've seriously overplayed their hand by selling it too hard. Anybody who can survive economically in the US in this environment is becoming increasingly cynical about "selling" of all kinds.
(I say the US specifically because we seem to be farthest along the advertising/selling curve; even my English acquaintances who have lived here tell me we seem to be deluged in ads by comparison to them. If you don't become cynical about people selling you things, you will go bankrupt in the US; even as we have become immensely more wealthy, the number of things available for purchase has gone up even faster. Who in 1960 could bankrupt themselves on buying DVDs? Even if you say "but they had albums", well, so do we, only even more so.)
Of course, there will be two natural responses: The AGW advocates will try to make their presentations that much more slick, while the AGW-skeptics will become increasingly organized and therefore creating slick sales pitches too. Very few people have been seriously fighting AGW in a large-scale, organized way. (Not zero, but very few.) I expect that will change. It's going to be a warzone out there, with the biggest casualty being the truth.
(All-in-all, I expect the AGW people who seem to have cranked the volume up would have been better off leaving well enough alone.)
This is all independent of the truth or falseness of the AGW claims.
Increasingly, the market for doom is just getting tapped out. There's only such much worry available, even if you stoke it, and there's just too damned many people trying to tap it.
"And this my friend is why I will always be a skeptic of all environmentalist causes. This is almost always the tact that environmentalists take."
I read your comment and I fear your skepticism is biased. This is based on the terms 'all', 'allways', 'more than anything else'. And the use of the word 'skeptic', probably means you've read Lomborgs never-changing half~empty~glass opinions.
Actually when you study the literature on climate, you will find the other camp is acting the way you accuse the scientists of that are warning about climate change. Funny how they manage to turn the public opinion around. I have been wondering how they do it for almost twenty years now and might write a book about it soon.
People seem to take their little part of the weather and generalize it. There was no winter? Really, guess I am confused what the term means then. It was COLD here (in the desert). Hell it even snowed and stuck to the ground and was around the next morning. That is extremely rare, hasn't snowed in about 8 years. A warm winter it was not. Now it has warmed up a bunch, which is pretty normal for this time of year around here.
However I'm not going to try and generalize what happened here to the whole world. Our winter was what it was, yours may have been very different.
Even worse, statistics are abused for the purposes of making a point more dramatically. Here in Washington State, there is currently a controversy of statistics regarding snowpack levels. Syopsis: The numbers being bandied about are that Washington State's snowpack levels have decreased 50% over the past century.
0 03618979_warming15m.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2
This happens over and over again, but all too often, if the cause seems noble (such as anti-smoking advertising), people are willing to overlook blatent factual errors (otherwise known as *lies*). It's frustrating to me personally, because while I think that certain global warming issues (especially the percentages caused by humans) may be overstated, I don't want to close any sound scientific debate dealing with such potentially serious issues. Even beyond that, limiting pollutants and striving for a small ecological footprint can be nothing but good for the short-term environment, such as the quality of our air or water.
But many well-meaning environmentalists continue to play fast-and-loose* with the facts - thus damaging the credibility of important issues for the general public.
* Probably the only context on the Internet in which this word is used correctly
Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
My immediate response to any subject that is strongly promoted by entertainers, especially Hollywood types, is to immediately write it off as complete nonsense.
This has nothing to do with the merits of the global warming debate, just that I'm sick to death of hearing the ignorant opinions of some uneducated, amoral nitwit just because he can act or sing.
That's not to say that some actors don't know what they are talking about, and that some actors support worthy causes, many do. It's just that Global Warming [cue ominous music] has become a popular cause celebre among the typical Hollywood idiots, who never have anything meaningful to say beyond empty platitudes, that I'm getting really sick of hearing about it.
Oh, and politicians are only marginally better. I'm surprised John Edwards, for instance, isn't promising that the polar caps will magically regenerate if he's elected the way he promised people like Christopher Reeves would (would!) be cured if he was elected.
The problem with topics that are scientific in nature is that you don't hear enough from spokesmen who actually have half a clue what they are talking about. You only hear from politicians, most of whom are ass-ignorant of anything other than politics and have made the topic totally political, celebrities, who are ass-ignorant about everything, or the mass media, who are ass-ignorant of everything but sensationalism, and pushing their own political agenda.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
http://www.fuckedupcountry.com/campaign_against_ma n-made_global_warming_science.html
Excerpt
"The Campaign against Man-Made Global Warming Science
Global warming is the most important long-term problem the world
faces. If nothing is done to reverse it, the world and all life,
including human civilization, will be obliterated by it. More
tornadoes, powerful hurricanes, new diseases, intolerable
temperatures, and widespread flooding are just some of the
consequences. World maps will have to be redrawn. Coastal cities will
be lost to rising tides, just like the fate of Atlantis. Humans are
responsible for global warming and humans can stop it, if they want
to. Unfortunately, the truth is inconvenient. Stopping global warming
will require a lot of money and a lot of human effort. Putting a man
on the moon is trivial compared to the effort required to stop the
catastrophe that is sure to come from global warming. Certain
governmental forces and industries do not want to spend the required
money and resources to solve this problem. The fossil fuel industry
and the Bush administration it influences are behind a campaign of
disinformation and censorship that denies the consensus that global
warming is a man-made problem. "
Excerpt
"The Bush administration is actively involved in censoring climate-
change science to make global warming look like it is a cyclical
process and not as severe as it really is. "As a government scientist,
James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White
House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway
(Rewriting). James Hansen is one of the foremost authority figures on
global warming. He works for NASA and he says the Bush administration
is censoring what he has to say about global warming and climate-
change (Rewriting). "In my more than three decades in the government
I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to
communicate with the public," says Hansen (Rewriting)."
Excerpt
"While the Bush administration is censoring global warming scientists,
the fossil fuel industry is actively brainwashing people into thinking
that global warming is part of a natural cycle and that it is not a
severe problem. Coal is one of the fossil fuels that, when burned,
emits the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. One example of the
disinformation campaign by the fossil fuel industry involves a
Colorado electric cooperative, Intermountain Rural Electric
Association, which paid sums of $100,000 each to several university
academics and environmental scientists (Making Money).
Another example of the bribery includes a popular global warming
skeptic, Dr. Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute. Dr. Michaels has
admitted to taking money from the fossil fuel industry. The coal and
oil industry has paid him approximately $115,000 over a period of four
years (ExxonSecrets.org). He is the author of a book, titled Meltdown:
The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists,
Politicians, and the Media. His book states that global warming is
indeed man-made, but the magnitude of it is way overblown.
