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)
>>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
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.
You could try just listening to the actual scientists, and not the media circus.
For instance, http://realclimate.org/.
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
It's time mother nature died from exposure. She's taken enough people in the same fashion!
'Why can't people just say, "Hell.. I'm not sure which side I believe yet."'
I was scholar.googling the other day on the genetic determinents of political orientation and learned that people who describe themselves as conservatives tend to be made uncomfortable by ambiguity. Liberals are OK not having definite answers to everything but it causes pain on the right. I used to say "an engineer is a scientist with math phobia" but since my professors tended left and every engineer I know tends right, I think I'll add "an engineer is a scientist with ambiguity phobia."
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.
This is certainly true, a local newspaper reported only yesterday that this is the warmest winter in 7 years IIRC, and also had a list which--to the critical observer--showed that the winter 8 years ago(as it were) was even warmer...
What really frightens me is the quite incredibly polarized posts on slashdot.
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.
Actually China, which has a higher population than ours currently emits about 60% of the GHGs the US emits. By making China reduce its emissions while those in the US and Europe are per capita way above theirs, is basically saying: We got to industrialization first so we get the privileges of polluting the atmosphere... You will NEVER get a developing state to agree to such logic. The only fair way to regulate global GHG's in my opinion is to have some per capita ceiling. Your logic would make that ceiling much higher in developed states. Is that fair? If you were the president/parliament of a developing state why would you ever agree to such an arrangement? According to Jared Diamond's "Collapse" if the Chinese polluted as much per capita as the United States, world co2 emissions would increase by about 94%, almost doubling. That should give you an idea of how much more of the atmosphere America is owning, so to speak.
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.
Just look at this it makes my point way better: CO2e t/person -- USA: 24.09 China: 3.05 India: 1.34 The whole human race needs to find a way to reduce global emissions. According to these numbers, where should that start?
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
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.
That's complete hogwash. I know plenty of engineers who are fine with ambiguity, and tons of engineers who are extremely liberal (I'm one of them). Just because you don't know any doesn't mean they're rare. In fact, I would venture that conservative-leaning scientists seem more out of place, given what you said above. Scientists have to be able to accept that they don't know things, and understand and be comfortable with realistically defining the boundary between what they do and don't know. If you're uncomfortable with having large swaths of your subject in a very undefined state, you're not going to be a very good scientist, because you'll be pushed towards defining things sooner than you should.
Now, I'll agree with you that conservatives tend to like to declare that they know the answer to things, whether they do or not. I think it's at the root of their attitude towards welfare (that person's homeless, he must be lazy), the economy (rich people deserve tax cuts because they work harder than everyone else), and religion (it's okay to make laws based on the bible, because the bible is true, and God says we should) and a bunch of other issues. But to apply it to science-minded people in the way you have seems quite backwards to me.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
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.
Only zero emmission treaties with military penalties (enforced by Global Warming Alliance countries) need be considered here. Kyoto is just a huge strawman. The real issue is not reducing the rate of human produced CO2, but eliminating it entirely. Outlawing all combustion. All else is nothing more than political posturing. Is delaying doomsday by a few years or even a few decades really going to matter? We are talking about the end of all terrestrial life on our planet here. If it truly is going to happen, we should be stopping it instead of just slowing it down a bit. Or is your goal to just live out your normal lifespan after which the next generation dies like a bunch of microwaved cats as a result?
Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
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.
Could the local newspaper be true if the graph was for 'this country' and the print said 'in the world'? Quite often you have to check real close on graphs and statistics. And sources for reliability.
:P ;).
On polarization. It is remarkable how many discussions on Slashdot end up in the same controversies: Microsoft/Linux Firefox/Opera(/IE) Christianity/Atheism(/other religions) Republicans/Liberals.
Actually this topic made me increase the number of friends&enemies I have here, just to be able to filter shortsighted opinions so I don't have to spend time on them. Of course i am veeeery neutral and unbiased
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.
It's not me, it's just what I read. But you sorta fit what I'm talking about.
... be comfortable with realistically defining the boundary between what they do and don't know."
Mr. Engineer says "Scientists have to
Dr. Scientist says scientists are comfortable not being able to define such a boundary.
Why can't people just say, "Hell.. I'm not sure which side I believe yet." ??
I've got an better question: "Why do I even need to believe in one of these two sides?" This issue isn't being treated like a scientific matter, it's being treated like a dodgeball game where we have to pick sides. I don't have to believe in global warming to know that I shouldn't pollute. I don't have to believe in catastrophic climate change to know that I should conserve resources. Duh!
