Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming Irreversible, NOAA Scientist Finds
Tibor the Hun writes "NPR reports that Susan Solomon, one of the world's top climate scientists, finds in her new study that global warming is now irreversible. The study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, concludes that even if we could immediately cease our impact on pollution and greenhouse gasses emissions, global climate change would continue for more than a thousand years. The reason is the saturation of oceans with carbon dioxide. Her study looked at the consequences of long-term effect in terms of sea-level rise and drought."
In the 70s they were also predicting a coming ice age.
May 19, 2008 Are 32,000 Scientists Enough to Question Global Warming 'Consensus?' Marc Sheppard The National Press Club in Washington will today release the names of as many as 32,000 American Scientists who reject not only Kyoto-style greenhouse gas limits, but the very premise of manmade global warming itself. On Saturday, Lawrence Solomon wrote a great piece in the National Post (h/t Benny Peiser) which begged the question: "How many scientists does it take to establish that a consensus does not exist on global warming?" How many, indeed? Solomon, author of The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud**And those who are too fearful to do so, reminds us that 32,000 scientists have now signed the "Oregon petition," which states that "We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/are_32000_scientists_enough_to.html
Umm... I may be no expert about the current events in Africa, but I doubt too many there are suffering from heart attacks due to fat in their arteries...
The difference is that we can easily cure world hunger. Just add more weapons and you have fewer mouths to feed.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I think that there's a litmus test for all these scientific modeling, purely based on economics.
One of the tenets of all these scientific researchers is that we must do something and we must do it soonest. It should follow that the possible solutions should be prioritized for bang for the buck, little or no dependence on technological breakthroughs, and ability to set up/ mantain the whole structure at peak performance down the line.
Yet, whenever somebody start talking about nuclear energy , all this community sniffs worse than at a "dumb and dumber" premiere. They love a nice, parched flatland covered in solar panels more than a forest, at ten times the costs.
What I find even funnier is that when you start talking about economics, they make me think that only Aliens pay taxes, because the usual line is: " you did not count about the decommissioning costs of the plant and storage of long term radioactive material", whose cost is included in ALL studies about nuclear power, and then they show the superiority of solar INCLUDING all the various subsidies/ tax advantages / special financing that the various government includes. Go figure, because unless women are from Venus and tax money from Mars, Citizens pay through taxes those same subsidies.
So, until and unless I see one of those panels do a good comparative studies about the possible solutions, as unbiased and scientific as possible, i'll label them as "old style lobbying" and move on.
"If a boss demands loyalty, give him integrity. But if he demands integrity, give him loyalty." (John Boyd, 1927-1997)
the thing is, the USA for the last 8 years has been governed by people who effectively (in the analogy given) owned major shares in companies that profited from the production of horseshit.
You suggest government should stay out of the way. Fine, I agree to some extent, but they shouldn't try to maintain a destructive status quo in that case.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
The 'people' who 'lived off the land' for thousands of years? Mostly illiterate, innumerate, and died at ages 35-40. If they were lucky.
I would rather be illiterate, "innumerate" and have a short life span than to live in the kinds of conditions some people are currently living in. Having high infant mortality rates, rampant aids infections, lack of food since birth. Yes, people lived 35-40 years, but that's better than dying as a child due to hunger or aids. Really, step back and ask yourself which world would you prefer your child to be born in? To an aids-infected mother in a poverty stricken region? Or to a family living in a remote region of the world? Granted, access to a hospital might make things worse, but it is still a huge improvement to the other option.
A short while back I came across an old guy on my way through town who'd tripped and smashed his head open on a phone box.
So I skipped the game I was heading to and spent the next hour helping a drunk concussed guy into an ambulance.
Why should I help him? What made him special? What makes it my responsibility? I was standing right frikkin' there watching, that's why.
That doesn't address anything I was saying, really. You're just using your example in an attempt to make my post seem insensitive and as you say "ignorant". Fact is, you misunderstood my post. Perhaps you were just quick to see my post moderated as troll and didn't bother really reading it.
You don't own a computer just because you're hard-working and smart. It's because you're smart and hard-working and had the insane good luck to be born as one of the small fraction of the world's population who get a starting point good enough that that makes a difference.
I have to agree with you here. It's a sad fact of life that our lives depend on the situations we are born into.
