The Global Warming Heretic

theodp writes "In The Civil Heretic, the NYT Magazine takes a look at how world-renowned scientist Freeman Dyson wound up opposing those who care most about global warming. Since coming out of the closet on global warming, Dyson has found himself described as 'a pompous twit,' 'a blowhard,' and 'a mad scientist.' He argues that climate change has become an obsession for 'a worldwide secular religion' known as environmentalism. Dyson has been particularly dismissive of Al Gore, calling him climate change's chief propagandist and accusing him of relying too heavily on computer-generated climate models and promoting 'lousy science' that's distracting attention from more serious and more immediate dangers to the planet." Dyson himself wrote about the need for heretics in science not long ago.

Comments

There is money and publicity

[mevets]

in fighting the prevailing wind. Credibility will end up tattered, but when your alternative is wage parity with taxi drivers, not such a bad choice. Rail on you rebel you.

Re:There is money and publicity

[glueball]

There's big money in pushing global warming, too.

Re:There is money and publicity

[polar red]

maybe now, the last 2-3 years. Did you make the same argument the 20 years before that ?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

No, because 20 years ago Global Cooling was the buzzword :)

Re:There is money and publicity

[polar red]

quote from wikipedia :

In the 1970s there was increasing awareness that estimates of global temperatures showed cooling since 1945. Of those scientific papers considering climate trends over the 21st century, only 10% inclined towards future cooling, while most papers predicted future warming

Re:There is money and publicity

[glueball]

Did you make the same argument the 20 years before that ?
No. The hysteria was not at profitable levels 10 years ago.

20 years ago was the hysteria over acid rain.

Re:There is money and publicity

[SerpentMage]

Actually this is quite a bit of the problem.

Let me give you an example. I have been living here in Europe since 1994. In the past five years here in Switzerland we have been getting Canadian seasons. Yes the summers are warmer as well, but the winters are colder and more snow.

The media hypes the summers because they are hotter, but does not hype on the winter. They say, "oh this can be expected and normal". That bothers me completely because anybody who researches climate knows Europe is being kept warm by the Atlantic conveyor. If the Atlantic conveyor turns around further south then as paradoxical as it sounds with increased global warming Europe gets colder! The UK had its first snowfall in October in 74 YEARS!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3278378/Snow-covers-parts-of-England-as-winter-weather-sets-in.html

I remember a report in National Geographic about 5 years ago, and documentaries on TV that said Europe with increased global warming would become cold! The reason was the Atlantic conveyor. What was scary about this is that research has shown that the conveyor can shut down in a matter of a decade, but requires thousands upon thousands of years to restore itself.

I think it is happening! Though do you read about this in the media? NOOOOO because we all associate climate change with warming not change! It is much easier to sell deserts, no water, etc than people freezing their butts... Mentally we associate deserts = death, but cold as just being something we need to deal with...

Though look at the latitude of North Europe... It is freaken Labrador! Definitely not a place I want to live in... (due to its weather...)

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Don't quote wikipedia to prove a point. Quote what it quotes.

Re:There is money and publicity

[rs79]

While I could't think less of his daughter (hi Estie!) I couldn't think more of Freeman. And if you look at the times he's been wrong before (oh, there aren't any) and think about what he says in terms of the context of actual life dynamics you'll see he's not wrong this time.

This doesn't mean we should be free to pollute but as pointed out in Jurassic Park "life finds a way".

Re:There is money and publicity

[kholburn]

There's big money, very big money and huge astroturfing campaigns in denying global warming too.

Re:There is money and publicity

[momerath2003]

This was the analysis of a Science News article I read a while ago. According to them, there was no consensus.

Then again, Science News also chooses to report a 9% growth in the arctic ice as "A near-record Arctic melting". Agenda, anyone?

Re:There is money and publicity

[tie_guy_matt]

In the seventies people were just begining to look at the problem. Also, back then aerosols emmitted by diesel engines and coal power plants were affecting climate change more than green house gases. People started to filter the particles when they realized that the particles tend to do things like cause cancer. Once the particles were blocked the earth started warming.

