Slashdot Mirror
Alaskan Village Sues Over Global Warming
hightower_40 writes to mention that a small Alaskan village has sued two dozen oil, power, and coal companies, blaming them for contributing to global warming. "Sea ice traditionally protected the community, whose economy is based in part on salmon fishing plus subsistence hunting of whale, seal, walrus, and caribou. But sea ice that forms later and melts sooner because of higher temperatures has left the community unprotected from fall and winter storm waves and surges that lash coastal areas."
IANAL. It would seem to me that if you are going to sue someone for causing you harm, you would need to sue everyone involved. In this case, that would mean sueing almost everyone in the world. It's not fair to target one small group just because they have money. IANAL.
I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
Socialize costs.
It's sad to see this kind of thing going forward because there are too many forces arrayed against it for it to actually be successful.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
... coastal what?
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Let's just hope the trial happens before the village gets flooded...
The oil companies didn't put the CO2 in the atmosphere. It's the billions of people who drive cars and heat their homes.
So, are the people going to sue themselves?
I hate useless civil suits that tie up the legal system, But I hate oil companies. I love an underdog and cheer when they take on a giant...
As a tree hugger I say "woo!" as someone who is going to pay for this in one way or another (read: energy costs) I'm not very happy.
Ask not what you can do for your country. Ask what your country did to you
I do love the part where they're complaining that global warming is keeping them from hunting "whale, seal, walrus, and caribou". Maybe Leonardo diCaprio should make a movie about that!
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
than anything else. I live in Alaska and can tell you the driving force behind this is actually "The Center on Race, Poverty & the Environment and the Native American Rights Fund -- plus six law firms." The natives in the village use gas-powered vehicles for transportation and (generator) electricity for their homes, suing the people who provide the source for those items.
Shoot, why don't we all climb on board. Oh, wait - I drive a car to work and use natural gas to heat my home, plus electricity to power my net activities...
Yes it is http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm The same idiots were screaming ice age in the late 70's to early 80's. Further they are using it to proposed government initiatives at a global level. Good bye freedoms and even the pittance of accountability we have now have once the UN (majority tyrants) get control. This is junk science at its worst.
Of course. I always value the scientific opinion of the founder of The Weather Channel over the consensus of hundreds of climate scientists.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
...to recoup their losses from Christmas.
would throw this out. But it's filed in California, maybe it has a chance?
Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
I've been working so hard to warm the planet up, with my CO2 belching truck, but the lack of sunspots has made this year the coldest and snowiest winter since the 1960s....
This is my sig.
so that I can sue for wind damage to my property caused by global warming exacerbation of El Nino winds...
Then, I'm going to sue US automakers for making too many cars with poor pollution standards, followed by litigation against California for not implementing better greenhouse gas controls, and finally a class action against the Bush administration for not forcing people to curb greenhouse gas emissions upon threat of pre-emptive nuclear strikes for non-compliance. Clearly those people need to be bombed because they are wasting precious oil resources to create greenhouse gases.
Is it just me or does anyone else think the warmer climate may have affected more than the villagers are letting on about?
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
If anything is substantially responsible for increasing the earth's temperature, it's that nuclear-reactor-in-the-sky.
Why not sue everyone who drives a car then?
The term might mislead some Slashdot readers. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Claims_Settlement_Act
which established:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Native_Regional_Corporations
We're talking about the established tribal "village," which is a legal entity representing a group of natives for purposes of interacting with the Regional Corporations, not the traditional meaning of the word. The easiest comparison would be if you took recognized Native American tribes from the lower 48 and segmented them up into "villages" of roughly the size of a rural town.
Good (for some values of "good") timing on their part, what with the news that the world is actually cooling, including the most snowfall in 50 years in North America, and record levels of Antarctic sea ice.
Here we are, trying to keep our planet warm with a nice, insulating layer of carbon dioxide, and the darn ol' sun has to go and become less active.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
They're looking to cash in on the "environmental windfall lottery",
Just follow the money.
A million bucks each and they'll go away happy. It doesn't cost a million bucks a head to relocate people, unless you're relocating them to the ISS.
Kevin Smith on Prince
they bouhgt into the lie that man contributes to global warming. it has happened naturally over millions of years. the defendants of this case don't contribute one iota to the problem.
In Soviet Halo, the game kills you (socially anyway)
and sue the whole world.
You mean this consenus?
No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. That's from HERE. They provide a nifty graph to go with it HERE
It appears to me that those who said that the SUN was causing global warming due to increased sunspot activity, that has recently subsided, were correct. And all those scientist that claimed it was solely man made were wrong. Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Is this Alaskan Village totally eco-friendly, using solar panels, dogsleds and paddled kayaks for all their energy needs? Or do at least some of the villagers consume fossil fuels (either directly by burning them in their gasoline/diesel engines or oil furnaces, or indirectly by consuming electricity generated from coal or buying bananas transported from the tropics on jet planes)? If they do use fossil fuels then they should sue themselves...
I am not a lawyer (yet), but it looks as if the villagers are going to have a hell of a time proving duty and proximate causation. I wonder if this case is anything more than a publicity stunt.
Viral software licensing is not freedom, it is in fact GNU/Socialism.
and they'll make the lawsuit last long enough till the Alaskan village is fully submerged!
So be sure to break out those "the debate is over/you're a shill/denier" nostrums to stiffle debate, boys. You're going to need them...
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Wouldn't they be obligated to prove that any global warming is indeed caused by human activity, and not a natural occurrence?
Global warming is something of a controversial subject in some circles (like mine, where this has been one of the coldest winters in a very long time). So won't the plaintiffs have to *PROVE* both that "global warming" is (at least to a significant degree) man-made and that the defendants bear significant culpability for it, in order to win the lawsuit? The outcome could be rather interesting to those debating the global warming topic.
Simpsons did it!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2502431.stm
Er, wait. It wasn't the Simpsons... but someone did, or tried anyway.
Are they going to sue us back to the last ice age?
You are linking to a site that is funded by Exxon, in case you didn't know.
NASA's GISS just said that 2007 was tied with 1998 for the second-warmest year in the past century.
Their data also shows that I think 8 months of 2007 were warmer than the corresponding months in 2006 - and all months of 2007 were at least as warm as the corresponding months in 2000.
I don't know if it is the same in the US but in Canada the natives are exempt from paying taxes on the gas they use and other controlled goods, and technically have a status different unto itself. I lived in the NWT in Frobisher Bay for four byears, and believe me; Everything is gas powered, My father was RCMP and since the temperature would drop below -50 during the winter the Vehicles that the towns people would use would run 24/7, otherwise they wouldnt get them started again...This means filling them with EMENSE amounts of gasoline, and this is onyl once facet of the lifestyle... These aren't communities where Global Warming adn all the other hot platform topics are discussed in teh same manor and regular light they are here...this is, in comparison, a small rural community who (as has been done time and time again) is being exlpoited.... You can't tell me the motivation of this arguement is to either A)help the environment, or B)seek compensation for an action that has slighted their lifestyle in any particular direct way... Howeevr, you CAN convince me very easliy that the arguement is about money and getting all you can...and was probobly proposed by the law firm representing the village... The exploitation of an indivduals, or a social groups, ignorance is the bigger crime here... -Adam
cost per person to relocate inhabitants = $30,000
cost per person to have lawyers sign moving agreement = $970,000
going to law school and specializing in environmental law
Exxon is presently trying to get the SCOTUS to overturn $2.5B punitive damages awarded to fishermen and other interests affected adversely by the Valdez spill (interesting story... drunk driver, I mean captain). Anyhow, it is related because punitive damages are weird.. they got $2.5B earlier, the court may reduce it, to what $1.25B? And Exxon wants to pay $0. How much is appropriate?
At least in the oil spill, one defendant is involved, Exxon. In global warming, who is culpable, and to what extent? Who suffered, and what dollar amounts? And what is an appropriate punitive damages number? Adn think of the endless appeals.
Perhaps you're not aware that climate change doesn't mean a uniform increase of temperature everywhere.
A collection of a dozen anecdotes doesn't mean squat for a global phenomenon.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Climate scientists are just modern day alchemists.
I always value any information put together by legions of idiots with political agendas.
Oh boy, here we go again. The IPCC... that political bunch of wankers. Do you guys know how to do anything but proclaim you're right because "everyone" agrees with you? I really love how everyone doesn't actually agree, but anyone who disagrees is automatically crucified for being a blasphemer by the cult of global warmers.
Hey, look at me! I've got a few years worth of data! Now I can make wide reaching conclusions about the work of hundreds of scientists!
Temperature changes are well understood to happen more gradually than a few years. If the next decade would show cooling that still wouldn't mean anything about the long term trend. Short term reversals of some trends can and do happen. A volcano spewed sulfur into the atmosphere? Solar output decreased very slightly? And so on...
This doesn't invalidate the long term warming trend and the science behind global warming, at all.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
Of course. I always value the scientific opinion of the founder of The Weather Channel over the consensus of hundreds of climate scientists.
Maybe you should actually read some of the articles from that site. They do attempt to back up their claims from what I could see. Personally, I haven't formed an opinion either way. I had just stumbled upon the article yesterday and thought it was interesting. Apparently the mods didn't agree with me.
Anyway, the point is that not all scientists agree on this issue so don't be so quick to discount alternative views.
- The burning of Christian martyrs by Nero
- The burning of Rome itself under Nero
- The Government of Pompeii for failing to properly mitigate the greenhouse gas footprint of Mount Vesuvius.
They also filed a Friend of the Court brief on behalf of the Clovis populations, pending the location of the culpable party or parties for the meteor, or Clovis descendants for that matter. Ok, seriously folks... We hear so much about how these "native peoples", what Daniel Quinn in Ishmael called "The Leavers" live in balance with nature. But nature changes, with or without our helf. And change they must... or else. I am neither a Global Warming Nay Sayer, nor DoomSayer. Global warming happens. It's part of nature. WE are part of nature. Get over it. If you have to, move on. Try Houghton, Michigan. You might like it. They have a university there where you can learn technical skills to combat global warming (or prove it doesn't exist, I don't care which) And they have a great hockey team.Dude, you've posted to slashdot. No way in hell you're going to collect from McDonalds for not getting laid! BTW, I wrote a journal last year that can help you.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Will be created by clearcutting whole tree farms to make the paper a case of this magnitude requires.
If only there was a book that came up with this premise...released in 2004...by a famous author...through HarperCollins... Oh wait.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
I hate frivolous lawsuits, or lawsuits that clearly only benefit the lawyers and no one else, but I also hate the oil companies with a passion as well.