The oil giant, ExxonMobil, is one of the main antagonists against man-
made global warming science. They have a lot of money to lose if
governments make greenhouse emission caps mandatory and if people and
governments switch to alternative fuels. ExxonMobil is one of the
world's largest producers of greenhouse gas emissions. In 2004, the
operations of the company alone pumped 138 million metric tons of
carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In 2005, the levels of carbon
dioxide produced by ExxonMobil company operations were about the same
as 2004. The amount of carbon dioxide produced by ExxonMobil company
operations pales in comparison to the carbon dioxide produced by the
use of the company's products: gasoline, heating oil, kerosene, diesel
products, aviation fuels and heavy fuels. In 2005, the end use of
ExxonMobil's products produced 1,047 million metric tons of carbon
dioxide (Smoke, Mirrors). "If it was a country, ExxonMobil would rank
sixth in emissions" (Smoke, Mirrors). "
http://www.fuckedupcountry.com
U.S.: 2.1
China: 0.53
In other words, U.S. produces FOUR times more stuff per ton CO2 emitted. Seems like it's China that really needs to clean up its act.
Interesting choice of words. Let me correct that for you.
It is or:
You know what will get me to buy into the Kyoto Pact? or You know what will get me to believe in the global warming hype?
I see you don't have any problem defining exactly what other people believe.
People who are homeless may or may not be lazy, but that doesn't grant them the right to what others have earned.
Rich people get tax cuts because (drumroll please) they pay taxes!
In the sense that all laws are based in morality (at some level), they should be/are in some way based on God. Notice for example that members of the Southern Baptist Convention specifically advocate freedom of religion and that the state has no place in it.
The fact of the matter is that those that support the notion that global warming is predominantly caused by human activities are so self-righteous about the fact that one has to question the objectivity of their research. If the outcome looks like an assumption, then it looks more like the pushing of an agenda. Moreover, news that these researches are trying to stifle dissent (by removing funding for research projects) doesn't give their arguments any more credibility.
The problem with climate models is that you only hear about the ones that give extreme results. There is no news value (or grant value for that matter) in reporting models that don't give extreme results.
Combine this with the fact that climate models take a long long time to verify (So long that the model will most likely have been forgotten) and you have a nice recipe for bad science. I personally believe that most climate model research would be better spent on weather model research.
Pebble Bed Fission Reactors are clearly the solution to the unseemly problem of Planet Overheating. Of course that is in addition to the act of making combustion punishable by death. Those found guilty of any form of burning will be summarily shot, electrocuted, hanged, or just buried alive with extreme prejudice by World Consortium Police. Burning at the stake will be forbidden except in the case of heretics such as members of the secret society: For a Warmer Planet. Resistance will be futile.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
This is especially troubling during what some are calling the warmest US winter in years.
This is EXACTLY what hurts any real discussion. A warm year or an active tropical season and everyone runs around like the end is nigh. People need to get a fucking grip.
If this is a problem let's solve it. I don't know how we can, because we can't stop burning shit, but let's try to minimize what we think is causing it. If we are wrong, or if we can't ultimately stop burning enough, let's prepare for climate change as well. This is what sane people do.
No one is playing fair, and there is far more rhetoric than threat.
We are being asked to overturn the very edifice of free-market capitalism
There is no free market or free trade capitalism.
FalconShould there be a Law?
are temperatures rising? yes. are they due
to humans, only a tiny bit. can reducing
carbon output make a significant difference -
no. global warming is a belief system necessary
to empower those who want government controlling
every aspect of life. after all, what could
be more compelling than: we're doing it to
save the planet - you do want to save the planet,
don't you? when someone can explain the Viking
farming communities in Greenland presently
under ice, then we can talk. until then,
Gulfstream liberals will fly hither and yon
extolling a future in which they control everything.
It's a panel compromised of thousands of scientists. You can read about their findings, and if you are not convinced, then read about the methdology to get a picture of whether you believe the research has been carried out in a sound scientific manner.
I recommend you to make your decision soon, though - we are running out of time. Fast.
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
The Earth is getting warmer, and at a greater rate than ever previously occurred. Rising levels of carbon dioxide (and some other greenhouse gases), as a result of our species industrial activities (ie. the mass combustion of fossil fuels) are at least partly responsible. Even if *another* effect was responsible for a significant part of the warming (say variations in the sun's output) and this effect was beyond our control, we'd still need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and by an even greater amount to counter effects over which we have no control.
The debate on "if" the Earth is getting warmer finished decades ago. The debate is over on why (rising levels of greenhouse gases). The debate should be over (it is in most places) on what we have to do about it (reduce greenhouse gas emissions). The debate is now rightly on *HOW* we should take action.
He won't even let anyone confirm his findings in an open way. That's not science. It's just environmental watermelonism (Green on the outside, but RED to the core).
They are pushing a global government based around a global "carbon tax" with this stuff. You could see it coming for years, after previous one world government efforts got stymied. And it falls in with their "humans (except for the elite of course) are evil so we must get rid of most of them" eugenics ideas as well, and yes, they might not call it that, but eugenics is still with us after the last great experiment fizzled out after WW2 somewhat, just now it is couched in "environmental" aspects. Abortion on demand for any reason, euthanasia of the old and sick and "less useful" and so on. Elite saying things like we need some superbug to hit and drop the planet down to less than half a billion people, etc. Now they are saying because of too much CO2 in the atmosphere that we have to reduce demand, reduce populations etc, except for the "connected elite" of course, I don't see any of them riding around in less jet planes or using less electricity or voluntarily stepping into the disintegration chambers. they want everyone else to "do their share".
And I think climate change is happening, and it is partly man made. I can just also see the globalist/new eugenics fascists political agendas here as I have been following this subject since the early 70s.
Just because it happened to be cold in your particular area at one particular, tiny subset of time doesn't mean that global warming doesn't exist. I wish this argument would die.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Because the "public panic" didn't actually exist. Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#Concer n_in_the_Middle_of_the_Twentieth_Century
There was some concern that there was the POSSIBILITY of global cooling, but no one made a big deal about it, and the scientists cautioned even then that while they thought that MAYBE the Earth was about to enter a cooling phase, CO2 emissions could still alter Earth's climate.
This is an excellent example of the the point raised. It is a widespread myth that the scientific consensus and evidence supporting man-made global warming is comparable to that supporting global cooling in the 70's. The truth is that "global cooling" of the 70's was almost entirely a media phenomenon, based on sensationalist misinterpretation and exaggeration of a couple of scientific reports. In contrast, the consensus supporting global warming is genuine, gradually built over many years as more and more scientists were convinced by accumulated data and improved models.
(at some level), they should be/are in some way based on God.
