Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
"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.
The article missed the two biggest causes of global warming:
1. George Bush hating black people
2. Bears
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?
I, for one, welcome global warming. See, I hate Massachusetts winters. And how cool would it be to pick coconuts in my back yard?
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO
You didn't even mention the appreciable levels of hot air that emanate from those commenting.
u-bend
So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?
Hammers.
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?
The party of stupid and the party of evil get together and do something both stupid and evil, then call it bipartisan.
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.
Well we'd ask them but they're all extinct. Oh... wait...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
... bringing more facts into the discussion is obviously biased.
Then we can decide for ourselves whether there's any link between smoking and cancer.
A British au pair.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Partisan slashdot moderators are of course welcome to die in a fire themselves.
Have a nice day.
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
Thank you xkcd.
"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
"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." - Michael Crichton
(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...)
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
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.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
Mmm... I love the smell of ad hominem arguments in the afternoon.
Well. I'd think that Quebec city wasn't entirely constructed back then what with humans not existing yet and all...
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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?