You answered: Not in the absence of competence to interpret it. Then you say: Meanwhile both poles are melting faster than anyone feared. What TFA I linked says: Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. What the Goddard Space Flight Center shows: While recent studies have shown that on the whole Arctic sea ice has decreased since the late 1970s, satellite records of sea ice around Antarctica reveal an overall increase in the southern hemisphere ice over the same period. Of course, it wouldn't be fair to bring up the opposing argument (from 2003): Australian scientists yesterday revealed new evidence of global warming, suggesting that sea ice around Antarctica had shrunk 20% in the past 50 years. So if decreasing sea ice proves global warming, wouldn't increasing sea ice DISprove global warming? I mean, I am not a climatologist and all, but I am a thinker.
I'm not saying that the climate didn't change or isn't changing. It is always changing. I'm saying that it is natural, not man made and that the "hockey stick" predictions of future climate models were dead wrong.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Global Cooling, Global warming and environmentalism are distractions. As the mass media creates climate illusions, Big Brother clamps down by opening our mail, suspending habeas corpus, stealing private lands, banning books like "America Deceived" from Amazon, rigging elections, conducting warrantless wiretaps and starting wars based on blatant lies. Prevent our loss of rights then handle the environment.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
America Deceived (book)
Where the villagers win and the big corporations lose.
Fight global warming with aikido!!!
We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
That's called an ad hominem attack, in case you didn't know.
I hope there IS global warming. This winter was frikken cold!
MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
"attack the group"
I just pointed out that you were linking to an Exxon-funded front-group, so people can evaluate what they are seeing.
Local weather does not refute a global climate trend.
It is incredibly disheartening to see so much willful ignorance & denial of science on this site.
The simple facts that elude everyone on each side of this argument (regardless of which side is correct) are:
It does baffle me that instead of looking at the other valid reasons (and I listed only a few that quickly came to mind) people dismiss this "issue" because it is possibly targeting the wrong problem created by the issue. Lowering emissions is still just as relevant simply to maintain a clean, properly balanced atmosphere... anyone remember SanFran a few decades ago? It is obvious we can make a difference in our environment - negative or positive - but it is up to us to choose - and pretending CO2 and CO emissions aren't a problem simply because they may not cause global warming; when we know they do cause various other health and environmental problems is not the step in the right direction.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
If you can't counter the arguement cry victimization. It worked for... well, it had to have worked for somebody, right?
Covertly funding a site who's viewpoint saves you money does look a little bit suspicious, though, doesn't it?
"No," says the Eskimo, "it's just frost on my mustache."
~~~
(What the hell, I've got some karma to burn.)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
http://thethaifamily.com/son/jokes/helf.jpg
What argument?
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
http://www.pawalaw.com/practice-areas/environmental-litigation.php
What a mooch!
Actually, I think readers deserve to know that a site offering what they purport to be a scholarly and independent analysis of science is actually funded by a corporation with an interest in distorting the facts. Especially when it turns out that the analysis offered by that site is contradicted by the scientific community.
"Doubt is our product" was the strategy used by the tobacco companies to pollute public understanding of the science about cancer. More than 100 million people have been killed by tobacco.
Now the oil and coal companies are using the same strategy - even some of the the same people and PR firms - to try to keep people from understanding what is happening with global warming.
So I think it IS important for people to know who is spreading this stuff, and why.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
How exactly does cutting back on carbon emissions "wreck worldwide economies"? On the other hand, if global warming produces droughts, that could certainly wreck economies that depend on agriculture.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Well, that's kinda funny considering that I was replying to a post citing to Wikipedia. Exactly who created the Wikipedia article and who were they funded by?
You realize, of course, that if I should discount the website because of its funding, then I should also discount all the research done by scientists whose research funding would dry up if Climate Change proved to be a fiction. They're not neutral either.
If there's a scientific consensus, then I would expect nearly every scientist to agree on that consensus. (After all, isn't that the definition?) Yet, these pesky scientists seem to have a tough time agreeing. Here's another example. If there was a consensus, I would expect an MIT professor of Atmospheric Science to, at least, be aware of it.
It was economists that exposed their fraud. But there's other variables that have been ignored, volcanic activity, and the weakening and flipping of the Earth's magnetic field, all possibly *huge* variables. Yup, they tried to claim a changing average Earth Temperature whilst excluding the Sun as a variable in the average Earth temperature -- biggest fraud ever. That's why you never saw a formula for their temperature model along the lines of Sun + Core + ManMadeActivity = Temperature, whereby the variables are weighted like 0.95 for the Sun 0.039 for Core, and 0.0001 for MMA. Soon as you look at it in those terms, you realize what an agenda of fraud they were pushing. They just pretended the Sun was constant and completely removed it from the Global Average Temperature Model (the better to push an agenda). And it's a shame too, because it tarnishes legitimate environmental anti-pollution campaigns.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/about.html
The global warming fraudsters would have saved a lot of wasted money, not to mention the irreparable crying wolf damage they have caused to future scientific credibility, if they ordered and passed out scale model replicas of the solar system. That big glowing burning thing that's 100 times larger than the planet Earth is called the Sun. Here's a website for those "scientists" to get an education.
http://www.noao.edu/education/peppercorn/pcmain.html First, collect the objects you need. They are:
Sun-any ball, diameter 8.00 inches
Mercury-a pinhead, diameter 0.03 inch
Venus-a peppercorn, diameter 0.08 inch
Earth-a second peppercorn
Mars-a second pinhead
Jupiter-a chestnut or a pecan, diameter 0.90 inch
Saturn-a hazelnut or an acorn, diameter 0.70 inch
Uranus-a peanut or coffeebean, diameter 0.30 inch
Neptune-a second peanut or coffeebean
Pluto- a third pinhead (or smaller, since Pluto is the smallest planet) This peppercorn is the Earth we live on.
The Earth is eight thousand miles wide! The peppercorn is eight hundredths of an inch wide. What about the Sun? It is eight hundred thousand miles wide. The ball representing it is eight inches wide. So, one inch in the model represents a hundred thousand miles in reality.
This means that one yard (36 inches) represents 3,600,000 miles. Take a pace: this distance across the floor is an enormous space-journey called "three million six hundred thousand miles." Those global warming scientists should be sued to have all the moneys invested returned so it can be invested in legitimate solar scientific research.
"From DNA to P2P, we are all Copycats now. Go Go Copycat Power! Copycat Powers activate! Form of, a Copycat." --monxrtr
You seem to be saying that because it snowed a lot in North America this year, what we see when we look at satellite photos that show the poles melting is not really happening?
Do I have that right?
"Climate change" means that we will see more extreme weather, including more regional snowfall in some places. So yes, more snowfall in North America actually shows that global warming IS occurring.
Of course not all scientists agree, and of course we should never discount alternative views. My point is that I'm not going to believe that global warming is a scam based on what one meteorologist says.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Not so. It's true, and germane to the veracity of the purported 'facts.'
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
The point is to either comprehend the science behind it and be able to argue the subject on a scientific level, or leave it to the hundreds of scientists and governmental advisors (mostly outside the USA) to do it for you and trust what they say. This stuff is complex and I dislike the fact that some misguided people are telling some of the smartest scientists on the damn planet, that what they think is stupid.
If you'd be familiar with the issue, you'd know that scientists are not denying naturally occuring changes and are in fact they were the ones who observed those cycles in the first place, but they're saying that what we have now is happening much faster and is a bigger change than what we had before. A few degrees change you say? Put those few degrees into perspective! The global yearly average temperature is 14C. A few degrees colder and life wouldn't have developed on the planet. A few degrees hotter and life is forced to adapt to wildly different conditions, rapidly. A fraction of a degree has a huge effect!
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
On the off chance that you're not trolling but genuinly ignorant and brainwashed, you might want to read what Wikipedia has to say. I never heard of the link you (and several others) have redundantly submitted. It appears to be a site some college kid (yay U of I! I'll give him credit for that) just opened up. He appears to have no credentials on the subject AT ALL as he's a computer science major.
The graph shown is for a few years. It's an anomoly. Compare it to the graph Wikipedia shows; there are ups and downs throughout the entire 150 year period it covers, but on the whole it's UP UP UP.The blog posting is by a fellow named Michael Asher. No citations besides news sources are cited, and it doesn't even say what Asher's field of expertise is. For all I know he's president of Exxon, or maybe a thirteen year old middle school student.
You might as well get your science views from Uncyclopedia. At least you know they're not only talking out their asses, but TRYING to be funny (as oppesed to the blog you link which is unintentionally funny).
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Why do people continue to blame others for the bad things in life that happen to them? The only ones that will really benefit from such law suits are the lawyers. They will get 33% off the top and then all the fees they incurred to bring the lawsuit. The people they represent will get a small fraction of anything that is actually awarded.
And if they do win the law suit in the next 15 to 20 years what will the do then? Actually move to someplace else? Doubtful. People have a bad habit to cling to places and things long after they have become useless.
Climate change is going to happen, ignoring the discussion about it being man made or not, it will happen. People need to do what they did long before the lawyers and green peace got involved, adapt to the changes. In the past various warming and cooling periods forced people to migrate to different areas of the globe. Well guess what, they need to do that now, or find a way to live in the changed environment. If their traditional hunting and fishing is disrupted by the climate change then they need to find something else to hunt and fish. If nothing is available then they need to find a way to import what they need. If they don't have the jobs and money to do that then MOVE SOMEPLACE ELSE THAT HAS WHAT THEY NEED! It is not going to cost that much to move a family to a different location. Load up the dog sled and head south.
This also goes for those on the coast that get hit with hurricanes. (Funny that the last couple of hurricane seasons have been much quieter than predicted...) If you can't afford the insurance for the house you bought on the coast then sell it and move in land. DON'T EXPECT THE REST OF US TO PAY FOR YOUR BAD CHOICE!
How many of these plaintiffs took money from these very same oil companies by way of the Alaska Permanent Fund? Where were the complaints then? Should the people who took money be liable? I think so.
I suggest we use the APF to pay this lawsuit, then watch how fast it gets forgotten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
"The Fund grew from an initial investment of $734,000 in 1977 to the current sum of approximately forty billion dollars as of July 13, 2007. "
I find it more than a little distasteful that these greedy s.o.b's think they can collect on both ends.
These effects where noticed, many hypothesis was bantered around,and the media reported what they read on the day.
SOme people thought there would be cloaud cover, and therefore less heat on the earth, some believed the heat would be absorbed. both would create significant climate change.
As time marched on, more and more data was collected, many ideas were discarded.
Now we have gone from a split, to a consensus. It is working exactly like science should, data is collected, tested, Theories get refined, or discarded.
Bearing in mine the 'global warming' i.e. climate change doesn't mean everything stays the same, it's just a few degree's warmer. It means the flow of the Ocean will change; which can radically change the overall climate.
Being skeptical is fine, as long as it's balanced by studies.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Hilarious, but PLEASE include a NSFW flag next time...