As you said, some people live in disaster zones or wars and genuinely need help. This 'some people' is not a few stragglers; it's tens of millions. Where the hell do you think that UN aid goes? Look it up sometime. And until you do, you've been too lazy to comment on the issue, so don't.
Me knowing where the aid goes to makes little difference on the merits of my comment. I pointed out that people that CAN feed themselves by living off the land are the ones not deserving aid. The rest that are really unfortunate and have no options and really do need help, like your wounded old person example, are the ones that should be getting aid exclusively. How about if that ambulance didn't come so fast to help that man. What if that ambulance had to rush to help a woman having a panic attack because she thought she was having a heart attack? And they came 30 minutes later than expected to help the guy with the cracked open head. Ok, not a perfect analogy, but still.
The ignorance in this post is depressing, even for /.
Oh and attacking someone's opinion without bothering to understand it first isn't ignorant?
And we've simultaneously let the new administration off the hook. Don't actually expect any reversal in global warming folks, apparently it's impossible. Convenient that it's a non-issue now that the election is over and done with.
"The answer is simple - 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years. It is also the case that there has been no global warming since 1998. In fact, since 1998, there has been steady cooling."
This is silly, we ARE entering a cooling period. The scientists are freaking out because its only cooled a very tiny bit. Thats because global warming is negating the effects. When we enter a warming period what do you think will happen? Man you are going to be really embarrassed in 30years when you read the news that another city is getting reclaimed by the ocean.
I love how this is announced on the day that I have to leave work early to beat the ice storm coming through - in Texas!
After all the predictions made by moonbats like this girl have failed to occur (like all those hurricanes last year), and after all the climate models used by these people have been disproven (plug in the data from the 70's and you'll find that we should already be dead), and dispite all the reasonable scientists that have called shenanagans (like the creator of the weather channel), idiots like this are still given credibility.
Global warming isn't science- it's a religion. When evidence goes contrary to it's tenants, people either attack the 'heathens' or make slight adjustments to their theories and claim that now they know the ultimate truth- without use of the scientific method.
As for their computer models, they aren't any better than "echo I'm right about global warming!"
I believe that the cost of fighting global warmer is worse then global warming.
I have asthma and the medicine that was both cheap and worked the best is no longer available. Why? Not because of health concerns to people, but because each puff released a tiny bit of green house gas. The replacement medicine doesn't work as well and costs more. So here is a case where because of global warming counter measures, poorer people have to pay more for medicines now and quite possibly could die if it fails to stop an attack.
The assault on personal freedoms under a convenient lie of helping the greater good is unjustifiable as far as I am concerned. If you think global warming is real, then you are certainly free to take personal action to stop it, plant a tree, fart less, ride your bike.
But the fact that you are using it to demand what car I drive and what medicines I can use crosses the line. I am not a collectivist thinker, I would never dictate how you should live your life, you want to pay more and drive a hybrid, great. You want to us public transportation, great. I don't like those things.
Now that said I pay for green energy (ordered it 5 years ago with locked in rate), I only got it because it is locked in rate and never goes up, saving me money. I also use energy efficient bulbs but that is only because I want to save money and has nothing to do with global warming.
Why don't you global warming believers show some respect for individual liberties and if you want us to help out then you can focus on building or inventing things that help the environment, but we will prefer to use because it adds value to our lives or saves us money.
Instead you dill holes are all about passing laws that reduce our quality of life and choice. And get upset whenever I ask the question "Well what is the correct average temperate for where I live?", which shouldn't be hard to answer, because if you cannot answer it how can you determine how far/bad global warming is or will be. Seriously what should the correct temperature be for Austin, TX today? I googled it and read that 60 degrees is the average temp for January; it is presently 41. Do you idiots have any idea how stupid you look and how dumb you are?
Respect the Constitution
"Before humans, was there ever an atomic explosion on the surface of this planet?"
Volcano's and Asteroids have put *way* more heat out than the atomic explosions we humans have set off.
That sure as hell proves that man can not be responsible for Global Warming - but you also claim there is no Global Warming, even that " 2007 turned out to be the coolest year for 30 years" - what a load of crap.
Lars T.
To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck
http://ifglobalwarmingisrealthenwhyisitcold.blogspot.com/