There used to be a time when conservation was pragmatic thing. You turned off your lights when you weren't using them, because it lowered your electric bill. But that changed into a quasi-religious environmentalism, where today you turn off your lights when you aren't using them because it will save the planet and stop Baby Gaia from crying!
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
"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.
60% of the US?! I find that VERY hard to believe, given both how quickly CHina has been expanding and how extensive the pollution distributions I've seen have been over China. All those new 2-stroke scooter engines are somewhat more offensive in terms of CO2 than even my 8-cyl towncar.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
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.
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?
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?
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.
The problem is that is exactly what is going on, despite a very clear consensus in the scientific community.
For every respected scientist that comes out in favor FOR global warming, there is another respected scientist that comes out against it..
That you say that means you aren't really paying attention. Can't totally blame you given the false equivalence the media has allowed, but that is still wrong.
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 I point out almost every time this topic comes up, there is still no meaningful debate amongst the scientists. There are always a few crackpots (Flat-Earth Society anyone?), but amongst real scientists publishing in quality peer-reviewed journals, the debate is not whether anthropomorphic global warming is happening, but how much and how quickly.
What bothers me, as a scientist, is that even this article gets used in the he said/she said argument, when even the scientists it is discussing say, "I've no doubt that global warming is occurring..."
-Ted
-=-=- Quantum physics - the dreams stuff are made of.
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!
On polarization. It is remarkable how many discussions on Slashdot end up in the same controversies: Microsoft/Linux Firefox/Opera(/IE) Christianity/Atheism(/other religions) Republicans/Liberals.
Ah, it just goes to show how far we went from the USA's founding for a Republican to be ashamed of being a Liberal. My favorite Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson was both a Liberal and a Republican. He believed in liberty, eg liberal, and small government. Unfortunately the popular meanings of words have been twisted so they no long mean what they used to mean.
FalconShould there be a Law?
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?
I guess you could just call it regional warming then, eh?
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.
If by "respected scientist" you mean oil industry or Republican party shill. In reality, there are very few respectable scientists who deny the existence of global warming. I also haven't really heard many people who actively support global warming, as you say. There are those who deny it exists, but only a few whackos actually support the idea of global warming - like those who believe that Kent Brockman line about driving our cars more so we can have hotter weather at the beach. And I don't think they are scientists.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
"Outlawing all combustion."
Thank goodness we have people like you proposing realistic, rational solutions to global warming. I wish you luck.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
The association of a person doesn't discredit the science they are doing. If there is a problem with the science, point it out. It will speek for itself. If there isn't anything wrong with their science then we have a big problem with some science being ignored in favor of competing theorys. And this simple fact means that those competing theories are no longer scientific or corect!
And lets not forget the death threats. Who has more to lose when scientist denying anthropomorphic global warming have their lives threatend? Why is it we aren't reading about Global warming supporters getting their lives threatend. And what besides the conection to a republican or big oil is so important that it needs covered up like this.
I don't think we are even close to having the full story!
Personaly, I give more weight to a scientist who lost his job and had his life trashed because his reasearch supported something specific and he stuck with that result or someone who has had their life threatend but is still willing to tell it like it is then I would to some one playing it safe and repeating what they were told. Historicly, the ones doing this in spite of everything working against them have emerged to be the heros in history!
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!
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?
'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-
Let's not, and say we didn't. GDP is a bogus metric. It measures the absolute value
t Indi/gpi/gpi_main.shtml
of the money flow. Prisons and insurance claims boost, instead of diminish, the GDP.
If you use an alternative metric such as the GPI, you see that we don't do as much
as you might think (and are relatively stagnant to boot).
http://www.redefiningprogress.org/newprograms/sus
Were that I say, pancakes?
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
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.
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.
In making that statement, I was assuming that there was a large grey area in between the two more well-defined extremes. Sorry if I left that ambiguous :-P
The point was that to be a good scientist, you have to be okay with saying, "I don't know the answer to this. I've been doing experiments on it for 30 years, and I still can't tell you for sure." And the reason is, if you're not comfortable with that, you're probably going to start biasing your studies, or massaging your results to fit the outcome you want or expect. While science is at its core the enterprise of reducing ambiguity, a willingness to embrace ambiguity when it's realistically called for is something no scientist (or engineer) can do without.
Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
The Urban Hippie
Well, you know what they say, it only takes 20 years for a liberal to become a conservative without changing a single opinion. Think about it. (I must credit the slashdot fortune for that insightful thought).
Qxe4
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?)
Except I didn't say that. These people are shills. They aren't "working in the oil industry" - they are mercenaries who are willing to publish self-serving bullshit about climate change for political reasons, not scientific ones. And the "respectable scientists" in this field are working in the field of climatology - they aren't working "against the oil industry." Notice how most of the shills who post climate change denial articles and books aren't actually climatologists.