But they are targeting everyone! These companies will pass the costs down to the customers in an effort to regain profit levels. Add more suits like this, and using fossil fuels suddenly becomes a lot less economically efficient. Many, many people are sued indirectly for their fair share of the compensation.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
At lest they are working on new job skills now that fishing and hunting are out fo the question.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Are you freaking kidding me? There are many studies the show no relationship between sunspots and global climate trends.
That as an interesting idea in th 70's. Now it's dead.
Good luck on quiting smoking, stay strong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Even if I do live in a cartoon city.
BTW, I'm not a Democrat. I voted in the Republican primary this year. My candidate lost.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Try the seal ;)
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Can we sue them for killing endangered species just so they can continue tribal traditions?
No, I guess that's not politically correct.
If you've never been modded as "flamebait" or "troll," you've never tried to argue a minority viewpoint here!
If you'd be familiar with the issue, you'd know that scientists are not denying naturally occuring changes and are in fact they were the ones who observed those cycles in the first place, but they're saying that what we have now is happening much faster and is a bigger change than what we had before. A few degrees change you say? Put those few degrees into perspective! The global yearly average temperature is 14C. A few degrees colder and life wouldn't have developed on the planet. A few degrees hotter and life is forced to adapt to wildly different conditions, rapidly. A fraction of a degree has a huge effect! I agree with most of what you say. As to the section I bolded above, I REALLY agree. However, I probably see it a bit differently than you do. While many scientist think that recent warming trends were due to man-made factors increase in CO2 due to fossil fuels, for example, many other scientists point to things like increased solar activity as the culprit. Both sides make valid arguments. What I see happening is an attempt by "global warming alarmists" to discredit the scientists who disagree with them. I've heard that they were all working for big oil companies and even read stories of many talented climatologists losing their jobs over it.
As for the changes happening faster than normal, I disagree. There have been natural occurrences throughout the climatological history of our planet where the temperature changes much more rapidly than they are now. The Permian-Triassic extinction event is a fine example. So while a fraction of a degree may have had a huge effect toward the beginnings of life, I don't think that it will have as much of an effect with evolving, adapting creatures. For that matter, a rapidly changing climate throughout history is what made the creatures of today as resilient as they are in regards to temperature change.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
I find it very difficult to believe that any reputable scientist would claim the Sun heat the earth. Would you like to try and source that claim for me, or maybe easier for you, you could just admit that in your rush to post you assumed you understood what you were replying to, but didn't.
I'll gladly accept either choice.
Again, try poking around on the site... Try looking at the FAQ and things like that; they actually give some of their reasoning for their beliefs. The blog entry by John Coleman doesn't really give any facts or anything so you gotta look past that.
I think the biggest argument in their favor is the timeframe of people's observations. A shift in global climate over a period of only a couple hundred of years is really not long enough to draw any real conclusions from in my opinion. Anyway, it makes for some interesting debate.
Humans live better, longer and with less health issues when breathing a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere - unpolluted with CO emissions and such other byproducts (regardless of which are possible causes of global warming)
Did you mean "unpolluted by CO2 emissions"? Because I don't want to breathe much carbon monoxide either. (And, fortunately, I don't.)If you did, though, please consider! The Earth's atmosphere already has billions of tons of carbon dioxide. Human emissions have increased this some, and this increase may or may not be Bad and Cause Global Warming, but calling CO2 "pollution" is like calling the ocean "polluted with salt".
CO2 is there. Naturally. In far, far greater quantities than Man ever put there.
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
"would claim the Sun doesn't heat the earth"
I hate fixing my own posts...
I saw a documentary about this village on TV a while ago. And while the problems they were facing were serious, I simply could not muster any sympathy for them. Why?
a) The village is small, maybe 500 meters in diameter. And still, EVERYONE drove around with ATV's. No-one walked
b) Whenever they showed them eating, they ate from disposable plates.
While their contribution to global warming is miniscule, it does raise a question: if they have done nothing to prevent global warming (in fact, their lifestyle has accelerated it), do they have any moral leg to stand on when it comes to suing others for their problems?
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Look, anyone with enough money can find a wingnut or crackpot to say whatever they want said. Congratulations, You've found a "Consensus" consisting of two guys who work for a fricken' oil company. Why should we trust what they say? I say its a fact that these two guys are from Venus, and they are trying to make the earth warmer because that's what Venusians like. And I'm an expert, so you should believe me. Come on, man, you'll have to do better than that. The creationists have a site just like the one you pointed to 'debunking' evolution. Do you believe them? Hey, timecube guy has a site presenting the 'facts' about physiscs, I suppose you believe him?
You've proven nothing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Calling him snarky isn't launching an attack against him. It is pointing out that he is talking in circles and you just joined him. He called the Heartland Foundation a "front group" for Exxon. If that is not meant to cause people to suspect the facts they cite then I don't know what is. Besides, the Hartland Institute is a bonafide 503(c) non-profit.
Moreover my point is this. If I say that trees use CO2 and give off oxygen I think you can agree that saying that is factual. Now if I hire a lobbyist for the Sierra Club and tell them to say "Trees use CO2 and give off Oxygen" that does not change the fact that they are saying a true statement.
I understand wanting to know why a organization may be biased is important. However once you determined that you still have to look at every single fact they cited seperately and judge it accordingly. My point is you probably can't disprove one single fact on that website.
Once again proving that as humans evolve, we become less able to cope with our changing environment. Arguably, this one trait is the only reason we've made it as far as we have. How long before these poeple are put on some extinction list somewhere.
I know, sounds cold, but lets stop suffering the stupid people.
Hi, I Boris. Hear fix bear, yes?
Don't you see anything wrong with that chart?
Claim a trend is wrong by comparing the history of the trend to a month of data is laughable.
Also, global climate means more energy,and has such wilder fluctuation . When it continues to trend down after 15 years, AND the amplitude of fluctuation stays consistent with the last 150 years, give me a call.
"However, researchers at DMI continued to work, eventually discovering what they believe to be the link. The key factor isn't changes in solar output, but rather changes in the sun's magnetosphere A stronger field shields the earth more from cosmic rays, which act as "seeds" for cloud formation. The result is less cloud cover, and a warming planet. When the field weakens, clouds increases, reflecting more light back to space, and the earth cools off."
A quote from the article your quote links to.
I am assuming by 'Cosmic Rays' they mean things from outside the Suns influence.
But what the hell does this mean:
" which act as "seeds" for cloud formation." Cosmic Rays cause clouds?
I notice the conveniently leave out of much of a protection it gives. Clearly the difference is minute are we would be dead.
Of course, there is no telling how much the writer gets wrong.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You posted a link to the Heartland Institute, an Exxon-funded front group.
This should be a +5 insight/ informative.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
You have a knack for finding Exxon-funded stuff to link to. Why is that? This time you linked to something by Richard Lindzen.
Wikipedia: "According to a PBS Frontline report, "Dr. Lindzen is a member of the Advisory Council of the Annapolis Center for Science Based Public Policy, which has received large amounts of funding from ExxonMobil and smaller amounts from Daimler Chrysler, according to a review [of] Exxon's own financial documents and 990s from Daimler Chrysler's Foundation. Lindzen is a also been a contributor to the Cato Institute, which has taken $90,000 from Exxon since 1998, according to the website Exxonsecrets.org and a review Exxon financial documents. He is also a contributor for the George C. Marshall Institute."
"You can't defeat the argument that Exxon sponsored the linked-to website..."
As Michael Palin once said, that's not an argument. It too is an ad hominem fallacy: because Exxon sponsors a website, its contents are not valid.
I should have said more snowfall in North America combined with the steadily rising temperatures and shrinking ice caps.
It is not an "unfalsifiable hypothesis" it is something you can even see with your own eyes (and satellite photos).
Don't turn this around. YOU have proved nothing. The site presents facts. All I get from you is your opinion on why you don't trust them. Try disproving the claims next time.
... i wonder who the cavemen sued when the ice age hit?.... pathetic
Oops, sorry. Most of my journals involve drinking, hookers, reefer, and drunken stoned hookers. One of them was titled NSFW, but I would have thought that a journal about getting laid wouldn't need an NSFW tag.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
Economies are based on making stuff and doing things. Making stuff and doing things require energy. Most of the world's energy comes from fossil fuels. Fossil fuels emit CO2. By forcing a decrease in CO2 emissions, you are forcing a decrease in fossil fuel burning, which means a decrease in energy and therefor, a decrease in production, which economies are based on. The laws of supply and demand dictate higher prices for everything, in addition to the increase in price of energy itself, which is the only real way to curtail its usage. Higher prices, making less stuff = wrecked economies. On the other hand, if global warming produces droughts, that could certainly wreck economies that depend on agriculture. On another hand... or foot or whatever, global cooling means even more agricultural problems. Since we know that the climate is always changing, meaning that it is either warming or cooling all the time, we are much better off with the warming. Besides, global warming is actually good for agriculture. "The overall results suggest that global warming is not as dangerous [to agriculture] as was first believed. The impacts for the globe average near zero suggesting that the world should delay implementing expensive abatement programs," argued Dr Mendelsohn. Of course, there is two sides. Allow me to pick one of them apart. My comments in bold Scientists agree that human activity by emitting heat-trapping gases is causing global warming(not true. Sure some scientist think so, it's not a consensus by any means) with extremely serious environmental and human health effects(not proven.). Following is a statement on the impacts from the Union of Concerned Scientists:(a political group with funding from National Wildlife Federation, Environmental Defense, and the Tides Foundation and others)
Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . .
As the Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives.(and there is a RISK that it won't) While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes and environmental impacts.(Uh, isn't a warmer climate with more rainfall GOOD for agriculture? I mean, I'm no farmer and all, but some guy here just told me that global warming will mean more droughts... which one is it?)
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
First, I didn't proclaim I'm right. Second, I didn't say that "everyone" agrees. I merely said there's a scientific consensus that carbon dioxide emissions is causing global warming. That consensus is shared by the Joint Science Academies, U.S. National Research Council, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, American Astronomical Society, American Physical Society, among others. I'm sure you can find some scientists and perhaps even some groups that disagree. That doesn't mean the consensus has not been reached.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
Al Gore is the chairman of Generation Investment Management, a company that sells carbon offsets (in particular, he buys his carbon offsets from his company. Does that make him biased as well?
As there is no conclusive proof that global warming is caused by man, the courts have to rule against the plaintiff and it will stop this foolishness.
BTW, how much of the Northwest passage is still open? How many million kilometers of ice have reformed in the past several months? How many times has this cycle occured in the past several millinieum? Duh.
Scientists, start your beenie tops.
I don't believe I have to explain this, but here we go...
There is a very limited amount of fossil fuels remaining. Continuing to use it at an ever increasing pace until it runs out will cause economies that are energy dependent to fail catastrophically. By funding alternative sources of energy while tapering off our use of fossil fuels, we will ensure that economies that depend on energy will continue to flourish.