Not everyone shares the same "morality" and not everyone's morality is based on any "God", mine certainly isn't. Mine can't as I don't believe in any "God" or supreme diety. And yes I have my own sense of morality, Live and let Live. As long as one person isn't harming another they should be able to do what they want.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We already had 'Global Cooling' 30 years ago. We had 'Desertification' with the Sahara consuming all of Africa. All the whales refused to die out and 'Global Warming' is getting smothered in foot deep snow. Generally, a fad is over once someone made a bad movie on it and Al Gore did that already, so what is next?
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Well you have some reason for caring about people coming to harm, so there's some kind of "irrational" morality there; call it what you will.
Ironically (perhaps) by enacting many (and many expensive) socialist measures.
What socialist measures are these?
FalconShould there be a Law?
The first problem with the global warming debate is one of language. The term "global warming" is itself a misnomer, based on a disproven, 25-year-old hypothesis of what's happening to the Earth's climate (the alleged "greenhouse effect"). Contemporary science suggests that mankind's presence on the Earth may be contributing to global climate change which is not the same as global warming.
Mankind pumps a lot of nasty shit into the atmosphere; even by the most conservative measurements, atmospheric CO2 levels are thousands of times greater than they have been at any point in the Earth's history that we can measure. The hypothesis is that changing the composition of the atmosphere will not necessarily warm the Earth, but rather it will cause chaotic global climate change Some areas will get warmer; some will get cooler; some will be submerged under the ocean; some will be exposed to withering draught. The Earth is a complex system, and its climate is nonlinear, and possibly chaotic, in nature. This is a proven fact, and it's not been debated by anyone for the past 50 years. By using the term "global warming," environmentalists weaken their own position.
The second problem with the global warming debate is that virtually nobody is impartial, and people constantly invoke bad science and bad math to justify their gut feelings (at best, or politically-motivated feelings, at worst). How often have you seen a media pundit or a half-credentialed scientist take the merest scrap of evidence, the most tenuous result of a study, and declare without a scrap of uncertainty that "this proves global warming isn't happening," or "this proves global warming is happening?"
Case in point: just a few weeks ago, Digg ran an item about the surface temperature of Mars showing a steady upward trend over the past 50 years, due most likely to increased solar output. The submitter's observation was basically "the Earth and Mars are both heating up; therefore, global warming is a natural effect of the sun and not due to mankind's impact on the Earth." Guess what? Correlation does not imply causation -- just because Earth and Mars are both warming, doesn't mean they are warming due to the same cause! Furthermore, climate change on Earth is not limited to increasing temperature, and it's happening much more rapidly than the climate change on Mars. There may some solar effects, but based on experimental data, it's very likely (and few legitimate scientists can offer any evidence to the contrary) that mankind is also having a noticeable effect on the Earth's climate.
in the energy market in the US? Free market means no govt subsidies: a market that is separate from govt. No money from, no influence over. I agree that the politics on both sides (all sides maybe?) are all guilty of the same thing. But is there any hope for free market to actually happen? Cynically I think not.
There is no free market, in energy or any other legal market, in the US or anywhere else in the world. What we have now is the Corporate Aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of.
FalconShould there be a Law?
In other words: People are sick of the greens crying wolf. Now, whether man made global warming is real or not I am inclined to believe that the enviro-nutballs are just lying - or at least greatly exaggerating - because... that's just what they do.
While there is no denying we are pumping CO2 into the air with every mile and also every breath, the proponents of global warming fail to provide conclusive evidence. Speculation based on the minuscule amount of time we have been monitoring weather does little to make the case because we know so little about the natural rhythm of climate change. If we accept that increased levels of atmospheric CO2 cause increases in global temperature, then start monitoring the levels of global atmospheric CO2. My suspicion is that we won't see any notable increase in atmospheric CO2 because the rains and snows wash the CO2 out of the air. What we do know is we are experiencing acid rain and when CO2 is washed from the air in rain, the rain becomes slightly acidic as carbonic acid. It would be interesting to know the atmospheric methane concentration for the past couple hundred years and its ebb and flow.
Holy crap, just look at the headline. It doesn't ask if science is endangered, it doesn't ask if establishing good policy is endangered. No, it asks if "global warming" is endangered, as though global warming were a thing to do, or a strategy to implement.
Person A: "Hey, the president is coming to town, and it's an opportunity to have a political demonstration in the free speech zone. Any ideas?"
Person B: "Let's global warm! That'll show 'im!"
Person B: "Dude, we can't do global warming. It won't work; there's been too much hot air about it."
Correlation does not prove causation. Statitistical comparison with or without statistical manipulation is in no way scientific method. Having aced two levels of stat over 30 years ago don't make me anywhere near an expert, especially when I can't recall a lot of it not having used it much over those years. However, every time I see something stated "with X% confidence" the alarms go off and the error messages start popping up. One of my mathematics professors attempted to talk me into a math major and seeking an actuary job via the necessitated strings of actuarial exams. I guess I should have listened to him, seems to be one heck of a market these days. The thing that kept popping into my head then though was the old phrase "figures don't lie, but liars sure can figure". Simple fact is you can't prove a darn thing this way, but you sure can effect peoples way of thinking. Biggest users of statistical analysis? Marketing, Insurance and Psychobabblers.
This comment is not related to any opinion I might have on global warming, just a reminder to not accept statistics as scientific proof on any subject. In respect to world historical evidence all we will ever have is a relatively small subset of the data anyway. Essentially statistical information can be accumlated and used either in support of a theory or as an attack on a theory and still use defendable recorded data. Results often pre-ordained by the opinions of the person doing the data survey, simply because they are the ones that determine the methodology.
www.sciencemag.org
The world's two most prestigous scientific publications. Peer-reviewed by the world's top scientists. Refutation of a a published article in either of these journals will surely get you your own publication in one of the two, and open all sorts of job opportunties for you.
The fact that the deniers' arguments can't stand the scrutiny of peer review means they are largely rhetoric, and not based upon sound fact.
It is simple. Earth sheds energy via infrared light. CO2 absorbs infrared light. The more CO2 we stuff in the atmosphere, the more heat we trap. This is brain-dead simple to understand. It would be a miracle if we could dump all this CO2 garbage and NOT see a temperature increase.
It is simple. The earth is getting warmer. Even the deniers won't deny this anymore. All sorts of alternative possibilities as to what could have caused this phenomena have been investigated. They have all turned up blank. The sun is not getting hotter or brighter (or at least not significantly so). Cosmic rays have not changed. The earth's orbit has not changed. No "natural" phenomena has been observed that could cause the temperature increase. Yes, temperature has "naturally" changed in the past, by not via magic. Something CAUSED the change - changes in the sun, our orbit, or wholesale changes in the biological system or atmosphere. These things are not changing now at any significant rate.
