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."
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!
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.
There are only "sides" in the media circus and among non-scientists. The scientists are pretty much unanimous about basic facts, and only really disagree on the details.
Details such as "is it already too late to do anything?".
It's "revealing" only if you ignore the facts that it contains well-known falsehoods and misrepresentations that have been debunked long before it was produced. What it "reveals" is that its producers were pushing an agenda, and that agenda did not involve telling the truth.
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
They certainly don't all agree on Al Gores take on it, and they don't all agree on the "Day after tomorrow's" take on it.
Neither of those are scientists, so I don't know why you even bring them up.
If you aren't equally as educated as the scientists in the scientific method, and in fact if you're not part of their peer group, yes, you can only be brainwashed by the evidence they come up with.
This statement makes no sense whatsoever.
Ok, here is what I said:
There are only "sides" in the media circus and among non-scientists. The scientists are pretty much unanimous about basic facts, and only really disagree on the details.
If I'm telling people to ignore the nonsense being blasted on all sides in the media, I am brainwashed. If I tell people to listen to scientists instead of journalists, I am brainwashed.
What exactly are you disagreeing with here?
Okay smartypants, explain why the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere throughout history had a dependent relationship with temperature, rather than a independent one. Also explain why, if CO2 is the cause of the current warming trend, we are not seeing rapid heating in the troposphere over the equator like most scientists accept that we should be seeing if global warming is baed off of a feedback loop from greenhouse gases.