Your claim that global warming is good for agriculture seems to be based on one study. If the study based its claim on the usual 95% statistical certainty, it has a 5% chance of being incorrect. If twenty similar studies were performed, we would expect one to be incorrect, and of course the media will sensationalize the one dissenting finding. Scientific conclusions are based on repeatable studies and reaching a consensus, not lone papers that seem to disprove what the vast majority of scientists are saying.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"The Alaska Permanent Fund is not money from oil companies."
Ok.
"The People of Alaska decided that they will let companies pump their oil out of the ground, for which it charges the oil companies a fee."
So the money comes from the companies. What did you think I was wrong about again, since your statement here agrees with me?
"They aren't "taking money" from the oil companies, the oil companies are taking their oil, getting rich, and giving a bit back to the people whose oil it is."
You say the people are getting money. From whom? As you JUST stated "the oil companies". So I'm right, as you say there.
That was just about the worst attempt at proving me wrong ever. You just said they're taking money from the oil companies, several times in the same post, which apparently was supposed to prove something. Unless you were trying to prove "the people take money from the oil companies", you failed totally.
I mean, you couldn't have agreed with me more if you actually agreed with me.
"How does this mean they are supposed to somehow be grateful to the oil companies?"
They're not straw man, let's stick to arguments I made (even though you failed badly at rebutting those too).
"How does this make them greedy?"
Ah, the meat of it. When you take a payoff from an oil company, knowing that they will change the environment in acquiring the oil to give you your payoff, while also forcing them to establish a trust fund to mitigate said environmental changes, then turn around and try to use the legal system to extort money for something you've already been paid for? THAT makes you greedy.
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
"Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly "lost" ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.
Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming."
-Newsmax.com
So that would be more snowfall in N. America, S. America, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, and Chile combined with growing ice caps means global warming? So if it were hotter in all these areas, would that mean global cooling? I'm confused by your logic.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
HaHa - Michael Crichton thought of it before they did.
I mean, of course we can understand the root cause of the erosion of a single sandbar in Alaska in a global environment in which everything is changing and evolving constantly, right?
Ah, but I have disproved them as much as they have proved them. The site does not present facts, it presents opinions it claims are facts. Anybody can make shit up and call it fact. The thing is, they won't get many people to agree with them, because they are wrong. There is a reason that only a few people are denying global warming, and that most people agree that it is a problem.
You have not answered my objection. The creationists have sites just like the one you point to, presenting their version of the facts. Do you believe them? If not, why not?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Consensus is a herd effect. Statistical analysis rather depressingly shows how powerful the bandwagon effect is.
It is interesting to look at, but it doesn't mean as much as looking at the numeric data itself.
Here is a quote from near the top of the Exxon Global Warming propaganda page:
On June 13, USA Today declared, "The debate's over: Globe is Warming." In support of its claim, the newspaper cited the positions of some left-leaning religious groups, some corporations who will reap a financial windfall from a switch to alternative fuel sources, and some politicians.I am not going to bother "fact checking", but rather assume the date, the source, and the headline are factual. The rest of the post on the Exxon page is biased nonsense that conveniently leaves out all salient details about who the newspaper is citing. Were the left-leaning religious groups the Catholics? The Klu Klux Klan? Perhaps Greenpeace? Were the alternative energy corporations Exxon-Mobil? SolarTech? General Electric?
It seems to me that the propaganda page which this thread's flamewar is based around is simple garbage and nobody anywhere has added anything meaningful to credit or discredit the global warming debate (except the guy who pointed out the the source in question is an Exxon funded page).
Thus, I because of the lack on information and the absence of facts on the source page, I declare that it is nothing but somebody's uneducated propaganda and you should ignore its opinions.
Support the 30 Hour Work Week!!!
"The new and latest religion"
by Janer Cristaldo
~~~~~
About ten years ago, I wrote that someone who saw clearly the void of faith that would devastate the West was Italian director Nanni Moretti, in Palombella Rossa. The film came in '89, significantly the year when the Wall of Berlin fell. The story has as its main character a communist deputy that suddenly loses his memory.
The final scene is emblematic: in a highway, hundreds of youths run to greet the sun. It is inaugurated the new religion, the worship of nature. Not by chance, the privileged interlocutor of the Dalai-Lama -- word that modestly means Ocean of Wisdom -- in Brazil is Fernando Gabeira, former marxist guerilla fighter that switched his faith in History for the ecological militance. Gyatso intuited quickly this western turnabout and now preaches in defense of the environment.
I read in today's El País: "The climate change has mobilized scientists that study it, engineers that seek technological solutions, and economists that measure them. And it also starts to take a spiritual dimension that is converting it, in the opinion of some, into the new religion of the 21st century. A new ecological spirituality. The messianic language and the nearly religious instruments that are utilized break the more rational plans and silence in a public opinion more skeptic before past causes."
As well know the ornitologists who peck me. Their zeal is religious. Before the hypothesis of the extinction of the swamp streamcreeper, they brandish the apocalypse. Without intending to analyze the so called global warming -- since I do not have the instruments to do so -- I distrust it. For it is preached with the same divine wrath of John of Patmos. To bet on the apocalypse is a comfortable bet. For the apocalypse won't come right away. It's always in the future. Therefore, while it won't come, its prophets are not proven wrong.
Late the past year, the newspaper says, Al Gore arrived in Seville to speak of his movement against climate change. In his eagerness to reach his audience, Gore, who is a deeply religious man, uses phrases such as: "Noah was told to save the living species and this today is still our duty." Before preaching to the ambassadors or disciples that belong to his movement, 1700 all over the planet, he asks of them a "spiritual connection".
To biologist Miguel Delibes de Castro, "the structure that Gore organized is almost religious, with disciples that spread the good word, like Jesus Christ." To biologist Miguel Ferrer, "the radical ecological trends have much in common with religious schools. More and more one hears that man is the evil, destructive being and he must be expelled from the last of paradises."
One of Al Gore's 200 ambassadors in Spain is Juan Negrillo. Asked about the connection between his speech and religious feelings, he said: "All religions have their roots in faith, and in that sense the ecologist message and climate defense can be mistaken for as a religious message, because, as we are not able to touch, smell, weigh or see the CO2, it's almost a question of faith in the scientific community."
Who has not heard of Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, that regarded Earth as a living being? Here in Brazil, we had a loon that earned fame as ecologist, José Lutzenberger, that believed deeply in that mystical theory.
"But what we are going to do first: unveil this wonder, or will we continue as a cancer in Gaia's organism, devastating, causing mass extinctions, intoxicating to the point of no return?", Lutzenberger wrote, and continued:
"In the time of that mortal threat that was the oxygen pollution crisis, that nearly extinguished the life forms then existing, Gaia, rather than succumb, knew how to benefit. It transformed a ferocious enemy into a powerful ally, a factor of more life, of more complex life, more perfect, more diversified, more harmonic - a st
Circumcision is child abuse.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
Why would I want to slow global warming? It simply fulfills revelations that the world will end in heat and fire. I'm sure some god will place me in a lovely place when the rapture happens for all i've done to support them. Now if I could only figure out which god will take care of me during the rapture.. Perhaps I should hedge my bets...
Well, duh. It's winter in the northern hemisphere, so of course the ice caps are growing. Will this have an impact on summer ice levels? It's too soon to say.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
Ice caps are growing? Dude, do you know what a satellite IS? It means you can look down at the earth and see for yourself what is going on.
There are SEA ROUTES opening up around the arctic for the first time.
Give us all a break, please. Go look at some of the photos, then come back and apologize.
The Heartland Foundation doesn't deny global warming! They deny that people are the main or even a significant cause of global warming.
2. Look at The Cryosphere Today: http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
3. These guys are locked-in by ice right now!
The next pasture is always greener
I agree that heavily taxing fossil fuels and using the taxes to research to fund alternative energy sources is the wisest approach. That will both decrease carbon dioxide emissions and help conserve fossil fuels, while also helping to transition to alternative energy sources.
It may be common sense that global warming will increase agricultural yields, and it was commonly believed at one point, but recent evidence is that global yields will be negatively affected.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
The big push for at least a decade was that we were being threatened by global warming. The ice caps were going to melt, the seas were going to rise and who knows what else was going to come with that. All we hear about is some impending doom initiated by humanity. Except that it never actually arrives; it's always going to happen some day soon.
On now that evidence is arising that discredits the notion of global warming the terms get switched around on us. So now it's climate change. The nice thing about this term is that it's so all-encompassing. Any time we get weather a bit out of the ordinary it's chalked up to be due to climate change, specifically man-made climate change.
Last month is snowed lightly in Baghdad for the first time anyone can recall. You'd think so impressive an event would be covered more than it was. I eventually found a brief Agence France-Presse story about it. Predictably they stick a bit in there about how this was due to climate change. Like there's a set temperature for any spot on Earth.
I guess the implication is that the Earth's climate has always been static. I can't help but think that Creationists should be the most ardent believers of man-made climate change given that they're convinced the Earth is only 6000 years old.
Forecasters can barely predict the weather into next week and I'm supposed to accept has fact incomplete computer models that predict the weather in the next 50 or 100 years. More importantly, I'm supposed to subscribe to the belief that a global temperature increase is inherently a bad thing.
A while ago I was reading about the history of Japan, specifically the Jomon period. It turns out that between 4000BC and 2000BC temperatures tended to be several degrees Celsius higher then they are today and the seas are believed to have been 5m higher. The fascinating part was that the people living in Japan at the time thrived during this era, having developed rice-paddy farming and government control. When the climate cooled the population of these people declined dramatically. This trend is reflected around the world. Europe endured famines in the 1300s during periods of cooling and glacial expansion.
Unfortunately, it seems to be taboo to argue against man-made climate change. Any evidence critics put forward is dismissed off-hand. The double-standards are laughable. A believer will use a localized event as evidence of climate change. A critic does the same and their argument is discredited for being based on local weather.
So now we have these eskimo pulling what is essentially a publicity stunt. Well, it's worse than that. Behind them are a pack of scumbag lawyers looking to line their pockets.
So what does the H. stand for?
Take your mod and shove it!
I recently came across this before. How do you know it's funded by Exxon? Is it just the content of the site? Has anybody been able to identify exactly what Exxon's public relation firms are doing?
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
That's probably as close to an admission that you lost this debate as I'll get, so thanks.
Have a nice day.
If these people realize that, according to William Ruddiman, a leading paleoclimatologist and a name that should be known to anyone remotely familiar with the global warming debate, greenhouse gases caused by humans have possibly staved off the onset of another cyclical cooling period that would possibly render these tribes' homes even colder and more uninhabitable than they are now.
But, as others have noted, this stunt reeks of little more than a pack of money-grubbing hypocrites jumping on a high-profile bandwagon in order to extort large amounts of money from the "bad guys." The chance that they're really all that well informed about the mechanics of climate change seems pretty low.