It is simple. The physical models predict that CO2 will cause warming - and not just any warming. They predict some areas will warm more, some less, and some not at all. The observed warming matches the models very well. On the contrary, models of other "natural" methods of heating, such as increased solar brightness, do not match the observations.
Is it absolutely certain that AGW is real? No. But virtually all scientists put it at 90% chance or higher. That is far above the level required to justify precautionary action.
Hey, we got the global climate model to compile finally! Ship it.
The U.S. had a normal winter.
/ feb/feb07.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007
This is the kind of loose cannon crap that they are talking about.
"Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic," predicted James Lovelock, a renowned environmental scientist.
That is the kind of overblown, the world is ending crap they are talking about.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Who is the mod modding everyone down that disgrees with global warming? I said winter in Alaska was from Oct. thru April rather than Dec thru Feb and was modded 100% overrated, lol. I was told I was wrong and called a shill,I was born and raised in Alaska and I damn sure know when winter is boys. Alaska has had a colder winter than usual and contradicts the report that it was a warmer winter but it seems no one is interested in hearing this.
Well you have some reason for caring about people coming to harm, so there's some kind of "irrational" morality there; call it what you will.
No, it's rational to care for others and not wanting harm to come to them. It's called reciprocity, the more people are concerned about others the less likely they are to harm others. Not that they won't but there's less of a chance they will. I don't want to harm others and I don't want them to harm me. And as more care science and society improves. For instance though maybe not all do many become doctors because they care about others. Others invent to improves lives. Still others go in to social services to improve specific peoples' or groups of peoples' lives.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I was recently walking down the street when I spotted a chicken, running around in circles (I could have sworn it was clucking out "the sky was falling, the sky was falling) when it was promptly squelched by the over-sized re-treads of a city bus. Little did everyone know, the moon got tired of hanging in its orbit pulling against the sun, fell towards the heavenly body it had been stalking for quite some time, missing dry land, but ensuring that it displaced enough of the ocean to put human beings back in their place... crawling from the ocean onto Tibetan mountain tops to scrawl the musings of life below. While amongst the ancients, I learned the art of "fung ku", the artistic motions of waving one's arms and kicking after being tossed in the water. Damn them all. If I only didn't have that bus ticket in my pocket, I might still at least be sleeping on a dry piece of cloth.
So they say that if you "zoom out" you can't even see the lag (since 800 years v.s. 400/800 thousand years isn't really visible). Is that a joke or something? There is still a bloody 800 year lag! Doing more research going into their linked explanation they say the follow:
(emphasis mine)So here they claim that CO2 could have caused the next 4200 years of heating? But the truth is we aren't even sure? Furthermore, this explanation is also clearly false. Why? Taking a look at this graph of temperature vs CO2 concentration graph from the Vostok ice core samples, you can clearly see that temperature actually started to fall before CO2 falls (by hundreds of years too). How does this work? How could it be that CO2 is causing the warming (through feedback) if temperature fell while CO2 was still rising!
The most important point that the movie makes (IMHO), is that we aren't even sure if CO2 actually drives climate change. Having read many of the attempted debunks of the movie, I have yet to come across an explanation that holds water. Excuses like, "oh well that was in the past, the warming happening now is from CO2" clearly show the unwillingness to look at evidence and try to get a more meaningful scientific theory.
There were some factual errors in the movie (volcanoes producing more CO2 then humans is not true, the temperature records were shown to go to the year 2000 but were in fact up to 1980). However, there were numerous factual and exaggerated points made in Al Gore's (who btw isn't even a scientists, and you attack the real scientists in The Great Global Warming Swindle?) An Inconvenient Truth (claiming that CO2 matches temperature but never overlaying to see the 800 year lag, temperature increases are occuring only small parts of the Antarctic not everywhere, etc) yet it is seen as an accurate film by AGW proponents (including those that write realclimate.org). I suggest that instead of launching personal attacks on the filmmakers and those that participated in it that you (and others) instead look at their arguments. The 800 year lag argument casts a very long shadow (IMHO) on AGW proponents claims and really shows how much more research we need before we start making economy crushing decisions.
Check the spelling.s -selling-solar.html
--
Now its easy being green: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Does anyone believe that we can continue to use fossil fuels like we have over the past century until the end of time? Does it matter exactly when or why we cut down or quit using them? We need to quit discussing the theories and symptoms and concentrate on developing renewable and clean energy sources.
I wrote an essay that I think objectively gives the reader some tools to evaluate renewable energy systems.
When someone develops a computer model that can give me 100% accuracy of what the weather will be next Friday, then every Friday after that for six months, where clouds will be in the sky, etc., I'll believe the hype. But they can't even predict that it was going to snow in Detroit last night. First they said it was going to around Tuesday but by Friday night we were told it wasn't going to snow. But it did that night.
I won't believe anything from anyone until the politics is out of it. To say the world temp is rising by x.x degrees when most records were set in the US over 100 years ago and the weather seemed much more extreme then, I don't buy it. Politics clouds reality.
100+ years should be enough time for your ascendants to relocate.
Yes, 100 years should be plenty of tyme to relocate, but why should anyone have to? And for some, it's not the next 100 years, it's this winter that's important. Take the Inuits inhabiting the Artic Circle. Those in Nunavut, Northen Canada, depend on ice to hunt during the winter. They'll go out onto the ice to hunt and fish, they've been doing it centuries and it's part of their culture. However now, they can no longer depend on the ice to be strong enough to hold their weight and all it takes is a few minutes in freezing water to die.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Zonk, you've linked to the report on crop loss owing to warming to the warmest winter citation.
t er.reut/index.html?eref=rss_topstories and NOAA
link giving state by state rankings for temperture and precipitaion http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2007/s2819.htm .
i ence&article=UPI-1-20070316-15391700-bc-us-climate change-crops.xml
Here is the CNN report http://www.cnn.com/2007/WEATHER/03/15/warmest.win
The link you posted is actually more interesting since it suggests that efforts to substitute biofuels for fossil fuels could be hampered by warming since crop losses from warming already exceed $100 billion in the US between 1981 and 2002 http://www.sciencedaily.com/upi/index.php?feed=Sc
I'll try to keep my submisions down to less than one a day, there was just a confluence of news.
"Who would be a paid shill for the "global warming is a serious threat to us all" side? And who is paying them?"
Probably anybody trying to get or renew a research grant?
On second thought, scrap the frozen mammoth anecdote. See my journal for more info.
Ever heard of an athiest Jew. Your morality is likey passed off from some belife in a god even if you don't belive it yourself. Athiest Jews are prime examples of this. I would say you might be too.