But anyway, what you are saying is that since the quick conclusion that people came up with when the study of climate change was in its infancy were wrong, all of the work and research that the worlds tops scientists did for the next 30+ years must also be wrong as well? I guess that argument makes sense if you don't think about it for more than 15 minutes.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Alwin Henseler]

People who claim we can't influence climate should be locked up in a garage with a running engine.

Make it a big enough, fully sealed greenhouse, and watch them put plant seeds in the ground in a hurry :-)

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

so it is about time that he is wrong - statistically speaking.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

Did you make the same argument the 20 years before that ?
No. The hysteria was not at profitable levels 10 years ago.

20 years ago was the hysteria over acid rain.

Don't forget the Ozone layer. We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.

Let's see...
1970's Smog
1980's Ozone layer
1990's Acid Rain
2000's Global Warming

Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

I remember a report in National Geographic about 5 years ago, and documentaries on TV that said Europe with increased global warming would become cold!

We are having the same kind of weather and explanations for it here in America as well.

It goes like this:

When it's hot, it's because of global warming. When it's cold, it's because of global warming.

Let me tell you something that is 100% FACT! The climate is going to change. It always has, and it always will. No matter what happens, there will be people who ignore the fact that the climate has changed since the Earth began to cool and blame whatever changes they see now on the activities of man. It's the height of arrogance!

Re:There is money and publicity

[Troed]

The conveyor is not shutting down.

http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/20505/Gulf_Stream_Will_Not_Shut_Down_Science_Magazines_Admit.html

Re:There is money and publicity

[sumdumass]

I can make the argument for you. In 1988 when the global warming alarmism started moving along, it parralelled a push to forgive the third world debt that was largely caused by the oil crisis in the 1970's when OPEC decided to halt sales to the US over it's support for Israel who just kicked their asses.

Anyways, to stay on topic, in 1992, the global warming issue had been hijacked by the third world debt issues and the product of this can be seen by 1994 with the first attempts to draft the Kyoto accords. Of course this was all highly secretive and the US attempted to assemble and international climate panel to prove that global warming was the cause of man (more specifically, first world industrialized nations). The movement to forgive the third world debt started disapearing as the Kyoto accords started nearing release. In 1998 it had almost completely evaporated but by then, they had most of europe convinced it needed to sign on to Kyoto.

Now when we examine Kyoto we find several things. Of the 157 some countries that have signed on to it, only 36-37 (if you count the US) have caps on their Co2 production and a few of those caps were placed at rated higher then they were currently emitting. The numbers I posted may be off by a couple because I'm rambling from memory but they accurately represent the differences and anyone wanting to look can find it easily. Anyways, of the 37 or so countries, they placed limits to 1990 levels of Co2 production but claimed that all man made Co2 was in excess of the natural cycles and causing global warming. Now you can look at this and see right now that the goal of the Kyoto protocol wasn't necessarily to stop global warming because it only addressed a portion of the Co2 coming from some of the richest nations. The same nations BTW that owned the third world debt.

But is gets worse. Knowing, and yes, we have years of data to back this up but knowing that the population generally increases (*with the exception of Germany which is almost a negative population growth rate) you can see that it would be almost impossible to go back 10 years in carbon production while the needs of the people are constantly increasing. If you cut 10 people's carbon footprint by 30% over 20 years and during that 20 years, 3 more people are added to the group, their 70% contribution negates all savings from the 30%reduction. So there was a trigger built in to Kyoto that allowed member nations to offset their Co2 production by buying Carbon credits from the third world nations or to invest into those third world nations by moving industry there. This creates a revenue base that allows the third world nations to pay off their debt but it totally ignores the issue of Co2 production being bad for the environment. In short, it says if the rich industrialized nations want to stay comfortable, they have to pay more and invest in the poorer third world countries. Currently, most of Europe has chosen to use Chine and India to outsource their pollution and help meet their goals and it can be seen by their increased pollution emissions. China has or is about to pass the US in emissions and they have no caps whatsoever at all. The remaining 130 some countries who have started becoming major polluters too, are in line for this type of boost.

