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."
...that global warming is the real myth. Thank you New Scientist for bringing me down from the fence.
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?!?!?
I like basketball!!1!
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.
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.
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:
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.
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?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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.