26 Common Climate Myths Debunked

holy_calamity writes to mention that New Scientist is revealing the truth behind the '26 most common climate myths' used to muddy the waters in this ongoing heated debate. "Our planet's climate is anything but simple. All kinds of factors influence it, from massive events on the Sun to the growth of microscopic creatures in the oceans, and there are subtle interactions between many of these factors. Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."

Comments

FUD

[Chicken04GTO]

Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences".
If people want others to take this stuff seriously, stop with the FUD.

Re:FUD

[meringuoid]

Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences".

Nobody was trying to support a population of six billion settled agriculturalists at the time, though.

Re:FUD

[ivano]

"Bullshit" to what. All the peer reviewed articles. Anyway they answered your "questions". http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/dn11647 Just believe in ID, it has more prove that the stuff you pull out.

Re:FUD

[ComaVN]

How do you know previous climate fluctuations were without, as you put it, "zomg serious consequences" for the species living at the time?

Re:FUD

[arkhan_jg]

Yes, the earth has been much warmer in the past. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, for example. However, they didn't have up to a billion people living within a meter of sea-level.
It really doesn't take much melting of currently land-bourne ice to cause massive displacement problems for a lot of people. Look at a map of your country. See how many of the major cities are coastal ports.
Were it not for the very expensive Thames Barrier, London would already have ended up like New Orleans at a couple of points. It may well still be over-run this century.

Don't worry what may happen to most of the coastal cities. I'm sure you live well away from the sea. Shame so much trade, and thus the global economy runs through them.

Re:FUD

[Greyfox]

Well we'd ask them but they're all extinct. Oh... wait...

Re:FUD

[Cpt_Kirks]

The problem with "peer review" is the "peers". If the individuals doing the review have a bias, the approved, reviewed information will reflect that bias.

I don't aggree with Gore's "case closed" statment. I think human activity has an effect on the climate, anybody who thinks we have no effect is either ignorant or a fool. However, I don't know that we are the determining factor. We simply don't have enough information yet. There is a LOUD chorus of individuals who claim to be sure, and they drown our the scientists that say we need more study.

I am WAY more worried about more serious pollutants. We are pumping materials many times more toxic than CO2 into the air and water. I think we will face problems like rising cancer rates, mutations and sterility that will effect us decades before this minor (yes, minor) climate change.

But I also hate the frakking heat.

Re:FUD

[Rei]

Quite to the contrary of the GP's assertion, climate has caused catastrophically large extinction events in the past. Thankfully, climate doesn't swing wildly very often on it's own.

Also, notice that it's not, say, a high temperature or high CO2 levels that are bad. It's the *rapid change* that is bad, and as far as rate of change, this current one is only really bested by asteroid/comet impacts and supervolcanism. A disturbing example of this is the "Great Dying" (the Permian-Triassic event), largely brought about by Earth's largest known volcanic event (the eruption of the "Siberian Traps"), which doubled Earth's CO2 levels, created acid rain, and all sorts of other effects that mimic Man's impact on the modern world (the other major theory also involves global warming, but from methane unleashed by the traps instead of CO2; either way, the warming aspect is generally uncontested, as the evidence is so strong). Over a million or so years (most concentrated in a few hundred thousand), the vast majority of multicellular life died as ecosystems were thrown out of balance, and hundreds of millions of years of evolution were undone. For a while after this eruption, the dominant species on the planet were fungi -- decomposers. Slowly eating all of the dead.

Re:FUD

[Ragingguppy]

Those people who talk about ice melting and water logging the cities of the world haven't taken into consideration the increased evaporation in the Oceans. The Indian ocean for example is 30cm lower then what gravity says it should be due to an increased evaporation. The oceans haven't been going up in fact due to such evaporation. Water evaporates from the ocean and gets deposited elsewhere Like in the east antarctic where the ice sheet is actually growing not shrinking. That is the balance of the globe.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea, its a damn crying shame that global warming prohibits one from building ports. ;_;

Re:FUD

[fyngyrz]

You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)

Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.

Re:FUD

[Burnhard]

This argument is insane. I live in East Anglia (United Kingdom). 10,000 years ago it stretched right across to Europe. The north sea didn't exist. Mammoth roamed where the channel is today. Sea level has risen 300 feet since then and you are concerned about a rise of 1 or 2 meters over 100 years? Let me ask you a question: would you prefer global temperatures increased or decreased? They sure as hell aren't going to remain the same and you have no idea whether or not the current climate and temperatures are optimal for supporting anything, from Orange tree frogs to Mum and Dad. Your whole argument is predicated on the fact that we can actually keep global climate as it is today. I'm in dispair at the irrationality of the whole ridiculous argument.

Re:FUD

[OwnedByTwoCats]

So demonstrate the bias. Wild claims of "there could be bias" without actually pointing out the bias are worthless.

Why don't you think that human activity is a determining factor in the atmospheric CO2 levels?

Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries (e.g. automobiles, electric power)?

Re:FUD

[Rei]

Yeah! And you know, four out of five dentists recommend chewing sugarfree gum. I go to Dr. Kyle Charles Finnegan, the "out out of five dentists" who recommends gum with sugar in it.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

What happened 10000 years ago is pretty irrelevant. What is important is what effect a 1 or 2 metre sea level rise will have on the infrastructure we have now and what we can do to mitigate these effects on the economy.

Re:FUD

[WATYF]

"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." - Michael Crichton

Re:FUD

[Old Benjamin]

So demonstrate the bias. Wild claims of "there could be bias" without actually pointing out the bias are worthless.
Now let us apply this to your last statement: How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries

fossil fuel consuming industries... are every industry because every industry uses power!

And do you know what else is a wild claim... humans are causing global warming. So far I have seen conclusive evidence that A: The earth is warming. B: CO2/Greenhouse gas levels are rising. C: In the past, global warming and CO2/Greenhouse gas levels rose at the same time. Sadly, Correlation does not equal Causation. In addition, global warming has been happening for hundreds of year... It has been a few hundred years since the last spurt of global warming. Of course, in 1400 there wasn't any industry.

If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen. Unfortunately they have yet to do so.

Re:FUD

[evanbd]

However, I don't know that we are the determining factor. We simply don't have enough information yet. There is a LOUD chorus of individuals who claim to be sure, and they drown our the scientists that say we need more study.

I agree completely; however I don't think that means it's ok to not do anything. There is a lot of evidence that we are an important factor. It's not obviously a closed case, and it does need more study, but we also need to avoid the trap of "paralysis through analysis." We can commission study after study and await results until it is either too late or the costs of fixing it have gone up. At this point, the evidence is strong enough that it should be clear we are better off starting to solve the problem *now*, while continuing to study it, than we are postponing a solution while the problem gets harder to solve in hopes that we've been wrong.

Put another way, "needs more study" vs "fix the problem" is a false dichotomy -- there is nothing to say we can't start solving the problem now, while it's still tractable, while *also* continuing to study it to make sure both that we're solving the problem in the best manner and that it actually exists / is solvable.

Re:FUD

[Rei]

Oh, you can build ports. You'll just be at risk of the land they're on and around them turning into swamps and jungles, which produce less food. It's a lot cheaper to just have your engineers clean up the pollution than to have them keep irrigating the land around the port back into grasslands.

Re:FUD

[Gerzel]

"Just believe in ID, it has more prove that the stuff you pull out."

Oh really? Care to site sources for this proof?

Most of the so-called "proof" for Intelligent Design rests on claims that the probability of life coming about as it did is so low that some mind has to be behind it. However, if the universe is one big roll of the dice than every possibility is equally likely, and thus while any one particular possibility can occur by chance w/o the help of God.

Furthermore, the ID supporters assume that there was only a single chance for life to occur in the universe. From what we have seen from studying the universe and space exploration this is probably far from the case. Mars, Venus, and several moons in our solar system may all have at one time or in some cases may still support microbial life. A single chance in a million will probably not yield much, but a billion runs at a one in a million shot should give several successes. There are billions upon billions of stars. We have already seen several with planets.

All that said. I do believe that there is a higher order to the universe, but simply putting things as "God did it" is both a disservice to mankind and a thoughtless disrespect for any such God who I am pretty well sure put us on this earth for more than just kissing up to him.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

There is, in fact, fairly compelling evidence through geological proxies (over much much broader periods than the instrument-based data) that:
1. The Earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles in the past. The current cycle is not outside this norm.
2. We have been in a warming phase since long before industrialization. In fact, the current warming trend dates back something like 18kyrs.
3. Temperature changes lead CO2 level changes, not the other way around. This strongly supports the idea that higher temperatures somehow cause CO2 levels to rise, not vice versa. (One theory suggests that lower gas solubility in the oceans, a major sink for CO2, as they warm -- far more slowly than the air -- accounts for much of this release.)

Re:FUD

[ravenshrike]

Peer review only works if the skeptics are allowed to poke and prod without intereference. Which is not the case with global warming. Given that non of the computer models can properly measure the effects clouds have on the climate, I'm extremely skeptical of any evidence produced thereby. Not to mention apparently we're responsible for a proportionate amount of warming on mars.

Re:FUD

[Holmwood]

And rising CO2 levels means higher plant growth. Yes, TFA notes concerns with water supply and ground level air pollution, but the former is partly independent, and the latter is independent of global warming (i.e. one can have cleaner air and rising (or falling) CO2.

As for the posts below which respond with "yes, warmer in the age of the dinosaurs", well, there's a reason why Greenland was named Greenland. It was green, merely a few centuries ago.

On the whole, that set of articles actually makes a decent case (for me) that global warming will be beneficial for wealthy northern regions with plenty of fresh water and limited exposure to rising water levels. (Canada, Greenland, Scandinavia in particular. Russia ... maybe, with oil money to adapt crops). The US South, including Texas (irony of ironies) maybe not so much.

No, even assuming their arguments and that conclusion (above) is correct, I don't suggest that we therefore ignore global warming if we live in one such region. We're one world after all. But I do find it ironic that the countries that may actually benefit from such changes are amongst the most concerned about the problem, while regions that could suffer serious harm seem to be far less concerned.

Re:FUD

[slartibart]

Maybe my education on evolution and biology leaves something to be desired, but some of the things you said sound false on their face.

A huge increase in the number of fungi organisms (eating the dead) couldn't possibly last very long, since dead organisms don't reproduce. I would expect the fungi to increase exponentially in population until all the food was consumed, and that probably wouldn't take long. It only takes them an instant (in evolutionary timescales) to eat what's in your fridge. So I don't see how fungi could have been dominant for "a while" if you mean more than a handful of years. If you say the "food" died slowly then the fungi would not be able to expand exponentially and therefore couldn't have been dominant. Am I missing something?

Also I don't think hundreds of millions of years of evolution were undone. I find it interesting that "53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species" were wiped out. Notice that the biggest losses were the "leaves" of the evolutionary tree. Half the limbs remained intact. Using the tree analogy (which I think holds in this case), it's a lot easier for a tree to regrow leaves than limbs - as you know trees lose and regrow all their leaves every year.

And I am aware that real trees can lose all their leaves and keep their branches, but the species tree cannot. So obviously the 4% of marine species that survived must have been quite diverse. That's why I don't think hundreds of millions of years of evolution were undone.

Re:FUD

[john83]

So maybe if it gets warmer the agriculturalists can grow crops in Iceland, Ireland etc.. because currently it's too COLD there to do so consistently ! Ireland has been an agrarian society for thousands of years and has a temperate climate. Even Iceland has a healthy farming industry, though the growing season is short. I realise ignorance isn't much fun, but there's no need to share it.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

So maybe we just need to thin the population. In the past nature has handled this on its own through disease and the food/supply chain. However, as humans, we have found ways around these with vaccines and mass food production. So now population continues to increase and increase as we live longer and birth rates are much higher. When animal populations increase, we increase the hunting rate because that is the "humane" thing to do. What is the humane thing to do when it is us humans who are over populated?

Re:FUD

[mmdog]

Nothing curbs population growth as much as development. Most (if not all) industrialized nations have zero or negative population growth. It basically works like this: in a modern industrialized country, children are a liability in preparation for a time when you are too old to work. In a third world country, children are insurance that you will be cared for when you are too old to provide for yourself (not to mention they are free labor on a farm, in a sweatshop, etc...)

Re:FUD

[cayenne8]

"Were it not for the very expensive Thames Barrier, London would already have ended up like New Orleans at a couple of points."

Well, thank your lucky stars you didn't have the Army Corps of Engineers build your barrier. Remember, Katrina itself, did NOT cause the flooding problems in NOLA. It was due to substandard, shortcut ridden, poorly designed levees that the US Feds (Corps of Engineers) constructed that failed and flooded the city. It was really a manmade error that caused the problem.

Trouble is...we're seeing signs that these same errors are being repeated in the rebuilding of the levees...just waiting to fail again.

Frankly, I don't trust a govt. program to ever get anything right these days....

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

this minor (yes, minor) climate change.

Tell that to the polar bears who are drowning in the Arctic Sea.

Re:FUD

[AaronW]

And you can bet that the Senate hand picked the scientists who speak. There is rarely unanimous consensus on any scientific issue, yet in this case, the vast majority support global warming with the primary cause being human activity. Most of the scientists who claim otherwise are employed or paid by some of the oil companies like Exxon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_contro versy.

Re:FUD

[Ragingguppy]

HERE HERE!!! Bravo I totally agree. I think CO2 is not even much of an issue personally. The earth has mechanisms in place to deal with this chemical. Either through plant growth or oceans cooling. But the other toxins are much more of a problem. I think habitat reduction is a big issue for wild life and in some areas like in western Canada and Eastern Canada habitat loss has been responsible for the loss of two fisheries. There are no more boughs left in the world because we have drained them all. This is a huge issue for wild life and dealing with toxins in the environment because boughs are known to break down harmful chemicals. Where is the environmental movement there. I'll tell you where they are. Lobbying government on CO2 reduction.

Re:FUD

[h2_plus_O]

Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action?

Who said anything about needing more study before taking action? The parent simply disagrees with the assertion that the case is closed, which is not the same thing as saying action should be postponed.

This is a reasonable position to take, given the ongoing inquiry nature of science itself. Sure, there's a consensus, but it's all still theory and there's still a lot of good science to be done on this one. ...and oh yeah, you don't have to believe the consensus to align on the notion that we should do something about that polluting we've been up to, which seems to be the whole reason everybody's up in arms trying to convince us that we are the primary cause of global warming.

We should take action *and* do more study- and we should do our best to make irrelevant the folks who want to dogmatize science.

Re:FUD

[baboo_jackal]

This is exactly what I don't like about this debate:

The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork... The point is that historical anecdotes about the past climate, such as the claim that Greenland used to be green, or that Newfoundland (Vinland) was full of grapes, have to be treated with caution.
So, claims that the planet has been warmer in the past can't be justified using temperature reconstructions or local phenomena.

What is clear, both from the temperature reconstructions and from independent evidence - such as the extent of the recent melting of mountain glaciers - is that the planet has been warmer in the past few decades than at any time during the medieval period.
Yet, somehow the same "guesswork"-ey temperature reconstructions and local phenomena *can* be used as evidence to support claims that the planet *hasn't* been warmer in the past.

Here's my issue: I'm not sure of the extent of our part in that warming, but I think we ought to minimize our negative impact as much as possible. But the polarized rhetoric about all of this is obfuscating the real, candid debate we ought to be having. You can't claim that it's a fact that we are causing a catastrophic warming trend that will kill billions based on what we know now. But you also can't claim that there's nothing to worry about, either!

The only way we're going to ever have a productive conversation about this is if we can get past the politics and posturing and admit the shortcomings of our knowledge, but at the same time, acknowledge that we can't ignore the issue.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the polar bears who are drowning in the Arctic Sea. What's their email address?

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Boo hoo hoo. Welcome to Darwinism in action - adapt or perish.

Re:FUD

[DrProton]

As for the posts below which respond with "yes, warmer in the age of the dinosaurs", well, there's a reason why Greenland was named Greenland. It was green, merely a few centuries ago.

Utter nonsense. Ice core data show the Greenland ice sheet is more than 100,000 years old. Get your facts straight.

Here's one problem with warmer temps you don't mention - pests. Warm-weather pests, including agricultural pests, will increase in number in a warmer climate. It is entirely unclear that warmer weather is a net benefit in previously cooler climes.

Re:FUD

[ozeki]

I am assuming you wanted a real list of scientists. Now this is only a partial list. Many of these scientists fought to have Canada leave the Kyoto treaty and are firm Global Warming skeptics.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad -494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

Some of these scientists are dyed in the wool environmentalists as well, not a big oil employee.

Re:FUD

[OldAndSlow]

The Earth has been through many warming and cooling cycles in the past. The current cycle is not outside this norm.

I guess that depends on what you call the norm. We are heating up the planet faster (by 3 orders of magnitude) than happened in the Permian extinction when 96% of marine species went extinct and 70% of land vertebrate species went extinct.
Adaptation is mostly dying off.

Re:FUD

[FooAtWFU]

I'll add to this. Starting to fix the problem now is a decent idea. But we need more than just that - we need technology to fix the problem. Some of that technology is presently being developed, some of it is entering the mainstream, and some is still a long ways off.

I've heard it said that changing the climate is like steering an aircraft carrier, only a whole lot slower. The main thing I would have people consider is that panicking about the state of the atmosphere is counterproductive, and that's the biggest thing I'd complain about as a "climate myth". We are not working against some sort of impending carbon countdown doomsday clock to doom and oblivion. We're just making the climate slowly, but measurably and somewhat predictably, worse, over the coming decades.

Certainly we want to do something about this. But what we don't need are radical, crazy things to change the course of things: it's disruptive, and won't work. We need strong measures, but they need to be flexible, and they need to give people time to adapt. Real change takes time - much longer than anyone with a political stick to shake can hope for to boost their career. You probably can't change your driving habits overnight. You probably can't go out and buy a new super-fuel-efficient Prius at the drop of a hat. (If you can, you have too much money.) Industry needs time too. I have an acquaintance who is a power plant engineer. The new plant coming online in several years' time is basically some sort of gypsum factory, or something like that (probably not actually gypsum, but I've forgotten what it was) that also happens to produce electricity. It puts out very little carbon into the atmosphere. But a power plant takes a long time to build - decades.

Of course, I think many people, and many good environmentalists, realize this. But the current state of affairs isn't a state of Good Environmentalism. It's a state of Moral Panic, of pseudoenvironmentalists chanting the "Bush-Republicans-and-Industry-are-Evil" mantra, and politicians giving handouts instead of promoting real change (*cough cough* I'm looking at you, Ethanol - and also some of the stupider handouts to industry for E85 engines that never actually see a drop of the corn squeezings). What we need isn't, as Tony Blair put it, "radical international measures" because you can't possibly hope to cut global emissions in half overnight, short of global thermonuclear war. What we need a good dose of Truth, and not just what Al Gore thinks of it. We need reasonable measures. I'm sick of the hackneyed, black-and-white, us-versus-them approach to The Environment we have today. The world needs real solutions, not career-boosting buzzwords and political propaganda.

Re:FUD

[Fex303]

However, if the universe is one big roll of the dice than every possibility is equally likely

You failed math, didn't you?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with all your other points. But probabilities stay the same no matter how many trials you do.

Re:FUD

[fireman sam]

Remember it this way. Iceland is green, Greenland is ice.

BTW, an interesting piece (ie, it was the first entry in google) can be found at http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/ar ticles/V7/N26/EDIT.jsp which notes some of history's higher temperature. I guess in 100 years time we will know if this current warming cycle is because of us or not.

Re:FUD

[Arcane_Rhino]

Who are the scientists that say we need more study before taking action? How many of them are not getting paid by fossil fuel industries (e.g. coal, oil, and natural gas) or fossil fuel consuming industries

Here is one. Notice the political pressure to confirm that humans cause global warming.

http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_n ews_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Global warming debate spurs Ore. title tiff 06:51 AM PST on Wednesday, February 7, 2007 By VINCE PATTON, KGW Staff In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change. Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist. KGW photo Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause. "Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations," Taylor asserts. Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state. His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon's policies. So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint. In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor's contradictions interfere with the state's stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists. "He is Oregon State University's climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon's climatologist," Kulongoski said. Taylor declined to comment on the proposal other than to say he was a "bit shocked" by the news. He recently engaged in a debate at O.M.S.I. and repeated his doubts about accepted science. In an interview he told KGW, "There are a lot of people saying the bulk of the warming of the last 50 years is due to human activities and I don't believe that's true." He believes natural cycles explain most of the changes the earth has seen. A bill will be introduced in Salem soon on the matter. Sen. Brad Avakian, (D) Washington County, is sponsoring the bill. He said global warming is so important to state policy it's important to have a climatologist as a consultant to the governor. He denied this is targeted personally at Taylor. "Absolutely not," Avakian said, "I've never met Mr. Taylor and if he's got opinions I hope he comes to the hearing and testifies." Kulongoski said the state needs a consistent message on reducing greenhouse gases to combat climate change. The Governor says, "I just think there has to be somebody that says, 'this is the state position on this.'" (KGW Reporter Vince Patton contributed to this report)

Science by consensus is not science, it is politics. I personally think we would be better off planning and preparing as a global unit for climate change regardless of the source. If relocations, trade shifts, etc, do not occur or are not necessary, then yay. This standing around pointing fingers, however, is getting us nowhere.

Re:FUD

[Scrameustache]

well, there's a reason why Greenland was named Greenland. And that reason is "No, honey, I did not waste my whole winter sailing to a godforsaken barren wasteland, I found a wonderfull land of green pastures and unicorns and chocolate-pooping puppies!"

The fact that you fall so easily for Viking marketing is quite telling to your position of global warming: Thre's one of you born every minute.

Re:FUD

[Rei]

A huge increase in the number of fungi organisms (eating the dead) couldn't possibly last very long, since dead organisms don't reproduce.

Eshet, Y. et al. (1995) Fungal event and palynological record of ecological crisis and recovery across the Permian-Triassic boundary. Geology, 23, 967-970.

Also I don't think hundreds of millions of years of evolution were undone.

Over half of all families were destroyed; a family represents tens of millions of years of evolution. A number of orders, several classes, and even a couple subphylums were wiped out. That's hundreds of millions of years of setback in many cases.

So obviously the 4% of marine species that survived must have been quite diverse.

That's what assumptions will get you. The survivors were mostly concentrated in a few classes. Most of the world's diversity was lost. Example: seen a trilobyte lately? There were over 17,000 trilobyte species across Paleozoic time, and thousands around at the end of the Paleozoic, in all kinds of niches. All killed.

The world really turned to hell.

Re:FUD

[moore.dustin]

You do not sound very smart when you attack someones intelligence and, in the same sentence, say site instead of cite. Just a thought...

Re:FUD

[Draconix]

Overall global warming could disrupt the oceanic currents, and actually make it _colder_ in Iceland and Europe. The reason Europe is temperate is because of oceanic currents bringing warm water to its shores. If those were to change too much, the climate in Europe could become like the climate in northern Canada.

Re:FUD

[EntropyXP]

We all watched "The Day After Tomorrow". Great flick and all but even if it does warm up over time, it'd take decades for it to effect the ocean currents. I think it'd be easy for everyone to agree on two things, the earth is changing, and we need to do our best to make sure it doesn't hurt us in the end. I know several conservative Christians who think that believing in Global Warming somehow negates God's power. They equate it to believing in the theory of Evolution. They usually bash anyone who believes in the theory of evolution and bash anyone who thinks Global Warming is true. Well, Genetics alone nearly proves that evolution occurs and data collected over the last 150 years shows that our earth is warming up. Whether or not God controls all of this has nothing to do with the fact, that if we ignore either, we're doomed to extinction. Put that in your Bible.

Re:FUD

[vrmlguy]

If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen.
Actually, only that last clause needs to be proven. By your reasoning, an asteroid hitting the earth is nothing to be worried about because humans wouldn't be the cause and it is a natural process. If global warming is bad, then we should work to reverse it regardless of its cause. Some proposed solutions assume that CO2 increases are the cause and work to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, but other solutions involve reducing the about of solar radiation absorbed by the earth (via microsats or changes to planetary albedo).

Re:FUD

[asusag]

Typical one sided report. Even the "myths" are written out like a bad true or false test you take at the DMV. 1. It is ok if I run through a red light from time to time, but only if I'm in a hurry. I'm not saying their arguments don't hold merit, but there is certainly a counter-argument to these claims.

Re:FUD

[arkhan_jg]

Sea levels were 5m higher than present during the previous interglacial period, 125,000 years ago. There are negative feedback loops that help offset the problems, but they don't solve everything.

Re:FUD

[arkhan_jg]

Perhaps the fact that the entire channel was caused by ice-melt might make you a little concerned about us pushing the climate as hot as we can as fast as we can, and seeing how much more of the stuff we can melt in the next 100 years. After all, we all still get to eat wolly mammoth and chips, right? a 5m sea level rise in London wouldn't affect the city at all; everyone in the centre would just move! It's not like property is expensive in London at the moment, who cares if we just flood half of it!

My argument is that we are ill-suited to large scale and/or rapid changes in sea-level, given our current city locations. Egging on a rapid change as fast as we are capable of does not seem like a wise idea to me, either hot OR cold.

Re:FUD

[cching]

Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences".

Care to quote a source?

Re:FUD

[mo^]

Oh for a mod point.... :o)

I play civ4 instead. No Pollution, No Problem!

Re:FUD

[The Analog Kid]

This argument is insane. I live in East Anglia (United Kingdom). 10,000 years ago it stretched right across to Europe. The north sea didn't exist. Mammoth roamed where the channel is today. Sea level has risen 300 feet since then and you are concerned about a rise of 1 or 2 meters over 100 years? Let me ask you a question:

It certainly is a problem to the people who live at the shoreline, it gives real food for though on why they are bothering to rebuild New Orleans.

Re:FUD

[Dan Hayes]

If you'd read the article this was covered.

Re:FUD

[Blakey Rat]

The real problem isn't the "is global warming happening" debate.

The real debate should be, "ok, what can we do about it?" And, remember, one of the options should be "nothing."

Once that's been discussed, we need to move on to, "ok, what do we do about it?" And, again, remember that "nothing" is an option.

All I know is that a lot of the energy saving tips the media frequently puts out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6636521.stm are idiotic. Partly because many of them are unworkable (how much power does turning off your broadband connection really save? Seriously? I could run my home router for a year on the power my water heater uses in half an hour.) But mostly because they don't know how generating capacity works... we need enough generators online for peak load, regardless of whether your broadband router is turned off or not. As long as all those generators are running to meet peak load, you're burning the exact same amount of fuel and releasing the exact same amount of carbon.

Figure out how to ACTUALLY slow down the release of carbon (hint: nuclear power does it) and I'll be happy to follow your stupid tips. But as long as you're asking me to unplug my router which won't make a whit of difference except to annoy me, then it's just not going to happen.

(Oh, also, stop being pissy to people who already do more than most to reduce pollution. Every morning I ride a train to work; you tell some people this and they say "wow, those diesel locomotives put out a lot of pollution." Oh yeah, sorry, me and the other 400 people who ride it should all drive our cars instead, thank you Mr. Genius Environmentalist.)

Re:FUD

[shystershep]

Amen brother. Sign me up for your newsletter.

Re:FUD

[4D6963]

Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences".

And when was the last time it caused a mass extinction?

Re:FUD

[R3d M3rcury]

The fact that you fall so easily for Viking marketing [...] In his defense, Viking marketing is pretty good. Right there behind pirate and ninja marketing. So you can't blame the guy for being taken in by it.

In fact, I'm considering starting a class action suit against those who are descended from the Vikings for false advertising. Who's with me?

Re:FUD

[R3d M3rcury]

In the past, global warming and CO2/Greenhouse gas levels rose at the same time. In the present, global temperatures and CO2/Greenhouse gas levels are rising. So we seem to have yet another level of correlation.

If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen. Well, first, go RTFA. There's a bunch of things in there about why global warming is not natural and why it is bad.

This is science. There is very little "Conclusive" evidence in science. Hell, Gravity is still a theory! So is evolution, to use a more recent bickering-point. So, by your sentiment, because Darwin's theory of evolution is not "Conclusive" and there could be a higher power at work, we shouldn't be teaching evolution in schools?!

Could global warming be caused by other things as well as human production? Absolutely. But, then, should we be enhancing global warming? No.

Re:FUD

[Lars T.]

So maybe if it gets warmer the agriculturalists can grow crops in Iceland, Ireland etc.. because currently it's too COLD there to do so consistently ! Well, maybe that will even out the new deserts in the former crop lands.

Re:FUD

[MightyMartian]

Who said that the theory isn't being poked and prodded? Just because some talking head at FOX News or ITV who very likely has nothing at all to do with active research (or more often than not research of any kind) is disregarded doesn't mean that the studies aren't put through peer review or that they aren't rigorously debated by the scientific community. This is yet another attempt at defamation, and it completely ignores what's going on in climatological research.

Re:FUD

[rs79]

TFA isn't exactly compelling. There's a CBC documenary on youtube called "Doomsday Called off" (video link to part 1 of 5. All 5 parts are about an hour in total) that raises some good points and it seems to me TFA is dong not a whole lot more than rebutting just this show. It's worth a look.

I'd like to address one point in TFA about Co2 and plant growth. The article concerning Co2 and its potential for increasing plant growth says basically "it happens for a while then levels off". Which is not true.

Plants, given CO2 grow much faster and grow bigger. Terrestrial plants will use more water and fertilizer (and will put more water vapour and O2 into the atmosphere) with increased CO2 and will do so forever. This does not in any sense "level off". Ever. No competant plant biologist would ever say this.

I don't know enough about the other 25 "myths" dispelled, but this one, that I know somethgn about reeks of marketing not actual science. And is just wrong.

You can google the effect of CO2 on plamt growth and see for yourself.

Re:FUD

[niktemadur]

You're just reaffirming the argument that man is an agent of mass extinction. But mass extinctions in the past have always been brought on by inanimate agents. So it could be argued that man is acting like a cancer infection on Earth, and what happens when cancer kills its' host? It dies along with the host. Then we can repeat your sentence and try to be glib about it: Boo hoo hoo. Welcome to Darwinism in action.

We're not really advanced, if you think about it. Man's mind is still in jungle mode, but with lack of vision, delusions of grandeur and a death complex. Boo hoo hoo.

Re:FUD

[ladoga]

Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences". If people want others to take this stuff seriously, stop with the FUD.

The question is not how much warmer it has been, but has warming ever been this fast?

Keep in mind that the average temperatures have risen several centigrades during the last century. In the arctic 3 to 4 degrees Celsius during last 50 years, rest of the world about half of that. In the past this degree of change has probably took thousands of years in which ecosystem has had time to adapt. Earth has had multiple mass exctinctions due to changes in climate (killing off up to 90% of all species), the current one we are into is just much faster than ever before. How warm will it get this time?

Re:FUD

[BarnJay]

Peer review process is as follows: 1. You propose a formal hypothesis, and substantiate that with evidence that supports your hypothesis by way of a formal paper. 2. Your paper is then subjected to review by other experts in the field of study or discipline to which your hypothesis applies in order to ensure that you meet the standards of that discipline. You can poke and prod all you want as long as you are willing to subject yourself to rigorous challenge on each of the arguments and assumptions upon which you have built your hypothesis by peers in the discipline. Scientists are skeptical by nature which is why consensus opinions in scientific disciplines are always couched in the most cautious language. Skepticism by non-experts, on the other hand seems foolhardy at best and willful ignorance at worst.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

me and the other 400 people who ride it should all drive our cars instead ...because those are the only two possibilities. None of those 400 people can walk, ride a bicycle, or drive a car that uses electricity or bio-diesel.

Re:FUD

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Really? Are you sure? Stanford doesn't think so.

And that took me about 3 seconds to find.

Re:FUD

[Old Benjamin]

Regardless of its cause... so if CO2 wasn't the cause we should still reduce it? The Asteroid is a different example. It would be similar to someone saying strip mines on asteroid belt were causing asteriods to fly out and hit us, except that they weren't, and it was say aliens. Yes, regardless of what the cause was we should fix it, but we shouldn't get rid of the strip mines that are a vital part of the economy, instead we should seek out the aliens and stop them.

Re:FUD

[RzUpAnmsCwrds]

But mostly because they don't know how generating capacity works... we need enough generators online for peak load, regardless of whether your broadband router is turned off or not. As long as all those generators are running to meet peak load, you're burning the exact same amount of fuel and releasing the exact same amount of carbon.

Perhaps you don't understand how generating capacity works. Yes, there is a certain amount of "baseload" power that operates at a reasonably constant power level (Coal and Nuclear fit into this category, because they cannot change power output quickly). However, there are also a significant number of variable output plants (most natural gas plants are in this category) which adjust their output to meet actual demand.

Moreover, our energy usage is growing. Conservation (e.g. efficent lighting, HVAC, and other technologies) can slow down or perhaps even reverse this trend - which means we need to build fewer (or no) new plants and may even be able to shut down some of the worst existing plants.

But as long as you're asking me to unplug my router which won't make a whit of difference except to annoy me, then it's just not going to happen.

Agreed. People who complain about a couple of watts need to get a clue. Running a 1W power brick for an entire year uses 31.5MJ. You probably used more energy driving to work today, even if you drive a hybrid (a gallon of gas has about 132MJ of energy).

Turn on a single 60W light bulb for 30 minutes and you've used more energy than that hypothetical 1W load will use all day.

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

Could global warming be caused by other things as well as human production? Absolutely. But, then, should we be enhancing global warming? No.

A better question is, should we be sabatoging our economies if something else is causing the global warming?

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

Tell that to the polar bears who are drowning [wsj.com] in the Arctic Sea

Polar Bears are better swimmers than just about any land animals. The whole 'plight of the polar bears' myth is just that.

Re:FUD

[Archangel_Azazel]

--We're not really advanced, if you think about it. Man's mind is still in jungle mode, but with lack of vision, delusions of grandeur and a death complex.--

You know, I never in my life thought I'd put this on slashdot, but here goes. This is one of the Nine Satanic Statements from the Church of Satan I'm not here to argue over whether or not it's correct, simply that it's a good reply to the above statement.

7. Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all-fours, who, because of his "divine spiritual and intellectual development," has become the most vicious animal of all!

I find it just creepy ;-)

A.A

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

Whoah! Ad-homeium backed up with a wikipedia link.

I am convinced! There are only TWO SIDES. The TRUTH and 'a few people bribed by Big Oil!'

Thanks for straightening me out.

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

So, in effect, you, a random commenter on a blog on the internet, are accusing somebody of defamation?

You're, uh, defaming them??

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

..and as long as your credentials, are, er.. aahh.. in order.

Skepticism by non-experts, on the other hand seems foolhardy at best and willful ignorance at worst.

Wholehearted acceptance of what rather politicized organizations (what organization largely within academia isn't highly politicized in this day and age?) is foolhardy as well.

Who reviews the peers?

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

Your tagline is very anthrocentric.

A whole lot of today's doomsayers are very anthrocentric.

It's one of modern man's conceits that he could 'take it all out' and destroy the world.

Think about it.

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

Well, thank your lucky stars you didn't have the Army Corps of Engineers build your barrier. Remember, Katrina itself, did NOT cause the flooding problems in NOLA. It was due to substandard, shortcut ridden, poorly designed levees that the US Feds (Corps of Engineers) constructed that failed and flooded the city. It was really a manmade error that caused the problem.

It could also be said that it wasn't substandard Army Corps construction, but rather the misrepresentation of the construction. Put another way, why should the Army Corps be funded to shore up a huge city? Shouldn't people have instead been informed 'you live below sea level. this probably isn't where you should live'?

For goodness sakes, shouldn't we be making that clear to them NOW, instead of just rebuilding?

Re:FUD

[Raffaello]

Like it or not, politics is where the rubber meets the road. If there is going to be any action to change human behavior, it is certainly not going to come from scientists themselves even though they do the actual science. Any significant change in behavior is going to come from policy makers creating regulations based on what the majority of scientists tell them.

Look at the reduction in atmospheric pollution in the US at the end of the last century. It was almost entirely due to the standards introduced by the Clean Air Act. Scientists provided the research showing that industrial activities, automobiles, etc, where lowering air quality in many areas. However, it took politicians to take this science and enforce behavioral changes among people. Scientists do science but they don't create policy - politicians do.

Re:FUD

[rs79]

Stanford sez:

"Located in a fenced off section of Stanford's 1,189-acre Jasper Ridge Biological Preserve, the novel experiment was designed to simulate environmental conditions that climate experts predict may exist 100 years from now: a doubling of atmospheric CO2; a temperature rise of 2 degrees Fahrenheit; a 50 percent increase in precipitation; and increased nitrogen deposition -- largely a byproduct of fossil fuel burning."

Their plants were potassium and phosphorous deficient. N-P-K must be increaed proportionatly.

Commercial greenhouses of both aquatic and terrestrial palnts routinely use added CO2 and additonal NPK to increase plant mass more quickly, year in year out. Increase only N and CO2 and you'll get the results Stanford got.

Food crops are typically fertilized. Farmer Joe will have to add less N and more P and K. Which is good because N is expensive. If P and K are added in this scenario then with increased CO2 you will get increased growth and the plants will consume more carbon.

Plants in the wild will act per the Stanford study. But food crops as I said are almost always fertilized.

Re:FUD

[Raffaello]

Polar bears are strong swimmers, but they can't swim indefinitely - they need ice floes to haul out on, rest and hunt. With greater ice melting, there's more open ocean, and a greater chance that ice bears will be unable to find ice before tiring and drowning.

Re:FUD

[alisson]

It's a good thing that we can explain everything in terms of black and white! I'd hate for any ambiguity in the universe. I mean, like, if it could be partially our fault? That would be fucking confusing!!! Shades of grey suxxorz, and don't exist. I know this, because I have a degree in Environment from CGNU-Online eNiversity.

Re:FUD

[geekoid]

Inverse squar law. No, there are different causes then the sun, which I will assume your were refering...Or maybd the giant goat god is angry and shooting fire out it's eyes.... No telling with you idiots.

Re:FUD

[An Onerous Coward]

Mars is irrelevant.

Re:FUD

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Your tagline is very anthrocentric.

A whole lot of today's doomsayers are very anthrocentric.

It's one of modern man's conceits that he could 'take it all out' and destroy the world.

Think about it.

My quote says OUR world, not THE world.

Think about the difference and see if you still interpret it the same way.

Re:FUD

[jeff4747]

Cold is only one limit on the growing cycle in the higher latitudes. Higher latitudes also receive less sunlight, which also limits plant growth.

So if Iceland's average temperature became the same as Kansas, they would still not be able to grow as much food per acre.

Re:FUD

[MightyMartian]

That may very well be the most retarded comment I've ever seen. Congrats.

Re:FUD

[Ragingguppy]

well ok then this problem is our own damn fault for building cities near the ocean and not because of too much CO2.

Re:FUD

[Vitriol Angst]

Do you have ANY evidence to back up your comments about this well researched article?

Or is this a Typical, global warming denial?

Re:FUD

[Gerzel]

No I didn't fail math.

Say each possibility is a specific arrangement of matter/energy/forces that make up the universe with every variance of that arrangement being another possibility then each one of those possibilities would indeed have an equal chance to occur assuming the universe has no pre(existence)-disposition towards a set of arrangements.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

>And rising CO2 levels means higher plant growth

Now, I just got to react on this. This claim is NOT true. Or at least. Not so simple.

The effects of CO2 on plant growth are rather complicated, and it depends on the species. And you have to differentiate between growth and yield (I could go on about the details for some pages but I will spare you that). We (IAAPP, I am a plant physiologist) think that an increase alone may have a small net positive effect on the yield (depending on the species, etc). BUT, you also have to take into account the effects of changing soil moisture and especially temperature. All in all, these people think it is highly doubtful that the rising CO2 will do any good for crop yield.

And then we are not even talking about the investments and problems associated with changing crops (due to increasing temperature I hope you like rice instead of potatoes?) and relocating of agriculture to different areas.

Re:FUD

[TapeCutter]

"I'm not saying their arguments don't hold merit, but there is certainly a counter-argument to these claims."

So where is the counter-argument that hasn't already been debunked?

Re:FUD

[VON-MAN]

VON-MAN picks up his English dictionary and -again- looks up "insightful". Phew, it isn't me.

Re:FUD

[bhiestand]

Cold is only one limit on the growing cycle in the higher latitudes. Higher latitudes also receive less sunlight, which also limits plant growth. So are you saying we need to redesign the latitude/longitude system or that we need to find a way to tilt the planet a bit?

Re:FUD

[smoker2]

Yes, the earth has been much warmer in the past. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth, for example. However, they didn't have up to a billion people living within a meter of sea-level.

And this is where the agenda becomes clear - no-one gives a fuck if the climate warms up, just as long as it doesn't affect them !

Quite frankly, the historical evidence shows that there is warming and cooling of the earth, over periods of hundreds of thousands of years. Just because, *this time* we happen to inhabit the place, it doesn't mean we should start meddling in things we have only just started to have an inkling of. WE WILL MAKE THINGS WORSE !

By all means, cut emissions and reduce pollution, and go for "greener" energy sources, but don't use emotional blackmail to suggest WE are killing everything on the planet. The planet is quite capable of killing us all off any time it likes.

I hope the magnetic field reverses soon, just to give the meenies something else to gripe about.

Re:FUD

[Znork]

"I think human activity has an effect on the climate"

There are also indications it may be a question of balance. I've read suggestions that the reason we didnt notice CO2 effects earlier in the century may be that we were actually countering the effect with particle release. The environmentally sound policy of filtering particulates and decreasing pollution may be what's suddenly causing the hockey-stick effect as the cooling effect of particle pollution disappears (which can be correlated with theories around cold triggered by forest fires, meteor extinction and volcano eruptions).

In such a case it might be a far more cost-effective (not to mention the vastly increased likelyhood of actual success) to develop non-damaging or positive releases of particulate matter (how about highly aerosolized lime spray, countering environmental acid rain at the same time?)

Dont get me wrong, personally I think it's utter idiocy to burn fossile fuels, for a whole host of reasons ranging from the cost in blood and corruption to the economic and social impact of being dependent on a fundamentally limited resource available only in a few places, when we're surrounded by a vast host of much better alternatives, and I'm very much in support of highly taxing the hell out of that use; to the point that I'd call european gasoline taxes too low, and the funds should be used to support renewable fuel and renewable fuel research (non-patentable such research).

But the in the end, if global warming truly is such a problem that the alarmists suggest, then we need actual methods to counter it, not simply sitting on our arses and waiting for the propaganda battle to play out, which it simply isnt going to do until the oil runs out or there's something better to use (or the US citizens realize that two party systems are easily bought, are nowhere near democratic, and demand proportional representation at the barrel of a gun if need be.).

Re:FUD

[daem0n1x]

Not also crop pests. Malaria is likely to reach the coastal swampy areas of Southern Europe as the average temperature rises above the malaria survival threshold.

Not mentioning desertification, which is happening at fast pace in Southern Europe. I'm looking for camel at a nice price.

Re:FUD

[nurbles]

We are not working against some sort of impending carbon countdown doomsday clock to doom and oblivion. We're just making the climate slowly, but measurably and somewhat predictably, worse, over the coming decades.

While my personal belief tends towards the skeptical side, I think it only fair to point out that, since the climate is so complex, there is a possibility (however slim it may be) that we may be slowly, measurably approaching an as yet unknown tipping point in climate. If we reach such a tipping point and suddenly start experiencing much more pronounced changes than we are now, then the alarmists will have been correct.

And yes, I used the word "belief" intentionally, because not being a scientist myself, I must admit it comes down to faith more than actual knowledge on my part. Not a completely blind faith, mind you, mine has been swayed by years of exposure to various skeptical views of the subject. And often I'm swayed more by the calm, rational sounding (to me, at least) tone of the skeptics vs the "chicken little" tone that I perceive from the other side.

Re:FUD

[knewter]

Oh come on, don't come in as logic saviour and do that!

If global warming is bad, then we should work to reverse it regardless of its cause. What if our work to reverse it has unknown (potentially bad) side effects? Should we just go gung ho into it? Also, what if it's self-reversing? We should focus the human industrial machine on solving the problem just because?

WHY DO ALL PEOPLE HAVE ONE TO FIVE MEMES THAT THE MEDIA THROWS AT THEM THAT THEY LATCH ONTO AS IMPORTANT? The groupthink in the world is at just an absurd level.

Re:FUD

[poffc]

This time I will express a view (that I believe is informed as I am a power system engineer)

All I know is that a lot of the energy saving tips the media frequently puts out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6636521.stm [bbc.co.uk] are idiotic. Partly because many of them are unworkable (how much power does turning off your broadband connection really save? Seriously? I could run my home router for a year on the power my water heater uses in half an hour.) But mostly because they don't know how generating capacity works... we need enough generators online for peak load, regardless of whether your broadband router is turned off or not. As long as all those generators are running to meet peak load, you're burning the exact same amount of fuel and releasing the exact same amount of carbon.

I rationalise the leaving of my electronic equipment on in that I give up showers every second day while between contracts and as long as my wife lets me.
Cut down on ten percent of your travel and start to walk to work (instead of taking car, as if you use public transport it is hard to directly justify). Althout if you put the money daved on public transport towards insulating home or buying energy saving devices that are not yet economically justifiable, the rationalisation works.
I am always baffled when within the same "newsday" and even sometimes on the same page in the newspaper, there will be an article about CO2 emmissions being bad and alongside, one complaining about the price of electricity/gas being to high or celebrating a drop in energy prices. I can't wait for the "peak oil" day to arrive and the supply contraint starting to drive the energy price, as oppposed to the oil cartels opperations doing the same now.
I hate working from home, but I love living near my workplace.

Re:FUD

[famebait]

If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen.

I suppose you would only buy insurance if you got conclusive proof you were going to need it too?

First of all: Why do we need to be the sole cause? It should be more than enough to show that we have a significant effect that would make a worthwhile difference if removed.

Why does it need to be conclusive? The pure science side of things might operate only with proven or not (although that is not actually completely the case anywhere outside of pure mathematics).
But to the real world (you know, the lives that will have to bear the consequences) the question of whether to do something now or not is (or should be) not one of pure science but of risk management. The relevant parameters here are estimated likelyhood (that we can do something) and estimated cost (of not doing it). Your position is the equivalent of saying that any likelyhood below a perfect 1.00 might as well be 0.00. That is simply wrong, stupid, and considering the scale of the possible suffering involved in erring on the side of risk in this question, one could even argue that it is immoral.

But then again, you seem to even doubt that large scale climate change would be bad (i.e. that the cost part is 0, or at least lower than the investment to avoid it), so there might not be a whole lot of point in arguing with you. Hint: averages aren't useful here. One country getting a crop boost does not really do much for the people suddenly starving somewhere else. Even if it was all natural, it would still be very bad indeed for millions of people, and we should be looking into ways to counteract it in any case.

Re:FUD

[cayenne8]

" Shouldn't people have instead been informed 'you live below sea level. this probably isn't where you should live'?

For goodness sakes, shouldn't we be making that clear to them NOW, instead of just rebuilding?"

Well, without going into the 'long' version, yes, we should. NOLA and surrounding area has a HUGE economic impact on the whole US. It is situated where it is due to where the MS river empties into the Gulf. Most all of the midwest's produce, has to go through our ports...imports come into our ports. You like coffee? A large chunk of it comes in....lets get into oil production and refinement. You want an oil refinery in your back yard? I didn't think so...we have a ton of them, and did you notice that little 'bump' in gas and oil prices post Katrina? Yep...it shut down refinement AND not only pumping out our the gulf (right off our shores of NOLA and lower LA), but, just off shore, is where the foreign oil ships hook up to pump via pipeline to dry land and refineries. We sacrificed a great deal of the wetlands, the hurricane's natural barriers, for these pipes. This is getting a bit longer than I wished...but, also think of the seafood you may enjoy that is domestic...lots of it come from here.

That is just economic reasons. NOLA is a city older than the United States itself, it is here for a reason....and I've not gotten into the cultural contributions, etc.

Amsterdam is MUCH further below sea level, but, they found it important enough to construct protection for it. Do we abandon other US cities due to 'risky placement'? What about Los Angeles and San Francisco and surrounding areas. They are prone to earthquakes and fires...lets not rebuild them, I mean, should we not advise them they live on a fault line?? What about NYC...it is a terrorist target...bad place to be. And hey, NYC is WAY overdue for a hurricane too...there is a doomsday scenario for NY just like NOLA has...so, if it get clobbered...are you wanting to walk away and leave it too?

Just some thoughts you might consider.

Re:FUD

[AoT]

The difference between the two cites is that the first says that historical representation of temperature in human records can be wildly inaccurate, whereas the second says that we have the ability, through ice cores an other methods, to accurately determine the temperatures in the past.

And what we have to worry about now is not whether global warming is happening or not, but whether it will be catastrophic or merely expensive to mitigate and harmful only to the poorer nations.

Re:FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

If you feel that we are causing global warming then why not do your part and reduce you levels of CO2 by slitting your wrists. I may follow if you will lead.

Re:FUD

[amaxware]

Interesting you mentioned deserts... Why is it that none of the current sky is falling, I mean "global warming" climate models include precipitation? Maybe perhaps that it's not meausured on a Global scale? The main operation of our atmosphere, the cycle that water makes into and out of oceans/lakes to prepcipitation is not accounted for in the global warming models. That tells me something, what does it tell you?

Re:FUD

[Arcane_Rhino]

Please read the GP, my post was in reply to the essence of his statement: that only corporate lackeys have doubts about how much impact humanity is having on climate change.

My response both shows that this is not true (there is another climatologist at MIT of similar opinion, though his name escapes me) and, more importantly, shows that there is real pressure to conform to the current political belief that humans alone are responsible.

Everything you say about the need for politicians to implement is true. However, it is inappropriate for a politician to censure a scientist who does not "fall in line" unless it can be shown that the scientist is practicing bad science. Even then, it should be a peer censure.

Regardless of the reason for climate change, we should prepare for potential impacts. Until, however, the politicians come up with solutions other than taxing wealthy nations to punish them (see the UN report on climate change and the suggested response) and the prophets of climate doom start living a little more in line with their claims (Al Gore, nuff said), the "we're all gunna die" global changers are going to have a hard time convincing me that they are doing anything other than attempting to enrich their own coffers and/or achieve their own political ends.

Re:FUD

[baboo_jackal]

The difference between the two cites is that the first says that historical representation of temperature in human records can be wildly inaccurate, whereas the second says that we have the ability, through ice cores an other methods, to accurately determine the temperatures in the past.
Exactly my point! Here's a quote from a "myth" refuting the claim that it's been warmer in the past - apparently, ice cores are suspect here:

First of all, it is worth bearing in mind that any data on global temperatures before about 150 years ago is an estimate, a reconstruction based on second-hand evidence such as ice cores and isotopic ratios. The evidence becomes sparser the further back we look, and its interpretation often involves a set of assumptions. In other words, a fair amount of guesswork.
So ice cores and other proxy measurements aren't that accurate, and we should be skeptical about the things that those measurements suggest. Now, in another "myth," refuting the claim that we are just coming out of a "little ice age,":

The term "Little Ice Age" is somewhat questionable, because there was no single, well-defined period of prolonged cold around the entire planet. After 1600, there are records of average winter temperatures in Europe and North America that were as much as 2C lower than present (although the third coldest winter in England since 1659 was in 1963). Comparisons of temperature indicators such as tree-ring records from around the northern hemisphere suggest there were several widespread cold intervals between 1580 and 1850. Yet while there is some evidence of cold intervals in parts of the southern hemisphere during this time, they do not appear to coincide with those in the northern hemisphere. Such findings suggest the Little Ice Age may have been more of a regional phenomenon than a global one.
But we'll accept the things that tree-ring measurements "suggest?"

Let me be exceedingly clear - I'm not saying that the anti-science wishful thinking I've shown here means that global warming isn't happening. It certainly is. I just think that both sides are guilty of gerrymandering evidence, not just the skeptics.

And I completely agree with you! If we want to really fix things, we need to be having candid conversations about the reality of global warming - not a debate where it's "OMGZ! The world is ending unless we live in mud huts!" versus, "meh. Nothing to see here."

Re:FUD

[Lars T.]

Interesting you mentioned deserts... Why is it that none of the current sky is falling, I mean "global warming" climate models include precipitation? Maybe perhaps that it's not meausured on a Global scale? The main operation of our atmosphere, the cycle that water makes into and out of oceans/lakes to prepcipitation is not accounted for in the global warming models. That tells me something, what does it tell you? Maybe that you make up stuff?

Not that rainfall in the desert suddenly makes it not a desert.

Re:FUD

[amaxware]

What is it I've made up?

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

You cite a valid reason for NOLA as an industrial city and a business center to exist. You haven't explained why said business and industrial center needs to be surrounded by ghettos.

New Orleans would be viable with 1/10 the population it had before Katrina. Hopefully that's the kind of city that will eventually grow back.

Re:FUD

[that this is not und]

So you're anthrocentric to the point where you believe humanity owns the whole world. You continue to make my case for me.

Re:FUD

[BalanceOfJudgement]

So you're anthrocentric to the point where you believe humanity owns the whole world. You continue to make my case for me.

I guess I really do have to spell it out for you.

When I use the phrase "our world" I am referring to the civilization that WE have built. The word is not used in the sense of ownership, but rather in the sense of participation (for example, the phrase 'my family' means 'the family I am part of', not 'the family I own').

Consequently, when I say we light our world, I mean that we have such wonderful potential to create such beautiful things both for ourselves and each other; and yet at the same time, we have such darkness about us, in our ability to destroy and to hate and to cause pain.

Incidentally, I am fully aware that our culture DOES believe it owns the world, although that is not what I am referring to in my quote. I do not think we own the world; we are part of it (ever seen the movie Instinct? Or read anything by Daniel Quinn?). But we think we do - we believe we are its masters, that through the application of our knowledge and our science we can solve any problem, control any process, that always the world's shape is ours to mold.

In some ways, it is precisely that arrogance to which I refer when I call it the FIRE that consumes us. We're burning ourselves by how we behave.

Re:FUD

[DerWulf]

Well, the refutation of "the climate is to complex to model" wasn't very good. You can not model coupled feedback chaotic system as complex as the climate ever. It's just not possible unless you rebuild the universe (yes, cosmic rays influence the climate) and run it twice as fast.

Re:FUD

[cayenne8]

"You cite a valid reason for NOLA as an industrial city and a business center to exist. You haven't explained why said business and industrial center needs to be surrounded by ghettos. New Orleans would be viable with 1/10 the population it had before Katrina. Hopefully that's the kind of city that will eventually grow back. "

Oh..I agree fully...needs to be a smaller city, and they are trying to tear down at least half the projects, I wish they'd nuke them all.....when they replaced a couple with mixed housing...it worked great and surrounding neighborhoods started flourishing, but, they are protesting it...I cannot understand why they'd want to move back to such a crime infested black hole of poverty with no escape.

The city is strange in that there isn't a good and bad side of town. There are/were pockets of good within the bad...it is surrounded basically with projects, but, they weren't meant that way. The projects were built originally as temp. housing for returning veterans from either WW1 or WW2, I can't remember...anyway, over the years after that...they slowly degraded into ghettos. We now have a chance to change this, etc.

Everyone has a right to come back, but, you'd better be able to work and earn a living, it is expensive now, and there is currently very little tax base to support the welfare state that was here before.

Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: Flamewars do, in fact, contribute to global warming. The increase in post count burdens servers and thus uses more electricity. Ad revenues increase allowing rich business men make more money to put gas in their hummers. Considering some 40% of the internet consists of flamewars of one type or another, the impact is rather significant.

thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[boxlight]

Eastern Canada is currently experiencing its thickest strongest ice in 30 years. Coast Guard officials I've spoken with say the ice severity follows a 30 year cycle and current conditions are the same as in the 1970s.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

You've said there that there's a known *localised* cycle, and that the ice is thicker because of it. What are you saying about global climate change, exactly? As far as I can see, all you're saying is that it's not as strong in that one location as the ice cycle.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Gat0r30y]

Anecdotal Evidence is just fantastic. Way to go. I think I will trust the peer reviewed journals for just a while longer though.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[DragonWriter]

Eastern Canada [...]

Is a subset of the whole Earth. Implying that something must be true of the Earth because it is true of Eastern Canada is the fallacy of composition.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[modmans2ndcoming]

While the arctic sea ice has not fully reformed this winter and will continue to degenerate as the years go by.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[bobo mahoney]

If you read any articles about Global Warming you will see that some local areas will get colder, wetter, more snowfall, and more ice accumuluation because of shifting water currents and atmospheric wind patterns. The issue is GLOBAL WARMING, not is it warmer at my house.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[jfengel]

As the publisher of J. Anec. Evid., I deplore the myth that anecdotal evidence is worse than your so-called "peer reviewed" evidence. We peer at each claim for quite a while, and only publish it if it meets our stringent two-pronged criteria:

1. It sounds good to us.
2. It makes some point that needs to be made.

Both Science and Nature have only ONE prong: repeatability. So citations from the Journal of Anecdotal Evidence are twice as sciency.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[UbuntuDupe]

At risk of getting modded down for saying something unpopular:

ALL data on climate change is anecdotal. There is only one earth! There is no sample set to compare to. The causal inseparability of the weather across the earth prevents you from testing lots of cases except over very long periods of time, which hasn't happened since forming the latest consensus model.

Yes, that sucks. No, please don't mod me down for pointing this out.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

I love how one side of the argument is listed as "peer reviewed" but the peer reviews of the other side are ignored. While I agree with the article that the earth is warming, it is not clear that it is a direct result of greenhouse gases created by humans. There is nothing scientific about saying "it is clear that" without including the dissenting and supporting evidence. For some reason, this topic always get by the scientific filters. In science, there is evidence which seems to suggest a potentially different cause, etc. In media hype, the "sample sets" which do not match the theory are ignored. So which is most often presented in this argument?

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute way to get modded up -- starting your post with, "At risk of getting modded down for saying something unpopular."

I'll have to remember that one -- it seems to work.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

You should be modded down for not knowing the meaning of anecdotal or anecdotal evidence. Yeah, that sucks. But that's what happens when you're an idiot.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Black Parrot]

Eastern Canada is currently experiencing its thickest strongest ice in 30 years. Meanwhile, Antartica is melting.

Sounds like NS neglected to debunk the biggest myth of them all, namely that global warming means a uniform increase in temperature everywhere on the planet.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[gordgekko]

Well perhaps this magazine will be kind enough to run a feature of the top 26 peer reviewed journal claims that supports the so-called climate change orthodoxy. If they'd like, I have a few I can submit such as the bogus "hockey stick curve" study.

Oh wait, that would mean dissenting opinion. That's not allowed in the current...ahem...climate.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Bob-taro]

+1 insightful (my mod points expired yesterday, darn it!)

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[gordgekko]

Damnit, I meant "the top 26 peer reviewed journal claims that supports the so-called climate change orthodoxy that have been proven false"

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Bob-taro]

The problem is the evidence for warming does seem to be selective. Everything "hotter" supposedly proves global warming (or anything colder, or anything unusual in any way), but any example to the contrary "doesn't disprove anything". Okay, if any one counter-example doesn't disprove it, then any one example doesn't prove it, either. It's just as foolish to ignore all of either type of example just because any single example doesn't carry much weight.

(dons flame-proof suit and covers up)

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Retarded moderators again *sigh*.

This is humor, it is not real. Jeeez.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Bob-taro]

Ironically, "the 'hockey stick' graph is wrong" is listed in the article as one of the myths.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Ford Prefect]

As the publisher of J. Anec. Evid., I deplore the myth that anecdotal evidence is worse than your so-called "peer reviewed" evidence.

... While I, publisher of the esteemed journal Ibid., say exactly the same thing!

(Yes, it did take me a while to realise that Ibid. wasn't just some incredibly popular journal along the lines of Nature or Science...)

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Rei]

You're right. The scientific community just loves conspiracies to suppress the truth. Just wait until you find out that "Analysis of a Novel Sensory Mechanism in Root Phototrophism" and "Atomistic Method Applied to Computational Modeling of Surface Alloys" are frauds that the Powers That Be are trying to conceal, too! It's all part of the pro-root, pro-alloy, anti-capitalist scientific agenda.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[detokaal]

"Peer reviewed" actually means "agrees with us and receives the same government funding we do." In other words they are biased and void of any OBJECTIVE scientific research. I would trust the people who are there everyday and have been over the last 30 years over the "peer reviewed" crowd of inbreds.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Rei]

"The problem is the evidence for warming does seem to be selective. Everything "hotter" supposedly proves global warming"

Only to idiots.
Show me a scientific paper like:

---
Doofus, Martin. "Analysis of the Winter of 2005-2006 in Lansing, Michigan Proves Global Warming". Journal of Taxpayer-Fleecing Research, Mar 2006.
---

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Black Parrot]

That happened in January 2005, during the SUMMER in Antarctica. Guess what? IT HAPPENS EVERY FUCKING YEAR!!!!!! What part of "Satellite data collected by the scientists between July 1999 and July 2005 showed clear signs that melting had occurred in multiple distinct regions, including far inland and at high latitudes and elevations, where melt had been considered unlikely" did you fail to understand?

Guess what? IT HAPPENS EVERY FUCKING YEAR!!!!!! Got a citation for that?

If you actually read the article you'd know that it's even worse than the liberal atheistic socialist liberal conspirators were expecting.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[mashade]

They're talking about snowmelt there, which is when the fresh snow melts during a brief high temperature, and refreezes to create an ice layer. The same article also states:

No further melting has been detected through March 2007.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Daniel Dvorkin]

the top 26 peer reviewed journal claims that supports the so-called climate change orthodoxy that have been proven false

It took me about three clicks to get to the references list for the National Academy of Sciences report that says the "hockey stick" is accurate. English, motherfucker, do you read it?

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Omestes]

The sad thing is that I almost took you seriously. incredulousness starts wearing thin in the global climate arena, especially since I have heard statements like yours spoken with a straight face. Wishful thinking is nicer than cold hard facts (or warm ones, in this case), so we all want to find ways to justify it. Such as the poster above you doubting mass extinctions, and then comparing the geological record, and paleontological evidence to the bible, all as a means to doubt scientifically accepted facts on the consequences of global warming.

That, incidentally, is the new prong of attack I've noticed from the "doubting" camp. Its getting hard to doubt warming itself, and slightly harder to doubt its human causation, so now the argument is "so what, the world might be nicer!". I have no idea why this issue has become a psychologically entrenched issue, why some sense of "self-hood" is at stake.

I'm getting rather sick of the anti-science crowd, who used its effects daily, and even buys most of the fundamentals of science, but refuses to accept other bits because "it is just science" when it fails their self interest.

Sure, I admit that science isn't the be-all-end-all of life, or understanding. I don't think science offers ALL the answers, but it is the best tool we have, it is good enough, and it is exceedingly good at making statements and predictions about the world. If you want to stand against the accepted scientific paradigm, you better offer some convincing arguments, on ITS terms.

My favorite argument so far, in this topic, is against peer-review. Yes, it, as a system, life science itself, is not perfect, but its the best system we have. 90% of the time it works, and given enough time its success rate approached 100%.

Out of curiosity, what emotional stake do doubters have in this issue? Is it not, even if it turns out wrong, better to be safe than sorry? How is cutting carbon emissions a bad thing, it would be locally positive, even if not globally (which too would probably be possitive), I'm genuinely curious, and not trying to start a flame war.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[mliikset]

This tends to highlight the complexity of the problem. More, stronger ice isn't significant of colder temperatures, it tends to demonstrate more moisture accumulation during the coldest periods. Warmer oceans free more atmospheric water, so the increase in ice might even be predictable.

Polar bear numbers are declining rapidly, from melting ice floes and much more open water to cross. Polar bears live only in the arctic, part of which is fairly close to Eastern Canada. I wonder if they'll go extinct or if some population becomes significantly more aquatic, but that's a different thread.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[StarvingSE]

I think the biggest flaw with "Global Warming" is the name. While warming is an effect, the better name for the phenomenon is "Global Climate Change." Warmer temperatures cause ocean currents to change, which in turn affects global wind patterns, weather, temperatures (causing both warmer regions to be colder, and vice versa).

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Russ Nelson]

In other words, "Global" Warming is nothing of the sort. What it means is that some people will have bad weather. And how is this different from now? And why should it mean shutting down the global economy so that everybody becomes poor and nobody can help anybody else to pay to deal with bad weather?

Remember: climate change has always happened, but "Global Warming" is just hysteria. Give it twenty years and we'll be laughing at our fears just like we laugh at "Global Cooling" now.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Black Parrot]

They're talking about snowmelt there, which is when the fresh snow melts during a brief high temperature, and refreezes to create an ice layer. The same article also states:

No further melting has been detected through March 2007. It sure does.

Were you trying to refute my point, or reinforce it?

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

CONSIDERED, not proven. Just because we THINK it shouldn't happen, doesn't mean it really shouldn't happen.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[pilgrim23]

My source: Comp.risks news group posted May 3 name deleted:

Error in climate data recording software
From the latest Nature: 447, p 7140

In 2006, data from the array led a team of scientists to the surprising
conclusion that the world's oceans had cooled during 2003 exceptionally warm
years in terms of global surface temperature. The team published its
findings in Geophysical Research Letters1. Such apparent cooling was seized
on by people keen to highlight the uncertainties in forecasts of global
warming2.

That cooling has now been shown to be an artefact. In some of the buoys --
they are manufactured in separate batches -- a software glitch caused the
temperature and salinity data to be associated with the wrong depths. When
the problem data are excluded from the analysis, the cooling trend drops
below the level of statistical significance.

-----------------
Can we all say "OOPSIE"?

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[kiracatgirl]

"liberal atheistic socialist liberal conspirators"

They're twice as liberal as the normal atheistic socialist liberal conspirators!

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[cyclop]

I would not call submerged cities (do you know Venice?) just "bad weather".

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[ch-chuck]

And there's coal there too, thus proving that dinosaurs drove SUV's.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[nine-times]

This is entirely true. Whether you view Global Warming as hard science or a myth, your localized anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. When you have a particularly cold day, this does not mean that global warming has ceased or been disproved. Likewise, if there is a particular warm day, this is not evidence of global warming.