So even if global warming is real and it is the threat that it has been claimed, the political solutions have been hijacked from the start for reasons of money. And those reasons are huge. The sums of money involved are well above any oil companies profits or savings you will see from traditional energy compared to the more expensive alternative sources.

People have moved past that redistribution of wealth, greed has kicked in, and you have people like Al Gore selling carbon offsets to himself or people with the potential to make billions from outdated technology (yes, solar was invented in the 1800's, failed to be practical or cost effective in the 50's,60's,70's and 80's, Wind was actually replaced by coal in the 1920's though the 1950's) if they can

Re:There is money and publicity

[Jurily]

as paradoxical as it sounds with increased global warming Europe gets colder

Not Hungary. Definitely not.

anybody who researches climate knows Europe is being kept warm by the Atlantic conveyor

As you go East, Europe doesn't end with France, you know. Maybe you're talking about Western Europe?

Central Europe is being kept warm by the Sun.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Acid Raaaain! Some stay dry, and others feel the pain! Acid Raaaain!

(**I put on my gas mask so I can breathe)

Re:There is money and publicity

[MrHanky]

If the Gulf Stream turned around, you'd see far worse effects on the climate than some snow in October. I'm @ 60ÂN on the coast of Norway, so I'd expect temperatures at least below freezing for most of the months between November and March. No monthly average has been below freezing for a few years now. Technically, we don't have winter.

The reason why you've stopped hearing about the potential reversal of the Gulf Stream is that it's been thoroughly researched and found highly unlikely to happen.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Doctor Morbius]

Maybe you should read the news more often. Did you not see the recent report showing that if we had not banned CFCs from aerosol sprays in the 70's that the ozone hole would have grown so large that areas as far south as Washington D.C. would be experiencing high levels of ultraviolet light.

Re:There is money and publicity

[odourpreventer]

> Don't forget the Ozone layer.

Because of early warnings, we were able to halt the destruction of the ozone layer.

> We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.

For some people in Australia, this is still true.

> 1970's Smog

People being killed annually by smog are counted by the thousands.

> I wonder why I no longer buy it.

Because you're an idiot?

Re:There is money and publicity

[JTorres176]

The earth has been everything from a frozen wasteland to a molten ball of superheated rock. If it wasn't for climate change, we wouldn't be on a hospitable planet, but in an unchanging sea of molten lava.

Re:There is money and publicity

[amorsen]

I think it is happening! Though do you read about this in the media? NOOOOO because we all associate climate change with warming not change!

Within the last few years papers seem to indicate that the threat of the Atlantic conveyor shutting down isn't as high as once expected, and that the effects would likely not be as severe as expected. There is e.g. "Climate change: A sea change", but you need a Nature subscription to read it. Anyway, personally I'm not as worried about that particular effect of global warming anymore.

Re:There is money and publicity

[HertzaHaeon]

Smog, the ozone layer and acid rain are not alarming problems anymore because we actually did something about them.

They were all fought with emission standards and regulations that forced the industry to adapt.

Besides the obvious environmental benefits, you get stuff like fridges that not only are ozone-friendly, but are much more efficient than before.

Global warming can be dealt with and will likewise bring us benefits. But we have to do something about it.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Chris Burke]

Don't forget the Ozone layer. We were all supposed to be long dead from skin cancer by now.

That makes as much sense as saying "Don't forget about leaded gasoline! We were all supposed to be dead from its emissions by now!"

What an amazing world we live in where:
1) Experts predict disaster if a problem is ignored.
2) Problem is solved rather than ignored.
3) Disaster is averted.
4) Mentally challenged "skeptics" believe the problem never existed in the first place.

I bet you think there was nothing to Y2K either, do you? Or think nothing has changed vis-a-vis smog since the 70s? Or that acid rain isn't a problem?