"Cut word lines. Cut music lines. Smash the control images. Smash the control machine." - William S. Burroughs
On the other hand, scientists can make a real name for themselves if they can disprove a widely-held belief. That's why you always have scientists with dissenting opinions, as they're hoping for a breakthrough and make a name for themselves. You can expect some dissenters, and if they're really on to something, that will be the next bandwagon to jump onto.
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
"Gore, like many people, needs air travel to do his work"
Before you get defensive, that is as good a reason as any. It's certainly good enough for me.
Now, to my questions (real questions, not those silly "I know the answer, but I'm a slashtroll trying to prove my point questions).
1) Does he fly commercial? If not, does he "airpool"?
If the answer is no to those questions, fuck him. Any excuse he gives as to why he isn't doing these things is just that, an excuse.
In this case, a tax analogy is applicable. If, as Al Gore believes, people who make more money should pay more tax, then why shouldn't someone who uses more energy have to do more to offset?
2) Why isn't "I need it for work" a good enough reason for me and my SUV? Or everyone else? We are taking Mr. Gore at his word that he needs it, is he (a professional politician and former aspiring lawyer) somehow more believable when he says he needs something?
I would really like to know the answer to #1 by the way. I suspect he takes a private jet, and it's only his flunkies that are on it, but I don't know that for sure, and would actually like to be wrong.
The USA Today article has this quote: The point I want to make about this quote is that nobody really argued that the Earth is not in a general warming trend. It it wasn't we'd be headed back into an Ice age. It's as simple as that. The argument has been over what the effect of increased CO2 emmisions is on the greenhouse gas effect. BTW, water vapor accounts for most of the "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere. Water vapor is the reason for a phenomenon known as thermal inversion as well which affects much of Southern California. This makes it warmer at night but actually about the same temperature during the day.
Also of note is that the Heartland Foundation is NOT against reducing pollution. They just want to use the most effecient means possible. My personal opinion is that would mean moving towards a combination of electric vehicles and hydrogen based hybrids.
Here, see for yourself. No complicated science, just photos:
http://www.everybodysweather.com/Static_Media/Polar_Ice_Cap_Melter/index.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/1023esuice.html (scroll down)
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/09/15/arctic.nwestpssg/index.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060914-arctic-ice.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/arctic-20070515.html
http://geology.com/nasa/antarctic-ice-sheet-melting.shtml
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMYTC13J6F_index_0.html (scroll down)
Hey, look at me! I've got a few years worth of data! Now I can make wide reaching conclusions about the behaviour of an eons-old ecology!
Note that I say this as a scientist myself. While I'm not going to directly contradict the theory of global warming, it's interesting to note that we have, at best, a few hundred years of accurate weather data. Who are we to say that extrapolating this data over the age is valid at all? Sure, it makes sense for a few hundred years, but over the history of the planet, or even humankind, I think that modern science is overstepping its bounds, and choosing sensationalism over solid science.
"Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is." -- Isaac Asimov
I bet they don't hate the oil companies when they're getting those subsidy checks every so often just because they live in Alaska.
or else!
Actually it is funny that you mention trends. From what my science teacher taught me the earth has been around for billions of years. So saying 150 years is a trend is laughable, try using a trend that is billions of years old, which I will outline below. My science teacher taught me that when dinosaurs where on the planet the earth was very warm, possibly warmer than it is now. Then it got really cold, the ice age. Now it is getting warm again. So the trend over billions of years is for the earth to get really warm and then really cold and then warm again and then cold over and over. So it seems to me that the earth is in a warming period before it starts another cooling period. And I assume that when it does start the cooling period the same "End of the World" types will be complaining that it is all our fault and we need to give more money to the UN so they can save the world from evil America.
JusTech'n - Where Technology comes home
"To this end, village residents have pursued relocation for the last twenty years."
http://www.poa.usace.army.mil/en/cw/Kivalina/Executive%20Summary.pdf
This town was going to disappear weather there was global warming or not. Global warming is now their excuse to get someone else to pay for it.
"Destroying someone's culture impacts them personally, in a way that is not right or just."
I'm sorry, culture is a function of the people who create it, so unless you're going to fabricate some great genocide here, the culture isn't destroyed at all, just altered.
Hyperbole like yours is for weak ass arguments.
yes exxon contributed less then 5% of ipcc total budget for 2005 and 2006.
for 2007 and 2008, exxon has not contributed to ipcc budget at all.
how many of the companies that Al Gore is involved with have contributed to the opposing view?
Don't forget to mention the part where Exxon has incurred $3.4 billion in cleanup expenses and fines, and has already paid the compensatory damages (nearly $300 million) to the plaintiffs in the case. The point of punitive damages is (supposedly) to punish, not to be a windfall for the plaintiffs.
Hernandez. He's a Mexical illegal immigrant living in Arizona.
mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
"Yes, and we can measure the varying input FROM THE SUN and most people have come to the conclusion that the increase in global temperatures can not be explained by changes in sunspot activity (or 11 year cycles, or 20 year cycles or what the current theory is). Which is what Black Parrot was referring to."
Yay. Now read it from the top, so you realize why Black Parrot was told off.
The point you have appeared to miss is that OP was saying the Sun should be a defendant, as it contributes to the warming of the earth ( and by contributes, I mean is almost totally responsible for).
It was a joke. As in, wow this is a stupid case, maybe something equally absurd like suing the sun is next because it too contributes to heating the earth. You didn't get it.
"So a single data point (a single year) is suddenly incredibly significant now that it supports YOUR side of the argument?"
What argument? He's not discussing global warming, he's discussing how cold it has been THIS YEAR. His claim is, the sun is partially responsible.
See, what you did was assume someone was attacking your pet theory, and rushed to defend it. If you'd read what you were replying to, you'd realize no one was attacking global climate change, they were observing that the sun has a role in warming the earth.
Reactionary, look it up so you don't behave like one again.
When did they say that their product didn't produce carbon dioxide when combusted?
Trying to blame people for centuries of being ignorant is the height of stupidity. Are you going to sue the Italians because the Romans contributed to the desertification of North Africa? You going to sue everyone who ever imported an invasive species for all the problems caused by that one plant, mollusc, or rodent?
I think you should start off suing everyone who ever used a petroleum product, which is pretty much everyone on the planet, and then move to the oil companies, whose crime is getting rich off providing stuff we just can't get enough of.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
I knew the second I had the audacity to ask tough questions about Gore that his acolytes would mod me down.
Of course, they know what the answers to the questions I asked are, and would hope to see me modded off the plant in order to avoid answering them.
"Of course. I always value the scientific opinion of the founder of The Weather Channel over the consensus of hundreds of climate scientists."
Except of cource when a equal consensus of hundreds of climate scientists is saying the first ones are wrong.
And *both* sides have been willing to resort to buying PHDs at the price of 10K a pop.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
Because it comes up prominently in Google.
I'm not saying that Global Warming doesn't exist. I'm saying that while a lot of people are claiming "Consensus," what I see looks a whole lot more like "majority opinion" than "consensus." There is a big difference between the two.
In any case, what matters is not who somebody is funded by, but the merits of their argument. A valid argument remains so even when Exxon agrees with it.
- bush's ranch is more eco-friendly than gore's:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/bush/house.asp
Food production, medicine, transportation, water treatment, sewer treatment...Moving back to subsistence sounds good for about 5 minutes, until you think about it.
We can sustain 6 billion people today because we can grow the food, we can purify the water, and we can process enough of our waste to keep from drowning in it. Drop electricity (for example) food production goes through the floor, large-scale food preservation becomes impossible, heat cannot be provided, so we'd need a few billion camp fires every night. Waste would be untreated, fouling water supplies in short order. Most places don't have reliable local water supplies that can be drunk unpurified, so that's already a problem...Disease levels go through the roof, and no hospitals, so mortality runs right there with it...
Pre-industrial revolution there were about 500 million people on the planet. If we went back to subsistence, we'd be back there pretty quickly...If we were lucky we'd be able to maintain around that level.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
That's called an ad hominem attack, in case you didn't know.
From your link"An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument."
I'd say the fact the entity making the claims about global warming is funded by an oil company is pretty damn relevant.
I stole this Sig
Not only that, but they must also show that the oil/coal/etc. companies believed that global warming was real. Keep in mind that the tobacco companies didn't get into serious trouble until the facts of the case for the link with lung cancer were so well established that it was not reasonable that a tobacco executive would be unaware of the link.
Even though the consensus points towards global warming as a fact, there are legitimate scientists who dispute this, not to mention that the climate/weather link runs both ways -- a local cooling does not refute a global warming, so the particular warming of this area is not necessarily caused by a global phenomenon. This makes the whole issue very muddy; if there was a 60% probability of this happening anyway, and global warming made that a 70% probability, then who's to say where the causality lies?
Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming.
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Evolution is a fact. Darwinism is a joke.
So I did a little research. It was actually the first snow in about 100 years. One poster says the last snow was January 22, 1916; though I can't confirm that.
(T>t && O(n)--) == sqrt(666)
You are linking to a site that is funded by Exxon, in case you didn't know.
Does Exxon fund wikipedia now? Most of those looked like US Federal Agencies or universities. I know Exxon's a tax payer, but I seriously doubt that they pay for that much climate research. Damn, that's really impressive. I didn't realize Exxon funded
Joint science academies' statement 2007
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
American Meteorological Society
American Association for the Advancement of Science.
That actually makes Exxon look like the greenest company around.
The point is to either comprehend the science behind it and be able to argue the subject on a scientific level, or leave it to the hundreds of scientists and governmental advisors (mostly outside the USA) to do it for you and trust what they say.
While your initial point (don't argue about what you don't understand) is very valid and valuable, you wind up making the gross error of encouraging the blind acceptance of "expert" opinions. I will be the first to admit that there are people out there who know more about climatology than I do, but by no means do I just "leave it to [them]... to do it for [me] and trust what they say." It is a fact that mainstream "science" is filled with lies and sensationalism, manufactured statistics, and the whole nine yards.
It is imperative that I do what I can to check in to matter that I care about and form my own opinion based on the data available to me. Anything less and I become what you propose: a lemming, ready to follow the sensationalist media wherever it cries wolf.
"Self-education is, I firmly believe, the only kind of education there is." -- Isaac Asimov
And yet, you've passed up another opportunity to provide any of that contradictory evidence. Seems to me, the reader, that you don't have any. You are simply continuing your ad hominem attack. If there's something on that page that is wrong, then you should point out what it is and provide your contradictory evidence. Otherwise, you're just some loudmouth blowhard on a message board shouting about "real" science.
The same idiots were screaming ice age in the late 70's to early 80's.