I'm sick of everyone telling me about Global Warming every time there's a warm day. Every winter, there's some 50 degree day in December where I hear some moron spouting about, "This is scary! It's December and so it's supposed to be 20 degrees!! Global Warming is going to kill us!!" Except.... I grew up in the area, and my family has lived in the area for about 100 years, and there have *ALWAYS* been 50 degree days in December. It's not unusual or new.

Most likely, wherever you live, the weather is not noticeably different than it was 50 years ago. Even if the weather is different, it could be due to normal natural causes-- climates change over time and weather goes through cycles. Even with the most extreme Global Warming numbers, you're talking about a rise in temperatures of a couple degrees.

Don't get me wrong-- I'm not trying to dismiss the importance of global warming because it's "only a couple degrees". Geologically, a couple degrees can have a huge impact, and it's possible that these couple degrees could cause a lot of problems. However, Global warming has not increased the temperature of the Earth by 30 degrees in the past 5 years, so if you have a 50 degree day in the winter, it's probably not due to Global Warming. So please, everyone, just shut up about it and let the scientists do there thing and figure things out.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[mashade]

Neither :)

I just wanted it to be clear that vast areas of ice hadn't melted and disappeared, they reformed from snowfall.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is annual
temperature plot from the south pole Amundsen-Scott station:

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/icd/gjma/amundsen-scott. ann.trend.pdf

Vostok:

http://www.nerc-bas.ac.uk/public/icd/gjma/vostok.a nn.trend.pdf

Now, do you see any temperature trend at all there?

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Number6.2]

Your argument has the "Ring of Truthiness" to it! :D

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[cloud1494]

I love how people actually think the water level will rise if the world gets hotter. The truth is that ice is just expanded water which for the most part dwells below sea level. If you were to melt this ice the water level would actually go down. You can even test this with a cup of ice water if you'd like. But like was stated, global warming is non-existent, ice levels are actually high in the arctic, and yes, there are lots of dumb scientists who make up "theories" (if you call them that, I just call them lies) to ensure their job security.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I totally know what you mean. My family has lived here for 3 generations, and almost every year the temperature drops down into the 50's for a couple of days. Thank god it doesn't last long, and we can still bicycle, hike, skateboard and surf for the majority of December and January.

Chill'n in San Diego

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Derek Pomery]

Your point? The pack ice is just chunks of ice driven together by high winds.
Ice chunks in part broken off the main ice fields as temperatures warm.
Are you saying the winds were caused by record low temperatures?

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[iago-vL]

From my untrained eye, I would have to say yes. It definitely seems to be going to the right.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[rcamans]

Actually, a lot of ice is on top of dirt, not water, and so when it melts, it gets added to the ocean, raising the water levels. Glaciers on mountains are an obvious example. The south pole is a land mass, as is much of the northern area which is covered by ice. just because some ice is on top of water does not mean that all ice is floating. So, no, it is not clear to me what the water level will actually do.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[jfengel]

I find that there are at least two different things driving doubters. One is, fundamentally, money. Fixing global warming is going to cost somebody a lot of money. I know that there are various claims that it can be done on the cheap or even have an economic advantage, but it seems pretty simple on the surface that if you hold yourself to rules and somebody else doesn't, they're going to beat you economically, at least in the short term. If there's any doubt that humans cause global warming, or that humans could fix global warming, or that things would get better if we did fix global warming, then it's very much in their best interest to make sure those doubts are heard.

But a lot of people haven't analyzed it out that far. For them, it's reason #2, a kind of herd instinct. I don't single out global-warming doubters for that. Quite the contrary: very few global-warming believers are actually in a position to make the claim directly. There are a few thousand scientists with direct knowledge of the problem; everybody else is just taking their word for it. Instead, they believe because it sounds reasonable to them, and they believe it because it reinforces their ideology.

That's what it all comes down to: a collection of liberal causes all back each other up and believe global warming. A collection of conservative causes all back each other up and doubt it. These causes are unrelated on the surface; there's no reason to find a correlation between global warming skepticism, opposition to gun control, demand for reduced government (and reduced taxes), more influence of religion, etc. except the underlying ideology.

That's where your "self-hood" comes to be at stake. If global warming is real, and human caused, etc. then an entire conservative philosophy is at risk. And the converse. If anything more so: a large class of global warming believer is only to happy to believe that this will force large corporations like car and oil companies to shut down, and it's just really really nice that the actual evidence happens to agree with them.

The lines of ideology aren't absolute. Some conservatives are starting to find that the evidence is too strong for global warming, and other aspects of their ideology start to kick in. For example, evangelicals believe that allowing the earth to warm is a failure of our custodianship of the planet.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue really is: is global warming natural and the hysteria more attributable to the psychotic inclinations of the neurotic and guilt ridden left? Of course warming is natural and anyone who can't see it is impressionable. Unfortunately most educated people these days aren't educated as much as brainwashed in the university learning ghettos - so they are prone to swallowing garbage via their emotionalised thinking. Anthropomorphic GW is for dupes.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[4D6963]

The issue is GLOBAL WARMING, not is it warmer at my house.

Indeed, I've always been amazed by how many people seem, when they hear "Global Warming", to understand "Uniform Warming". Or to quote a Michael Crichton's book character, pointing at the cold-as-usual results from a single wheather station, "There's your global warming" ;-).

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[4D6963]

ALL data on climate change is anecdotal.

It's not when it's measured simultaneously all around the globe. Then it becomes global. Mainly when satellites become involved.

There is only one earth! There is no sample set to compare to.

Yes there is, there is the hundreds of thousands of years of data we've collected from ice carrots, for example. That's something reliable to compare what's happening now to.

In an unrelated manner, I often get the feeling that for someone to say "I know I might get modded down for this but.." appeals modders towards modding up. Maybe our instinctive attraction for claimedly unpopular claims..

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[DragonWriter]

The problem is the evidence for warming does seem to be selective. Everything "hotter" supposedly proves global warming (or anything colder, or anything unusual in any way), but any example to the contrary "doesn't disprove anything".

That's just because you aren't paying attention. Many local changes (including heating in some area, cooling in others, greater extremes of things that aren't particular hot or cold but other aspects of weather in other places) are in line with the theoretical predictions of the effects of the global warming, and are often pointed to in popular media as things that might be symptoms (or, sometimes sloppily, as things that are symptoms) of global warming.

They are not proofs of global warming. The proof of the fact of global warming is the measured increase in global average temperatures. The evidence for the causal models that suggest where global warming comes from is more varied, but is not the weather outcomes.

Some of the weather outcomes, when systematically studied and analyzed, may confirm some of the theoretical models of consequences of global warming, but the individual examples pointed to are not proofs of those individually, and certainly aren't proofs of warming itself.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[UbuntuDupe]

It's not when it's measured simultaneously all around the globe. Then it becomes global.

But their causal inseparability makes it only one data point.

Yes there is, there is the hundreds of thousands of years of data we've collected from ice carrots, for example.

That's still a time history for *one* causally isolated variable, against the time history of millions of influencing factors. To know that we have the right model, we have to predict the future, not simply curve-fit to the past.

In an unrelated manner, I often get the feeling that for someone to say "I know I might get modded down for this but.." appeals modders towards modding up. Maybe our instinctive attraction for claimedly unpopular claims..

Or the fact that saying anything upsetting to the GW crowd will get you modded down, even if it's true, and I was anticipating this.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

There is only one earth! There is no sample set to compare to.

Personally, I'd be content with proving the trend for this one earth.

If someone has a proven allergy to peanuts, I don't need to try to prove that peanuts are bad for people to know that I shouldn't give that person peanuts.

No matter how many planets or even difference species on our own planet might be able to handle a dramatic spike in CO2 levels, you just need evidence that ours can't.

We can look back via fossil record, ice cores and tree rings and see how our planet has dealt with climate change historically. I'm not convinced we as a species (or most of the other species on this planet) would survive it if it happens again.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[FailedTheTuringTest]

First, "currently" in the above post means, "last month". And the news reports clearly stated that the cause was simply sustained strong northeast winds that collected the ice together and pushed it into a dense pack. On the other side of Newfoundland in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, the ice has been thinning each year for several years and is at a record low this year -- so thin that the spring seal hunt has been delayed or canceled and the main danger facing baby seals is drowning as their ice floes collapse, rather than the hunter's club.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[vux984]

ALL data on climate change is anecdotal. There is only one earth! There is no sample set to compare to.

Observations about this one earth is the only earth those observations need to be applied to.

If you study one mouse, and learn its behaviour patterns you might not learn much about mice, but you'll be able to make useful predictions about that one mouse... and that's all we need here.

The causal inseparability of the weather across the earth prevents you from testing lots of cases except over very long periods of time, which hasn't happened since forming the latest consensus model.

Ice core samples are used to measure the contents of the atmosphere and an antarctic ice core goes back 600,000 years. Greenhouse gas levels haven't been anywhere near where they are now for that entire span.

Sure you *could* argue that its just coincidence that the green house gases shot up as part of a naturally occuring cycle that just happens to coincide with massive human industrialization which just happens to be known to directly generate megatons of greenhouse gas emissions... but then you'd sound like an idiot.

All that aside.

It doesn't really mater if we caused it or not. It may well be that greenhouse gases were set to accumulate into a global cataclysm even if we weren't involved as a contributor or accelerant. But that's irrelevant... even if greenhouse gas accumulation is completely normal if it leads to an extinction-level event than we should be looking at stopping it by any means necessary.

We *know* humanity has survived the last half million years with greenhouse gases cycling through a particular range. It is now well outside that range. I think that's cause for concern whether its a natural cycle or not. We simply don't know that earth will continue to be habitable with the levels outside that range.

A significant and sudden shift in climate could be a 'fall of civilisation' or even 'extinction' scale event. Doing our best to keep the planet at temperature ranges, atmospheric composition ranges, etc, etc that are known to be habitable strikes me as good idea.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[stenn]

actually, if you are looking for another environmental system to compare to in order to discount increased solar radiation... look to Mars. Roughly the same distance and has a (thin) atmosphere.

if you were looking for evidence of increased solar radiation, what do you think you would find on Mars? Some evidence of increased heat similar to Earth? Well guess what... a couple of weeks ago there was this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article17 20024.ece Basically, Mars has warmed over the same period by about the same amount, as the Earth.

I always thought it was funny that people would sooner believe that cow farts warmed the planet more then the massive fusion engine in the sky. I guess it's best not to offer up rational thought in the face of rabid hysteria.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Omestes]

Good reply! Pleasantly outside of what I was expecting (namely "STFU!").

I agree, it isn't fair to shunt the group-think purely on the doubt crowd, not long ago I was in that crowd (moderately, the main doubt was our ability to generalize human causation from a shady record of a VERY old constantly fluctuating planet), and do see several dogmatic "greens" speaking out.

I guess it is like all things, both sides have their "fringes" that are overly represented thanks to being louder and more visual. In my philosophy classes we used to call it the "volume over validity" school of argument.

Re: thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[RedWizzard]

Sounds like NS neglected to debunk the biggest myth of them all, namely that global warming means a uniform increase in temperature everywhere on the planet. They repeatedly pointed that out over and over again in the list. It's just that some people here didn't read the article. Imagine that.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Max Littlemore]

I have no mod points, but thank you. You motivated me to figure out /. bookmarks

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[asylumx]

yeah but here's an interesting article about the areas to the north & northwest: http://www.popularmechanics.com/outdoors/adventure s/4212314.html

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[koreth]

And why should it mean shutting down the global economy so that everybody becomes poor and nobody can help anybody else to pay to deal with bad weather?

Who has proposed that? Specifically, I mean, not just "the environmentalists."

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Maitri]

By that argument we wouldn't ever be able to test scientifically! IE Well we can't use this medication, we have only tested it people from one planet. But we don't say that - we look at the data for what we are trying to fix, whether it is the people on the planet or the planet itself. It makes perfect sense to do the same thing with climate change. Also, have you EVER played with a climate model? You feed it data and it does a prediction which means that you can actually retroactively test it out... Feed it data up to a certain point, say 2006 and see how well it predicts 2007... we have data already for long periods of time - ice cores, petrified trees, fossils. Do you want us to "tests lots of cases ... over long periods of time" just so that we can study it longer and not have to do anything? That is such a politicians way out so they don't have to do anything about an issue. "We need to study it more." I don't see why it is so hard to say: "Carbon inputted into the atmosphere affects the entire atmospheric system. We might not understand all of the processes exactly but we should try not to fuck up a natural system that is working and allowing us to live. It also makes sense because oil is so expensive, maybe we should look into alternatives." Why is that such an impossible thing for us to do?

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Alioth]

Really? Given another 20 years of record breaking summers, I think I'll be up a ladder tidying up the lower fronds of my Washingtonia robusta (Mexican fan palm). That might not seem particularly unusual, except that this particular specimen is at 52 degrees north latitude, not the usual 28 degrees north. The winters are already mild enough that the plant (currently only 2 feet tall) requires no protection. In 1975, there would have been no chance that it would have survived even with protection.

I first heard about global warming at school. In 1986. So it's already had 21 years. RTFA and you'll see they actually put that global cooling prediction into context which the global warming deniers fail to do.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[4D6963]

But their causal inseparability makes it only one data point.

Oh god, STFU. Damn non-climatologists challenging scientifical claims, claiming some shit isn't reliable because "it takes single data points" when it really is.. go to wikipedia and shut the fuck up.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Anonymous Coward]

Doublespeak Alert... Ministry of Love = Ministry of War... Ministry of Global Cooling Means Ministry of Global Warming. Mr. Smith and Algore truly can believe that 2 + 2 = 5 if enough people believe it to be true.
Look up temperatures during the Altithermal, 5000 BCE, things got a bit warmer than they are today. Must have been all those factories and SUV's the Anaszi Arachaic Society were using.

I propose that we use giant orbital mirrors to shade the U.S. They would offset the heat generated by green house gases produced by Liberals jetting around in Gulfstream G5's. In addition the mirrors could be used to vaporize those who refuse to sell us cheap crude oil with which to make Kerosene jet fuel.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[wolfemi1]

Are you from Lansing? I grew up there.... Go Spartans!

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[king-manic]

At risk of getting modded down for saying something unpopular:

ALL data on climate change is anecdotal. There is only one earth! There is no sample set to compare to. The causal inseparability of the weather across the earth prevents you from testing lots of cases except over very long periods of time, which hasn't happened since forming the latest consensus model.

Yes, that sucks. No, please don't mod me down for pointing this out.

anecdotal (nk-dtl)
adj.
1. also anecdotic (-dtk) or anecdotical (--kl) Of, characterized by, or full of anecdotes.
2. Based on casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis: "There are anecdotal reports of children poisoned by hot dogs roasted over a fire of the [oleander] stems" C. Claiborne Ray.

anecdotal
          adj 1: having the character of an anecdote; "anecdotal evidence"
          2: characterized by or given to telling anecdotes; "anecdotal
                conversation"; "an anectodal history of jazz"; "he was at
                his anecdotic best" [syn: anecdotic, anecdotical]

anecdote (n'k-dt') pronunciation
n.

      1. A short account of an interesting or humorous incident.
      2. pl. -dotes or -dota (-d't). Secret or hitherto undivulged particulars of history or biograph

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Kelbear]

Thank you, that was a good post.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Bob-taro]

I'm sorry, what did you say? I wasn't paying attention :-)

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[wpiman]

Geologically, a couple degrees can have a huge impact,

Do you think a couple of degrees will really do alot to rocks?

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[gordgekko]

Nothing ironic about it. It was debunked so thoroughly that few scientists on either side of the issue take Michael Mann's assertion seriously.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[Russ Nelson]

Who has proposed that?

Kyoto. Given that it would have cost trillions and accomplish nothing, and people want MORE controls over carbon emission than Kyoto would have created, I suggest **anybody who thinks that we can control the amount of carbon emitted in the timeframe specified as "necessary"**. I'd start with Gore and go upwards. Can't get lower than Gore.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[LunaticTippy]

I've noticed a lot of record high temps (both high and low) where I live, sometimes by double digits. If we're breaking records 30 or more days a year it does seem odd.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[nine-times]

It may be an odd coincidence. It may mean you're experiencing part of a long-term climate cycle. It could be part of your climate shifting. The pattern may be due to global warming.

However, I doubt either you or I are qualified or have sufficient data to determine which of those things it is. We could guess, but that ain't science.

Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years

[LunaticTippy]

Agreed. It does make the conversation more interesting when people bitch about 70 degree Fahrenheit weather in january to say "we broke the record high low by 20 degrees last night"

Ugh - not again.

[NeutronCowboy]

I'm a firm believer in verifying scientific claims, especially when they are used to drive policy on a global scale. I just think that a) the topic has been played out, and b) Climate change discussions on slashdot have moved from discussing the science behind it to silly flame wars (I know so, because I pretty much started one the last time around).

I seriously would like to put a moratorium on these stories until there are some new and credible theories that come up. Relinking to the same old arguments (both ways) does nothing to advance the discussion, or the knowledge of the topic.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[theStorminMormon]

Awe, come on, what's Slashdot without a little partisan flamewar on at least a weekly basis.

What we really need is a story about how not enough girls in engineering contributes to global warming.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

Relinking to the same old arguments (both ways) does nothing to advance the discussion, or the knowledge of the topic.

I could not disagree more. I am thankful to New Scientist for compiling this handy reference list, because I can pull the debunkings from it out whenever someone says something stupid instead of having to write about it, track down references, etc.

Until the danger is gone, there will still be work to be done.

Education is the first step. Granted, some people paid so little attention in their high school physics class that they are completely unable to have any kind of rational, reasonable discussion on the subject, but my solution is to euthanize them and move on :D

Re:Ugh - not again.

[goldspider]

"I can pull the debunkings from it out whenever someone says something stupid instead of having to write about it, track down references, etc."

There's a term for that: "talking points".

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ceejayoz]

And there's nothing inherently evil about talking points.

It's when talking points are either flat out wrong or just drastically miss the point that problems arise, and that's what we see with most global warming denialist ones.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[NeutronCowboy]

I agree that it is a handy reference list - just like about a million others there. It's nice though that it comes from a source whose main goal is not related to Global Climate Change. And yes, discussion and education about the basic principles influencing climates is important.

However, in the context of slashdot, I haven't seen a new argument in about a year, with the lone exception being perhaps the impact of interstellar radiation on cloud formation. It seems the people left arguing against Global Climate Change simply refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong. The old saw about leading a horse to water comes to mind.

Then again, I guess I could also just ignore the articles. :)

Re:Ugh - not again.

[daeg]

What new theories, exactly? Sure, the models do shift as we learn more, but the fact that humans are putting out more and more greenhouse gases every year doesn't change. That's the simple fact behind it all: pollution is bad, and needs to stop.

Why do we need all the rhetoric and debate behind "pollution is bad and needs to stop"? Do you enjoy breathing problems? Do you want your kids to eat healthy? Do you LIKE asthma?

The bullshit behind the "economic impact" is bunk, by the way. Sure, a few companies will lose some money, and a CEO might only get a silver plated personal jet instead of gold, but the overall picture is that the first country to market on mass clean, renewable energy will experience a wide GDP expansion for a long time after it's developed.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

The old saw about leading a horse to water comes to mind.

I prefer an alternative version which is even more applicable to the current situation: "You can lead a whore to Vasser, but you can't make her think."

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ScentCone]

It's when talking points are either flat out wrong or just drastically miss the point that problems arise, and that's what we see with most global warming denialist ones.

You say that, and ignore the summary that cites, "this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere" ... ? is due to

That absolute tone - stating that there is no other contributing factor, and that only humans have anything to do with climate change - not only flies in the face of countless other observations (and just plain common sense), but it's the sort of smug, one-dimensional, fear-mongering assertion that tends to bring out the opposing talking points you're so annoyed by. If you don't like simplistic counter-fire, why aren't you combatting the real provocation for them, which is unadulterated crap like that gross and misleading simplification? Not long ago we were in an ice age. Things have changes a lot since then. Man did not do it. Man's activity could well be an important contributor to the nature of, or impact of ages old cycles and other influences. But "it's man, and that's that" is a deliberate bit of trolling and the foundation for political power grabbing.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

Not long ago we were in an ice age.

A theory which in fact they provide a debunking for.

Things have changes a lot since then. Man did not do it.

This is why people just want to drop a simplistic explanation on the deniers of global warming, because they are so willing to ignore simple principles of climate science, such as the concept that the results of your actions might not be seen immediately.

Man did not do it. Man's activity could well be an important contributor to the nature of, or impact of ages old cycles and other influences. But "it's man, and that's that" is a deliberate bit of trolling and the foundation for political power grabbing.

I don't know why you find it so hard to believe, except that you're clinging to your interpretation. Global CO2 levels are higher than they have ever been, as far as we can tell. We put out more CO2 than volcanoes do on average and we do it without releasing non-black particulates to mitigate the effects.

But actually, if you just start reading through those articles, every point you have raised has been well-explained there. The only problem with their publishing this information is that it just won't do any good if you can't convince people to read it.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Erioll]

This "reference list" you mention completely marginalizes any theories not in agreement to its line. It says they are "very complex" or that there are "many factors" in play on anything that doesn't jive with their agenda. For example, in the "it was warmer in the medieval warm period" one, and how vineyards were common, it says (yes I'm paraphrasing) "well wine production is higher today than then, so obviously it's at least as warm now." Umm, modern agriculture techniques don't help at all? And not to mention that your statement there contradicts the evidence that is relied on in other sections about being able to profile historical temperatures?

Also the most glaring is any section that mentions the LAG between temperatures and CO2 concentrations. They even STATE that there's a lag BOTH ways, but then try and marginalize the findings by saying "well we know it's a greenhouse gas, therefore it is causing the effect" even when the "effect" is 800 years before the cause.

Not to mention completely ignoring the largest damning piece of evidence: lack of accelerated upper atmospheric warming. All of the climate models that predict warming also predict that the upper atmosphere will warm FASTER than the lower, since that's where the gases are that are absorbing the extra energy. We warm from the top-down due to greenhouse gases (GHGs). But that's NOT HAPPENING. The data SHOWS that it is warming at EXACTLY the same rate as the lower atmosphere, which completely proves that GHGs are NOT the current warming cause.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[pete-classic]

"Denialist" isn't a word. I think you're looking for "skeptic". You know, unless you are intentionally using prejudicial, made-up words to discredit people who may disagree with your conclusions, or at least how much faith we can put in them.

-Peter

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

But science doesn't come in leaps and bounds. Every tree ring or ice core that is analyzed either adds or detracts from the credibility of a theory. Every run of a computer model aims at matching it up a little bit better with the historical record. The science on climate change has ever-so-slowly morphed from the "global cooling" theories of the 1970's to the much more accurate computer models of today. We have much more data and a much better understanding of climate, and even a better understanding of what we don't know. To claim that we are still arguing the same science today as we were even 10 years ago is disingenuous... 10 years ago there were enough holes in the data to ask serious questions about the whole theory. Today, people still keep asking the same questions even though they've been answered pretty well.

I'm sorry, but you are unlikely to get a "new and credible" theory, since the only 3 possibilities are that man-made CO2 increases global temperature, decreases global temperature, or has no effect on global temperature. All three have already been posited, and only the increasing temperature theory has a substantial amount of evidence to support it. Your comment is proof that we need to continue to talk about it.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ScentCone]

The only problem with their publishing this information is that it just won't do any good if you can't convince people to read it.

And the REASON you can't get people to read it is that it tends to be introduced with summary notions that imply: "The weather would be perfectly stable, and very pleasant, and nothing would ever, ever change, and there would be unicorns bringing us nice books to read under the light of their sweet, sweet rainbows if it weren't for Americans and their cars, which also happen to be painted ugly colors." Climate has been, and always will be all over the place, in terms of trends and even huge ugly swings. We certainly are contributing some to the current state of affairs. If we were all living in loin cloths in villages of a hundred people, though, the climate would still be very different today that it was 25,000 years ago. And 100,000 years ago. The Sahara used to be bigger, and hotter than it is now... perhaps because there was a lull in paleolithic SUV driving or something, who knows.

You can't "debunk" the ice age. Well, I mean, you CAN... but then you might as well attribute all of our delusions about glacially relocated megatons of rocks and top soil in the US midwest to... what? The Electric Universe and lightning bolts from Mars? Aliens competing in giant Curling matches? Yeesh.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

For example, in the "it was warmer in the medieval warm period" one, and how vineyards were common, it says (yes I'm paraphrasing) "well wine production is higher today than then, so obviously it's at least as warm now."

It says that in passing, and does not base its entire argument upon it, but you are disingenuously presenting their statement as if they did.

They also direct you to their related article "Climate myths: It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?" which you obviously elected not to read.

Not only is it not clear that it actually was warmer during the short-lived so-called "Medieval Warm Period" it is clear that CO2 levels were lower.

Also the most glaring is any section that mentions the LAG between temperatures and CO2 concentrations. They even STATE that there's a lag BOTH ways, but then try and marginalize the findings by saying "well we know it's a greenhouse gas, therefore it is causing the effect" even when the "effect" is 800 years before the cause.

Actually, they specifically discuss the results of aerosols mitigating the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially in the case of volcanic eruption.

One of three things is true: Either you didn't read much of the article[s] they presented, you are too stupid to understand them, or you are deliberately misrepresenting what they have said in order to make your argument look better. I make no claim to know which of these is the case.

Not to mention completely ignoring the largest damning piece of evidence: lack of accelerated upper atmospheric warming. All of the climate models that predict warming also predict that the upper atmosphere will warm FASTER than the lower, since that's where the gases are that are absorbing the extra energy.

It is not even remotely true to say that "all" of the climate models that predict warming also predict that the upper atmosphere will warm faster than the lower. Not even close. And in fact, global warming specifically addresses the troposphere, the lower part of the atmosphere.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Erioll]

Actually, they specifically discuss the results of aerosols mitigating the effects of CO2 in the atmosphere, especially in the case of volcanic eruption.

If you were looking to make your argument even weaker, you just succeeded, by basically saying "When evidence doesn't agree with our theory, propose undetectable explanations as to why it didn't obey, still preserving our theory." There's ALWAYS a reason (without evidence) as to why "some other factor" caused any major aberrations pointed out, and not that the actual theory is WRONG. Look at it with a critical eye and you'll see it's ALWAYS there. It is never said "this doesn't agree with the predictions we are making for the future, and we dont' know why" but hedges on their knowledge. You KNOW you are getting a shyster explanation when they appear to try to know "everything" and "always" have an explanation when it becomes even more obvious that they are talking out of their asses.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[dharbee]

"Until the danger is gone, there will still be work to be done." What danger are you speaking of? Are you automatically assuming warming=danger here?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Rei]

A talking point is analogous to a "sound bite" -- they're short summaries of a person's PR-weighted beliefs on a particular subject.

How, exactly, is an article that goes into the science behind a given issue over the course of several pages a "talking point"?
More accurately, it is a "reference" that sums up the current state of peer-reviewed literature.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[DreadfulGrape]

That would be pretty easy to trace, methinks:

a) not enough girls in engineering, means
b) too many geeks spankin' the monkey, meaning
c) gotta crank that AC, thereby releasing
d) more CO2 into the atmosphere.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Bob-taro]

And then those that think your views are stupid will go to their websites and get their proof, ...

Re:Ugh - not again.

[netwiz]

So you're saying that less than a 1% increase in production of CO2 is enough to change the climate this much? Even with the fact that tropospheric water vapor has an order of magnitude greater effect on thermal regulation? Sorry, but knowing how effects like this pile up suggests strongly to me that the people producing these articles are pushing a pet theory. All the people screaming about warming seem to be the same ones that hate any big industry. These arguments come off as alarmist, when most of these folks agree that we'll all be dead by the time anything significant happens (if it happens at all, as a trend I've noticed is a constant downward revision of the expected impact, starting from the mid 1980s).

Sorry, it's just not enough. Furthermore, you're suggesting that a reduction of less than 1% of CO2 emissions will cool the planet? Ugh. Hey, you do know that the Earth is physically too far from Sol to maintain it's temperature without an atmosphere? It'd be really easy for us all to freeze to death. In fact, IIRC one of the worst ice ages actually got so cold at the poles that the researchers who discovered it feared that the temperature could actually drop low enough to allow CO2 to precipitate out of the air. At which point, the planet would probably freeze solid, at least at the surface, irreversibly.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Daniel Dvorkin]

"Denialist" isn't a word. I think you're looking for "skeptic". You know, unless you are intentionally using prejudicial, made-up words to discredit people who may disagree with your conclusions, or at least how much faith we can put in them.

A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

And the REASON you can't get people to read it is that it tends to be introduced with summary notions that imply: "The weather would be perfectly stable, and very pleasant, and nothing would ever, ever change, and there would be unicorns bringing us nice books to read under the light of their sweet, sweet rainbows if it weren't for Americans and their cars, which also happen to be painted ugly colors."

How is this inaccurate? We represent 25% of the world's CO2 emissions since what, the 17th century? We consume more energy per capita than any other nation on the planet.

Perhaps it's time to wake up and realize that our lifestyle is not sustainable, that we are in fact the biggest part of the problem to date (although China is rapidly shaping up to look like they're going to take the top spot from us soon enough) and that perhaps we should start fixing our problems?

Note that I don't think we're responsible for all the world's ills and that the Kyoto protocol is a sad joke that explicitly permits developing nations to pollute egregiously. But that doesn't change anything which has happened to date!

If we were all living in loin cloths in villages of a hundred people, though, the climate would still be very different today that it was 25,000 years ago.

Industry isn't the only problem. Agriculture is at least as serious, perhaps worse. The amazon is estimated to have been responsible for producing 25% of the world's oxygen (oceanic algae being responsible for much of the remainder.) The amazon is dying, and estimates vary wildly on how long it will take before it experiences complete collapse. But the majority of the slash-and-burn agriculture is carried out to provide the USA with goods! So we are indirectly responsible there, too. For example, McDonalds is the world's largest consumer of rainforest-raised beef.

You can't "debunk" the ice age. Well, I mean, you CAN... but then you might as well attribute all of our delusions about glacially relocated megatons of rocks and top soil in the US midwest to... what? The Electric Universe and lightning bolts from Mars? Aliens competing in giant Curling matches? Yeesh.

So just to be clear, you're not talking about a mini ice age? Because temperatures are already higher than they have been estimated to be throughout history, and CO2 levels are also broadly out of whack with our measurements from core samples et cetera. CO2 levels have reached unprecedented heights. So to claim that we are just leaving the influence of the long-ago ice age is a bit disingenuous. Even if it is true, it only serves to support the claim of global warming as it would have mitigated the effects of our blatant disregard for the fact that problems don't solve themselves.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

If you were looking to make your argument even weaker, you just succeeded, by basically saying "When evidence doesn't agree with our theory, propose undetectable explanations as to why it didn't obey, still preserving our theory."

Undetectable? We have seen evidence of this effect first-hand when we have witnessed volcanic eruptions.

If you have a cogent point to make, make it. Otherwise, let the adults talk.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Dragonslicer]

It seems the people left arguing against Global Climate Change simply refuse to even consider the possibility that they might be wrong

And the people that repeatedly shout that it's all because of humans are different because...?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Denialist" isn't a word. I think you're looking for "skeptic".

"Denialist" is a perfectly cromulent word.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ScentCone]

So just to be clear, you're not talking about a mini ice age?

No, I'm talking about the most recent, actual, real, covering-half-the-continent ice age. There was neither agriculture, nor even a significant human population (and sure as hell nothing approaching, say, the wildebeast or bison populations) in play when we last saw a dramatic change in temp, climbing their way upwards ever since. We weren't meaningfully THERE to impact that huge change, let alone cause it, and be the only causes of it. So, implying that, since that big change, things have just nicely leveled off, and would STAY that way if it weren't for human activity and ONLY human activity, is spectacularly disengenuous. So much so, that when that notion gets spouted as the primary thesis and summary of so many "let's all be activists" school assemblies and slashdot summaries, that you have to wonder (or not so much) what political axe is being ground... because it can't POSSIBLY be that the deliverers of that message really think that climate would not be changing if we weren't here. And if they DO think that, then you have to question their ability to string together any two bits of information and form any sort of rational thought, and then you have to ask yourself why you're listening to them for advice on whether that new hybrid Honda really is, or isn't a true net positive on the environment, or why they're so opposed to nuclear power at the same time they're bitching about coal.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[maxume]

So forever then? It takes a true optimist to think that emissions are going to decline any time in the next 30 years, let alone atmospheric levels.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't agree more.

Slashdot should just stick to posting stories about Microsoft, Linux, patents and copyrights where discussions are sure to be chock full of new and insightful opinions.

Welcome to Slashdot. We re-hash subjects ad nauseam and then we do it again for good measure. The dead horse's carcass is barely recognizable. And in Soviet Russia, that horse has been kicking our ass six ways till Tuseday, or, for that matter, any other day of the week as well. Somebody set us up the same damn conversation almost every day (we get signal!).

Oh, and, (not so much) First Post!

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

So forever then? It takes a true optimist to think that emissions are going to decline any time in the next 30 years, let alone atmospheric levels.

If we have to fight against the polluters forever, then those of us who care about people other than ourselves (and ourselves!) will continue fighting forever.

I only hope that the revolution comes and we start actually DOING something about it, one way or another and by any means necessary, before it is too late to avoid catastrophe and mass dieoffs - assuming it isn't already.

Regardless, we're saving our pennies and we plan to move to a more remote location, with a little altitude, before any such thing has a chance to happen. If it doesn't, then we end up with a nice off-grid house with some lovely amenities and we don't want to live amongst the unwashed masses anyway - most people are fucking annoying and I'd just as soon be without them. If it does happen, then we'll be in a good position to weather the storm.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

There was neither agriculture, nor even a significant human population (and sure as hell nothing approaching, say, the wildebeast or bison populations) in play when we last saw a dramatic change in temp, climbing their way upwards ever since. We weren't meaningfully THERE to impact that huge change, let alone cause it, and be the only causes of it.

Given that global temperatures are higher now than they have been in recorded history, including the "Medieval warm period", I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. We weren't here to influence it before, it got hotter with us here, and we haven't been able to detect any other reason that would explain it. So human influence is the most likely theory even on that basis, were there not ample other reasons why it is the most likely theory (and there are.)

because it can't POSSIBLY be that the deliverers of that message really think that climate would not be changing if we weren't here.

(-1, Deliberately Obtuse)

No one is saying this. We're saying it wouldn't be changing in this way, or to this degree, without our influence.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Maxo-Texas]

Didn't see the debunking of the global warming on Mars and the moons of the outer planets in our solar system occuring now too.

That's one piece of fairly strong counter-evidence to human causes.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[NeutronCowboy]

Read up, buttercup. Specifically, read the journal articles referenced there, or meander through the links and find an IPCC reference that discusses your point. Arguments from incredulity hold no water.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[NeutronCowboy]

... they can refer to scientific research.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[pete-classic]

Best AC post ever.

-Peter

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Erioll]

Undetectable? We have seen evidence of this effect first-hand when we have witnessed volcanic eruptions. And yet EVERY time temperature decreases BEFORE CO2 decreases, there MUST have been some "other" effect. WITHOUT FAIL there was something else causing it. And they're not detected yet? Must just not have found them yet. They MUST be there since the theory is infallible. Riiiight.

Otherwise, let the adults talk. Btw, your Ad hominem attacks really add to your arguments too. Keep at them.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[maxume]

Hopefully it is just the sun:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Solar_Activity_ Proxies.png

note that that graph is from this page:

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

And probably paints the rosiest picture for someone hoping that current temperatures are just the sun. If it isn't the sun, we are screwed, screwed, screwed: 1 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere is(by my rough calculation anyway) something like 4 billion tons of the stuff.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[pete-classic]

That all makes sense, but doesn't seem to be the same context in which ceejayoz used it.

-Peter

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Mahjub Sa'aden]

Maybe what you need to ask yourself is whether you are a former skeptic convinced by the evidence, or just another in the "global warming is happening and caused by dirty capitalists, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd.

I mean, if all skeptics must be convinced of the evidence you're seemingly so certain of, instead of just picking a belief system and filling their ears with sand, you must admit that concept works both ways, yes?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Pentagram]

A quick Google search comes up with ~100k hits for "denialist".

Wikipedia has a definition.

Just because the major dictionaries haven't caught up yet doesn't mean it isn't a word. And if it wasn't a word we'd have to invent it; it's exactly the word we need in this situation. It's clearly distinct from "skeptic".

If no one was allowed to make up new words we'd still be grunting "ug" at each other.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Ambitwistor]

Ugh. I can't tell you how sick I am of this innummerate argument. I thought Slashdotters were supposed to understand math.

So you're saying that less than a 1% increase in production of CO2 is enough to change the climate this much?

Here are some made up numbers to illustrate the point:

Every year, natural sources put 200 units of CO2 into the atmosphere, and natural sinks pull 200 units out of the atmosphere. The net change in atmospheric CO2 concentration is zero. (In reality, it's not zero, but it's a small and random fluctuation compared to the actual upward trend of ~35% since pre-industrial times.)

Along come humans, who put 2 units of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. Natural sinks pull 1 units out of the air, leaving 1 to accumulate in the air and raise total CO2 concentrations. After a number of years, those units accumulate to something large.

What is important is not the change in production, but the change in amount left in the air. The change in CO2 concentration is, as I said, about 35%, not 1%.

Even with the fact that tropospheric water vapor has an order of magnitude greater effect on thermal regulation?

Again, this is the wrong number. Water vapor and other greenhouse gases warm the planet by ~30 degrees C, explaining why the Earth is not a frozen iceball (as you yourself note). The increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times has added an extra ~0.5-1 degree of warming to that baseline. That warming is small compared to the 30 degrees provided naturally by other greenhouse gases, but it is responsible for most of the actual observed warming (about 1 degree) which has taken place.

(Also, CO2-induced warming creates more water vapor which itself amplifies the warming trend in a positive feedback.)

In fact, IIRC one of the worst ice ages actually got so cold at the poles that the researchers who discovered it feared that the temperature could actually drop low enough to allow CO2 to precipitate out of the air. At which point, the planet would probably freeze solid, at least at the surface, irreversibly. I don't know if that is right, but let's take that statement at face value.

If a 100% decrease in CO2 concentration is enough to permanently freeze solid the entire planet, is it that hard to imagine that a 35% increase in CO2 (from 280 to 380 ppm) can cause a single degree of global warming?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Scrameustache]

"Denialist" isn't a word. I think you're looking for "skeptic". You know, unless you are intentionally using prejudicial, made-up words to discredit people who may disagree with your conclusions, or at least how much faith we can put in them.

A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed. Sheeple.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[drinkypoo]

And yet EVERY time temperature decreases BEFORE CO2 decreases, there MUST have been some "other" effect. WITHOUT FAIL there was something else causing it. And they're not detected yet? Must just not have found them yet. They MUST be there since the theory is infallible. Riiiight.

I don't think you're paying attention, which is why I feel no compulsion to be polite to you. We have seen first-hand the effects of volcanic emissions other than CO2 mitigating the effects of CO2 release due to volcanic activity.

Otherwise, let the adults talk.

Btw, your Ad hominem attacks really add to your arguments too. Keep at them.

My audience enjoys them, so I likely will.

It's the really great ad hominem attacks that seem to correspond to my most rapidly positively modded comments.

I think that, like me, most of the people who like me (and my fans do significantly outnumber my freaks) like to see those presenting stupid arguments get slapped down.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Spy Handler]

the only 3 possibilities are that man-made CO2 increases global temperature, decreases global temperature, or has no effect on global temperature. All three have already been posited, and only the increasing temperature theory has a substantial amount of evidence to support it.

Teenagers pissing in the Mississipi river has only 3 possibilities: river level rises, decreases, or has no effect. All three have already been posited, and only the rising level theory has evidence to support it. We must take drastic action now to curb urine deposition or risk bigger floods in the future.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[mdsolar]

The US may start to cut emissions rather soon. There are market forces: rising energy costs, that make efficiency look more and more attractive. One CFL saves about $60 over seven years (pays for itself in 6 weeks), and insulation pays for itself pretty quickly too. The big 3 are having lots of trouble these days with their product lines because companies that have concentrated on efficiency are starting to see the payoff in their investment. It is not too hard to get a 20% reduction in per capita energy use over 15 years much less 30. Rising fossil energy costs are also making room for more renewable energy leading to scale in this sector and lower prices for these. One interesting development is an improved method for refining solar grade silicon http://pesn.com/2007/05/02/9500469_RSI_Silicon_win s_MIT_contest/ that should lower material costs for panel fabrication down quite a bit in a short time. Getting 30% energy conversion in thirty years is pretty simple.

It seems likely to me that the most industrialized countries are going to go this route, may are already on track to meet Kyoto. The question is, will developing countries have the ability to make these conversions? There, efficiency does not have such a large impact because energy using technology is still being adopted. The reliance on coal is pretty natural as well since they can cookie cutter their new plants. But, owing to the structure of Kyoto, there is little incentive to jump past coal even if it would cost less in the long run. China set itself back with its policies in the past and is only beginning to find something that seems to work. They may be open to further improvement, or they may dig in fearing to mess with success. This is really the coming issue with emissions reducing or not.

Reducing concentrations does not happen without our active intervention. Some folks are thinking about this: http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/antenna/CO2hoover/ .
--
Rent solar power; utility competitive rates: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ScentCone]

No one is saying this. We're saying it wouldn't be changing in this way, or to this degree, without our influence

No! That's NOT what's being said. What's being said is that human activity is THE cause of climate change. THE cause. That absent human activity, there would be no change. This notion is conveyed all the time, but most recently in the summary of the very post we're talking about. How can you not notice that?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[jinxidoru]

I would agree with you, except this is actually a pretty good article that addresses the most common talking points of global warming detractors.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

I also suppose that the Martians and Plutonians are also driving their SUV's as well since those planets are also undergoing Global warming.
Second point. I would like a warmer climate, it makes my Heating cost less. I don't own any polar bears nor any property on the coast (I can't afford it, sorry.) So bring it on. Humans are adaptable.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[maxume]

The global economy is going to at least triple in the next 30 years, just based on population growth and inertia. It could do a whole lot more than that. 20% per capita reduction for the top energy users doesn't matter when the group of people using grows by 400%.

(And the big 3 are going out of business because of their pension and insurance liabilities, not because of any technical magic under the hoods of Hondas and Toyotas. The fuel use of a 1985 Escort is not insanely out of line with the fuel use of a 2005 Civic; the Civic is a nicer car, but the Escort got decent mileage. Here are a bunch or models of each:

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/1985_Ford_E scort.shtml
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/2005_Honda_ Civic.shtml

Note that the Escort has ~85 cubic feet of passenger volume to the Civic's 91. Not great, but not too shabby.)

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Mudcathi]

"We have much more data and a much better understanding of climate, and even a better understanding of what we don't know"

My train of thought was running parallel with yours, until your tracks became blocked by this large wooly mammoth with sunglasses and swim trunks. Asking "How can we know what we don't know?" has been known to cause hippies to disappear from this dimension by way of falling into their navels.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ceejayoz]

Didn't see the debunking of the global warming on Mars and the moons of the outer planets in our solar system occuring now too.

Oh, I don't know, maybe if you'd read the article you'd have found it?

RealClimate has also debunked that particular talking point.

"The shrinkage of the Martian South Polar Cap is almost certainly a regional climate change, and is not any indication of global warming trends in the Martian atmosphere. Colaprete et al in Nature 2005 (subscription required) showed, using the Mars GCM, that the south polar climate is unstable due to the peculiar topography near the pole, and the current configuration is on the instability border; we therefore expect to see rapid changes in ice cover as the regional climate transits between the unstable states."

Re:Ugh - not again.

[X.25]

A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed.

Gotta adore the fanatics, really.

Can't your brain accept the fact that "Global warming isn't happening" and "It has nothing or very little to do with humans" are 2 different types of people?

Might be too much for your small fanatical and easily manipulated brain...

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

No! That's NOT what's being said. What's being said is that human activity is THE cause of climate change. THE cause. That absent human activity, there would be no change.

Bullshit. Put down the crack pipe and step away from the strawman.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

Excellent point. I should have said "has no significant effect on global temperature" instead of simply "no effect". That still leaves 3 possibilities, only one of which has a large body of evidence to support it.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[styrotech]

Not to mention completely ignoring the largest damning piece of evidence: lack of accelerated upper atmospheric warming. All of the climate models that predict warming also predict that the upper atmosphere will warm FASTER than the lower, since that's where the gases are that are absorbing the extra energy. We warm from the top-down due to greenhouse gases (GHGs). But that's NOT HAPPENING. The data SHOWS that it is warming at EXACTLY the same rate as the lower atmosphere, which completely proves that GHGs are NOT the current warming cause.

Are you sure about that? I thought it was supposed to be the other way around.

ie (correct me if I'm wrong) During the day solar radiation of all kinds of wavelengths makes it through the atmosphere and gets absorbed by the ground/oceans etc. The ground/oceans warm up a little, and at night as they cool down release that energy back into space via the atmosphere as a narrower band of radiation (IR). It is the change from a wide spectrum to a narrow spectrum that means the absorption on the way out is different to what it was on the way in. And it just so happens that carbon dioxide and methane etc like to absorb IR so catch more energy on the way out rather than the way in.

So the main effect isn't driven so much by trapping radiation on the way in (lots of different wavelengths), but by trapping radiation on the way out (mainly IR). So the denser lower atmosphere plays a big part that case.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

Heh, I phrased that pretty poorly. I didn't mean to imply that scientists now know what they don't know :) I meant that they have more knowledge about the limits of their models, and seem to have a better idea of what kind of data they need to make them more accurate.

Perhaps I should have just said that the modern climate models have a smaller degree of error than the models of 10-15 years ago, and this makes it easier to use them to craft policy. The model that was used to testify in front of congress in the early 90s was arguably useless for crafting policy - the best-case scenario was rosy and the worst case was bad enough that it lacked credibility. The best-case scenario coming from the improved models today is pretty bad. Bad enough that policy should probably be crafted around it.

The worst-case scenario (something like +30 degrees in 100 years) still seems pretty far-fetched to me, though... we'll be out of fossil fuels by then :)

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Lehk228]

i always just called them republicans

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude [or Dudette, whatever the case may be]. I applaud your attempt at trying to open these peoples minds on this. I gave up quite some time ago. Debating religion with people is pointless. I've moved from arguing to observing. The core problem is that there's a political/emotional nightmare scenario facing them. The nightmare being that we don't do anything and things cool back off. All they need to do is convince us to do something - anything- so they can point to that as the cause of the cooling that is likely to take place. Then they get a Y2K scenario. Win-win for the alarmists. Without the safety blanket, they're going to keep yelling loud and long. Of course, there are the multitudes of standard climate deniers [couldn't resist the dig] a.k.a global warmingists who haven't the faintest idea of what objectivity means. But they're really just along for the ride.

If you can muster the calm to do so, I would suggest dropping out of this debate. I predict that the crow-eating, recriminations, and wild explanations in the fallout of the cooling will make it all worth the wait.

And no - I'm really not going to debate this with any of you followup posters. So you can feel free to spout the magic words that gets one modded up around here to your hearts content. They're obvious and simple. I've even spouted them myself just to see if I would really get a 5 insightful. Worked like a charm. Just don't fool yourself into believing that somehow makes your arguments valid and poignant.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ScentCone]

Bullshit.

Hmmm. How about re-reading the summary from this very post?

"...Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."

This is completely typical. Use of phrases like "due to human activity" ... not "due in part to," or "exacerbated by," or "accelerated by..." And you know exactly what I mean, and that I'm right.

From the U.N.'s web site: "Changes in the atmosphere, the oceans and glaciers and ice caps now show unequivocally that the world is warming due to human activities, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in new report released today in Paris."

No mention of whether, or the degree to which, other factors play a role. Nope, the earth is "warming due to human activities." What else is one to take away from a that sentence, which introduces the UN's conclusions on the subject?

From a USA today interview: "The element of surprise here is that the picture is becoming so clear that (climate) changes are due to human activity," said Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences.

That's the president of the freakin' NAS. Maybe his middle name is "strawman," and that's what you're referring to?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

While we certainly can blame whoever we want on Earth, we need to also find out who is to blame for the warming of Jupiter's moon Europa and also Pluto. Obviously we Earth People must be very sinful to have caused them to warm up as well, We also noted the Martian polar caps shrinking, but that has been explained away as something else and certainly has nothing to do with the huge number of sunspots measured. We people are so very very bad, it is almost as it we committed some sort of original sin and nature is punishing us for it.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

So it's not at all possible that each individual celestial body might have it's own climate model? What evidence do you have that Mars, Earth, Europa, and Pluto share swings in climate? You only have a few years of correlation? How do you think that compares to the hundreds of thousands of years of climate data that we have for the Earth?

Show me a peer-reviewed paper attributing the majority of the recent warming of the earth to sunspots.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[10101001 10101001]

Use of phrases like "due to human activity" ... not "due in part to," or "exacerbated by," or "accelerated by..." And you know exactly what I mean, and that I'm right.

You're so right. I mean, the evidence seems to indicate that humans are only on the order of 2/3rds responsible (IIRC) for the warming* of the Earth. You're so right that they shouldn't use the word "the". "Overwhelming responsible" is so much more apt. And thanks to the knowledge that we can have a 2/3rds impact on warming, there's strong evidence that we could potentially stop warming and *further* stop the 1/3rd natural warming, if we were so interested. That was your point, right?

*Clearly this means that if global temperatures go up by 3 degrees, humans caused 2 degrees of that.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[ScentCone]

I mean, the evidence seems to indicate that humans are only on the order of 2/3rds responsible

And that, right there, is EXACTLY what we're all talking about, here. There is NO good evidence that could possibly lead you to a meaningful, rational number like that which isn't just as easily pushed around back the other direction by other findings. The percentage is greater than zero, but language that's constantly used (by the UN, no less), saying that it's 100%, is not just wrong, it's propoganda-style wrong.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Attila Dimedici]

"The science on climate change has ever-so-slowly morphed from the "global cooling" theories of the 1970's to the much more accurate computer models of today."
Yeah, that's right they changed because the science changed. They changed because the temperatures stopped falling. In the 1970's the recorded temperatures had been falling since the end of WWII. In the late 70's or early 80's that stopped and temperatures started to rise. Did this lead the alarmists who had been yelling that Man was bringing on a new Ice Age to re-evaluate their assumptions? No, they just changed from predicting an Ice Age to predicting disastrous increases in temperature and that as a result we needed the government to take over everything. The same prescription to solve a different problem.
When I see that Al Gore (the prophet of Global Warming) using more electricity in a month in one of his multiple houses than the average American uses in a year, I become somewhat skeptical about whether he really believes what he is preaching. In addition, many of the other proponents of Global Warming exhibit similar inconsistency. if the spokespeople for Global Warming aren't concerned enough about it to sacrifice why should I be?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[asylumx]

So, what you're saying is... in 30 years we could very well be fighting against global cooling once again, and you'll be looking back saying how many holes there were in the global warming theories of the 90s and 00s.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[mdsolar]

Gotta love the Escort Wagon, but it wasn't where Ford made money, so you can't get it now and they are having a hard time moving their previous money makers.

I think we are in agreement that trimming does not help much when one is starting from zero. And, it is this much less than population changes that contribute most to your very large number. This is why shifting off of fossil fuels is so important. Market forces may do a portion of this: you say insurance is at the root of the big 3's problems. It could be that the US will move to a less complex system for health care that will relieve this, and we can then look again at the foresight of putting development efforts towards fuel efficiency. Similarly, really large scale renewables may prove less complex than mining and delivering coal in China, or with a carbon tax imposed on chinese exports, a portion of their power supply will switch over because they'll want to hang onto their labor advantage. These are not easy problems. The industrialized countries are in a better position to move on this now than elsewhere.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

The primary difference between the 70's and the present is scientific consensus. You have to look at Exxon's payroll to find a scientist who does not believe that man has induced global warming. In the 70s, it was easy to find a scientist that would dismiss the "global cooling" theory.

Al Gore is a tool. He's a politician, and not a scientist. The only way he will sacrifice is the same way you or I will - pay more for products produced under an emissions cap.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

No, that's not what I'm saying. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that global warming is real. That was not the case for global cooling. I will concede that the scientists could all be mistaken, but I don't think it is very likely at this stage. The case for global warming is not as solid as it is for evolution, but it is rapidly approaching.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[10101001 10101001]

I mean, the evidence seems to indicate that humans are only on the order of 2/3rds responsible

And that, right there, is EXACTLY what we're all talking about, here.

Really? I never would have guessed. I guess it was stupid of me to make the statement, then, to clarify that there are scientists who point out that nature is at least partially responsible for the warming.

There is NO good evidence that could possibly lead you to a meaningful, rational number like that which isn't just as easily pushed around back the other direction by other findings.

Actually, no. That's the thing about the number. It wasn't "easily" pushed to where it is today. As is pointed out in the article, for a time, it was believed that pollution would offset any rise in temperature that the release of CO2 would cause. But the ratio of the effects of the two wasn't well understood, and it took many years to discover that CO2 indeed has a more prominent effect than was first assumed (basically, a hypothesis was made, taken by some (seemingly mostly media people) to be a theory, and it turned out to be wrong). So, again, no. The numbers that we have today weren't easily reached. And that very well means that a shift in thinking towards any signicant change in the human contribution to global warming will be far from easy. Why? Because the overwhelming evidence is what it is *now*.

The percentage is greater than zero, but language that's constantly used (by the UN, no less), saying that it's 100%, is not just wrong, it's propoganda-style wrong.

Propaganda-style wrong? You mean "The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause."? Well, yea, everything the UN says is propaganda-style, so is it really a surprise that they'd be the same with global warming? Or with the media? (Those are rhetorical questions, btw.) Would you be happy if instead of claiming it was 100% humans it was 66% humans, so humans still are the dominant factor and could reverse the changes if they so desired? (This isn't rhetorical.)

Re:Ugh - not again.

[pete-classic]

Yes, new words must come into being. What makes making up "denialist" better than using "denier"?

Do you think it improves discourse to apply a label associated with holocaust deniers to people who would raise questions about a Scientific conclusion (with huge political ramifications)? I happen to think that it poisons the discussion.

Incidentally, Google gives 215k hits for "cromulent". Does that make cromulent a cromulent word? Oddly enough, "embiggens" shows fewer than 20k.

-Peter

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

So, if 100% gives ~30 degrees, wouldn't an increase of 35% give around 10 degrees and not the single degree we are seeing ?

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Mudcathi]

It's probably a good thing that we start to run a bit short of fossil fuels, we have much better use for petrochemicals and higher prices will make other energy options more attractive. I'm a big fan of solar thermal (especially salt towers and parabolic troughs), but alternative energy isn't cost competitive yet. But to stay on topic, the answer to climate change is climate management. Global warming may actually be a net sum positive for the environment, what with decreased winter warming fuel needs and extended crop growing seasons and a decreasing birthrate in developed nations. Or not, in which case we need to stop yammering and do something. But in either case we need leaders who can stop the fear-mongering on both sides of the debate, continue our positive trends, ameliorate the negative trends, and establish some sort of global universal standards we can all live with. The bottom line is that climate has *happened* to life on this planet, and now life (through humanity's shepherding) is starting to gain the ability to control and manage climate. We can go from reactive crisis management to predictive management.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Pentagram]

Yes, new words must come into being. What makes making up "denialist" better than using "denier"?

A denier is one who denies. A denialist is one who engages in denialism. cf. "co-operator" vs "co-operatist".

Do you think it improves discourse to apply a label associated with holocaust deniers to people who would raise questions about a Scientific conclusion (with huge political ramifications)? I happen to think that it poisons the discussion.

Yes, I think the label is appropriate, and so is the comparison with holocaust deniers (or denialists). I am not talking about people who "raise questions", but about people who deny well-established facts.

I've heard some of the stuff holocaust denialists spout and to a casual observer it sounds quite reasonable. Of course you find out that it is bollocks once you start reading deeper, but then these loons have a new set of allegations to refute. I work on the assumption that since a lot of experts have looked into it and verified it, the holocaust did indeed happen. The collective wisdom might be wrong on a couple of minor points, but that's ultimately irrelevant. Of course you do find a handful of historians who still deny it happened.

Climate change is in the same boat. The experts in the field are almost as unanimous as the historians who say the holocaust is true. Unless you're prepared to become an expert in the field, you have to accept the conclusions of the many people who have studied it for years. The climate change models are by now some of the most tested in any discipline of science.

String theory sounds like a load of bollocks to me but I trust the experts in the field that it is a viable theory. If I ever get diagnosed with cancer, I will trust to the accepted medical wisdom that chemotherapy (or whatever) is my best option, instead of going with the coffee enemas suggested by the fringe crazies. And so on and so forth.

Incidentally, Google gives 215k hits for "cromulent". Does that make cromulent a cromulent word?

I use "cromulent" myself. If it shows up in the next edition of the OED I wouldn't be at all surprised (if it isn't already). Oh, looks like it's already in one dictionary.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Attila Dimedici]

Yeah that's right scientific consensus is always right. Just ask Galileo, or Copernicus. And your comment about all scientists who are Global Warming skeptics being on Exxon's payroll is exactly why people like me think that "Global Warming" is something to be skeptical about. If the only response to those who disagree is to accuse them of acting in bad faith, it makes me suspect that the Global Warming proponents can't answer their arguments.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[jez9999]

Yes, new words must come into being. What makes making up "denialist" better than using "denier"?

The same thing that makes 'burglarize' better than 'burgle'.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[armb]

> I thought Slashdotters were supposed to understand math.

You're new here, aren't you? That fact that he doesn't understand the maths and either hasn't read or doesn't understand the linked article is pretty typical. Slashdotters not reading the article is stereotypical, even.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Ambitwistor]

No. The increase in temperature is nonlinear in the CO2 concentration, because there is saturation at higher concentrations: you're already adsorbing a lot of the spectrum already, so you need much more CO2 to get overlap into other areas of the spectrum that aren't already being adsorbed by CO2.

(Also, I don't think the temperature would really drop a full 30 degrees... I think that would be true if you removed all greenhouse gases, not just CO2.)

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats what they teach you in your anti-denialist school is it, you can keep denailing it nobody cares.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[pete-classic]

Oh. I prefer "burgle". There we are.

-Peter

Re:Ugh - not again.

[MightyYar]

Surely you don't think that there existed any kind of a "scientific community" in Galileo or Copernicus's time, do you? There was no established "scientific process", let alone any kind of real peer review system.

I'm not accusing anyone of acting in bad faith, just pointing out the fact that every "global-warming-skeptic" scientist that I've seen to date has been on the payroll of some people who have a vested interest in denying it. Contrast this to the vast majority of the scientific community, which gets its funding from a wide range of sources.

You accuse the "Global Warming proponents" of trying to deflect the skeptics' arguments, when in fact TFA is doing the exact opposite - taking on the skeptics' arguments head-on. If you have one that they missed, post it here and it will probably get answered as well.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[N3wsByt3]

"Yeah that's right scientific consensus is always right. Just ask Galileo, or Copernicus."

Dude...even a cursory understanding of history would have revealed that the 'consensus' that the Earth was the center of the universe was based on a religious dogma, not a scientific consensus. There was no established scientific community to come to a consensus back then.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Attila Dimedici]

That's right Ptolemy was such a religious man. There has been a change in the approach to science, but you really don't understand the history of science if you think that mankind thinks differently today then he did in the past. The consensus that the Earth was the center of the Universe was philosophically based, not religiously. There was a "natural philosophy" community, it was Galileo's opponents in this community that led to his getting in trouble for his theories. And as to that you can go more recently, in the 50's and 60's (even into the early '70') the scientific "consensus" was that the Big Bang theory was nonsense. There was even talk that it was just "creationism" in another guise.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Maxo-Texas]

Can't believe I missed that.

Ah well, one point for Ceejay!

It looks like these are mostly theories about facts rather than new facts tho.

I'm suspicious of the entire group think around global warming but on the other hand, I've seen a major climate shift in my life time. It's very clear in texas. Longer, milder winter/falls. We used to have a six week winter. Now we have about 5 days a year of winter. OTH, it used to be bloody hot in may and now it is very mild until june.

So it's not straight average warming but it is a big change.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[N3wsByt3]

While it's true the basis for it was philosophical in nature (as can be seen with the ancient greeks already (Ptolemaic system), during the time of Galileo and consorts, it was mainly taken over by the (christian) religion and treated as a dogma. Furthermore, whether philosophical or religious in nature, fact remains, it wasn't due to scientific consensus, since the scientific community (nor methodology) wasn't established yet.

"And as to that you can go more recently, in the 50's and 60's (even into the early '70') the scientific "consensus" was that the Big Bang theory was nonsense."

Really? Can you provide a link to a paper that clearly demonstrates the *majority* of scientists agreed that the big bang was nonsense?

Now, mind you, I don't even claim that a scientific consensus can be wrong as well; ultimately, every new theory that overthrows the old one is indicative that the old one was widely accepted first, obviously. The scientific method, however, ensures that any theory, new or old, gets more accurate (or gets debunked) as time passes (and observed/studied more). In that view, it's rather clear that the times where a scientific consensus is reached by a new theory, it is more often right then wrong, certainly if the facts indicate a growing level of susbstantiation for the theory.

In short: if the global warming theory would be false, continued research would have given ever more indications that it *is* false. In reality, however, every year of additional research has *added* to the growing validity of the theory. However one wants to put it, this shows that it is far more likely to be true then it is unlikely...and while science will never give you an absolute answer, what better concept or method will yield more accurate predictions and get the closest approximation of the observable reality? Philosophy? Religion?

I don't think so.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[deacon]

Well /. exists to sell our eyeballs to advertisers thru page views. Flamewar stories create the most comments and page views. That is why these sorts of stories are regular as clockwork.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Actually, no. That's the thing about the number. It wasn't "easily" pushed to where it is today."

You're right of course, it was magically conjured out of your ass.

"But the ratio of the effects of the two isn't well understood"

FYP

"The numbers that we have today weren't easily reached."

I know, we covered this, you, ass, POOF!, numbers.

"Would you be happy if instead of claiming it was 100% humans it was 66% humans, so humans still are the dominant factor and could reverse the changes if they so desired? (This isn't rhetorical.)"

No, because that would be just as much of a lie as 100%. There is no number. Your insistence on creating a number where it is well known that such a number cannot be established firmly speaks to your real motivation, the desire to create an aura of credibility where none exists.

You want to be honest? Say "significant" or something similar, like you did earlier. Using a number where anyone with one whit of understanding of the subject knows that said number is fraudulent destroys every shred of credibility you hope to gain.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[10101001 10101001]

Well, since I've come this far, I might as well respond to this clear troll.

"Actually, no. That's the thing about the number. It wasn't "easily" pushed to where it is today."

You're right of course, it was magically conjured out of your ass.

Yep, nothing says "conjured out of my ass" like years of collected data.

"But the ratio of the effects of the two isn't well understood"

FYP

Not going much out on a limb here, I'll take "FYP" to mean "From Your Post". Well, let's just look at my post.

But the ratio of the effects of the two wasn't well understood, ...

Golly. Misquoting me when the evidence is so clearly available. That's pretty low and stupid. This is why I'm confident you're a troll.

"The numbers that we have today weren't easily reached."

I know, we covered this, you, ass, POOF!, numbers.

Out of the ass of mice and men?

"Would you be happy if instead of claiming it was 100% humans it was 66% humans, so humans still are the dominant factor and could reverse the changes if they so desired? (This isn't rhetorical.)"

No, because that would be just as much of a lie as 100%. There is no number. Your insistence on creating a number where it is well known that such a number cannot be established firmly speaks to your real motivation, the desire to create an aura of credibility where none exists.

You want to be honest? Say "significant" or something similar, like you did earlier. Using a number where anyone with one whit of understanding of the subject knows that said number is fraudulent destroys every shred of credibility you hope to gain.

You're so right that they shouldn't use the word "the". "Overwhelming responsible" is so much more apt.

Maybe I need to get a different thesaurus that "significant" and "overwhelming[ly] responsible" are synonymous.

Re:Ugh - not again.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Not long ago we were in an ice age.

A theory which in fact they provide a debunking for.

They've debunked the last ice age??? And here I always thought that back 15000 yeara (an eyeblink, as it were) ago there were two mile thick ice sheets covering much of North America and Eurasia...

Well, you learn something new every day, eh?

WTF

[ArcherB]

Funny. I see this in TFA

Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.

Also, in TFA, I see this:

Myth: Polar bear numbers are increasing Then I see this.

So, other than the standard response of "Global warming deniers are liars", can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy? It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to.

Re:WTF

[LMacG]

Did you read the whole polar bear article? The population of bears in a specific area is increasing, and that is partially explained by
 

Animal rights activists can take some credit for the growth of polar bear numbers in the eastern Arctic. The battle to ban the hunting of harp seal pups has meant that the harp seal population has jumped from 2 million to 5 million. It also means sealers, especially those from Norway, are no longer hunting the polar bears, which they used to do when the seal hunt was larger.

.

Re:WTF

[_Sharp'r_]

Shhhhhhh!!!!! Stop disturbing the consensus!

Can't you tell that TFA was written by someone with "good intentions" on the "correct side of the issue" and thus musn't be looked at critically, instead accepted as the true gospel without any thought?

In all seriousness, the article itself reminds me of the phrase "damning with faint praise". I mean, this is what the fearmongers come up with as their best counter arguments?

Re:WTF

[kebes]

can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy?

Well, at least with regard to the polar bear populations, TFA states:

While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing.

So, the article is clearly stating that right now, we can't know for certain either way. So the point is that they are saying that "Polar Bear populations are definitely rising!" is incorrect: it is a myth inasmuch as it overstates its case. (Furthermore the article points out that conservation efforts have reduced hunting of polar bears and their prey, which would obviously increase their numbers regardless of climate changes.) So again, the article is debunking the myth "global warming can't be true because polar bear populations are rising!" which is not in conflict with the statement "some polar bear populations are rising."