Hmmm. I wonder why I no longer buy it.

Because you have chosen to do so, and have quite effectively shielded yourself from seeing why you came to the exactly wrong conclusion.

Re:There is money and publicity

[SupremoMan]

You mean there is more than 1 way to fuck the environment? Who would have guessed...

Re:There is money and publicity

[PopeRatzo]

Let's see...
1970's Smog
1980's Ozone layer
1990's Acid Rain
2000's Global Warming

The funny thing is that all of the issues you mention are actually worse today.

If you want to see smog, just take a look at all the people who have to wear breathing apparatus in many cities in the Far East. Ozone Layer? Look at the skin cancer rates in Australia. Acid Rain? Check the amount of aluminum in the drinking water in Toronto.

If there hadn't been efforts to combat those first three that started in earnest in the late 70's, there'd probably be three dead Great Lakes.

I'm surprised how many people believe that there is huge money in climate science. They hear about the billions that are being spent by the energy industry to try to convince people there's no harm in burning coal, petroleum and the hundreds of thousands that an environmental reasearcher could possibly receive in a grant and they think: "oh, it's the same thing". Dumb fucks.

It's about 2pm here in Chicago, and I've already read 8 comments from people with UIDs below 999999 who don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate.

Re:There is money and publicity

[PopeRatzo]

Don't try to make sense, DrMorbius. The comments here demonstrate that the energy industry has gotten full value for the money they have spent on pro-fossil fuel propaganda.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Sanat]

I got a feeling that we are heading more towards the frozen wasteland than towards a desert like environment. No proof, of course, but sense the winters starting to get cooler and staying that way longer. Maybe Earth will end up in a mini-ice age for a few decades or centuries like in the 1400's. Time will tell and certainly we will learn from the experience.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Ripit]

Of course climate is going to change. The issue is whether or not we are causing a drastic and potentially dangerous change. The evidence suggests we are.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Vexar]

You forgot to mention that the state in which Al Gore has his primary residence, it is the largest single family home on record. Something insane like 10,000 a square foot house for him and his wife goes unnoticed on principle when doling out the embarrassment that once was the Nobel Prize. Still, that is smaller than the 54,000 square foot house that Barack Obama has in Washington DC.

Nice post. So, my question is this: are you saying the political movement that is Global Warming is more along the lines of Global Socialism?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

Global Warming: A theory based reams of data with the support of a majority of the scientists who have worked in the field of climate studies.

Global Cooling: A theory that was invented by George Will but retroactively attributed to unnamed "scientists", based on his selective reading of often-inaccurate popular media interpretations of scientific data from a few decades back, with the explicit purpose of discrediting Global Warming.

So "Global Warming" is bunk because:
- It fails to take into account the opinions of scientists who have never worked in the field of climate studies, such as Dyson.
- It fails to take into account the opinions of non-scientists like George Will
- It is EXACTLY like Global Cooling, as defined above, and we all know that turned out to be wrong.

Clearly the only thing guiding the Global Warming crowd is religious zealotry and their attempt to hold onto their vast amounts of money and influence (which they keep hidden away in their hippie dreadlocks where nobody can see any sign of them)

Re:There is money and publicity

[GodfatherofSoul]

The same idiotic plan exists in the US at the state levels. All it does is allow Wyoming to sell carbon credits they don't use and never could use (based on their small population) to states like California.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Vexar]

You forgot "Nuclear Winter." Incidentally, there's a small shop in Manhattan Beach, CA that sells little bottles of acid rain. Oh, and ozone is a poison far worse than smog, unless you count (and you should) ozone at the troposphere as smog.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you think there was nothing to Y2K either, do you?

And I bet you're forgetting all the wild claims about how Y2K would affect the world outside of the financial markets.

Does anyone else remember all the wild claims about how Y2K would cause elevators to catastrophically fail, and missiles to launch, just because they contained computer chips?