The movie The Great Global Warming Swindle is a fraud. The filmmaker has been convicted in the past of "creative editing". And sure enough, Professor Carl Wunsch from MIT, who is shown in key moments of the movie, is crying foul.
...." It does not go onto say that the "Swindle" movie offered an alternate reasoning for this to be true, and backed it up with very persuasive data.
The link to your article has nothing by that MIT professor in it.
Also, it was written by someone who obviously hasn't even seen the movie in question (Swindle). Just read the part where he says that "everybody agrees that temps are higher now than 100 years ago and CO2 is high
Another funny fact: many of the "scientists" shown in the movie are introduced as members of renowned academic institutions... which they left long ago. In other words, the movie is misrepresenting lobbyists as scientists. That should speak volumes about the integrity of the filmmakers.
Another funny fact about the IPCC report, which is mentioned in the film, is that there was NOT consensus among the "2500+ scientists" who "wrote" the report. In point of fact, the report was compiled in large part by bureaucrats and many of the scientists, including 1 interviewed in the "swindle" movie, had no involvement or had opposing views to the ones that were published.
One scientist, who proved that malaria would not increase due to rising temperatures (due to global warming or otherwise) told them repeatedly to remove his name from the report, which, of course, stated the worst. Obviously, they ignored him and his (correct, according to me) assessment completely and he wanted his name off the report. After much argument, he finally had to threaten legal action just to get his name removed!
I will not accept data collected and assembled in this manner to form my opinion. The fact that they are grasping at straws of credibility to hold this thing together makes this--"the most important climate change report"--absolutely and indisputably invalid. The scientific community should stand up for themselves and proclaim a "do-over".
I only mention the IPCC report because the 'swindle' movie was mainly just a response to that. It all goes back to the original post of this article: Crying wolf diminishes credibility of anthropogenic climate change "alarmists" (heroes?) as a whole.
Anthropogenic climate change may be real, but I'm reiterating that Gadwin's Law is now in full effect with the popular invocation of the word "denier". The debate is over, but only because we can't behave ourselves.
We may be destroying our planet with greenhouse emissions, or we may be needlessly destroying our economy with alarmism. I don't think we'll know for sure for a long time.
Personally, I've looked at the data, and I'm waiting to be convinced either way.
Latewire
Al Gore political types who are the worst offenders of global warming ( http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,257958,00.html
I was womdering if I'd see something in that FoxNews article but not a thing was said of it. The Gore family used to own, if Al Gore doesn't still own it, stock in Oxidental Petroleum. They were big stockholders.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"what some are calling the warmest US winter in years."
It has actually been one of the coldest in years in the US, and the linked article isn't even about that.
It has been the warmest worldwide with the global average 1.3 degrees (Fahrenheit) above normal, but here in the US it has been one of the coldest. Global warming may be a real issue - real scientists are still divided on that - but the frequent errors such as this are not helping the cause any.
This is of interest not just because this indicates that warming is not good for crops,
There's another reason Global Warming isn't good, especially for crop. At least one study has shown poison ivy not only grows faster when CO2 is higher but it is also a more potent irritant. Other studies have shown some trees grow slower in CO2 rich environments.
FalconShould there be a Law?
If the hot air we have now is endangering global warming, with enough hot air we could get rid of it all together! Someone alert the media!
To scare people into funding you only need a possible threat not an actual threat, your results only need to be inconclusive so you get more funding. There is no money incentive for actually proving global warming while there is a much greater one for proving it does not exist at all. Keeping the uncertainty is CENTRAL to keeping funds coming in. Once most people agree, there will be no more funding--- not much more than they usually get for trying to understand the weather. We don't need the same scientists to solve the problem as we need to clearly define it.
Side issue: oil and coal create other political, health, and environmental problems that we should be trying to resolve anyhow. (short of waiting until its too late or incorrectly addressing it with war...)
The politicization of science ...;
...
... revolution where many/most/all
is like religious politics;
is like economic politics;
is like politicized history;
is like political culture;
is like diplomatic politics;
is like
all politically correct.
All bullshit, no substance,
Spin, Frame, Revisionist, Marketeer
is like the politicization of truth.
It ain't reality, but it is profitable
and the end is always paid for by poor
sacrificial fools, unless it turns into
a SNAFU like the Russian, French,
Chinese
of the privileged dogmatic and parochial
clueless folks are lost, due to delusional
personality inbreeding. GOD forgive them,
because they never truly knew what they
were doing to others and themselves.
Unaccountable leaders are masters, and unrepresented people are slaves. How do US and EU fare?
Yeah, It's hard to listen to eviron*MENTAL*ist when the last 2 winters in cleveland have had record snowfalls and record low temps. Listen people, at one time Greenland was mostly green and had decent farmable land. The Nile river valley was once the most fertile area in the known world, and it became a desert how many years ago, couple thousand? For the sack of the Gods leave the f'ing planet alone. It will change, we will adapt, it's the way it has been since the beginning of friggan time. I can remember when I had just started grade school, the same scientist that were screaming about globe warming today were the same fools who were screaming that the next ice age would happen by 2000.
This is all about money people. These histerical jack-offs need grant money and the only way to get it is by speculating that the doom of all mankind is just around the corner, until proven wrong then it's another pending doom.
Look at it this way; Warmer climates, more CO2, more evaporation, more percipitation, all add up to longer growing seasons. This is a great breakthrough because the planet now needs even more food to support humankind. It's a win win.
Think of this.... In the 40's there was a large contingent of the scientific community that felt that the detonation of atomic devices would trigger a chain reaction that would burn the atmosphere, and once triggered it couldn't be stopped. As global warming really didn't pick up speed until the 60's, maybe they were right, and it just needed time to catalyse. So that proves that GCC is actually caused by the atomic testing in the 40's and 50's.
Or maybe the Mexicans are causing it in a great conspiracy to warm the US so that they can move even more illegals into the US.
I am so sick of hearing this drival....Get off of my rock....
"...a civilian some of the time, a soldier part of the time and a patriot all of the time." -Brig. Gen. James Drain
'nuff said.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
An AC really stood up for the name coward today on another thread. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=226977&cid=183 87065.
Trolling used to be such a fun sport, catch a fish or two, enjoy the Sun and the water.... Now they dynamite the fishes.
c ould-be-paid-for-by.html.
But, it is not clear which side is threatening the warming deniers. It could easily be their own side to manipulate them into crying about it. It turned out that the guy who said he was threatened was a PR guy so it makes you think. They have been less than scrupulous in other ways: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/your-opinion-
Remember the hysteria from the 1980's? Weren't we all supposed to be dead from AIDS by now? Unless of course, it actually turned out to be a disease almost exclusively associated with risky behavior, that is.