The association of a person doesn't discredit the science they are doing. If there is a problem with the science, point it out. It will speek for itself.And the problems with the science have been pointed out constantly, by real climatologists. But it doesn't "speak for itself" because the media distorts these things, and doesn't look at the science, and instead treats it like a Fox News controversy.
And lets not forget the death threats. Who has more to lose when scientist denying anthropomorphic global warming have their lives threatend?What the fuck are you talking about?
Personaly, I give more weight to a scientist who lost his job and had his life trashed because his reasearch supported something specific and he stuck with that result or someone who has had their life threatend but is still willing to tell it like it is then I would to some one playing it safe and repeating what they were toldI thought you said that a person's affiliation should not affect the scientific truth. Now you are saying that the science doesn't matter, but threats on someone's life does.
Also, you're "repeating what they are told" rubrick is more characteristic of the global warming deniers, who say what their corporate sponors want them to, rather than the real climatologists who report their scientific findings.
Historicly, the ones doing this in spite of everything working against them have emerged to be the heros in history!Right. The climatologists who fearlessly report the truth, in the face of an industrialized sociaety which does not want to face the truth. Those are the heroes, not those who repeat bullshit for corporate dollars.
... and then they built the supercollider.
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.
You didn't? I'm confused here because you specificly said f by "respected scientist" you mean oil industry or Republican party shill. Interestingly, You not saying all scientist working for the oil industry are shills. It just seems the ones who don't agree with the global warming as it is being present are. Name a few of thesde mercenaries and point to who is doing the work. Otherwise shut up about the inuendos that you cannot prove.
lol..Latly, every "climatologist" who disagrees with the global warming crowd seems to be labeled as shills. And yes, getting paid by the oil industry to state a claim is working for the oil indistry. This is everything you were implying. And It is ironic that no one ever refutes the claim outside they are paid shills for one group or another. Is there something that valuable in their information that needs to be hiden?
I can help but laugh. You bring up fox news like it is a bad thing. But I bet you are suffering from the very same problem. So please tell me what this fascination is with fox news. I bet you will be surprised. And another thing, You put too much weight into the word climatologist. But if a climatoligist is the only thing that matters to you, Here is one account From a real climatoligist that says exactly what I said and more.
You know exactly what I'm talking about. The scientist in canada who admited he recieves serveral death threats because of speaking his oposition to the way global warming is being presented. Ands yes, He too is a real life climatoligist!
When they are being threatend with death iof they don't shut up instead of someone refuting thier science? Come on. It would be different if someone is willing to discredit him. Instead they threaten his life for speaking what his teachings and observations have told him. You have three positions here. First there is the global warming is a problem caused by humans. Then you have a position that say no it isn't and here is why. Now you have a position that says shut the hell up or we will kill you. Why is the responce to his claims shut up or die? Why isn't it, "well you did this wrong or this number doesn't belong here"? Instead it is belive as we do, shut up or die. Real scientific here.
Who cares if they have corperate sponsors. Is there something wrong with their science other then it disagreeing with the "good book". Does being a non beliver automaticly make what you say worthless? Make you deserve losing your job or getting death thr
The explanation for this is simple: The numbers we're being fed here are bullshit. Well over 99% of Americans have access to and frequently use motorized transport, electricity and manufactured goods. The same cannot be said about the Chinese. Effectively, by averaging out emissions over a vast array of people who do not have access to emissions producing goods and services, Chinese industry is inaccurately portrayed as cleaner and greener than Americas. As economic progress reaches more and more Chinese citizens, this will change and a straight average will become more informative. Currently it's nothing more than a handy club with which to bash the US.
"Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
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
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.
While there is little debate in the scientific community, because of the hostile political atmosphere that prevents it, there is little or no consensus either. I read all the peer-reviewed climate articles that are made available -- it is true, that many of the pay lips service to the AGW theory in their closing remarks. Many of them do not -- many of them state that their findings are not compatible with the AGW theory. When the theory is addressed in the positive, it is usually based upon the politically mandated assumption that the theory is true. It is rarely claimed in terms of "the evidence I've provided here bolsters the theory of AGW". When it's cited in the negative it is always because of exactly that, i.e. the evidence undermines the theory.
The only tangible evidence that is ever provided for AGW is the computer models. But computer models are computer versions of the theory itself -- not evidence! This circular argument runs amonk throughout the pro-AGW "scientific" community. It is literaly the only way to defend the theory.
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....
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!
Ahh, the classic RealClimate debating technique: attack the messenger, not the message. (I haven't even looked at the web site, but I really don't care *who* says something, I only care about *what* they say.)
"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.