We had aether, and then we got this silly space-time/relativity thing, therefore relativity MUST be wrong. How can someone actually complain about science being self-correcting? The previous theory was right in some aspects, but wrong in others. Another theory comes about that fits the observations and theories better, and this the old one is invalidated. Now a bunch of people with irrational emotional responses hop out of the wood work and claim that the new (and more fit) theory is wrong because of the VERY nature of science itself.
As for these scientists being idiots, I doubt somehow your an apt climatologist, thus I question your judgment. Actually your probably as apt at climatology as I am at nuclear physics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Further they are using it to proposed government initiatives at a global level. Good bye freedoms and even the pittance of accountability we have now have once the UN (majority tyrants) get control. This is junk science at its worst.
If climate change is indeed a real issue, then perhaps the only solutions CAN be at a larger level. Taking things at face value, if climate change CAN kill hundreds of millions of people all over the world, but the sources of these changes are also decentralized, how would you propose fixing it that does not take place on the international level? Libertarian ideals aside, a corporation would not cease to exist of its own free will, even if in the public, or global (in this case) interest. They want money, and don't care about consequences by their very nature, corporate constructs are sociopaths. Thus there may come a time when we are FORCED to stop them, for our own good.
Again, accepting things at face value, we can compare the petroleum companies to the RIAA, obstinate and harmful vanguards and protectors of a failed business model.
If global warming is real, then these companies are harming us, and thus we (as in the people) have the right to stop them. We should not be tied to a national construct when we deal with global effects, since it effects people in Uganda as much as it effects us, and thus they should have a say as well. If true, the use of petroleum is infringing on the sovereignty of others.
That said, I always wondered why this is such an EMOTIONAL debate. People for and against it sometimes seem to not even bother with facts, but attack it by visceral emotional means (such as you calling the scientists involved "idiots"). Really, the whole global climate debate sounds just like the Abortion/Stem-Cell debate with slightly different noun choice.
The second point is that neither side is 100% sure (that being the nature of the scientific beast), but this opens up something akin to Pascal's Wager:
If global warming doesn't exist & we do nothing: nothing happens (=0)
If global warming doesn't exist & we do something: nothing happens (=0)
If global warming exists & we do nothing: huge cost in human life and property (=bad)
If global warming exists & we do something: tragedy averted, life goes on. (=good)
from this it seems to me that we are better off doing something, even if it turns out we are wrong, since the effects of inaction are higher than the costs of action. In things of this scale I would say we are better safe than sorry, since we are dealing with potentially irreversible global problems, versus a mere short term loss of money and profitability in certain sectors (which may be recouped in emerging technology). I would rather do something, in this case, and be wrong, than do nothing and be wrong.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I can't believe Exxon is still able to fight over this case. Just goes to show how powerful Exxon is and how much capital it has to take on the government and anyone else who steps up. I am sure the fight has not been cheap. Meanwhile....
For those that don't remember, this was a pretty blatant case where a company was negligent (or certainly the company's personnel). History here
Yet, somehow...they've managed to do nothing but fight since the incident happened. I can't blame them for fighting to reduce the award. I am just astounded that they haven't been beaten and punished already. It's still going on. 14 years later. Over those 14 years, they have been punished exactly zero.
I am in awe of their delay tactics. Astounded, actually...
Um, am I the only bio-guy who notices the data showing that CO2 increases preceed temperature rises? If the water in the ocean warms up (whether from the sun...which has been, overall (what about "6 years" of "cooling" gross?), warmer: and all it takes is a few years of higher E-input NET than has been the norm for a while...then the gas solubility decreases (by many magnitudes); thus even if the sun started cooling again it wouldn't matter: the CO2 released would insulate the planet to such an extent that more heat would be trapped and so more E would act upon the water molecules and continue decreasing gas solubility.
The worry-warts aren't worried so much about the planet as grants: and it's easy to play on fears to keep them coming to continue your research (on the side of your sensationalist popular-science career). Anyone who's ever done academic research knows the difficulty of grant-keeping after the difficulty of getting. Trouble is people start to believe their own stories and become religious about them. All the solar planets and bodies evidence warming right now (not just mars). Earth especially because of the systems and feedback mechanisms.
If we're so worried about Carbon emissions we can do two things: first, we can plant a lot more plants; increased carbon emissions induce an explosion of growth in nearby flora so long as other conditions are favorable to plant health: second, we could block the sun: but personally I'm against planetary manipulation in the scale of the planet's cycles; it's a bit like Gene therapy: we thought it was mostly junk until we started killing subjects by putting things into the junk. Science hates to admit ignorance, or to let loose of explanations in favor of admitting its ignorance(even when evidence demands it); just today that came up in genetics.
Who do these Alaskans think they are to have a right to the benefits the natural environment gives even as those dissapear? They have to adapt like anyone else. Obviously there are things in this world which more predatory which unfairly (and often illegally, or at minimum unethically) harm people's livelihoods. But to blame "global warming" and then energy companies for it...grasping. Uh huh: I want these people brought before the courts after this to face charges of abusing the legal system as is happening for the video game guy.
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
I agree, the point I was trying to make is that people should research scientific topics carefully and to the largest extent possible. Even then, they shouldn't be cocky to assume that they have the necessary knowledge to comprehend it, or the qualifications to debate with scientists about it. Specifically, what shouldn't be done is scraping the top of climate science and dismissing scientists based on that. I wish the average person would comprehend issues better and take at least one course in statistics, but if someone can't be bothered to learn the science behind a subject then he has no leg to stand on to issue judgement on a topic. Science is not democracy, the universe is a control freak dictator (please don't take it as if I'd be personifying the universe, I'm just engaging the same kind of intellectual elitism as Stephen Hawking does when he refers to god as a nonreligious metaphor).
I should have written "trust the scientific model" instead of "trust what they say". Ah well.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
We have quite accurate temperature and CO2 atmospheric concentration data for more than the past half million years from ice core samples retrieved from glaciers and permanently sub zero regions of the planet.
It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
Be yourself no matter what they say
http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/article10866.htm
and the data supporting your statements are where?
That comment made me have naughty thoughts about Jamie off Mythbusters.
Posting anonymously because of the restraining order...
Woo! And my captcha is 'arouses'!
>It appears to me that those who said that the SUN was causing global warming due to increased sunspot activity, that has recently subsided, were correct.
Judge for yourself: the last almost-30 years of direct satellite measurement of solar output. Besides, increased solar output wouldn't make nights warm up faster than days.
Apparently, you slept through the theory of science in philosophy. A single data point doesn't prove squat. In either direction. If you're looking for trends, you need to look at series of data points.
Furthermore, to know whether a trend will continue in the future, you need to understand the driving mechanisms behind it. If current theories for Global Warming show no natural upper bound, and if the numbers predicted by those theories match collected data more closely than anything else, then the current numbers are cause for concern.
Then again, I doubt that makes a difference to you. What with not understanding climatology, but still willing to make grand pronounciations on whether climate models are right or wrong.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Its shades of gray; not much difference between them just how and when you are screwed.
False dilemma.
There are better things that are cheaper than both coal, oil, and nukes. (That is, if you put reasonable costs on the environment as well as the government welfare which never gets mentioned.)
Nuke power has never been cost effective. I have yet to hear from a credible source that any nuke plant made a profit when you included all the government overhead costs within 20-30 years. (Solar cost of return is about 20 years and after that you don't have to pay for fuel or waste or much regulation.) Smart grid management and power storage plants are possible TODAY at reasonable pricing. (How about giving those some of that free money?) I am not against nuclear power for its danger but its practicality.
Democracy Now! - uncensored, anti-establishment news
This post has all of the information about Heartland and Exxon if you follow the links.
This report by the Union of Concerned Scientists traces Exxon funding of the global warming deniers.
Also, when you encounter anything from an organization describing itself as a "free market think tank" you are generally looking at an industry-funded PR front-group.
You will get absolutely nowhere by supply him with facts ...
Right, random moron mouthing off on slashdot with the usual "correlation not equal to causation" bromide (which you didn't phrase accurately) must be believed over the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming/climate change.
Ahhh, your overwhelming scientific consensus again. Words from the holy gospel at Realclimate.org. Let us read about it, shall we? From your article:
Wow, that just oozes confidence, doesn't it... but let's look at the individual points made here:
As for "I don't understand where these people are coming from saying that warmer temperatures are bad", try asking the people in coastal areas and island nations such as Tuvalu, who have already been displaced, what they feel.
Sure, and while I'm at it, why don't you ask the entire population of blue states in the north eastern US if they'd like to be buried under a mile of ice again any time soon. That has always puzzled me.
Also, this Wikipedia entry on global warming denial is very good, if you follow the links and read the footnotes.
As with any information, it is important to evaluate the information on its merits. Part of that evaluation process can involve understanding the motivations of the sources. The information that Gore is presenting is backed by almost all of the scientists and governments in the world. (It is also backed by photographs of the melting polar caps and glaciers.) At the same time the information that is being presented both in the denial of global warming and in the attacks on Gore's character come almost entirely from fossil-fuel industry-funded sources.
So you tell me, does it change the arguments that Gore heads a company working to fight global warming? Al Gore has been a public servant for much of his life, from the Army to the government. He was one of the leaders in bringing attention to this problem. You can evaluate whether starting a company that works to fight global warming is a good thing or a bad thing.
While you do that, keep in mind that your ability to do that over the Internet owes a lot to Gore, who recognized its potential and in the Congress led the effort to build its backbone.
That's nice... I've also discussed that consensus in this story once already, so I'll just link you to that as well. Not that I expect you'll actually read any of it... because hey, you've got a consensus. What do facts have to do with it?
Right... that's what they all say when reproducing the experiments fails to verify that data you wanted us to ignore. Oh, you haven't reproduced the experiments? Wow, so you're saying their experiment is junk only because of who paid to have it done? Well then... classic ad hominem.
You need to stop thinking so small. I'm thinking Pluto, god of wealth. Those are the deep pockets. Sue him and his damn planetoid or whatever they're calling it now.
I would consider 3 weeks of net profits to be a very MILD punishment when there was gross negligence at the hands of Exxon.
The supervisors of the captain didn't want to punish a friend even though they had known for over 3 weeks that he had started drinking on ship again after already being suspended and being provided treatment. This is all very well documented including internal emails indicating that not only immediate supervisors but higher level managers knew and is referred to in the judgement by both the judge and the jury as GROSS negligence.
The people in Alaska that were affected by the spill had their entire lively hoods taken away as tourism, fishing and seafood production was severely harmed and was the primary economy in Prince William sound (and much of Alaska for that matter). Losing all their ability to make money to the point of being completely gone for over 5 years after the spill. The damages covered part of that but don't think for a minute the damages awarded to the individuals covered all their loses, at best it covered what they could document and no more. Neither do the damages cover the time they had to wait to receive their award as the trial took years after the spill.