Re: WTF

[Black Parrot]

Funny. I see this in TFA

Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change Then I find this article. Wow! Thirteen people on the list!

Re:WTF

[ZombieRoboNinja]

Then I find this article.

But you didn't check the source, apparently.

I'm unsurprised that anti-climate-change folks can find a few PhDs who will agree with them. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all. But unless Morano's "more to come" has another 10,990 scientists on it, his "converts" are still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument.

Re:WTF

[ArcherB]

Did you read the whole polar bear article? The population of bears in a specific area is increasing, and that is partially explained by...

OK, fine. But TFA said that numbers increasing was a myth. It appears that it is not, whatever the reasons.

Re:WTF

[Chris Burke]

No, it's still a myth, and TFA says that the trend of the total population -- the rising of which being the myth -- is unknown. A sub-population rising does not mean the overall population is rising. Especially when other populations are dropping, and there's a ready explanation for why the one that is rising is doing so.

Re:WTF

[je ne sais quoi]

Funny. I see this in TFA Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.

That article was written by Marc Morano. I'm not seriously going to consider anything written by the producer for Rush Limbaugh.

Also, in TFA, I see this: Myth: Polar bear numbers are increasing Then I see this.

Did you even read the article you linked to? Almost every scientist they interviewed about the subject said something along the lines of,

"The critical problem is, the sea ice is changing. We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant," says Derocher." [f the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.] "The increase in the population is not a climate-change related issue," Derocher claims. It's the result of "conservation and an increase in the harp seal population," he says."I don't think there is any question polar bears are threatened by global warming," responds Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton.

So, yes a single population of polar bears is increasing, but too bad there's 19 populations world-wide, at least two of which are decreasing.

Re:WTF

[DogDude]

1. Nothing that the US government says these days is believable. As far as this topic goes, the administration has repeatedly ignored and simply falsified scientific evidence. I'm still waiting for the WMD's...

2. The polar bear thing... read the article.

Re:WTF

[untaken_name]

My favorite was "They predicted global cooling in the 1970s".

The first sentence in that 'myth' said "Well, they did, but..."

If it was a myth, how can it also be true? Isn't that sort of the opposite of a myth?

Re:WTF

[radtea]

It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to.

Whether or not it is a myth, it is extremely curious. The first "myth" is that "human CO2 emissions are too small to matter", and the text goes on to talk about the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere, not its effect on the heat budget of the Earth. This is odd, because the effect on the heat budget of the Earth (independent of any feedbacks) must be well-known, and that is the only figure that is relevant.

It is always bad engineering and bad policy-making practice to drive action based on INPUTs rather than OUTPUTs. The idiots ultimately responsible for Three Mile Island were the engineers who decided that the current running to a valve actuator could be used to measure the state of the actuator, forgetting that sometimes valves jam and so the inputs have nothing to do with the outputs.

In the present case, I don't care how many tonnes of CO2 humans are putting into the atmosphere, and neither does anyone else. I care how many W/m**2 they are adding to the Earth's energy budget. Until we start discussing that figure, we are not talking about climate change at all.

Part of the problem with this issue is that neither side is very honest. Climate change deniers start by denying the brutally obvious fact that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased dramatically in the past century. This is an empirical measurement that only a lunatic would dispute. Having thus destroyed their credibility, they go on to make some interesting and valid points. On the other side of the issue, climate change proponents spend an awful lot of time focusing on INPUT measurements, which doesn't do their credibility any good either, while at the same time doing all kinds of excellent science.

If we could focus on the EFFECT of increased CO2 on the Earth's energy budget we might learn something important because CO2 forcing is global and well-mixed in the atmosphere, and so can be compared to other global forcings like insolation varation.

It's a curious thing that a simple figure like W/m**2/ppm is not universally available and serving as the basis for all these discussions, because if it was, at least both sides would be talking about the same thing, and it would be the thing that matters.

Re:WTF

[chebucto]

1 - How may of those scientists study climate change? How many of them study other topics or other fields? That is, on the question of climate change, the opinion of a scientist qua scientist is no more relevant than the opinion of a random citizen. What counts are the opinions of people who actually study the problem. And, from a brief glance at the list you linked to, many of the people cited do not, in fact, study climate change.

2 - The article you refer to clearly states that the number of polar bears are increasing in the eastern arctic, while they are decreasing in the western arctic. The article goes on to say that (a) the danger to polar bears is over a 30-50 year time period, and (b) changes in human behavior (e.g. stopping of hunting of seals, a food source for the bears) are an important factor in the population increase seen in the eastern arctic.

Re:WTF

[lysse]

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. A fine unbiased source you've found there. Well done. Moreover, I count 13 scientists that they claim have shifted, which compared with the 11,000 TFA mentions isn't very many.

The CS Monitor - ah yes, a fine peer-reviewed scientific journal. However, TFA states that two of the 19 populations of polar bears is rising; this article is presumably about one of them. That still leaves two falling and 15 whose status is unknown. (I'm guessing you didn't read past the titles in either case, since even the CSM article mentions that of a dozen other populations in Canada, two are known to be in decline - one by 22%.)

Whatever the truth of the matter, and I don't have a clue about that - on the strength of this showing I have no hesitation in determining that *you* aren't qualified to pass judgement.

Re:WTF

[TrappedByMyself]

The problem is that people such as yourself make gross generalizations without bothering to look at the details.

1) The posted link provides evidence from 2004 about the consensus stance on Global Warming, however, the link you posted talks about scientist change in 2007. Again, the difference sources don't conflict with each other. It seems now that scientists are distancing themselves from the alarmists in that we're not headed for immediate doom and gloom, however we still need to tackle the issue.
2) The two articles about polar bears, which you claim are different, agree with each other, in that there is a rise in polar bear population in eastern Canada.

Thank you for your contribution to ignorance.

Re:WTF

[aardwolf64]

And we all know that the majority of scientists always know more than the minority. For instance, Galileo was clearly wrong when he speculated that the earth was round. Galileo's "converts" were nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the flat earth argument... Well, at least they used to be...

Re:WTF

[trewornan]

Let's recap shall we.

New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. They claim polar bear numbers really are declining.

A sceptic points to another article about reliable research that found polar bear numbers are rising in at least one specific (and very large) area.

True believer claims "we can't know for certain either way", it's still possible numbers are declining in other areas.

What a convincing argument - if that's really the best you can do give up now. Remember the old burden of proof (hint: it's why we don't believe in unicorns).

Re:WTF

[Scrameustache]

Funny. I see this in TFA

Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.
So, other than the standard response of "Global warming deniers are liars", can anyone tell me, why the discrepancy? It seems to me that TFA is as much a myth as the 26 myths it points to. Easy, they list a myth and debunk it, you link to the original myth and go "hey, this must be true!". It's... er... dumb.
This was at the bottom of your link:

Related Links:
Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

James Mountain "Jim" Inhofe (born November 17, 1934) is a conservative American politician from Oklahoma. A member of the Republican Party, he currently serves as the senior Senator from Oklahoma. He is the most vocal skeptic of climate change (global warming) in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues.

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Heated debates are not science, they are sophistry.

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus'

This is in the 26.

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

"If I talk the loudest, what I say is the truth!" should stop sorking when you pass the age of 5.

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic
Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

In the 26.

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Again, this is in the 26 myths of TFA.

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

TV meteorologists are not climatologists, nor reliable.

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to 'Little Kids' Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

I'm rubber and you're glue... again, past the age of 5, this shouldn't fly.

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of 'Criminal Neglect'

It's wrong when they disagree with us...

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

...but when they agree with us, they're unquestionable!

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

"Entertainer's friends say that..." WHO CARES?

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics
Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

Seriously, the list of 26 is neutral, they debunk believer myths as well as denier myths.
You replied to a page of one-sided propaganda.
Can't you see the difference?

Re:WTF

[SatanicPuppy]

This is the second post in this thread to reference a blog post on the blog of the "most vocal skeptic of climate change in Congress" as equal to an article in a large reputable science magazine.

Inhofe is an idiot and a staunch creationist; why do you think his opinion matters in this context?

Re: WTF

[SatanicPuppy]

On the list which is published where? Jim Inhofe's Senate Blog.

Frankly, anyone who mentions his name in a positive light loses all credibility as far as I'm concerned.

Re:WTF

[argStyopa]

"While polar bear numbers are increasing in two of these populations, two others are definitely in decline. We don't really know how the rest of the populations are faring, so the truth is that no one can say for sure how overall numbers are changing."

So...of 19 groups, 2 are increasing, 2 are decreasing. = disaster?

THAT'S my point: that we DON'T KNOW. To claim certainty is absurd, and makes climate change doomsayers unbelieveable because of their false certainty bordering on religion.

Re:WTF

[X.25]

I'm unsurprised that anti-climate-change folks can find a few PhDs who will agree with them. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all. But unless Morano's "more to come" has another 10,990 scientists on it, his "converts" are still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument.

Seems like most retards on this planet live for polls, or percentages. Do you seriously think that "we have more people on the list, thus we are right" argument has ANY value?

Long ago, 99.99999999999999% of people on the planet thought Earth was flat. There was 1 lunatic who said it was not flat.

According to your brilliant logic, Earth is flat.

Re:WTF

[SatanicPuppy]

I love this argument.

What you're really saying is, "The majority is always wrong." This is the same majority who stand behind most of the accepted principles of science...Are they wrong about all those things as well?

This exact argument is used in attempts to refute Evolution as well, which is truly ironic...Galileo wasn't really bucking the prevaling opinions in science as he was bucking the religious dogma of the day, and now the religious dogmatists use his name to try and discredit well supported scientific theories.

Re:WTF

[waif69]

Clearly the animal rights activists are our only savior. They know so much more than we do, that is why they are pushing to have a chimpanzee legally declared a 'person'. [sarcasm meter at maximum level]

Re:WTF

[syzler]

But unless Morano's "more to come" has another 10,990 scientists on it, his "converts" are still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument.

I am not sure that the 10,990 most outspoken computer scientists on /. make creditable sources in the global warming debate unless the new supposed cause is the excess heat from data centers.

Re:WTF

[386spart]

still nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the global warming argument
You mean scientists who have been bought BY it? ;)
I need someone to explain 2 things before accepting this global warming thing:

• It is a fact that the earth has been significantly warmer and significantly colder than it is today, several times. Why do we believe that human released Co2 is causing it this time around? What caused it the previous times? Is anything we do even slightly relevant, compared to whatever it is that is causing these cycles?

• Why are politicians taxing cars and gasoline while funding searches for MORE OIL? Seriously, if politicians wanted to fight global warming instead of just getting more money from the good hearted sheep they govern, they could just allow less oil and gas to be extracted from the ground, couldn't they?

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

I checked to see if your wonderful sourcewatch page had any background on Michael Le Page who wrote TFA. The conspicuous absence of the kind of information that doesn't support whatever real reasons for the existence of sourcewatch tells me everything I need to know about sourcewatch as reliable unbiased source itself. Please stop wasting our time with your references to sourcewatch.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic since the vast majority of scientists believe the Earth is round and the scientific evidence supports them, they must be wrong and the Earth is flat.

  Are the majority of scientists always right? No, but if you say that the scientific consensus has no value then you're saying science can't say anything.

Re:WTF

[syphax]

The Inhofe list looks interesting, especially after you start digging into it.

Let's start with Bruno, #2 on Inhofe's list.

The Mr. Vegetable Story

Bruno Wiskel, Mr. V's major share holder was born in 1960 in Edmonton where he was raised pretty well as a city boy until the passing of his grandfather in 1974. As a young man Bruno's love for farming began when he started helping his father Stan on weekends and summer holidays to build Wiskel Farms into a progressive grain farm.

As with many father/son partnerships, a disagreement arose as to the direction the farm should move in. Son - more conservation minded and intensive; father larger and more extensive.

Bruno settled the dispute by attending the U of A and obtaining a degree in geology specializing in groundwater geology, followed by 2.5 years as an exploration geologist for a small oil company in Calgary. When oil dropped to below $10 per barrel, the entire exploration department was laid off, Bruno included.

For his next job he worked that summer as a pipeline inspector on the Trans Canada Pipeline from Gretna (at the US border)to Brandon Manitoba. Although he learned nothing about pipelining, he did learn about growing the various "alternative" crops of fruit and vegetables from farmers who owned the fields through which the pipeline ran.

And so on...

Now, Mr. Wiskel sounds like an interesting person, but calling him a geologist at the U of A is certainly a stretch - he has geology degree, and he teaches some extension courses there that have nothing to do with geology. None of this means Mr. Wiskel is wrong in his opinions, but I don't know what he brings to the table that is of exceptional interest.

I'll let someone else tackle the other guys on the list.

It'd sure be nice if CO2 was not a worry. But the reality is that none of the research that purports to contradict the IPCC estimate of climate sensitivity to GHG forcings seems very ironclad.

Re:WTF

[aardwolf64]

No, what I'm really saying is that the majority is not always right.

Re:WTF

[DrProton]

There is no discrepancy. Senator Inhofe assembles a list of crackpots with PhD's. It proves nothing. Have any of these scientists published a paper on climate change? One can find denialists of the theory of gravity, or quantum mechanics. Science is not an opinion poll. There is no controversy in the published literature on climate science. Oreskes surveyed the climate change literature here. She found that out of 928 peer-reviewed papers on climate change, not one disagreed with the consensus position.

What standard of proof would convince you? How much evidence do you want? There are mountains of evidence to support the consensus view that the earth is warming, and humans are the cause.

Would you be willing to accept a $1000 wager that GISTEMP will keep increasing? I would gladly wager this sum.

Look at the list of scientific societies on this page. That represents the consensus of tens of thousands of scientists around the globe.

Re:WTF

[SatanicPuppy]

...So therefore Global Climate change isn't caused by human activity?

That's not an argument. That's a statement. It's not a reason why you should do or believe anything. I believe that the sky is often blue the the subtropical zone I live in, and most people agree with me. Are we wrong?

Re:WTF

[aardwolf64]

I'm not arguing against Global Climate Fiery Death (tm), I'm arguing against your argument that just because a majority believes it, then it must be true. I was simply stating that just because the majority believes it doesn't make it so.

Re:WTF

[SatanicPuppy]

It doesn't make it wrong either, as you clearly believe it is wrong.

Don't confuse me with some know-nothing cable news watching hysteric. I don't believe the scare hype. But there is a real concern based on existing trends that no one argues with, and the dominant theory that explains those trends pins the blame on human production of excessive CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels.

Until some other theory comes along that explains all the evidence, I'm not going to have any problem supporting fuel economy and renewable energy. It's only common sense.

Re:WTF

[kebes]

Let's recap shall we.

New scientist publishes an article that says "polar bear populations are rising" is a myth. They claim that some populations are rising, others falling, and the overall trend is unknown.

A skeptic points to an article about reliable research that found that one particular population of polar bears was rising. (Exactly what the new scientist article states.) The skeptic asks "what gives?"

True believer tries to answer, by pointing out that new scientist was trying to show that some populations are rising, whereas others are falling, and the overall trend is unknown. Hence "polar bear populations are rising" is a myth, or at least incomplete and misleading. Furthermore, there is no contradiction between the New Scientist claims and the data the skeptic linked to.

Then random passerby comes along, mixes up facts, and mis-represents the discussion so far. He ends with a quasi-personal attack and mythological reference.

Re:WTF

[srvivn21]

Let's recap shall we.

New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. They claim polar bear numbers really are declining.

A sceptic points to another article about reliable research that found polar bear numbers are rising in at least one specific (and very large) area.

True believer claims "we can't know for certain either way", it's still possible numbers are declining in other areas.

What a convincing argument - if that's really the best you can do give up now. Remember the old burden of proof (hint: it's why we don't believe in unicorns). How about this... From the same article that the "skeptic" cites:

But Derocher still maintains the polar bear is threatened, even if its numbers aren't down all across the circumpolar region where the giant bears live and hunt (). Of the 13 polar bear populations in Canada, at least two are in decline, Derocher says. The number of polar bears along the western edge of Hudson Bay, for example, has fallen by 22 percent over the last decade.
"They are declining due to global warming and changes in when the ice freezes and melts in Hudson Bay," says Derocher. The port of Churchill on Hudson Bay has seen its shipping season lengthen because of disappearing ice.
Derocher and other scientists in his group are concerned that the retreating ice in the Arctic may pose a danger to future generations of polar bears because of habitat loss.
"The critical problem is, the sea ice is changing. We're looking ahead three generations, 30 to 50 years. To say that bear populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant," says Derocher. Furthermore...

Animal rights activists can take some credit for the growth of polar bear numbers in the eastern Arctic. The battle to ban the hunting of harp seal pups has meant that the harp seal population has jumped from 2 million to 5 million. It also means sealers, especially those from Norway, are no longer hunting the polar bears, which they used to do when the seal hunt was larger. Does that better meet your criteria for a "convincing argument"?

Perhaps the data on polar bear population change is inconclusive at this time.

Not that I condone or excuse the GPP. Just that he might have been less scorn-worthy than first thought.

Re:WTF

[gmuslera]

Isolated the individual myths debunks could or not be strong enough... but combined is another matter. I.e. in the one that explains why CO2 is one of the most important greenhouses gases. Some of the other "global forcings" come and go, like with i.e. water vapour, but the CO2 takes time to be reabsorbed. The problem is maybe not just now, but what will happen if we keep going in the same way. Reading all as a whole could help.

You know, no single water drop can be made responsible for the flood, i agree that maybe CO2 alone, or even the one produced by humans alone couldnt make a big disaster, but in a somewhat self-balanced system if you keep pushing in the wrong direction things like points of no return happens, and worst case scenarios are always ugly.

Re:WTF

[X.25]

By your logic since the vast majority of scientists believe the Earth is round and the scientific evidence supports them, they must be wrong and the Earth is flat.


Oh, you mentioned "scientific evidence" phrase. Wow.

Most of the "scientific evidence" from global warming fanatics is not an evidence to support their claims, but to refute evidence from scientists that have been studying climate for ages.

This reminds me of my previous life in computer/network security area (which I, luckily, left behind) where I got to have "experts" that thought removing raw sockets is a silver bullet solution. Like monkeys, they are, who create a lot of noise in order to get attention...

Re:WTF

[trewornan]

OK so "polar bear populations are rising" appears to be a position which is rather weakly supported by the evidence but there doesn't seem to be very conclusive evidence against the proposition either. Does that establish that it's a "myth" - that word (in scientific) circles is usually used to describe something pretty conclusively disproven and I really don't think that's the case here.

Re:WTF

[ROMRIX]

That is not the point, global warming is a fact, global warming is the cause of melting ice, global warming is the cause of warmer oceans. That is not what is being contested.
What is being contested is the cause of global warming. There are two podiums here, one is for arguing the cause is man made, the other is for arguing that it is a naturally recurring event.
The first has little evidence to support it other than (slightly) higher co2 levels in the atmosphere. The second of which has strong evidence recorded in, what else but the ice itself as well as in fossil records.
You cannot argue that there have been global warming events in the past but you can argue that man couldn't have been the cause then.
So I guess we are in agreement? Global warming is a CLEARLY OBVIOUS FACT.
Seems like I've read this somewhere before...
Ahhh yes. Here it is; http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=214148&cid=174 04054

Re:WTF

[independentlpaz]

One has to use at least a little common sense when comparing information from various sources. On the one hand, you've got an award winning, respected science magazine. On the other hand, you have a former Rush Limbaugh producer (Mark Moran), writing in Senator Inhofe's blog. (Inhofe--the guy who Barbara Boxer won't let play with the gavel anymore at the Senate committee on Environment and Public Works). Personally, I'd tend to give a little more weight to New Scientist.

But maybe that's just me.

Re:WTF

[kebes]

Agreed. The article does abuse the word "myth"--for several of the statements, they do not really disprove it, but merely show (or try to show) that it is not relevant to the global climate debate. They use the terms "myth" and "debunking" because it sounds cool, but that's not entirely fair of them.

So for instance, in this case, they should perhaps have said that the myth was "polar bear populations are a useful way to measure global climate". The point being that bringing up polar bear populations in a global climate debate is just distracting from the real data.

Re:WTF

[Dan Hayes]

Maybe if you bothered to read the article you'd see that it said that polar bear numbers are totally useless as evidence either way due to a lack of decent figures.

Re:WTF

[R3d M3rcury]

TFA says that the trend of the total population -- the rising of which being the myth -- is unknown. So, therefore, wouldn't it be safe to say that the polar bears are dying is also a myth, since we don't know the answer?

Re: WTF

[McBruce]

And those 13 include an economist, an engineer and an astrophysicist.

TFA specifically commented that the "Many leading scientists question climate change" myth was from a list of people, many of who were not climate specialists, and many of who had been retired for years, and who mostly advocated caution about the 'global warming panic' as opposed to denying its existence.

The linked article appears to fit this description pretty closely.

Re:WTF

[NoOneInParticular]

Long ago, 99.99999% of the people living on the coast knew the earth was round. Every time they saw a ship approaching, the mast would be seen first and the hulk last. Only explainable by a round (curved) earth.

Then a couple of religious morons read in the bible that the earth was supported by four pillars and concluded with infallible logic that the earth was therefore flat and everyone believing otherwise was a heretic and should be killed. Then they proved that white was black and got killed on the next zebra crossing. Problem solved.

Re:WTF

[NoOneInParticular]

In itself that's correct, but what the article is concluding is that the argument that because the polar bear population is rising global warming is not occurring is wrong. The premise is inconclusive, therefore the conclusion is faulty, and hence cannot be used as an argument for or against global warming. TFA is debunking myths about climate change, not about polar bears.

Re:WTF

[Anonymous Coward]

That article was written by Marc Morano. I'm not seriously going to consider anything written by . After all - this is science, right? More important than the evidence - is the source - right.

Essentially what people don't get about science is - it's not what you know, it's who you've worked with. Right?

Mars is experiencing global warming.

[Anonymous Coward]

Nuff said. /wants a fast car with torque. //doesn't care if it is electric

Nothing to see here...

[CaptainNerdCave]

:yawn: ...you've seen it all before, move along

Shaking My Head

[moehoward]

That was sure a balanced report. Pfffffft.

It was nothing more than talking points. Crap like this is just plain dangerous. These "How to Respond to Your Critics" pieces just show how frickin' politicized this issue has become. It is more important to win the argument than to be right.

There are so many holes in just the five that I read. Incomplete. Knee-jerk. Very frustrating to say the least.

Re:Shaking My Head

[ArcherB]

My favorite was the "Mars and Pluto are warming too" myth. The last paragraph for each planet reads as follows:

Images of Mars suggest that between 1999 and 2005, some of the frozen carbon dioxide that covers the south polar region turned into gas (sublimated). This may be the result of the whole planet warming. and for Pluto

Observations of the thickness of Pluto's atmosphere in 2002 suggested the dwarf planet was warming even as its orbit took it further from the Sun. The finding baffled astronomers, and the cause has yet to be determined. So, it's a myth, but it's happening. You don't claim something is a myth and then say that it is happening! TFA is a joke!

Re:Shaking My Head

[SatanicPuppy]

So how do you prove the correlation between what's happening there and what's happening here? I think we're all curious to know.

You already shot your credibility above where you referenced Jim Inhofe as a reliable source.

Re:Shaking My Head

[Cedric Tsui]

Yeah... You're right. The article is a bit flakie.
Still. I thought it was informative. It's kinda nice to have all that junk in one place.

Re:Shaking My Head

[amaxware]

The same way the "sky is falling" believer correlate global temperatures rising and at the same time CO2 and other gases are increasing. The "proof" is that the two events are occuring at the same time. That's the whole proof. I do proofs for a living, and this one is BULLSHIT.

Re:Shaking My Head

[SatanicPuppy]

So wait, let me get this straight: You're saying that they're both bullshit arguments, but you only believe the one that supports your preconceived notion? Who do you do proofs for? Bill O'Reilly?

Science isn't about deductive proofs, because deduction doesn't work worth crap in the real world. We know CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and we know that an increase in CO2 can cause warming. We have an increase in CO2, and we're experiencing warming, and we don't have any other factor that we can point to and say, "This thing is definitely causing our warming." That gives us a pretty good reason to dig further, and to try and lower emmissions to be on the safe side.

Mars and Pluto? What the fuck do we know about the climate on Pluto? Are you suggesting that the forces that are causing warming here are causing the exact same warming there? What are they? What's the mechanism?

It may be that this theory is completely wrong, but almost no one thinks so, and there is no credible alternate explanation. Until one comes up, it seems intelligent to treat this one as if it is serious, and not to just dismiss the whole thing as crap because you don't agree, and yet still don't have a better answer.

Re:Shaking My Head

[ArcherB]

So how do you prove the correlation between what's happening there and what's happening here? I think we're all curious to know.

I'm not trying to prove any correlation. I was pointing out that the article says that X is a myth and then claims that astronomers are baffled because they don't know why X is happening. Nothing more.

You already shot your credibility above where you referenced Jim Inhofe as a reliable source.

Regardless of your opinion of the source, I don't think his personal views are what caused the scientists listed to change their mind on the cause of GW. Inhofe's views may be why he is reporting on it, but in this case, the opinions of the reporter do not change the opinion of the subjects.

You do have a point. I could have picked a better source. Is Wiki a better source? How about Citizens Review (I've never heard of them either... they're Canadian, I think)? It doesn't matter as I was just showing that what one article claims as myth, another claims as fact. There are two sides to the story and people smarter than us on both sides. I feel that you can't present one side without presenting the other.

Re:Shaking My Head

[SatanicPuppy]

Frankly their opinions mean nothing to me. It's a handful of people from random fields of science. Very few Climatologists at all. I'm sure those some guys are trotted out by every other conservative zealot who feels the need to prop some real live scientists behind his point.

The point in question is that people are drawing a correlation between what's happening here and what's happening there, and that, in fact, there is no evidence of any such relationship, so anyone who claims that there is a relationship is talking out his ass.

Re:Shaking My Head

[ArcherB]

Frankly their opinions mean nothing to me. It's a handful of people from random fields of science. Very few Climatologists at all. I'm sure those some guys are trotted out by every other conservative zealot who feels the need to prop some real live scientists behind his point.
Well, here's a few

# Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
# Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
# Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
# Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
# Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
# Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
# Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
# Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
# Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
# Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
# Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
# Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
# Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
# Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
# Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

The point in question is that people are drawing a correlation between what's happening here and what's happening there, and that, in fact, there is no evidence of any such relationship, so anyone who claims that there is a relationship is talking out his ass.
If Mars is heating up, and Pluto is heating up, and we can't find any evidence that other planets are not heating up as well (I don't think we have the data either way), and we know that Earth is heating up, I think anyone that claims that there is NOT a correlation is talking out of their ass. Isn't it natural to think that when you see the same thing happening to related objects that maybe the same thing is causing the action? Of course we can't prove a correlation, yet, but I think that it is safe to say that it is very likely. Is it more likely that at least three planets that share the same heat source are heating up for different reasons than to assume that maybe it's the primary source of energy shared by all the planets?

Re:Shaking My Head

[Dan Hayes]

Let's trim that list to people who're vaguely involved in a relevant field...

# Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
# Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
# Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
# Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
# Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
# Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
# Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
# Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
# Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
# Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.

That's being kind, assuming ex-scientists have kept up with all the latest advances and that non-climatologists actually know anything about climatology.

Oh, and what you're missing is that Mars and Pluto are supposedly heating up, the other planets aren't.

Re:Shaking My Head

[ArcherB]

Oh, and what you're missing is that Mars and Pluto are supposedly heating up, the other planets aren't.

Well, I think we found our solution to global warming. All we have to do is find out why all the other planets are staying cool when:

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures. (From here)

Seriously, there are many factors that cause planets to heat and cool, but they DO HEAT AND COOL, all on their own and all the time. As a matter of fact, all planets with an atmosphere are either heating or cooling 100% of the time. There is no such thing as a static climate (provided, a planet has a climate). This includes Earth. Still, all planets are different and react differently to solar variations. Jupiter, for example, has its own internal heat source so it may not be affected as much by solar cycles. Mercury does not have enough of an atmosphere to trap solar energy. Saturn, Jupiter, Uranus and Venus have thick atmospheres that can affect how much solar radiation is absorbed vs how much is reflected vs how much heat a planet can actually hold. Mars and Earth have similar enough environments so that both are affected in pretty much the same way. As for Pluto and Neptune, we don't really have the data to say which way the climate change is going.

But to say that the primary heat source of the solar system is not and can not be responsible for global warming is ludicrous. That's like saying the burner on a stove is not responsible for cooking food!

Re:Shaking My Head

[Dan Hayes]

Did you read the article at all? I guess not, as it certainly agrees with the fact that the Sun's output affects climate, but shows quite clearly that the current level of output cannot account for current temperature changes. There's a whole page devoted to the issue.

They even use Solanki's figures on sunspot activity! And provide a nice link near the bottom showing that there's no correlation between solar activity and warming over the last 40 years.

Re:Shaking My Head

[ArcherB]

Yeah, I read it. Here's a quote from it:

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years - but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years. Also this:

Average global temperatures have increased by about 0.2 deg Celsius over the past 20 years and are widely believed to be responsible for new extremes in weather patterns. So I guess the cooling trend they referred to that lasted up to 50 years, or any warming trends that were caused by this increased solar activity was less than 0.2 degrees C warmer or cooler? Are these guys so accurate that they are able to measure within 0.2 degrees C, up to 1150 years ago, and then consider that minuscule amount to be a warming or cooling trend?

Yeah, I read the article, and like I do anytime I read something like that, I apply common sense. Any scientist now-a-days that says that man is not causing global warming is immediately rejected as either incompetent or accused of being on Exxon's payroll. If you really want to know what is going on in this scientist's head, I present these two quotes:

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," and

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

Re:Shaking My Head

[amaxware]

"Are you suggesting that the forces that are causing warming here are causing the exact same warming there? What are they? What's the mechanism?" What's ths mechanism? How about the Sun?

Re:Shaking My Head

[Dan Hayes]

So I guess the cooling trend they referred to that lasted up to 50 years, or any warming trends that were caused by this increased solar activity was less than 0.2 degrees C warmer or cooler? Are these guys so accurate that they are able to measure within 0.2 degrees C, up to 1150 years ago, and then consider that minuscule amount to be a warming or cooling trend? They say the older data is supportive, not that it makes the case on its own. The much stronger evidence is the direct measurements of solar radiation over the last 30 years linked to here which shows only the expected variation due to the 11-year sunspot cycle. There's no increase in solar output to match the increase in temperature over that period.

Yeah, I read the article, and like I do anytime I read something like that, I apply common sense. Any scientist now-a-days that says that man is not causing global warming is immediately rejected as either incompetent or accused of being on Exxon's payroll. They make similar claims about Intelligent Design supporters as well. There is a scientific consensus on evolution much like there is on anthropogenic climate change - what makes the two cases so different?

If you really want to know what is going on in this scientist's head, I present these two quotes:

"Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," and

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock." Who said that? What do these quotes add to this discussion? Argument by assertion means nothing.

Chris Farley

[Himring]

"El Nino means ... The Nino...." -Chris Farley

Oh god..

[zyl0x]

Please. Stop. Arguing. Seriously. Come back when you've either got irrefutable proof to shut up all the naysayers, or you have a cure-all solution. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing the scientific community continually bicker amongst themselves.

Re:Oh god..

[modmans2ndcoming]

The policy community is bickering.. the scientific community is pretty much in harmony.... or at eh very least.. dealing with their differences in a professionals manor.

Re:Oh god..

[kebes]

I'm sure I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing the scientific community continually bicker amongst themselves.

Hate to break it to you, but that's how science works. We propose ideas, we attack each other's ideas. We argue. We refine our ideas to take into account the weaknesses others have pointed out. This process is iterative, and eventually generates more robust conclusions... often robust enough to make predictions, or even to guide social policy in an intelligent way.

I'm sorry if it sounds like bickering to you. You are most welcome to not listen if you don't like it (and to not read Slashdot stories on topics you are now bored by), but if you want science to continue progressing then accept that the scientific community will be in a constant state of debate. That's a good thing, by the way.

And if you're waiting for "irrefutable proof" and "cure-all solutions" on *any* topic (much less climatology) then you may as well just give up on scientific inquiry entirely. There is no such thing as irrefutable proof, and no such thing as a cure-all solution without drawbacks.

Re:Oh god..

[stevedcc]

Please. Stop. Arguing. Seriously. Come back when you've either got irrefutable proof to shut up all the naysayers, or you have a cure-all solution. I'm sure I'm not the only one who's sick of hearing the scientific community continually bicker amongst themselves.

That's the point though, isn't it? The scientific community isn't realy bickering amongst themselves, the politicians and special interests are bickering with the scientists. The press (and many of the rest of us) are caught in the middle, divided along political lines. At the end of the day, for most people its about what they WANT to believe.

Re:Oh god..

[Chris Burke]

Yes, keep living in your cozy climate-controlled cave until someone else finds the "irrefutable proof" creates the "cure-all solution" and drops them both in your lap. Of course "irrefutable" really means "inarguable" and people can always find a reason to argue. And if their "cure-all" solution is merely a "cure-most" solution, you can just go right back into your cave and ignore it, because the absence of a perfect solution means there is no problem.

Re:Oh god..

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a pretty, if I may say so, stupid, view point. Rarely is there ever scientific consensus on anything, and many huge scientific leaps were initially ignored by the general scientific community. General relativity comes to mind. The debate is healthy and its unlikely there will ever be irrefutable proof (in a mathematical sense) about something as complex as this--not until it's too late, anyways. And even then, I'm sure there will be a few Exxon-funded crackpots out there somewhere still towing the party line.

If you're sick of hearing the debate, make like a Good American and tune out. Nobody owes you peace of mind.

Re:Oh god..

[sycodon]

Hate to break it to you, but that's how science works. We propose ideas, we attack each other's ideas. We argue.

Very interesting. It appears to me though that the global warming advocates want none of that. Shut off the grants, silence the critics, they are all Exxon employees, enerygy company paid shills, etc., etc.

Re:Oh god..

[drinkypoo]

Very interesting. It appears to me though that the global warming advocates want none of that. Shut off the grants, silence the critics, they are all Exxon employees, enerygy company paid shills, etc., etc.

"the global warming advocates" are not a homogeneous body.

Scientists are not trying to shut up scientists. But they are trying to shut up shills who have been spouting the same unsubstantiated crap for years. Everyone would love to see research that actually proved that global warming doesn't exist, because it would mean they could go back to dreaming up new ways to pollute the planet, which is a whole lot more profitable than cleaning it up. But so far, there has in fact been no good research along those lines, and frankly we're all a bit sick of that kind of nonsense.

The bottom line is that if you make exceptional claims, you are going to need exceptional proof, and with all the evidence that things that humans are doing is contributing to global warming, the burden of proof is no longer on the global warming theory proponents, but on their detractors.

Welcome to the wide world of science.

clearly an incomplete article

[blhack]

The article missed the two biggest causes of global warming:

1. George Bush hating black people
2. Bears

Re:clearly an incomplete article

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously, that made my day. :-)

Re:clearly an incomplete article

[Anonymous Coward]

and the lack of pirates.

Re:clearly an incomplete article

[Anonymous Coward]

Fact: Bears eat turnips.

Re:clearly an incomplete article

[Anonymous Coward]

Well it's obvious there's only one thing to do: form the largest bear patrol this world has ever seen!

Re:clearly an incomplete article

[Anonymous Coward]

You say that like George Bush doesn't.

Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[ManiaX Killerian]

I mean, how can someone read those and not think 'okay, those people are twisting everything they could'? I've read better FUD by microsoft, FFS...

"These studies show X, but Y seems far better for us" and similar things are used through this, I can't imagine that anyone can believe them. For example, the 'myth' on chaotic systems - the whole definition of chaotic system is that if you have two very similar sets of input data, you can get two very different sets of dissimilar outputs - so using the kind of prediction that the global trend in a chaotic system will remain the same is bullshit.

What the hell is the 'New scientist', a place where everyone can get crap published?

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[pegr]

I've read better FUD by microsoft,
 
Now that's not really a fair comparison, is it?

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[spun]

You just don't want to believe in global warming because you want to think of yourself as a good, responsible person, but you don't want to change your lifestyle. You were already convinced of your point before you started to read the article, and as soon as you found one point that you could attempt to refute, you stopped reading.

The fact is that they are saying that the Earth's weather, as opposed to climate, is a chaotic system. It's like boiling water, which is a chaotic system. When it comes to predicting where a bubble will form or burst, it's impossible. But predicting that adding more heat will make bubbles form more quickly is simple.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[Anonymous Coward]

You just want to believe in global warming because you want to think of yourself as a good, responsible person, and you're willing to take a "few simple steps" that make you feel good while ignoring the real, enormous human and economic costs of disasters like Kyoto. You were already convinced of your point before you started to read the article, so any attempts to refute it fall on deaf ears because you already know you're right.

Gosh. It sounds patronizing and irrelevant when I put it that way, huh.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[Anonymous Coward]

New Scientist is a summary magazine that publishes shorter versions (i.e. simpler) of the peer reviewed papers you find in the likes of Nature and Science Magazine. The last 1/4 or so pages runs adverts for research and lecturer positions for PhD types.

If you don't like what is published in scientific documents, you better avoid the topic. They are all carrying research which you choose to ignore or unfoundly dispute. If you read them, assuming you can afford them, you might actually learn something. You can even dispute the publishers' findings with the authors, as all peer reviewed articles have the writers' contact details.

However, you wont. You are scared to be wrong.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[ManiaX Killerian]

A chaotic system is one related to the outcome of particular parameter. The boiling water is chaotic based on how bubbles are going to form, not on their quantity. In the climate system you have much more than that to base the results on, it's not as simple as the boiling water.

And my point isn't about is there or isn't there a global warming trend, it's about the bloody crappy story, where the first five entries I read were so laughable and badly written that nobody would believe them.

(as for my direct opinion - there is some change that's making at least my part of the world warmer. But I don't think I know enough to give a qualified opinion on that.)

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[Anonymous Coward]

"What the hell is the 'New scientist', a place where everyone can get crap published?"

No - only left-wing kooks.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[ppanon]

For example, the 'myth' on chaotic systems - the whole definition of chaotic system is that if you have two very similar sets of input data, you can get two very different sets of dissimilar outputs - so using the kind of prediction that the global trend in a chaotic system will remain the same is bullshit.

This should probably be Myth #0.

Thermal noise is the symptom of molecular movement being a chaotic system. That hasn't stopped people from developing statistical mechanics and thermodynamics which, ask any mechanical engineer, are still highly deterministic and useful with sufficiently large sample sets. While weather is a chaotic system, and localized climate is relatively unpredictable, the average behaviour of the Earth's system as a whole is much more predictable.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[Anonymous Coward]

You know it's idiots like you that skew the whole argument. We aren't debating whether global warming is happening or not. It's the CAUSES. You continue to sling your shit around to discredit anyone who wants to question this phenomenon because in science we should question things unless it's popular. It's people like you who give science a bad name.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[spun]

Nah, I'd much rather not believe in global warming. I'm way beyond thinking of myself as any kind of person. Good or bad, that's someone else's assessment. To me, I'm just me, and conventional labels like good and bad are laughably quaint. I don't think Kyoto was perfect by any means, but it wasn't a disaster.

Much as I hate to admit it, the last point is pretty much true, though. And yes, it sounds patronizing, but even though only one of the points is true, it still sounds relevant.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[spun]

Sorry AC troll, but you are wrong as usual. I refuted the original poster's point about chaotic systems and predicting climate versus weather. Nothing special there, the exact same thing has been pointed out millions of times, but people like the original poster, who is in no way a climate scientist, insist on dredging up that dead horse and beating it, over and over and over again.

In science, we should question everything. If a theory has much evidence in support of it (NOT if it's merely "popular," though usually theories with a lot of evidence are in fact popular) then it requires at least as much evidence against to refute it. Such evidence is sadly lacking from the anti-anthropocentric warming crowd.

Another point, the causes are irrelevant as long as we have and implement workable solutions. THAT is the thing that your side is REALLY against. Honestly, if it were proven that man was NOT the cause of global warming, and that the effects would be catastrophic, and that a solution was feasible, but the cost would be great and primarily born by the owning class, the fucking owning class asshats would still be against it, wouldn't they? Be honest. The debate is not REALLY about the cause so much as it is about the cost of the solution and who will bear that cost.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[tsotha]

Pretty much. NS has been dumbed down and politically slanted compared to earlier years. I don't know why, but it seems to be a trend, since Scientific American is a hollow shell of its former self for the same reasons. They should go into the politics section of the magazine racks, not science.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[Dan Hayes]

It's there, number 4 in the list. How many people actually read the whole thing? Practically nobody it seems, as per usual on /.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[brkello]

You just want to believe in global warming because you want to think of yourself as a good, responsible person, and you want to change others lifestyles because you judge them as wrong. You were already convinced of your point before you started to read the article, and as soon as you found one point that could challenge your viewpoint, you skipped to the next one to avoid thinking about it.

This more and more sounds like a religious debate to me...not a scientific one.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[Lehk228]

when the right goes on an all out assault on science, you don't have to change positions to become "biased"

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[tsotha]

I don't see any evidence that's actually happening. If anything, it's the left, which is trying to silence critics of global warming that's conducting an assault on science. Toe the line or lose your grants. Is that how we search for truth?

I recall the left's assault on The Bell Curve. Who is assaulting science?

In any event, those two magazines have changed. They're much less concerned with science than presenting pseudo-science as fact to score political points. When I subscribed to Sciam twenty years ago that wasn't the case. In fact there's quite a bit less science in every issue than there used to be, and they've thrown out many of the details in an effort to be accessable to more readers. Of course, I understand the Popular Science crowd is bigger, but it's sad to see the destruction of a once-great magazine.

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[hpc4u]

In response to that last question: A resounding Yes!

Re:Scores high on the FUD-o-meter

[hpc4u]

Last year I had access to a subscription to New Scientist and would read it each lunch time.
The more I read, the more I realised:

New Scientist : Scientific Journal :: Tabloid : Newspaper

So, take anything published therein with a pinch of salt.

the only constant is change

[symbolset]

And not all change is bad. Yes, we should do something about pollution of all sorts. A clever observer will notice though that warmer climate equals more arable land at a time when there are more humans to feed than ever. Opportunities abound.

Re:the only constant is change

[AP2k]

And more arrable land means more vegitation to sink the carbon.

Win-win

PS: Ironically my CAPTCHA summarized the entire article: "boring"

Re:the only constant is change

[Overzeetop]

Change is only good if you're okay with the fact that you will, like 99% of all the other creatures in the history of the earth, soon become extinct.

It is, as they say, the natural order of things.

Re:the only constant is change

[IgLou]

Well, he'll probably think it's a good thing if the only species left on the planet are cows, chickens, cats and dogs... that's all we need right? :P

Debating climate change is futile it's happening. Debating the human component to it is also futile; after all, we have an environmental footprint and that footprint has no process that offsets it's impact on the environment. So, we should do everything we can to ensure that footprint is minimal then we could say "Well, humans have 0 footprint on the planet but the climate is still changing must be a process we have no control over". Until we have 0 footprint, people like the one you responded to can't convince me otherwise.

At this point, the lines are drawn and either people are convinced or they aren't. Time to count the heads and determine where the majority lies.

Let's step back for a minute, even if you forget Global Warming think of the pollution! Nope, that can't be a problem, no way.

Re:the only constant is change

[Scrameustache]

A clever observer will notice though that warmer climate equals more arable land Because most deserts are away from the equator?

1- Deny it's happening
2- When the evidence makes that laughable, change strategies: Deny it's a bad thing.
3- When it finally happened, laugh all the way to the bank.

Re:the only constant is change

[gstoddart]

And not all change is bad. Yes, we should do something about pollution of all sorts. A clever observer will notice though that warmer climate equals more arable land at a time when there are more humans to feed than ever.

A slightly more clever observer will observe that changing climate has a good chance of increasing the amount of desert area on the planet, disrupting migration patterns of animals and birds, wiping out some species, putting other species where they've never been, and making weather wonky in a whole lot of ways that we can't even begin to fully predict.

The amount of disastrous consequences are very likely to outweigh any (apparent, short term) benefits which seem to arise from warming in one particular area.

Cheers

Re:the only constant is change

[masterhibb]

Let's step back for a minute, even if you forget Global Warming think of the pollution! Nope, that can't be a problem, no way.

I dislike pollution as much as the next guy, and I'm all for making less of it. The problem is that most man-made global warming theories I've heard treat CO2 as the most dire "pollutant" around. Except CO2 nourishes ecosystems via their plant life, instead of poisoning them, and I'm pretty sure it's not going to give me cancer or black lung.

If we go off and put all of our environmental dollars (and many more dollars that used to go to other things, like my personal savings and/or beer and nacho fund) into fixing a problem that isn't, we've really done more harm than good, haven't we?

There's clearly more need and more room for debate here. I believe the saying is "Look before you leap."

Re:the only constant is change

[symbolset]

Exactly. Evolution is about adapting to change. I individually will become extinct in due course. Between now and then the climate will not change enough to make my climate warm enough to suit me. There is no escaping death option for any of us.

Climate change is a long process. My offspring, like all the other organisms ever on the planet, will adapt or my line will die out. This is as it should be. Between now and then I expect them to exploit their opportunities like the thriving organisms they are.

Other organisms? Same for them, whether they're polar bears or east burundi dancing fire ants or irridescent purple bread mold.

No credible scientist is predicting that Global Warming and CO2 emissions are going to result in the End of Man. For that there's other stuff to worry about.

That doesn't mean I approve of CO2 emissions or any other kind of pollution. "Don't make a mess in your own bed" is good guidance for children and adults, and in this overpopulated overindustrial world we should recognize we're all in bed together in a sense. Shrill messages about how the temperatures are climbing just aren't helping to move the discussion forward. TFA - heck, the whole site -- doesn't impress me with its scholarly rigor. It's just a lame claim to refute every argument on one side of the climate debate. In the few examples I looked at their argument was weak, incomplete or not supported by evidence or studies.

And I'll say it again. Huge tracts of non-farmable land are becoming arable each year in the northern hemisphere exactly because the weather is warming. Lots of people want to protect our pristine Alaskan, Canadian and Russian wildernesses in the pure pre-human oppupation state they have always enjoyed, as a habitat for millions of warm fuzzy species. That's wonderful for them, but:

• Eight thousand years ago all this land was under glacial ice and habitat to none of the invasive foreign pest creatures that live there now.
• Twelve thousand years ago the regions began being exploited by humans.
• Ten thousand years from now it'll be under a glacier again for fifty thousand years so getting all misty about what happens to it between now and then is a little maudlin.
• China and India have a billion people each. We going to need more food, and as they industrialize they're going to eat higher on the food chain like us -- which means more vegetation to feed to their preferred protein pets.

The earth recycles too.

Re:the only constant is change

[IgLou]

Look before we leap? Why? Because moving away from the combustion engine is a threat to life as we know it? Taking a few SUV's off the road will kill endangered species?

For the past couple of years I've heard arguements against "green" technology ranging from economic to drop in quality of life to "god told us we can do as we see fit". But I haven't heard a consequence that is more dire than what we are on the verge of going through. So seriously, how can something like switching to hybrid or electric cars using electricity drawn by windfarm or solar screw things up any worse?

As for whether there needs to be more debate that's up to people to decide, if the majority feels the need to change then we change.

Re:the only constant is change

[drix]

And not all change is bad. Uhh, some of it is. Your nice, tidy, one-sentence dictum seems to be conveniently forgetting a whole bunch. Let's see, just off the top of my head: increased prevalence of tropical diseases; coastal erosion and flooding; loss of biodiversity; increased deaths from heat stroke; stronger storm intensity; drought and flooding; and, to your point, potentially large-scale, unknown effects on the food chain as a whole (where'd all the honeybees go?)

Arable land. Yay.

Re:the only constant is change

[masterhibb]

Because if we tailor our environmental policy towards simply reducing CO2 emissions, and CO2 turns out not to be the dire threat many think it is, then we've instituted sub-optimal policy at best, or more likely put forth terrible policy and wasted a lot of time and resources.

Take for example the Kyoto Treaty. A godsend for many climate change advocates, as it seeks to reduce overall carbon emissions. However, it allows more industrialized nations to purchase "carbon credits" from less industrialized nations, which does little to "green up" technology, or stem our use of non-renewable resources. If CO2 turns out to be an insubstantial issue, what good has this divisive legislation (that is not without consequence) done to truly protect the environment?

The examples you listed--phasing out the combustion engine, increasing the average vehicle's MPG, drawing more of our power from clean, renewable sources like wind and solar--do not only help reduce global warming as currently theorized, but also help lower our dependence on non-renewable resources and lower our overall pollution levels. These are good ideas whether or not you think global warming is bunk. By attaching them to such a politicized topic, you might buy yourself some legislation, but you also might turn away people who do not believe in global warming, but would like to see clearer skies nonetheless.

I've always been of the opinion that convincing someone to do the right thing is a far better solution than forcing them to. When you're talking about something as nebulous and far-reaching as climate change, willy-nilly quick-fix legislation sounds like an even worse idea.

Re:the only constant is change

[Dan Hayes]

That's answered by points 11 and 25.

Re:the only constant is change

[masterhibb]

Putting aside the fact that this article "answers" nothing, as it weakens, contradicts, or invalidates a substantial portion of its statements a paragraph after making them, the majority of the climate change dissenters center their arguments on the importance or correlation of CO2 to climate change. Since the CO2 correlation is the most disputed aspect of climate change at the moment, and one of the ideas most specific to global warming, it seems like the worst part to go basing far reaching policy on, wouldn't you think?

Re:the only constant is change

[QuantumG]

Time to get off this earth.

Re:the only constant is change

[Dan Hayes]

Most disputed? Scientists dispute the degree of the relationship for sure, if you read the article there's plenty about that. They don't dispute there's a causal link though.

Even if you ignore or disagree with entirely, there's still the issue of ocan acidification as well.

Re:the only constant is change

[dreamer-of-rules]

Increased CO2 levels are expected to boost food production by a significant and measurable amount, around 10-20% if I remember correctly. It's offset by a lot of nasty stuff. Just the fact that rainfall patterns are going to shift, and we've built up our communities and farmlands in a lot of places to the limits of existing rainfall patterns. It'll suck for those communities currently near the limit, getting the below average trend in rainfall. Not to mention the other changes. Capish?

As for opportunity, I hear there's already forward-looking land investments in Canada.

Re:the only constant is change

[masterhibb]

Well, that's sort of the point. There's cause to continue the debate because if it is not the most important problem, it shouldn't be getting the most of our resources.

Re:the only constant is change

[fritsd]

Have you ever heard of the Sahel? (with a stress on the "Hell")

Re:the only constant is change

[Dan Hayes]

Once again if you read the article there's a whole point devoted to the issue which describes the difference between forcings (e.g. CO2) and feedbacks (e.g. water vapour) and has a handy graph showing relative forcings.

Re:the only constant is change

[Alioth]

No, it means less arable land. Forget the Mercator projection of the world map you have in your mind.

The most productive arable is in the mid latitudes. However, a possible outcome is that the mid latitudes will become increasingly desertified, and the productive zones of arable land will move towards the poles, i.e. northwards in the northern hemisphere.

So? you may say. But if you look at globe, rather than a Mercator projection of the Earth, simple geometry will tell you that there is MUCH less land closer to the poles than there is in the mid latitudes. Simple geometry. That's without seeing that the largest actual land masses are also at the mid latitudes.

It will also take time for the former tundra to be usable as arable. Not all soil is equal.

Then, of course, will be the human cost of losing all that productive coastal land to rising sea levels, and the economic misery caused by the inundating of populated coastlines and low lying areas. How many cities are currently barely above the high tide mark? Hint: Google can help you here.

Re:the only constant is change

[NoOneInParticular]

However, it allows more industrialized nations to purchase "carbon credits" from less industrialized nations, which does little to "green up" technology, or stem our use of non-renewable resources.

On the contrary, 'carbon credits' are a first attempt to create an economy around emissions. Up till now, all we had was government regulation, which is hopeless in a global economy. With putting an actual price on emissions, and allowing trade in emissions, it becomes part of the market, and the one that pollutes least will have the economic advantage.

Just because I hate hippy tree huggers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to go dump a few quarts of oil into a river tonight.

I'm more convinced than ever...

[singingjim1]

...that global warming is the real myth. Thank you New Scientist for bringing me down from the fence.

Re:I'm more convinced than ever...

[lordholm]

You are making a point...

"For starters, the accuracy of some historical claims is questionable: it is not clear that Vinland of Viking sagas refers to modern-day Newfoundland, or even that there really were grapes, for instance."

Which is completely bogus, and disregards all archeological evidence.

Re:Vote with your money

[ShiNoKaze]

So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?

I see a strong bias here

[Sciros]

Having looked at the Firehose for some time now, I find it amusing that same-old, same-old (read: non-newsworthy) articles like this appear on the main page so quickly, whereas all articles that present a dissenting conclusion never get here in the first place. I doubt the "votes" have much of anything to do with that.

Slashdot editors please give both sides a fair chance here; this isn't science vs. religion; it's [supposedly] science vs. science and people should be promoting that.

Good. It's settled then.

[Anonymous Coward]

Finally, no more arguments about global warming.

Welcome the warmth

[loafula]

I, for one, welcome global warming. See, I hate Massachusetts winters. And how cool would it be to pick coconuts in my back yard?

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Richard McBeef]

You might get the short end of the stick:

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid= 10148

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you even read the article?

Re:Welcome the warmth

[loafula]

did you even feel the sarcasm bug crawl up your leg and bite you in the ass?

Re:Welcome the warmth

[loafula]

sounds a lot like The Day After Tomorrow (2004)

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Anonymous Coward]

Same goes for me. Helsinki could see warmer weather and longer summers.. I wouldn't mind a bit.

Re:Welcome the warmth

[tthomas48]

Well it would be cool, as long as you didn't have the entire population of Central America living in your backyard.

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Ksevio]

You must be loving the weather of the last week then!

Re:Welcome the warmth

[jmv]

And how cool would it be to pick coconuts in my back yard?

You mean "how cool would it be to go surfing in my back yard?", right? ;-)

Re:Welcome the warmth

[jc42]

I hate Massachusetts winters. And how cool would it be to pick coconuts in my back yard?

Hey, last Saturday I was at Russell's Garden Center (on Route 20 in Wayland), and noticed that they had potted palm trees for sale. They weren't coconut palms. It didn't look at the label, but they looked like baby cabbage palms.

Your wish may come true sooner than you think. Of course, by then most of the Massachusetts coast, including all the Cape, will be under water. I wonder if they'll be able to build levees around Boston that keep it dry? Considering how well this worked for New Orleans, I wouldn't bet on it.

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Alioth]

There are some palms that have some degree of hardiness (and cabbage "palms" aren't palms at all, but cordyline australis, a New Zealand native and relative of the yucca). In milder coastal areas there are quite a few hardy palm species that you can try. Coconut palms no (they die at about 10 degrees celcius - they are very, very cold tender), but possibly Phoenix dactylfera (the commercial date palm) which is hardy down to about -5 celcius. You should certainly be able to grow trachycarpus fortunei (hardy down to about -12 celcius) or trachycarpus wagnerianus (also hardy down to -12 or so, but MUCH more wind tolerant than fortunei). Canary Island date palms (phoenix canarensis) has actually produced viable fruits and seed in England, since English winters are now so mild that this palm can grow quite happily with no winter protection there.

I have a Washingtonia robusta in my garden. I live at about 52 degrees north latitude - further north than the entire lower 48 states of the US. This palm is from Mexico, and is growing just fine and survived the winter with absolutely no protection, with no more damage than a bit of wind burn on the leaf tips. Washingtonia robusta is hardy down to about -5 celcius. I also have some mediterranean fan palms (Chamaerops humilis, the only native European palm) which suffered no damage whatsoever this winter (and the larger one in front of my house is currently flowering).

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Alioth]

I know you're probably only joking, but it would take catastrophic climate change to make that true: coconut palms are extremely cold tender and die at about 10 celcius (about 50 deg. F). You might, however, be able to grow commercial date palms (phoenix dactylfera) some specimens have been known to survive -5 celcius, so long as you don't have prolonged freezes.

Re:Welcome the warmth

[jc42]

Actually, "cabbage palm" is the common name for at least five species. On the US East Coast, it usually refers to Sabal palmetto. In the case of this species, the name comes from the fact that the soft, central part of the bud is harvested and eaten as a vegetable, and has an internal structure much like a cabbage. I'd guess this is true of the other cabbage palms, too.

The potted plants I saw (in a nursery west of Boston) looked like this species, but I didn't examine them closely. I just thought "How about that?" and went on. I think that several of the other cabbage palm species are for sale in the US, too.

Coconut palms would be a lot more fun, but I suppose it's still a few years before they'll survive this far north.

Re:Welcome the warmth

[Alioth]

Sabal palmettos are very hardy - if I remember correctly they can take on the order of -10 celcius.

Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm

[u-bend]

You didn't even mention the appreciable levels of hot air that emanate from those commenting.

Care to list the holes?

[spun]

Or are you just full of hot air?

Here's the list w/o links

[flogger]

This appears to be "weather-Mongering." The only one of these that I didn;t know to be a myth was that "it is all a conspiracy"

• Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter
• We can't do anything about climate change
• The 'hockey stick' graph has been proven wrong
• Chaotic systems are not predictable
• We can't trust computer models of climate
• They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
• It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?
• It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
• Global warming is down to the Sun, not humans
• It's all down to cosmic rays
• CO2 isn't the most important greenhouse gas
• The lower atmosphere is cooling, not warming
• Antarctica is getting cooler, not warmer, disproving global warming
• The oceans are cooling
• The cooling after 1940 shows CO2 does not cause warming
• It was warmer during the Medieval period, with vineyards in England
• We are simply recovering from the Little Ice Age
• Warming will cause an ice age in Europe
• Ice cores show CO2 increases lag behind temperature rises, disproving the link to global warming
• Ice cores show CO2 rising as temperatures fell
• Mars and Pluto are warming too
• Many leading scientists question climate change
• It's all a conspiracy
• Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming
• Higher CO2 levels will boost plant growth and food production
• Polar bear numbers are increasing

Re:Vote with your money

[Richard McBeef]

So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?

Hammers.

Re:Vote with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

The morning after pill. Duh!

Why always dishonest?

[readin]

Why do "myth busters" always seem to get things wrong in order to further some agenda? For example, one of their "myths" is "Mars and Pluto are warming too". And then in they "debunk" it by saying that evidence supports it but isn't conclusive. Then they make their real point, that it doesn't change their view on global warming.

But they didn't say the myth was "Mars and Pluto are warming to, showing humans play an insignificant part in global warming". I'm frankly sick of skeptics and myth busters who can't get their own facts right.

One of their "myths" is actually a question! "It's been far warmer in the past, what's the big deal?" How do you debunk a question??

Slashdot shouldn't be advertising it as a "truth" "behind...common myths". It should just be pointing out propaganda piece.

Re:Why always dishonest?

[pnaro]

You have it all wrong .... The humans are obviously screwing up other outlying planets because the sun's rays pass through our orbital path, obviously intensifying the warming effect on those poor unsuspecting planets, you insensitive clod!

Re:Why always dishonest?

[logophage]

Actually, right in the beginning of the article is the counter-argument. If Mars and Pluto are warming due to increased solar radiation, how come we don't see warming on all the other planets too?

Re: Why always dishonest?

[Black Parrot]

But they didn't say the myth was "Mars and Pluto are warming to, showing humans play an insignificant part in global warming". I'm frankly sick of skeptics and myth busters who can't get their own facts right. The link is a headline-style reference to the myth, not the complete myth. The actual myth in this case is that the warming of other planets proves that planetary warming is caused by the sun rather than by some effect local to the planet. They chop the legs out from under that by pointing out that the sun's output hasn't increased since we started tracking the temperature rises on those planets.

Then they follow up with a discussion that indicates that there is actually still some doubt as to whether those planets are experiencing "global" warming.

Maybe you'd like to read it again to see what it actually says, rather than merely trying to twist it into something you can dismiss out of hand. If you feel a need to dismiss it, find something in it that's wrong. For example, is the claim about solar output since 1978 correct?

Re:Why always dishonest?

[Vancorps]

I agree the point was poorly written and they should make an effort to be as clear as possible because of statements like yours.

That said they should have been more up front about what it means that Mars and Pluto are both warming as well. I don't think anyone has ever claimed that global warming is being caused by humans alone, only that humans are making the problem worse. They are making the assumption that you as the reader would understand that there are many causes for everything we see on a global scale such in thick ice in Canada and droughts in Florida.

There is so much evidence overwhelmingly supporting the position that humans are accelerating the natural cycle which is only bad for everyone. We can look forward to increasingly violent storms throughout the world with different parts experiencing it at different times. People tend to get all flustered when they know something is right and it's obviously right and someone is standing there seeing the same things and saying its wrong. It's happened to me a hundred times in meetings as I say the app is written this way to make them operate this way and the users are disagreeing because they don't understand what it is they are seeing despite it being their job to understand it.

It's also happened to me with Turbotax, I go through and do mine, then I sit my sister down and she can't be bothered to read the screen to figure out what she needs to do despite it being very easy and obvious what to do.

Global warming is the same way, there is a ton of evidence for it, there is as of yet no evidence refuting that when all the planes stopped on 9/11 that the earth as a whole didn't drop in temperature. Facts like that make it obvious the level of impact humans have on the earth. If stopping all the planes results in just a 1 degree drop how would stopping all cars effect the temperature?

Re:Why always dishonest?

[nrublimk]

there is as of yet no evidence refuting that when all the planes stopped on 9/11 that the earth as a whole didn't drop in temperature Thats not quite correct, the temperature difference increased by 1 degree as a result of the grounding on 9/11.

From BBC's Horizon

The 9/11 study showed that removing contrails resulted in a large increase in the daily temperature range - in other words warmer days and cooler nights. The study does not really provide a clear-cut answer to the question of whether the overall effect of the contrails is a net warming or a net cooling averaged over the whole 24 hours. This question is controversial. But what seems clear is that contrails contribute to a reduction in the amount of daytime solar radiation reaching the surface, and that this has significant effects on temperature.

Re:Why always dishonest?

[Vancorps]

Thank you for correcting me, I hadn't realized I had read it slightly wrong. It's important to be clear in that such things can impact the global temperature and they are just one of many contributions that humans impose on the Earth as a whole.

Re:Vote with your money

[Sciros]

But if it IS environmentally friendly, then killing babies for it is fine.

What kind of heartless bastard would you have to be in order to bring a baby into this horrible, warming world to begin with?

WHAT THE HECK?!?!?

Butterfly

[Yo Grark]

And here I thought all it took was a Butterfly Farting in China to affect climate in North America.

Goes to show. :P

Yo Grark

Reduce carbon emissions?

[Anonymous Coward]

The UK government has set us the goal of a 60 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 2050. Here's the deal, I'm deliberately increasing my carbon emissions until the science is 1. depoliticised and 2. makes sense.

I didn't profit from the destruction of the rainforests or our greenbelt, why should I be taxed because CO2 is not being absorbed. The entire green issue has been hijacked for political ends, the environment is not my problem. I suspect I already have a lower 'carbon footprint' than 90% of the population but don't give a shit if the world ends in 50 years or 50 days.

Re:Vote with your money

[Dimentox]

Its a crock of crap. The world is going through a cycle. The Liberal media wants you to think ZOMG we are all gonna die. Marz is warming also btw so let me guess ... we have robots here... we have robots there... Its the robots! They cause global warming.

Eco friendly is one thing but Dont buy this dont drive that, Does 1 person make a real difference? Hell no. All you end up doing is spending more cash on something thats labeled "Hippy" (read Organic. and to be honest probably comes from the same product/crop as the rest of the stuff.

People really need to think for themselves and not follow the "Flock" or buy into the Brainwashing drive by media.

Laugh or cry...

[BlueParrot]

Having spent many hours arguing with people who will jump on any conspiracy theory they can find, and who will happily trust a 2 hour program on channel 4 instead of a plethora of peer reviewed scientific journals, I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the posts in this thread. Lets get this straight once and for all, you will not debunk anything with two sentences. Simply explaining what global average temperature is, or what is meant with a greenhouse gas, or what radiative forcing refers to, requires an entire article on its own. I don't know how many times I have seen some statement along the lines of "Solar radiation changes" completely ignoring matter of relative magnitude, time-scales, research on the topic, and whatnot. At the end of the day the issue is so complex that the only one-liner that has even the slightest legitimacy is "this is what the vast majority of experts on the topic believe" and even that one requires credible references ( as so many sceptics will contest it ). Anyway, the most useful bit of text that will appear in this entire thread follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming There you go, it isn't perfect but it is the best that will appear on slashdot.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm missing the part where I give a shit. I think I'll probably leave the UK to escape bullshit like 'home seller packs' and energy inspections.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[JasonKChapman]

At the end of the day the issue is so complex that the only one-liner that has even the slightest legitimacy is "this is what the vast majority of experts on the topic believe" and even that one requires credible references ( as so many sceptics will contest it ).

Damn straight! The whole issue is just way too complicated for us common folk to grasp. We should just shut up and do whatever the high priests tell us to, lest we risk drawing the anger of the Great and Powerful Oogy-boogy weather gods.

Now go find me a virgin SUV and two incandescent light bulbs to toss on the altar.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[wakaranai]

Absolutely.

It's sad to read the short posts on Slashdot that glibly assert that anthropogenic climate change is untrue and/or a conspiracy.

The wikipedia article (and the IPPC reports http://www.ipcc.ch/ ) are good places to start to find out about the complex nature of this issue, and to see that there is a global scientific consensus (all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries agree) that there is a serious problem.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[Fifty Points]

At one time "the vast majority of experts on the topic believe[d]" that the earth was flat.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[BlueParrot]

Nice straw man you are building there... What I actually suggested was that rather than posting a 2 sentence "argument" on slashdot ( as you then proceed to do ) it would be a lot more useful if people actually went and read up on the subject. Really, I dare you. Have a look at the wikipedia article on solar variations. Have a look at the global warming article, have a look at the article on radiative forcing. If you have already decided global warming is just left-wing propaganda without even trying to read up on it from any credible source ( peer reviewed journals are quite publicly available you know ), then quite frankly you just proved my point.

Oh, btw, in cold countries that get the majority of electricity from hydroelectrics and nuclear power ( Think Canada, Sweden , Norway etc ... ) heating your house with incandescent light bulbs causes much less CO2 emissions than burning oil in your basement, so I am all in favour of it where the climate is right. As for SUVs I have yet to understand why anyone would want one. They are hard to park, expensive to maintain, have a sucky mpg rating, poor acceleration and just generally suck at everything. Unless you actually spend most of your time driving off-road a regular car is better, and if you are spending most of your time off-road there are way better alternatives than a SUV. Global warming is just another reason why SUVs are shit cars. I wouldn't get one anyway.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[JasonKChapman]

Nice straw man you are building there... What I actually suggested was that rather than posting a 2 sentence "argument" on slashdot ( as you then proceed to do ) it would be a lot more useful if people actually went and read up on the subject.

As I read it, you were warning people not to take Slashdot discussions on the subject seriously (as you then proceeded to do.)

If you have already decided global warming is just left-wing propaganda without even trying to read up on it from any credible source ( peer reviewed journals are quite publicly available you know ), then quite frankly you just proved my point.

Frankly, I don't recall posting an opinion on the subject one way or another. Weren't you the one decrying the use of unsupported assertions? Any opinion you've ascribed to me is most likely just a product of your own zealotry on the subject.

Re:Laugh or cry...

[brkello]

Yes, because the Wikipedia is 100% accurate an non-biased! Not that I don't agree that there is global warming...just that every single link people provide are from biased sources...either pro or against.

What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're already taking an aggressive and insulting posture toward the parent post. I think he could come over to your house with video and data and seven experts proving his points and you'd still deny it. People like you are beyond reason and rationality, and there's no point in even pretending you exist on a sentient level.

Re:What's the point?

[fredrated]

That's funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. In this corner we have 10,000 scientists of various employment that say global climate change is a fact and is significantly caused by human activity. In that corner we have a small handful of scientists mostly employed by the oil industry that say global climate change or at least the contribution by humans is a myth.

Then we have knuckleheads like you that refuse to listen to anything that disagrees with their own point of view, and in a serious case of projection, say things like "People like you are beyond reason and rationality, and there's no point in even pretending you exist on a sentient level". And you talk about denial? About agressive and insulting? Dude, you are the poster child for why thinking people get angry at idiots.

Please write if you decide to get a brain, perhaps I can find a used one that will fit in your empty head.

Re:What's the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

100% agreed on the posture of the question above you fellow AC, but if someone says something along the lines of "The 5 points I read were so off the mark I didn't bother reading the whole article" it would be nice if they mentioned the points they had issues with.

Personally I haven't had time to do much R of the FA, it's quite a bit of text to work through while trying to do actual work too!

Re:Vote with your money

[gEvil (beta)]

So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?

I saw a hot deal on the Bay-B Shred-O-Matic the other day...

Re:Vote with your money

[morgan_greywolf]

So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?

A Ford Excursion with a 6.8L V10 engine.

#16

[benhocking]

That was the 16th myth on the list.

Re:rubbish

[Anonymous Coward]

Your well-sourced points and rational arguments have swayed me, kudos to you, and kudos again.

Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[moore.dustin]

"Yet despite all the complexities, a firm and ever-growing body of evidence points to a clear picture: the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences."

First, see Growing number of scientists reconsidering global warming fears. Not the best site ever, but it shows that the consensus everyone likes to talk about is bogus. The _media_ refuses to let allow the discussion to continue and the scientific process run its course without interference.

On Drudge, right now, there is an article saying with the headline, WARMING ON HOLD? April's temperatures were below average.... That right there prove the point that the media has DESTROYED any chance we have at a honest examination of the issue. People see that headline and think, "Maybe this global warming thing is bogus," but that article literally has 0 relevance to global warming. People think it does though because they do not care to think for themselves and believe what everyone else tells them. Sheep, they are sheep. It has been said a million times here, but is true. If you read that headline and draw any correlation to global warming from it, you have no place in any discussion about the topic.

Why? Well it is because they cannot grasp the concept of global warming if that headline/article does anything but anger them about the issue of global warming. Global warming is better referred to as Climate Change. A cold month means nothing, NOTHING, in the grand scheme of things, and that is the point. The grand scheme of things. It is all about averages I guess you can say. People cannot grasp the idea of the climate, let alone what any change in the climate means. Instead, they read a headline/story, not knowing anything about the subject, form an opinion(the one the media likely tells them to form), and parade around as if they have even the slightest clue on the subject, but they do not.

Stop telling me there is a firm and ever-growing body of evidence, because there isn't. There is just a slew of weak minded people buying into the hysteria that you are contributing to with your article. Thanks again for the awesome journalism mass media, you never cease to amaze.

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[SatanicPuppy]

Shrug. Looking through this thread, there are a bunch of obviously over-emotional "there is no global warming people", and they all either make the argument that, "90% of the scientists in the world are wrong because of *insert anecdote here*" or that the whole thing is completely political and manufactured by the liberal media.

You at least bothered to make some citations, but the citations you made are irrelevant...Drudge talking about the weather? Jim Inhofe's blog? That bastard is so conservative he doesn't believe in fire, and he sure as hell doesn't know the first thing about science.

Now take the article that is the point of this thread...It's on New Scientist, which is at least scientific in nature (unlike either of your examples), and each point is made with citations to sites that also deal in science, some of which are quite reputable.

Given those arguments, who would you believe if you didn't have an obvious bias?

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[SatanicPuppy]

Okay, so it's all about sheep. It's sheep who believe articles by the liberal scaremongering "New Scientist" magazine, and intelligent non-sheep who listen to right thinking people like Drudge and Jim Inhofe, who is described in Wikipedia with the following line: "He is the most vocal skeptic of climate change (global warming) in Congress.[1] Inhofe often cites the Bible as the source for his stances on various political issues." You don't see a problem there?

Call people sheep if you like, but when you cite garbage like that to back up your position, it makes you look like a fool.

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[moore.dustin]

Good point, but I was not really debating the validity of my link or that of TFA. You are correct though, New Scientist > Drudge and likely anything posted on Drudge. I was merely saying that the media has twisted this topic in every which way that they have destroyed the scientific process for the most part(in regards to this issue). Now TFA does cite sources from moderately reputable and that (peer review I guess it falls under) is part of the process and I welcome the articles. The summary I quoted though, how can you not say that statements like those are irresponsible?

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[moore.dustin]

I consider the links examples and not citations. I mentioned "headline" for, what I thought, was an obvious reason. The contents of the article aside, it is the headline that sets the mindset when opening that article. Again, I agree that Inhofe is a douchenozzle, but they were examples, not citations to prove my point. My point, which you elected to ignore and was quite obvious, is that the media is to blame for the gross misrepresention of what global warming is and may or may not do.

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[X.25]

Shrug. Looking through this thread, there are a bunch of obviously over-emotional "there is no global warming people", and they all either make the argument that, "90% of the scientists in the world are wrong because of *insert anecdote here*" or that the whole thing is completely political and manufactured by the liberal media.

Not really. All I needed to think for myself were few scientist:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355 859226455

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[SatanicPuppy]

Sorry about the "dupe" post. Browser crashed, and I didn't think the first went up.

Shrug. A climate scientist with access to all the info probably can only make a rough guess as to how things will go, and I doubt things will ever get as bad as the worst case scenarios...But part of the reason I think that is because there is a lot of attention and research being directed at this issue now, and that is because the media has been covering it extensively.

Frankly, all credible evidence I've seen leads me to believe that there is a strong potential threat out there, and I am more inclined to be lenient to the media for hyping the threat than I am to forgive the conservative side for ignoring the issue, then claiming its all crap, and then moving on to the point of trying to discredit it without providing compelling research debunking it.

That's just me.

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[SatanicPuppy]

It's good you only needed a few, because that's all you've got. I find it amusing how many of the same people who for years claimed there was no such thing as global warming, have now all jumped onto the bandwagon of saying that the global warming which everyone now agrees is occurring isn't caused by people...Not that they have a credible alternative except "It just happens".

Pardon me if I don't rush to embrace their opinion.

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[zik0]

In the GRAND scheme of things, a warm millennium means nothing, the extinction of homo-sapiens means nothing, the explosion of the nearest star means nothing, and the heat death of the universe means nothing.

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[X.25]

t's good you only needed a few, because that's all you've got.

Do you want me to call you a whaaaaaaambulance, maybe?

"There are more of us, thus we are right" (c) global warming fanatics

Re:Arg!!! Stop lying to the sheep!

[GaryPatterson]

People are sheep? Nice way to get people onside. 'You're all a bunch of idiots! Now listen to me...'

The issue here is not that people are stupid or inherently sheep-like, but that climate change is a complex issue that has become politically charged. No discussion can be had without careful study and considering a wide range of information and ramifications, but that doesn't fit the media model for presenting information. Adding political spin means that the public are being presented many mixed messages on this.

People are confused by climate change. It's complex and scary. People aren't sheep or weak-minded; the messages aren't being made clearly enough. The New Scientist article attempts to cut through some of the false information about climate change. This should be a good thing in anyone's eyes, as it raises the level of debate. Climate change may be a global problem or a storm in a teacup, but no-one is served by using false information to reach a scientific goal.

Calling people "weak minded" and saying that they "cannot grasp the idea of the climate" is a failure of your own. I have found that anyone can grasp any concept well enough to make an informed decision, provided you actually take the time to talk to them. I'm an optimist, a believer in human nature and the ability of people to overcome anything. You seem to believe people are weak-minded sheep. I infinitely prefer my position.

Please Remember

[Anonymous Coward]

This world is fragile in our hands.

Bickering

[hotsauce]

The scientific community isn't bickering about the basic things: that warming is occuring, and that human activity is contributing to it. The "the scientific community is divided so there's nothing we can do" line is just used to prevent action. It's the same very effective tactic used by big tobacco for decades in the 60s to prevent recognition of the cancer causing properties of tobacco.

Re:Bickering

[radtea]

The scientific community isn't bickering about the basic things: that warming is occuring, and that human activity is contributing to it.

Then perhaps you can tell me the figure, in W/m**2/ppm, that CO2 directly contributes to climate forcing.

If we had this figure it would be relatively easy to beat the deniers over the head with it, but I don't seem to be able to find a reliable source for it anywhere.

Re:Bickering

[Coryoth]

Then perhaps you can tell me the figure, in W/m**2/ppm, that CO2 directly contributes to climate forcing...but I don't seem to be able to find a reliable source for it anywhere. It would seem you didn't look that hard. Current atmospheric carbon dioxide levels provide a radiative forcing of 1.66+/-0.17 W/m^2 (IPCC 4th Assessment Report, Working Group I, Summary for Policy Makers Figure SPM-2). Inferring from Figure SPM-1 it looks like atmospheric carbon dioxide provides approximately 0.02 W/m^2/ppm (though obviously there are threshold values involved). Feel free to dig through the details in the full WGI report.

Re:Bickering

[Anonymous Coward]

You do not speak for "the community". Nobody does. You are only one dope who pretends to know what others are really thinking.

Re:Bickering

[radtea]

Thanks! I actually did look moderately hard for it some time ago, but rapidly got lost in a welter of conflicting claims. Not being familiar with the literature in this area is a problem.

So compared to mean insolation of about 250 W/m**2, we are looking at an effect around 0.5%.

So here's my problem: if you read about the Milankovitch cycle explanation of ice ages, you'll find people pointing out that the less than 1% variation in insolation due to changes in eccentricity are not sufficient to explain climate fluxuation in the past few million years. Milankovitch depends on the odd distribution of terrestrial landmasses to explain the large swings in mean global temperature: a variation in solar forcing of less than 1% is widely believed to be insufficient.

So while I am all for reducing our CO2 emissions and other greenhouse gas emissions for a variety of sound environmental and economic reasons, am I not sure how to reconcile these two facts: that there is widespread concern that a less than 1% change in radiative forcing due to CO2 and other greenhouse gases is putting us at risk of major climate catastrophe, and a widespread belief that changes in orbital eccentricity alone are insufficient to explain ice ages. The kind of climate events from global warming being talked about in some circles are comparable in scope to ice ages, and yet the forcing involved is actually quite a lot smaller.

Isn't it?

Re:Bickering

[Coryoth]

With reagrd to Milankovitch cycles, the change in insolation is believed to be insufficient on its own to account for the total temperature change that occurred. Of course resolving the remaining change in temperature can be a matter of looking at feedbacks, for example carbon dioxide, which is released from oceans as they warm. A 1% change can, apparently, be enough to kick off a process of feedbacks that results in significant change. The same thing could happen now, just with a different driver/forcing being the initial cause of the later resulting feedbacks.

How worried should we be? Well doomsday panics are probably a bit silly, but the difference between glacial and interglacial periods was quite significant: New York used to be under ice. Consider that we will be gettign warmer while already being in an interglacial, nd that we are already at 2/3rds of the forcing required to kick off such a shift -- it seems likely that things will change significantly. There's also the issue of rate; how quickly the solar forcing changed with orbital variation is a matter I am not clear on, but it may well have taken rather longer than 150 years to produce that full 1% change in insolation.

So the summary is: panic wildly? No, probably not. Be concerned and try to take action where possible? Certainly seems sensible.

Re:Bickering

[radtea]

So the summary is: panic wildly? No, probably not. Be concerned and try to take action where possible? Certainly seems sensible.

I think this is a reasonable position. I was verging on wild panic sometime last year, before looking more deeply into the numbers. The figure you found for CO2 forcing was actually about half the figure I had found previously (which I knew to be unreliable, but wasn't sure which way it erred.)

The orbital terms in solar forcing vary extremely slowly. However, the change in effective insolation due to the difference in albedo between the northern and southern hemisphere is huge, something like 10%. But this is not directly comparable to changes in CO2 because it is the result of local differences rather than overall change.

The short timescale for CO2 changes is a bit of a concern, but in a sense it is moot: we know that slow changes can produce results like the Younger Dryas, which returned much of North America to glacial ice in a transition that lasted perhaps as little as a decade, despite the fact that the ultimate forcings were all long-term. They managed to stimulate catastrophic shifts in the continental climate, though, and while any similar event is undoubtedly improbable it is still a tad scary.

My own position is that the economic consequences of global climate change are likely to be quite significant, while the ecological consequences are likely to be quite small, although larger than in some previous climate fluctuations because of humans putting stress on habitats.

The question then becomes: how best to capture the externalities and prevent dumping in the atmospheric commons? History suggests that some kind of market will be the most effective means of doing this, and I find it fairly amusing that many people in favour of action on climate change are opposed to markets and most people against action claim to believe that markets are great things. This suggests that many people in favour of action on climate change are really using it as an excuse to push their own eco-puritan agenda, and many people opposed to action are exactly the sort of eco-criminals who will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

Re:Bickering

[Coryoth]

I tend to agree. The ecological impacts are likely to be a result of already highly stressed habitats (in fact the IPCC reports say as much) and the real concern is more an economic one. The world is not going to end, but it might be rather expensive and painful to adapt to the changes as they come. I also tend to agree that a market scheme that appropriately factors in what has been an externality up until now (CO2 emissions) is likely to, in the long term, going to be the most effective approach to getting sustainability on this front (I will admit, however, that I can still see some benefit to short term measures to help accelerate the process toward the required new equilibrium).

A lot of posters here keep railing against the denlialists and the fear-mongers, ut it seems to me that that is largely because they are listening to their own echo chambers which create straw-men of "the opposition". Most people who I've actually had a serious discussion with tends to be quite moderate and reasonable -- I don't always agree with them, but there's plenty of common ground.

Oh c'mon ...

[Bearpaw]

... bringing more facts into the discussion is obviously biased.

Re:Oh c'mon ...

[Lijemo]

The facts have a liberal bias, and should thus be ignored: truly intelligent people reach firm conclusions without consulting them.

I'll go you one further...

[Anonymous Coward]

> consider if you really need that thing enough to kill babies for it.

They'll need to sterilize potential parents before I part with my cash.

I wish there was another point...

[iknownuttin]

and that is, There are many many variables to the causes of global warming and you cannot pin it on one variable.

I hear so many times from folks, especially in the media, that the planet is warming because of 'X'. They always want to blame it on one thing. My favorite is that "the Sun is getting hotter! It's not the human race!" Or others love to blame the SUVs or coal fired power plants exclusively.

What I'm getting at is the folks who reduce the argument to one variable, regardless of your point of view on the matter, are muddying matters even more and making is difficult to get folks on board to solve the problem. So by saying, "the Sun is getting hotter." tha just gives people the rational to throw their hands up and say "There's nothing I can do.

My wife had a great answer to a neighbor who believes that global warming is myth. She said to him, "By taking the steps to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, we will be cleaning up the air. And I don't know about you, but I like clean air."

Here in Metro Atlanta, most of the Summer is "Smog Alert Day" and it's miserable. Everybody, pro or con, wants clean air - even the global warming naysayers.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[duranaki]

Just a side note... CO2 isn't dirty, and is typically named public enemy #1 of "greenhouse gases". If all our cars and combustion based power planets burned friendly carbs at 100% efficiency they'd still spit out lots of H2O and CO2. We'd have no smog, you'd breathe freely even on hot days, and the world would still get warmer (or at least the majority of scientist would predict it).

I'm not trying to agitate, just hear this "CO2 is pollution" argument too often. But whatever shuts your neighbor up... :)

Re:I wish there was another point...

[Dancindan84]

Everybody, pro or con, wants clean air - even the global warming naysayers. Millions of smokers world wide cough at that assumption. I mean scoff at it...

Re:I wish there was another point...

[Cedric Tsui]

Well said!

Most of the summer is Smog Alert Day? That's awful!
I know a lot of cities form a kind of inversion layer dome keeping smog inside the city. Is this what's happening in Atlanta? I wonder if anyone has looked at the engineering feasibility of building a clean air intake tunnel.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[Myopic]

My wife had a great answer to a neighbor who believes that global warming is myth. She said to him, "By taking the steps to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, we will be cleaning up the air. And I don't know about you, but I like clean air."

That's an answer, but it's hardly a good answer, let alone a "great" one. Liking clean air would only absolutely suggest reducing greenhouse gases if reducing greenhouse gases had only the effect of creating clean air and possibly reducing global warming -- but that is not the case, it also has other effects ("externalities"). The most popular externality is reduction in global economy, which we generally recognize as bad. So the question then becomes, what do we prefer, cleaner air and possibly lowered global warming, or a bigger nicer economy? The answer depends on how much of each we'd get, and how important each is to us. Happily, often we don't have to choose between them, and can have both, which many people believe is the case with global warming.

Compare to pesticides. I've heard stupidass environmentalists say we should totally ban all pesticides, because pesticides cause cancer. If we did that, the price of (for instance) fruit would increase, since it would be more expensive to produce and bring to the customer. If the price is higher, people will eat less fruit. But, the vitamins in fruit protect against cancer! So then, the question is, would we prefer less pesticides leading to less cancer but higher fruit prices leading to more cancer; or more pesticides, leading to more cancer, but cheaper fruit leading to less cancer? Which one is the dominant variable? This one is easier than the global warming question, because it's easier to make a good guess at what action will lead to less cancer (ignoring other externalities), and luckily that answer keeps our fruit cheap, attractive, and cancer reducing.

So, okay, global warming may or may not be a problem, and dirty air may or may not be a problem, but taking expensive steps to curb air pollution because you hope it will slow global warming, and selling it to people because people like clean air, is cheating. If you can't sell the global warming argument, you aren't allowed to invent correlations and pretend they represent the whole picture.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[roman_mir]

My wife had a great answer to a neighbor who believes that global warming is myth. She said to him, "By taking the steps to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, we will be cleaning up the air. And I don't know about you, but I like clean air." - well, your neighbour should have simply retorted: CO2 is quite clean, don't you worry about that. There is nothing wrong with CO2 and it doesn't cause pollution. Fighting CO2 emmissions will certainly not help you to get your air cleaned. Global Warming is a Red Herring, now Global Pollution that's a different storry and I am cool with thousands nuke power plants in my backyard, are you?

Re:I wish there was another point...

[iknownuttin]

If you can't sell the global warming argument, you aren't allowed to invent correlations and pretend they represent the whole picture.

The scientists who are studying global warming can't "sell" it, either. If they could, there wouldn't so much controversy - IMHO.

As far as my wife's argument goes, she was talking to someone who, as soon as he hears "global warming" automatically tunes out. It is impossible to "sell" it to folks who are not interested listening. Also, the reason was never meant to be used in a scientific debate. And there are quite a few folks out there that no matter how much data climatologists gather, they will not believe there's any climate problem for whatever their reasons may be.

As far as me, I have never claimed to understand the issue. I am not a climatologist and I am completely unqualified to "sell" global warming to anyone. And I personally think, for a layman, the "cleaning the air and if it slows global warming all the better" reason as being very valid one and it gets the point across to other layman that have no interest in listening to the real experts but would rather listen to a talk show host on radio that has no training in science.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[RealGrouchy]

My wife had a great answer to a neighbor who believes that global warming is myth. She said to him, "By taking the steps to reduce greenhouse gases that cause global warming, we will be cleaning up the air. And I don't know about you, but I like clean air."

This is precisely why I don't care about global warming--it is a much weaker argument for less tangible things than what I want to fight for.

I ride a bike because it's affordable, and because I don't like hundreds of millions of tax dollars being uselessly spent on roads.

I oppose cars and encourage public transit for that reason, and because I don't believe that urban living and smog-free living are mutually exclusive.

I oppose industrial sources of pollution and waste (i.e. coal/nuclear power plants, factory farms) because they are not sustainable economically or environmentally.

I oppose free trade and international outsourcing because it discourages local economies, oppresses people in ways not allowable in my country, sidesteps democracy, and consumes large amounts of resources--many of which we can never get back.

I've probably missed a few, but global warming is the least of my concerns. Whenever I hear someone say that you should buy a (new) hybrid car or use ethanol because it's better for the environment, I want to smack them upside the head for being so naive.

- RG>

Re:I wish there was another point...

[MikeBabcock]

What on earth does reducing CO2 have to do with pollution? We have water that's barely safe to drink and diseases all over the world caused by a lack of clean drinking water and/or air pollution, and yet we who don't want to displace our coastal lifestyle are hung up on global warming being more important.

Far be it for me to point out to people dying right now from major problems we can prevent right now. I'm sick and tired of people whining about Global Warming as though somehow the millions of children dying around the world cared.

Who benefits the most from all this climate change talk exactly? Who benefits financially? Now think about it. Global Warming may be preventable, it may be here to change, or it may not be happening, but its far less important to me than most other world issues going on right now.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[Myopic]

Okay. You sound very reasonable, and it seems we agree. And we all love clean fresh air (I moved to Alaska to get it) -- I think having clean air stands on its own, no need for superfluous and tenuous connections to global warming.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[Anonymous Coward]

Everybody, pro or con, wants clean air - even the global warming naysayers.

Speak for your self dude!
I like my air just nice and dirty as it is...
Troll off!

damn clean people

Re:I wish there was another point...

[toddestan]

Just a side note... CO2 isn't dirty, and is typically named public enemy #1 of "greenhouse gases". If all our cars and combustion based power planets burned friendly carbs at 100% efficiency they'd still spit out lots of H2O and CO2. We'd have no smog, you'd breathe freely even on hot days, and the world would still get warmer (or at least the majority of scientist would predict it).

I'm not trying to agitate, just hear this "CO2 is pollution" argument too often. But whatever shuts your neighbor up... :)

Actually, if we burned only biofuels (I guess that's what you mean by carbs?), we wouldn't have to worry much about the CO2 we would be dumping into the atmosphere because that CO2 would already be part of the carbon cycle as it had been absorbed by the plants and trees we would be burning.

The problem with burning fossil fuels is that we are dumping a lot of CO2 back into the environment that has been out of the carbon cycle for millions of years.

Re:I wish there was another point...

[notepad_doodler]

If CO2 is a problem, then take all the catalytic converters off the cars. They do a good job of converting CO into dangerous CO2 and H2O. I'd feel safer with an actual headache from city traffic spewing poison, than having to live with the debatable threat of global warming.

Hurricane Katrina was caused by global warming

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought this section showed a most interesting perspective to what amounts to a set of talking points for those already decided.

The section rightly casts doubt on info that might point to individual climactic events being caused by anything, but concludes that global warming could NOT be ruled out despite this. The section points out inconsistencies in certain models and observations and calls for much more science before drawing conclusions.

If I posted some of those same paragraphs word-for-word into say a Ronald Bailey article arguing against man-made global warming that would make him instantly dismissed as an Exxon shill. It seems assumptions of reasonable doubt only apply to those on the man-made warmers side. Any doubt on the other side is paid denial.

Dear Deniers

[einer]

You are wrong. The world is changing and we're causing it. Unfortunately, the point of no return has been passed (mindshare wise). Not only do I no longer care, I am now doing everything I can to hasten our progress down this beautiful downward spiral.

Personally, I pollute as much as I legally can. I would drive a larger SUV if I could afford to burn the gas. I vote Republican. I donate to the RNC. I vote to take away gun ownership rights. In short, I will do everything in my power to remove the rights you have taken for granted and shown yourself to be so willing to trade away for some temporary piece of mind. Every one of your cowardly wishes are my command.

Why would I do this? Because I hate you and your children, and what they've selfishly taken from everyone else. I hate everyone who voted Bush, and I sincerely hope society reaps the what you've sewn.

Have a nice day.

Re:Dear Deniers

[einer]

Partisan slashdot moderators are of course welcome to die in a fire themselves.

Have a nice day.

Re:Dear Deniers

[Sir_Real]

Prepare to be buried by the moder-azi.

But back to the topic at hand. Taking your ball and going home is your decision to be sure. For those of us with ties to the living, compromise with society is not an option. Having children (even if YOU hate them) compels people to better things (usually).

Also, be aware that your line of reasoning closely follows that of those whom this administration has labeled terrorist. The bombings they commit are often on civillian targets for the purpose of punishing these poor souls for voting at all (let alone voting Democrat, or whatever your party of choice is). Attacking the people is rarely the most efficient way of effecting change.

You speak of reaping what is sewn. What ideas have you sewn? What fixes have you tried? Curious.

Re:Dear Deniers

[einer]

Did you just call me a terrorist?

I don't commit bombings, but I sure would cheer if one hit the GOP convention. The climate change deniers, the gay bashers, any one of 'em, worse for this country than the terrorists. Good God, the death of Jerry Falwell will bring more peace to the world than killing the top 100 leaders of al queda.

We'll never see eye to eye. I hate the right. HATE. I feel no need to compromise, and certainly no need to be civil.

Yeah, this country pretty much sucks the big one. We're racist, fascist, imperialist, and we're comfortable enough not caring. We're without conscience (or at least a voting majority are).

this warming is due to human activity increasing

[pottymouth]

Not one spec of evidence exists for this proposition. Not one. Ever. Weather is cyclic and the cycles are longer than humans live and longer than humans have been paying attention to weather. Learn it, accept it, get over it.

Jeez, if you want a totalitarian government to tell you when and where you can fart move to Russia. Don't try to sell it here.

Yeah, present both sides!

[Bearpaw]

Peer-reviewed science and corporate-funded talking points should be equally represented.

Then we can decide for ourselves whether there's any link between smoking and cancer.

Re:Yeah, present both sides!

[lionheart1327]

Yes, because any research that disagrees with you obviously is funded by the evil corporations.

Believe in whatever the hell you want, but know that with that kind of a bullshit knee-jerk response you're being as unscientific as all the deniers that you condemn so much.

Re:Yeah, present both sides!

[Anonymous Coward]

Peer-reviewed science and corporate-funded talking points should be equally represented.
Then we can decide for ourselves whether there's any link between smoking and cancer.

Congratulations. You just discovered free speech *AND* critical thinking.

But isn't it scary that people who don't agree with you can voice thier opinions, and other people can actually *concider* them? Isn't it just terrifying? I mean, someone might actually think you're wrong.

The horror, the horror.

Re:Yeah, present both sides!

[weighn]

Peer-reviewed science and corporate-funded talking points should be equally represented.

well said. I love this pointing out of "liberal bias" that is infecting the Foxiverse at the moment. You know, if you point out that detaining people without charge and torturing them is wrong it just shows that you're a pinko unionist prol.

Re:Yeah, present both sides!

[LanMan04]

Yes, because any research that disagrees with you obviously is funded by the evil corporations. Let me re-write that for you:

Yes, because any research that is funded by corporations is obviously evil.

If it ain't peer-reviewed (and I don't mean by the 2 other fringe scientists that happen to agree), then it ain't science, regardless of the venue/topic.

Senate article from "Dumbest" Senator..

[wbean]

The senate page is from Senator james Inhofe's office. He has been labelled the "dumbest" senator, so I would hate to trust my kids future to his ideas.

Re:Senate article from "Dumbest" Senator..

[Anonymous Coward]

Shit - if counterpunch says it, it must be true...

It was cold last night....

[bodland]

Global warming is a lie...and I was attacked by pirates.

WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to avoid the flame wars. I ask a simple question.

To "debunk" a myth, one takes a superstitious opinion and replaces it with provable fact. When I clicked under "warmging might be great" link or whatever, this is what I got:

As global temperature climbs to 3C above present levels - which is likely to happen before the end of this century if greenhouse emissions continue unabated - the consequences will become increasingly severe. More than a third of species face extinction. Agricultural yields will start to fall in many parts of the world. Millions of people will be at risk from coastal flooding. Heatwaves, droughts, floods and wildfires will take an ever greater toll.

Now I'm obviously a moron for questioning such great scientists as the ones that put together this report, so I'll play AC. My question is where is the fact in the above paragraph? IPCC says liklihood of 1 degree rise in next century. We have some circumstantial measurements about what a 3-degree change _might_ do, but can scientists really predict this much catastrophe THIS FAR OUT IN THE FUTURE?

I call bullshit. To address my call, please provide a demonstration that your theory can provide measurable, repeatable results. Make a prediction for 20 years from now. If you get it right, by golly, you have what is called in this neck of the woods science. If you start waving your hands around and claiming doom is nigh and we don't have time for such silliness, then I call double-bullshit. Matter of fact, looks like triple-dog-bullshit to be exact.

Troubling lack of snow

[Scrameustache]

Eastern Canada is currently experiencing its thickest strongest ice in 30 years. Coast Guard officials I've spoken with say the ice severity follows a 30 year cycle and current conditions are the same as in the 1970s. The former capital of Canada, Québec city, experienced its first non-white xmas, ever, in 2006.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[maxume]

You mean in recorded history, not ever. You simply don't know about the several billion years before that.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[Anonymous Coward]

BS!

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[Run4yourlives]

At what point in history was Quebec City ever the capital of Canada, the country?

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[James_Duncan8181]

Well. I'd think that Quebec city wasn't entirely constructed back then what with humans not existing yet and all...

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[maxume]

I consider that a very bizarre interpretation of 'place'. The location was there before a human trod on it or threw up a shack.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[James_Duncan8181]

Normally, yes. However, the presence of so many heat sources in one area that is created by high density cities means that the local microclimate changes fundamentally and so pre and post-civilised weather (not climate, note) records are essentally useless to compare. Note London's frequent 5 degree increase on the temp of the surrounding countryside, for instance. Hence me pointing out that local weather records would only really be useful as far back as the city goes. Note he did say city, not area. But yes, the land was there for longer (allowing for continental drift). It's just irrelevant to the question.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[mujo]

after the british conquest, from 1859 to 1865. But it was the center of the french american colony from 1608(founded by Samuel de Champlain) to 1760.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[maxume]

My understanding is that the city effect is due to conversion of green areas into pavement, not 'localized heat sources'. Sure, the pavement acts as a big heat sink, but it doesn't actually generate any heat.

And I'm not a climatologist or weatherman, but snow isn't quite such a local effect.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[Scrameustache]

At what point in history was Quebec City ever the capital of Canada, the country? Wikipedia is your friend.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to the questions of place, Christmas as such has existed for at most slightly over 2,000 years.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[olivercromwell]

Well, at the time, it was called New France, and not Canada.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[James_Duncan8181]

Not only, no. There's also heat sources such as cooking, heating of houses, and in modern times industrial activity and transport. All this CO2 producing stuff I heard about somewhere. ;) WRT the snow, the effect is bigger then you'd think. The air being hotter due to this tends to lead to snow often turning to rain or sleet while in the air. Again using the example of London, bets on a white Christmas are traditionally dealt with by the presence or otherwise of snow on the Met Office roof. The fact that this is in London creates very unhappy punters as they wake up to see snow and yet receive no money.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[maxume]

An average storm is going to have a surface area many, many times that of a city and experience far more insolation than the puny heating effect it experiences from human activity.

One way to look at it is to consider that the activity directly associated with something like a 100 megawatt power station is going to be some multiple of its capacity(but probably less than 400 megawatts). 500 Watts per square meter insolation isn't crazy at the latitudes we are talking about, at midday, but using 100 watts per meter to be sure we are underestimating the impact of the sun, 400 megawatts is equivalent to about 1.55 square miles(or the obvious 4 square kilometers). So come up with a conversion factor for households/megawatt, which will be something like 750, and you would need to have 75000 people living in 1.55 square miles before their electrical consumption dominated the sun. Assume that people use four times as much power in general as they use electricity, and you only need 18750 people in that 1.55 square miles, or a density of about 12,000 people per square mile. Places like Tokyo and Hong Kong are like this, but storms aren't magically city sized, and they don't hover over cities.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[Scrameustache]

Well, at the time, it was called New France, and not Canada. # from 1608 to 1627 and 1632 to 1763, it was capital of French Canada and all of New France,
# from 1791 to 1841, it was the capital of the Province of Lower Canada,
# from 1849 to 1865, it was capital of the Province of Canada,

Read the fucking links before you reply to them. Then go pick up a history book thicker than an inch.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe you should read a little bit more of your history, Canada was not a country until 1867. To say that it was the capital of lower canada is like saying that Richmond was the capital of Colonial Virginia so it was the capital of the United States.

Re:Troubling lack of snow

[olivercromwell]

My, you are rude. Just because something is in Wikipedia does not make it true. 6 years spent studying history, much of it Canadian history at the post secondary level ought to make me reasonably knowledgable on the topic. The links from Wiki are WRONG.

What a bunch of crap...

[aardwolf64]

Reading just one of them...

Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s
"Indeed they did. At least, a handful of scientific papers discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future..."
"This scenario was seen as plausible by many other scientists"
"However, Schneider soon realised he had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling in the long run. In his review of a 1977 book "

Ok... so remind me how this is a "myth" again? Scientists did predict global cooling in the early seventies, and the idea caught on. The fact that someone disagreed near the end of the seventies doesn't eliminate the fact that they did believe it would happen in the early seventies.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[Just Some Guy]

The fact that someone disagreed near the end of the seventies doesn't eliminate the fact that they did believe it would happen in the early seventies.

No! Despite the fact that we all heard about it on TV, the radio, newspapers, and magazines, and even though they taught it in every elementary school's earth science curriculum, it didn't really happen.

That one statement alone - that global cooling was never really widely believed - is enough to make me write off anything else a source has to say. I was there and it happened, and I don't care how much some people wish that it hadn't.

Ironically, I actually believe in human-caused global warming, largely because of the number of experts in the field that seem to think it's true. However, that's in spite of the fact that certain people refuse to admit that some scientists were once wrong in the other direction. Can't they just say that the old models were bad but we've since corrected them, then move on?

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[malsdavis]

"Scientists did predict global cooling in the early seventies"
"The fact that someone disagreed near the end of the seventies doesn't eliminate the fact that they did believe it would happen in the early seventies."

You refer to "Scientists" and "they" as if all science is done by a single organisation. In reality, one group of scientists may theorise something, while others may theorise another thing. As the article discusses, although there were a handful of papers which theorised that global cooling may occur, there was never any sort of scientific consensus on the matter at all. It was just another theory that is now thought highly improbable, just like the "there may be canals on mars" and "light may travel through ether" etc.

The vast majority of scientists throughout the seventies were either indifferent to the idea of global cooling (based upon its speculative nature) or disagreed with it.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[DragonWriter]

No! Despite the fact that we all heard about it on TV, the radio, newspapers, and magazines, and even though they taught it in every elementary school's earth science curriculum, it didn't really happen.

That one statement alone - that global cooling was never really widely believed - is enough to make me write off anything else a source has to say. I was there and it happened, and I don't care how much some people wish that it hadn't.

Its not that it was never widely believed, it was that it was never a scientific consensus the way global warming is, and thus is not a parallel.

Saying we shouldn't pay attention to the broad scientific consensus on global warming because of a popular media craze in the 1970s around a prediction made by a handful of scientists which many others found merely plausible is, well, rather spurious.

So, yes, "they predicted global cooling, but now they predict is global warming" is a myth. More precisely, it is equivocation. The "they" that predicted global cooling aren't the same "they" that predicts global warming.

Re:What a bunch of crap...

[Dilaudid]

Hey well it only took him 6-7 years to change his mind!

most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked

[epine]

There's a lot that can be said about climate change, but that article was not it. I was disappointed in that publication. The most eggregious error from a computer science perspective is that it requires no great talent to train a model that predicts your training data, and even your withheld data, and still have the model prove worthless when confronted with unknowns from the real world.

I read articles every week about major new terms being proposed or incorporated into these models, I hold about as much faith in these models as chess computers from 1980 that regard castling through check as a legal move. Three decades later, the progress with chess programs is a wonder to behold. Our present climate models are perhaps good enough to suggest strong grounds for concern, but looking back 30 years from now, they'll seem like toys.

Re:most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

I read articles every week about major new terms being proposed or incorporated into these models Terms? You mean like ax^3 + bx^2 = ... and someone comes up with cx that nobody figured into the equation before? Lemme ask you since you claim to be following this closely; have there been any terms that flatten out the hockey stick? What fate did those terms have?

All I know is this; we're going to find out exactly what the consequences of all this are. Whatever symbolic mitigation occurs among the most advanced nations will be utterly wiped out by both population growth and progress for the other 5+ billion humans on this planet, and they aren't going to listen when you tell them they can't have essentially everything you already take for granted. Kyoto was an instance of this [1]. They will fudge, lie and deny but they will get what you have whether you want them to or not.

The only certainty I see is that we are going to find out. We will suffer the effects of "global warming" no matter how much angst we suffer before hand.

[1] "Other countries, like India and China, which have [unsurprisingly] ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement." -wikipedia "Kyoto Protocol"

Re:most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked

[4D6963]

You know, the great thing about computer simulations, such as climate change simulations, or today's weather forecast, is that, although your predictions are inaccurate, you know quite well how inaccurate they are. That's why climate change predictions, as (in)accurate as they are, come with a good estimation of how wrong it might be.

In other words, while our prediction models might seem quite obsolete in the future, it doesn't invalidate our current predictions the least of the world.

Re:most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked

[pjabardo]

I don't think you know very well how a scientific model is developed. "Trained" models exist but they usually don't get very far (far as in getting published in a respected journal). Before model predictions are published, the model must be analyzed thoroughly: contributions should be specified and things left out should be justified. By the way, what new contributions do you read every week? In the mainstream the contributions are hardly ever mentioned, except some major one that the article is trying to refute or support. What is more controversial is how the parameters affect and are handled by the model.

How these contributions affect the problem is another issue that is both difficult and very important. In complex models, each contribution might be the object of one or several papers. They should reflect knowledge of other models, experimental results and observations.

In this sense the model is trained. It should reproduce historic observations. If it can not do that what is its use? Every contribution and term must be justified and tested. That's why there is peer review. Every scientific funding agency has a rank of publications and top publications are usually very thorough, reviewers comments are though and it might take years to publish a study.

What will the models look like in 30 years, who knows. That's why uncertainty analysis is so important and any decent model provides that. Future models will certainly be much more accurate but well done uncertainty analysis usually provides good error bounds to predictions. You should not mistake uncertainty with a chess program bug.

Re:most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked

[khallow]

You know, the great thing about computer simulations, such as climate change simulations, or today's weather forecast, is that, although your predictions are inaccurate, you know quite well how inaccurate they are. That's why climate change predictions, as (in)accurate as they are, come with a good estimation of how wrong it might be.

If you were correct, that would indeed be a great thing. But the catch is that we don't know how inaccurate they are until we know more. In the case of weather forecasts, we know a great deal about our source of uncertainties. We don't have a similar track record with global climate modeling. Having said that, it's clear that a lot of uncertainty such as from future human CO2 emission that we can understand now and incorporate into these models. And there are clearer ways to measure the effects of global warming (the shifting of seasons is by far the strongest signal).

Re:most scientists in 2037 agree old model sucked

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why climate change predictions, as (in)accurate as they are, come with a good estimation of how wrong it might be.

This is clearly false on basic principle. You CANNOT estimate the external validity of a simulation by examining only the internal data.

At best you can use the past to predict the present, and evaluate the validity of the model when given past parameters only to predict time frames nearer to the present. But this is a somewhat fallacious verification if the data from near the present was used to determine parameters or elements of the model, because then you can potentially be doing little more than a very complicated fitting procedure.

If someone could use only knowledge and models which were commonly accepted in the scientific literature from, say, 1980 backwards, and predict the climate from 1980 through the present with those models, then this would be externally verified. Using models and data that have already been adapted to data up through the present does not necessarily say much if the results of these simulations fit data up to the present, unless the correspondence of the simulation results to the data greatly exceeds the number of parameters and model elements used to generate it (which is not the case for existing results).

Because of this, you cannot estimate the external validity of the existing modern climate models, because they have not been properly externally verified.

(Posted anonymously because most people, even many who work in this area, are intellectually unable to comprehend this argument, yet are still irrationally judgmental in any discussion of this topic.)

Coles Notes version

[He Who Waits]

To summarize TFA: All data AGAINST Global Warming is sketchy and anecdotal. All data FOR Global Warming is rock-solid and self-evident. (Despite the fact that it's the same data.) Disclaimer: I am biased against Global Warming, if only because of the propaganda-like activities of the pro-Global Warming camp.

Re:Coles Notes version

[Lehk228]

because there is certainly no propaganda being pushed by the Big Oil camp, and no anti-GW studies were funded by big oil either.

Re:Vote with your money

[MightyYar]

A British au pair.

Interesting documentary

[Karganeth]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022 478442170

Leading scientists

[benhocking]

If you follow up on the senate article, you will no doubt find that many of those scientists have had their positions misrepresented. Arguing against "catastrophic" anthropogenic global warming is not the same as arguing against anthropogenic global warming. Has the media exaggerated the science? Absolutely! Are there flaws in global warming theories? Yes! Just like there are flaws in evolution, relativity, and quantum mechanics. Keep in mind how biased the source you're posting from is (Inhofe), and then follow up on what the scientists are actually saying. Pick one of those scientists if you like, and I'll show you how his or her position was misrepresented.

Euthanize?

[StressGuy]

"Education is the first step. Granted, some people paid so little attention in their high school physics class that they are completely unable to have any kind of rational, reasonable discussion on the subject, but my solution is to euthanize them and move on :D"

or, do you mean "Youth-a-nize"... I.E. send them back to high school physics?

Although, the only thing I really learned is high school physics was that, if you see a pair of forceps lying next to a bunsen burner, dribble some water on them before you just pick them up.

Re:Euthanize?

[drinkypoo]

or, do you mean "Youth-a-nize"... I.E. send them back to high school physics?

No, I mean to put them out of my misery.

Although, the only thing I really learned is high school physics was that, if you see a pair of forceps lying next to a bunsen burner, dribble some water on them before you just pick them up.

Most people didn't learn that much.

Seriously though, you are expected to learn a little bit about radiation, absorption, etc etc. You don't have to know everything about it to have a rational conversation, especially if someone is willing to bring you up to speed a bit. But if you have no idea how anything works, it's just not possible to have a good conversation with you because it's going to take too long to explain the basic concepts.

I think that if more people understood basic concepts of physics and science, we would have less of this kind of crap in which people try to make the facts fit their understanding and not vice versa. But our education system is and long has been a failure.

Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Global warming is a hysteria similar to the Y2K hysteria, it is propaganda that is created for the same reason: money. How much money was made on the believe of the world that the civilization will be destroyed because in the 2000 due to the computer bugs?

How much money is made today by various interested groups, how much money is doled out to the research on these dubious claims, how much political influence does a scary issue like this provide? Ho ho ho, it's Christmass.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

Global warming is a hysteria similar to the Y2K hysteria, it is propaganda that is created for the same reason: money. How much money was made on the believe of the world that the civilization will be destroyed because in the 2000 due to the computer bugs? If your goal is to refute the concept of global warming you may have possibly picked the absolute worst possible example. The reason Y2K was a fizzle and not a bang is precisely because all of that money was spent on work to retrofit the world's computer systems.

The professional community had been worrying about and working on fixes for Y2K for more than a decade prior. It was only as the deadline approached that the general public got a hold of the issue. Of course the companies that had procrastinated until the last minute were forced to pay outrageous sums of money to get their systems fixed - the engineering adage of "Fast, Good, Cheap - pick any two" was in full force and "fast" was a requirement.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[je ne sais quoi]

Global warming is a hysteria similar to the Y2K hysteria, it is propaganda that is created for the same reason: money. How much money was made on the believe of the world that the civilization will be destroyed because in the 2000 due to the computer bugs?

The only people I can think of that made money on it were some fortran programmers who suddenly found themselves in demand again. Oh wait, I suppose it filled the need for some so-called "news agencies" to keep their ratings up for a while too. All I can think of is how much money was spent so that nothing untowards happened, and surprise, surprise, nothing bad happened! Amazing what problems you can take care of when you put your mind to it.

How much money is made today by various interested groups, how much money is doled out to the research on these dubious claims, how much political influence does a scary issue like this provide? Ho ho ho, it's Christmass.

Unlike Exxon and the Republicans, the scientists actually doing research on the subject don't have an advertising budget, aren't making a profit and also don't have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo.

So... I suppose you're going to deny that NASA landed on the moon too, huh? I'm sure you believe that fluorine in the drinking water is mind-control by the US government?

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Starteck81]

Even if global warming is just fear mongering there are still good things that can come from that. For the first time companies are getting enough pressure and consumer interest to build fuel efficient cars and explore new fuel sources. In the last few years there have been more advances in solar, wind energy then there have in a long time. As an added bonus if we find a renewable energy we can finally stop relying on the East for oil. Something that has been fueling wars for the last 20 years. We could finally find more economic independence. Which would be great. If Global Warming is the catalyst for this change than I welcome it with open arms.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[d34thm0nk3y]

Global warming is a hysteria similar to the Y2K hysteria, it is propaganda that is created for the same reason: money. How much money was made on the believe of the world that the civilization will be destroyed because in the 2000 due to the computer bugs?

So, an obvious bug with very real consequences was identified ahead of time and through the hard work of millions of coders catastrophe was prevented. We should hope for a similar result with global warming.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

I agree that Y2K issue was handled, but my argument is simple: the was plenty of hysteria then, there is plenty of hysteria now. Money was made from thin air then, money is made from CO2 scare now.

Think: I am not necessarily saying Y2K was not a problem in some cases, but it wouldn't kill our civilization even if multiple bugs would have surfaced after the year 2000. Global warming will not do much either, and the amount of hysteria is overwhelming. It is Christmass, if you know how to play the cards right, you can get all the presents you ever wished for.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Nice attempt at a fallacy, with those irrelevant 'landing on the moon' and 'fluorine' argments.

Sure, some money were spent fixing actual bugs, but even with bugs the civilization would not have been destroyed by the year 2000 bugs. The Global Warming is just another way to scare the sh.t out of the population to make as much cash and political capital as possible. It's a great business tactic, if I were a bank, I would loan money to businesses with Global Warming propaganda and agenda, they'll make it all back and then some. Will this make any difference in the grand schema of things? Nope.

Oh, and I am not American, I live in Canada. We signed the Kyoto unfortunately, good thing we stopped really caring about it afterwards.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

It's all good until I remember that we (Canadians) are idiots who signed the Kyoto. Good thing we have a sensible government now, that doesn't feed into the hysteria frenzy. Sure, hybrid cars are great (or whatever, I don't care,) and sure all those new lightbulbs with extra mercury in them are great (I am not buying them, I vote with my money,) the truth is until the world goes nuclear again and starts producing electrical energy from nuclear reactions (and then later from fusion,) there won't be any good effects coming from us. The Green is against nuclear, go figure. I don't believe that the Global Warming is caused by humans, but I agree that we do pollute the air and the water and the ground with various toxins. That's the thing to be worried about, not the CO2.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

The key word from you: 'catastrophe', that's how I know that you also bought into the hysteria of the Y2K. There wouldn't have been a catastrophe even if some bugs wouldn't have been fixed. So your favorite TV show is not presented on time? Oh, the catastrophe.

Y2K was a feeding frenzy, so is Global Warming. Neither would have (or will) cause a catastrophe, but both have and will make money for many many greedy little hands pulling out of the scare purse.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

So, the mods don't even think the parent comment is at least Interesting? All of a sudden it's Overrated (not a flamebait, not a troll, just plainly unpleasant to the common hysteria.)

That's how we know it IS a hysteria. Plenty of money is made on the Global Warming scare, plenty of money was made on the Y2K scare. Yes, some Y2K bugs were serious, but they would have never killed our civilization either. Global Warming will not kill our civilization. Global Warming is a Red Herring. The real problem is pollution by electrical power plants, which can only be solved by going nuclear and at some point thermonuclear.

Today is hte Global Warming day, it IS Christmass, you can steal City Hall (copyright Die Hard With Vengeance.)

The Global Warming is not caused by humans but mass hysteria is and that's where the money are easy and political capital is free.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but internet bubble aside, the y2k hysteria also contributed greatly to the economey. As more and more people were being paid bigger and bigger bucks to upgrade old systems and ensure crucial systems remained online, those same people were spending more as well, especially on luxury goods, homes, entertainment, etc.

Y2k forced companies to spend. The premise is the same as the one behind Reaganomics. The only difference is that companies are forced to spend, as opposed to given the choice of spending (or not spending and just keeping it for the investors) as in Reaganomics.

So global warming might be bad for the economey, but fixing its causes would definitely be beneficial to the economey as a whole, despite the moaning and groaning coming from large polluters.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Polluting is definitely a problem, not the CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant, no more than Testosteron is a poison. Updating the industries to be cleaner is not the problem, the problem is that that's not what is happening. The Global Warming hysteria is taking away from the real problem of pollution.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Chris Burke]

Um, yeah. The only reason you think Y2K wasn't a big deal is because people busted their ass ensuring that it wouldn't be. You have no idea what would have happened if nothing had been done about Y2K, but that's okay, because the people for whom it truly mattered had their shit together and never even considered not doing anything about it.

Now it's Global Warming, and if we are kept safe it will again be because of people busting their ass and spending shitloads. I'm sure that you'll say it was never that big a deal in the first place. Whereas if the opposite tack was taken, to do nothing under the assumption that global warming "will not do much", and everything goes to hell, you'll be asking why more wasn't done. Just like you'd be asking why more wasn't done to stop Y2K if nothing had been done. Good thing it was.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Now it's Global Warming, and if we are kept safe it will again be because of people busting their ass and spending shitloads. I'm sure that you'll say it was never that big a deal in the first place. Whereas if the opposite tack was taken, to do nothing under the assumption that global warming "will not do much", and everything goes to hell, you'll be asking why more wasn't done. Just like you'd be asking why more wasn't done to stop Y2K if nothing had been done. Good thing it was. - you are making assumptions about my reactions, but that's ok. You are missing the key point here: want to be rich? Start playing into the fears of the mass hysteria that is Global Warming.

Oh, and I worked at the Y2K times on some of the fixes of other people's code. So what would have happened if it wasn't fixed? Some accounting system would have had screwed up orders and some manual corrections would have been required. Not a big deal, not the end of the civilization.

You assume that a shit loads of money is being spent to 'fix the GW problem'. I assume that shit loads of money is being spent and that very little of it actually ends up doing something useful. It is, after all, Christmass.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

Think: I am not necessarily saying Y2K was not a problem in some cases, but it wouldn't kill our civilization even if multiple bugs would have surfaced after the year 2000. Again, the Y2K problem was real and significant. Money was not made from thin air, nor was it spent on thin air.

Almost every critical and semi-critical system was vulnerable to Y2K problems. It may not have "killed our civilization" if nothing had been done, but I am confident that we would have seen a significant drag our civilization, orders of magnitude larger than the cost of the pre-emptive fixes.

So, again I say that your comparison only benefits the counter to your argument - if Global Warming is like Y2K then the cost of pre-emptive fixes will be significantly less expensive than worrying about the problem after it is too late.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Almost every critical and semi-critical system was vulnerable to Y2K problems. It may not have "killed our civilization" if nothing had been done, but I am confident that we would have seen a significant drag our civilization, orders of magnitude larger than the cost of the pre-emptive fixes. - this is what mass hysteria does, it wants to make you believe such things.

So, again I say that your comparison only benefits the counter to your argument - if Global Warming is like Y2K then the cost of pre-emptive fixes will be significantly less expensive than worrying about the problem after it is too late. - I do not have the 'what would have been if only' machine here, such arguments don't do anything for me. Most problems with Y2K were most definitely not critical. Even when MONEY is lost it is not critical and has nothing to do with civilization. The hysteria was unjustified and plenty of money were spent needlessly and quite a few fraudsters and politicians (same thing really) benefitted.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Chris Burke]

you are making assumptions about my reactions, but that's ok.

More "educated guesses", but whatever.

Oh, and I worked at the Y2K times on some of the fixes of other people's code. So what would have happened if it wasn't fixed? Some accounting system would have had screwed up orders and some manual corrections would have been required.

So, you worked on it, but not on any of the industrial control systems and banking systems that were of actual import. Cool, thanks for your contribution, but there were other more important ones. When did you work on it?

Not a big deal, not the end of the civilization.

So, "not the end of the civilization" == "not a big deal". It takes a lot to impress you, I see. Your house is on fire, but civilization will go on, so let's not send the fire department. They'd just be capitalizing on your hysteria, anyway.

BTW, Y2K could not have ended civilization simply because we don't require computers to live. If you are going to extrapolate that and say that rapid climate change couldn't end civilization, you're nuts. And since I don't subscribe to the line of thought that if it doesn't end civilization it's no big deal, I'm worried enough about the idea of sea waters rising enough to force the majority of the world's populations to have to pick up and move. I'm sure that couldn't cause any major problems, though!

You assume that a shit loads of money is being spent to 'fix the GW problem'. I assume that shit loads of money is being spent and that very little of it actually ends up doing something useful.

Not at all, as so far I don't see much being done at all to "fix the GW problem". There is certainly no concerted effort. There's a few half-assed measures and protocols, ones that don't even require major polluters to do anything at all, or ones that are basically "Clear Skies Act" doubletalk which don't actually help the environment but end up being big handouts to business.

I'm saying if we decide to take global warming seriously and do something about, the absence of the end of civilization will be taken by people like you to mean that nothing had to be done in the first place.

It is, after all, Christmass.

The funny thing is that "Christmas" for the Y2K bug was only in the few years just prior, when everyone who had sat on their ass not doing anything suddenly panicked. The only "Christmas" in regards to stopping global warming will similarly be when people with attitudes like yours have done nothing, suddenly realize that they have to do something, and the only methods that will succeed are extremely expensive ones.

Right now the only Christmas is for the big industry status quo, the oil companies, and everyone else who has every reason in the world to downplay global warming. They're making money hand over fist, and for a pittance of their PR budget that can stop anyone from making them pay the true cost of their pollution.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

More "educated guesses", but whatever. - you are in no way an educated person when it comes to my reactions to stimula, but whatever.

So, you worked on it, but not on any of the industrial control systems and banking systems that were of actual import. Cool, thanks for your contribution, but there were other more important ones. When did you work on it? - irrelevant, any mistakes that are presented by automated processes can at the end be fixed manually and then the automated processes that really require fixes would have been fixed.

So, "not the end of the civilization" == "not a big deal". It takes a lot to impress you, I see. Your house is on fire, but civilization will go on, so let's not send the fire department. They'd just be capitalizing on your hysteria, anyway. - irrelevant argument but also easily refuted: house fires have killed many people in the past and have caused significant damage to property. To underestimated such a known and preventable problems is silly.

Again.
House fires have killed people. Has Global Warming killed people? Has Y2K killed people? (in any significant numbers anyway, most things can kill, few things are worth mentioning because they don't kill in enough numbers.)

BTW, Y2K could not have ended civilization simply because we don't require computers to live. If you are going to extrapolate that and say that rapid climate change couldn't end civilization, you're nuts. And since I don't subscribe to the line of thought that if it doesn't end civilization it's no big deal, I'm worried enough about the idea of sea waters rising enough to force the majority of the world's populations to have to pick up and move. I'm sure that couldn't cause any major problems, though! - that's what I call hysteria and you are dancing to its tune. You are assuming quite a few links here, from CO2 to mass flooding. Nice theories, but not in any way more scary to me than the Y2K predictions.

I'm saying if we decide to take global warming seriously and do something about, the absence of the end of civilization will be taken by people like you to mean that nothing had to be done in the first place. - and if you decide to do something, the absense of the end of civilization will be taken by people like you to mean that you have done enough to prevent an imminent catastrophe. How do you know that? You do not know that, you will just act on a hysteria that is feeding this movement (religion really.)

I think it doesn't matter what you personally end up doing, even what the entire human world is doing, the global climate patterns will repeat themselves cyclically. If you want to do something useful, then work on the air pollutants such as coal power plants. Remove them and install nuclear power plants. That'll be worth while. CO2 fight is worthless.

You are constantly implying that you are doing 'something', yet you are just talking to me on /. ARE you doing something or is it all just talk to make yourself look like you are the opposite of me.

Do you drive much?

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

this is what mass hysteria does, it wants to make you believe such things. Sorry boy, but unlike you I am a professional who had been involved with Y2K issues long before there was anything like "mass hysteria." I speak from broad personal and industry knowledge about the severity of the Y2K risks.

I do not have the 'what would have been if only' machine here, such arguments don't do anything for me. You see, I do have that machine. Every financial system of even moderate size was afflicted with Y2K issues. Many critical control systems - manufacturing, public utilities, military, telecomm, etc were also vulnerable to Y2K. Within the community of computer risk experts there is no question as to the original severity of the Y2K problem.

Most problems with Y2K were most definitely not critical You are correct. MOST problems were not critical. That's because there were a very large number of problems. Just as MOST systems are not critical. But be assured, just about every critical system had Y2K risk exposure.

Even when MONEY is lost it is not critical and has nothing to do with civilization. You really don't have a clue how the modern world operates do you? Imagine most of the country's payroll systems being down for a month, and not just down but data corrupted and lost. All the people who live paycheck to paycheck would be screwed, the total cost to our economy of just that single class of failure would be in the low billions.

Then factor in a total halt to all the billions of dollars that trade hands each day as part of the normal course of business. Then you can start to factor in the systems that don't directly involve money - like shipping and routing, manufacturing, and safety critical systems like power generation and dam flood controls. Just a handful of failures out of the thousands of those last type would do significant damage.

It would not have been a civilization ending event, but then again that's your hyperbole. However, it would have been orders of magnitude more costly to clean-up afterwards than it was to fix ahead of time.

The hysteria was unjustified and plenty of money were spent needlessly and quite a few fraudsters and politicians (same thing really) benefitted. You argument boils down to, "I'm damn ignorant of the scope of the Y2K risks and nothing happened so since I'm damn ignorant of the global warming risks nothing is going to happen either." You might be right about the later, but only out of sheer luck.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Sorry boy, but unlike you I am a professional who had been involved with Y2K issues long before there was anything like "mass hysteria." I speak from broad personal and industry knowledge about the severity of the Y2K risks. - I think we are done here. Too many fallacies exception thrown.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

All of a sudden it's Overrated... That's how we know it IS a hysteria. You've now moved into kook land. The proof that aliens have invaded the whitehouse is that nobody wants to talk about aliens in the whitehouse and when I talk about it, THREE people laughed at me. It's a vast conspiracy of anti-alien hysteria!

Of course you are going to get modded down here as overrated. If there is one general public website with the collective experience to know the true severity of Y2K, it's slashdot. Your opinion about the unimportance of Y2K risk mitigation is the actual "hysteria" - your opinion is what the common man on the street believes because he does not know any better. At least here on slashdot there were 3 people with mod points who did know better.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

I think we are done here. Too many fallacies exception thrown. Can't take the heat huh? You might consider that your accusations of being part of mass hysteria are far more insulting than being called a boy.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Not interested in talking to a fallacy generator online, in rl would have been different. Why would I want to talk to anyone who starts personal attacks? Forget about it. Oh, and I do not shy away from a normal conversation, you can most definitely check this entire thread, no question goes unanswered, but I don't bother with ACs (even if with a user name) of your type.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

Why would I want to talk to anyone who starts personal attacks? Again, do not start the personal attacks if you can't take them. Your claims that I was subject to mass hysteria are far more insulting then being called a boy. Vulgarity is not a measure of severity. Next time mind your manners if you expect others to do the same.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Chris Burke]

you are in no way an educated person when it comes to my reactions to stimula, but whatever.

I based it off your reaction to Y2K -- civilization didn't end, therefore it was never a problem to begin with. I guessed that your reaction to civilization surviving global warming by fixing it would be the same. That isn't a very big leap. If your reaction would be different, you've done nothing to show it, rather the opposite.

irrelevant, any mistakes that are presented by automated processes can at the end be fixed manually and then the automated processes that really require fixes would have been fixed.

Uh huh. For one, many automated processes have no "manual" back up that you can re-do. For two, when the issue is an industrial control system you can't just "undo" a failure of a safety system that could lead to damage to material or injury to workers. You can't "undo" a failure of an air traffic control system.

I guess we'll just "undo" global warming if it turns out to actually be a problem, and go back in time to fix the things that needed to be fixed.

House fires have killed people. Has Global Warming killed people? Has Y2K killed people? (in any significant numbers anyway, most things can kill, few things are worth mentioning because they don't kill in enough numbers.)

Prehistoric You, standing outside Humanity's First Burning House: "Gee guys, maybe we should just see how this plays out. Nobody has ever died in a house fire before, right? Maybe it will be all right!"

Oh, and if the fire department does come and put out the fire, and nobody is injured, that means it was never a problem in the first place and the fire department didn't need to be called.

that's what I call hysteria and you are dancing to its tune. You are assuming quite a few links here, from CO2 to mass flooding. Nice theories, but not in any way more scary to me than the Y2K predictions.

Right, I'm not trying to elucidate the entire body of climate research and the possible outcomes of climate change here. Though the CO2 -> warming link is very strong, and while this won't necessarily result in the melting of ice caps, it is a distinct possibility, and the connection between the ice caps melting and mass flooding is pretty much 100%. Basically the only assumption I am making here is that global climate change is reality, and take your pick from the multitudinous effects of such, pretty much none of which are good. You don't agree anthropogenic climate change is reality, fine, but your stance presented here is more "if it exists i still don't think we need to do anything" which is utterly foolish.

Also, I repeat that the only reason none of those scary Y2K predictions came true is because where it mattered people worked to fix it! How you can parlay that into not needing to fix global warming because it's the same kind of hysteria I don't know, but it makes no sense.

and if you decide to do something, the absense of the end of civilization will be taken by people like you to mean that you have done enough to prevent an imminent catastrophe. How do you know that? You do not know that, you will just act on a hysteria that is feeding this movement (religion really.)

Well, see, if something is really done, it will also be commensurate with study of the indicators of what the effects are. So while your assumption that there was never a problem would be baseless exactly like your belief that y2k wasn't a problem, the belief that the steps taken to prevent global warming were effective would be based on science. Sort of like how the ozone hole "hysteria" that resulted in the CFC ban was followed by studying atmospheric CFC levels and the ozone hole and found that the ban worked and reduced the hole in accordance with predictions. But because the predictions of what would happen if nothing was done never came true (because something was done), then I guess it was all hysteria and religion!

But that's the problem

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Chris Burke]

Not interested in talking to a fallacy generator online, in rl would have been different.

Yes, in real life you would have shut the fuck up with your ignorant comments about Y2K as soon as you realized somebody who did know what the fuck they were talking about was present.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

B.S. Saying that someone is being subjected to hysteria is not a personal attack. Anyway, ta-ta.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[GigsVT]

Broken windows.

That is not real economic growth. It is money wasted, lost forever.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

In rl we do know tha Y2K was a load of crap and the only serious consequences would have been these: lots of people would have worked overtime (just like they did before Y2K) to do manual processing, and where it actuall did matter, the issues would have been resolved. No end of civilization.

Oh, and you have got quite a mouth on you, you should really wrap those lips around some place, where they wouldn't do too much damage to the owner.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

B.S. Saying that someone is being subjected to hysteria is not a personal attack. It's the exact same thing as calling someone an idiot, just a slightly more sophisticated vocabulary. Thus my point that vulgarity does not equal severity. Stay out of the kitchen next time.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Putting an '=' sign between hysteria and idiocy? Well then, another good reason not to bother with a rational conversation.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Chris Burke]

So, in your imagination of what real life is like, there is no computer in the world attached to something important that can't simply be "done manually" if it fails, eh? Wow, you realy are ignorant. At what point does tremendous ignorance become knowledge? Does it rapid around, when you know so little that it's like knowing everything? I guess not knowing anything does free you to make up anything you want, and you won't know that it's BS.

Most people think Y2K was BS, but that's because they don't know what went on behind the scenes. You don't know either, and given the chance to learn, eschew it. That's deliberate ignorance. That's the kind of thing that, in real life, gets you ostracized and/or punched depending on the setting.

Oh, and you have got quite a mouth on you, you should really wrap those lips around some place, where they wouldn't do too much damage to the owner.

Now why would I want to cut in on your business, seeing as you are so poorly equipped for any other job? That just seems cruel.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

Putting an '=' sign between hysteria and idiocy?
Well then, another good reason not to bother with a rational conversation. Keep right on squirming there, your cognitive dissonance at facing your own hypocrisy just gets more and more obvious. All your ignorant claims about Y2K were obliterated and the best you could do was fall back on taking mock offense at being called out on your own rudeness.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

I based it off your reaction to Y2K -- civilization didn't end, therefore it was never a problem to begin with. I guessed that your reaction to civilization surviving global warming by fixing it would be the same. That isn't a very big leap. If your reaction would be different, you've done nothing to show it, rather the opposite. - let me correct this a bit, I don't believe Y2K was ever a problem big enough as it as touted to be. I don't believ GW is a problem as big as many believe. It is not that the end result of Y2K did not hurt us much, it is that it was never a huge issue, no matter how many various systems could have been affected.

Uh huh. For one, many automated processes have no "manual" back up that you can re-do. For two, when the issue is an industrial control system you can't just "undo" a failure of a safety system that could lead to damage to material or injury to workers. You can't "undo" a failure of an air traffic control system. - certainly, but all of these are small local problems, none of it is a large global problem and it was presented that way.

I guess we'll just "undo" global warming if it turns out to actually be a problem, and go back in time to fix the things that needed to be fixed. - well, I don't think we can undo something we didn't cause and if the climate decides this time to become hotter, then it would be quite interesting to see how we can fix that, or if a huge an asteroid passes by and causes our planet to shift orbit, I'd like to see how we are going to fix that one.

Prehistoric You, standing outside Humanity's First Burning House: "Gee guys, maybe we should just see how this plays out. Nobody has ever died in a house fire before, right? Maybe it will be all right!" - I see your point, but again, I do not assume people are the cause here and can actually do anything.

Right, I'm not trying to elucidate the entire body of climate research and the possible outcomes of climate change here. Though the CO2 -> warming link is very strong, and while this won't necessarily result in the melting of ice caps, it is a distinct possibility, and the connection between the ice caps melting and mass flooding is pretty much 100%. Basically the only assumption I am making here is that global climate change is reality, and take your pick from the multitudinous effects of such, pretty much none of which are good. You don't agree anthropogenic climate change is reality, fine, but your stance presented here is more "if it exists i still don't think we need to do anything" which is utterly foolish. - honestly, I do not believe that we have capability today to do anything, whether we caused it (highly unlikely) or the climate is changing by itself (most likely,) to think that today we can actually do something meaningful is not in tune with our capabilities. Oh, and I would like to see how anything (meaningful or meaningless) can be done without also destroying entire global economy in the short term. This is not going to be acceptable by most people I'd say.

Also, I repeat that the only reason none of those scary Y2K predictions came true is because where it mattered people worked to fix it! How you can parlay that into not needing to fix global warming because it's the same kind of hysteria I don't know, but it makes no sense. - I do not take your side on the Y2K. It was not a huge problem from the beginning, you assume it was.

Well, see, if something is really done, it will also be commensurate with study of the indicators of what the effects are. So while your assumption that there was never a problem would be baseless exactly like your belief that y2k wasn't a problem, the belief that the steps taken to prevent global warming were effective would be based on science. - here is the problem. The mass hysteria today is self feeding, many assume that GW is real and that our role in it is proven and that all of the above is based on science. However at this point many scientists who have previously held t

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Your trolling techniques are poor. 'Ignorant', 'you know so little', 'deliberate ignorance' those are too obvious. You have to come up with something more insidious, maybe someone will care about your comments then.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

I bet you have 2 /. accounts and you use them in tandem.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Of course you are going to get modded down here as overrated. If there is one general public website with the collective experience to know the true severity of Y2K, it's slashdot. Your opinion about the unimportance of Y2K risk mitigation is the actual "hysteria" - your opinion is what the common man on the street believes because he does not know any better. At least here on slashdot there were 3 people with mod points who did know better. - but it was hysteria, notwithstanding the fact that some of the Y2K problems were real and serious, most were negligible and only dealing with very minor matters, and most definitely the fate of civilization did not depend on it, no matter how much many of the developers here would love to believe.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

I decided to be generous.

From a Y2K article on wikipedia.

Was the expenditure worth the effort?

The total cost of the work done in preparation for Y2K was 300 billion US dollars.

Opposing view

Others have claimed that there were no, or very few, critical problems to begin with, and that correcting the few minor mistakes as they occurred (the 'fix on failure' approach) would have been the most efficient and cost effective way to solve the problem. This view was bolstered by a number of observations.

* The lack of Y2K-related problems in schools, many of which undertook little or no remediation effort. By September 1, 1999 only 28 percent of US schools had achieved compliance for mission critical systems, and a government report predicted that "Y2K failures could very well plague the computers used by schools to manage payrolls, student records, online curricula, and building safety systems". [16]
* The lack of Y2K-related problems in an estimated 1.5 million small businesses that undertook no remediation effort. On 3 January 2000 the Small Business Administration received an estimated 40 calls from businesses with computer problems, similar to the average. None of the problems were critical.[17]
* The lack of Y2K-related problems in countries such as Italy, which undertook a far more limited remediation effort than the United States. In an October 22, 1999, report, a US Senate Committee expressed concern about safe travel outside of the United States. The report stated that overseas public transit systems were considered vulnerable because many did not have an aggressive response plan in place for any problems. Internationally, the report singled out Italy, China and Russia as poorly prepared. The Australian government evacuated all but three embassy staff from Russia [18]. None of these countries experienced any Y2K problems regarded as worth reporting [19].
* The absence of Y2K-related problems occurring before January 1, 2000, even though the 2000 financial year commenced in 1999 in many jurisdictions, and a wide range of forward-looking calculations involved dates in 2000 and later years. Estimates undertaken in the leadup to 2000 suggested that around 25% of all problems should have occurred before 2000.[20] Critics of large-scale remediation argued, during 1999, that the absence of significant problems, even in systems that had not been rendered compliant, suggested that the scale of the problem had been overestimated.[21]

--

Actual problems that did happen:

Reported problems include:

* In Ishikawa, Japan, radiation-monitoring equipment failed at midnight, but officials said there was no risk to the public. [3]
* In Onagawa, Japan, an alarm sounded at a nuclear power plant at two minutes after midnight. [4]
* In Japan, at two minutes past midnight, Osaka Media Port, a telecommunications carrier, found errors in the date management part of the company's network. The problem was fixed by 2:43 a.m. and no services were disrupted. [5]
* In Japan, NTT Mobile Communications Network (NTT DoCoMo), Japan's largest cellular operator, reported on January 1, 2000, that some models of mobile telephones were deleting new messages received, rather than the older messages, as the memory filled up. [6]
* In Australia, bus-ticket-validation machines in two states failed to operate. [7]
* In the United States, 150 slot machines at race tracks in Delaware stopped working. [8]
* In the United States, the U.S. Naval Observatory, which runs the master clock that keeps the country's official time, had a Y2K glitch on its Web site. Due to a programming problem, the site reported that the date was Jan. 1, "19100." [9]

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Just out of my generosity: Y2K - cost 300 billion. Real damage: none.

Real damage to schools and 1.5 million small businesses who have done nothing to mitigate Y2K: None.
Real damage to the entire countries, such as Italy, who have done almost nothing to fix their Y2K 'problems': None.
Real damage to financial institutions who have used the year 2000 in their calculations prior to that date: None.

--
So, I'll say this: you are the ignorant fuck face, and it is a good thing this is not rl, you would have been using those lips of yours where the sun doesn't normally shine.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[geekoid]

CO2 is 25% higher now then any time in the last 500,000 years.

While pollution is a serious health issue, it's the CO2 part of polution that is causing this. IT's complaex, there are many results.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

The lack of Y2K-related problems in schools, many of which undertook little or no remediation effort.

Lack of funding is nothing new for public schools. Most school systems were not seperately automated (versus using part of a larger local government timeshare for things like payroll processing) until the early 1990s because they lacked funding then too. Good luck for them because that's when even desktop system memory sizes started to grow to the point where the space saving "tricks" often implemented in the 60s, 70s and 80s were no longer worth the effort. It's also when the development community started actually seriously considering Y2K issues.

The lack of Y2K-related problems in an estimated 1.5 million small businesses that undertook no remediation effort.

The vast majority of small businesses that are automated run two kinds of software - accounting and point-of-sale. Both almost universally in shrink wrap form like Quickbooks. When Mom & Pop's Auto Shop upgraded to next year's version of Quickbooks, they got the Y2K fixes whether they knew it or not.

The lack of Y2K-related problems in countries such as Italy, which undertook a far more limited remediation effort than the United States.

No country was as automated as the US, Italy and especially Russia and China weren't even in the minor leagues. While they spent few bucks on remediation, many of their important infrastructure systems like telephone and cell were outsourced to international companies like Ericsson who made damn sure that the Y2K fixes made it in as part of their normal service agreements.

The absence of Y2K-related problems occurring before January 1, 2000, even though the 2000 financial year commenced in 1999 in many jurisdictions

This is just another variation on your, "it was fixed before it could break so it didn't need to be fixed in the first place." The fact is that we had many "dates of interest" preceding (and following) New Year's Day 2000. They were tested for and fixed in the field long before they rolled around. For example, back in 1996 some banks started issuing credit cards with expiration dates in the year 2000. Older POS terminals couldn't handle those cards, often requiring a complete power cycle to recover from a swipe with one of those cards. That was one of the first Y2K wake-up calls in the financial services industry that senior management actually received, despite developers talking about it for years prior.

Critics of large-scale remediation argued, during 1999, that the absence of significant problems, even in systems that had not been rendered compliant, suggested that the scale of the problem had been overestimated.[21]

This particular citation is a total joke. He says that because GPS time has a roll over every 20 years (really 1024 weeks) and that the roll-over on August 22nd, 1999 went smoothly without a bunch of (public) software fixes beforehand, that there must be little Y2K risk.

Even though he comes right out and says, "The GPS system is a prime example of a mission-critical computer system, where slight errors in dates could lead to disaster," he totally fails to grasp the significance of those words. GPS systems are ALL ABOUT TIME you don't do GPS without paying careful attention to time, and getting time "right" is far more complicated then most laymen think. If you are working on a system that uses GPS, then handling time correctly is a key requirement and you've put a lot of effort into it. You've got to be beyond sloppy to not handle the 1024 week rollover correctly in that case (and even then there were a handful of 1024-week rollover bugs that manifested).

Contrast that with the typical Y2K bugs where time handling was typically nothing more than an afterthought, just another field in the database, just another set of bits to be stored, sorted and formatted for display. Those conditions, where no one really paid much attentio

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

CO2 is 25% higher now then any time in the last 500,000 years.

While pollution is a serious health issue, it's the CO2 part of polution that is causing this. IT's complaex, there are many results. - CO2 is causing CO2 to be at the highest level in half a million years? It is because it is. Ok.

So CO2 is highest in half a million years. It could be highest in 5 million years and it is still nothing to be jumping up and down about. So half a million years ago CO2 was just as high. Just like another thousand or another ten thousand or another hundred thousand times before. Cyclic.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

My point precisely: those systems that are really critical from point of view of time handling didn't have Y2K problem anyway, and those that did have the problem weren't critical enough for the civilization to collapse, as it was predicted it would. Look at the list of actual problems that did occur:

* In Ishikawa, Japan, radiation-monitoring equipment failed at midnight, but officials said there was no risk to the public. [3] - not an issue.
* In Onagawa, Japan, an alarm sounded at a nuclear power plant at two minutes after midnight. [4] - so it was somewhat noisy for a short period of time.
* In Japan, at two minutes past midnight, Osaka Media Port, a telecommunications carrier, found errors in the date management part of the company's network. The problem was fixed by 2:43 a.m. and no services were disrupted. [5] - no service disrupted.
* In Japan, NTT Mobile Communications Network (NTT DoCoMo), Japan's largest cellular operator, reported on January 1, 2000, that some models of mobile telephones were deleting new messages received, rather than the older messages, as the memory filled up. [6] - OMG, that's he end of the world.
* In Australia, bus-ticket-validation machines in two states failed to operate. [7] - so some people got a free ride.
* In the United States, 150 slot machines at race tracks in Delaware stopped working. [8] - Now that is serios, call the Marines.
* In the United States, the U.S. Naval Observatory, which runs the master clock that keeps the country's official time, had a Y2K glitch on its Web site. Due to a programming problem, the site reported that the date was Jan. 1, "19100." [9] - I guess this started the WW3.
* In France, the national weather forecasting service, Meteo France, said a Y2K bug made the date on a webpage show a map with Saturday's weather forecast as "01/01/19100". [10] - but noone in France even noticed.

----

Hysteria.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Anonymous Coward]

those systems that are really critical from point of view of time handling didn't have Y2K problem anyway, Do you seriously believe that any and all societally critical systems are time-centric?

Look at the list of actual problems that did occur You keep on quoting from a wiki article without a shred of critical thinking. Do you seriously believe that the list is comprehensive? The article is so poor in other areas but hey, they got the entire list of all Y2K failures?

As if it means diddly squat anyway, you keep citing the lack of serious failure as some sort of proof, yet you also cited the $300B spent on fixing systems BEFOREHAND. That $300B must have just vanished into the pockets of, well, somebody it couldn't possibly have been spent on anything useful. Oh yeah, it must have gone into YOUR pockets since you did contract grunt work on a non-critical system.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Most of the world didn't bother upgrading anything, and the worst that we heard of was some text messages being deleted. I don't care if the list is comprehensive, the point is that nothing has really happened. The 300 billion dollars sure went into many pockets, like setting up parallel stock trading systems in New York. As if the world would collapse if that stock exchange closes down.

Hysteria.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

Most of the world didn't bother upgrading anything Circles and circles. MOST of the world wasn't and still isn't seriously automated. MOST of the 1st world was automated and did fix their problems ahead of time.

As if the world would collapse if that stock exchange closes down. Do you think that continually misrepresenting my point with your own hyperbole somehow makes your argument stronger?

Go back and read carefully - the cost of fixing Y2K ahead of time was orders of magnitude less than the cost of cleaning up after the fact would have been. Large stock exchanges stop working and the cost is at least $6M/hour, roughly $100M/day from London to Tokyo, or $2B+ per month and that's just the cost to the exchanges in lost transaction fees. Not the losses to companies that depend on them to do business which are probably orders of magnitude greater, nor the cost of fixing the problems ASAP. Don't even bother repeating your silly claim that if the computers stopped working, it could all be done by hand, no amount of people could scale to the required levels.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

The cost of 6M/hour to who? Most of the world doesn't care about such completely nefarious things as the cost of a stock exchange being shut down. If you compare this to the end of the world, then we have a completely different view of what the world is.

Besides, those parallel system were not used at the end, it was after all a hysteria.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

The cost of 6M/hour to who? To the same people who incurred the costs of having it fixed.

Besides, those parallel system were not used at the end, it was after all a hysteria. You keep on referencing that wikipedia article, clearly that's the sum total of your knowledge on the topic. Why do you even bother with the charade?

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

It's simple, you are arguing about this as if you have the kind of total knowledge that supercede mine, you probably worked on one of those projects and felt that what you were doing was extremely important and I am saying that on the global scale of things it was peanuts. That's the truth, it was peanuts, certain things were more important than others, but at the end it was all just peanuts. Not the end of civilization as they wanted the world to believe. Simply put it was hysteria.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

It's simple, you are arguing about this as if you have the kind of total knowledge that supercede mine Lol. It's not AS IF, it IS. Every post you make just further demonstrates your ignorance.

you probably worked on one of those projects and felt that what you were doing was extremely important I did risk analysis for multiple clients and indeed, the work was critical to all of them. If they had not implemented the fixes, they would have ceased to exist as business entities, many of their customers would have been similarly hurt, and their customers' customers would have sustained losses too, right on down the line.

I am saying that on the global scale of things it was peanuts. Was Katrina and the aftermath peanuts? Was 9/11 and the aftermath peanuts? Had Y2K failures been universally left unfixed until afterwards the ripple effect would have been orders of magnitude larger than either of those cases. Productivity losses mean progress and development slow, meaning the loss of vast amounts of economic opportunity. The world economy is highly interconnected, you can't expect to just lose some of its most critical infrastructure and have no significant impact on the rest of the system.

Not the end of civilization as they wanted the world to believe. Over and over again with the hyperbole. Losing major parts of the infrastructure that civilization depends on wouldn't kill it, but it would have hurt it enormously in both short term obvious ways - like hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people ending up unemployed because their companies went bankrupt and in long term non-obvious ways like slowed social development such that a family in the Philippine provinces who would not have been able to afford indoor plumbing for their house for another 5 years.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

Lol. It's not AS IF, it IS. Every post you make just further demonstrates your ignorance. - simply put you are trolling. Every post YOU make jus further demonstrates YOUR ignorance. So what, you can state this as often as you like, it doesn't make it true.

I did risk analysis for multiple clients and indeed, the work was critical to all of them. If they had not implemented the fixes, they would have ceased to exist as business entities, many of their customers would have been similarly hurt, and their customers' customers would have sustained losses too, right on down the line. - there you go. You had invested interest in the money being spent, you profitted from it directly.

Was Katrina and the aftermath peanuts? Was 9/11 and the aftermath peanuts? - absolutely.

Had Y2K failures been universally left unfixed until afterwards the ripple effect would have been orders of magnitude larger than either of those cases. - unsubstantiated claims. In fact ridiculous claims. You are talking about something you have no clue about. How do you compare economic loss from Katrina to the perceived economic loss from something like Y2K rollover with a straight face? The reason is simple, once again, you profitted from this directly.

Productivity losses mean progress and development slow, meaning the loss of vast amounts of economic opportunity. The world economy is highly interconnected, you can't expect to just lose some of its most critical infrastructure and have no significant impact on the rest of the system. - this is exactly the kind of BS propaganda that has created the hysteria in the first place.

Over and over again with the hyperbole. Losing major parts of the infrastructure that civilization depends on wouldn't kill it, but it would have hurt it enormously in both short term obvious ways - like hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of people ending up unemployed - unsubstantiated BS. Not too many people were going to lose their jobs if Y2K hadn't rolled properly, you might have.

because their companies went bankrupt and in long term non-obvious ways like slowed social development such that a family in the Philippine provinces who would not have been able to afford indoor plumbing for their house for another 5 years. - FUD, but I like the other word: Hysteria.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[Jherek Carnelian]

Every post you make just further demonstrates your ignorance. So what, you can state this as often as you like, it doesn't make it true. It's not my stating it that makes it true, it's your doing it that makes it true.

You had invested interest in the money being spent, you profitted from it directly. So, because I must have made a killing on my Y2K consulting, exactly why am I lying about the severity of the issue seven years later? I've got absolutely nothing to lose by telling your truth. I won't even suffer damage to my professional reputation by posting it on slashdot. Yet I must be lying to you and to myself because someone who does professional risk analysis can't possibly be rational.

Like I said previously your argument boils down to your ignorance of the facts must make the facts untrue. I'm in a much better position to the know the facts - you did non-critical grunt coding of Y2K fixes and you quote a low-grade wikipedia article like it was gospel, I speak from professional analysis and experience.

unsubstantiated claims. In fact ridiculous claims. You are talking about something you have no clue about. How do you compare economic loss from Katrina to the perceived economic loss from something like Y2K rollover with a straight face? When a business that is responsible for 20k-50k white-collar jobs, and hundreds of millions in yearly revenue goes bankrupt the effects on the local economy are more than negligible. When 5 such businesses go bankrupt, the effect starts to impact the entire country as the amount of newly unemployed people approaches 0.5% of the total. That would have been just the direct effect of the failure of the companies I worked for.

You are ignorant of the facts so you think other people must be too.

But you know what? You win. I don't have time to continue to roll around in the mud with you. Feel free to spout your ignorance to everyone you meet confident that you successfully wasted enough of my time.

Re:Don't believe the hysteria

[roman_mir]

It's not my stating it that makes it true, it's your doing it that makes it true. - well, we both are talking here, not really doing anything.

So, because I must have made a killing on my Y2K consulting, exactly why am I lying about the severity of the issue seven years later? - it doesn't matter, I believe that you believe you are saying something of consequence. You might have honestly believed that those problems were serious, but this is all about perspective. Something that might have been if someone hadn't implement changes that might have led to some undesirable outcomes. - this is all nefarious and totally has no effect on the global civilization.

Like I said previously your argument boils down to your ignorance of the facts must make the facts untrue. - the facts are these: whether Y2K changes are implemented or not, the resulting outcome would not do much long term damage to even a single company, forget about country or the entire globe.

I'm in a much better position to the know the facts - you did non-critical grunt coding of Y2K fixes and you quote a low-grade wikipedia article like it was gospel, I speak from professional analysis and experience. - this is where your facts are wrong. I did Y2K fixes for an accounting firm. Not a big deal, not much to talk about, not a huge impact. Nothing that couldn't have been fixed as an afterthought. It was a 'nice to have' stuff and not 'ZOMG THE SKY IS FALLING' stuff. None of it was or would have been. Lots of people believed otherwise. What can you do, people fall pray to propaganda and hysteria.

When a business that is responsible for 20k-50k white-collar jobs, and hundreds of millions in yearly revenue goes bankrupt - only no business in the world went under due to any Y2K problems. Not that the entire world implemented the fixes, it's just that Y2K problems didn't matter much. Doesn't mean it didn't matter at all, but it wasn't 'THE SKY IS FALLING'. It was a risk, just like many other business risks that happen often.

You are ignorant of the facts so you think other people must be too. - you overestimate the seriousness of the problem. You believe that entire businesses would have went under. FUD, BS, Propaganda and hysteria (oh, and Christmass.)

But you know what? You win. I don't have time to continue to roll around in the mud with you. Feel free to spout your ignorance to everyone you meet confident that you successfully wasted enough of my time. - sorry to have wasted your time, but I didn't make you talk to me here. You never actually HAD to reply.

Global Warming Caused By Clean Air Act!

[kcarlin]

Definitely RTFA. The "debunking" language is incredibly weak, and puts strong reliance on some of the weakest data (e.g., ice core bubble composition). It also dodges the solar cycle challenge. My favorite nugget pins the current temperature upturn on the various clean air acts written into law in the 1970s:

The clean air acts introduced in Europe and North America reduced emissions of sulphate aerosols. As levels fell in the atmosphere, their cooling effect was soon outweighed by the warming effect of the steadily rising levels of greenhouse gases. And where is the theory that global warming is caused by that infamous government plot to lower the Earth's albedo and thereby send temperatures soaring, the use of black asphalt for roads and parking lots? Use of asphalt rose dramatically in the late 60's and early 70's in the US as local governments paved every back road and cow path. Shopping mall parking lots have exploded across the landscape. Ever crossed a blacktop in high summer barefoot? Jumped from white line to white line in a parking lot? Run for the grass, or the white sidewalk?

Who was that a few weeks ago advocating the rationing of toilet paper to one square per trip? Was that the asphalt lobby spokesperson?

Re:Global Warming Caused By Clean Air Act!

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The "challenge" you mention was discredited by a guy called Laut (google him for the paper) who uncovered what he very diplomatically called "mathematical errors" in the analysis and "unclear" methods of plotting the data. My favourite part is that the guy who claims "it's the sun changing cloud coverage" actually changes his conclusion several times apparently at random!

2. Your "clean air act" claim, whilst true in the radiative sense, but are you suggesting they get repealed? Where does that logic stop? By the same virtue, you could say "killing all humans would solve the problem". The clean air acts were introduced to reduce the acidity of rainfall which were causing all manner of infrastructure problems.

Re:Global Warming Caused By Clean Air Act!

[Ambitwistor]

Earth albedo changes due to asphalt have been studied. I think the end result was that they can only account for something like 1% of the observed warming, but I can't find the reference. As much as you think asphalt covers the Earth, it represents only a tiny fraction of the Earth's land surface (and it's not like it was mostly replacing highly reflective land areas, either), which itself is a minority of the Earth's total surface.

20,000 Years of FUD is TRUE

[BoRegardless]

Read all about it: The Earth has been warming since the middle of the last ice age...in case you missed it. AND

GASP: The world's oceans have risen an unthinkable 50 meters or so. HORRORs.

Where was Al Gore when we needed him 20,000 years ago to stop this unthinkable destruction of all that land that is now underwater.

Re:20,000 Years of FUD is TRUE

[geekoid]

Your post clearly indicates you:
A) Have not read the articl....Forgivable, this is slashdot
B) You have stopped thinking complatly about this topic..unforgivable.

Shit man, if you can't be bothered to understand the facts why do you post? oh right small dick.

And truly, my sentiment captured in comic form

[einer]

http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html

Thank you xkcd.

If you want to talk about global warming myths

[Ragingguppy]

I think the growing number of scientists are wrong about global warming. Its not caused by humans. Sure its happening but these things happen in cycles. Anyone who doubts it go on to YouTube and watch The Global Warming Swindle and another video I found on there called Global Warming Doomsday Called off. Those films actually present real evidence its not caused by humans not just fear mongering like the people who are saying it is man made.

Re:If you want to talk about global warming myths

[Anonymous Coward]

What are you? 15? This is your rock solid evidence? I watched this documentary and I am skeptical of the points there. Keep in mind I think the whole Global Warming issue is too politicized and that any dissenting opinions are buried under what's popular. I think there are many factors contributing to Global Warming but saying one side of another is rock solid proof is just ridiculous. Your statements are just as bad as the other side.

Re:If you want to talk about global warming myths

[Ragingguppy]

There is more evidence in those two documentaries then in the Inconvenient truth by Gore sir. So in this case much more rock solid. Notice that those to documentaries show the Medieval warming period is much more pronounced then in Gores movie. They actually indicate that the temperatures were much higher during that period then they were today.

Most of the evidence done that the IPCC goes by are climate models. Computer simulations where they change variables to see what happens. Its hardly what is really going on in the real world. One thing I can remember when taking my Computer Science classes about computer simulations of weather is that we can't simulate Precipitation very well. If we could the weather man would always be right all the time. Instead of criticizing my sources how about disproving those sources. Those videos seem to make a very logical argument. But if you have proof disproving it, please, I'd like to see it. There doesn't seem to be any. No one has ever presented to me any proof. Just allot of speculation and fear mongering. Which doesn't seem to correlate with the real picture.

Re:If you want to talk about global warming myths

[Ragingguppy]

One more thing. One of those people interviewed in the great global warming swindle was one of the founding members of Green peace. And those people who are quoted in that movie were all scientists who didn't agree. Did you watch the whole thing? On YouTube its put in multiple parts. Its a very long movie.

Re:Vote with your money

[Cpt_Kirks]

So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?

Democratic Votes?

A tarp?

A soup pot?

A COMFY CHAIR?

Elderberries?

Not even close to a scientific consensus

[benhocking]

Think of it like snopes. "They predicted global cooling" if by "they" you mean a handful of scientists, and by "predicted" you mean in an unspecified future. Usually, the people posting this want you to infer that "they" refers to a scientific consensus, and "predicted" means "soon". Yes, certain magazines totally got this wrong. So, in the sense that the poster usual means when they say "They predicted global cooling", it is not true.

Did you read past the first sentence?

Re:Not even close to a scientific consensus

[untaken_name]

Yes.

One relevant piece: "By 1972 a large majority of a group of leading glacial-epoch experts at a conference agreed that 'the natural end of our warm epoch is undoubtedly near'"
Also, there was at least one book published that predicted global cooling, not just 'certain magazines'.

Did you read past the piece at all? Or did you simply believe it and fail to check any further?

Re:Vote with your money

[MightyYar]

You are right to some extent, but the planet IS warming and we do need to cut our CO2 emissions. Where I agree with you is:

• One person isn't going to matter. This stuff needs to be handled on the governmental level - relying on individuals to make a difference is naive and flies in the face of human nature.
• The media is going haywire over CO2 emissions. The current message that I'm getting is that it's okay if I use up all of the earth's resources as long as I buy some carbon credits. Sorry, I don't buy it. I feel like other sustainability issues are being buried by this CO2 mania.

However, I couldn't disagree with you more when you deny that we are causing the planet to heat up. Unless you can refute the points in TFA with scientific evidence to the contrary, I'm going to file you away as someone who doesn't like unpleasant news.

People really need to think for themselves and not follow the "Flock" or buy into the Brainwashing drive by media. There seems to be a flock of the other variety as well. I've seen them on Fox News. Are you sure that you aren't following a flock?

I don't think we should stop the discussion

[Luft08091950]

Especially on a subject that could well be the most important in our life time. The problem is that if global warming is indeed being contributed to by our activities (and there appears to be growing evidence that it is.) we could well be destroying the planet while we are waiting for new science. Although you and I may have nothing new to glean from a rehash there are undoubtedly many who could learn more.

Nope. None of that is correct

[Cedric Tsui]

According to Wikipedia, London has an average elevation of 24m above sea level.
So. They might lose some waterfront property, but the city isn't going to end up under water.

New Orleans has an elevation ranging from -2m to 6m.

I have a hard time believe that 'up to a billion people' live with a meter of sea-level.
And even if this was true, I don't believe the rising sea level will do much damage to humans. The total sea level rise since the 1880s has been 20cm. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise
(I know... I need to find better sources than Wikipedia...)

Now in comparison, the tide has an amplitude of up to one meter (usually smaller). Any people living within 1 meter of sea level will be having problems NOW, not when the ocean levels rise up by another 20 cm in the next 50 years.

If it's the storms you're worried about, I suspect we will be just fine. The portions of New Orleans above sea level survived just fine. I've got a buddy studying down there.

The correct answer to grandparent's post is that the transition to and from the warmer periods during the Mesozoic era were much slower allowing animals enough time to evolve and adapt to their new conditions. This is not possible for (all of) the animals at the current rate of heating. It's not the absolute temperature which is dangerous, but the rapid change.

Re:Nope. None of that is correct

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask your buddy in New Orleans what the level of the Mississippi River is in New Orleans... Hint: the surface of the river is above sea level as is the surface of Lake Ponchatrain which surrounds the city on the other side.

Re:Nope. None of that is correct

[Cedric Tsui]

Ok. I don't see what this has to do with rising sea levels.

You don't believe that New Orleans should be rebuilt?
From what I've been told (a good while ago) the aren't rebuilding the dikes which they used to reclaim (claim?) the swamps as buildable ground. These are to the east and west of the city.

As for the river and the lake. Are they at risk of flowing into the city? If so, that's a different problem.

Re:Nope. None of that is correct

[arkhan_jg]

First, no, of course all of London would not be underwater with a 1 meter or even a 10 meter sea-level rise, even without the barrier - it's a city of 6 million, over 600 square miles! However, it would cause a lot of damage. I don't know if you've ever been there, but the Thames runs right through the centre of London, and much of the key areas of the city run right next to the river.
Check out this, this and this for a feel for what large storm surge or a few meter sea-level rise could do to the city, if not prevented.

The 1 billion within 1 meter isn't my statistic, but I think the site I pulled it from quickly was in error, and I apologise for saying so. Further research suggests its 100 million living under 1 meter from mean sea-level, 670 million under 5m, and 1 billion 'at risk' in low lying areas. The 2004 tsunami reached 30m.

The IPCC conservative estimate is a sea level rise of an extra 0.5 to 1m rise by the end of the century. Were there to be a large-scale ice-shelf collapse however, sea-levels could rise by several meters in the space of months. Storm surge obviously also becomes a bigger problem as sea-levels rise. Sea levels were 5m higher than present in the last inter-glacial period.

I agree the rapid pace of change is the real worry, but rapid pace of change affects us too. Massive destruction of homes - or just the threat thereof - in the poorer coastal regions of the world would likely cause mass-migration to the richer countries who can afford coastal defences, plus much of the agricultural land is low-lying.

Re:Nope. None of that is correct

[rs79]

"The IPCC conservative estimate is a sea level rise of an extra 0.5 to 1m rise by the end of the century."

The IPCC uses a model. But in the real world... If the earth gets warmer wouldn't more water from the seas be lost by evaporation and redeposited on the poles as snow. I read that soemwhere.

Do we really expect the poles to never change, ever? Does tha make sense?

Hardly surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hardly surprising that the morons who make up the general public are falling for the ridiculous "man-made" global warming scam.
I mean, if something as obviously trollish as this gets 5000+ bites, what hope is there for Joe Sixpack when he is bombarded with "scientific" "evidence" for man-made global warming every day?

I mean, I can see what a load of BS it all is, and even if I wasn't a God-fearing, Bible-believing Christian, I would still find the idea of mankind presuming to control the Earth's climate utterly laughable.

I actually don't care much what people believe though, since I'm waiting for the price of SUV's to come down as the state-sponsored enviro-guilt hits the tree-hugging scientific illiterates. There'll be some bargains to be had to be sure!!!

A **government** article?

[hellfire]

Funny. I see this in TFA

Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change .Then I find this article.

I find it laughable that you pointed to an article posted on senate.gov .

The government is the #1 source for misleading information about climate change. It's been politicized on BOTH political parties, and you use a highly disreputable source to refute what you think is a highly disreputable source.

I'm not disputing your conclusion, but your evidence is lame.

Re:A **government** article?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mmm... I love the smell of ad hominem arguments in the afternoon.

Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[EMB Numbers]

Article 2 http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/dn11658 states "The great majority of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750" right after the first article http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ climate-change/dn11638 states "It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources."

Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ?

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Article 2 states "The great majority of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750" right after the first article states "It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources."

Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ?

There is no inconsistency there, at most it was bad phrasing. What article to meant was that "Of all the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans, the great majority was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750." I admit that it was very badly stated, but anyone with the slightest reading comprehension would understand that they were talking about portions of human emissions. Especially when combined with the second half of the sentence which discussed the United States' percent of emissions.

If you have actual evidence, please bring it up. I will promise (to try) to not nit pick at typos or badly phrased sentences.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, no . . . the point is the second article claims that the humans of the "developed world" contributed to the "great majority of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere" and the first article claimed that the human contribution was small compared to natural sources.
Pay attention.
The two statements are mutually exclusive.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously the answer is both, and the one that is eventually disproved will be written out in history as "unsupported" - see "global cooling". It's the trend in science these days - String theory has so many variations that at least one will be true - and the rest were obviously never considered to begin with. Revisionist history at its best.

Personally, I'd like to see these climate "scientists" stop treating their "science" as a religion. It has it's heretics/skeptics/"denialists" (which doesn't show up as a word in my dictionary), which are to be burned at the stake. Using words like "prove" in the context of true scientific discussion is touchy at best, at least to anyone who actually follows the scientific method. Additionally, correlation cannot prove causation (any elementary statistics course will teach you this), so, despite data that show that both CO2 and temperature levels are increasing, a causation cannot be proved without a controlled experiment. And I've yet to see a control come out of any of these studies.

While I might not disagree with the data (or potentially even the conclusion to some extent), I reject the Carbon Inquisition's methods, and thus their conclusions are put into question.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[LadyLucky]

It's a dynamic equilibrium, with large sources and sinks of CO2. Adding more from human sources will increase the total amount, even if net production is small compared to natural sources.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[cching]

If you read the whole article and contemplate it as a whole, you will find that it says our emissions (e.g. what we put into the air via cars and other "emissions") are indeed lower than natural emissions, but that humans are also responsible for increasing natural emissions by, e.g., deforestation and other means.

It's not that hard to comprehend the article if you're not slanted to begin with.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[emm-tee]

Article 2 ... states ... "The great majority of the carbon dioxide... was put there by the developed world" ... the first article ... states "It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources."

Which it is ? How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies ? Errr.. it's simple really. You're comparing a quantity with the rate of change of a quantity.

The "great majority of the carbon dioxide...[which] was put there by the developed world" is referring to the excess of carbon dioxide which is not able to be absorbed by historic processes which are fully capable of absorbing historic (comparatively very large) emissions of carbon dioxide.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[jrumney]

There's clearly a word or two missing in the sentence from the second article you quote. Try parsing it as "The great majority of the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by the developed world...". Substitute man-made for an alternative meaning.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[luckystuff]

Still, the real benefit of this article is that it catalogues and lists counter-arguments.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[obeythefist]

Do you honestly believe that the author of the New Scientist article was suggesting that Carbon Dioxide was practically non-existent in earth's atmosphere prior to the industrial revolution and the invention of steam power? You're not willing to interpret the text as the simplest and most common explanation but you're adhering to a poor interpretation of bad phrasework?

Do you really, really believe that?

I need to know, because I am trying to work out how someone apparently literate enough to post on Slashdot could be so imbecilic.

But I understand, you may have been dictating. Speech to text technology has a lot to answer for.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[jc42]

What article to meant was that "Of all the carbon dioxide put into the atmosphere by humans, the great majority was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750." I admit that it was very badly stated, but anyone with the slightest reading comprehension would understand that they were talking about portions of human emissions.

Hmmm ... I happen to know the actual numbers off the top of my head, and when I read the original statement, my instant reaction was "Hey, that's not right at all." I re-read it, trying to find some way to read it so that it was correct, and I couldn't. It was clearly a claim that humans have doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2.

IMO, you should state the truth (with the qualification that in such discussions, there's no need to bother with more than two places accuracy ;-). That statement was simply incorrect, since in the past few centuries atmospheric CO2 has only risen about 25%, from roughly 300 ppm to about 380 ppm now, and nothing more than that difference should be considered of human origin.

A human-caused 25% rise in CO2 is enough of a story, especially since the rise is obviously continuing. There's no need to exaggerate the change by a factor of four. It merely discredits you to people who happen to know the numbers, and makes you an easy target for those who want to deny that there's a problem.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[pipingguy]

The eventual solution to all of this is, of course, more complicated computer models, which will therefore employ more and more computer scientists and develop the virtual reality we all truly want; the place where we can all do whatever we want whenever we want - the Matrix. Wait, that had Tom Cruise in it, so I retract my statement.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Hmmm ... I happen to know the actual numbers off the top of my head, and when I read the original statement, my instant reaction was "Hey, that's not right at all." I re-read it, trying to find some way to read it so that it was correct, and I couldn't. It was clearly a claim that humans have doubled the amount of atmospheric CO2.

You're absolutely correct. If you read that sentence by itself, it is blatantly false. Heck, even if you read it in context, it is literally not true. But even if you only read that one article out of the 25, it becomes obvious that the author simply phrased what he wanted to say badly. Perhaps he had written something similar to the qualification I had added in my previous post and he decided to edit it out without re-reading the sentence to make sure it still made sense. Or maybe that's just how he had written it the first time. Either way, if you read it in the full context of that article and the others you can tell that what was literally written was not what was meant.

If you'd like to take the author and editor to task for not fully vetting what was written, then please do. Write a letter to the editor, I'm sure you'll receive a response, and probably a correction in their next edition. But, you're being intellectually dishonest if you're trying to push the idea that the author either truly believed that humans were responsible for *most* of the C02 in the air, or knew it to be false and knowingly published false information.

Re:Inconsistent argumants to debunk debunkers

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Article 2 states "The great majority of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by the developed world, with the US alone responsible for an estimated quarter of emissions since 1750" ... How can anybody know what to believe in the face of such huge inconsistencies?

Just wanted to pipe back in here one last time with an update, the article now reads:

The great majority of the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was put there by the developed world...

did you even read it?

[TheAxeMaster]

Look at the rainfall predictions.
 
  http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/ns /cms/dn11657/dn11657-1_365.jpg

Their best estimate is that there will be 10-20 inches less rainfall in some of the poorest areas of the world, not to mention most of europe. What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Maybe that's not a concern for you when you can drive down the street to the McDonalds and get a big mac, but for people who live by subsistance farming its really bad news. The whole "won't affect me" attitude is a lot of the problem. Crank up the A/C and keep watching Fox news.
 
And by the way, the "more arable land" would be in areas that aren't currently farmed, so we'd be chopping down even more trees and compounding the problem by wrecking even more carbon sinks.

Re:did you even read it?

[e2d2]

Their best estimate is that there will be 10-20 inches less rainfall in some of the poorest areas of the world, not to mention most of europe. What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Maybe that's not a concern for you when you can drive down the street to the McDonalds and get a big mac, but for people who live by subsistance farming its really bad news. The whole "won't affect me" attitude is a lot of the problem. Crank up the A/C and keep watching Fox news.

Hey smugly, you know what else hurts third world countries? Lack of industrial infrastructure because the western world has decided that industry causes too much pollution. Maybe that's not a concern when you can go get a JOB down the street, but for people that are selling water they carried miles for less that a dollar a day it's really bad news. Light up another clove cigarette and keep watching PBS while you tell the rest of the world how to live.

Re:did you even read it?

[paranode]

A whole lot more people are going to starve if we crash our economy by imposing ridiculous restrictions on certain things which will do nothing to reverse the warming at all.

Re:did you even read it?

[UbuntuDupe]

What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Maybe that's not a concern for you when you can drive down the street to the McDonalds and get a big mac, but for people who live by subsistance farming its really bad news.

Then if it ever comes to that, they can move to an industrialized country (like mine), get a non-subsistence-farming job, and live a lot better. (For my part, I'd love an infrastructure that would support denser living.) The higher future yields due to better technology will make up for tiny food loss.

Wait ... what am I missing?

Re:did you even read it?

[drinkypoo]

Then if it ever comes to that, they can move to an industrialized country (like mine) [...] Wait ... what am I missing?

What you're missing is that some of the industrialized countries are going to be more or less wiped out if we do start having more catastrophic weather events due to global warming, and that in any case those industrialized countries can't handle the literally billions of people that would like to live in them under ANY terms, let alone industrialized ones.

I hope to god you were kidding... But I can't tell from your comment.

Re:did you even read it?

[drinkypoo]

Hey smugly, you know what else hurts third world countries? Lack of industrial infrastructure because the western world has decided that industry causes too much pollution.

Given that the technology exists to have industry without massive pollution, I'm having a hard time following your argument.

Of course, it might have to be a little less convenient in some cases. For example, if we used only solar and wind power, we'd have to run fabs when the sun was shining and/or the wind was blowing. Of course, with a sufficiently broad-reaching power grid, this becomes a lot less of a problem. But would it really be such a bad thing for humanity? Sure, it would harm the bottom line for an individual corporation. But I'm not so sure that protecting [e.g.] intel's profits should be a primary goal for humanity.

Re:did you even read it?

[Ambitwistor]

Myth #27: mitigating global warming will destroy our economy.

(That being said, your point about ineffective efforts at mitigation is well taken.)

Re:did you even read it?

[Detritus]

Their best estimate is that there will be 10-20 inches less rainfall in some of the poorest areas of the world, not to mention most of europe. What exactly do you think less rainfall is going to do? People are going to starve. Here's your gold medal for jumping to conclusions. Less rainfall does not necessarily mean that people are going to starve. Agricultural productivity depends on many factors. One of them is planting the appropriate crops for local conditions.

Re:did you even read it?

[brkello]

I have lived in a desert all my life. Normally, this time of year every day is full of sunshine with not a cloud in sight. But this year, more than any other, it is cloudy, cool and rainy (this is really really strange). Who is to say that global warming won't actually increase rainfall in some areas? There is more water because the water from the polar ice caps are melting. There is more surface area for the water to evaporate from since the tide is rising. On a global level, it is warmer, so there should be more evaporation. Thus it is possible for it to rain more in these areas saving lives.

Obviously, I am no expert. But I am extremely skeptical of these "experts". I can see how they can trend global climate change...but rainfall predictions in certain areas? Give me a break, we can predict that two weeks out with very much accuracy.

Quite frankly, the climate is always changing regardless of what we do. Should we try to do less to pollute...absolutely. Is global warming a huge deal. Not as much as people are trying to make it out. We have less effect than people want to believe. In fact, a few decades ago scientists were predicting global cooling. And if the climate was always stable...explain the ice age.

People like you make me sick. If you are so worried about people dieing than give up your house, your car, your friends, your spouse, and move to those countries with the extremely poor and work to help them. Just because you right some self-righteous post on Slashdot doesn't mean you are any better than the people who like cool A/C and watch Fox News. What the heck does that mean anyways? Does CNN give off less greenhouse emissions.

This has nothing to do with politics for me. I can't stand the current administration and am a registered Democrat. I think Fox News is so horribly skewed to the right that it can only be viewed for entertainment purposes. My objection to the global warming hype is that it just doesn't make sense. They are only presenting one side of the picture and they are doing in a way that is wrong. Just like Bush uses the fear of terroists to win votes, it seems like these people are now trying to use the fear of global climate change to push their agenda. I suggest you try actually reading the counter-opinions instead of just reading the stuff that says the same thing. There are intelligent people who are unbiased that think this is overblown. At one time most scientists thought the sun revolved around the earth. Scientists are not always right...no many how big a herd of them there are.

Re:did you even read it?

[Abcd1234]

Tell that to the subsaharan Africans.

Re:did you even read it?

[UbuntuDupe]

Well ... there is such a thing as half-joking.

The GGP claimed that the bad part would be subsistence farmers having a bad time. Nothing about catastrophes to developed countries. If that's the only problem, hey -- let 'em come over. And the US and Canada absolutely could sustain a lot more people. Of course, the subsistence farmers weren't his real complaint (and even the worst predictions don't make the US or Canada outright uninhabitable), they were just another pretense. Which is the general problem with the GW debate: dishonesty. Even accepting the worst case scenario, all it justifies is (as I remember talking to you about in a thread a few months ago) a simple carbon tax with the proceeds applied to sinks and abatement. Most people wouldn't even notice, since all curtailments in consumption would come first from the lowest-valued activities (like consuming crackers from 500 miles away instead of 2000 -- big loss there!).

But of course, the overwhelming majority of (though not all) GW alarmists don't actually want that; the GW story is just their best pretense to impose a lifestyle they couldn't otherwise get. Or they think that climatalogical knowledge directly translates into policy expertise. (It doesn't; the optimal solution requires knowledge of e.g. people's risk tolerance, time preference, and the rate of improvement of technology, none of which have anything to do with climate science.)

Inviting over subsistence farmers was just my way of calling him out on that pretense.

Re:did you even read it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps they should not have connected those uneducated people in the desert...

Anyway, local day to day variations in weather are much harder to predict that rainfall patterns over a whole season. Actually, who do you think you are that you can discard published data like that? Please just shut up if you have no argument or proof at all. If you had looked at the map you would have seen that it gets wetter in some areas, not in others. Point is, that the changes will make some current arable land too dry, and some dry land wetter. But my guess its going to have negative effects for food production because it requires vast changes in logistics and infrastructure. Its also expensive.

The reason you perceive this as a hype may be that there are still many people who refuse to take some action now. And that is a bad idea. Although people are not certain that it helps, it wouldn't hurt either to cut down emissions.

People like you make me sick as well. How do you know that the GP is not already spending all his time to help people in less fortunate areas of the world?

By the way. I am a scientist. And actually measuring ambient CO2 at this very moment. I am too young to have seen it rise significantly with my own eyes. But one of my previous co-workers has been doing it for 30 years, and he did see it rise over 20 ppm.

I can't believe such a stupid post got modded up here...

Re:did you even read it?

[muellerr1]

Without getting into anything else in your diatribe, I'd like to point out that strictly speaking it wasn't the scientists who claimed the sun revolved around the Earth, it was church doctrine; it was the scientists who eventually disproved that notion. Modern scientists as we know them didn't exist until around Galileo, who was one of the first to use observation as a tool for understanding. Up until that point people gave more credence to the arguments of the 'scientist' who had the wealthier patron rather than falsifiable independent observation.

Incidentally, Galileo was the one jailed by the church for insisting that the Earth revolves around the sun.

Re:did you even read it?

[drinkypoo]

the optimal solution requires knowledge of e.g. people's risk tolerance, time preference, and the rate of improvement of technology, none of which have anything to do with climate science.

People's time preference is what is causing the problem in the first place. They'd rather improve never.

Re:did you even read it?

[UbuntuDupe]

Time preference, as judged by yield on long-term, zero-risk, zero-tax bonds, adjusted for inflation,[1] is obscenely low right now. And I doubt all of the scientists demanding change have eliminated their credit card debt. And consistent application of a low time preference in all areas leads you to do rather absurd things. Plus, time preference is only one factor. Hypothetically, if damming up all the coasts would be trivially cheap in fifty years if we let economic growth go full speed, that certainly effects estimation of the future harms from coastal flooding.

[1] Where do you get these numbers? High-grade municipal bond funds, minus core inflation. Why high grade, and why a bond fund instead of individual bonds? To make to the risk as low as possible so as to abstract from the default rate. Why municipal (tax-free) bonds? Because people discount based on take-home interest. Why deduct for inflation? Because people care about the real purchasing power, not the nominal amount. Last I checked, Vanguard's high-grade long term munis paid 3.8%. Subtract a core inflation of 2.5-3%, and you get a discount rate of around one percent. Of course, most people consider full inflation rate (including food and energy) to be a better measure, which would make the discount rate closer to being negative.

Re:did you even read it?

[drinkypoo]

Of course, most people consider full inflation rate (including food and energy) to be a better measure, which would make the discount rate closer to being negative.

Anything that does not take the full inflation rate into account (when claiming to adjust for inflation) is utterly flawed, completely useless, and cannot be taken seriously by anyone who wants a correct answer.

Also, inflation is only one part of the story, and income is the other. The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation for what, twenty years? Other salaries follow the minimum wage...

Re:did you even read it?

[UbuntuDupe]

Anything that does not take the full inflation rate into account (when claiming to adjust for inflation) is utterly flawed, completely useless, and cannot be taken seriously by anyone who wants a correct answer.

So then you agree that the total social time-preference discount rate is about 0% right now, then? Remember, adding food an energy (right now) increases the calculated inflation rate, which decreases the real bond yield. So, now you seem to be saying that time preference is where it should be (when aggregating across all people).

Also, inflation is only one part of the story, and income is the other. The minimum wage hasn't kept up with inflation for what, twenty years? Other salaries follow the minimum wage...

What does that have to do with the discount rate, or other factors related to GW harms?

Re:did you even read it?

[brkello]

Perhaps you are unable to read. Or you selectively read...but many scientists do that just to confirm their own pretentious hypotheses. (I am actually a scientist too, but this isn't my field). I say in my post that it is a good idea to cut down emissions. Also, I know this guy isn't doing shit to help the people he says we aren't concerned about because he has enough time and enough means to be posting on Slashdot. People working in third world countries don't do that. There is too much to do. So yeah, I am 100% sure the guy is full of crap. And if that makes you sick...maybe you aren't smart enough to draw simple conclusions.

The reason I perceive it as hype is that it is being pushed by politicians and hollywood. My post got modded up because it is ok to be skeptical on here. It got modded up because people on here are smart enough to know the difference between facts and belief. And quite frankly, the facts are not conclusive.

But no matter what you think of me, at least I have the balls to post using my name.

Mars was #21

[benhocking]

Marz is warming also btw so let me guess ... we have robots here... we have robots there... Its the robots! They cause global warming.

That was #21 on the list.

People really need to think for themselves and not follow the "Flock" or buy into the Brainwashing drive by media.

I hope that was meant to be self-referentially funny.

Re:Mars was #21

[trewornan]

I thought #21 was particularly unconvincing. To paraphrase:

Yes it does appear (from shrinking polar caps) that Mars is warming up *but*,

a) It could be due to natural variation unrelated to global warming.

b) If it is global warming it could be due to some factor which wouldn't affect Earth.

OK they're reasonable points but they hardly amount to a conclusive "debunking" like they claim.

Re:Vote with your money

[fforw]

.. too bad the "flock" is moving in the opposite direction than you describe.

This is pointless

[TheWoozle]

Instead of listing 26 reasons that global warming is real and caused by humans, wouldn't we all be better served by a list of 26 things that a single person can do to improve our quality of life and the health of the environment (that just so happen to also reduce global warming) that aren't prohibitively expensive or that demand levels of sacrifice that we all know Joe Blow won't make?

Oh wait...sorry. That would be productive and require more brainpower than the "yes it is! no it isn't!" shouting match.

Re:This is pointless

[masterhibb]

I would love to see what would happen if one of the leading environmental organizations shifted all of their resources currently devoted to lobbying for draconian "for your own good" environmental regulations to simply educating folk about things they can do to be less wasteful, less pollutant, and all-around more environmentally friendly, as well as taking steps to make the necessary technologies or services more universally available or appealing. For example, how many more people would give solar-paneled roofing a shot if it didn't cost half as much as their house or could withstand a small hailstorm (or would be covered under their homeowners insurance)?

Re:This is pointless

[oojimaflib]

even better would be 13 things a single person could do to improve the health of the environment and 13 things people can do about the effects of global warming. I'm thinking of things like "stop building on floodplains", "stop building below sea level", "stop building glass buildings that overheat" etc. CO2 gets lots of attention, but as TFA states, global warming lags some time behind the CO2 levels, and it's going to get a lot warmer before it gets colder whatever happens in the atmosphere over the next few years.

Re:This is pointless

[fritsd]

I can't believe that you're the first one to point out this obvious question, whereas that report was published in Bangkok not even two weeks ago. It was headline news in the Netherlands but, looking at this foam-at-the-mouth slashdot discussion, apparently not in the USA or Canada :-)

Here you go: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf

Re:This is pointless

[misanthrope101]

This information is available everywhere. Drive less. If you must drive, buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle. Carpool. Buy less stuff. Turn your thermostat up (or down) a bit. Replace your incandescent bulbs with compact flourescents.

This information is ubiquitous, but it gets ignored because your average person (not just Joe Sixpack, but people across all socioeconomic backgrounds) doesn't hate just draconian changes, but any changes. They resent being told that they consume too much stuff, drive a gas guzzler, and so on, and this resentment is behind much of the "skepticism" about global warming. No one wants change. And we won't change, because there won't be a sudden oh-my-god moment like there is in the movies.

wikipedia is the same

[Shivetya]

try and post facts other than those supported by group think in relation to global warming and it will get editted out.

Example, the section about glaciers retreating has its own page, go make one showing all the growing glaciers and watch it vanish. I seriously do not believe them anymore when the say pages don't vanish. Its even more fun when your id goes missing too.

There is no place for intelligent discussion on global warming anymore. Too many of the people running sites have already decided and its evident in the stories that get posted and the comments that get nuked, stripped, or otherwise put into oblivion.

any scientist who supports something other than man made global warming gets labeled as an industry lackey whereas the obvious government we need continued funding lackeys get respect second to God.

The only science I trust now is that dealing with space. Too much of science about earth and mans effect is polluted by political ideaology.

Re:wikipedia is the same

[misanthrope101]

You could as accurately say there is no place for "intelligent discussion" on the germ theory, the heliocentric solar system, atomic theory, plate tectonics, or any number of mainstream scientific theories. There is mainstream science that, for better for worse, has come to a consensus because the data and their models match up better than anything else. Then there are the dissenters, everyone from cold-fusion advocates to fixedearth.com to ansersingenesis, who pick away at mainstream science from a variety of angles.

The only viewpoints that I actually see treated with scorn/hostility are those that are brought up time and time and time again, despite being answered already ad nauseum, like saying "no, it's the sun, dummy!" or "evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics!" When I see a claim from skeptics about global warming, I look for a response from mainstream science, and I've never come up wanting.

All the global warming skeptics have to do is do better science, or find models that better fit the facts. Lobbing in objections, while ignoring the responses, and lobbing in the same questions again and crying "bias! dogma!" when people ignore you, isn't really much of a contribution.

Really this is almost as bad as comet?

[SerpentMage]

How do you know about what is happening now is almost as bad as a comet? Were you around at that time? Yes we have fossils, but fossils don't tell the complete story and I wish people would understand this. What fossils tell is a probability of something that maybe happened based on interpretation. Its like the Bible. Did it happen, probably, but did it happen how people recounted it? Probably not.

The problem I have with many of these theories is that they attempt to extrapolate to situations that we experience everyday, which is a major mistake. Here is my reason why the dinosaurs died. The reason why the dinosaurs died is because the aliens that kept feeding them left the planet. Don't believe me, right? But am I wrong? You ask where is the proof that there were aliens?

Proof is interesting because until recently we thought Columbus was the first European to reach North America, now we know it was the Vikings, and if you read Farley Mowat he even says it was earlier and not the vikings. There is even a theory that the first Europeans came to North American during the Ice Age and they think this due to the genetic imprints of the Native North Americans.

My point is that we don't even know the exact truth 5000 years ago. History has this odd behavior to become lost and found again. Constructive mostly unbiased history started about 40 years ago. Everything before that was selective information. And now you are telling me, something that happened 65 million years ago is similar to today? Yeah right, maybe it did, maybe it didn't and unless you can say "I was there" everything any scientist says is a formal form of handwaving.

Re:Really this is almost as bad as comet?

[Cornflake917]

Its like the Bible. Did it happen, probably, but did it happen how people recounted it? Probably not. Yeah, when Jesus turned water to wine he actaully was just mixing water with Kool-Aid.

Oh, and the creation story in Genesis has a couple minor discrepencies, it actually took eight days for God to create the Universe, not seven. And, he actaully used a thigh bone to create women, not a rib.

Oops.

Re:Really this is almost as bad as comet?

[Anonymous Coward]

"When Jesus turned water to wine he actually was just mixing water with Kool-Aid"

That would make a great sig!

It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[NeutronCowboy]

Anecdote, meet data.

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[UbuntuDupe]

What does that have to do with what I said?

Let me see if I can say it another way.

If I said, "Those anti-smoking Nazis think smoking kills you. But what about George Burns -- he smoked all the time, and lived to be 100."

you would wisely reply, "That's just anecdotal. If you look at the set of all people who smoked as often as he did, you see, on average, very low life expectancies."

Now, look at climate change. The GGGP said (adding comic flair) "[Those GW nuts think the planet's getting warmer. But look at Canada -- it's just the opposite.]" [1]

you can't say, "That's just anecdotal. If you look at the set of ALL industrialized terran planets in which greedy capitalists mercilessly dump CO2 into the atmosphere, they're hot as hell.[2]"

[1] Yes, I'm simplifying. Global climate change is what they really complain about, which could include a colder Canada. But as long as the earth's weather is tightly coupled and there exist possible situations that could contradict such predictions, the same principle applies.

[2] I mean hell in the secular sense.

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[Yokaze]

The difference is the detail of data you have on the subject and what you extrapolate from the data.

The fact, that said George Burns lived to be 100 is anecdotal for determining the effect of smoking on mankind, as the data is fairly limited, and not very well documented. Therefor it is very hard to generalise the causality and apply the results to a possibly unrelated case.

However, if we'd speaking of the fact that, say, William Burns has developed pulmonary metastases, necrosis and various other ailments, hence, the treating doctor doesn't believe in the patient will playing cricket anytime soon, no one would speak of anecdotal evidence, as the data would be neither limited, nor well documented and is highly related to the case in question.

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[NeutronCowboy]

I see - I misunderstood your example.

The issue though is not that we do not have control planets for verifying the CO2 impact on temperature. Those are two different issues that are tied together via physical models.

We have two data sets: CO2 and temperature. Your example of eastern Canada having cyclic ice sheets is one data point in the larger data set of local temperatures from all over the world. As a result, it has little bearing on the data set of CO2 concentrations. It could have an impact on the link between the two, but now you're talking about one data point invalidating an entire data set that was used to establish that correlation. Which is not the right approach.

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[skiflyer]

Interesting twist, but not accurate. That would hold if the question involved finding out what happened to industrialized terran planets... we're just asking about earth.

To use your example, the global warming science is more like concluding "Smoking did not cause G. Burns to die before 100." or "Smoking did not artificially shorten the length of G. Burns' life, look at these lung scans." (I have no idea what his lung scans looked like, or if he would've lived to 120 had he not smoked, it's what we call an illustrative point.)

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[Floritard]

Citing something as informal as a user-created encyclopedia to prove this point approaches a strange level of meta...

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[mdsolar]

Would you trust an encyclopedia that the creators wouldn't use? It is certainly cited there.

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[Raffaello]

Now, look at climate change. The GGGP said (adding comic flair) "[Those GW nuts think the planet's getting warmer. But look at Canada -- it's just the opposite.]" [1]

you can't say, "That's just anecdotal. If you look at the set of ALL industrialized terran planets in which greedy capitalists mercilessly dump CO2 into the atmosphere, they're hot as hell.[2]"

but you can say "that's just one location on a very large planet, and climate models do in fact predict that some regions will get colder but the global *mean* temperature will rise."

Re:It seems you got your facts mixed up.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering that we're not concerned with the effects of CO2 on other Earth-like planets, the George Burns scenario would better fit the question, "does smoking cigarettes kill George Burns?" We don't know what the real effects of global warming on the environment will be, but we do know that the average temperature is increasing and that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are higher than they have ever been in the past 40,000 years (IIRC).

Welcome New Overlords!

[DanielMarkham]

I, for one, welcome our new scientist myth-debunking overlords.

I enjoy my re-education and only wish to serve the greater good of mankind, as defined by those who know more than I do.

I reject calls for understanding that science is about observation, theory, and reproducible results. Instead, I whole-heartedly accept that science is about consensus, caring for others, and saving the planet. As a computer expert, I give up my knowledge that computer models are almost pointless when dealing with ten-thousand variable systems and accept that scientists know what is important and what is not.I reject my selfish way of wanting to keep my rich lifestle. I understand that sacrifices must be made, mostly by me, in order for the poor to survive. I gladly give up my wealth to those central managers who will take my resources and apply them where they make the most scientific sense.

Gosh. I feel so much better! This was a lot more fun than surrendering to the last overlords. Now that I've joined, do I get a brown uniform and a cool set of black leather boots? Is there a cool hand salute or anything?

Apologies if I appear cynical in any fashion. I am sure some more re-education will fix me right up. We unwashed masses are in constant need of education.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[russotto]

You scored a Funny but should have really gotten an Insightful.

As far as I'm concerned, the hockey stick is a litmus test. Anyone who defends the validity of the hockey stick -- shown to be based on a methodology which will produce a hockey stick when fed random data -- is definitely into advocacy, not information.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[lubricated]

>> As a computer expert, I give up my knowledge that computer models are almost pointless when dealing with ten-thousand variable systems

It's a good thing you weren't a mathematician.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[DanielMarkham]

You're telling me. I've got a family to raise. After 2 years of self-study calculus in college with a 4.0, I'm just glad I got out of that math racket before I ended up so smart in one area I didn't have any sense in others. Thank goodness for that. Almost ended up some wonk with a high-priced political indoctrination and zero practical experience.

Although I welcome education in complex systems from our new masters. Whatever the masters think is necessary. As soon as I get the hand salute working, I plan on getting rid of all of my science books and buy a shiny new Al Gore poster and an electric car. I can't wait to hear more about much danger we are in and how we can fight back against the former bad, amoral, corporate overlords.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[lubricated]

I'm glad you think you're hot shit, and that passive aggressiveness works for you. Though you really know little about model selection.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

"After 2 years of self-study calculus in college with a 4.0"

Yay! Did you do well at arithmetic too?

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[Alegery]

Since when is demonstrating Godwin's Law considered insightful?

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[pipingguy]

Passive-aggressive behavior refers to passive, sometimes obstructionist resistance to following authoritative instructions in interpersonal or occupational situations. It can manifest itself as resentment, stubbornness, procrastination, sullenness, or repeated failure to accomplish requested tasks for which one is assumed, often explicitly, to be responsible. It is a defensive posture and, more often than not, only partly conscious. For example, people who are passive-aggressive might take so long to get ready for a party they do not wish to attend, that the party is nearly over by the time they arrive.

Does "being late for a party" include "not jumping on the bandwagon"?

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand that sacrifices must be made, mostly by me, in order for the poor to survive.

oh, don't worry, the poor will also have to sacrifice plenty. especially the *really* poor in the developing nations where they'll be hobbled from using energy. only folks who invested in "alternative" energy will be avoiding sacrifices.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[NoOneInParticular]

Ah, myth #3. Please read up on it. The 'random data' claim is the one that's been debunked ad nauseam. Please read up on it and try another one: I hear myth #12 is quite popular these days.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[russotto]

If by "debunked" you mean "ignored entirely", you're right. Unfortunately that's not what "debunked" means. Listing something as a "myth" doesn't make it so, particuarly not when one of the arguments for that thing -- the random data argument -- is completely unaddressed.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[NoOneInParticular]

Oh dear, if by 'ignored entirely', you mean "one click away", you're right. Listing something as unaddressed doesn't make it so, particularly when TFA directly links to it under the heading "the great hockeystick debate" , summarized as 'arcane statistical arguments'.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't run afoul of Godwin's Law if it is an apt comparison.

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[russotto]

Nowhere in the linked article (which I had checked out already) does it address the contention that Mann's model, when fed random data, would produce a hockey stick. They mentioned other objections from McIntyre and McKitrick, but not that one. That one they ignored completely, probably because there's no way to handwave around it. If the technique produces hockey sticks from random data, the fact that it produces hockey sticks from real data too is without significance.

To test the power of Mann's data-mining algorithm we ran an experiment in which we developed sequences of random numbers tuned to have the same autocorrelation pattern as the NOAMER tree ring data. In an autocorrelated process a random shock takes a few periods to drift back to the mean. Initially we used a simple first-order autocorrelation model, but later we implemented a more sophisticated ARFIMA12 routine that more accurately represents the entire autocorrelation function associated with tree ring data. In statistics these kinds of models are called "red noise." The key point was that the ARFIMA data is trendless random noise, simulating the data you'd get from trees in a climate that is only subject to random fluctuations with no warming trend.

In 10,000 repetitions on groups of red noise, we found that a conventional PC algorithm almost never yielded a hockey stick shaped PC1, but the Mann algorithm yielded a pronounced hockey stick-shaped PC1 over 99% of the time. The reason is that in some of the red noise series there is a "pseudo-trend" at the end, where a random shock causes the data to drift upwards, and before it can decay back to the mean the series comes to an end. The Mann algorithm efficiently looks for those kinds of series and flags them for maximum weighting. It concludes that a hockey stick is the dominant pattern even in pure noise.

-- McKitrick, Ross, "What is the 'Hockey Stick' Debate About", April 4, 2004

Re:Welcome New Overlords!

[NoOneInParticular]

Yes, you're right, the article did skim over the McKitrick claim of red noise being able to reproduce the Mann curve. The article you cited is very interesting and McKitrick has some good points about IPCC politics, yet it turns out not to be too easy to reproduce their findings. With some simple red-noise (a first order autocorrelation model) I am unable to produce hockey-sticks after subtracting the mean of only the last 100 points out of a 1000. This even when I add a single series that has a huge hockey-stick in those last 100 points! Possibly I'm doing something wrong here, but I don't think so. I'll probably have to find an original paper by McKitrick to see what exact method he uses, as the term 'sophisticated ARFIMA12 routine' doesn't ring a bell here. It's not that clear-cut for me: all I see is a claim that red noise produces hockey-sticks if you use a wrong mean, but no good substance yet.

BTW, In the article (search Hans von Storch) there is the claim that even when the error (subtracting only a 20th century mean) is corrected, the hockey stick appears. If this were true, that would end the red-noise debate, as the hockey- stick then is in the data (even though it still might be an artifact of a single series). Plenty of stuff for debate, so not that clear-cut as you think it is.

A waste of time, really

[Mutatis Mutandis]

The problem is that "global warming skepticism" already has developed into a fully-fledged pseudoscience, in the same league as creationism, astrology, homeopathy, crystal healing, etc., etc., etc.

The core characteristic of a pseudoscience is that is carefully constructed to weave its way around the facts, and that is highly adaptable: Like a nasty disease, it will rapidly develop resistance to any argument used against it. Also, it is inherently unfalsifiable, because a pseudoscience is not a theory that can be used to generate predictions that can be tested (as a science should be), but a collection of objections and statements of ignorance that does not make predictions. Science predicts. Pseudoscience only objects.

It is important to understand that distinction. If a scientific theory predicts, say, a temperature of 23C, and the measurement is 12+/-3C, then that theory cannot be correct -- it has been falsified, as Karl Popper argued. But if a pseudoscience claims that something cannot be right because the temperature is 23C, and you react by showing data showing that it actually is 12+/-3C, then that fails to destroy the pseudoscience, because that was just one of the potentially infinite number of objections that constitute the body of the pseudoscience. You can, therefore, spent an infinite amount of time carrying on counter-arguments.

So although I applaud New Scientist for making the effort, sadly, it is a complete illusion that this will convince anyone. You cannot convince people who have already made up their mind to ignore factual arguments, by using factual arguments. As tempting as it can be to enter such a debate, I have to warn that almost every possible way to spend your time and energy is more rewarding and more fun. Most science students make that error sooner or later. Most will learn that it is just a pointless waste of time. Much better to work on the real scientific case, and ignore the loonies.

My excuses for the 0.001% of climate change skeptics who are actually using a scientifically valid argumentation. I regret that they are getting the dog's fleas by involuntary association, but they still have their colleagues to find intelligent conversation and solace, even if they may not agree.

And at the end of the day, it probably won't matter that much. I am confident that the majority of people is sane, and that democratic government will (slowly but with some inevitability) result in an acceptable policy. There may be some hold-outs, but in those cases there is always Sarkozy's suggestion of taxing the exports of countries that don't address global warming.

Re:A waste of time, really

[Jorgandar]

I'm not so confident our government will do the right thing in time. Officials in denial are the same people that are saying "Let Intilligent design be taught along with Evolution in classrooms." What's more sadly amazing is the % of people who believe that garbage.

Given unilimited time, sure, we will come to realize the error of our ways. (only 50 years for the slavery issue. Only 100 more for gay rights.)

But this time around, we dont have 50 or 100 years to decide.

Re:A waste of time, really

[Timtheenchanted]

Funny, if you replace "global warming skepticism" with "adherence to currently accepted theories of global climate change", the truth value of the comment doesn't change.

Re:A waste of time, really

[roman_mir]

Global Warming is a Red Herring, the real problem is pollution and I am OK with thousands nuclear power plants to be built to remove the need for coal/gas/oil power plants, even to power electric cars and such.

Global Warming maybe real, but its effects are a total mystery and its causes are definitely not answered by any science either. Personally I think that humans do contribute but very very very little, it is much more likely that the normal climate cycles this way. What, do you think the climate is supposed to be nice and balanced for some reason? Nature says it ain't so.

Re:A waste of time, really

[TFloore]

Yeah, I noticed that too.

There's too much advocacy, and too many people (sometimes including myself) going "LA LA LA LA LA" loudly with their fingers in their ears, to have an honest discussion that includes the phrase "we don't know".

Because we don't.

Humans might be affecting things this time.

But no one knows what caused any climate change that occurred in the past. Not one.

We can point to stuff that correlates to *continuing* climate change in the past. Once climate change starts, you can point to some thing that seems to track with it well. This seems to be where CO2 sits mostly. That silly 800 year lag before CO2 starts tracking temperature.

But we don't have any idea what event or combination of events was the initial cause of any climate change event in the past.

And given that, I find myself not believing humans caused this one without extraordinary proof.

Of course, the cool thing with this argument (and the part of it that sounds like pseudoscience by the GP's definition) is that we probably will never know what event(s) caused climate change in the past, due to transient effects being lost from the historical record. So by this argument, I may be unconvinceable. That's an annoying thought.

Re:A waste of time, really

[brkello]

The problem by labeling "global warming skepticism" as a pseudoscience means that you have already shut off the ability to listen to any counter views (no matter how valid or scientifically sound). No one doubts you can provide evidience that there is a warming trend. But the climate is not something that is stable. It is always going to be doing something. So for a short peroid of time in the history of the world (and I mean really short) it has been getting warmer. Could this be due to human's? Absolutely. But there are 1000s of other factors as well. I used to be firmly in your camp...but after looking at the hysteria about this and reading some counter views...I am under the impression that you guys are overreacting. I believe that a lot of people are just going along with it to decrease our pollution rather than being scientifically honest. It takes a lot to get the public to care about something that will inconvienince them.

And just for fun, try looking at this from the other side. Look at the enviromentalists as the ones presenting the pseudoscience. After all, they are biased as well. When the global temperature next year actually is a little cooler...will you be so ready to throw out the belief that we are headed for disaster (and that we are solely responsible for it)?

Re:A waste of time, really

[pslam]

Hi, state a fact.

You talk about them a lot, yet give none.

Re:A waste of time, really

[multi io]

We can point to stuff that correlates to *continuing* climate change in the past. Once climate change starts, you can point to some thing that seems to track with it well. This seems to be where CO2 sits mostly. That silly 800 year lag before CO2 starts tracking temperature. But we don't have any idea what event or combination of events was the initial cause of any climate change event in the past.

Astonishing -- even people with very low Slashdot IDs don't bother to RTFA.

So just RTFA, it addresses these points specifically -- we have a very good idea what initially caused climate changes in the past glacial-interglacial transitions, and what the feedback factors were, and where that 800 year time lag comes from.

Re:A waste of time, really

[TFloore]

Astonishing -- even people with very low Slashdot IDs don't bother to RTFA.

Actually, I did RTFA. I learned a few things, too. :) The part about percentage of energy absorbed in various wavelengths by various greenhouse gases was interesting, in the section about CO2 not being the most important greenhouse gas. I'd heard that complaint, but not the response before.

Unfortunately...

Most of what I read was one form or another of "it's complicated and there isn't enough evidence but we believe it" when talking about things that support Anthropomorphic Climate Change, and "it's complicated but there isn't enough evidence so we don't believe it" when talking about things that don't support human-caused climate change.

It was rather sad.

That 800 year lag, incidentally... They don't know where it comes from exactly. In general, sure, you can hand-wave an explanation about it. Quoting from the article:
What seems to have happened at the end of the recent ice ages is that some factor - most probably orbital changes - caused a rise in temperature. This led to an increase in CO2
followed by
The source of this extra carbon was the oceans, but why did they release CO2 as the planet began to warm? Many factors played a role and the details are still far from clear.

That's a sciency way of saying "we don't know." Which is what I said before.

The neat thing with me arguing about this is that I don't really object to a lot of the things reasonable people want to do about this, and I actually support a lot of them. Stop building coal power plants, build nuclear power plants instead. Sharply reduce gasoline use in vehicles, use electricity from those nukes to power electric cars for the 80% of people that only need a car to go 100 miles or less in a day. Use some real science to figure out how to do sustainable agriculture and fishing. (We in the US are doing horrible things to our farmland. All countries everywhere in the world are doing awful things to global fish stocks. I like eating fish... and I want to still be able to eat fish 30 years from now.)

These things make sense. But it makes sense on environmental stewardship and sustainable development grounds, much more than it does as a response to some scary global disaster that you can't back up with real defensible data.

Re:A waste of time, really

[Anonymous Coward]

> So although I applaud New Scientist for making the effort, sadly, it is a complete illusion that this will convince anyone.

That's probably why the article is called: Climate change: A guide for the perplexed . NS are smart enough to know that you can't convince a person who wants to deny climate change. The article is aimed at those who are wavering, perhaps getting a lot of BS from the people around them and need some hard facts to make up their mind.

Re:A waste of time, really

[Mutatis Mutandis]

Sorry, but "there could be 1000s of other factors as well" is a typically pseudo-scientific statement.

Science works, in a case of this, by collecting the factors that are of interest, putting them in some probable rank of importance, and trying to construct a model that accounts for the most important contributions. If the model then produces a good approximation of reality, it is likely to contain at all the major factors. If it does not work, then something important must have been omitted. Ideally, scientific models are gradually improved to get a better correlation with reality.

Suppose that I would hold a dense, roundish stone at the height of my face, sufficiently distant from my feet and directly in front of me, and drop it. As I am 1.86 m tall, it would fall about 1.60 m, so by the standard simple approximation of the law of gravity s = 1/2 g t^2 it would hit the ground in front of my feet, and after about 0.57 seconds. If it didn't -- well, so much for Newton.

Now, of course there are 1000s of factors I have ignored in that calculation. Arguably, I should include the drag of a spherical object falling through the air, the extra drag caused by surface roughness, the change of g with different height above the surface of the earth, potential energy consumed by the tumbling of the stone, the buoyancy of the stone in the air and the minute difference in air pressure between my feet and my head, local air currents, the effect of the rotation of the earth, the unevenness of the floor, and the inaccuracies of my height estimate, the balance and the stopwatch. Not to mention effects of general gravity and quantum theory, and the possibility of the earth exploding in the half second between me dropping the stone and it hitting the ground, or a black cat running between my feet and catching the stone.

None of that, however, changes the fact that I can actually predict with quite reasonable accuracy that the stone will hit the ground, when, and where. If you could demonstrate the stone actually floats awaits horizontally on the breeze, that would disprove the theory of gravity. But "there are 1000s of other factors as well" does not even come close. It is not a scientifically valid objection.

And actually the "climate skeptics" go a step further than that. When the stone is released, and it hits the ground, they are the people who say: "Yes, but it is not necessary to assume the existence of gravity to explain this. There might be 1000s of other factors that make the stone fall."

And what people who invoke "other factors" often forget is that there are now hundreds, if not thousands, of scientists working in this field, all hungry for new ideas that could bring them personal fulfillment and career advancement. They are scouring the ground like army ants, and they have already considered and evaluated most of the obvious factors and quite a few of the less obvious ones. Current climate models already include a substantial number of factors. But so far no scientific model that does not include the release of CO2 by human activity, can explain observed temperature rises, and the models that do include it, represent the same with decent accuracy. Have a look at the 2007 IPCC report, it is freely downloadable.

As for the possibility of global temperature next year being a little warmer or a little cooler, that is actually neither here nor there, because climate predictions work on a longer time scale than that. It is wrong --- and indeed the error is made on both sides --- to use short-term temperature changes as indications of the long-term trend.

Re:A waste of time, really

[goatpunch]

None of that, however, changes the fact that I can actually predict with quite reasonable accuracy that the stone will hit the ground

Although overly simplistic, your example demonstrates a blind unshakeable belief in a scientific _Law_ (as you call it, but no scientist worthy of the name would). To see where this so-called 'Law' was found to break down around 100 years ago, go read up on Einstein's special theory of relativity. Scientists can be 'wrong', even great Nobel prize-winning scientists. This is a natural part of science. There are no Laws, only Theories. These theories use models that can be refined or refuted at any time in the future.

A better example involving stones and gravity would be The three body problem. Given the three bodies initial positions and trajectories, and even accurate data on their recent movements, shouldn't it be possible to predict where they will be in a few minutes time? Why not create a computer model that "knows _all_ of the factors" and their relative influence- then trumpet the assumed success of our computer model, and spout on about how those who doubt the future positions of the bodies are DENIERS! To do this wouldd be entirely wrong, as this problem is an example of a chaotic system- no matter how accurate our measurements of the initial state we can't predict the result with 100% certainty.

The earth's weather systems are chaotic, and we haven't had much success historically predicting those more than a few days (or sometimes hours) into the future, even with powerful computers, advanced models, and accurate measurements. Global climate predictions are effectively long term global weather forecasts- if they don't work for next week, why believe that they can predict 10 or 30 years into the future?

Yes, humans do have an impact on global weather and climate - our mere existence and respiration has had at least as much influence as that of any other species (e.g. Butterflies, to resurrect that overused example). I'm all for reducing the impact that humans have on this planet in any way possible, but allowing ourselves to be misled by bad science, over-assumptions, and blind belief in computer models is just wrong.

Re:A waste of time, really

[Mutatis Mutandis]

Although overly simplistic, your example demonstrates a blind unshakeable belief in a scientific _Law_ (as you call it, but no scientist worthy of the name would).

Show me where I invoked a belief in scientific "law"? As a scientist by training and by activity, I am very well aware that no known scientific theory is perfect, and not application of it is perfect. My point is that perfection, besides being unachievable, is not required; and that to require perfection is blatantly anti-scientific. Approximation is on of the most basic principles of science.

I am perfectly well aware of the limitations of Newton's law of gravity, thank you very much. Nevertheless no scientist worthy of the name will use Einstein's general theory of relativity to calculate the trajectory of a dropped stone towards the floor, expect perhaps to demonstrate that in that particular case, the results are virtually identical to those predicted by Newton. The reason is that serious scientists are aware of the limitations inherent in theories, their basic assumptions, and the conditions under which they are valid and not, and when it useful to use more complicated models, and when it is not.

Given the three bodies initial positions and trajectories, and even accurate data on their recent movements, shouldn't it be possible to predict where they will be in a few minutes time?

As for rocks that are part of a three-body (or many-body problem), you happen to be living on one --- and people have been able to predict solar and lunar eclipses with decent accuracy, for centuries before computers were invented. Many-body systems can certainly be chaotic, but they do not have to be. And how do you suppose NASA predicts the trajectory of objects and satellites in space?

To do this would be entirely wrong, as this problem is an example of a chaotic system [wikipedia.org]- no matter how accurate our measurements of the initial state we can't predict the result with 100% certainty.

I'm afraid you are rather at sea in chaos theory, a confusing subject indeed to the layman. I don't claim very great insights myself, never having specialized in it. Some important things to grasp: Sets of equations can show chaotic behavior for some combinations of input parameters, and not for others. A good, famous example is the logistic map. Systems can show chaotic behavior and be entirely deterministic at the same time, i.e. if the initial state is fully defined then the trajectory is fully defined. This is why computers are so useful for studying the mathematics of chaos. That a system is chaotic does not mean that one cannot make any statements abouts its future behavior at all, for in the mathematical sense, chaos itself is something that can be analyzed measured.

And crucially, systems can be chaotic and deterministic simultaneously but on different (time) scales; stock exchange rates are a well-known example. Coastlines are another; we all know that the coastline of an island goes entirely around it, but on shorter stretches the shape tends to have the characteristics of a chaotic system. Climate and weather are just another example. Yes, on some scales (of time and place) these exhibit chaotic behavior. But by no means on all. There are some highly predictable structures in climate, such as the effects of solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles.

And who says that we have to be able to predict the result with 100% certainty? It is totally unnecessary for the purpose at hand, to be able to accurately predict the temperature in Worland, WY, at 1:46 PM on 26 June 2027. An approximate value for the average day temperature in June on the North American continent between 2025 and 2030 will do. I repeat: To require perfection is blatantly anti-scientific.

Re:A waste of time, really

[goatpunch]

Show me where I invoked a belief in scientific "law"?

You call it the "law of gravity".

As for rocks that are part of a three-body (or many-body problem), you happen to be living on one --- and people have been able to predict solar and lunar eclipses with decent accuracy, for centuries before computers were invented. Many-body systems can certainly be chaotic, but they do not have to be. And how do you suppose NASA predicts the trajectory of objects and satellites in space?

With a satellite orbiting the earth, the mass of the satellite is negligable and therefore doesn't enter into the equation - the earth and sun experience no significant gravitational pull from the satellite. The n-body system of our solar system is indeed chaotic, it's just that the gravitational forces exerted by most of the bodies on each other are very small when compared to the massive gravitational pull of the sun (and the planet nearest them, for moons), and on the relatively small timescales (astronomically speaking) involved it's possible to predict with useful accuracy the positions of the planets, moons, etc. A good quote from the Wikipedia link I gave before: "A major study of the Earth-Moon-Sun system was undertaken by Charles Delaunay, who published two volumes on the topic, each of 900 pages in length, in 1860 and 1867. Among many other accomplishments, the work already hints at chaos, and clearly demonstrates the problem of so-called "small denominators" in perturbation theory."

I don't claim very great insights myself, never having specialized in it. Some important things to grasp: Sets of equations can show chaotic behavior for some combinations of input parameters, and not for others.

I tried to talk in general terms, rather than getting into specifics like that. One obvious example of this is the three body problem with a pendulum and two magnets- start the pendulum close enough to one magnet, and it predictably settles on that magnet, but in other regions it is completely unpredictable. The deterministic and chaotic areas can be seen in this image: http://www.ituniv.se/~joli/img/pendulum.gif

And crucially, systems can be chaotic and deterministic simultaneously but on different (time) scales; stock exchange rates are a well-known example. Coastlines are another; we all know that the coastline of an island goes entirely around it, but on shorter stretches the shape tends to have the characteristics of a chaotic system.

On what time scale are stock exchange rates deterministic? Your 'coastlines' example doesn't make much sense - have you confused the example self-similarity of a coastline with it being "a chaotic system"? I don't think anyone would say that the coastline of an island is deterministic because it "goes entirely around it" - the going "entirely around it" is part of the definition of an island.

Yes, on some scales (of time and place) these exhibit chaotic behavior. But by no means on all.

Again, on what timescale does the earth's climate appear to be deterministic? You can go back hundreds of millions of years and it still fluctuates wildly.

There are some highly predictable structures in climate, such as the effects of solar cycles and Milankovitch cycles.

I don't think even Milankovitch would say that the effects of these cycles are highly predictable- certainly the eccentricity, precession, etc. of the Earth is predictable, but these cycles don't completely match the data. Part of the argument for anthropogenic global warming is the feedback loop where temperature increases cause an increase in the C02 produced by organisms, which cause temperature to increase. If that doesn't sound like an unpredictable non-linear system I don't know what does.

Re:A waste of time, really

[Mutatis Mutandis]

You call it the "law of gravity".

Actually I used the words "standard simple approximation of the law of gravity", which to my mind suggest a great deal of simplification. Nevertheless, well spotted -- I had not seen it.

It's just that the gravitational forces exerted by most of the bodies on each other are very small when compared to the massive gravitational pull of the sun (and the planet nearest them, for moons)

For most moons that is true, but for ours that is not so evident, because it is disproportionally large. The common center of gravity is 3/4 out along the radius of the earth, making the moon a significant influence on the motion of the planet.

On what time scale are stock exchange rates deterministic?

Years, if economists are to be believed. This is the point of stock investments: To reliably make money, you have to do it on a sufficiently large scale; allow enough time, and spend your investments sufficiently widely. On a large scale, trends are reasonably predictable and upward. On a small scale, prices are chaotic.

Your 'coastlines' example doesn't make much sense - have you confused the example self-similarity of a coastline with it being "a chaotic system"? I don't think anyone would say that the coastline of an island is deterministic because it "goes entirely around it" - the going "entirely around it" is part of the definition of an island.

Suppose you would walk along the coast of Ireland, and at every step you would measure how far you put your foot out of line from straight ahead, to the left (-) or right (+). You would get an 'instantaneous rate of turn' function a(x), where x is of course the distance you walk. On a rugged coast, this function will fluctuate randomly, and intuitively I expect it to be chaotic, although I can't offer rigid mathematical proof of that. Certainly it resists a linear mathematical approximation "a(x+e) = e da/dx".

However, if you walk a distance sufficient to go entirely around the island, say L, then you return to the same point, and face the same direction. So not only a(0) = A(L), but if S(p) is the integral of a(x) from 0 to p, S(L) = 0. You net change of direction is 0.

We can extend this principle. Say that b(x,r) is the average of a(x) from x-r to x+r. For a range of values of r, which probably correlates with the scaling range over which the coastline has fractal properties, b(x,r) will be chaotic. But if r is large enough, that chaotic nature disappears. Walking clockwise around the coast, your overall direction will change in a predictable way -- that is, the general trend is to the right. (Arguably, your most optimal choice of walking clockwise or counter-clockwise depends on which of your legs is the longest.)

Certainly not me, however with a chaotic system the results such as a weather system, or some starting conditions of the three body problem, the results can be completely the opposite of the prediction, not just a 'general trend'.

You are overlooking the statistics of a wide area and time scale. The instantaneous state of a chaotic system is unpredictable, but the average state is not. Summer is generally warmer than winter.

Sans DEBUNKED ???????

[Anonymous Coward]

I read the main body of the article, and thought Wow, I have to read this. So I proceeded with some of the select debunking links below the article. I looked at 12 of the 26 "Myths", and the writer didn't succeed in debunking a one. He said he did, but provided little or no proof, it was all %100 Verbage.
I was very disappointed. :(
SK

Meteors, Meteors, I tell ya!

[Anonymous Coward]

The critical problem is meteors. We're looking ahead three millenia. To say that human populations are growing in one area now is irrelevant. The increase in the population is not a meteor related issue, it's the result of people having lots of kids. I don't think there is any question humans are threatened by meteors, and I plan do do everything I can about it to protect this endanged group (with your funding).

I am scared of global warming fanatics

[X.25]

Seriously, I live in a place where civil war was raging for 10 years, place that was constantly bombed for 3 months, place where many idiots and extremists can be found easily.

However, global warming fanatics scare the hell out of me.

There is no CONCLUSIVE evidence for either side. However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.

Go get laid.

Re:I am scared of global warming fanatics

[Mab_Mass]

However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.

FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but

perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand it.

Re:I am scared of global warming fanatics

[Mab_Mass]

(Please ignore previous post - accidental hit of submit instead of preview)

However, if I have to choose between siding with scientists from MIT or Oxford - or "scientists" that got project grants or paid jobs because they mentioned "Global Warming" in their project name - guess what I'll choose... This whole silly thing reminds me of Y2K panic.

FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand it.

Re:I am scared of global warming fanatics

[X.25]

FYI, your heroes at MIT/ Oxford seem to agree with global warming and are trying to educate you, but perhaps the real problem is that you don't understand it.

Did you even bother READING what you posted?

Ffs, another fanatic...

Re:I am scared of global warming fanatics

[cching]

So we should just all sit on the fence because we can't definitively agree that we are the primary cause of global warming. I honestly couldn't care less if we're the primary cause or not, if we can do *anything* to help, I'm all for it.

Meanwhile, while we all sit on the fence, our world is dying around us.

Re:I am scared of global warming fanatics

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget who holds the purse strings to science: Research councils - funded by governments. It's the point where scientists and the real world meet in stark contrast, and scientists are forced to play the game. And that goes for all scientists, even at the best institutions on the world. Don't blame the scientists for having to work within a flawed funding process where they have to appeal to a government's sense of grandieur.

Re:I am scared of global warming fanatics

[Mab_Mass]

Did you even bother READING what you posted?

Um... yes. Did you even bother THINKING about what you've read?

Fact: there is no conclusive proof of global warming, but there is vast evidence and general scientific consensus that it is exists.

My question to you is what are the risks of accepting global warming and trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, seek alternative energy sources, etc? Economic collapse? Hardly seems likely - possible recessions, etc. sure, but nothing catastrophic.

On the other hand, if global warming is happening and sea levels are rising and climates are changing (thereby reducing the ability of various regions to grow enough food), what is the risk? Massive starvations and large numbers of displaced people (from low-lying coastal regions)could very easily happen on large scales, which is a great recipe for war (and huge economic collapses - much worse than the burden of regulation).

So, which is the more rational and more fanatical? Changes made based upon a perceived risk to try to avoid catastrophe or plugging the ears and dismissing other's claims?

Oh, and by the way, your analogy to the Y2K panic is exactly my point - one of the reasons nothing happened was that people took the possibility of trouble seriously and worked hard to prevent it.

Computer Models

[rlp]

From TFA: Finally, the claim is sometimes made that if computer models were any good, people would be using them to predict the stock market. Well, they are!

A lot of trading in the financial markets is already carried out by computers. Many base their decisions on fairly simple algorithms designed to exploit tiny profit margins, but others rely on more sophisticated long-term models.

Major financial institutions are investing huge amounts in automated trading systems, the proportion of trading carried out by computers is growing rapidly and some individuals have made a fortune from them. The smart money is being bet on computer models.

There's a huge distinction between using software to handle stock trades and using software to model the stock market. The author blurs this distinction.

A very large hedge fund tried modeling the market in the 90's. Hired a bunch of analysts and some Nobel prize winning economists to create the models. Bottom line - the fund went belly up. Almost took the rest of the market with it. (See Cramer's "Confessions of A Street Addict" for details. Note: it was not Cramer's fund). The stock market is too large, complex, and chaotic a system to accurately forecast.

Re:Computer Models

[Logic and Reason]

The stock market is too large, complex, and chaotic a system to accurately forecast.

It's worse than that: even if an accurate model could be constructed, the moment it got out in the wild, it would become useless due to speculation based on its own predictions.

Re:Computer Models

[misanthrope101]

Plus, the stock market is essentially dependent on people's impulses. There is no inherent trend in the numbers, because there is no inherent value in the stock--it's all about the "bigger sucker" that may buy for a higher price than you did. Computer models for scientific data, whether it be global warming or background radiation, are working with data that has some consistency, even if that consistency is randomness.

How about some actual data?

[TheNarrator]

What is sorely lacking from the global warming debate is actual complete numeric data specifically how much an increase in CO2 will affect the global temperature. I looked at the ICCC report and there are basically a whole bunch of wild assed guesses as to how much it will affect temperature based on simulated models of the climate. The values range all over the place. We're talking increasing the CO2 concentrations by a few hundredths of a percentage point as a percentage of the mass of the atmosphere over the next century.

I saw references to the simulations but could not find the methodology as to how they were conducted. If they were based on the Vostok ice cores they are suspect because it's fairly obvious that the CO2 concentrations began rising after the temperature started increasing and then suddenly dropped steeply a few centuries later directly in line with temperature so it's not clear a. what was causing the change in CO2 concentrations in earlier eras and what what the correlation/causation relationship was in the temperature in earlier eras.

I would love to talk with someone about actual data and methodologies used to come to conclusions and not the ad hominem attacks that have dominated the debate for so long. When I start to bring this kind of stuff up I am met with silence or 1-liner put-downs.

Re:How about some actual data?

[Ambitwistor]

What is sorely lacking from the global warming debate is actual complete numeric data specifically how much an increase in CO2 will affect the global temperature. I looked at the ICCC report and there are basically a whole bunch of wild assed guesses as to how much it will affect temperature based on simulated models of the climate. The values range all over the place. Just because the values are not certain, or are based on climate models, does not mean they are "wild assed guesses".

The warming of CO2 is actually relatively well established; what is uncertain is how much it is amplified by feedbacks.

We're talking increasing the CO2 concentrations by a few hundredths of a percentage point as a percentage of the mass of the atmosphere over the next century. What matters is the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations, as weighted by each gas's warming potential, not the total amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is a major greenhouse gas (although not the strongest), and it may more than double over the next century.

I saw references to the simulations but could not find the methodology as to how they were conducted. The full Working Group I report (not just the Summary for Policymakers) has references to the literature.

If they were based on the Vostok ice cores they are suspect They're based on both instrumental and ice core data, among other sources. The ice core data is not the long-term Vostok data for ice ages you're referring to, but just over the last few centuries.

I would love to talk with someone about actual data and methodologies used to come to conclusions Ok, what do you want to know?

Re:How about some actual data?

[TheNarrator]

Just because the values are not certain, or are based on climate models, does not mean they are "wild assed guesses".

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/un/syreng/spm.pdf

"Page 19 - There is a wide band of uncertainty as to the amount of uncertainty in the warming that would result from any stabilized greenhouse gase concentration"

The footnote says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That to me means wild ass guess. Models and data please!!

The warming of CO2 is actually relatively well established; what is uncertain is how much it is amplified by feedbacks.

What do you expect me to take this on faith? I wish someone would give me mathematical models backed up by historical data instead of "fairly well established".

The full Working Group I report (not just the Summary for Policymakers) has references to the literature.

I found it right over here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/IPCCTP.II(E).pdf

Well let's see looked through it and it basically says that the temperature and the CO2 are rising over the last 300 years. Might as well be the decline in Pirates.

They're based on both instrumental and ice core data, among other sources. The ice core data is not the long-term Vostok data for ice ages you're referring to, but just over the last few centuries.

Well why not use the Vostok data? Oh I forgot it shows sharp and dramatic falls and increases in both CO2 and temperature (with CO2 slightly trailing temperature) which happen for no apparent reason. What if the temperature rising is causing increases in CO2? CO2 becoming less soluble in the oceans, less vegetation as deserts grow, etc.

Ok, what do you want to know?

Alright:
1. What explains the fall of CO2 and temperature simultaneously in the ice core data (with temperature leading slightly)?
2. If you notice at the end of the ice core data there is a very sharp rise in CO2 (Humans show up) but the temperature levels off.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Pla nning/New_Data/IceCores1.gif

For me the ice core data is pretty convincing evidence that CO2 increases are not responsible for global warming. Again CO2 is increasing, temperature is increasing. CO2, at the amount present in the atmosphere is not contributing significantly to warming. If it was, temperature would follow CO2 in the ice cores not the other way around. The drops in temperature and CO2 following are also strange in the ice cores. That's real data.. 1000s of years not just the last 300.

Re:How about some actual data?

[Ambitwistor]

The footnote says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That to me means wild ass guess.

There is a huge difference between "a scientific prediction with large uncertainty" and "a wild ass guess". A wild-assed guess is something that pulled out of thin air, with little study, no data or theory behind it. It's something that you wouldn't be surprised if the true outcome was far different from the "guess".

The IPCC prediction of [1.5, 4.5] degrees is quite different, since it is based on extensive study of many sources of data and of the detailed climate physics involved. It is unlikely that the true temperature will fall outside that range, and some of that uncertainty is not in what the climate will do, but in what we will do regarding our emissions.

Models and data please!!

Geeze, read the damn report. To start, read the actual Working Group I scientific report, not the summary for policymakers. And try reading the most recent one, not the summary from six years ago. In other words, go here.

What do you expect me to take this on faith?

No, I expect you to go read some science. Sheesh.

I wish someone would give me mathematical models backed up by historical data instead of "fairly well established".

I already cited the IPCC report, which has links into pretty much all of the literature. If you want to go look up individual studies, knock yourself out. Just don't whine that everybody is hiding things from you. And tone down the paranoia. Do you actually think that the statements made by the IPCC are not based on mathematical models backed up by historical data?

Well let's see looked through it and it basically says that the temperature and the CO2 are rising over the last 300 years. Might as well be the decline in Pirates.

Ok, first, you're looking at a supplement to the IPCC report from 12 years ago, not the current report. And second, that's crap. It says far more than "temperature and CO2 are rising". If you read the full IPCC report, you will see numerous lines of evidence, which include but are not limited to:

1. Temperatures are rising.
2. CO2 levels are rising, within timing, rate, and magnitude comparable to what is needed to explain the temperature rise.
3. Other natural sources are NOT rising, or are rising by rates that disagree in timing, rate, or magnitude with the temperature rise.
4. Points 2 and 3 are backed up by detailed studies of climate physics and data sources which (a) determine the trends in the different possible causes of climate change and (b) determine the magnitude of temperature change which can be produced by each cause.

There is far more than a mere correlational link between temperature and CO2; there is a causal link by known physics, as well as a lack of causal link for other sources of warming (and in most cases, a lack of correlation as well).

Well why not use the Vostok data?

Because you can't run global circulation models for hundreds of thousands of years (the length of ice age cycles); it takes a supercomputer to run them for hundreds of years. And even if you tried to run them for just during a glaciation, the main problem is that we don't know enough about the inputs to do that: we can put in CO2 levels, and a fair guess at solar levels as extrapolated from orbital dynamics, but there are many other contributors to climate. So you can't use the ice age cycle to constrain very well unknown parameters like the climate sensitivity to CO2 increases. Modern data tells you much more.

Oh I forgot it shows sharp and dramatic falls and increases in both CO2 and temperature (with CO2 slightly trailing temperature) which happen for no apparent reason.

Yeah dude, scientists don't know anything about the ice age cycle, but they know that it disproves global warming, so they're keeping it all hush-hush.

Re:How about some actual data?

[Ambitwistor]

Now with extra previewing action:

The footnote says 1.5 to 4.5 degrees Celsius. That to me means wild ass guess.

There is a huge difference between "a scientific prediction with large uncertainty" and "a wild ass guess". A wild-assed guess is something that pulled out of thin air, with little study, no data or theory behind it. It's something that you wouldn't be surprised if the true outcome was far different from the "guess".

The IPCC prediction of [1.5, 4.5] degrees is quite different, since it is based on extensive study of many sources of data and of the detailed climate physics involved. It is unlikely that the true temperature will fall outside that range, and some of that uncertainty is not in what the climate will do, but in what we will do regarding our emissions.

Models and data please!!

Geeze, read the damn report. To start, read the actual Working Group I scientific report, not the summary for policymakers. And try reading the most recent one, not the summary from six years ago. In other words, go here.

What do you expect me to take this on faith?

No, I expect you to go read some science. Sheesh.

I wish someone would give me mathematical models backed up by historical data instead of "fairly well established".

I already cited the IPCC report, which has links into pretty much all of the literature. If you want to go look up individual studies, knock yourself out. Just don't whine that everybody is hiding things from you. And tone down the paranoia. Do you actually think that the statements made by the IPCC are not based on mathematical models backed up by historical data?

Well let's see looked through it and it basically says that the temperature and the CO2 are rising over the last 300 years. Might as well be the decline in Pirates.

Ok, first, you're looking at a supplement to the IPCC report from 12 years ago, not the current report. And second, that's crap. It says far more than "temperature and CO2 are rising". If you read the full IPCC report, you will see numerous lines of evidence, which include but are not limited to:

1. Temperatures are rising.
2. CO2 levels are rising, within timing, rate, and magnitude comparable to what is needed to explain the temperature rise.
3. Other natural sources are NOT rising, or are rising by rates that disagree in timing, rate, or magnitude with the temperature rise.
4. Points 2 and 3 are backed up by detailed studies of climate physics and data sources which (a) determine the trends in the different possible causes of climate change and (b) determine the magnitude of temperature change which can be produced by each cause.

There is far more than a mere correlational link between temperature and CO2; there is a causal link by known physics, as well as a lack of causal link for other sources of warming (and in most cases, a lack of correlation as well).

Well why not use the Vostok data?

Because you can't run global circulation models for hundreds of thousands of years (the length of ice age cycles); it takes a supercomputer to run them for hundreds of years. And even if you tried to run them for just during a glaciation, the main problem is that we don't know enough about the inputs to do that: we can put in CO2 levels, and a fair guess at solar levels as extrapolated from orbital dynamics, but there are many other contributors to climate. So you can't use the ice age cycle to constrain very well unknown parameters like the climate sensitivity to CO2 increases. Modern data tells you much more.

Oh I forgot it shows sharp and dramatic falls and increases in both CO2 and temperature (with CO2 slightly trailing temperature) which happen for no apparent reason.

Yeah dude, scientists don't know anything about the ice age cycle, but they know that it disproves global warming, so they'

Re:How about some actual data?

[Ambitwistor]

By the way, you appear to be repeating Myths #19 and #20 from TFA.

Galileo speculated the Earth was round?

[benhocking]

Are you suggesting that Galileo was bucking the scientific trend when he "speculated" the Earth was round? Please tell me you're not suggesting that.

Galileo's "converts" were nothing compared to the number of scientists who DO buy the flat earth argument.

Wow, you said it twice. Please, please tell me you weren't being serious. Please?

Here's a hint: Galileo was born in 1564. You know that kitschy poem about 1492? Furthermore, the myth that Columbus disproved the Earth being flat is also a myth.

Perhaps you're thinking about the Sun going around the Earth instead of vice-versa?

Re:Galileo speculated the Earth was round?

[wolfemi1]

And furthermore, the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round and in fact made an estimate of its size over 2000 years ago. It was not new stuff.

Re:Galileo speculated the Earth was round?

[trewornan]

Columbus was an idiot. He only dicovered America because it was where he thought Japan would be. He was told repeatedly that he was using a faulty calculation of the Earth's size and that a voyage to Japan was impossible for a ship of that era (it was) but struck lucky. He was not a great explorer - he was a buffoon with a vicious streak.

Please also remember

[The_REAL_DZA]

That there are a few things we couldn't do even if the continued existence of mankind hung in the balance:

• Cool the Earth ten degrees on purpose
• Freeze the polar icecaps on purpose
• Drain the ocean (any ocean) on purpose
• Flood the desert (any desert) on purpose

...yet we're asked to believe that we're about to do the exact opposite of all these things accidentally.
 
Of course, on the other hand, I can't do a triple-backflip on purpose and yet somehow I find myself accidentally sitting still here in my chair... So I guess they're right after all.

Nonsense

[cdrguru]

We know today how to stop increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the situation was really as dire as articles like this seem to pretend it is, and if the outcomes were known to the level they would like us to believe, there would be no reason not to turn the switch off.

Yes, it is as easy as that. If the survival of the species was clearly threatened - as these folks would like to say - the justification would be there.

Now don't get me wrong, turning off the switch is not a trivial matter. But it is something that could be done in hours, not decades as people seem to be thinking. There would certainly be repercussions throughout the world, but humanity would go on.

Listen to these fools too much and you might think otherwise.

What is this magical switch that we could turn off? Simple:

1. Cease all passenger air travel. If you have to get somewhere, go by boat, rail or bus. Period.
2. Cease sales of gasoline to the public. It is available for public utilities and services, delivery trucks and certain other authorized uses.

This could be done in a day or less in the US. Some folks - a small number - would starve. Some people would be out of work. Tough, but there is welfare. A lot of businesses would collapse, putting more people out of work. Again, tough.

Why isn't anyone thinking about this or doing it? Simple - the problem is nowhere as clear-cut as the folks behind this article would like to believe. Yes, we could turn off the switch and people everywhere would just have to bear it if the problem was as severe as it is made out to be. Please omit the responses about how George W. Bush wouldn't allow this. Fine, it would have been done already in EU, Japan or elsewhere. The US might try to pretend for a while, but it would be clear they were standing in the way of a threat to the human race. So why hasn't anyone done this?

Because the problem isn't as clear cut with no obvious answers or solutions. Would drastic measures like this "solve" the climate change problem? Nobody knows, and the risks of turning the switch off are high enough that nobody is going to do this without being as certain as the article pretends people are. That level of certainity doesn't exist. And spreading the idea that it is that certain and that nobody is doing anything about it is a real disservice to everyone.

Should we find ways to reduce CO2 levels in the atmosphere? Probably. How should this be done over the next 10 years? Well, ethanol in the US isn't a solution. Neither is some false "trading" of imaginary carbon credits. Preparing to replace some coal-fired power plants with nuclear would be a good start. Putting real efforts into a strategy for electric vehicles in the US would be another good start, probably without a lot of environmental nonsense about where the batteries go, which is pretty much what killed off the EV1 and prevents the use of lead-acid batteries for such cars.

Should we be pressuring other countries into not going down the coal and oil road for their economic development? Absolutely. If they build an infrastructure dedicated to using fossil fuels it is going to be very difficult to convince them in 10, 20 or even 50 years to tear the whole thing down and start over. Notice that this is not being done, discussed or even considered today.

If you believe the article, you are a fool that believes every government on the planet is thinking only of their leaders stature and power rather to the detriment of the human race. Not a pretty picture to believe such a thing. The good news is that it is provably wrong. Pity that a goodly part of the human race is utterly convinced that another significant fraction of the human race is just evil, bent on destruction of the entire species.

Re:Nonsense

[VinB]

"This could be done in a day or less in the US. Some folks - a small number - would starve. Some people would be out of work. Tough, but there is welfare. A lot of businesses would collapse, putting more people out of work. Again, tough."


I'm glad you got that out early in your dissertation. That way I didn't have to read any more to come to the conclusion that you are a complete and utter moron. I especially liked the part about 'there is welfare'. Idiot.

Re:Nonsense

[Anonymous Coward]

This could be done in a day or less in the US....

Uh huh...a civil war in the US taking a day?

Re:Vote with your money

[Ceriel Nosforit]

If it isn't possibly, consider if you really need that thing enough to kill babies for it.

Oh, ouch. That hurt, and I feel entitled to using bandwidth to explain myself because of it. - The "kill babies" thing was supposed to be a funny take on saving the Earth for the sake of our children, since they are the most likely to die cause of our poor choices. I should probably have appended a smiley to make my intention clear, but apparently I did cross someone's line. I apologize.

Eye of the beholder

[Tribbin]

If you are looking for climate change; you will find it. If you are looking for the contrary; you will find it.

Quote from the movie PI:

Hold on. You have to slow down. You're losing it. You have to take a breath. Listen to yourself. You're connecting a computer bug I had with a computer bug you might have had and some religious hogwash. You want to find the number 216 in the world, you will be able to find it everywhere. 216 steps from a mere street corner to your front door. 216 seconds you spend riding on the elevator. When your mind becomes obsessed with anything, you will filter everything else out and find that thing everywhere.

Re:Vote with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

Good one. It's funny to listen to a hundred scientists argue about this issue with so much more certainty and passion than scientists like me have. I'm not going to touch the issue, other than to lament the way that it has become politicized to the extent that random people buy ridiculous individual arguments and defend a position that has no scientific support.

What I really wanted to point out, though, was that "organic" products are actually a major problem to the "let's emit less CO2 and remove more" strategy. "Organic" crops take up more that twice as much land area per unit output, which has led to huge sections of rainforest cleared out to allow for more land-hungry organic food production. Organic food was never meant to be a pro-environmental movement. When the labeling was first conceived, the idea was to imply that the food was healthier because it contained bugs instead of poisons. The idea that pesticides would then be less prevalent in water supplies became tied to it, with good reason. But then from that pro-environmental argument, people got the idea that organic food must be good for the environment in every way. It's certainly not. Organic food is an important cause of deforestation in Central America, both directly (organic food grown there) and indirectly (increased organic production in the United States means lower overall agricultural output, which then increases the demand for agriculture in Central America). Organic food in some cases may be better for your health. In some ways, it's better for the environment. However, it's a big problem for the environment in other ways, so you'll have to make an educated choice.

Okay, one more thing. "Does 1 person make a real difference? Hell no" is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted on /.

Re:Vote with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing babies is enviromentally friendly. Kill them before they start to stress the environment and waste resources.

A non-pointless method or What Can I Do?

[WillAffleckUW]

Instead of listing 26 reasons that global warming is real and caused by humans, wouldn't we all be better served by a list of 26 things that a single person can do to improve our quality of life and the health of the environment (that just so happen to also reduce global warming) that aren't prohibitively expensive or that demand levels of sacrifice that we all know Joe Blow won't make?

Exactly. In fact, if you read the article, you would have noticed a few that specifically are What Can I Do issues.

Let's break it down:

First, Primary, Big Impact: your cars, SUVs, trucks. This accounts for probably 50 percent of your lifestyle choices that impact global warming (or cataclysmic global climate change, since it oscillates like crazy when pushed).

What can you do?

A. Easy - take your vehicle(s) in for regular tuneups. Keep the tires PROPERLY inflated. Amazingly, this can affect 10 percent of your impact from vehicles.

B. Moderate - next vehicle(s) you buy, new or used, just get one that gets 5 mpg BETTER than your last.

C. Real Change - increase transit use, walking, and bicycling instead of car/SUV/truck use. Switch from a low mpg class like an SUV that you use for in-city driving to a passenger car with twice the mpg. Carpool. Move closer to where you work. Have fewer cars in your family (for example, drop the kids off en route and make them take the bus home).

Second. Flying. If you visit Europe, consider only flying to the first destination, and using their high-speed passenger rail system (same time as a jet) to travel from one city to the next, and then using local transit once you arrive. This will save you money, and sometimes time. If travelling to Germany, but wanting to see London, consider flying to London and then taking the train the rest of the way, stopping along the way to see other spots. Or use one of the new Boeing low-fuel plane models on a flight leg if you can (they use 50 percent as much jet fuel, a MAJOR impact on global warming, and it cost YOU the SAME or less to fly on it).

Third. Lightbulbs. Seriously. Just consider replacing lights as they burn out with high-quality inexpensive 4 or 6 packs of Compact Flourescent Lights (CFL) at Home Depot - usually I can get 4 for about $6 or 6 for $9. Worth a trip. This will SAVE YOU MONEY. Each lasts five to seven years, they use 1/8 as much energy. Or consider the slightly expensive LED lights - they use 1/20th the energy - new ones are WHITE light. These should be as cheap as CFLs by 2008, and will be required in most US states and all of Canada, so it's not like you have a choice anyway.

Re:A non-pointless method or What Can I Do?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do flourescent lamps smell like wheat ?

Re:A non-pointless method or What Can I Do?

[WillAffleckUW]

Pardon me for being educated in British Columbia (BC) since the age of 11. I used the common English language spelling of the word flourescent, not the American dialect variant of florescent.

News flash, not everyone speaks your dialect.

Totally lame article

[Overly Critical Guy]

A lot of these "debunkings" aren't even that. For instance, the one trying to debunk the rising temperature of Mars just says the "evidence is sketchy." Well, yeah, the evidence for global warming here on Earth is sketchy too, which is why politicians use terms like "following the fingerprints" in describing the correlative, indirect conclusion that the rise of industry has risen the temperature. In fact, April's temperatures were cooler than average according to a report released today, and 2006 was the least active hurricane season in decades despite dire predictions to the contrary. Climate is unpredictable, folks. The rest of that particular debunking is just some sketchy explanations without any proof, like "it could be regional cooling."

Another one claiming to debunk that we predicted global cooling in the 1970s doesn't actually debunk it at all. In fact, it admits that many scientific papers indeed predicted it. Then it goes on to explain why they were wrong. How does that debunk it? If anything, it bolsters the argument ("If they were wrong then..."). The best part is the way it ends, by claiming THIS time they're right because TODAY's scientists say different. Why are they different from the scientists of the 1970s?

Look, whenever there's a claim of a consensus in science, run for the hills, because that is never true in science. There are plenty of top scientists who don't believe in the current Hysteria-O'-The-Year that's driving the current news cycle for ratings. When in doubt, follow the money, because there is money to be made in ineffective carbon credits, dangerous mercury light bulbs, and higher taxes. The current hysteria will be mocked in the same way "new Ice Age" fears of the 1970s are now mocked.

In 15 years, absolutely nothing will have happened, and we will be completely fine, and the media (which is a business) will have its journalists (employees) reporting on whatever news cycle is driving revenues that year. In 2007, global warming is driving revenues. When it stops driving revenues, it will disappear from the front pages.

Re:Totally lame article

[AaronW]

At the time there was a measured cooling trend from the 1940s through the 70s, caused by a lot of aerosols in the atmosphere which has a cooling effect. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling. Much of the hype about global cooling came from a few scientific papers and much was taken out of context or significantly overblown. It not an excuse for our understanding today to say that "They were wrong in the 1970s so therefore they must be wrong today!" The same could be said of people who once believed that the Earth was at the center of the solar system. They believed it then so therefore our knowledge today must be wrong. Science is an ongoing study, where views change as our understanding grows. At this point, there is significant evidence supporting global warming, or more accurately, global climate change. Also, most of the evidence points to human activity causing most of this change. The confidence level of this is extremely high among climatologists. There is a slight possibility they are wrong, but should we risk our future on a slight probability, or act on a very strong probability. If 98% of the experts say one thing with only a few fringe saying something else and with a shrinking fringe, I would go with the 98%. If they're wrong on global warming (unlikely) and we make a bunch of changes, it still helps in the long run by cutting our dependence on fossil fuels, which are a limited resource. No new significant oil fields have been found for many years (the artic wildlife refuge and the new one off of Cuba are not all that significant), and many have or are drying up. By moving away from fossil fuels and becoming more efficient, it saves a lot of money in the long run for everybody, the exception being the shorter term profits of the petroleum industry and car manufacturers. Many businesses have taken the initiative to improve their efficiency and reduce their CO2 output, often with a net financial gain in the process. Dow Chemical and BP are two examples of this. Climate is extremely complex, and I doubt there will ever be a 100% understanding of it (our current computers are not nearly powerful enough to fully simulate it and likely won't be for many years if not decades). They can make a pretty good approximation today, and some parts, like the effects of CO2, are well understood since they can be studied experimentally in the lab. The effect of CO2 with retaining infrared radiation is also well understood and there is very little disagreement there. The sources of CO2 are also fairly well understood. We know how much fuel humans are burning which will correspond directly with CO2 output, which also happens to closely match the measured CO2 increase in the atmosphere. The climate models continue to improve, the general trend isn't changing, only the accuracy, though the accuracy today is more than ample to see that we have a major problem. If the oceans warm enough to start releasing the vast amounts of methane hydrates on the floor then we are in real trouble, since methane is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2.

Re:Totally lame article

[Frostalicious]

In 15 years, absolutely nothing will have happened, and we will be completely fine, and the media (which is a business) will have its journalists (employees) reporting on whatever news cycle is driving revenues that year.

I dunno, I don't think the news media is faking all those photos of dissapearing glaciers and ice shelves. That seems pretty conclusive that something is happening. How do you explain that?

Re:Totally lame article

[that this is not und]

The question is, how do we want to explain it? What is at stake? And whose political agenda is helped by which explanations?

The loudest voices on both sides are suspect.

Re:Totally lame article

[Ragingguppy]

Listen I'm all for sticking it to the oil companies. And the more fuel options we have the better off we will be. However, I've heard some ludicrous ideas, like creating satellites to block out the sun, dropping thousands of tones of iron into the south pacific and of course my favorite carbon credits. Give me a break. Given the gas prices today alternative fuels are coming guaranteed. But I don't like the idea of artificial solutions to the problem. I think that the solution to global warming should be habitat reconstruction and making the planet better for all life to live. Not crazy schemes that do nothing but hurt the most underprivileged of our world.

BTW, the increase in CO2 doesn't correspond entirely to the CO2 increase. There are other sources of CO2 besides humans. The biggest contributor to CO2 comes from the ocean. When you heat water it releases the dissolved gas that are in the water. Its called Henry's Law and its a proven scientific principle. And Volcano's also produce allot more CO2 then humans. Rotting Vegetation produces allot of CO2 as well. All in all the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere accounts for less then 5% of all greenhouse gases. And the amount created by humans is around 1% - 2% The number one greenhouse gas is Water vapor at a whopping 95%. So if your going to claim that greenhouse gases are to blame then which one do you think is going to be the number one cause of global warming? Are you going to blame the small number or the big one? Also in terms of greenhouse gases water vapor has a greater impact in trapping heat then CO2. CO2 is measured in the atmosphere in parts per million. Current amount of CO2 is about 380 parts per million. So how can we say its CO2 causing this? There has to be other factors.

Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[emil]

I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.

We find that CO2 emissions resulting from super-plume tectonics could have produced atmospheric CO2 levels from 3.7 to 14.7 times the modern pre-industrial value of 285 ppm.

This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:

RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of Minnesota
JC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer

We are talking about carbon dioxide levels 6 to 10 times the present carbon dioxide level. When you have high amounts of carbon dioxide in an atmosphere up to a certain limit, which is considerably higher than it is now, the result is green plants grow very much better... And it is precisely at this time that the recovery from the first dinosaur extinction takes place. When the super plumes come and carbon dioxide increases, and the oxygen correspondingly increases as a result of photosynthesis... And yet the super plumes did not last forever and they started to die at the end of Cretaceous.... In any event, large dinosaurs really required to be living in an oxygen tent. An atmosphere in the neighborhood of 35 percent oxygen would be considerably more compatible with large dinosaurs than one in the neighborhood of 28. And so this suggested to me that this was perhaps a significant reason for the first dinosaur extinction, and probably one of the major factors in the second, the terminal dinosaur extinction, other than the birds. It also neatly tied together all of the really bizarre features about the Cretaceous... The Cretaceous is clearly a green house period as opposed to the present ice house that we have... Well, the rich carbon dioxide of course provides for a much greater biogenic diversity.

There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community (it is unlikely that "big oil" funds have "bribed" so many faculty members of such prestigious universities, despite a smear campaign). Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist? It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.

Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming... If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[drinkypoo]

There is a great rejection of the global warming panic in the scientific community

They are rejecting the panic, not the concept of human-related global warming. Their letter does not say that it does not exist, but that it is not proven.

Because of the tremendous expense of implementing Kyoto, should we pause in global warming remediation efforts that may border on the alarmist?

Kyoto is crap. It permits developing nations to form bad habits by polluting now. No one should be permitted to increase their emissions now, regardless of their technological base. Through the use of modern technology, even with ancient materials it is possible to dramatically reduce emissions.

The fact that we are for the most part not doing this even in the world's wealthiest nations indicates that cost is not the problem in any case.

It is not in any way difficult to find distinguished scientists who reject all calls for panic.

I don't want panic, I want action. We know that there are numerous drawbacks to releasing the various substances which have been implicated in global warming, so even if they weren't causing it (and I believe that they are) there would be ample reason to stop! How many reasons will it take before we stop shitting where we eat?

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[Adambomb]

No one should be permitted to increase their emissions now, regardless of their technological base. That seems to be a pretty tricky concept. So because current developed nations were able to accelerate their development by polluting like mad FIRST they, and only they, reap the benefits of such actions. Not that i'm saying that because we polluted first, that developing nations should be able to pollute in the SAME way, but there has to be some leeway given to the developing nations to be able to catch up while those at the top attempt more drastic decreases.

The only problem with that is its a bit much of a entirely "socialist humanity" kind of setup, which would never be implemented as far as i can tell. If we froze emissions for developing nations, do you really expect the corps of the developed world to do anything but keep them that way, thus ensuring cheap labour costs in such countries?

Do we really want to divide the world into those who got here first, and those who must stay stuck with the realities of the past?

Connundrum indeed.

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[drinkypoo]

That seems to be a pretty tricky concept. So because current developed nations were able to accelerate their development by polluting like mad FIRST they, and only they, reap the benefits of such actions.

I have two arguments against your argument. First: "Because current developed nations were able to secure excellent land and resources by killing the natives, enslaving the ones that are left, and taking their land, they and only they blah blah blah". Yes, on one hand you are correct. On the other hand, it is time to grow up and put away childish things. Taking countries by military might is no longer considered acceptable (granted, the USA seems to think it is, but this nation has lost basically all good will by doing so.) The second argument: Actually, everyone reaps the benefits of such actions, because we have [somewhat] free trade. China doesn't get the boost to development of cities, but they still benefit because others are able to purchase their goods.

Hmm, another argument; it's not all benefits. Looked at the state of pollution of our land here in the USA? Do you really think that China has more to gain by following our self-destructive pattern than by creating a new one and doing things right the first time? We didn't have the technology and experience to do so the first time around. They do. Why should we encourage them to do things the wrong way?

Not that i'm saying that because we polluted first, that developing nations should be able to pollute in the SAME way, but there has to be some leeway given to the developing nations to be able to catch up while those at the top attempt more drastic decreases.

Catch up in what, destruction of the biosphere?

Economic development is not the most worthy measurement of success. Happiness is. Lifespan is. Personal achievement is. Technological development is. Pollution? Probably not.

The only problem with that is its a bit much of a entirely "socialist humanity" kind of setup, which would never be implemented as far as i can tell. If we froze emissions for developing nations, do you really expect the corps of the developed world to do anything but keep them that way, thus ensuring cheap labour costs in such countries?

We must also force the corporations (and individuals!) of the developed world to decrease their emissions. And it must be done rapidly.

Do we really want to divide the world into those who got here first, and those who must stay stuck with the realities of the past?

This is a false dichotomy to say the least. You can get where we are (except less dirty) without making the same mistakes. It's not as easy, but it's a much better idea.

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[Adambomb]

On the other hand, it is time to grow up and put away childish things. Which hand would that be and what are you referring to. Kneejerk immaturity responses are meaningless.

Actually, everyone reaps the benefits of such actions, because we have [somewhat] free trade You really think that the distribution of wealth and affluence is that uniform? Hell, even IN the developed world there is a hefty inconsistency in the distribution of wealth. Are you telling me that as corps profit and develop new technologies that such technologies will be as accessable and proliferated amongst the developed world? That seems INCREDIBLY naive to me.

Looked at the state of pollution of our land here in the USA? I am canadian but have lived in new england, maryland, colorado, and spent a fair amount of time in the georgia/florida area. The state of pollution IS pretty sad, but its fairly similar to what I have seen even in canada, just a question of density. The biggest thing is that although the damage is there, the quality of living in the USA has been drastically increased due to those damages. This is the discrepency that I am referring to, unless you think all developing nations should be subject to external control since we are the gateway to current technologies and methods.

Catch up in what, destruction of the biosphere? No, catch up in terms of industrialized infrastructure, support services, and quality of living...

Now i do not disagree with your final point concerning corporations, i just find it unlikely that i will see such reform in my lifetime. I find this especially sad as i'm only a quarter century into it.

I'd like to know what you think, now that i've clarified my points, but keep it objective.

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[Adambomb]

proliferated amongst the developed world? gah, should be developing world.

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[R3d M3rcury]

Well, there are obviously things that developed nations can do to assist developing nations develop without polluting. Boy, that was a tough sentence.

I'll use a fun analogy--cell phones. When I was over in Vietnam, years ago, my friend had a phone. She was the only one around for miles who had a phone and she had one because someone in the government decided that it was important for her to have one (I believe she was a supervisor at a government-owned business). Phones are very expensive things to wire up--running wires around and things like that. (I'm sure there were other appropriate socialist reasons, but bear with me)

Today in Vietnam, lots of people have cell phones. One cell tower can handle, say, 1000 calls and it's cheaper to build one tower than it is to run wires to 1000 homes. There's also the whole convenience factor and all the other benefits to portable phones.

The US spent tons of money and time and effort running wires all over the place 60 or 70 years ago and we have enjoyed the benefits of our government doing this for many years. But nowadays the whole thing can be done cheaper by planting a batch of cell phone towers in various places. So why would a developing nation do what the US did and run wires all over the country when they could just build a bunch of cell towers and have phone service?

So it's a similar thing. Developed nations have learned alot about making things less polluting. If I have a factory in America and I produce widgets and create x amount of pollution in doing so, there's no reason that a factory in a developing nation which produces widgets should be able to produce 2x the amount of pollution when the technology exists for them to only produce x amount of pollution.

Re:Some facts remain difficult to dispute.

[boa]

>I have learned that past sky-high CO2 concentrations have been documented in peer-reviewed research journals. If we have hit peak >oil, I doubt we will ever be able to reach these levels.

We may hit peak oil within a decade, and oil production will start falling. Unfortunately, that does not change anything but the price of oil. Burning *coal* is a major source of CO2 and will be widely available for hundreds of years to come.

Think about it, all that CO2 that once existed was absorbed by plants and turned into coal/oil. Now we are putting the CO2 back into the atmosphere by burning the same coal/oil. Same atoms, 100 million years later.

Again with the "sell"

[e2d2]

Yes I understand the science. But I have a social question - why must this theory be SOLD so goddam much? There is more PR behind global warming than there is behind the US Republican Party for god's sake. Lots of profit in "the sky is falling" industry I guess.

Click those ads on that new scientist article, gotta keep that money flowing! Also, make sure you write your congressman, gotta keep that scientific funding flowing! And why not throw in a couple thousand to an eco-charity, gotta keep that charity flowing!

FEAR FEAR FEAR monkey, get under your rock! The sky is falling man, any second now! Now pay me my money for the help I just gave you.

I guess there really IS a benefit to global warming. It's measured in dollars and it resides in the bank accounts of so many "advocates".

People are dying around the world for Christ's sake - lack of clean water, diseases, social violence, piss poor living conditions, and starvation. All fixable. But there is no $ to do so because all the $ is in a fear of problems that might be coming to fruition somewhere around the year 3010? Real problems NOW, not 1k years from now. Who gives a shit about those? No one I guess. Someone preaches to you about your personal .000001 increase in CO2 output because you decided that it wasn't worth it to walk 10 miles, meanwhile a person is literally dying from starvation! The arrogance of the western world, you are now witnessing it.

But human caused Global Warming is a religion!!

[Anonymous Coward]

With Al Gore as its messiah and CO2 offsets as its indulgences.

A little known fact.

[Ragingguppy]

There is a little known fact that no one in the climate community has ever addressed in all the years I've heard about global warming. And that is when water freezes it expands due to the Crystallization of the water. The water actually takes up a greater volume for this fact. If you don't believe me put some water in a glass jar cover it and put it in your freezer. The mess in your freezer afterward will prove this little fact. Fact is the climate scientists never bring that up. 12 cubic meters of ice doesn't equal 12 cubic meters of water for this fact. Could it be that the increased evaporation and the smaller volume would actually prevent the catastrophic events that those so called climate scientists have been predicting.

Re:A little known fact.

[sog_abq]

I've thought of this before, which leads me to wonder how melting all the ice on the polar caps would increase the ocean level on which they float.

Re:A little known fact.

[adaminc]

I've heard more about the ice on greenland being a problem than the ice caps

Re:A little known fact.

[Conanymous Award]

Next, think about the difference between floating ice and continental ice. The grandparent does have an interesting point, though. (BTW, the text image you have to type when posting was 'warmers'. Eerie.)

Re:A little known fact.

[Bearpaw]

The Arctic ice cap floats, but much of the Antarctic doesn't. There's actual land under a lot of that ice.

Also, as large quantities of polar ice melts, it changes salinity levels, which may have difficult-to-predict effects on ocean currents. And ocean currents are a significant factor in climate patterns.

Re:A little known fact.

[dmbrun]

For the Arctic negligible effect.

For Antarctic major. You may wish to read http://co2.cms.udel.edu/SeaLevel_DE.htm

Re:A little known fact.

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this is a well-known fact, and any moderately competent technical person would know it, regardless of whether they study climate change or not. The sea level rising is not due to the melting of sea ice, but rather land ice. Whether you agree or disagree with the whole global warming thing, at least give the people involved credit for knowing junior high school science.

Re:A little known fact.

[Lijemo]

Actually, floating ice displaces exactly as much water as it would take up melting: e.g. the net effect of all the floating ice in the world melting would not result in any change in sea level (though it would result in a change in the salinity of the ocean water, which could affect currents).

However, the glaciers in Greenland, Canada, Alaska, Europe and Asia (not to mention the entire continent of Antarctica) are not over water, but over land that empties into the ocean. It is from this ice-melt that rising ocean levels is possible.

Re:A little known fact.

[Dan Hayes]

Because not all of the ice caps float? They do in the Arctic, but both the Greenland ice cap or the West or East Antarctic ice caps rest on solid ground. Between them if they melted entirely sea levels would rise 68m, obviously this isn't going to happen no matter what, but the issue is dealt with in the article here.

Re:A little known fact.

[Ragingguppy]

yeah I'm aware of that. But not all the water in the ocean stays in the ocean either.

Re:A little known fact.

[Dan Hayes]

The water cycle is very short-scale though, and water lost via evaporation is returned to the oceans unless it ends up as ice somewhere. As the article says the centre of the Antarctic is currently gaining ice due to cooler temperatures because of the ozone hole there, although it doesn't balance out all of the melt at the edges.

issues with some of the graphs

[netwiz]

Okay, for one, this one is obviously skewed. I modeled this in Excel, and wow, it's way less threatening when you actually show a real scale on the Y axis, as opposed to skewing the graph for shock value. I mean, we jump all over Tom at Tomshardware for having done this kind of thing, why should we eat it up when a "real scientist" sends it to us? We knew it's not a valid representation of the data when Tom presented it in his context, so what's different here?

Second. this guy is even worse. Where's the calculated effect of terrestrial water vapor, i.e., the stuff near the ground? It makes a way bigger difference than any of the sources listed there. In fact, compared to the CO2 value, the effect of water vapor in the troposphere wouldn't fit in that pic at all. "Anthropogenic?" Uh, sorry, but contributing less than half a percent to that CO2 value annually doesn't make all that carbon "anthropogenic."

I'm pretty much done with these people. I really fail to see how having half the highest CO2 concentrations of the past million years is going to do anything, and especially with the relatively minute contribution Homo sapiens, would be warming the world more than having an atmosphere in the first place.

Smells like scare tactics to me.

Re:issues with some of the graphs

[Ambitwistor]

Okay, for one, this one is obviously skewed. I modeled this in Excel, and wow, it's way less threatening when you actually show a real scale on the Y axis, as opposed to skewing the graph for shock value. You can't tell how "threatening" a CO2 increase is until you know what baseline to compare it to, no matter what scale you plot it on. CO2 levels are now about 35% higher than average pre-industrial values, which while not huge, is nothing to sneer at either.

Besides, the point is not to make it look "threatening", but to zoom in on the region of interest.

Second. this guy is even worse. Where's the calculated effect of terrestrial water vapor, i.e., the stuff near the ground? Water vapor isn't on that chart because it is a feedback, not a forcing. It's wrapped up in a quantity known as "climate sensitivity", which is the key quantity being debated in the literature.

"Anthropogenic?" Uh, sorry, but contributing less than half a percent to that CO2 value annually doesn't make all that carbon "anthropogenic." In fact, virtually all of the ~35% increase in total CO2 levels is anthropogenic.

I really fail to see how having half the highest CO2 concentrations of the past million years is going to do anything, Why not? Do you dispute that CO2 concentrations have changed the climate in the past?

and especially with the relatively minute contribution Homo sapiens, As noted, homo sapiens has not made a "minute" contribution to CO2 levels.

would be warming the world more than having an atmosphere in the first place. Humans aren't warming the world more than having an atmosphere does. They're still warming the world. What's your point?

Wedge the controversy!

[Scrameustache]

give both sides a fair chance here; this isn't science vs. religion; it's [supposedly] science vs. science Intelligent Design advocates and Global Warming deniers are the exact same people.

Don't fall for thei slick propaganda. And don't ask us to give them credit they do not deserve.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Sciros]

So that MIT professor and other researchers who actually present opposing viewpoints *based on scientific data* also argue for Intelligent Design? I don't believe you.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Scrameustache]

So that MIT professor and other researchers who actually present opposing viewpoints *based on scientific data* also argue for Intelligent Design? I don't believe you. You also don't know what you're talking about.
That MIT professor doesn't argue agaisnt anthropogenic global warming, he argues that the rise in temperature won't be as high as the model predicts.
You would knot that if you read the fucking article: "Even the position of perhaps the most respected sceptic, Richard Lindzen of MIT, is not that far off the mainstream: he does not deny it is happening but thinks future warming will not be nearly as great as most predict."

You also need to learn that the people who made you think the MIT professor was opposing the scientific consensus are not the same people as the MIT professors and other scientists of the world.
They're people with money, pushing an agenda, and using marketing techniques to shape public opinion. And you fell for it.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Sciros]

Oh my goodness not even close. You're putting words in my mouth; I said he presents an opposing viewpoint, which he CLEARLY DOES, and yes the article (which I read thoroughly) even duly calls him a "skeptic." You quote the article calling him that, and in the next sentence claim that whoever makes me think he's opposing the consensus is pushing an agenda.

Dude you messed up all over the place. You don't even know what I actually think, you're just making a bunch of assumptions and it's silly.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[X.25]

Intelligent Design advocates and Global Warming deniers are the exact same people.

Don't fall for thei slick propaganda. And don't ask us to give them credit they do not deserve.

And you're a retard, it seems.

Because you can't grasp the difference between "not contributing global warming to SUVs and farting" and "denying global warming exists".

And I hate intelligent design idea or advocates. And I think global warming has nothing to do with us (or our actions). So where do I fit, you genius?

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Scrameustache]

the article (which I read thoroughly) even duly calls him a "skeptic." You quote the article calling him that, and You are right, I read that second article and found out that

"He believes that the Kyoto treaty will have a tiny impact, delaying any particular level of warming by just a year or two, and that it is completely unrealistic to see it as just a first step in a whole series of ever more ambitious emissions treaties.

For Lindzen, there is not a lot we can do, beyond ensuring that nations become rich enough to build flood defences or whatever might be necessary if the climate does start to go awry. "

I didn't realize he was one of the "let it happen, we'll be rich enough to build around it then" people. I thought he was one of the "conservative estimates" types, not the bad kind of "conservatives".

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Scrameustache]

And you're a retard, it seems.
Because you can't grasp the difference between "not contributing global warming to SUVs and farting" and "denying global warming exists". 1- Deny it until the evidence is overwhelming.
2- Deny you had anything to do with it.

And I hate intelligent design idea or advocates. And I think global warming has nothing to do with us (or our actions). So where do I fit, you genius? You fit in the "abrasive idiot, most likely a troll" section of my red dots.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Sciros]

I'm not sure it's fair to call him a "bad kind of conservative," so much as someone who simply doesn't think we have it in our power to *delay* or *prevent* global warming to any appreciable degree. Depending on whose theory is correct (and for none is the evidence overwhelming, actually) it may be the realistic outlook. Otherwise it's simply pessimistic. But it's not evil or anything.

To be honest, reducing carbon emissions by a significant margin (meaning, 50% or something) globally would end up costing about as much as mitigating the effects of rising ocean levels (which will occur to *some* degree (and, I believe everyone in the scientific community agrees it will be dramatic enough) regardless of emission reduction). So, we BETTER be "rich enough" because there's a lot of money that needs to be spent doing one or the other, and in reality both.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Scrameustache]

I'm not sure it's fair to call him a "bad kind of conservative," [...] we BETTER be "rich enough" because there's a lot of money that needs to be spent doing one or the other, and in reality both. The "bad" is because his conservatism is applied to the existing money funnels.
"We" could be just as rich putting that money and effort in the renewable energies rather than in coal and oil, but then the money wouldn't be going to the same pockets where it is going now.

Re:Wedge the controversy!

[Sciros]

Someone's gonna be getting a lot of money either way, more than they need. I'm not sure that's really something to be concerned about. However, I am worried about developing countries that don't have the capital to endulge in the "luxury" that developed nations have of researching alternate fuels, renewable energy, etc. I'm just thinking, although our current level of emissions is bad for NUMEROUS reasons, what if it were indeed not that critical of a factor in current climate change. In other words, while it may have contributed even significantly, what if reduction is not going to give us the benefits that we would hope for even down the road (even optimistically a few decades from now as far as I know). Then would our priorities be different? Would we be spending some money elsewhere?

I'm just envisioning a scenario where the "skeptics" end up being right, developed countries end up being burdened with using very expensive forms of energy, and despite money pouring into renewable energy research and public awareness for years and years, we are hit with either a) nothing critical because the more conservative estimates were correct, or b) something critical such as dramatically higher coastlines ANYWAY, because the problem is just out of our hands. Better safe than sorry? Maybe for some people; anything done on a global scale is going to be costly, and at someone's expense.

Re:Vote with your money

[computational super]

• What's red and goes around and around?
• A baby in the blender
• What's red and bubbly and scratches at the window?
• A baby in the microwave
• What's red and sits in the corner?
• A baby playing with a razor blade.
• What's blue and sits in the corner?
• A baby playing with a plastic bag.
• What's green and sits in the corner?
• That same baby two weeks later.

That was my contribution to combating global warming.

Interesting....

[NeutronCowboy]

The FSM approach applied to Science. Or alternatively, that because some dude was wrong somewhere sometime, nothing is true.

Tell me: does your computer work by having little pixies magically move the dots on your screen?

Re:Interesting....

[benj_e]

Tell me: does your computer work by having little pixies magically move the dots on your screen? Well, they do call them PIXels.

Re:Interesting....

[SerpentMage]

No I am not saying because some dude was wrong somewhere sometime nothing is true. What I am saying is because some dude was right somewhere you can't assume that everything is right. Global warming is such an issue. People are pushing extremely hard the "fact" that CO2 is the problem and thus everything must be changed. I counter and say CO2 is not the problem, and say we have more urgent problems; pollution of the sea, producing food that is not full of toxins, urban sprawl, fair trade so that everyone prospers. Yet these topics are not as sexy!

People are ignoring the hard facts. I outlined in a blog entry (http://www.devspace.com/~christianhgross/?p=296) that even with a 30% cut in CO2 due to the projected growth of the human population CO2 production will increase by 33%. Yet do the leaders of the countries talk about this problem? No people say, "every little thing will help." Well, no every little thing will not help, and in fact will make things worse because we are ignoring the issues that could make a difference in the well being of this planet.

That's not how it works.

[Programmer_In_Traini]

I agree with you, but that's not how it works...unfortunately.

In this day and age the one with the funding is the one with the thickest study, no matter how right or wrong it is.

Scientists will bring a study claiming the planet is warming up, planet is dying, yada yada yada
PR people representing companies like Shell or Esso will bring their own study saying that's not the case.

And the one that people will believe the most is the one that will have receive the most mediatic coverage. Because most people dont bother verifying the claims, after all, if you hear it on tv, it must be true.

Personally, i think the earth isn't doing as bad as we think it is. It certainly would help if we were to finally start acting friendly with our environment, but i don't think we're all gonna die of sun burns or tornados or tidal waves for that matter. I believe that at some point, human race will run out of resources like fuel or even food and water. There are so many of us, that we are a parasite to our own survival in some way.

I believe that unfortunately, someone at some point will throw a nuclear head, I believe we will kill ourselves much before the planet does it. Earth has survived millions of years, going thru various cycles of warm and cold, on it own and life has never died, it just adapted or changed. And once we do die, either because our own stupidity or because south pole melted, earth will still survive and life will start again. That is the cycle earth has gone thru since it began turning.

Of course, that's just my vision and i may completely be wrong, time will tell.

Re:That's not how it works.

[MightyMartian]

I'm curious here. If it's all about the money, then you would think that the guys with the most money (ie. big oil, big government) would be getting all the scientists in their pocket, and thus climate change probably wouldn't be mentioned at all.

Of course the reality is that the accusation is nothing more an attempt to slander the climatological community, to question motives. It's the purest form ad hominen attack, and that alone demonstrate the desperation of the pseudo-skeptics. Now realizing that they can no longer fight the data itself, they'll question those gathering the data.

Re:That's not how it works.

[wpiman]

I am sure that big oil will profit plenty from clean energy technologies.

The biggest profiteers will be the nuclear crowd. That is in fact how this whole push for man made global warming got started.

Re:That's not how it works.

[MightyMartian]

Care to provide some evidence to back this rather extraordinary claim up?

Re:That's not how it works.

[king-manic]

Oddly big tabacco also jumped into the frey. A mandatory released set of documents outline how Phillip Morris bank rolled several of the decenting voices in the "anti global warming" camp. Namely Frederick Seitz and some other shills with PHD's. Apparently the whole strategy was part of a project to lower confidence in main stream science so they later introduce doubt about Tabacco research using the same mechanism.

Re:That's not how it works.

[wpiman]

Lord Lawson makes the claim. Do you really find it all that extraordinary? What has been the main power source pushed by environmentalists now?

It is brilliant really, get them to believe in a catastrophe and you are the solution.

Here is a reference.

W/m^2/ppm implies linearity

[benhocking]

However, it's not linear. If you want a decent discussion on W/m^2, NASA has a reasonably well-written article on it. There's also some good news in there - the rate of increase of total forcing has actually gone down somewhat since 1980. (Unfortunately, the total forcing is still going up, but at least it's not accelerating anymore!)

News from US Senate Committee

[Anonymous Coward]

I saw this article on the U.S. Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee website.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad -494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=

I get a chance to read a lot of articles while at work, and everyday a few studies come out saying the world is about to end because of us and a few come out saying we bear no responsibility. I think its time we admit we don't know jack about the environment and what is causing this to happen.

RTFA

[Scrameustache]

First, see Growing number of scientists reconsidering global warming fears. Not the best site ever, but it shows that the consensus everyone likes to talk about is bogus. The _media_ refuses to let allow the discussion to continue and the scientific process run its course without interference. See all 26 climate myths in our special feature.

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

Re:RTFA

[that this is not und]

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists

You said statements from organizations 'representing' thousands of scientists. The idea that there are huge organizations of scientists where there is powerful and overwhelming consensus about ANYTHING as unsettled as 'Global Warming' is ludicrous.

Re:RTFA

[Scrameustache]

The idea that there are huge organizations of scientists where there is powerful and overwhelming consensus about ANYTHING as unsettled as 'Global Warming' is ludicrous. So you're saying that they are made up? Wow. How did that kool aid taste?

Re:RTFA

[that this is not und]

I am saying that that level of consensus comes out of politics, not science. There is a LOT of 'office politics' in the scientific community. Always has been, always will.

Re:RTFA

[Scrameustache]

There is a LOT of 'office politics' in the scientific community. Always has been, always will. Can't seem to ever get away from that.

Environmentalism is also religion...

[FozE_Bear]

Funny, many who argue against global warming see environmentalism as a religion. Look at the "respect your mother" bumper stickers. You MUST admit that alot of the Birkenstock wearin' insence burnin' tree huggers are taking it to a religious level.

Re:Environmentalism is also religion...

[SatanicPuppy]

Nice. Add an Ad Hominem to the Fallacy of Composition above.

I like the environment. It's where I live. Does that make me a hippy? In your world I guess it does.

In my world, I regard hippies with the same scathing disdain I reserve for the denialists who still try to pretend like any evidence of human involvement in the current climate change is just fairy dust and imagination.

There is solid evidence. A lot of respectable scientists have endorsed it. The steps we should take are things that would be a good idea ANYWAY.

Me: "Maybe I should drive a more fuel efficient car..."
You: "Ha ha, you're a stupid hippy!"

Way to go buddy, way to go.

Re:Environmentalism is also religion...

[FozE_Bear]

I never accused YOU of being a hippy. And alot of respectable scientists have also disputed the claims with facts. You: "Maybe I should drive a more fuel efficient car..." Me: "Go ahead, you'll save some cash." You: "And you should be focrced to drive one too..." Me: "Piss off you stupid hippy!" You see, you made HUGE logical leaps about "my world". You looked past the facts of what I actually said, and took it emotionally and personally. "Way to go buddy, way to go." Examples of doing it for "relegious" type of reasons (and looking past the facts): Ed Begley Jr., espousing the use of electric cars because they have "Zero" emmisions. Well, they have no emmissions at the tailpipe, but alot of emmisions at the Smokestack. WHere I live Coal=Electricity, so electric is not zero emmisions. But it makes you FEEL so good, and that's what matters...

Re:Environmentalism is also religion...

[hmccabe]

If you were a real hippy you'd smoke a J and calm the fuck down.

Re:Environmentalism is also religion...

[OneoFamillion]

Yeah, but religion can also hinder concern for the environment... On more than one occasion, I have stumbled upon individuals who think that "we're made in His image, so God wouldn't allow us to die, and if he does, then we obviously deserved it" kind of logic. While it's probably true that environmental catastrophes can be thought of as a punishment for our laziness, the "this planet was made for us" thinking still bugs me, 'cause I have my doubts whether this piece of rock we live on really cares one iota about whether it can sustain life or not.

Yes, temperatures have changed and will change

[benhocking]

The point is, that climate change is happening at a much faster rate than it has in the past. You're right, it will get warmer or cooler - eventually. The point that you're missing is that it actually matters how quickly that happens. If it happens slowly enough, people and animals can adapt.

Re:Yes, temperatures have changed and will change

[Ragingguppy]

That statement isn't true. The earth isn't getting warmer any faster then it did in the past. The climate models are skewed to indicate what would happen if we had a 1 degree change in temperature. But the temperature change isn't 1 degree. Its .04 degrees. and that is not catastrophic.

Re:Yes, temperatures have changed and will change

[Burnhard]

So what if it is faster today than it was 1,000 years ago? Is it caused by Carbon? Road building? Agriculture? Deforestation? Cows farting? The Sun? Cloud Formation? Microbes? Natural Cycles? All of the above? None of the above? Some of the above? What? Its all guesswork based on inaccurate models that have no verifiable predictive power. How can you justify spending 1/4 trillion dollars per year fiddling with a variable when you have no idea if it's the right one or how it interacts with the other variables? And what about Global Cooling, the Ozone Layer, Asteroid Impact, Y2K, Avian Flu - too many media scares crying wolf and demanding action when the reality as we all know is probably completely benign.

One piece of evidence you're missing

[benhocking]

B2) CO2 absorbs infrared radiation.
That moves you from merely correlation to causation.

If someone could CONCLUSIVLY prove that humans are the sole cause of global warming, and that global warming is not natural, and that it is bad, I would listen. Unfortunately they have yet to do so.

It's nice to see the goal posts moved yet again. Do they actually have to prove they are the sole cause, or can they demonstrate with 90-99% certainty that we are the primary cause?

Re:One piece of evidence you're missing

[Old Benjamin]

I'll take beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. CO2 absorbs infrared radiation. That moves you from merely correlation to causation. This is one piece of evidence. There is probably more to the story.

You are mistaken sir

[crush]

Ibid is in fact not a journal. He is a prolific polymath who just happens to be a colleague of mine at a secret govt research facility (we've been kept alive using Atlantean gerontological medicine for 4 millenia). He has contributed widely to a surprising number of fields. Please do not spread unfounded rumours as fact and give correct attribution where it is due. Thank you.

The rest of the story

[sheldon]

Isn't the entire quote, something more like this...?

It is true that human emissions of CO2 are small compared with natural sources. But the fact that CO2 levels have remained steady until very recently shows that natural emissions are usually balanced by natural absorptions. Now slightly more CO2 must be entering the atmosphere than is being soaked up by carbon "sinks".

How can I debunk your debunking, when you can't even be bothered to read the article?

slightly off topic

[edis]

From myths to truths: if planet population and comfortability expectations grow constantly against deforestation and miserable energy economy, what else can be got?

IMHO, the only quick remedy is TREES.

Re:slightly off topic

[EmagGeek]

BUt... but... trees cause global warming by decreasing the Earth's albedo! Darn those trees! They're dark, and absorb more energy, creating more heat. Damn trees! So, you're WRONG, and planting bazillions of trees will only doom us!

Oh, the humanity!

Re:slightly off topic

[edis]

You are wrong, they materialise energy first of all. You start with energy, you end with material wood. From wich you can extract and apply energy, when locally needed. Until you behave so, energy is captured. There are no myths in that, are there?

Speaking of plain surface colour - I would not concentrate on that, as this does not appear most important.

Studies by Roland Ennos, University of Manchester UK, state, that, places in cities, where groups of trees are growing, have down to 12C less warmth, than nearby centers without plants there. Not impressive? They explain it as plants behaving similar way to human's sweat - evarporating water cools down surfaces (me adds: they are 3d structures growing on plain square surface, and have capillary systems to extract water from depth, it would not evarporate from naturally). The guidlines of this research say, that by expanding green areas (to the roofs, as example) could compensate up to 4C globally.

Finally, thinking along your lines deforestation would be HELPFUL, which is what, actually, now happens and is not only wrong thing, but also of no help at all, I'd say.

I would wish people express at list instinctive thoughts on subjects as important as this - even then they would be more correct, that coming with ungrounded statements.

Re:slightly off topic

[EmagGeek]

Someone obviously does not recognize sarcasm when they see it...

Re:slightly off topic

[edis]

No, I do not see place for sarcasm in the issue, at all. This must be western "culture" of speaking opposite things to express something, developing cynicism in yourself, praising same-sex relations as achievements of kinds, exporting peace by weapons, values by shallow seduction, etc. I am not following it, and even feel very good about that. If you had separate planet, I would feel even better. Sorry, you maybe are good guy overall, and this site used to be more informative.

Re:slightly off topic

[EmagGeek]

Excuse me while I go try to pry out of my mouth the words that you have so rudely shoved into it. I said nothing of same-sex unions (which I oppose on moral and ethical grounds), exporting peace by weapons (but since you mention it, in order to have peace, you must first remove those who have interest only in making war), values by shallow seduction (wtf does this mean, anyway?), and so on. Don't preach to me about cynicism and then practice it against me.

Re:Vote with your money

[chad.koehler]

Robots do cause global warming, however if we get them all to fart up at the sky at the same time from a fixed point, the resulting blast will alter the Earth's orbit just enough to allow us to keep cool for another millenia! Either that, or drop more ice cubes into the sea.

Conflicting evidence

[Galactic Dominator]

What's up with the polar bear problem in Hudson Bay then? http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB11345 2435089621905-vnekw47PQGtDyf3iv5XEN71_o5I_20061214 .html

Embrace global warming...

[mi]

Now, the articles about the effects of the warming assume, that the effects are evil. But — what exactly is evil about islands appearing from below centuries-old glaciers and the snow melting in the Antarctica, making the vast area habitable (as it was millions of years ago).

At least, the former article mentions (in passing) the "harmful pollutants" — yes, these I accept as evil (if unrelated), but the warming itself?

What's wrong with the giant Northern coasts of Russia and Canada becoming reachable from the sea year-round? What's wrong with Antarctica becoming livable again?

Is anything set to become too hot — and if so, are we about to lose more square miles of land due to that, than we are about to gain in the previously dead-frozen areas I mentioned? Are Inuits' hunting habits really that important? The poor seals are being annually culled even now, they will certainly not perish. The polar bears will, no doubt, adjust very quickly too... What else is there?

Re:Embrace global warming...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are Inuits' hunting habits really that important?

What an absurd comment. I'm certain if your food supply was being threatened it would be really important to you. Totally discounting the needs of a minority population is racism at its worst.

Re:Embrace global warming...

[gutnor]

There is no "evil" from a earth point of view. From a human being point of view however that's another matter.

- There could be change in habitable area, resulting in necessary population displacement and probably a lot of dead.
- There could be change in local climate resulting in variation of vegetation and animal meaning there will be famine. That means there will also be migration of diseases and parasites. For example, tropical diseases in the UK.
- Last time there was such a big warming there was also a massive extinction of animal(see TFA): the time evolution does its job and repopulate earth. Unfortunately human being will have to live in the meanwhile. ( For example in Europe, a lot of plant relies on the frost to clear the parasites. Without frost, that means the ecosystem will change a lot )

That enough to say that in case of real climate change humanity will enter a chaotic period with a lot of death and misery. Even the US and Europe will be impacted since they rely a lot on the poorest nations - and chaos is not good for business anyway.

That said, sure maybe a better humanity will emerge but I would rather live in the current one without a SUV.

Re:Embrace global warming...

[Raffaello]

Ice melting = sea level rising = coastal flooding
Most human beings live near the coast = big problem

Re:Embrace global warming...

[Anthony]

I am not so sure about warming being all positive. Humans seem to thrive quite well in cool climate regimes.

The rise of grasses correlates with a low CO2, low temperature climate regime. Grasses have a photosynthetic pathway that is thought to give an advantage in low CO2 conditions. Grasses came to prominence in the last 25 million years. It is only in the last few decades that CO2 levels are starting to break out of the cycle that has persisted since that time. The rise of human civilisation has been dependent upon grasses for nutrition, both for their seeds and also meat raised on grasses. Jared Diamond's "Guns Germs and Steel" outlines this quite well.

Re:Embrace global warming...

[mi]

Humans have lived through such cataclysms before — witness entire cities found today under Mediterranean waters, for example, or the significant warming ups of Egypt since Cleopatra, when Egypt was the bread basket of the entire Roman Empire. Ecosystems have changed before.

People were displaced before as well — ancestors of Hungarians, for example, hail from as far as Volga.

We are already living through plants and animals dispersion — Australia comes to mind first with its rabbits, foxes, and giant frogs, but America has its share too. Bees and horses (mustangs) were brought in long ago, less sympathetic creatures — now.

None of it is pleasant, but none was anywhere near as devastating as even a moderate-scale war (like in Rwanda or Sudan) or even a gross mismanagement of a country like Zimbabwe...

And the benefits I listed in GP are still there — new land appearing, vast existing lands, which are too cold for comfort (Northern Siberia, Alaska, and Canada) becoming appealing and approachable by sea. The entire continent of Antarctica — the cradle of life — may become habitable again. A great deal compared with most of today's Africa, for example, which is already infested with diseases and deadly parasites (like tse-tse fly).

I would rather live in the current one without a SUV.

I would rather live without SUVs too. They are a nuisance on the road, even if they were hybrid and spent as much fuel as a motorcycle.

There are skeptics

[benhocking]

Skeptics are those who are open to either side of the debate. They do exist. However, most prominent self-labeled "skeptics" are not. If you only believe that AGW can't be real, then you are not a "skeptic" because you've already made up your mind. You are a denier. Or, if you feel that word is loaded, choose another term that means "I refuse to believe" rather than simply "I'm not sure". I suppose, "debunker" is fine, if one assumes (as presumably they do) that they're right. Of course, once you've decided that, you probably can't call yourself a "skeptic", either.

Re:There are skeptics

[pete-classic]

Have you made up your mind that AGW is real? Does that mean I should call you by some name like that? Ecodoomer?

My experience indicates that most people actually are open to persuasion, but that the persuader often strongly disagrees with the person he is trying to persuade on what that person's threshold for accepting the theory should be.

-Peter

Re:There are skeptics

[Dan Ost]

I am likely to be skeptical anytime someone...

(1)...tells me that I should believe something because other people believe it
(2)...isn't capable of discussing alternate theories
(3)...is intolerant of other theories
(4)...insults me for not accepting their theory

Basically, the more it looks like a religious issue, the more likely I am to be
skeptical of it.

I do believe it's important to reduce our emissions and our consumption of "dirty" energy,
and so one the one hand, I'm sympathetic to global warming since it would encourage people
and governments to do things that I think they should be doing anyways. On the other hand,
however, most proponents of the human-caused-global-warming theory fail at least 3 of the
4 criterion above.

If you want to convince me of something, the first thing that you need to do is demonstrate
that you're capable of thinking critically about it. Only then can we actually discuss the
issue.

Re:There are skeptics

[NoOneInParticular]

So, if someone gets cranky about you wanting to discuss alternative theories about men walking on the moon, you will join the ranks of those that are sceptic about this having occured? Your 4 points are the reasoning of cranks and kooks.

Re:There are skeptics

[Dan Ost]

It is not my job as a critical thinker to determine if your position is correct.
It is to determine if your position makes sense.

If your position makes sense, then the correctness can be determined by examining
your premises/data.

The danger isn't going away

[paranode]

CO2 accounts for such a minute portion of all greenhouse gases, the mere notion that we could reverse this warming by driving hybrid cars or whatever is pretty absurd. Should we do more to prevent harmful gases from polluting our air? Absolutely. Is the world going to end because of CO2? No.

The kind of changes the "do something about it" zealots are proposing would be far more disastrous.

Re:The danger isn't going away

[drinkypoo]

CO2 accounts for such a minute portion of all greenhouse gases, the mere notion that we could reverse this warming by driving hybrid cars or whatever is pretty absurd.

Uh, no one credible has been saying that switching to hybrid vehicles would solve the problem.

You are attacking a straw man, one of the most common logical fallacies.

Should we do more to prevent harmful gases from polluting our air? Absolutely. Is the world going to end because of CO2? No.

You know, every increase in CO2 is harmful to humans. Elevated percentages of CO2 are linked to various health disorders, and even feelings of ill-ease and paranoia. It is probable that this is a defensive response to cause you to move out of places with high CO2 in order to avoid being poisoned by CO2 as a result of the fire in your cave.

It is simply not good for anyone but the plants to allow CO2 levels to rise, and they are now at the highest levels that we can determine have ever existed.

The kind of changes the "do something about it" zealots are proposing would be far more disastrous.

The kind of changes the "do something about it" so-called zealots are proposing are necessary in any case. Our lifestyle as a species is simply not sustainable. Do you really think that our biosphere is going to remain a place we want to live if China "raises" their standard of living to the level which we enjoy here in the USA at the present time?

The simple fact is that we have paid far too little attention to our environment for too long, pretending that our influence will not change anything. In reality we have caused varying degrees of deforestation and other forms of destruction across the globe. Agriculture and animal husbandry have led to slash-and-burn farming which has nearly caused the Amazon to dry up. It is in serious danger of a catastrophic collapse (plants don't stand alone, they need certain kinds of support to exist, and it is being forcibly removed) and it has been credited with producing 25% of the planet's oxygen. It's rapidly being burned down and converted to CO2.

Even if you don't believe that CO2 causes global warming, you should probably be made aware that it causes oceanic acidification. This threatens not only the oceanic algaes, which are responsible for the majority of our oxygen production, but also the coral reefs, which have been dying off at unprecedented rates. The coral reefs hold a significant percentage of the diversity of the oceans, and they will be sorely missed when they are gone. And they are all going away, at varying rates.

When you learn to look past the end of your nose, you will find that the Earth is a rather different place than you had imagined. Everyone and everything is connected, and to believe otherwise is to delude yourself.

Re:The danger isn't going away

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the solution that lets the U.S. population continue to do anything we want. We simply kill everyone else in every other country. Then, it won't matter how high our emissions are.

Even just taking out China would allow us to emit greenhouse gases at many times the current rate for a long time without any overall increase in total emission rates as they are now. We should even still have a hefty number of neutron bombs still in the stockpile to accomplish it.

By the way, that brings up a nice point. China and Russia both are increasingly using energy-producing methods that emit high levels of all kinds of pollutants, including greenhouse gases. Even if the U.S. reduces greenhouse gas emission to many many times less than current levels, it won't matter.

China, and Russia to a lesser degree, don't give a rats' ass about 'global warming'. What exactly will all this accomplish, other than to decimate the U.S. economy? Or is that really the main goal?

The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[benhocking]

Did someone mention Greenland yet again?

Re:The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[VMaN]

Just FYI, it's the southern tip of Greenland, and yes, it's green in the summer, as it was when it was discovered. However the mini ice age in the middle ages made it a lot colder for a number of years. It's not like the enormous ice sheets of Greenland have thawed in the last 100,000's of years, a potential problem we are now facing. A big problem for the north Atlantic part of the Gulf Stream that could choke and stop delivering ice free oceans in the winter to many countries like Iceland, Greenland, GB, the Faroe Islands and the Scandinavian countries.

Re:The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[CorSci81]

Just to nitpick, this was my area of research in grad school. Heat transport by the Gulf Stream directly isn't the whole story, or even the major part of it. The sea surface temperatures off of England and continental Europe really aren't fantastically warmer than the west coast of North America at the same latitude, but its climate is somewhat warmer on the whole. Most of the warmth in these regions has to do with the jet stream rather than the Gulf Stream. The big storms that the north Atlantic is famous for are what actually transports a lot of heat to Europe. Now to what extent the jet stream is dependent upon the Gulf Stream is a different and much more complicated matter.

Re:The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[goatpunch]

[Greenland] was green, merely a few centuries ago.

Did someone mention Greenland yet again?

Not that it proves anything, but his point was perfectly valid, he should have qualified it a little better, however: "Greenland was greener, merely a few centuries ago."

Re:The reason Greenland was named Greenland

[Holmwood]

This is an excellent point. Yes, much of Greenland was still covered by ice, some of which is over 100k years old at least. That said, parts of it were certainly greener and warmer. Ditto parts of Labrador and Newfoundland, for example. True, I didn't mean to imply that Greenland as a whole (or any of Greenland) was a sub-tropical paradise with Hawaiian hula dancers, and saying "Greenland was green" was careless wording, especially on Slashdot. Nor was Newfoundland a great grape-growing region for all the 'marketing' name of "Vinland"

If I could change it, I'd write "greener". To the parent, well said. To others... well, you're certainly very literal. Well done. Thanks for missing my point entirely.

Trading isn't ideal, but....

[raygundan]

Neither is some false "trading" of imaginary carbon credits.

Carbon credits are not the perfect solution, but they are a way to harness the power of the market for positive results in the short-term. You set your caps where you want them across the board and distribute the credits to all parties-- and then let the market decide whether companies comply directly through reduction or indirectly through buying excess credits from somebody who already reduced their emissions.

This speeds up compliance a lot more quickly than a straight-up regulatory approach because the cost of reduction is often not available in small chunks. If new caps mean a company needs to cut emissions by 10%, it's likely they have no way of doing so. They probably could cut emissions by 50% by radically rebuilding something, though-- but then they've overspent. It's not likely a company can afford such a radical rebuilding of their facilities to meat a small emissions cut, and small gradual cuts are the only thing to come out of the government. Credits give them a way to fund this upgrade by selling the remaining 40% of their cuts to four other similar facilities who needed 10% cuts. It's a way to let the market optimize the flow of capital to best fund the modifications needed to meet the emissions caps you want to hit.

But it's not an end-game solution if the needed cuts are too drastic-- it only works as long as there's enough legal emissions under the cap to allow the simultaneous existence of some dirty and some clean facilities. It doesn't work if you want zero emissions, because there's nothing left to trade for at that point.

Global Warming is a distraction

[Phantom of the Opera]

Compare :

"Well, it looks like chucking carbon and poisons into the air *might* not be the cause of future catastrophy. It would be too economically unfeasable to not pollute."

with

"It takes too long to take off pants, lets just crap right in them because it probably won't kill us."

I want a clean planet and I'm willing to pay for it. I'm willing to have jobs shifted to environmental cleanup from other sectors. I wouldn't mind if, for the cost of a few hollywood blockbusters a year, we spend that cash on getting more efficient lightbulbs.

People spend more money on cigarettes than on environmental cleanup. If the economy can support the smoking habit (which results in millions of man-hours lost to cigarette breaks), it can support environmental cleanup.

The debate on global warming has distracted people from arguing "It makes sence to keep things relatively healthy" to a chicken little debate.

Verify this for yourself with a NASA GCM

[Anonymous Coward]

If you'd like to do some of the experiments discussed in the article yourself, the EdGCM project has wrapped a NASA global climate model (GCM) in a GUI (OS X and Win). You can add CO2 or turn the sun down by a few percent all with a checkbox and a slider. Supercomputers and advanced FORTRAN programmers are no longer necessary to run your own GCM.

Disclaimer: I'm the project developer.
Posting anonymously so I can moderate too.

Re:Verify this for yourself with a NASA GCM

[Ambitwistor]

See also this interactive Java climate model. Far simpler than a GCM, but you can play around with it in realtime.

Beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt

[benhocking]

Whose doubt? Yours or people in a position to make that claim? Because most climatologists would say that's already been show beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm pretty sure.

This is one piece of evidence. There is probably more to the story.

Absolutely. And it's in the climate journals if you care to read about it. There is plenty of evidence to support AGW. It's not just about correlation. Heck, it's not even primarily about correlation.

Re:Beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt

[Old Benjamin]

Most climatologists would say so... but the rest have doubts, which are, considering there is more than just a few, reasonably. Also, try to remember that there are a lot of professions as a whole that tend to have biases

Re:Beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt

[Vitriol Angst]

No, the "doubts" were from the issue of whether Man is causing the Global warming -- THAT is only at 90%.
The idea that the earth is warming, is at something like 99%.

Anyway, you can read the peer reviewed study -- or just keep repeating the "there is still doubt" meme. As if that is going to get America Energy independent or give anyone outside of Big Energy concerns a good economy in the future.

Re:Vote with your money

[K'Lyre]

Am I the only one who thinks we need a Godwin's Law counterpart for people invoking the name of Fox News?

Your argument is invalid

[fireboy1919]

...because it is true of Eastern Canada is the fallacy of composition.

"Sodium and Chloride are both dangerous to humans. Therefore any combination of sodium and chloride will be dangerous to humans."

That is also a fallacy of composition. I have found a counterexample to the fact that your claim is the fallacy of composition; clearly there are others, and therefore your statement is false.

So the GP must be right: we're not in the middle of an ice age.

P.S. I'm thinking of forming a new core of uptight jerks here at Slashdot. Grammar Nazis should be the only ones. The time of the Logic Fascists is at hand!

Re:Your argument is invalid

[Darby]

P.S. I'm thinking of forming a new core of uptight jerks here at Slashdot. Grammar Nazis should be the only ones. The time of the Logic Fascists is at hand!

What, is this sentence the recruitment test?

Awful repart of article

[Ivan Pistoff]

Global Warming is a naturally occurring event. Humans don't CAUSE it. We may help in speeding the process up but we simply do not CAUSE it.

Myth: This article is right.

[kinglink]

This article uses conjecture, and fuzzy words. "Most scientists believe" what's most? 51 percent? The three guys you talked to today? What percentage believed the world was flat?

Want to prove global warming or disprove it, give me irrefutable proof (and don't start with the "it's warmer than it was"). Want to know how gravity works, drop an apple, you see gravity at work, the fact no one could come up with it til newton doesn't mean it didn't exist, it meant no one could prove it.

All we have today on both sides of the global warming case is this proof that's "maybe it'll work" theoretical stuff. And then we get the extremists on the global warming side who claim anything out of the norm is the work of global warming (oh we have unpredictable weather, it'll be more unpredictable next year). Of course the extremists on the non global warming side won't admit it's heating up at all.

Still until I see something a little more concrete and stop seeing little pieces like this which can't even prove anything conclusively (it just links to reports from times when his side was considered right by some people). I'm going to continue to remain in the middle and stick to the "let's actually study it until we understand it" opinion, because the zealotry (especially from people who claim to be unbiased) is what really is not helping.

Re:Myth: This article is right.

[Ambitwistor]

Want to prove global warming or disprove it, give me irrefutable proof (and don't start with the "it's warmer than it was"). There is no such thing as "irrefutable proof" in science. Proof beyond reasonable doubt, that's possible. You seem to want proof beyond unreasonable doubt.

And, by the way, it is warmer, on average, than it was 150 years ago.

All we have today on both sides of the global warming case is this proof that's "maybe it'll work" theoretical stuff. Yeah that, and data, and the laws of physics. Pretty paltry, huh.

Re:Myth: This article is right.

[kinglink]

First off it's warmer than 150 years ago. Good for you to believing what you hear. However accurate weather records weren't around 150 years ago, sure we might have a few locations, but a few locations with inefficent tools? Yeah that's scientific.

Right... because laws of physics data and everything proves exactly what's happening? Not that it's getting warmer, but the exact effect emissions, the exact amount a change of 10 percent lower emissions will do? It doesn't help that there's those who will skew the data off in both directions which just doesn't help. Yet you want me to blindly believe when there still is issues with most major reports and when others use those reports blindly. Hell the article points out the problems of the Hockey stick graph, The hockey stick graph and Mann's work has been proven to be skewed his data is erroneous at best and falsified at worse, and yet people blindly believe it's still ok? Oh right because it's on their side.

I don't want the impossible but reasonable doubt is still there, we can agree that it's warmer, we can't agree on how warmer, why it's warmer, or even what would have happened if there was 0 emissions, so how can we say there's no reasonable doubt? REASONABLE people can't accept either side just yet. But obviously not everyone is looking for truth as it seems some of the scientists have their agenda to sell.

Re:Myth: This article is right.

[Ambitwistor]

First off it's warmer than 150 years ago. Good for you to believing what you hear. However accurate weather records weren't around 150 years ago, sure we might have a few locations, but a few locations with inefficent tools? Yeah that's scientific. Yeah, it is scientific. You can handwave about "a few" locations (whatever that means) and "inefficient tools" (whatever that means), but that doesn't amount to sitting down and crunching numbers. You know, like a real scientist. Yes, the global average temperature data 150 years ago is less accurate, but it's not so inaccurate that it could've been a full degree higher or anything like that. Perhaps you should read papers on the actual reconstruction (e.g. here).

We also don't rely on temperature measurements alone; we can also look crop growth records, harvest records, how treelines advance and recede, records of when ice was present, isotopic measurements various materials, etc. None of those are individually great, but they do improve things when combined, especially when added to the direct instrumental temperature record.

Right... because laws of physics data and everything proves exactly what's happening? They don't prove anything "exactly". They do, however, establish fbeyond a reasonable doubt that it has gotten warmer, and that CO2's effect is larger than other natural variations combined.

Yet you want me to blindly believe when there still is issues with most major reports and when others use those reports blindly. Really? What are the "issues" with "most major reports" which invalidate their conclusions?

Hell the article points out the problems of the Hockey stick graph, The hockey stick graph and Mann's work has been proven to be skewed his data is erroneous at best and falsified at worse, and yet people blindly believe it's still ok? No, they don't. However, the NAS review found that even when you fix Mann's analysis, the 20th century hockey stick is still there, and there are plenty of other "hockey stick" reconstructions other than Mann's, using different and independent methods, that nobody has managed to find fault with.

I don't want the impossible but reasonable doubt is still there, we can agree that it's warmer, we can't agree on how warmer, why it's warmer, or even what would have happened if there was 0 emissions, so how can we say there's no reasonable doubt? "We" can't? Scientists can, and do. Just because you don't believe them doesn't mean that your doubt is reasonable.

Just in case you're interested, it's about 0.8 degrees warmer than it was at the turn of the century, plus or minus 0.1 degrees or so. About 50-75% of the current forcing is manmade, the rest natural. If there were zero emissions, it would be about the same temperature it was at the turn of the century, within about 0.2 degrees. You can find this stuff in the 2007 IPCC report.

But obviously not everyone is looking for truth as it seems some of the scientists have their agenda to sell. Yeah, we can't trust anything scientists have to say, because of their "agenda". Let's use that as an excuse to dimiss arbitrarily large amounts of evidence and arbitrarily many conclusions of scientific studies.

Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[joggle]

There are several predictions by the global warming theory that would have a very severe, immediate impact on humans as well as other species. Even if they are wrong on most things, if they are correct on any one of these items the consequences would be very serious and irreversible (at least not reversible in any short amount of time).

Several key, non-controversial observations of the world we are living in:

• The glaciers of the world are disappearing. Based on photographic evidence from 100 years ago or less the world's glaciers were much larger than they are now.
• The level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased rapidly over the last several decades (really longer than this but the amount of CO2 prior to this may be disputed by a few people).
• The tundra is thawing in Alaska as well as other locations.
• The ice sheet over Greenland and Antarctica is melting.
• Several large lakes in Africa and Asia have disappeared over the last few decades. Some were directly related to over irrigation but not all of them.

The list could go on. Now for the potential consequences:

• Severe local climate changes. This is already happening in several places, such as the Alps where they had one of the warmest winters ever recorded. Other areas are getting worse floods than they have ever experienced while very sever droughts occur elsewhere (such as in Africa).
• If the thawing of the tundra continues a large amount of methane frozen in the soil in Russia could be released very quickly, doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
• A large amount of Greenland's or Antarctica's ice sheet could be released into the ocean. Just recently a very large amount of ice (larger than Rode Island) fell into the sea from Antarctica in less than 6 weeks. Ocean levels would rise (but what amount is debated but they will definitely rise). It's possible that the Gulf Stream would stop due to a sudden decrease in salinity if Greenland's ice were to quickly dip into the ocean.

So, why should we risk these severe consequences? We have the technology and resources to significantly dampen the rate at which greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. Oil companies certainly have the resources to help out in this regard (considering they made billions in pure profit last year alone). Frankly, I think it is the height of irresponsibility to just keep going along and doing nothing until some catastrophic event occurs.

The motivation for most, if not all, of the prominent critics is quite clear. They are almost always funded directly or indirectly by oil companies. Some executives go so far as to describe the benefits of global warming while simultaneously claiming humans aren't the primary cause of the current trend.

What motivation would all of these scientists have to deceive everyone? You could say they wouldn't get research grants if they were to try to publish reports that countered the global-warming theory. But how did it get to this point? Global warming wasn't commonly believed until relatively recently (only the last couple of decades). Meaning that scientists changed their minds. In whose interests would it have been to change these scientists' minds? How could they have convinced them without sound scientific data? The great majority of climate scientists are payed by public funds and aren't easily fired so there really is not an incentive for them to knowingly lie to or deceive their peers.

So I repeat: watch 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Just because you don't like the messenger doesn't mean he's wrong. And if you doubt Al Gore's intentions consider that his professor in college was one of the original proponents of global warming and Gore has been pressing this issue for decades. What would motivate him to do this if he didn't honestly believe in it?

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[moore.dustin]

So, why should we risk these severe consequences?

You are naive to think we can have any control whatsoever. We are not "risking" anything as much as we are living with the consequences.

Also, the people who watched the movie instead of reading the book are the same people creating this mass hysteria over global warming. They watched the movie and made a conclusion. They did not investigate any further, otherwise they know know it is the height of irresponsibility to think we can dictate what/how our climate will do/will change.

Humans play a part of everything, sure, but to think we can avoid climate change, man made or not, shows our ignorance of our own planet.

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[joggle]

Umm, how is it responsible to 'think we can dictate what/how our climate will do/will change'? What are the adverse consequences of believing this? It is not naive to believe that humans have no control over the climate. In the ice core samples from Antarctica it is clearly visible when the Clean Air act was passed for example.

How do you explain the significant melting of glaciers? The drying of the Amazon River? What about how the ozone hole was steadily getting larger until CFCs were significantly reduced, at which point the hole has been shrinking since? You may call me naive but unless I am shown some FACTS and some damn good explanations I won't be changing my opinion.

And, for the record, there's a difference between being motivated and being hysterical. When people were sick and tired of the lousy air they were breathing they weren't hysterical. They were motivated and forced Congress to do something about it. That's exactly what we are doing now and Congress will be forced to do something about this issue.

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[cching]

You are naive to think we can have any control whatsoever.
 
You are the one being naive. If we thought there was any chance of lessening our impact on global warming, even if in the end there was nothing to do about it anyway, why wouldn't we do it? This is a question that I *never* see the skeptics answer.

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[moore.dustin]

We should, but the way in which the laws will be enacted will be detrimental to our society. I want the reasons to be right so the actions taken are right. One cannot say that cleaning up our act is a bad idea. It is great idea and we should do it! That being said, I do not want the government to meddle with business. If you care enough to want to clean up the earth, do not support companies with massive carbon footprints.

Now go drive your internal combustion engine powered vehicle to buy your organic produce.

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[cching]

Now go drive your internal combustion engine powered vehicle to buy your organic produce.
 
Why, yes, I do buy organic when I can. And, as for my car, I do drive a car, but I live about 3 miles from work and, quite honestly, don't drive that often. I am going to be changing my habits, though, and riding my bike more. See, I don't mind making lifestyle changes to support our environment. How about you?

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[moore.dustin]

I do what I can. Every little bit helps! I focus on recycling and conservation mainly. I hope to make my next vehicle a hybrid or electric, but they are not a lot of things, including economically worth it(for me) and carbon neutral.

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[Ragingguppy]

I've seen An Inconvenient Truth. I believe the skeptics. The Great Global warming swindle and global warming doomsday called off is another movie you should watch. Those two movies are both BBC and CBC documentaries. And I think that if you watch all the movies you get a pretty balanced view of whats going on. I still believe the skeptics. I don't believe that global warming is man made.

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[joggle]

I appreciate the recommendations. However, it seems to be impossible to rent 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' since it hasn't been released on DVD (or if it has it isn't available on netflix). Based on what I've read on wikipedia it seems that it isn't really worth watching. Most (if not all) of the main points in the movie seem to be based on dated material that have already been debunked. I read the wikipedia article for 'An Inconvenient Truth' as well and couldn't find any significant counter-claims or criticisms to even most of its main arguments.

In 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' they claimed that volcanoes emitted more CO2 than human activity. However, this is false (and has been known to be false) for quite some time and even the director has admitted that this claim wasn't true. A couple of plots in the movie were also wrong (with one plot showing a time series that seemed to end at the present rather than 1988). Frankly, for this and the other reasons listed on the wikipedia article I see no reason to watch this movie. I have watched other movies on 'controversial' topics such as how the world is believed to be only 6000 years old or so according to Creationists (yes, they make movies too). It is rather tedious writing down their claims, doing some simple research, and subsequently debunking one after another one of their claims. Unless the movie is made with significantly better quality-control than the one you mentioned I will be happy to just read the summary.

Brief excerpt from wikipedia article:

The Times reported that Durkin had seriously fallen out with a scientist who had been considering working with him. Armand Leroi was concerned that Durkin had used data about a correlation between solar activity and global temperatures which had subsequently been found to be flawed. Leroi sent Durkin an e-mail saying, "To put this bluntly: the data that you showed in your programme were . . . wrong in several different ways". He copied the e-mail to scientific author Simon Singh. Durkin responded to Leroi saying "You're a big daft cock". Singh sent an email to Durkin urging him to engage in serious debate. Durkin responded stating, "Since 1940 we have had four decades of cooling, three of warming, and the last decade when temperature has been doing nothing", and concluded with, "Go and fuck yourself". Durkin later apologised for his language, saying that he had sent the e-mails when tired and had just finished making the programme, and that (despite his comments) he was "eager to have all the science properly debated with scientists qualified in the right areas".

Re:Watch 'An Incovenient Truth'. Seriously.

[Ragingguppy]

The Great Global Warming Swindle has been published on YouTube. Its a BBC documentary. But there is another one that is also relevant. That was done by the Canadian Broadcasting Commission. Its in multiple parts. I'm sure the infighting on the facts go back and forth though. The one thing the people in those movies do admit is more science is needed.

So let's assume we're the problem.

[Baba Ram Dass]

So, let's assume that the earth is getting warmer and that human activity is the main contributing factor. What's the solution? Obviously it's to stop doing the activities that's causing the climate change. And I'm all for that, but do we need government to step in for it to happen? Absolutely not.

Oil is increasing in price, and consumers are rightfully bitching about it when they pay at the pumps. And alas, the market is responding; hybrid this, alternative-fuel that... the market is going to fix the problem faster than public policy ever could. In 30 years, we won't be driving gasoline vehicles anymore, not because our public policy has outlawed them but for the same reason we don't use typewriters anymore: they simply will no longer be cost effective in relation to the alternatives the market provides.

This doesn't stop at cars, though. Ever get things shipped to your doorstep? The cost of those kinds of services have "hidden" fuel surcharge taxes (imposed by the business, not government) attached to them. When the efficiency of fuel increases (due to whatever solutions the market provides), the cost of those services will go down. (As a side effect, the cost of goods that are shipped inter-business will go down as well.)

One thing the government could do to help the market solve our global warming problem sooner rather than later is to get rid of the oil subsidies. This would cause the price of gasoline to increase even more (towards the extent it would be in a free market), and consumers will demand that much more for more cheaper alternatives to gasoline.

Alarmists!

[shelterpaw]

We have a history of global warming or cooling alarmists. My fist assumption by looking at just a small history of reporting is that we don't have a friggin clue.

Example:

• In 1895 The New York Times wrote "Geologists Think the World May Be Frozen Up Again."
• In 1924 New York Times ran stories about "A New Ice Age."
• In 1933 the New York Times wrote "The Longest Warming Spell since 1776."
• In 1975 the New York Times wrote, "A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable. "

Now Time Magazine's turn:

• In 1923 Time Magazine wrote "The discovery of changes in the sun's heat and the southward advance of glaciers in recent years, have given rise to conjectures of possible advent of a new ice age."
• In 1939 Time Magazine wrote: "Weather men have no doubt that the world at leas for the time being is growing warmer."
• In 1974 Time Magazine wrote: " Experts are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age."
• In 2001 Time Magazine wrote: "Scientists no longer doubt that global warming is happening."

I have no idea whether these scientists or climatologists really have a clue or not, but we should be focusing on cleaning up are act regardless. Cleaner energy is a great thing regardless if global warming or cooling is looming. Purely recyclable products should become mandatory. I think we have a moral obligation to have as little impact on the environment as possible. We are clearly intelligent enough to know that most of our byproduct aren't good for the environment and intelligent enough to figure out how to clean it up.

It really shouldn't matter whether you believe global warming/cooling is real or not. It shouldn't matter if your of some political affiliation or not and it shouldn't matter if your an environmentalist or not. What matters is that you do your part and make a statement by doing whatever you can to help reduce pollution and waste.

Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm

[Anonymous Coward]

Whenever this topic come up I wonder the same things. How many times will the same tired and inaccurate arguments be made again anthropogenic warming? Chemistry is easy, that is not a cause for debate. What then are the objectors trying to accomplish? I think, simply to agitate others and do nothing else. Calm or shrill, either way the objectors are simply out to cause others pain. Just leave them aside and only demand your governments act to curb this problem. Bickering on a discussion site is useless in that sense. Social pressures will do nothing. They never have.

Just don't get cremated

[Anonymous Coward]

You're kidding, right? Do you know how long it takes for a human body to decompose? I'll give you a clue: longer than its weight in empty McDonalds Happy Meal boxes.

And don't even get me started on cremation. Between the mercury from burning your fillings and the noxious gases exploding out your carcass, that does more damage than a lifetime commuting in a Hummer.

Not to mention the extra damage of your chosen method of suicide.

No, if you care about the environment even a little, you'll stay alive. Just don't DO ANYTHING.

Whatever the merits of either argument is...

[vorlich]

one thing is certain. This is the year of an over-heated media interest in Global Warming. In many ways media overheating is similar to the cycles of the sun and this planet. Global warming is the latest black magic that the media can write about without objectively addressing the scientific evidence either way. They don't need to because, just like all those shampoo commercials the science part is just plain old magic that requires no peer review or rigorous experimental duplication and falsifiability. The basis of this comes from the classic questions of journalism that can be applied to all situations and to all people, namely:

How bad is it?
Will it get any worse?
What are you going to do about it?

Whatever the answers are to these questions, they will produce all the great copy you ever needed and the various special interest groups will throw "evidence" at each other until the cows come home. None of this is a proper examination of the facts or the science, in the main it is nothing more than the self serving point scoring found in the old fashioned grammar school debating society where scientific objectivity takes second place to the gladitorial combat of the debating chamber, the eloquence of the speakers and the choice of the mob.
The media, however is not some autonomous bogeyman concocting these features out of thin air, the media is an industry employing a large number of people who are just ordinary individuals susceptible to the vagaries and fashion that are the wont of their friends, family and neighbours.
They reflect in general the values and prejudices of their audiences and, though it should not come as a surprise to anyone, they use these as the basis of their copy because they are fairly representative of their own demographic. Slashdot readers, editors and moderators are part of a particular demographic - mythically 18 year virginal boygeeks but probably more realistically somewhat older men with families who work in the industry. People like Bill O'Reilly watch Bill O'Reilly. People like Rosie O'Donnell watch Rosie O'Donnell.
Just over 100 years ago the argument was about evolution, missing links, the origin of the universe and a similar level of topical heat was generated.
This fairly regular re-telling of the GW tale which takes places here on slashdot in a now familiar cycle is part of the self same Topical Media Interest - because - and I hope this doesn't come as a surprise - slashdot is a media outlet.
In rather typical debating chamber cliche it goes without saying, but I will, slashdot is very much the model of the grammar school debating society and in many cases the topic is an opinion and the point scoring highly amusing and the sense of common community (whether we agree with each other or not) is something that I consider adds value to my "media experience" - there are only so many re-runs of Stargate that I can watch. But a certain staleness is creeping into this topic and, maybe we could let it stew a bit, or shift over to a lengthy and heated debate on Global Dimming which should be next year's big thing and of course we should all be able to say "Oh yeah, we were discussing that on slashdot last year - it's so Second Life".
Alternatively we could all agree to blame it on President George W.Bush for the moment and that way I can stay on message with the friendly emails Michael Moore regularly sends me - but of course sadly, not in a personal context.

Solution?

[axia777]

Is adaptation, which the human race is GREAT at. We will adapt, no matte what. It is what we do. That is why we have huge brains and cunning intelligence(well, some of us at least). I am getting tired of the arguing over what caused it. Humans all need to just get on with coming up with solutions to problems that may arise in the advent of serious climate change. Like food shortages, which are already a big problem in large parts of the world. Imagine if the Bread Basket of America just stopped producing? Big problem. Solutions and adaptation are the answers. Those that don't adapt to the problems facing them will be screwed.

Good catch

[benhocking]

There were two parts: (1) Particulate pollution is contributing to global cooling. This is still held to be true. Only a handful of scientists thought this contribution was significant, and one (maybe more) published a book about it. (2) We are past due for an ice age. AFAIK, this is still held to be true by a majority of scientists.

Re:Good catch

[untaken_name]

I agree with both of your points above. However, that doesn't change the fact that 'they' (when a pronoun is given with no explanation, it's rather hard to say who 'they' are or were) DID predict global cooling in the '70s. Therefore saying 'They didn't predict global cooling in the '70s' is demonstrably wrong. Just because it wasn't as big then doesn't mean it didn't exist. Perhaps if the internet and the giant, overwhelming penetration of mass media had been around then, it would have been much more prominent. I don't know. I DO know that it happened, and saying that it didn't is just plain flat out wrong period full stop end of story.

Or...

[Nom du Keyboard]

Or the Sun is putting out more energy, explaining why Mars and Uranus are also showing signs of recent warming. These planets are clearly guilty of heresy to the PC GW movement!

Re:Or...

[PigIronBob]

Rubbish, apply the inverse square law to the temperature increases for both Earth and Mars and it becomes obvious that the 2 are totally unrelated.

Re:Or...

[geekoid]

NO FAIR! You used science!..and I suspect mathmatics... I'll have to consult The Bible.

Who has doubts

[benhocking]

There are two levels of doubts. (1) That we are most likely contributing significantly to global warming. Find one climatologist who disagrees with this, and find it in their own words. (I.e., don't trust people like Inhofe.) (2) That we are beyond a reasonable doubt contributing to the majority of global warming. You'll definitely find "more than just a few" climatologists who disagree with this. So, if you were in charge what would be your criteria? 90% of all climatologists have to believe that we are the primary cause beyond a reasonable doubt? 95%? 99%? 100%?!?

You'll never have complete agreement about anything. To paraphrase Voltaire: "The best is the enemy of the good". Don't hold your breath waiting for perfection.

Re:Who has doubts

[Oligonicella]

Lindzen - 2007 Newsweek, Inc. "Climate modelers assume the cause must be greenhouse-gas emissions because they have no other explanation. This is a poor substitute for evidence, and simulation hardly constitutes explanation.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Re:Who has doubts

[that this is not und]

Your tagline sort of gives it away. You're in the business, eh?

What's funny is your post and slanting.

[WED Fan]

That's funny, I was going to say the same thing about you. In this corner we have 10,000 scientists of various employment that say global climate change is a fact and is significantly caused by human activity. In that corner we have a small handful of scientists mostly employed by the oil industry that say global climate change or at least the contribution by humans is a myth.

Point: Your numbers are wrong.

Point: Your characterizations are wrong.

Not every scientist who says "no" to human-driven change is employed by the oil industry.

Not every scientist who believes climate change is occuring, believes it is man-driven.

Take a look a look at this list of significant scientists that are now abandoning the "man-driven" idea. Some even say they felt pressured to lend their voice to the "man-driven" cause because that was the side their bread was buttered on.

The fact is, this argument has now become a religious argument and the science is actually second, or even third to the argument and agendas.

Do try to step back and become a dispassionate.

Re:What's funny is your post and slanting.

[Docboy-J23]

There have always been doomsayers, people who stand on the corners insisting that people abandon their decadent lifestyles and embrace something they feel is better-tempered (or, insisting that people likewise bow and grovel). Religions lost their insight thanks to politics, I hope scientists don't lose any insight from the same thing. It's all the same search for meaning, as far as history cares.

Even if the climate gets ugly, I have faith that the truly rational thinkers will find the means for everyone to survive, even change to a better-tempered lifestyle. Coincidentally, I don't drive a car. It's not so bad. A guy in a bar told me this is the attitude of a true sheep, and if this is so, then "baaaa"

.04 degrees since when?

[benhocking]

Where in the world are you pulling that number from? Inhofe? Perhaps you mean 0.4 degC since 1940 or approximately 0.7 degF? Certainly you don't really mean .04 degrees.

One at a time now

[symbolset]

>increasing the amount of desert area on the planet,

Lizards and sand fleas need habitat too.

>disrupting migration patterns of animals and birds,

ah... yawn... what was that again?

>wiping out some species,

species die every hour, and more are born. This is the engine of biodiversity.

>putting other species where they've never been,

Yes, motion is a particularly exciting benefit of adaptation. Even the crabgrass in my lawn encroaches new favorable habitat quickly. In more advanced species this can even lead to locomotion -- the self-willed creation of self motion - for example, the brillant Caribou of norther Canada have evolved the instinct of dodging onrushing glaciers moving at sheer feet per day! Apparently evolution is a dead end here, though, as evidenced by the millions of humans that live in places obviously unsuited to life (the Sonora desert, Baghdad, Canadian Parliament.)

>and making weather wonky in a whole lot of ways that we can't even begin to fully predict.

And now you're just guessing.

Re:One at a time now

[drinkypoo]

and making weather wonky in a whole lot of ways that we can't even begin to fully predict.

And now you're just guessing.

Weather is called a chaotic system specifically because it is not predictable at a fine level. You can make projections about global temperature and the like, but it's impossible to say what the weather will be like in Solla Sollew on January 21st, 2032.

Weather is practically the definition of a chaotic system, and one thing we know about such things is that when you add energy to the system (inputs) then energy comes back out of it (outputs) but it comes out in unpredictable fashions.

As such, we can say with some certainty that we will have inexplicable and unusual results from adding energy to the global weather system.

Yay yay, abuse moderation today!

[drinkypoo]

60% Insightful 20% Troll 20% Overrated

It's obvious that this is not a troll. And we all know that moderating as "Overrated" is what abusers of the moderation system do to avoid being caught by metamoderation.

But when you abuse moderation in order to attempt to bury someone's opinions and statements, you only assist their cause, assuming that you don't actually succeed in burying them.

Please, try to be mature enough that you don't have to start a moderation war. I enjoy the part where you sabotage your viewpoint by making your side look corrupt and my side look noble. But I think that we can have a higher quality of discussion if we forgo such stupidity.

No, it's not guesswork based on inaccurate models

[benhocking]

This stuff was predicted well before these "inaccurate models" you're decrying based off of simple thermodynamic principles.

The debunking is about its certainty

[benhocking]

When you have a few years worth of data on a planet whose orbital period is between one and two years, it's silly to talk about it's climate showing any kind of trend. We've got 7 planets in this solar system besides Earth. At random, you would expect some to be showing signs of warming and others to be showing signs of cooling. To use Mars as evidence that global warming on Earth isn't anthropogenic is silly and that's what they're debunking.

Re:The debunking is about its certainty

[trewornan]

That's a bit suspect. There is evidence of global warming on Mars even if (admittedly) it's far from conclusive.

Also, why would you "expect some [planets] to be showing signs of warming and others to be showing signs of cooling" - other than seasonal variations I would expect them to show stable temperatures (or all be moving in the same direction). Well perhaps that's a bit strong to say "expect", "consider more probable" might be closer to the mark.

The fact that two planets appear to be undergoing global warming at the very least "suggests" there might be a connecting factor - surely worth some investigation?

Further, if all the planets in the solar system were currently undergoing global warming would we be able to detect it? That's not a rhetorical question, I don't know and would be genuinely interested in the answer.

Myths

[Anonymous Coward]

I've noticed a lot of comments which start with the word "Myth: Polar bear populations are decreasing." This is not the way the article is set up: the word myth doesn't appear before each statement. What the proper pretext for each statement in the article should be is: "Statement which people make to justify throwing out the idea of global warming." The article gives a nice description of important factors influencing polar bear populations, and notes that of the four major populations, two are growing and two are declining. Saying "do it for the polar bears" is certainly a poorly chosen tactic for convincing people we need to do something about carbon emmisions.

But again: the article doesn't claim that these 26 statements in and of themselves are completely incorrect, just that they are standard straw-man arguments used to debunk reams of scientific data. The use of "myth" in the title is misleading.

MOD PARENT UP

[fritsd]

Wow that was insightful :-)

Not the West Indies?

[benhocking]

I had assumed he was looking for the West Indies. Maybe that's just what he thought he found? I'm obviously no Columbus expert.

Re:Please also remember (Sure we could)

[Anonymous Coward]

Going backwards through the list...

Flood the desert (any desert) on purpose

Sure we could... Off the top of my head, the Judean, Libyan, and Colorado deserts all have significant portions of their land area below sea level, and all of them are fairly close to a major body of water. We clearly have the requisite technology to construct a canal from such body of water to the low spots of any of these deserts, and getting water to flow downhill isn't all that hard. For the deserts above sea level it would, granted, be difficult and costly to construct the pipelines needed to do the deed, and perhaps the geological realties of the deserts in question do not lend themselves to flooding easily, but, again, we clearly have the requisite technology to pump lots of water uphill, if we wanted to.

Drain the ocean (any ocean) on purpose

OK, while I could fantasize about some system that would remove the water from the Earth entirely (and I'm not at all sure that such a system is outside of our technical reach), I'll grant you the point. It would be impossible to move an ocean's amount of water to another place on Earth's surface and not have it drain back into the ocean's basin. But what's your point? The exact opposite of draining an ocean is filling an ocean and, as far as I remember from the handful of transoceanic flights I've been on, the oceans are already full. I've never heard anyone say "If we don't get a handle on Global Warming that gigantic, empty ocean basin over there is going to fill up". I've heard concerns about the ocean level rising some and displacing populations that live at or near sea-level in costal areas, but that's a much more modest claim than filling an entire ocean. The exact opposite of a few meter sea level rise would be a few level sea level decline, not a complete drain, and I'd bet that if we just flooded some deserts... you get the idea.

Cool the Earth ten degrees on purpose
Freeze the polar ice-caps on purpose

These two really go together since cooling the Earth's average global temperature would certainly have the effect of freezing the polar ice-caps (if you could find a single scientist on either side of the GW debate to say otherwise, I'd be shocked). I'm also assuming that precision is not an important factor, as GW scientists do not predict that the Earth will warm by a precise amount. Again, off the top of my head, I can think of three ways to cause significant global cooling.

First, the easy and quick way would be to deploy a good sized nuclear arsenal against 6-7 hundred decent sized cities as well as the largest forests on each continent. The resultant fires should pour enough aerosol particles into the atmosphere to envelop the earth. This aerosol envelope would block a good deal of the Sun's radiation but allow infrared heat transfer from Earth to space, resulting in a significant net cooling of the planet, freezing of the ice-caps, general mayhem, etc.

Second, if we're looking for something a little less extreme, we do know that sulphate aerosols are quite reflective and can be produced in large quantities. I would posit that the human race possesses the requisite technology to create a fleet of high-flying airplanes specially designed to seed the upper atmosphere with significant amounts of these aerosols. The effect should be similar to the nuke winter scenario, without the mass casualties. In fact, back in the 70's scientists were concerned that the use of these aerosols in consumer products might just produce such a cooling effect. (That is not, by the way, why they were banned. They were banned because the sulfur would get into the rain water and make sulfuric acid)

The third and, admittedly, most difficult of my three ideas would be to create a solar shield. Current advances in nanotechnology allow the production of really, really, thin, really, really, large sheets which could be deployed between the Sun and the Earth, say at the L1 Lagrange point. Maybe it

Melt the planet!

[TrashGUY]

I wish it would hurry up. The great grand kids will be building the palace in my name on all the land I bought in northern Canada.

them there planetary scientists

[dj_virto]

What about dem there plantary scientists with them probes and such. I don't hold to it much, but I once here man by the name of Carl Sagan talkin bout how some of dem there other carbon dense planets are hotter than they should be, iffin only solar heating were taken into tha 'count. Seemed kinda like they-all had what some folks call consensus on that there point.

RTFA

[Scrameustache]

You want to hear from scientists? Perhaps you should go read what these scientists have to say (The scientist's comments are a little way down the page.)
Suffice it to say that the scientific community is not unanimous on the issue of anthropocentric warming.