And speaking of behavior, homosexuality is a one-hundred-percent behavior-evidenced phenomenon. Tell me which part of the brain was identified as causing homosexuality? Or which sequence of DNA? Which hormone? That's right. Homosexuality, much like stealing or race-car driving, is only proven through behavior. Unlike, say, race or sex, which are quite clearly immutable genetic characteristics.
And before you get all smack-down on me, at least do it for the right reason. I am NOT anti-gay, but I am pro-truth. And saying that any of these things are settled matters of science is simply dishonest.
Why is it that the solution for global warming is the same as it was for global cooling? Why is it that all of these supposed disasters share this feature alone: that the solution is always a wish-list of leftist political, social, or economic theory imposed by force of law upon as much of the world as possible? Meanwhile, there is a real war going on which gets less coverage than dead white women, when there are dead white women to be had, anyway.
The left is distracting itself from the real problems we face in this world which are indeed man-made, but have nothing to do with the weather. Who is Bjorn Lomborg? Who is Omar Hassan al-Bashir? Which name should you recognize?
Global Warming, if it is a real problem, is being obscured by a genuine epidemic: Global Wanking. Finish this quote: "All sound and fury..."
Don't trust anyone under thirty.
in correcting this, would be to stop giving current weather as evidence of global warming - differences in temperature between now and some number of decades ago have nothing to do with the complex subject of systematic "global climate change".
It's usually not advisable to construct your opponents' straw-men for them.
sic transit gloria mundi
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Someone on the INtenet is attacking my username and not the content of my comment.
Ever heard of an athiest Jew. Your morality is likey passed off from some belife in a god even if you don't belive it yourself. Athiest Jews are prime examples of this. I would say you might be too.
Not specifically I haven't heard of an Atheist Jew, but as I've heard of Jews For Jesus, and Sabbatai Zevi, a Jew For Allah, I'm not surprized if there are atheistic Jews. Now as for my own beliefs and religious background, though I'm Roman Catholic, that what my mother is and religion is maternal based, at a young age I converted to Buddhism mentally but kept reading about other religions even taking comparative religion classes in college. So I have not believed in any supreme diety since I was little, no Buddhism doesn't have one. I did believe in a soul or spirit though. However this all changed more than 10 years ago, when I had an accident. After I came out of the coma though I recalled what I previously believed I no longer did believe them. I've been through more than 10 years of trying to meditate and pray and I no longer even believe in a soul or spirit.
FalconShould there be a Law?
We could study the effects we're having on our environment for a very long time without ever having conclusive evidence. The fact is bad things are happening. It may not be the end. We may or may not be having much of an impact on climate change. But it's not like climate change is the only thing we can prevent against by changing the way we live - pollution, extinction of species, overpopulation, water shortages - you know how long the list is. How we're impacting and exactly what we need to do to improve our environment should be a secondary job for scientists. The important thing for everyone else to do is invest in solutions for the problems at hand. Who cares whether we're responsible or not? We only need to concentrate on what we can do improve what's wrong. It's plain to see even without climate change we're going to destroy our environment eventually isn't it? Maybe soon, maybe not. Take a look at our environment 100 years ago, then look at it today and in another 100 years. Logical, yes? Wouldn't it be better to just start doing something now, rather than waiting to hear just what we're responsible for? I know I'd prefer to live in a world where I can actually still do things like take a walk in a forest, drink water out of stream and go fishing rather than just staying in a concrete box somewhere boiling my water with the windows closed to keep out the polluted air. It's not just about survival - it's about quality of life. It's almost hilarious how an insignificant amount of people get blown up in a building and we're willing to invest all our resources and fear into it. Anyone would think the goal of terrorism was to kill people, rather than making them live in fear and divert all their resources into easing that fear. I only wish climate change, disease, pollution, deforestation and extinction of species were as entertaining as some people find terrorism - then maybe we could start taking these problems seriously. Remember, this isn't 'the environment', it's OUR environment. We're not doing this to save a bunch of trees and animals. We're doing this to save ourselves. If we mess this up there will be no more science, money, politics or people left to terrorise. If we don't take matters regarding our environment seriously, no matter how seemingly insignificant or unprovable by science, we're as good as dead.
An Atheist Jew is basicly a person who doesn't belive in god or the mysticle afterlife but belives in the principles offered by the religion. Working hard, spending you money wisely, being wise all thogether and so on.
Judgeing by your description of you religious life, you have been influenced by someone elses religion (and even yours) to the point it has made a moral effect on you. I mean moral effect in that your beliefs of right and wrong, how to treat others and yourself were influenced by someone that had a faith of morals to some extent. And lets be honest, faith basicly means trust and to treat someone moraly, you have to expect and trust you will be treated the same. There isn't a disconect as we would like to belive when rejecting a diety because those around us that directly influence us have taken it to some degree.
I'm sorry to hear about the accident, coma, and position you find yourself in today. Often the support of having a religion like one of the hebrew faiths is that you can trick your mind into beliving there is a purpose outside our existance. It helps some to cope but does nothing for others. Someone once said religion is a crutch for the weak, If you need one, take it.
I'm from a simular background as you. I havn't gone to church since being forced to as a kid, spent most my highschool years explaining to idiots that being athiest doesn't mean I'm a devil worshiper because I wouldn't belive in the devil either. However, I'm not aposed to how religion effects people. So often self proclaimed atheist are rebelling more then reflecting and tend to be strongly against any religion. I look at it as a support group and some people use it.
I do a lot of work for different churches. They seem to think god needs flashy computers and projectors beaming verses and powerpoint presentations behind the pastor as he preaches. Some have schools and devlpoment courses they offer durring the week to anyone who needs it and they usualy have a dozen or two computers. I see how the religions effect these people (they are usualy members of the church anywyas) and I know it is all in their minds. But in their minds, it is all the difference they need. I find that funny and confusing at the same time.
the earth has gone through much warmer spells than what we're experiencing right now - all without the help of SUVs. we just live in a day in age where we feel we have to blame someone (preferably someone with money) for whatever is going on. what about record snowfall in new york ( http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/02/12/northeast.sn ow/) or the fact that it's FREEZING right now in the south and it's march.
the earth goes through climate changes, and guess what? there's actual evidence to prove this! yes we need to watch what we put into our environment, but to say that the reason the climate is changing because of humans...c'mon. use some common sense.
In other words, Do Unto Others... ;)
+Raider of the lost BBS
We have to plan for the future using some model of what is going to happen. "No change" is also a model.
For a layman, the question is whose model we believe is most likely to hold true. We can choose the politicians, or the lobbyists, or Hollywood's, or the scientific community's.
Of these four authorities, I believe most in the last one.