I'm not saying Y2K and global warming aren't real, I'm saying it's still important to separate the facts from the half-truths and outright lies that alarmists spread for their own gain.

Re:There is money and publicity

[RichardJenkins]

As long as you're satisfied yourself with your sources, there's no need to obsessively point the origin to others to them for no good reason.

The reference used in the wikipedia page for that quote is 'Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William & Fleck, John (September 2008)'

Re:There is money and publicity

[gwait]

1970's smog: Pollution laws changed car emissions drastically
1980's Ozone layer: Pollution laws got rid of CFCs
1990's Acid rain: Pollution laws put scrubbers in factory exaust pipes

2000's Global Warming? remains to be seen where this goes. Dyson seems to be a very bright guy, and he is doing good service to science by being skeptical. He's not denying the global warming issue outright, he's saying there is not enough data to conclude either way, and that he's doubtful.

The article states he was also against the Hubble telescope, arguing against the cost. There's no question that Hubble has advanced the science of astronomy greatly, it's his judgment that the money could have been spent on more important things, which is also his concern on expensive solutions to the global warming issue.

It doesn't mean that Dyson is standing up for the antienvironmentalists who don't want to be held responsible for their own actions.

Re:There is money and publicity

[filthpickle]

Central Europe is being kept warm by the Sun.

Heresy!

Re:There is money and publicity

[gwait]

Actually there is far more money in denying global warming than in promoting it.

Take the net worth of all the big oil companies divided by the total income of all the global warming scientists.

Actually, that would be too low of an estimate, since it doesn't include all the industries which have an interest in cheap energy, which is most cheaply generated by CO2 emitting power plants.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Vario]

Why don't you just read the website you are citing:

Scientific theory and evidence suggest that, once emitted to the atmosphere, these compounds could significantly deplete the stratospheric ozone layer that shields the planet from damaging UV-B radiation.
Man-made chlorines, primarily chloroflourobcarbons (CFCs), contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer and allow larger quantities of harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth.

Re:There is money and publicity

[odourpreventer]

> The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites.

Bullshit! Ozone has been measured at least since 1928.

> scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world.

It's a fact that CFC's (among other stuff) destroys ozone.

But at least you were modded insightful for your FUD. Always something.

Re:There is money and publicity

[1s44c]

The UK had its first snowfall in October in 74 YEARS!

That's totally untrue. The UK has had snow about every other year for at least 30 years. I've walked though it, driven though it, and as a kid played in it.

Re:There is money and publicity

[GaratNW]

Near record is not a record. Cherry pick your quotes much? Next sentence in that article:
"but 34 percent below the average measured for September since 1979"

Last year was a record. 9% back from that record compared to last year is still crappy when you're talking about a total 34% drop in total area since 1979. 4.5227 million square miles compared to 4.6 million square miles year to year change from 2007 to 2008, compared to over 6 million square miles three decades ago. The article could be a little less hyperbolic in it's title, but as for an agenda? Please.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Random Destruction]

Nice troll, but the linked website doesn't agree with you. It talks of both a yearly cycle and a long term trend. It also says man made CFCs

contribute to the thinning of the ozone layer and allow larger quantities of harmful ultraviolet rays to reach the earth.

and some tasty graphs showing stuff like

NASA/NOAA satellite data showing the rise in stratospheric chlorine and corresponding decline in ozone layer thickness from 1979 to 1997. As stratospheric chlorine declined in response to enactment of the Montreal Protocol, the first stage of ozone recovery began.

Re:There is money and publicity

[JWSmythe]

    But, your list is perfect.

    Each and every item was worked on with global agreement.

    Smog was reduced by making cleaner running vehicles and cleaner industry.

    The ozone layer reduction was helped by virtually outlawing CFC's.

    Acid rain, again was reduced by the work done with vehicles and industry.

    And global warming will have a man made reduction, or else we'll reap the benefits of it. Once humanity is decimated, it's effects will be mitigated. Either that, or we'll do something about it.