Climate change sceptics sometimes claim that many leading scientists question climate change. Well, it all depends on what you mean by "many" and "leading". For instance, in April 2006, 60 "leading scientists" signed a letter urging Canada's new prime minister to review his country's commitment to the Kyoto protocol.

This appears to be the biggest recent list of sceptics. Yet many, if not most, of the 60 signatories are not actively engaged in studying climate change: some are not scientists at all and at least 15 are retired.

Compare that with the dozens of statements on climate change from various scientific organisations around the world representing tens of thousands of scientists, the consensus position represented by the IPCC reports and the 11,000 signatories to a petition condemning the Bush administration's stance on climate science.

The fact is that there is an overwhelming consensus in the scientific community about global warming and its causes. There are some exceptions, but the number of sceptics is getting smaller rather than growing.

YES!

[Mazin07]

Yes! My plan to get rich is still good!

Joke ...[great distance]... you

[Scrameustache]

"Just believe in ID, it has more prove that the stuff you pull out."
Oh really? Care to site sources for this proof? Care to learn the meaning of "sarcasm"?

And we now know why

[benj_e]

The reason? Canada ice uses Enzyte, the best product for natural enhancement.

Global Warming

[DirtyShaman]

Sorry, I could give a crap about global warming. I really just don't care about the environment, what I'm doing to it, or even Al Gore's electricity usage. I'm sure we'll adapt to whatever happens and I'm just as sure this will get modded down to flamebait.

When does the burden of proof shift to deniers?

[condour75]

At this point, there's a well supported scientific and political consensus that global warming is occurring and is man-made. It seems to me that to make the extraordinary claim that it's not happening, you'd need to provide overwhelming evidence that it's not happening, along with, perhaps, a model that explains why it's not happening in the face of evidence to the contrary.

Re:When does the burden of proof shift to deniers?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, condour75, they got you with the "big lie" The concensus was announced, and trumpeted, before anyone objected. Once in place, it is easy to maintain, just repeat "The Science is settled, the science is settled" ad infinitum. This forces the opponents into the defensive position you've outlined.

Sadly the key result theat kicked off the massive level of media acceptance was the the MBH98/99 paper and subsequent use (by the authors) or the IPCC third assesment report. Is their any grpahic more iconic of global warming than the "hockey stick" graph?

So what if it is based on dubious statistics? So what if it overturned established climate history (MWP, LIA etc) ?

Where was the burden of proof then?

To those who would say: "yes, fine but subsequent studies have shown incontravertable proof..." ... please, most of those studies are from the same groups, use the same (flawed) methods, or are simply anecdotal (IMHO).

Did you guys really read TFA?

[Radical Moderate]

Yes, some scientists in the 70s claimed that we were entering a cooling stage, but his point is that it was only a handful of scientists and the media took it and ran with it. Once the data was investigated further the scientists backed off. I was just a little shaver then and I remember the hype, but I can't say if the whole scientific community was behind it or if it was just a few mavericks. And judging from your posts, neither can you.

Based on what??

[Anonymous Coward]

So, scientists have a pathological need to disagree with each other. If they aren't disagreeing then they are obviously trying to fool everyone for some reason?

Except it will affect us --- immigrants

[Anonymous Coward]

We'll get even more immigrants trying to escape the hellhole their country has become, courtesy of our cars.

Oh, sorry, "refugees", not immigrants.

Location Location Location

[nrublimk]

In fact, April's temperatures were cooler than average according to a report released today, and 2006 was the least active hurricane season in decades despite dire predictions to the contrary.
Good to know it's cool where you are... Alternatively,

Warmest April on record confirmed
Last month was the warmest April in the UK on record, with virtually no rain in some areas, the Met Office said.

UK sees hottest weekend of year
Forecasters said it reached 26.5C in Herstmonceux in East Sussex on Sunday - about 10 degrees above average.

Winter 'second warmest on record'
The UK has experienced its second warmest winter on record, with a mean temperature of 5.47C (41.8F)

Moscow enjoys warmest start to spring
Since the start of March, Moscow has experienced daily temperatures about 6 degrees above what would be expected for the time of year.

Not Ad Hominem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, that's not an ad hominem agrument. The government is a biased party and so shouldn't be taken at face value in this particular agrument (not to mention that this source isn't specificly from the government itself but from one of the most conservative people in it).

If somebody said you shouldn't believe the article because it's authored a guy who thinks 9/11 was an act of God to punish homosexuality (which is true), that would be an Ad Hominem argument. Stating that the government is a biased party when it comes to global warming is not ad hominem when talking about an article on global warming.

In the same way, opposing vegetarianism by saying Hitler was a vegetarian is Ad Hominem because vegitarianism has nothing to do with what Hitler is considered evil for. If on the other hand, you showed me a book written by Hitler that says scientific studies show Jews are less intelligent than other people, and I said that Hitler is biased in this manner, I would NOT be making an ad hominem argument because Hitler's history shows an irrational hatred of Jews and thus he is likely to be biased in this particular argument.

Oil exploration is a distraction

[TFloore]

Why are politicians taxing cars and gasoline while funding searches for MORE OIL? Seriously, if politicians wanted to fight global warming instead of just getting more money from the good hearted sheep they govern, they could just allow less oil and gas to be extracted from the ground, couldn't they?

This one has an easy economics answer. Well, it does if you ignore the bribed politicians angle.

Fund oil searches all you want. If really doesn't matter.

Raise CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) requirements by 100%. And enforce it. Let the manufacturers figure out what they need to do to meet those requirements. Mostly, I suspect, it will mean they raise the price of low-mpg vehicles (trucks and suvs, which need to be included in CAFE) until they are at a point that only the "correct" number are sold in relation to more efficient small cars such that they meet the CAFE requirements. If an auto company misses the mark, the federal government fines them by a few billion dollars for each missed MPG. Not a tax, which you can get out of by writing off an equivalent loss on your tax filings. A fine.

You'll have highly efficient cars in the US in 5 years, if you do that.

You'll also have some very upset voters. Oops.

You can guide people towards the cars you want them to drive, simply by making the "evil" choice too expensive for the bottom 95% of the market.

Re:Vote with your money

[MightyYar]

LOL, I didn't mean it like that. It's just that Fox is the only station I've seen that gives any real time to these anti-global warming guys. But now that I think about it, it's the only mainstream media outlet I see for all sorts of conspiracy nuts... they had a 9/11 conspiracy guy on the other night - he was way unplugged.

Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh Meh Gawd!!! I can't believe you would post something so un-researched and retarded!!! You are a stupid, funny-smelling idiot-jerk who needs professional help and probably a free copy of your credit report!!!! May your armpits be infested with the fire of 1000 fleas!!! and... YOUR MOM!!!

(Does it feel hot in here to you?)

Sidenote: I originally typed this in all caps for added humor value. Upon hitting send, Slahsdot informed me of the following:
  Lameness filter encountered. Post aborted!
Reason: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.

YAY! I love Slashdot :)

more like 'F'

[Anonymous Coward]

I see where you're getting the 'fear' from. But uncertainty? Doubt? What's uncertain? What's in doubt? The proponents of global warming certainly don't promote uncertainty or doubt as far as I can tell.

Yeah, the sheep can read the wolves' report

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ipcc.ch/
UN report on climate change

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}
http://www.ipcc.ch/WG1_SPM_17Apr07.pdf (Summary for policy makers, report 1, Scientific Basis)

There's a couple of other reports on there too, including a mitigation report.

Open to persuasion?

[benhocking]

Have you made up your mind that AGW is real?

Yes, and I don't pretend otherwise - unlike many self-labeled "skeptics".

Does that mean I should call you by some name like that?

Sure. "Informed citizen" or "scientist" (in my case) are both apt. Believe it or not, scientists do come to conclusions after viewing a sufficient amount of evidence. Of course, I'll admit that in my case, all evidence that I'm relying on is second-hand, so don't count me as a primary source for anything (not that you would).

My experience indicates that most people actually are open to persuasion, but that the persuader often strongly disagrees with the person he is trying to persuade on what that person's threshold for accepting the theory should be.

It depends on what you mean by "open to persuasion". After a certain age, my experience indicates quite the opposite. However, in this case, it does seem that many actual skeptics (people who genuinely hadn't made up their mind), are being convinced. Many others are just following the herd. Unfortunate reason, but it's human nature. I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun. That won't come until it becomes much more expensive to fix, unfortunately, but I think it will come.

Assuming you have not yet accepted AGW, what's your threshold? What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

Re:Open to persuasion?

[pete-classic]

I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun.

I personally believe that the Earth does go around the Sun, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point!

Assuming you have not yet accepted AGW, what's your threshold? What sort of evidence would it take to convince you?

I swear I have heard that exact statement before, only with Jesus in the place of AGW. (Though I maintain opposite positions on those two questions.)

I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm skeptical of both things that I believe and things that I disbelieve. (I am only too aware of my own intellectual shortcomings.) I think we're using that word in two slightly different ways. The meaning you seem to be using is more like "undecided" and mine is more like "incredulous".

AGW is the prevailing theory, and it's the best thing we have to go by, so, in a very minimal way, I "accept" it. The Scientific process rolls on on the topic, though I am quite disturbed by the apparent financial incentives to find evidence for but not against. I'm also very put off by the U.N.'s involvement in all of this. I believe pretty strongly that there's no problem in this wide world that the U.N. can't exacerbate.

The two far bigger questions in my mind are, if we presume AGW to be the reality, 1. What are the likely effects? and, 2. What are the smart things to do about it?

On it's face it seems obvious: Probably bad, cut carbon emissions.

How we do that in moral, humane, financially responsible way that is appropriate to the likely results of failure is an open question in my opinion.

-Peter

mmmm

[Chtulhu]

that's interesting but the question is:

Does it run Linux?

Factually wrong

[Scrameustache]

Let's recap shall we.
New scientist publishes an article "debunking" global warming scepticism in which they say it's a "myth" that polar bear numbers are not declining. NO, the myth is " Polar bear numbers are increasing".

Increasing != "not declining".

Re:Factually wrong

[trewornan]

OK, you're right. I skimmed the article and missed this particular point of *exactly* what it was they were claiming to be a myth. I am in error.

Re:No, it's not guesswork based on inaccurate mode

[Burnhard]

No I'm not. You are basing an entire argument on simple thermodynamic principles that are demonstrable in isolation. But the climate is not a single simple thermodynamic principle in isolation. It is a complex interplay between many simple princples the sum total of which is an extremely complex and unpredictable system. Moreover, the nature of these principles and their emergent behaviour is not well understood.

Nice

[alexj33]

Seems like all of the "Myths" are on one side of the coin. Isn't this just a little suspicious?

I KNEW it!

[Anonymous Coward]

"A theory which in fact they provide a debunking for."

Damn. So where did the glaciers come from then? My school teacher told me the last ice age, but now that you've debunked that there ever was an ice age, I can go kick Mrs. McDonald in her fat keister.

Re:Vote with your money

[gustafsd]

I'm sorry, but are you saying that vegetables are worse for the environment than meat? Because if you do you're terribly wrong. It's a simple question of efficiency. I know this is a fact that is not liked by most Americans, but a lot more food could be produce in a lot less land if vegetables were favored instead of meat. Ask yourself why does food in poor countries contain less meat and more vegetables? The answer is simple: because meat is expensive. Why is meat expensive? Because it takes more resources to produce it! This is of course an approximation but the land usage of meat production is somewhere about ten (for cows, less for smaller animals) times the land usage of producing vegetables.

You're not what?

[benhocking]

No I'm not.

You're not what? I think something got lost in translation there. (I'm not deliberately taking you out of context. I really have no idea what you're saying you're not.

You are basing an entire argument on simple thermodynamic principles that are demonstrable in isolation.

You complain about the complex models, so I mention it's based on simple principles. Then you complain that the principles are too simple. Let me know if I've gotten something wrong here.

Originally, in the 60's, it was based off simple thermodynamical principles. That's enough to get the general idea. To determine how bad it will get, however, you have to understand both positive and negative feedback cycles. That's where the complex models come into play. Are they complete? No. However, they've been pretty good at setting a lower bound for how bad things are going to be. Recently, it's been vogue in certain circles to call these models into question by pointing out how they've been too conservative. However, the models have been designed to underpredict. They couldn't account for the effects of underwater streams under the ice, so they treated them as if they would have no effect knowing that the real result would be only worse. This was mentioned explicitly in the IPCC reports.

As I've said elsewhere, "the best is the enemy of the good" (Voltaire). Don't hold your breath waiting for perfect models. However, they're already good.

Re:You're not what?

[Burnhard]

I'm not missing the point. You are putting too much emphasis on models. Models of non-linear chaotic systems that nobody fully understands. Models that are incomplete, make assumptions based on guesswork and that make predictions from past data that do not in any way resemble current measurements. You are using the conclusions of these models to predict future climate even though you know this to be the case. I don't doubt temperature is increasing. I do doubt the causes of this change. I also doubt the value judgements used that state current global climate is "ideal" and that any change is bad. The whole argument is completely ridiculous.

Re:Global Warming--Good Observation, Bad Conclusio

[Anonymous Coward]

I was always under the impression that radioactive decay in the earths core keeps the heat going. Please provide a link that the earth is cooling. Actually I am interested if there is such as theory.

IPCC = unbiased

[DerangedAlchemist]

IPCC was created largely by the Republicans under Regan specifically to create an organization that would not be biased by being made up of self-appointed experts. It was create specifically to prevent a bunch of environmental wackos from creating a distorted view of climate change. Unfortunately, this group also concluded that there were man made climate changes. This was already well established in 2001, now there is a great deal more evidence. I guess since they found the wrong answer, we'll need a new unbiased group.

Check out the "Skeptical Environmentalist" for another opinion. From someone who slammed the environmental movement on many fronts for creating a distorted views, using the 2001 data, concluded that man made global warming very obviously existed. There was already so much evidence back then that Lomborg thought the debate about man made global warming was very strange. Now as to the size of the effect, the costs of reversing it, etc. there is legitimate debate. Lomborg believed actions such as the Kyoto Protocol were a very bad idea, being very expensive and having little effect.

You can safely ignore global warming deniers, it requires ignorance or a disregard of balanced evidence and logic to hold this opinion. Debate as to the course of action or inaction to take may be very legitimate. For example, proper fishing controls that keep ocean ecosystems healthy would be far more beneficial to ocean life than stopping all CO2 emmitions completely.

Re:FUD Greenland green???

[antisoshal]

okay, normally I ignore most of the nonsense said here, but calmly and factually asserting Greenland was green a few centuries ago and hence the name is beyond false and transcends comical to a territory I dont even have a name for. Greenland was named as such to encourage colonists. Iceland was named as such to discourage travellers. During the middle age warming small coastal portions of Greenland were in fact moderately lush and viking colonists thrived there, however a return to more typical climate for the area and the colosts all perished. The majority of Greenland has been under an Ice Cap thousands of feet thick for many thousands of years. During the same time period that Greenland was "greener", Iceland was even more hospitable than it is now, yet somehow they avoided naming it Greenerland or Greenestland. Its REALLY bad factual assertions like "Greenland was named such because it was once green" that keep the whole discussion of climatology on shakey if not infirm ground. The search for useful information to base ideas upon becomes exceptionally fatiguing when every attempt to present an idea is demeaned by half truths, selective application of knowledge, or just damn lies purported to prove any particulare point. I blame Al Gore for this. Facts have become secondary to presentation almost universally now. Really people. Its fairly simple. Polluting less would be great, lets get on with it. The earth has been warmer, and its certainly reasonable to expect it will do so again no matter how many hybrids we buy or how much toilet paper Sheryl Crow saves. How about we all pay more attention to how to live through it and thrive. Even if we DO manage to undo any damage we might have done, the evidence that it will happen regardless is FAR AND BEYOND irrefutable. Its just the way the erath works. Thanks for showing us Polar Bear cartoons and fancy graphs, Al. Now shut the F**K up and let us get on with survivng as a race. Or we can all work on carbon trading pyramid scemes, growing ethanol that uses more energy that in produces, and shopping at Whole Foods because paying 7$ for a loaf of bread somehow makes me green.

Totally lame criticism of valid article.

[mbkennel]

Another one claiming to debunk that we predicted global cooling in the 1970s doesn't actually debunk it at all. In fact, it admits that many scientific papers indeed predicted it. Then it goes on to explain why they were wrong. How does that debunk it? If anything, it bolsters the argument ("If they were wrong then..."). The best part is the way it ends, by claiming THIS time they're right because TODAY's scientists say different. Why are they different from the scientists of the 1970s?

The debunking is correct and scientifically justified. The statements by New Scientist are all consistent with the modern climatological understanding, which is quite strong.

Even back in the 1970's there was nowhere near the actual strong consensus and overwhelming data there exists today showing the greenhouse effect is going to far out do whatever mechanisms of cooling there might be.

There were no international conferences on cooling and doing something about it then---it was a small perturbation in some research. The data sets (ice cores and other paleogeology) had just become available and there were some analyses of orbital records and predictions. So people started thinking about it and wondering.

The difference between now and 1970's is that in the 1970's there were many open questions, and they KNEW that then.

Not only do scientists generally know more now, they know where they know enough to be confident and where they don't. Then, and now. The data and physics are much stronger now and they point to global warming from greenhouse effect being by far the dominating phenomenon.

Even the same scientists who wrote the 'global cooling' articles now are firmly on the side of the actual consensus (yes there certainly is one among geophysicists and climatologists) regarding anthropogenic global warming and they detest how their old articles are being used in tendentious and misleading ways.

It's truly amazing how otherwise intelligent people (some fraction of Slashdot readers) become preposterously silly babboons with climate science. Where is the denialist or the "We don't really know yet" faction on advanced semiconductor physics? Where is the denialist movement against modern understanding of stellar structure? (stars are less easily observed than Earth in situ)

This article is rediculous propaganda

[stix213]

There are so many holes in this article I can't believe anyone would take it seriously.

1) They explain away global warming that is happening on mars and pluto as no biggie because we are not seeing it on the other planets. HELLO!!!!! Mercury and Venus are so close to the sun that they are already frying (so hot that water cannot even exist), making them poor comparisons to Earth. All the other planets not mentioned are gas giants without a solid core, which makes for some very drastic changes on how they trap solar radiation (also not good comparisons to Earth). So the only other planets we can compare Earth to are Mars and Pluto (yes I know pluto is no longer a planet, but it is still the same rock it was when we called it one), with Mars being the overall best comparison we have since it is the most similar to Earth.... Which again are experiencing global warming "coincidentally" when Earth is as well.

2) They talk a lot about ice cores and how data from those is less accurate the further you go back. Ya, of course the data is less accurate the further you go back. Our planet is billions of years old, but over 80% of its history there were NO ICE CAPS ON THE POLES! Earth's natural state is much hotter than now, and the fact that Earth has only had year round ice caps for less than 20% of its history is rock solid proof. Only during an Ice age are there year round ice caps on the poles (yes we are in an ice age interglacial period right now.... And never in the history of the planet has Earth's temperature stabilized for very long in an ice age interglacial period, although it has been known to stabilize at much hotter temperatures). The data does not go far back because Ice on the poles is a fairly new thing for the earth. The current Ice age started 40 million years ago, which means that Ice core data can only go back that far. Not very far when you look at how old the Earth really is.

All you fools can go and believe the latest environmental hysteria if you want. There is no stopping global warming in the long run... The earth will eventually return to its normal temperature. The ice caps will melt, and we will have millions of years of sunny days. You only need to look at the history of Earth's climate to see that. There are relatively few scientists pushing this, although anyone who "really" took a good look would agree, because there are no grants for scientists who come to that conclusion. Would you say global warming was caused naturally if you lost your job? I doubt it. You would say global warming is man made... And keep those tax payer funded checks coming, cause I have mouths to feed.

Two more things

[benhocking]

1. You talked about "unverified predictions", so I thought this might interest you.
2. Occasionally (often?), I get a bit worked up about this topic and become a little rude. I apologize if I've come off this way. I get a bit frustrated repeating myself, and I sometimes forget that some people genuinely have never heard these arguments before. That's no excuse, just an explanation.

Some SciFi

[alexo]

For an interesting take on things, read "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn.
Freely available from your local library or from Baen.

But the most important question is...

[NilleKopparmynt]

...how is this dangerous to me?

I do not care what causes it. I do not care about all the statistics. I just care about me!

Minimize global warming regardless of the cause

[nikolajsheller]

Whether or not humans are the cause of global warming, we can do something to slow or halt global warming. It does not matter whether humans are the cause or not, the consequences will be the same; changed weather patterns, mass extinctions and lots of people suffering due to droughts/flooding and food/water shortages. We should do what we can in order to minimize the fluctuations, for our own good, regardless of the cause.

Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm

[Floritard]

Anymore, when I see a story title that has even the possibility to turn into an all out flame war I take a quick look at the comment count. If it's over 150, my ears suddenly ring with the curious sound of scores of old men coughing and foaming at the mouth, apparently a mental cue my mind has assigned to the concept of a heated slashdot discussion. In short, I know it's worth 10-15 minutes of company time. Thank you all.

Ok, less predictable

[symbolset]

drinkypoo, I have a lot of respect for what you have to say on here.

Weather effects are local, transient and in broad scope do not change radically overnight. So hurricanes and tornados get worse. Predictable flooding occurs 100 years from now, to people who choose not to migrate away from affected areas. Droughts develop and people who ignore a decade of drought starve.

How is that different from today?

On the scale of change we are talking about are these impacts significant? They won't even slow the growth of the population a measurable degree.

Re:Ok, less predictable

[drinkypoo]

On the scale of change we are talking about are these impacts significant? They won't even slow the growth of the population a measurable degree.

Because they will be unpredicted. This will not simply be stronger versions of preexisting weather patterns. These droughts and floods will occur without predictability, and that is what makes them so dangerous.

Some of the effects are predictable, and some aren't. We're adding energy to a system that we don't understand simply because it is so very complex.

And the real issue is ......

[wbtittle]

What are we going to do about it?

That is the real question and what many of the skeptics and critics are trying to get across. Shutdown the world and spend Trillions doing it and you prevent the warming 100 years from now by 6 years. OR

You could spend the money on things that actually help people like Clean water, better food supply etc.

Of course that won't do will it. Spending money in a wise manner as opposed to using it to offset the carbon cost of heating your swimming pool.

There is a white elephant in the room and apparently few on slashdot recognize it.

Some policies

[mdsolar]

We do have solar on very afordable terms: what you are paying now for electricity, but as a startup, the insurance issues are still up in the air. Some agents are saying that our rental systems are fully covered by the homeowner's policy while others are not. It actually takes a pretty big hail storm, the kind that breaks windshields, to damage a solar power system, but it will be a relief when we have some systems installed and the insurance companies are getting more consistent. Right now State Farm says yes in some places and no in others. In cases where the insurance company won't cover the system, their will be another option, just like with a rental car. You can find out more by following the links at http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Re:Please also remember

[Anonymous Coward]

> Flood the desert (any desert) on purpose

How about on accident?

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

Greenland again...

[Coryoth]

As for the posts below which respond with "yes, warmer in the age of the dinosaurs", well, there's a reason why Greenland was named Greenland. It was green, merely a few centuries ago. With regard to the greenness of the areas of Greenland settled by the Norse, it seems Google maps and satellite photos can come to out aid. Consider these Googlemaps images of the sites for the Western and Eastern Settlements:
 
  Eastern settlment area, and Eastern settlment map
  Western settlment area, and Western settlement map.
 
Just for reference, here is a zoom of the area of the Brattahlid and Gardar farms (two of the largest/richest farms), and a zoom of the Sandnes farm area from the Western settlment.

Want more? How abut on the ground photos of the ruins?
Gardar ruins
Bratthlid ruins
Hvalsey church

So yes, Greenland was green with reagrd to where the Vikings settled, but then it has been the whole time, and still is today.

Forewarned is forearmed

[mdsolar]

Your mouth to God's ear.... But, I would say that the article has a use. For those not yet exposed to (what is a more polite word for?) deniers, their arguments are disarmed ahead of time, which saves a step or two. There are two problems, 1) the small number of folks who are religious about denial, and 2) the huge amount of money available to promote their views. This helps a little in making the money less useful.
--
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

Gotta Love Slashdot

[krunk7]

Where a bunch of people who have only a vauge idea of what it even means to qualify as "science" or "proven" argue with research done by experts in the field because a letter to the editor they skimmed in Readers Digest while waiting for the Dentist said "Global warming is a bunch of hipe".

Any dissenters please prepend your objection with:

• Citations from respectable science journals (you can't find many, they simply don't exist...yeah, it's that much of a professional consensus)
• Your qualifications, e.g. education and/or experience. You don't have to be a climatologist, but something better then a high school education or liberal arts degree would help. Other wise you most likely don't understand the above citations.

Of course, this is where you say "well who the fuck are YOU?". Well, I'm just a lowly computer engineer who tends to side with the experts in the field and the volumunous amount of research indicating we are experiencing abnormal temperature increases caused by man and primarily his entry into the industrial age.

Thing is, if you disagree with the experts but you a) are not an expert and b) do not have the proven skills to comprehend the experts, then c) you don't think you believe gobal warming isn't happening. Yes, I just called you ignorant if you don't meet the above qualifications. I can do that. I'm on slashdot.

Re:Gotta Love Slashdot

[wpiman]

Pot, you seem to be calling the kettle black.

You believe in global warming because you side with the experts. Is that scientific?

Do you live in an area of the world where weather changes day to day? My local meteorologist is an expert in the field of weather. He is often wrong. I take him with a grain of salt. And- he is privy to the most sophisticated weather models and information.

Now, he can't get the three day forecast right with any consistency. I am supposed to take it as rote that these 30,50 and 100 year models are accurate?

Sorry. I am not an expert in climatology or even local weather phenonmenon, but I will venture to say that field is not a science yet. Start getting the 14 day forecasts correct, and I will start listening to your 14 year ones.

Crappy article headline...

[EmagGeek]

It should be:

"26 assertions about global climate change disagreed with by the other political side, without using any substantive evidence in support."

Several more planets and satellites are warming

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, Mars and Pluto are not the only bodies where there is odd behavior. Most famously consider the second Red Spot we now see on Jupiter.

The claim the sun's radiation has been measured directly since 1978 is interesting but leaves out the accuracy of such measurements. Let me suggest a 1% or so change would likely have gone unnoticed. Consider too that a 10% change in evaporation rates of water on Earth's surface has been around many years but was being denied and ignored until a couple years ago. Measurements of solar flux, where the observers expect stability, are likely to report stability unless and until they are specifically designed to check for small variations over a few decades' time.

From what I read in the press, too, the former consensus of climatologists (the only scientists whose opinions matter in this; amass 10,000 biologists or psychologists or chemists and their specialities will inform them meaningfully not at all) is evaporating, not growing. There is not a consensus that human activity is contributing measurably to global warming. And then there are these embarrassing planets and satellites in the solar system that are suddenly acting funny...as though they were warming.

Remember too the major greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is not carbon dioxide. It is, instead, water vapor.

A well known fact

[mdsolar]

This is so well known, it is done as an experiment at the grade school level. Al Gore has produced a DVD that might help you. The example there is a glass of water with an ice cube floating in it. When the cube melts the water level stays the same. The next example is a glass filled with ice cubes over the brim and water, so that the ice is supported not by boyancy but by the bottom of the glass. When the ice melts, the glass overflows. You should rent his DVD, it is called "An Inconvinient Truth" and it is available at most rental outlets. Ice that is supported by the Earth can contribute to sea level rise, ice that is floating does not. You might also be interested to know that a large part of the sea level rise so far is not from melting ice but rather from thermal expansion of the sea water itself.

Re:Vote with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

Abortions aren't always successful. You are evidence of this.

I'm a denialist.

[zippthorne]

The problem is it's becoming chicken-little science and it's becoming increasingly difficult to separate self-serving politicking from genuine science. For instance, Al Gore's movie contains numerous disingenuous visuals designed to provoke a specific response. He's probably glomming onto the environmental movement as a peg in his next bid for the Presidency. The fact that he part-owns a "carbon-offset" company, the concept of which is incredibly vague is just more evidence. All he adds is noise, and if he was the only proponent, I'd ignore the whole thing.

Now, there are well meaning scientists from NOAA, and other atmospheric research centers with less of an axe to grind. Whose results I'm more likely to believe, not the least of which because I can download their datasets and plug them into MATLAB myself if I want and do the calculations myself.

I don't tend to believe computer models of any kind. My experience with those from other fields is that you're extremely lucky if they even show the feature you're looking for over a few simulated years, let alone have any long-term predictive value. What they're useful for is testing theories about features of the system, but you have to be very careful about the conclusions you draw from them. Sometimes they indicate features that you might not have thought of, since without the simulation you'd be hard pressed to have access to a fine-grained measurement set of any kind.

So, the best things the Climate worriers can do if their concern is real is:

1) Stop crying chicken little. The predictions over anyone's lifetime who's alive right now is on the order of a half a degree. Cities won't be flooded by rising sea level, but they might have to deal with an inexorable retreat from the coast.

2) The solution isn't global communism, asceticism, or reducing the global population by 5/6. If that's the only way, then the cure is worse than the disease, and most people will just take their chances.

3) I used to tell my roomates this in college when they wanted to run the heat: If you're cold, you can always put on another layer of clothes, but if you're too hot, you can't take off more clothes than all of them. Conservation will only get us so far. There's an energy floor below which we simply can't go if we want to continue to live, and we're pretty close to it already. And it's only going to increase as we add population to the world. There are still a few things to cut, but you can't cut all the way to zero.

4) Find a way to get out of the way. Nuclear power IS the answer. There is enough thorium to last for all of our lives, our childrens' lives, and their children's lives for generations to come. There's no such thing as a hydrogen economy (or as probably makes more sense, biodiesel economy) without cheap, clean energy. And for that, we need to put in huge generating capacity, fast. Nuclear is the only technology that fits the bill. The renewables are good, but they're not very well centralized, and take too long to set up to get significant generating capacity. They're a prong, but they're not the only prong, and they're not the prong we can build the quickest. Once energy is cheap enough (electricity isn't the only possible product from a nuclear pile, for instance) people will convert to using that rather than carbon-burners. You have to attack the problem from the supply side.

The best thing to do is find a way to cut as much regulatory tape as possible (and safe, obviously) on nuclear plant production. We can work on better solutions during our thousand generations of "too cheap to meter" power.

In short, the GW crowd would be a lot more believable and acceptable if they'd stop getting in the way of real solutions and promoting ridiculous half-measures or pie-in-the-sky schemes for other people to give up something, possibly something as important to them as their own or their childrens' lives.

90 years to walk from Sudan to Moscow

[symbolset]

You will note in your linked image that the biggest increase in precipitation is over that "arable land" I was talking about. For the most part they get big temp increases as well. Of course I care that people are going to starve. That's why I care about arable land. That much more water over such large areas suggests viable hydro power also. You're suggesting they stay where they are. Don't you care that they're going to starve?

Now if there was some way of getting the hungry people from where they are to where the food will grow... Some way that involved them applying some self help to earn their escape from darwin's cut... O, if people were only equipped with some method for moving themselves about lest they perish!

Seriously, I use these redundant articles to grind my favorite axe about this subject. Too many people are possessed of the notion that they're committed to live out their lives within 50 miles of where their mother first dropped them, and their children also, as if the world promised them it would be theirs and their progeny's forever. It doesn't work that way. Climate changes. Move or perish. Spread the word.

And by the way, the "more arable land" would be in areas that aren't currently farmed, so we'd be chopping down even more trees and compounding the problem by wrecking even more carbon sinks.

Trees do not sink more carbon than crops. Especially not the scruffy 4/acre trees that grow in permafrost vs modern managed crops.

Re:90 years to walk from Sudan to Moscow

[deserttrail]

Funny thing about people: they like to draw lines on the ground and then tend to look unkindly to other people crossing them. Even today, in my country, there are a lot of people who are very upset about an influx of immigrants from our neighbor to the south. Most of these immigrants simply want a better life in a more prosperous country, but the natives here see it as a threat to their prosperity. Weird, huh?

Just thought I'd point out that large scale migrations aren't as easy as the "just pick up and move north" you make it sound like.

Re:90 years to walk from Sudan to Moscow

[Anonymous Coward]

A few people migrating, sure, happens all the time.

A few hundred thousand, a couple million? Happens now and then. Often leads to social problems.

A billion? Global war. Only way.

Slashdot blows

[detokaal]

Not one single submission that reflects disagreement with global warning gets posted - no matter the source or their credentials or even the quality of science that backs it up. But this type of flamebait title gets posted right away. How many more pro-GW articles can you throw up here? At least make some attempt to not appear part of the alarmist crowd. Even most of the Pro GW crowd isn't as militant about GW as Slashdot.

Inductive fallacy

[BeanThere]

Even if it was true that "they" (as in "the entire scientific community by concensus") predicted global cooling "soon", it still wouldn't be a valid argument against global warming, because that's an inductive fallacy: "The last prediction was wrong, THEREFORE this prediction must also be wrong". The two are independent of one another. (In fact the majority of the members of the scientific community of 40 years ago are different to those today, so even "they" is a different "they".)

But it's not all bad.

[symbolset]

One at a time again:

>increased prevalence of tropical diseases;

Probably not related. Lack of modern medicine is a bigger issue for these people. And for the uninsured in the US for that matter. If they prefer less risk from these things, they should go north.

>coastal erosion and flooding;

You've got a cure for that? Love to hear it. AFAIK coasts have been eroding since long before life sloshed up from the sea. At this point all the waterfront property has been reserved for the personal enjoyment of the wealthy, so I don't care.

>loss of biodiversity; Somehow global warming stops the natural variation and selection process? I'd like to see evidence of a solid link. Otherwise all you've got is a normal variation in known vs unknown species where the unknown is the many times greater than the known. What useful and interesting, perhaps even cuddly, new species might arise? Will one of them cure cancer? We may never know.

>increased deaths from heat stroke;

I can't believe you honestly think these numbers are significant on a global scale and millenial scope. They matter to the individuals involved and that is all.

>stronger storm intensity; drought and flooding;

Maybe, and in some places, and not suddenly. If you're in an affected area, I know where there's going to be some arable land you could move to.

>potentially large-scale, unknown effects on the food chain as a whole

See above about "not all change is bad". Whatever comes up we'll deal with it as well as we usually do.

>(where'd all the honeybees go?)

Oddly enough parasites, fungus and a virus. They're working on it.

>Arable land. Yay.

At least on this we agree.

Re:But it's not all bad.

[Anonymous Coward]

1. You are a total fucking idiot, and thank God you have a blog to prove it.
2. None of the points you raise constitute a rebuttal. Mostly, it just demonstrates that you're a callous asshole with little regard for the suffering of others. Ahh, the life of the sheltered whitey. Here's to hoping the ensuing mayhem reaches out and grabs one of your own. Karma, baby.
3. This is your argument: if we shitcan this nice setup that's nurtured us for the last 10,000 years, we'll probably be able to do just as well because we're really smart.
   
   I mean, really? That's the best you can do? Pretty weak stuff. But by all means, go buy a lot in Siberia. When the backlash finally comes people like me who are fed up with the willful, malevolent complacency of people like you, we'll know where to look!

Myth #27

[Anonymous Coward]

Myth #27: the GW denialists wasted a decade, stalling out the political process, and ultimately making life worse for everyone.

No debunkery yet found.

Lefties modding you down to censor you

[Anonymous Coward]

Global warming hysterists are modding you down to censor you because they don't want to let go of their urban religion of environmentalism. You're right that we'll all be laughing in 10 years.

For once, RTFA

[multi io]

This is a general advice to everybody: It's stupid enough to not RTFA generally, but here it is particularly idiotic because the FA specifically counters common arguments brought up by deniers, so if you just think "this is the 101st global warming discussion, so instead of R'ingTFA let's make cheap points by throwing in in our generic anti-GW prejud^H^H^H^H^H^Harguments", you're destined to make yourself look like a complete dumbass. So go right ahead, read the damn thing already.

You're way off base.

[Eric Damron]

"We know today how to stop increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. If the situation was really as dire as articles like this seem to pretend it is, and if the outcomes were known to the level they would like us to believe, there would be no reason not to turn the switch off."

Knowing how to top increasing levels is very different from actually being able to do it. The long term solution is conceptually easy but practically difficult. All we have to do is stop dumping greenhouse gases into out atmosphere. Easy right? All you would have to do is to convince the entire world to stop driving cars, flying planes, heating there houses will fossil fuels and generating electricity in ways the generate greenhouse gases.

We currently DO NOT have the technology to continue to use fossil fuels without poisoning out planet. Even electric cars require a source of power to recharge them. It is questionable if you gain anything by not burning gas but rather charging your car via a coal burning plant.

Then there is the added difficulty of corporate greed. There is perhaps 100 trillion dollars worth of oil remaining on our planet. Do you believe that Exxon is going to go along with losing its market?? Hell no! They want to sell every drop of oil and transition us into a new source of power that will be as lucrative as possible for them. In short if we leave our future energy needs to the corporations that are raping us today, they'll position themselves to continue to bleed us tomorrow.

Inconsistency explained

[Anonymous Coward]

It's incorrect to state that the majority of the CO2 is put into the atmosphere by human activity. However, the natural systems put CO2 into the atmosphere and also take it out, for no net change. The correct statement is that virtually the entire *increase* in CO2 in the last 200 years, from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and climing, is due to human activity.

I guess these nature reporters don't really understand what they're reporting on any more than the software reporters. Remember when every software article in Time magazine (in the '80's through th e late '90's) used the wonderfully redundant phrase "software program"?

attitude change is instantaneous

[Anonymous Coward]

The changes you say will take a long time will happen a *lot* quicker if people "get it" that we *need* to change. And for each individual, "getting it" is a nearly instantaneous event. So let's at least get it ourselves, and encourage others to do so as well.

Frankly, I don't see what "it'll take a long time" has to do with it. It's been taking a long time for a long time now already. We've reached critical mass now politically, so something's finally going to happen.

Two thoughts...

[Torodung]

First, statements like this are irresponsible:

...the world is warming, this warming is due to human activity increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and if emissions continue unabated the warming will too, with increasingly serious consequences.

The reason it is irresponsible is because it implies that the sole reason for global warming is greenhouse gases, and implies that it is the greatest contributing factor, without actually stating to what degree greenhouse gases truly contribute.

What if global warming is being caused by a variety of things, and we stop looking because we are so assured that it is our combustion? There is a good deal of disagreement as to how much those emissions affect climate, and the way the article states this "fact" sidesteps that entirely.

That said, the world is warming, and we had better try to do something about emissions to at least test if it is the primary cause. The sooner we do this the better because if it isn't the primary cause, we may have to scramble to find out what is.

Second thought is that if the computer models are so accurate, could they please share them with my local meteorologists? The three day forecast is still a total fairy tale, they can barely predict what the weather will be tomorrow, in fact, and I would like to see those models applied at the local level so I can wash my car and not have it rain the next day.

-- Toro

Re:Two thoughts...

[NoOneInParticular]

One of the big problems with the debate is that it is so politicized that any statement on the GW front that will produce even the smallest amount of doubt or uncertainty will be picked up by the other side as an argument that results are inconclusive and we can comfortably remain on our asses and throw more Co2 in the atmosphere.

For instance, here in this thread, the IPCC expectation that in a century the earth would be between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees warmer was used by a careless poster to claim that with so much uncertainty, this is no more than a wild ass guess. What it actually means is that there's significant global warming, with effects ranging between very dangerous to potentially lethal for civilisation. People deal badly with uncertainty, hence the thrust to be overly precise in messages to the outside world. Not good, but given the stakes, maybe defensible.

With such a politicized debate, it is hard to do proper science, let alone proper reporting of scientific results. This mainly because the antagonists (the self-proclaimed sceptics) do not produce science, but FUD. In that sense it is much like evolution against creationism/ID. The one side is trying to provide a scientifically accurate picture, the other side is trying to undermine the picture with the same old tired arguments. Some are easy to debunk, some others harder, but no matter what, they get repeated time and time again. Same with your post. You repeat myth #4 and #5. They are easily debunked, yet people like to re-iterate them, as if that hasn't been thought of before, nor scrutinized. Yes, we can say something about the climate with reasoned uncertainty. Yes we can say something about the weather with reasoned uncertainty. No, climate and weather predictions are not the same thing.

If the antagonist side had merit, independent studies would crop up with a different set of causes for measured phenomena. If these would be suppressed by the incumbents, independent journals would crop up. If the science behind it was good, Ph.D. students would flock to the different view on climatology as a new branch of inquiry, simply because contributing to an emerging field is the easiest way to get publications. Scientists are people, highly opportunistic and seeking for quick wins. None of this alternative climatology is happening however, that should say something. The other side of the 'debate' remains a bunch of fud-slingers, too numerous and loud to be ignored, too small-minded and ignorant to convince. And I'm not just talking about creationists.

This just in

[geekoid]

Slashdoter "Multi_io" futile gnashes teeth and sheds teards of blood to attemt to get somoene..anyone to RTFA... sadly he will relize that he is nothing but a mote in a blind mans eyes.

We have plenty of words.

[geekoid]

Ignorant. Stupid. Fuck-twad. Irrational. Just to name a few.

Believers

[bill_mcgonigle]

A skeptic is able to be convinced by sufficient evidence. The "global warming isn't happening and even if it is humans have nothing to do with it, nyaah nyaah nyaah I can't hear you" crowd clearly isn't. So some other word than "skeptic" is needed.

There are believers on both sides, opportunists on both sides, and skeptics.

An image to illustrate. A quote to elaborate:

I think it's better to have ideas. You can change an idea. Changing a belief is trickier. Life should malleable and progressive; working from idea to idea permits that. Beliefs anchor you to certain points and limit growth; new ideas can't generate. Life becomes stagnant. - Kevin Smith

That he was talking about religion isn't coincidental.

Define: Sahel

[symbolset]

sahel:A band across Africa 2400 miles long, the Sahel forms the border between the saharan zone to the north and the sudanian zone to the south. Varying from semi-arid grasslands to thorn savannah, it receives between .15 and .5m of rainfall each year, primarily during monsoon season.

During the 1960s, more rain fell in the sahel, leading to governments supported programs of northern expansion into the region for farming and grazing. In 1968 the drought resumed, grazing collasped and famine was widespread. Currently looked at as an indicator for effects of global weather and climate change, it is expected that global warming will reduce precipitation in the sahel by up to 25% on average. Historically the region has been prone to intermittent drought.

It's a rough trip out of there. Staying is worse.

GOOD!!

[Anonymous Coward]

The sooner we start mutating, the sooner I get my X-Men powers! I can't wait!

Ah... the mythology of weather

[catmistake]

Yes... I remember studying these climate myths in a series of Classics seminars in college. Boy, does that bring back memories... losing myself in the tomes of ancient weather... I used to pretend I was the hero, battling it out with the Charybdis on the Aegean... Or getting my men to work in concert to poke the eye of that hurricane before it gobbled us up! /sarcasm

I just wish we hadn't lost the word 'myth' because no one wants to say 'falsehood,' 'lie,' 'untruth,' 'fabrication,' or 'fiction,' anymore... just not cool enough, just doesn't carry the disdain and cockiness that the new meaning of 'myth' carries... because no lie is as much a lie as 'myth' connotates. So they think they are marketed better or are being more clever by watering down words that used to actually have real meaning, and a meaning that has nothing to do with the new one. When you think of mythology... please don't immediately assume that, because that's actually what it is, you have to think about its truth value. Whether or not a myth is true has little/nothing to do with whether it is a myth.

massive amounts of data != FUD

[neomunk]

Like Kansas and the rest of the U.S. midwest? Woo, that's alotta corn to be growin in what was recently (from a forward looking point of view) tundra and permifrost.

And besides, the whole 'it's okay cause we'll grow on greenland' crap is so myopic it's sick. Billions of people live near the equator, and they need the be able to grow food too. How many refugee mouths will the vast bounties of greenland feed exactly?

Or is it like New Orleans all over again? Fuck them for living in the wrong place, or what?

Re:massive amounts of data != FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

"Or is it like New Orleans all over again? Fuck them for living in the wrong place, or what?"

Well actually, fuck them for living in the wrong place. Fuck them harder for being stupid enough to rebuild in the same location. Yes, I said it. It needed to be said. I have no compassion for stupidity. Living below sea level on the Gulf is nothing more than community roulette; spin the wheel enough and you'll lose big.

Re:massive amounts of data != FUD

[Calinous]

Everyone knows land from planar maps - and on those, Greenland looks much bigger than it is in fact. There is not enough possible farmland in higher latitudes to make up for what would be lost on the lower latitudes

Re:massive amounts of data != FUD

[neomunk]

Okay. listen to me very carefully, it is HIGHLY advantageous to build a city where a major river connects to the ocean. Port cities are a necessity in today's world, actually for several thousand years now.

Rush and Bill don't seem to understand that. I'll toss out a couple of possible reasons why.

A> They have to defend the administration at all costs.
B> They have to pander to smug racist idiots to get the (already comical) ratings they need.
C> What with all the oxy popping and producer fantasizing you'd think they have time to actually THINK about an issue beyond a gut reaction to some conservative think tank's assessment? Oh, nevermind that said think tank has big plans for the newly 'available' real estate.

Oh, and that reminds me, haven't you noticed that alot of the land of New Orleans is being 'appropriated' for expensive housing and corporate facilities? Are these people stupid too? Why of course not, important people like that NEED to be in such an important area for the infrastructure of the nation, and thus the nation will protect them (with such high-tech devices as levies) from harm. There goes your whole 'stupid' theory right there. Be careful where you point that thing, you might accidentally shoot yourself with it.

My only piece of advice is to balance out your FOX News watching with something as simple as google news. And not just the headlines either, actually READ the articles (especially the ones you think you'll disagree with) and you will find a whole new (real) world out there.

Re:massive amounts of data != FUD

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, those levies really did the trick, didn't they?

Re:massive amounts of data != FUD

[neomunk]

Are you really unaware of the inadequacies of the levy system they had in place or are you just a snide little troll trying to be cute?

Probably a little punk troll trying to be cute, I'd say. AC posting of talking-point-memo one liners is something trolls do when they know that what they are saying has been proven so foolish that posting them under their real name would make them a joke.

Debunked?

[SageMusings]

I saw no definitive evidence proving or disproving any of the bullet points listed in the article. TFA is unworthy of anyone's time. I cannot imagine anyone being swayed, regardless of which side of the global warming argument you stand on, by this.

What creates the confusion

[Anonymous Coward]

What many of those arguing against the existance of Global Warning often forgets is that the debate is at several different levels.

1) That Global Warming does occour. This is a broad consensus about this in the scientific community. There was years since any serious report disputed that we are going into a climate change. It is needed very firm evidence to counter this claim.

2) That Global Warming is caused by humans. Here, we can say that most scholars agree on this point. There are many studies that makes this claim very probable and independent commitees investigating the matter has come to this conclusion. Myself, i belive this is right.

3) How to solve the problem. This is a question open to much debate. The methods that are now beginning to get used are for example trading in emission credits and the Kyoto protocol.

The problem is that those who are portrayted as "critics of global warming" very seldom disputes it's existance. Usually they oppose the majority view on level 2 or even more often 3. This makes the debate very unscientific at times and much creates the confusion among both general people and politicians.
Fact is that a firm majority of scholars does not dispute the problem with global warming, or that we are indeed causing it.

Re:What creates the confusion

[roman_mir]

Fact is that a firm majority of scholars does not dispute the problem with global warming, or that we are indeed causing it. - fact is it is a political battle not a scientific one. Majority of scholars believed the Earth was flat only 1000 years ago. Oh, and Kyoto protocol will do nothing to help anything, except distributing money around.

Preaching to the Choir?

[Anonymous Coward]

Interesting choice of source for debunking myths about climate change. I was hoping that the article would source a skeptic not a convert, such as New Scientist. Since it does not, I see this more as an appeal to the base. I'm not impressed.

Their itemized list of so-called-myths range from arrogant to downright insulting.

arrogant:
* It's all a conspiracy
* Many leading scientists question climate change

insulting:
* It's too cold where I live - warming will be great
* Polar bear numbers are increasing

Re:Vote with your money

[Anonymous Coward]

He never mentioned meat at all :o/

Politics: Sale Tatic: Fear Sells

[blavallee]

Are you afraid of the world getting warmer? Are you afraid of illegal immigrants taking away your low paying job? Are you afraid of terrorism? Are you afraid of the crime that drugs bring into your neighborhood? If you call in the next ten minutes, you'll also receive this free gift!

Global warming is just a bunch of fodder for the voting public.
It is a political tool created to distract voters from their real problems.

But the average voter is not completely stupid, there obviously needs to be enough information to confirm that the threat is possibly maybe tangible. You can not claim that 'the sky is falling' without some kind of proof.

In the case of 'Global Warming' you just need to have them reminisce back to their youth. When the winters had more snow and the summers we not as hot as they are now. The last few hundred years of data is indisputable, it is warmer now than it has been in the last 300 years or so. And since you can not go back much further without some scientific assumptions, the politicians will use it to their advantage.

The real 'inconvenient truth' is that this planet sized greenhouse we call Earth is unpredictable. And I will only believe claims of 'Global Warming' after science no longer has to 'predict' the earthquakes, lightning, rain, tornado's, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions, and all the other things this big blue-green marble has been doing before humans (were created : evolved : landed) on this planet.

A good book to read

[Anonymous Coward]

If anyone wants more info on the history of Earth, humans, science and everything I suggest reading this book: A Short History of Nearly Everything, Bill Bryson. It explains everything in a way that anybody can understand and at the same time it is very entertaining. The book is about nearly everything, but it also covers many of the mass extinctions and natural catastrophes that have happened on Earth and how they are related to our existence.

Car Dealers Debunk safety ,value and fraud issues

[flyneye]

In all fairness someone besides scientists who rely on this for an income should be debunking Global Warming.Ironic isn't it?
Imagine listening to a car salesman concerning issues dealing with his brand of auto.
How about mad cow from a butcher?
How about economics with a senator?
My point is,you really can't trust anyone.
Scientists included.
Sorry.

Summary

[MrMickS]

This global warming is happening and its our fault. I know you might have heard that there are people with other views, including a few scientists, but here are a few things to help you out.

First, here's a link to an article to tell you how to interpret the rest of them, not that we are telling you what to think merely placing the information before you so that you can make up your own mind.

Got that? Right. Here's a guide to how to debunk all of the negative points we've seen floating around. Okay, so some of them are a bit spurious, and facile, but they're the best we can come up with.

What? Why did we publish this? Its an important topic that affects everyone on the planet. No, its nothing to do with the increase in circulation we get when we post things about climate change.

i wanna ask /.

[holywarrior21c]

so can a butterfly's single wing swing motion in china cause hurricane in florida?
chaos theory...butterfly effect?http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb504 8/is_200405/ai_n18339120
--
i am just curious.

Um, yeah - whoops

[benhocking]

I predict that within my lifetime, there won't be many more people who believe that the current global warming cycle is "natural" than who believe the Earth goes around the Sun.

I personally believe that the Earth does go around the Sun, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that point!

Um, yeah. I meant "than who believe the Sun goes around the Earth". Yikes. For the record, I'm not a geocentric kind-of-guy.

I swear I have heard that exact statement before, only with Jesus in the place of AGW.

As have I, and I suppose I am proselytizing a wee bit. I can't help it. I used to be a public high school science teacher, and I come from a long line of school teachers. I enjoy educating - it's in my blood.

I'm a skeptic by nature. I'm skeptical of both things that I believe and things that I disbelieve. (I am only too aware of my own intellectual shortcomings.) I think we're using that word in two slightly different ways. The meaning you seem to be using is more like "undecided" and mine is more like "incredulous".

Very healthy. And, yes, I suppose I was using it more in the "undecided" form and "incredulous" might be more accurate. However, my point still stands that I feel that many of the more prominent "skeptics" are less "incredulous" than they are "decided against". Some of them (mainly, if not completely the non-scientists) throw up the same arguments time and time again, even after it has been explained to them very thoroughly why those arguments are nonsensical - as opposed to just wrong (I can think your arguments are reasonable and wrong at the same time). Others (largely the scientists), have exhausted most of their arguments now and are moving to the two-fold approach of (a) it's not as bad as many alarmists claim (no doubt true), and (b) the problem will fix itself anyways when we (i) run out of fossil-fuels or (ii) automagically create new technology (driven by the all-powerful free market) that will take care of the problem for us.

The two far bigger questions in my mind are, if we presume AGW to be the reality, 1. What are the likely effects? and, 2. What are the smart things to do about it?

On it's face it seems obvious: Probably bad, cut carbon emissions.

How we do that in moral, humane, financially responsible way that is appropriate to the likely results of failure is an open question in my opinion.

Wow, you don't like asking easy questions do you? I'd say there are two levels of likely effects - those we know well enough to underpredict reasonably well (lower limits), and those we don't. Many in that second category are things we know so poorly that they're not even on our radar, or there is much disagreement about. Take hurricanes - some scientists say they will get worse due to global warming, a few say they might actually weaken, and most (I think) say that we just don't have enough data to know for sure.

What are the smart things to do? Well, the most recent IPCC report does address this, although I'm skeptical myself about their ability to actually know that too far out in the future. Cutting carbon emissions? Absolutely. How much and at what expense? That's a tough one to answer. I do know that for every sky-is-falling environmentalist (and yes, there are far too many) there is a sky-is-falling economist that says that our economy will collapse if we try to cut emissions too much. I'm convinced that Kyoto was a bad protocol, but that doesn't mean we can't come up with a good global treaty-type solution. At this point, I'm well out of my element, however.

Myth1

[Anonymous Coward]

Myth : Northern americans would rather have worldwide devastation than let the petrol tap run dry
fact : uhm...err...

Lindzen is the most credible skeptic

[benhocking]

First, his funding - yes, he gets a lot of money from public sources, undercutting the argument that the real reason that so many prominent climatologists support global warming theories is to get funding. As far as I know, he no longer gets money from oil and coal interests.

Secondly, his intentions - I believe that Lindzen is basically a good, honest scientist who believes what he says. I also think he's a regular human being (as are all scientists) who is capable of fooling himself. You can witness that by looking at some of his seemingly (to me, anyways) self-contradictory comments, but I'll get to those later.

Now, let's address the actual article in question:

There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true.

OK, so my request was to find one climatologist who disagrees with the statement, "that we are most likely contributing significantly to global warming." He obviously covered the "most likely" part with "almost certainly true". So, that leaves the "contributing significantly". Obviously, "at some level" doesn't quite rise to that level. Neither does it rule it out, so I'll keep going. After this quote, he then goes on for a while highlighting our uncertainty in various predictions, but that doesn't address my original statement. I'm talking about the present in that statement. OK, I've read the rest of the article, and it's pretty much the same. He talks about what we don't know and what we didn't know (but now do). So, he's used the convenient phrase "at some level" to keep from saying exactly what that level is. This article neither supports nor refutes my original point.

So, I've decided to go back through some previous things he's written, and I basically find the same pattern: he admits that humans are most likely contributing to global warming, but he neglects to even speculate as to how much. Why do you think that is? Or, if you think I've mischaracterized him, can you find any evidence to the contrary?

Finally, I'd like to stress that I am not a climatologist. However, other climatologists have critiqued his Newsweek article.

Finally, something about Lindzen that does make me ponder. Recently, the BBC attributed this to him:

This attitude has strong backing from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who describes Exxon Mobil as "the only principled oil and gas company I know in the US."

Up until recently, Exxon Mobil was the only oil and gas company funding global warming "skeptics", to the best of my knowledge. They've very recently claimed to have discontinued that process.

Statistics

[benhocking]

Also, why would you "expect some [planets] to be showing signs of warming and others to be showing signs of cooling" - other than seasonal variations I would expect them to show stable temperatures (or all be moving in the same direction). Well perhaps that's a bit strong to say "expect", "consider more probable" might be closer to the mark.

First of all, there are seasonal variations. As most planets have an orbit significantly longer than a year, most seasonal variations will last longer than what we normally consider a season. Secondly, every planet has its own geological and atmospheric processes that have long term trends. However, for planets such as Mercury that have no atmosphere, you're right that the Sun will be the dominant factor. For this planet, and Mars to a lesser degree (as it has a weak atmosphere), you might expect them to go in similar ways. However, evidence suggests that geological and atmospheric processes do contribute to Mars' weather in a significant manner. The only reason to expect them to be stable or all moving in the same direction is if you imagine that the Sun is the only relevant variable. It is not.

The fact that two planets appear to be undergoing global warming at the very least "suggests" there might be a connecting factor - surely worth some investigation?

Absolutely, and it has been investigated. The Sun is not getting hotter in any significant manner. We have lots and lots of satellites that have verified this. In fact, during 2006 (the hottest year so far), the Sun was at a minimum in its 11-year cycle.

Further, if all the planets in the solar system were currently undergoing global warming would we be able to detect it?

We currently have satellites at Mars and Saturn, and New Horizons just passed Jupiter on its way to Pluto. Also, we had a satellite at Jupiter for quite a while. In addition, we have been able to get some measurements of Venus' and Mercury's temperature. In all cases, however, I do not know if our sensitivity is strong enough or our coverage complete enough to measure slight changes in global average temperatures.

Argument against the scientific institution

[benhocking]

If a consensus of climatologists had indeed predicted that global cooling was happening soon, I would think that it would bolster one's doubts about the state of the scientific institution, especially within the climatology community. Obviously, the consensus has been wrong before (aether, caloric, etc.), but far more often the consensus is right - especially (but not always) with respect to new theories. It takes a lot of evidence to introduce a new theory into a scientific community such that the majority of scientists accept it. Even when that new theory turns out to be wrong, it is usually a better theory than the one it replaced.

So, from a completely logical point of view, you are correct. However, as humans we are incapable of understanding all the facts and must necessarily base some of our judgments on prior events. If a scientific consensus routinely embraced faulty theories, I think that would be valid criticism for being especially suspicious of future theories, even if the scientists in question are a "new generation". However, this is really just a thought experiment, as it is not the case.

Huh?

[benhocking]

If you're referring to professional organizers, then no, I'm not in that business. It's my Mom's business. She recently retired from a long career as a special ed. teacher (specializing in behavior disorders that I no doubt gave her much practice in), and has decided to subsidize her retirement with a second career. If you're interested in her services and live in the greater metropolitan Atlanta area, I'd strongly recommend her.

If you're curious about me, personally, then you should check out my profile. I'm not exactly a private person. You can even e-mail me if you like.

I do complex models all the time

[benhocking]

My current research is in models of the mammalian brain - specifically the CA3 region of the hippocampus, if that means anything to you. These models are highly non-linear, and yet I'm able to make predictions that can then be verified by experiments with live animals. (I don't actually do those experiments with live animals - others do.) These models further our understanding of the human brain. Would you suggest that I abandon my work because my models are incomplete (they are) and make assumptions based on guesswork (they do)?

As for past predictions, you might be interested in this article from Science.

I don't doubt temperature is increasing. I do doubt the causes of this change. I also doubt the value judgements used that state current global climate is "ideal" and that any change is bad. The whole argument is completely ridiculous.

It sounds to me that you've already convinced yourself. Why do you think that is?

Let me ask you a different question - do you believe that reducing carbon emissions would damage our economy?

Re:I do complex models all the time

[Burnhard]

I doubt very much that your models of the mammalian brain will be used to justify expenditure of $250,000,000,000 per year to reduce emissions of non-pollutants from our atmosphere. However, they may be useful in breeding mice with improved powers of recall.

Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm

[bflynn]

Good thing that is a myth because we have one anyway. Deep breaths people. Relax...go to a calm, peaceful...errr warmer...place.

Newscientist is heavily biased yellow journalism

[Kodack]

They publish their interpretations of other peoples science, and then have the nerve to dismiss arguments from scientists because they are "retired" or "not specializing in climatology". They don't even bother listing an author of the various articles.

You should really take the time to drop what you are doing and read some of the climate articles they have put up. Look at how they consider evidence and facts when it supports their position, and then how they consider facts and evidence when it doesn't support their position.

It's not balanced, it's not journalistic, it is heavily biased, yellow journalism. They pump the alarm bells, people read, they get more advertisers, they make more $$.

Baby and bathwater

[benhocking]

I am likely to be skeptical anytime someone...

1. ...tells me that I should believe something because other people believe it
2. ...isn't capable of discussing alternate theories
3. ...is intolerant of other theories
4. ...insults me for not accepting their theory

Basically, the more it looks like a religious issue, the more likely I am to be skeptical of it.

So, are you willing to read scientific articles on climatology that address all of your concerns? If not (many people are unwilling), what other alternative is there then to believe what the majority of well-informed people believe? I completely understand your viewpoint, and in an ideal world, all arguments should be made solely on scientific facts. However, many people (including many in a policy-making position) are incapable or unwilling to understand the scientific facts. It sounds like you're not one of those people, so I strongly suggest you read the original articles. They're not hard to find, if you start with scirus.com or scholar.google.com. Find articles by typical climatologists (I don't want to give you a list so you won't think I'm leading you too much - but I will if you want me to), and find articles by Lindzen or Pat Michaels. Read carefully what they say - and notice what they don't say. Read the articles critically, and then make up your own mind. I suspect you will feel much the same as I, although hopefully you'll be able to express it better.

True

[benhocking]

But then, I could just as easily say "they believe the Earth is flat". Without specifying "they", this sentence is completely true. Usually, the phrase about global cooling usually implies that "they" represents a scientific consensus, since that's what they're (where "they" in this case refers to the ones making the statement) arguing against believing. If one really wants to argue against scientific consensus, it's probably best to stick to luminiferous aether and phlogiston.

And, yes, I will argue for the sake of arguing. ;)

Re:True

[untaken_name]

Well, if you said 'The statement that people used to believe the Earth is flat is a myth', we'd disagree. My point wasn't that global cooling is or isn't an issue. My point was that saying that it wasn't talked about in the '70s is just flat out wrong. I'd love to find an actual issue to argue with you about, though. 'Cause I do the same thing. Just on this issue, though, there's no argument. New Scientist really dropped the ball on this one.

What a load of bullshit.

[jotaeleemeese]

What are we suppossed to do?

Sit down and consult a shaman?

We have to guide our decisions based on the best scientific knowledge available at the time.

Yes, aliens obliterating the dinosaurs is a theory. But it is a bullshit theory with no base in a single shred of evidence. Comparing that against the several theories that exist based on the verifiable fossil record (no matter how incomplete) is a complete no brainer.

Now, the day you find evidence of aliens packing dino burgers in an industrial escale to Proxima Centaury, well, then we may remove the bullshit adjective from your theory, but as it stands, bullshit is because you are pulling it from your a@@.

Most experts disagree with you.

[jotaeleemeese]

So frankly it is becoming a waste of time to engage in any discussion with deniers of the problem.

Which Kyoto expense?

[jotaeleemeese]

The UK government commissioned an study that emphasizes the cost is most likely to be negligible.

Temperate yes, but not warm water...

[myrrdyn]

I'm pretty sure that a relevant part of warmer climate in europe is caused by air circulation over oceans. After all, Seattle is warm enough without an equivalent of the Gulf Stream from mexico, right?
(note: i'm not from Seattle :) )

You might be right about the idiot part

[symbolset]

Sheltered whitey, not so much.

This sheltered whitey, you see, grew up the poor kid of a sometimes employed single cocktail waitress in Watts. Often hungry, never offered medical care, sickly and thin, I was an opressed minority in an area where a lot of people had an axe to grind against people that looked like me. I was orphaned at a young age, so didn't even get the opportunities afforded someone with parents to help them along.

I did what I had to do -- I got the heck out of there. I know what it means to abandon everything you know in hope of finding a survivable environment.

I'm doing ok now, but along the way I've been beaten near to death, stabbed and shot; I've nearly starved and frozen to death. I've been opressed by The Man just like every poor person trying to pull himself up. I've been used and exploited.

You should let go of your racist presumptions and look at the issues rationally, not attack me for who you mistakenly think I am based on how I look.

I would admit to believing this if...

[Alexpkeaton1010]

I would admit to believing this if the proposed solution was to add C02 sinks rather than eliminate C02 sources.

If the solution was that "everyone is required to plant and maintain a tree for every X amount of C02 they produce (where X should be easily calculated based on the C02 absorption rate of a tree)", then fine... I'll buy into this. But the solution is: "America must cutback on energy while the rest of the world gets a free ride", or even better "You cannot drive that 21 mpg SUV, you must drive this 38 mpg micro car that will get you killed in 100ns when a large truck hits you. (The large trucks are of course exempt from this rule so people can still get cheap organic food)"

If the solution was simple, there would be no point in debating it, and something would get done. For example, if a scientist said, "females can live for 300 years if they screw as many nerds as they can", no one on /. would argue.

Mod parent up

[Skrynkelberg]

You make a very good point. Similar thoughts have crossed my mind, but I've not been able to word them as well as you have.

So, are you afraid of damaging the economy?

[benhocking]

I doubt very much that your models of the mammalian brain will be used to justify expenditure of $250,000,000,000 per year to reduce emissions of non-pollutants from our atmosphere. However, they may be useful in breeding mice with improved powers of recall.

First of all, my models will eventually allow me to rule the world, and will make $250 Billion/year seem like chump change. ;)

Secondly, if that expenditure is currently our best educated "guess" as to how to spend that money, what are you concerned about? Are you afraid that it will ruin our economy? Has spending money on poorly thought out projects (I think that's what you think this is) ruined our economy before? I won't mention any specific projects, but I'm sure you can think of one where we've spent more than $250 Billion on.

I do understand the Libertarian approach that it's "our" money and the government shouldn't be spending it. However, it's also "our" environment, and others shouldn't be polluting it. When someone else dumps their pollutants into the atmosphere, they are effectively forcing some of that down into my lungs. I'm not being militant here, I'm just providing balance to some of the extreme positions (that you may or may not hold) on the other side.

Also, for the record, the recent estimates from the IPCC predict that 3% of our GDP will need to be spent in order to address the problems associated with climate change - if we act reasonably soon. The longer we wait, the more expensive it will be to fix. It's just like your health - an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.