The punitive damages were originally awarded as 5 billion and reduced on appeal to 2.5 billion. The supreme court has set a baseline rule that punitive damages shouldn't exceed 9 times the actual damages and at 2.5 billion the punitive damages amount to ~5 times actual damages (well within the supreme court guidelines), along with being only 3 weeks of profit and the payout to each victim at a measly $70k when their ability to make a living and even acquire food was destroyed for over 5 years (and years to recover actual damages) is a mild punishment at best.
In addition, I'll never understand how someone could imply that the cleanup expenses were anything other than an absolute obligation for Exxon and have nothing at all to do with the damages and negligence involved. That 3.4 billion was mandatory in my opinion and plays no part in reducing their obligation to the people who's lives they destroyed nor does it play any role in the punitive damages they owe to punish them for their gross negligence. Exxon got off very easy IMO for something that should have cost them their company.
At most, I think he's saying that you are not looking at the satellite evidence that he provided in the link.
Dark Reflection
I agree. So can we all just chill out (heh) when we have hot summers? Or when we have a bad hurricane or tornado season?
Dark Reflection
Right... that's what they all say when reproducing the experiments fails to verify that data you wanted us to ignore. Oh, you haven't reproduced the experiments? Wow, so you're saying their experiment is junk only because of who paid to have it done? Well then... classic ad hominem.
Huh? The link didn't say anything about experiments. It claimed there wasn't a scientific consensus, to support this conclusion it took statements from a half dozen scientists, some were from organizations like the Competitive Enterprise Institute (who gets a bunch of funding from oil companies), others were in Earth Sciences (who often work for oil companies), not climatology, and some of the other quotes looked like they may simply have been taken out of context.No one claims that every single scientist on the face of the earth agrees that humans are causing global warming, that's not what scientific consensus means. What it does mean is you have a hard time finding scientists who disagree, and at least in this case when you do find them chances are pretty good the source of their paycheck serves as a potential bias.
As to the whole ad hominem thing, so far every bit of anti-global warming evidence I've seen, and followed up on, has been thoroughly debunked, and moreover its sources can almost always be traced back to oil companies. I think I can make a pretty good Bayesian argument that when someone comes running up saying "Look! This evidence disproves it for real!!" AND they're getting a paycheck from an oil company that their evidence is probably gonna be wrong again.
I stole this Sig
Not to mention, there was a cooling trend between the 1940s and the 1970s. There was some alarmism about it, but nothing compared to today. However, if the Internet as we know it had been in existence...
Dark Reflection
What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
- The arctic icecap is growing again now that it's winter in the Northern hemisphere. Duh.
- The small amounts of carbon dioxide given off by humans before the industrial revolution were enough to stave off an ice age. Well, I wonder what catastrophic effects the widescale burning of fossil fuels and forests will have?
- Over the past year, the global temperature has gone down somewhat. But the original poster of that data says that it is an anomaly and does not mean global warming is reversing.
- The solar minimum is causing temperatures to decrease. The solar minimum is over, so we'll be looking at warming again for the next several years.
Now, I'm no climatologist, but it still seems to me that there's still a consensus among scientists that manmade global warming is occurring. Could you point me to some actual facts and conclusions written by a scientist that might persuade me to think differently?What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
If they don't move, they will need to build domes to live in.
"Funny that the last couple of hurricane seasons have been much quieter than predicted..."
Perhaps not:
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/gifs/atlhist_lowres.gif
While your statement is technically* correct, your intent to imply there are fewer hurricanes as a trend is not.
Your confusing two issue. People who continue to buy houses in areas prone to disaster and people who have lived in the same place for hundreds of years and not having this disaster strike.
DO you know how nasty it is getting up there? berry's that have been pick for countless generations are dying in their pods, lakes of fish dying, land literally sinking, Ice that with no record of it melting, ever, is disappearing.
So enjoy your nice warm blanket of comfortable ignorance, but don't try and spread your crap around where people actually look at facts, and trends.
Fuckers lie you will continue to say there is no problem until they draw their breath. Then you will whine on how it's other peoples fault.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
assum getting energy from the wind comes at no cost?
TYhere are uisually put where there are strong winds; which are often migratory paths for birds. The Wind farm in califormia kill 1000's of birds a year.
The wind slows down, so what efect does taking energy from the wind have? does it change rain fall patterns? certianly, does it change bird migration? wetlands? inland rainfall?
I'm not saying we should try it, just thet we should remember that we don't get something for nothing. Also,'renewable energy' is a marketing phrase.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
If I hypothesised that the average score produced by throwing a die is 3.5; and you threw a die, and it came up as 1; would that disprove my hypothesis?
Based on the implied point of your post, I'm guessing you think the answer is yes. May I suggest looking up the words "average" and "trend" in a dictionary?
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
(Frankly, I'm surprised they had space to print some bollocks about global warming in between the Diana conspiracy theories and 365-days-a-year Madeline McCann coverage...)
What's purple and commutes? An Abelian grape.
Oh yes... I've discussed the scientific consensus once in this story already. As a matter of fact, this is the second time I've linked to it already.... It seems all you guys are able to say is "scientific consensus" like a bunch of flat-earthers. Hey, everybody knows it's true, therefore it is!! That's called an appeal to belief and it doesn't make your argument any stronger.
>> fission power = 20th century tech, fusion power (solar) = 21st century tech
Im sorry, but WTF?
how are fusion power and solar power related?!
fusion is effectively the reverse of fission (though it uses H rather than U) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_power
solar on the other hand is capturing light from the sun... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power
additionally fusion still isn't usable, where as fission is - and solar cells (whats used to capture sunlight) are just very dirty to produce.
Absolutely not. Tobacco doesnt kill people, cancer kills people. Would you claim that unhealthy diets kill people? Of course not. Heart attacks do. You have broken off fo the orginal point, which I beleive is that you cannot try to use the US legal system to personal benefit, only for protection of justice. When you make the outrageous claim that your lifestyle has been affected by your own actions, in this case reliance on oil, suing yourself has no purpose. With victory, the costs of the lawsuit will be passed onto consumers. Everyone who uses "global warming causing items" will end up paying for it, including those that sue over it. With the inevitable (and proper) loss, the value of the product that has been shown to not cause global warming will improve and prices for that product will rise, meaning that everyone who uses "global warming causing items" will bear the cost. Either way, the only way to profit from this is to invest in the oil companies. Meanwhile, stop blaming tobacco companies for its consumers use of product. There is not a single person alive who is of legal age to use tobacco products who doesnt know the risks and consequences of such use. The lawsuits involved are insulting to capitalism at best, and an insult to our courts. Finally, don't assume that the scientific community isnt just as skewed in its thought as a corporation that funds research. Funding research to better an organization's interests is how you got your ipod, guitar hero, and 28 oz steaks (all of which are healthy in moderation). The scientific community is how you got your more often wrong than right weather forecast and flu shots that give you a cold.
That's 3.3 weeks of profit from 2006, a record year for Exxon. They made about a fourth that much in 2002, and certainly even less in 1989 when the incident occurred. Oil prices in 1989 were less than a third what they are today, and Exxon hadn't merged with Mobil yet in 1989, either.
This is sick. Sick. You really should be ashamed of yourself.
Almost no one starts smoking after they are 18. They hooked kids, and they understood that people hooked as kids have a much stronger addiction than people who get hooked older. They KNEW that tobacco was killing people and for decades they worked to get people to think it was just lawyers making it up, so they would keep smoking.
Global waring threatens millions of people, their water supplies, the ability to grow food. The oil companies are PAYING people to deny this, so they can continu to make money.
This is just sick. Immoral.
Money is NOT the only value.
Smoothing the HadCRUT data indicates a three or four year cooling trend. I think what we're seeing is decade-scale solar variation masking an overall GHG-driven warming trend.
All the rhetoric about 1998 being the warmest year on record was a mistake, because the year was such an outlier that we probably won't surpass that temperature until the 2020s... in the meantime, skeptics can claim a cooling trend since the mid-nineties with some justification.
I don't normally respond to the blind, but in your case, you need help. Tobacco does not kill people. Cancer does. My point, which I feel was obvious, has nothing to do with when people choose to start doing anything. Whether or not people under the age of 18 should be smoking was not involved. The fact that children like to do things that adults tell them not to is completely irrelevant to the legal issue of what people over the age of 18 choose to do. I see people that choose to break the law by smoking while underage as deserving to get addicted, just as you might see someone over the age of 18 drunk driving, crashing, and killing themselves as deserving what they got for breaking the law. Tobacco companies have done absolutely nothing wrong by following legislation that requires its product to be sold specifically to those old enough in the eyes of society to make the decision to smoke or not to smoke, despite what poorly made commercials funded by overprotective parents who would rather have our government raise their kids would have you believe. If I had to guess, you are one of the strange people who think that our ISP's should have a children filter, rather than having parents be the proper filter. Or perhaps you believe that abstinence education is the cause of teen pregnancy. Maybe you are one of those people who thinks that Windows is wrong for charging whatever it wants for its OS (its not a monopoly just because it requires education to use an alternative. If so, your heart surgeon is a monopolist and should only be allowed to charge whatever the unlicensed guy in a dark alley does). Maybe next you will get mad at budweiser for underage drunk drivers. Whatever your parents did in improperly raising you to not think for yourself, calling me sick or immoral for defending a corporation is much more unjust. Our legal system has charged the tobacco industry who cares how much money for following a business model within the confines of the law, and that is unjust. The fact that you continue to attack them is unjust, and the idea that you would attack me for thinking so under moral guidlines is as stupid as suing the birth control pill company because the condom broke (for the confused, the point is that of misguidance and improper foundation). The only thing you say that has any value whatsoever is that money is not the only value. In fact, to a corporation, money is not of any value (that is just for the shareholders, as a matter of raising capital to fund R&D and to continue and upgrade operations and to reward its workers, who are driven by money, for their efforts to follow the business plan, which I repeat, is not to make money, but rather to benefit society. After all, if a product has no value to society, the company cannot exist in the long term). The purpose of a corporation is never about money. It begins with a vision statement. Go read 1000 vision statements. None of them are about money . They are about being the best provider of service, the best product innovator, the niche market leader. Not money. Integrity is the biggest asset that a corporation can have (just ask Enron how going after money instead of the business plan turned out). The oil companies are not paying people to deny global warming. That is at best a misguided view, and likely slander should you find yourself in litigation with an oil company. They are however, funding research for the benefit of society to determine whether the use and creation of its product are hurting society. This seems to me like throwing money away, not trying to make it. Finding that global warming exists would just raise the price of oil, which would go directly to consumers. The oil companies would not be hurt by it (although their stockholders might).
Oh yes... I've discussed the scientific consensus once in this story already. As a matter of fact, this is the second time I've linked to it already.... It seems all you guys are able to say is "scientific consensus" like a bunch of flat-earthers.