The energy industry has been trying pretty much exactly the same techniques that the tobacco industry used to delay the implementation of anti-smoking laws for decades.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
It's completely true that there's a shortage of data for meteorological events prior to about the last 100 years or so, and this makes it difficult to gauge how things are changing, but it's very misleading to suggest that Global Warming could be a myth just because it's not warm in New Zealand. Note that this doesn't mean that there isn't data about climatic events since before people started formally measuring it, but it's a bit harder to pin down the accuracy.
I live in NZ too, and although I'm not a meteorologist, I have several friends who are and I've learned a bit from them. Most importantly, the name "Global Warming" is misleading and it's frequently mis-used by people who assume that if they're not getting a warm day, it can't possibly be happening. It refers to an average overall warming, which might or might not be localised. There's a lot of hype, misleading journalism, and shoddy science on both sides. But there is a lot of evidence that this is happening. What's not so certain is exactly how it'll affect things, and just how severe it'll be, because the Earth is such a complex beast to try and model.
In New Zealand, the primary problems likely to arise aren't hotter days. The biggest problems New Zealand are likely to have come from an increase in severe weather events as a result of changing global weather patterns -- some would argue that this has already started happening. It could be more events of extreme drought, or extreme rainfall, or very large storms coming through much more frequently, or whatever. (I doubt this will give you warmer days.) The extra extreme events are more difficult to live in, and they tend to cause higher damage, which can be very problematic in a country where people have been allowed and given incentives to develop expensive properties on river banks, for instance. eg. How many more small towns will have to be flooded and re-built with huge government subsidies before someone realises that it might be a bad idea?
This isn't even starting to address potential problems such as mass migration to New Zealand by people trying to escape increased problems in their own countries, but that didn't sound like what you were getting at.
But don't let mere facts get in the way of your attack-the-messenger parade.We are? Really. That's your argument? If we put some sane regulation on the abuse of the commons by corporations, and put some money into some actual green, domestic energy sources, we're instituting absolute communism? I'm intrigued by your ideas and I'd like to subscribe to your newsletter.Wow. You really haven't been listening, have you. Oh, I forgot, 99% of the world's scientists are just in it for the fabulously wealthy lifestyle. Not like the good-hearted kind souls who see through this whole "science" scam, over at, just for example, ExxonMobil.Oh? Just which regulations would you be worried about? The one that requires you to travel exclusively by unicycle, or the one banning disposable toilet paper?
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Don't let mere facts get in the way of your lame debunking, especially since your religious beliefs are being questioned.
If you really believe that global warming is a grave danger, then arguments about usage-per-square-foot might make for an interesting college paper on ethics. But the Earth doesn't care about that, especially if Gore's total output is greater than it should be. An energy hogging mansion is still an energy hogging mansion, no matter how efficient it is. Especially when compared to this guy's house:
December and the first half of January we're warmer than average. The second half of January and February were colder than average, at least in the Midwest.
I wouldn't be surprised to hear they averaged out.
We must remove skepticism from science and restore it to it's former purity!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
The Deniars hate science, and they want to kill the poor and destroy the earth. We must kill them before they kill us!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
Whenever you hear someone ask for evidence to support the state-specified Scientific Consensus, you must report them immediately to the Central Office for Scientific Purity. Children, you must report even your teachers and your parents! Then Earth is in the balance!!!
**THUNDEROUS APPLAUSE**
Twisted for political gain. The democrat part likes to be called the democratic party to place some underlying opinion that the other parties aren't democratic and they are. But this is just a play on words to gain momentum and proof to what you are saying.
Well TJ was both a Democrat and a Republican, his party was the Democrat Republicans or some such name. The other main party of those tymes was the Whig Party. The Democrat Republicans were big on state rights and politics being local. The Whigs though wanted a strong federal government.
FalconShould there be a Law?
A study cited in the original post estimates that crop production would decrease in case of global warming. I think that this is still uncertain. In general, given increased temperature and the same wetness to dryness balance, crop production should increase with warmth because the growing season becomes longer. If the climate becomes dryer, it is true, crop production could decrease. However, if the weather becomes warmer, evaporation becomes greater, which probably leads to greater rainfall amount. Also, farmers would adjust their practices to the new conditions. Therefore I think the trend in future crop production is still in doubt.
Having been quoted by the media for so many years now, you'd think more people would take Chicken Little's warnings more seriously in these last days. Who cares about a slight global warming trend when the sky reaching us is so imminent. Wake up folks!
Heard any good sigs lately?
If global warming is endangered by hot air, let's start producing more of it and thereby stop global warming! Oh wait, it was just another miswritten headline.
There is great interest in raising taxes right away, taxing CO2 production, taxing energy usage, diverting highway transportation budgets to this and that startup to cool down the planet. The level of interest in the solution is vastly greater than the level of interest in the problem. No-one is trying to define the percentage of heating that humans create. No-one is trying to show how much their proposed tax increases would cool down the planet. No-one has shown that X% more government funding will produce Y% of temperature reduction.
CO2 is up nearly 50% from pre-industrial levels, and is expected to reach twice pre-industrial levels by the end of the century.
Various layers of the atmophere have warmed (or even cooled) to varying degrees - and are very consistent with the physical models for AGW (and inconsistent with the models for other explanations).
An Atheist Jew is basicly a person who doesn't belive in god or the mysticle afterlife but belives in the principles offered by the religion.
One sentence in the wiki article really caught my attention, "Much recent Jewish theology makes few if any metaphysical claims". This may be true for Jews but the study of the Tree of Life, Kabala, is getting to be popular. Even the singer Madonna is studying it. Some 20 years ago I did myself and I knew some who were getting into it deeply.
I'm sorry to hear about the accident, coma, and position you find yourself in today. Often the support of having a religion like one of the hebrew faiths is that you can trick your mind into beliving there is a purpose outside our existance. It helps some to cope but does nothing for others. Someone once said religion is a crutch for the weak, If you need one, take it.
Thanks. Yea I sometimes wish I were religious. I could then say I'm putting it, my problems and life in the hands of "God", as a way of coping. However I'm inclined to say that's just a form of copping out. Having said that my former Buddhist beliefs, especially in reincarnation, kept me from committing hari kari, sepaku, or some other ritualistic suicide. I'd think that even if I know longer believe in reincarnation but it was true then I'd have to come back and go through it all over again. Forget logic, rationality, or reason, they couldn't touch this irrational fear.
I do a lot of work for different churches. They seem to think god needs flashy computers
Before the internet took off, mid '90s, and became popular I met this couple who started a hosting and isp business and they designed and hosted websites for a number of churchs.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The problem with climate models is that you only hear about the ones that give extreme results. There is no news value (or grant value for that matter) in reporting models that don't give extreme results."