    The whole argument of is there or isn't there is irrelevant. The end result by treating global warming as a problem is a good one, regardless of if you believe in the reason or not. We will have a cleaner environment, which is something I wouldn't mind at all. But hey, if you love pollution, fire up a nice smokey fire in your fireplace with the flue shut, and start up your car with the garage door shut. You'll have plenty of pollution in no time, in the comfort of your own home. Light up a nice fat cigar, and take a few deep breaths. Ahhh.. Nirvana.. right?

   

Re:There is money and publicity

[Jurily]

It's not Europe cause it's Western Europe?...

Fine, more than one can play that game. You don't live in Europe, you live in Hungary.

Fail. I'm a Hungarian, living in the UK.

Also, while GGP's statement may be true about Western Europe, it's definitely not true about the whole of Europe. Look at a map and try to guess what impact the Atlantic has on Moscow.

Re:There is money and publicity

[tie_guy_matt]

Maybe, course the aerosols cause other problems .. like cancer. One of the reasons for the famine in Ethiopia in the 80's were the number of aerosols that were emitted by the western nations. The aerosols blocked some of the sun and changed some of the currents in the oceans slightly. The result was that there were parts of africa that didn't get the seasonal rains the people rely on. Sometimes the earth can take a lot of abuse and just bounce right back, then again sometimes a little change here and a little change there can cause slight changes that have big effects. Luckily we cut many of the particle emissions and the rains eventually came back.

Re:There is money and publicity

[JoshuaZ]

The claim that ozone measurement started in the 1980s is simple wrong. Measurement of the levels of ozone occurred well before we had satellites. Ozone measuring began in 1957. See http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history.html Your comment about natural cyclic elements to the ozone levels is misleading. There is a natural cycle and it is large. What was observed was a slow, steady reduction in the average level even as the larger cycle progressed. The Wikipedia article gives a good summary and some citations and references which should explain things well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion

Re:There is money and publicity

[Schmorgluck]

More simply than the others who reacted to your post, I'd say you should link to the Wikipedia article you're quoting, so anyone can see how it is sourced.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Thinboy00]

> The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites.

Bullshit! Ozone has been measured at least since 1928[!].

[snip][emphasis added]

With what, your bare hands?

Re:There is money and publicity

[shadowbearer]

  The desire to profit off of potential misfortune or calamity is at least as old as human civilization.

  While what you said above may be true, it doesn't have anything to do with whether or not global warming is really happening. It does point out just how ignorant and greedy people can be.

SB

Re:There is money and publicity

[Thinboy00]

But Al Gore liked that plan! He got a nobel prize. Therefore, he can't be wrong! </sarcasm>

Re:There is money and publicity

[Walkingshark]

While I could't think less of his daughter (hi Estie!) I couldn't think more of Freeman. And if you look at the times he's been wrong before (oh, there aren't any) and think about what he says in terms of the context of actual life dynamics you'll see he's not wrong this time.

This doesn't mean we should be free to pollute but as pointed out in Jurassic Park "life finds a way".

Why do so many people think that knowing a lot and being really good with one field of science in any way qualifies you to speak with credability about another field of science?

You lack the ability to properly judge the credability of a claim at a fundamental level. You are what is called "credulous." You believe something because 1) it agrees with your current opinion and 2) because the person making the claim is respected, even if they aren't respected in relation to the claim they're making.

Strip the name Freeman Dyson off the article and see if it is worthy based solely on the claims made and arguments presented. If you can't manage to do that, you should immidiately stop voting and sterilize yourself.

Re:There is money and publicity

[FooGoo]

If you think Kyoto was bad just wait until you see what comes out of Copenhagen.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Tenebrousedge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartland_Institute

They're not exactly unbiased sources. They are starting from the assumption the global warming isn't real. Skepticism is to be encouraged, and I would certainly champion Dyson over Gore, but you should be out there to find out the facts, to do the best science, not to prove a point one way or the other.

