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."

9 of 998 comments (clear)

  1. Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  2. Welcome the warmth by loafula · · Score: 4, Funny

    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
  3. Re:Myth: Flamewars don't contribute to global warm by u-bend · · Score: 5, Funny

    You didn't even mention the appreciable levels of hot air that emanate from those commenting.

    --
    u-bend
  4. Re:thickest strongest ice in 30 years by jfengel · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.

  5. Re:FUD by Greyfox · · Score: 5, Funny

    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?

  6. Oh c'mon ... by Bearpaw · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... bringing more facts into the discussion is obviously biased.

  7. Yeah, present both sides! by Bearpaw · · Score: 5, Funny
    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.

  8. And truly, my sentiment captured in comic form by einer · · Score: 5, Funny
  9. Re:Ugh - not again. by pete-classic · · Score: 4, Funny

    "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