"Extreme results" is probably an invalidate assumption. Scientists practice a lot of self censorship.
So much so, that the published IPCC reports are widely considered to be under estimates of the true effects.
The GW outcomes you haven't heard about are those which trigger an E.L.E. that mankind is unlikely to survive.
The scientific consensus is to curb CO2 emissions A.S.A.P. in order to reduce the probability of triggering an E.L.E.
... or anyone else who isn't knee-jerk hostile to the idea that governments can improve things by meddling with their Holy Free Market.
It's not about the Socialist Party per se. There is a subset of people out there who have an almost religious devotion to the primacy of consumption, as well as a belief that there is no problem that the "Free Market" cannot solve, and no problems that government intervention is capable of solving. Anyone who disagrees with these principles is automatically a "socialist" in their minds.
Further, anyone who criticizes the fundamental structure of modern, globalized, corporate capitalism is automatically trying to weaken or hurt America.
In my mind, anyone ranting about "socialists trying to hurt America" immediately discredits himself as a source of valid information, as they're stuck in this unrealistic mindset. Plus, they don't actually know what a socialist is.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
Goddamn..
How can any 'respected' scientist even question global warming when the public response is cutting off funding and ridicule? I merely posted that I have trouble believing either way - but that it seems that I'm being 'pushed' into believing global warming whether I see hard evidence of it or not - and I get modded a TROLL.
Seriously? Am I a troll? A +2 modifier on Slashdot, 10 replies, good discussion ensuing.. I posted that I haven't even made up my mind and I get modded to a TROLL.
The stupid fvcking idiots that are trying to convince me to believe in global warming the hardest are also the ones that want to silence any sort of questions I have on the issue. How the hell will anyone be convinced that the 'consensus' is human-influenced global warming if anyone that doubts it is ridiculed and told to STFU?
I'm not a fvcking TROLL... well this post, maybe.. but not my first one.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
That's a pretty selfish point of view, tho I suppose you are somewhat self righteous when you are annoyed at Al Gore not being the greatest example.
I'd just like to say that, as far as Global Warming goes, it's pretty much Going To Happen (TM). Ignoring that is tantamount to ignoring the consensus of our scientific community, academic-chasing-grants or not. If you want to classify that as mere statistical noise, you might as well start ignoring all the other things that community has pretty-much-reached a consensus on - why not start drinking pesticides, forego sun block cremes at all times, offer your backyard as a nuclear waste disposal site. I mean, any such prediction can also be classified as 'mere statistical noise' if you draw your histograms just right. Let's be be consistent! Science is Satan spelled backwards, afterall.
So, assuming you trust scientists most of the time, even if you wish to continue to disregard Global Warming, you still can't argue that cutting back our pollution is going to somehow fundamentally hurt us. It just can't possibly hurt to cut back on the amount of crap we dump into our environment. There are thousands of carcinogens and heavy metals in the air of our cities all put there by the internal combustion engine or industry.
More pertinently, we are not "being asked to overturn the very edifice of free-market capitalism". Jeez, guy. There are govermental regulations in EVERY industry, starting with establishing a minimum wage all the way to forbidding the usage of dangerous chemicals. You wouldn't suck on a car's tail pipe or inhale a factory's chimney's output; why are we okay with having millions of them flushing it all out, all the time? It's a basic fact that it eventually comes back to haunt us or others along the way. Why not extend the current regulations to curb excessive CO2 production? Presumably that so well regarded free market will just innovate around the new restrictions and we're all back to where we began.
Making this happen today is essentially hedging our bets. If GW happens, we don't fuck up the planet. If it doesn't, we presumably have a more efficient industry that shits out less carcinogens. Win-win, n'est pas?
At the very least our kids will live healthier, longer lives.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/comedy/nowshow.shtml BBC Radio4 at its finest, answers the climate change question this week....
Dear Mr. Wall Of Text
b Learn to
Use some
FUCKING
line breaks
you linguistically-retarded moron
Why did your expert debunker get the regional per-square-foot energy usage by taking the regional per household energy usage and divide it into the national average square footage? The guy is trying to prove statistically that Al Gore's mansion is using a shocking amount of energy even for its size, but doing that really shows that he doesn't know what he's doing.
So, your main argument is that Bush is the better environmentalist than Gore, because he owns the smaller, more energy efficient home? This, despite the fact that President Bush--who is actually in a position to make a huge dent in climate change--has stonewalled on fuel economy standards, employs a vice president who has basically dismissed the idea of conservation, has loosened all manner of environmental standards and gutted enforcement, and whose administration has pressured government scientists to avoid talking about their climate research? Compared to the climate-wrecking effects of Bush's policies, the difference between the houses of these two is vastly less than a rounding error.
Now, if Bush is actually a Green at heart, but has swallowed the free market kool-aid, then he can hardly be called a hypocrite. But let's face it, the policies Bush and Gore are pushing on a national level will have results that dwarf any personal consumption choices they will make.
Now, I'm actually annoyed by Gore's consumption. I don't think the personal choices he's made are the sorts that will really solve our impending environmental crises. But from the 30,000 foot view (you know, the lofty hight from which you can see how much of Baghdad is not on fire), this entire Gore mansion story is about promoting one single idea: Al Gore uses a lot of electricity, so Al Gore is a hypocrite. Let's ignore the unstated subtext of "therefore global warming isn't real". If Al believes that green energy offset programs actually work (which he would be right to do), and he's buying enough green energy to make up for his own energy usage, then that is an absolute, ironclad defense against any charges of hypocrisy.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
all this ice core data
Ice core, smiisch core... Forget about global warming, because the _core_ of the earth is about to stop spinning!
I saw it on this movie a while ago... oh well, we're all gonna die... Mmmmm! I smell Barbecue! Aaaaaww!! It's german potato salad!!
No sig for you! Come back one year!
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
Another good intro if you live in California, is Our Changing Climate - Assessing the Risk to California. This summary (based on very credible science) shows, among other things, scenarios where we'll lose 90% of the snowpack in the Sierras.
ok, i live near boston. here's the deal. last wednesday it was 74 degrees in our fair state. last friday we received around 7 inches of snow. it was the only snowstorm we received all winter, and it was halfway through march. after a 74 degree day. Something is up with our planet. It probably can't be fixed at this point, but the inevitable can be slowed. Use lower watt light bulbs and turn them off when you're not in the room. Use public transportation when you can. Those are the best things you can do. No one expects you to drop everything and buy a Prius/Insight/Civic Hybrid/Highlander Hybrid/Escape Hybrid/RX350h, or become an activist and make your own shoes. just have a little common sense and think of the big picture.
oh marmalade.