Ya know, back in high school and my various science and math classes there were a lot of cases where I thought I was smarter than the teacher (heck, in a lot of cases I probably was), and thus every once in a while I would try to prove one of the teachers wrong. With one lonely exception you know how I would describe myself in those situations? Wrong.It doesn't matter if I was smarter than the teachers, compared to me they were experts in those areas and if we disagreed I was almost certainly the one in the wrong. Hey, everybody knows it's true, therefore it is!! That's called an appeal to belief and it doesn't make your argument any stronger. For the second time in two posts you're screwing up your logical fallacies since this isn't a popular belief, this is a belief held my climatologists. What you were probably looking for is appeal to authority, but again that wouldn't apply in this case because Climatologists actually ARE authorities on climate!
Seriously, if someone came up to you and said "pi is a transcendental number, a whole room full of math profs told me!" would you then turn around and say "that's an appeal to belief, that proves nothing!".
And looking at your other post. Do you honestly believe, that all those thousands of climatologists who have been studying global warming for years, that they're all so unbelievably stupid as to have overlooked those factors that you outlined in a
Bill: Hey Fred, look at this slashdot post! Do you know we had an ice age with CO2 at 4400 ppm!
Fred: Damn Bill! I was just looking at that last week but I thought it only said 44 ppm... Well I guess that takes care of global warming, damn, I don't want to be the one to have to tell Gore.
I'm sorry but scientists know CO2 isn't the biggest single factor in global warming. They know that exact numbers are hard to determine, particularly over the course of a few years, that not every measuring station gives clean data, that we don't want to live in an ice age. They've written countless papers on these subjects and I have no reason to think they're making some massive systemic error.
I stole this Sig
They're also suing the Red Dog Mine, which digs out piles of zinc and pays piles of money to the regional Indian group, for dust in the ocean which testing can't find a problem with. They're also complaining about a creek which is cleaner than when the mine began. "Kivalina takes Red Dog to court over air quality complaints"
Isn't it a bit suspicious that at a moment financial markets (stocks, loans, currency) are having serious problems, a new "virtual" market springs up, the carbon offsets market. Sorry but where there's tons of money involved, I tend to get a bit critical about the "facts" they base their decisions on.
Well, I did mean CO emissions... but should have put both. Burning coal produces a lot of emissions - including carbon monoxide. Oil refineries produce CO emissions as well... and I am guessing so does burning oil.
A couple links:
http://www.carbon-monoxide-poisoning.com/co-emissions.html
http://www.smfrancis.demon.co.uk/airwolvs/22emit.html
Either way though (whichever bad emission anyone wants to consider), I think my post relevant. But specifically, I was refering to non-global-warming reasons why such issues are still just as important... people need to consider the long term effects (and China has proven not dealing with such issues can make them... real issues in the very short term).
Again though, I am talking about other reasons why resolving the issues "the Alaskans" are complaining about are beneficial, and thus trying to say, that while this argument and suit are based off "global warming impact" there are just as viable alternative reasons why it is equally important to be dealt with - and if this pressure results in cleaner plants and refineries, then it's definitely a good thing for the environment - which possibly will positively effect global warming (assuming we actually contribute to such a thing).
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
To support which part of it? That people's concern over plant emissions can be targetted to known issues in that respect such as the toxic byproducts they introduce into the atmosphere?
That since there is an endless debate whether we are causing global warming or not, why not realize that the other concerns (increased CO, CO2, sulfur emissions) are still an issue. That they are still an issue even if global warming is just a fantasy?
What data do you want to support things I am sure you know? Burning oil or coal releases CO, and a bunch of other pollutants into the atmosphere - as well as of course CO2 - which the SMART thing to do (regardless of the validity of global warming) is to try to live in balance with the way the earth was before industry grew to the point it is at now.
Do you really want data that says breathing CO or sulfur emissions or such is harmful and a bad thing? Do you really want data saying that burning coal or oil produces such emissions? Give me a break.
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
>> So, basically what I'm saying is that I don't worry about nuclear power because there is nothing to worry about.
.
And nuclear only produces 30% of the greenhous gasses for the same amount of energy put into the grid. As the resources deplete rapidly in the next 50 years, the less economic the minerals, the harder it gets to extract the uranium, the more CO2 will be produced.
The sun is a fusion reaactor.
Forget Global Warming, it's all just hype. We're experiencing the coldest winter since the 1960's http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
It sounds good until you take into account how hard space-walruses are to catch.
Surely any reasonable defense lawyer could argue that the ice caps are also melting on Mars, ergo global warming could be argued to not be man made.
I wonder if cave-man meteorologists did this before the last Ice Age.
I can see the Global Cooling news now.. "Well, it seems 2,000,000 B.C. was the coolest year we've had since 2,000,010 B.C. This isn't looking so good. Stock up on your moose meat and women."
So, we can all sue M$ for creating the PC which caused file sharing? Hint: the OS, on installation creates a file called "Shared Music".
The data is now nearly conclusive that sea ice and glacier reduction have been on a straight line trend starting from 1830 or so. There were no significant human CO2 emissions then.
"When the president does it, that means it's not illegal." - Richard M. Nixon
I'm just waiting until I get mine!
"Obviously there is no warming trend because last winter was cold, even though previous to last winter there was a warming trend."
That is not the statement of a scientific mind.
If anything is substantially responsible for increasing the earth's temperature, it's that nuclear-reactor-in-the-sky.
"The view that the sun is the source of observed global warming seems credible mainly to people who are open to believing that the entire scientific community has somehow, over a period of several decades, failed to adequately study, analyze and understand the most visible influence on the Earth's temperature."
...
...
"And that brings us to a recent study by the Proceedings of the Royal Society, which examined "all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth's climate," such as sunlight intensity and cosmic rays. The study found that in the past 20 years, all of those trends "have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
"Those trying to prove the sun is the sole cause of warming have a double challenge. First they would have to show us a mechanism that demonstrates how the sun explains recent warming, even though the data shows solar activity has been declining recently. (In the past, increased warming was associated with an increase in solar activity). They would also have to find an additional mechanism that is counteracting the well-understood warming caused by rising emissions of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. The doubters have done neither."
source: Salon.com: The cold truth about climate change (yes, in the USA, Salon is considered liberal media, but please read & judge the source material yourself.)
"I couldn't care less what you think about any subject"
Fixed my own post.
"Most monkeys quite enjoy flinging poo"
Why on earth would you think I want to hear about your family if I don't care about you?
That was actually fairly witty. My tutelage has paid off, young asshopper. You have achieved mastery of dick-fu.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
When I started in high school calculus, my teacher accused me of cheating because I never showed any of my work. I did all of the problems in my head. I explained to her that I didn't show my work because writing it slowed me down and caused me to loose my train of thought. She actually stood over me on the following test while I proved my case. That test was completed 20 minutes before any other student and I had every answer correct. She had no problems with me just giving answers following that. I never felt the need to prove a teacher wrong, but she did (^_^) When she was absent, I was the teacher. The substitute didn't know what to do anyway, and the other students would ask me to teach the class. She later recommended me as a tutor for a friend of hers in college.
It doesn't matter if I was smarter than the teachers, compared to me they were experts in those areas and if we disagreed I was almost certainly the one in the wrong.It sounds to me like you had a question about their teaching. Rather than pose it as a question, you challenged them with what appeared to you as an inconsistency. They elaborated, thus clarifying the conflict for you. I'm sure they didn't mind. They probably thought you were quite precocious and appreciated that you were paying attention. Asking questions is a good thing. It leads to finding and verifying answers. In my experience, global warmers shout you down and insist your questioning is heresy. That's not science, it's religion.
Seriously, if someone came up to you and said "pi is a transcendental number, a whole room full of math profs told me!" would you then turn around and say "that's an appeal to belief, that proves nothing!".No, I'd explain to them that pi is a simple ratio between the diameter and the circumference of a circle.
I'm sorry but scientists know CO2 isn't the biggest single factor in global warming.I think you just agreed with me on point 3. It would seem we've found a middle ground (^_^)
When I started in high school calculus, my teacher accused me of cheating because I never showed any of my work. I did all of the problems in my head. I explained to her that I didn't show my work because writing it slowed me down and caused me to loose my train of thought. She actually stood over me on the following test while I proved my case. That test was completed 20 minutes before any other student and I had every answer correct. She had no problems with me just giving answers following that. I never felt the need to prove a teacher wrong, but she did (^_^) When she was absent, I was the teacher. The substitute didn't know what to do anyway, and the other students would ask me to teach the class. She later recommended me as a tutor for a friend of hers in college.
It doesn't matter if I was smarter than the teachers, compared to me they were experts in those areas and if we disagreed I was almost certainly the one in the wrong.It sounds to me like you had a question about their teaching. Rather than pose it as a question, you challenged them with what appeared to you as an inconsistency. They elaborated, thus clarifying the conflict for you. I'm sure they didn't mind. They probably thought you were quite precocious and appreciated that you were paying attention. Asking questions is a good thing. It leads to finding and verifying answers. In my experience, global warmers shout you down and insist your questioning is heresy. That's not science, it's religion.
I was going more for the situation where a lay person believes they know more about a subject area than experts in that area, with very few exceptions those people are wrong (the school example wasn't perfect in that regard, particularly as I really didn't do that much arguing with teachers).The problem I find with arguing about global warming is I don't have the years of training required to fully evaluate the evidence, however I have the experience to know that trusting the people who have done so (the climatologists) is the next best thing. Realistically I think there are only two real valid arguments that can be used against global warming
a) The premise that a significant majority of climatologists believe in global warming is false.
b) There is an identifiable bias in the scientific process that would cause the majority of climatologists to reach a false conclusion.
Any argument based on the actual science is both beyond either of our abilities to fully evaluate (unless you have spent years doing actual climate research) and is assuming that countless, highly intelligent scientists, have all somehow missed that relatively simple evidence. I'm sorry but scientists know CO2 isn't the biggest single factor in global warming.
I think you just agreed with me on point 3. It would seem we've found a middle ground (^_^)
Small miraclesI stole this Sig
From today's sun watch
"The sun is again blank as short lived sunspot 983 has disappeared. The solar flux is very low as well."
It's a disaster of a year. Get ready for the ice age.
This is my sig.
"You're in a flamewar on Slashdot"
No, a flamewar implies that there are two sides.
This is just me kicking your ass. What's happening now is that you still don't realize it.
"I think it's pretty well established you're a loser by that alone."
Hmm, what does that say about you then chief?
Fail again, damn you make it easy to make you look stupid.
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10582
Where did you get this "fact" about who owns the website? Maybe you mean to say they CONTRIBUTE to the site? I would just like to know...honestly, I would. Maybe you can sue the site for lying if you are so sure?
If this site is owned by an oil company, they forgot to tell the site...
Does that mean that if Algore contributes to a cause, I can just claim it is false because of where the money came from?
I see serious flaws in your logic...
"People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything."