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.
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.
Nobody was trying to support a population of six billion settled agriculturalists at the time, though.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
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.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
"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.
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.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
How do you know previous climate fluctuations were without, as you put it, "zomg serious consequences" for the species living at the time?
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
"El Nino means ... The Nino...." -Chris Farley
"All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
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.
Blerg.
The article missed the two biggest causes of global warming:
1. George Bush hating black people
2. Bears
NewslilySocial News. No lolcats allowed.
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?
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
...that global warming is the real myth. Thank you New Scientist for bringing me down from the fence.
So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?
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.
I like basketball!!1!
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
Or are you just full of hot air?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
-- The Doctor, "Doctor
So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?
Hammers.
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.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
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.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
And here I thought all it took was a Butterfly Farting in China to affect climate in North America.
:P
Goes to show.
Yo Grark
Canadian Bred with American Buttering
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.
string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
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.
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...
This guy's the limit!
A Ford Excursion with a 6.8L V10 engine.
My blog
That was the 16th myth on the list.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Lies about crimes
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.
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.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Then we can decide for ourselves whether there's any link between smoking and cancer.
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.
Global warming is a lie...and I was attacked by pirates.
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:
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
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.
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.
A British au pair.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022 478442170
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.
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.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
"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.
A goal is a dream with a deadline
Partisan slashdot moderators are of course welcome to die in a fire themselves.
Have a nice day.
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?
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Who was that a few weeks ago advocating the rationing of toilet paper to one square per trip? Was that the asphalt lobby spokesperson?
Free Adam Smith! (Or best offer.)
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.
http://www.xkcd.com/c258.html
Thank you xkcd.
So what do we buy if we want to kill babies?
Democratic Votes?
A tarp?
A soup pot?
A COMFY CHAIR?
Elderberries?
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?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
- 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?W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
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.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Funny. I see this in TFA
.Then I find this article.
Myth: Many leading scientists question climate change
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.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
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 ?
Look at the rainfall predictions.
s /cms/dn11657/dn11657-1_365.jpg
http://environment.newscientist.com/data/images/n
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
.. too bad the "flock" is moving in the opposite direction than you describe.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
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.
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
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.
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.
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.
"You can't make a race horse of a pig"
"No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
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.
Anecdote, meet data.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
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.
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.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
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?
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
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.
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.
[Insert pithy quote here]
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.
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?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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)?
- 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.
This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
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.
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
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.
All rites reversed 2010
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.
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.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
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?
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
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.
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed H
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.
If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
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.
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
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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.
"Sufferin' succotash."
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.
This data is available from a variety of sources, with interesting commentary:
RES: Professor Robert E. Sloan, Department of Geology, University of MinnesotaJC: Dr Joe Cain, interviewer
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.
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.
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
"Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had." - Michael Crichton
Don't fall for thei slick propaganda. And don't ask us to give them credit they do not deserve.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
5 859226455
Not really. All I needed to think for myself were few scientist:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=233253135
- 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.Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
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?
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
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.
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
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!)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
That moves you from merely correlation to causation. 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?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
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.
How can I debunk your debunking, when you can't even be bothered to read the article?
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.
Servant of karma
"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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
... maybe, with oil money to adapt crops). The US South, including Texas (irony of ironies) maybe not so much.
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
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.
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.
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
brandelf -t FreeBSD
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
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.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Did someone mention Greenland yet again?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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...)
Politicians are like diapers - they should be changed frequently and for the same reasons.
Am I the only one who thinks we need a Godwin's Law counterpart for people invoking the name of Fox News?
...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!
Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
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.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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 list could go on. Now for the potential consequences:
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?
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.
Truckin like the Doo-Dah man...
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.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
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: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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
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.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
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.
We should take action *and* do more study- and we should do our best to make irrelevant the folks who want to dogmatize science.
If there's one thing I won't stand for, it's intolerance.
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.
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
"Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens." - Schiller
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.
= Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad -494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id=
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction
Some of these scientists are dyed in the wool environmentalists as well, not a big oil employee.
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.
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!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
More "educated guesses", but whatever. - you are in no way an educated person when it comes to my reactions to stimula, but whatever.
/. ARE you doing something or is it all just talk to make yourself look like you are the opposite of me.
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
Do you drive much?
You can't handle the truth.
>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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
This stuff was predicted well before these "inaccurate models" you're decrying based off of simple thermodynamic principles.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Don't get me wrong, I agree with all your other points. But probabilities stay the same no matter how many trials you do.
Wow that was insightful :-)
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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.
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...
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.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.
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.
You can't take the sky from me...
Yes! My plan to get rich is still good!
Oh really? Care to site sources for this proof? Care to learn the meaning of "sarcasm"?
You can't take the sky from me...
The reason? Canada ice uses Enzyte, the best product for natural enhancement.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
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.
The only way I would lionize Dick Cheney would be while he was still alive, and it would involve actual lions.
You do not sound very smart when you attack someones intelligence and, in the same sentence, say site instead of cite. Just a thought...
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
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.
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.
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
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?
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.
By reading this you acknowledge that you have read it.
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.
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.
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
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.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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).
Nothing for 6-digit uids?
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.
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?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
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".
You can't take the sky from me...
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Bullshit. The earth has been much warmer in the past without the "zomg serious consequences".
Care to quote a source?
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.
Oh for a mod point.... :o)
I play civ4 instead. No Pollution, No Problem!
bah!*@%!
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 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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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
The enemies of Democracy are
If you'd read the article this was covered.
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
B.S. Saying that someone is being subjected to hysteria is not a personal attack. Anyway, ta-ta.
You can't handle the truth.
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.)
Comment of the year
Amen brother. Sign me up for your newsletter.
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
Broken windows.
That is not real economic growth. It is money wasted, lost forever.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
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.
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.
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)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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?
You just got troll'd!
For an interesting take on things, read "Fallen Angels" by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn.
Freely available from your local library or from Baen.
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?
Putting an '=' sign between hysteria and idiocy? Well then, another good reason not to bother with a rational conversation.
You can't handle the truth.
...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!
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.
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.
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
God: "I don't leave footprints!"
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.
The enemies of Democracy are
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.
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
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
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.
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.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
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.s -selling-solar.html
--
Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
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.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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:
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.
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.
It should be:
"26 assertions about global climate change disagreed with by the other political side, without using any substantive evidence in support."
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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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
You can't handle the truth.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
Lil' Thindime, lilting a lacrimose lament, krashes the kwaint konfines of Kokonino Kounty
I bet you have 2 /. accounts and you use them in tandem.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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?
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.
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]
You can't handle the truth.
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.
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
Trees do not sink more carbon than crops. Especially not the scruffy 4/acre trees that grow in permafrost vs modern managed crops.Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
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".)
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
If you were a real hippy you'd smoke a J and calm the fuck down.
Really? Are you sure? Stanford doesn't think so.
And that took me about 3 seconds to find.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
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.
"The quickest way to end a war is to lose it" -Orwell
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
--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
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
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.
"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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
So, in effect, you, a random commenter on a blog on the internet, are accusing somebody of defamation?
You're, uh, defaming them??
..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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Need Mercedes parts ?
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.
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.
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.
-- ToroSlashdoter "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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Ignorant. Stupid. Fuck-twad. Irrational. Just to name a few.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Mars is irrelevant.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
There are believers on both sides, opportunists on both sides, and skeptics.
An image to illustrate. A quote to elaborate:
That he was talking about religion isn't coincidental.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
My quote says OUR world, not THE world.
Think about the difference and see if you still interpret it the same way.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
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.
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
That may very well be the most retarded comment I've ever seen. Congrats.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
well ok then this problem is our own damn fault for building cities near the ocean and not because of too much CO2.
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.
Do you have ANY evidence to back up your comments about this well researched article?
Or is this a Typical, global warming denial?
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
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.
The Admin and the Engineer
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.
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?
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.
-- Posted from my parent's basement
"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?
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
VON-MAN picks up his English dictionary and -again- looks up "insightful". Phew, it isn't me.
SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
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
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.
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.
"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.).
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.
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.
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.
-knewter
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.
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.
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.
*Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
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.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
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.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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:
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:
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.Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
sudo ergo sum
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
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?
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
You can't handle the truth.
Good thing that is a myth because we have one anyway. Deep breaths people. Relax...go to a calm, peaceful...errr warmer...place.
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 $$.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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. ;)
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
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@@.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So frankly it is becoming a waste of time to engage in any discussion with deniers of the problem.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The UK government commissioned an study that emphasizes the cost is most likely to be negligible.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
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.
A blog about stuff.
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
Elen sìla lùmenn' omentielvo
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.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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."
Not that rainfall in the desert suddenly makes it not a desert.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
I would admit to believing this if the proposed solution was to add C02 sinks rather than eliminate C02 sources.
/. would argue.
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
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
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.
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.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
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.
___
No power in the 'verse can stop me
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.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?