I realize that Science and New Scientist both require paid subscriptions, but you would have done much better to link to those source articles rather than a group of blatant propagandists. If this was good and useful science, I'm sure that it was widely reported by others.

Re:There is money and publicity

[moderatorrater]

I think the valid point buried in their bullshit is that climate change is still in its infancy, and yet we're looking at drastic changes because of it. Studies still can't tell us definitively what will happen when the climate actually changes and they can't even come close. Will the increased warming trigger cooling or will it start a feedback loop where small warming triggers much larger trends? Will it cause an increase or a decrease in the rainfall across farmlands? Hell, we can't even tell if warming up to this point averted another ice age or not. IMHO, it's a valid criticism, although one used most often by people who are ignorant of most of the science anyway.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Troed]

It is. The name of the domain of a site that quotes sourced information is totally irrelevant as to the quality of the information itself.

Why is it so important for you to spread alarmist misinformation? What good does that do?

Re:There is money and publicity

[phantomfive]

You have a methodology problem there. Just because there are more papers one way or the other doesn't mean there was a scientific consensus (incidentally, relying on a scientific consensus as evidence is another serious methodological flaw). For example, if you look in an astronomy journal today, how many papers will you find drawing the conclusion that the earth is round? None, because there is no need to study that, any paper that tries to prove that the earth is round will be too un-original to publish.

In the case of global climate change, by 1972 everyone already knew that we are out of the ice age, and eventually we will go into another one. There was no particular need to publish on the topic. As it is, from 1965 to 1970 there were fewer than 15 articles talking about global warming or cooling, hardly enough to establish a consensus either way.

You can't conclude that a lot of articles implies a consensus. It just means that someone is writing a lot.

Re:There is money and publicity

[naasking]

But is gets worse. Knowing, and yes, we have years of data to back this up but knowing that the population generally increases (*with the exception of Germany which is almost a negative population growth rate) [...]

No, just about every affluent country has negative population growth. The total populations of affluent countries are increasing only due to immigration.

Paradoxically, spreading a more energy-consuming lifestyle, ie. a higher standard of living, would result in lower or negative total population growth to the point where our energy needs may also stabilize. This is also disregarding advances in efficiency, which do come along now and again.

Or our energy needs may continually increase. Hard to say really. What is certain however, is that the harder it is to develop more energy sources, the more expensive energy will become, and our energy consumption will plateau from that alone (and likely drive more developments in efficiency). Basic economics.

Re:There is money and publicity

[anaesthetica]

Why do so many people think that knowing a lot and being really good with one field of science in any way qualifies you to speak with credability [sic] about another field of science?

Because the scientific method is universal? Because the ability to methodically apply reasoned skepticism is not the privileged domain of hermetic specialists?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Anonymous Coward]

regulation of the free market caused this mess (housing bubble, subprime lending). Further regulation (bailouts etc.) will just mess it up further. The free market works best if it's "free".

Re:There is money and publicity

[mariox19]

Free-market advocates don't claim that "the economy" will fix itself. What they point out is that each individual, in response to a recession, begins to change his or her economic behavior: this includes investors, business owners, managers, skilled workers, unskilled workers, and individuals spending their money on consumer goods. In this way, people, working individually, redirect their economic activity away from bad investments to good investments. In each case, the actions of each exist within a larger context: namely, the actions of other individuals. This context coordinates economic activity; and as each individual seeks gains rather than losses, the end result will be a reorganization of economic activity that will end the recession.

In other words, the economy doesn't fix itself; the individuals, each working within their own sphere, fix the economy. This activity will still attempt go on whether the government does anything or not. What free-market advocates argue is that government can only hinder this activity and, in doing so, the recovery.

So, yes, unless government manages to completely destroy the economy, when things start improving, free-market advocates will claim that the recovery would have happened anyway; and it is completely consistent with their understanding of economics to do so. It will not have been government that fixed the economy, but those elements of the free-market that remained unhampered by government.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

> The ozone "hole" was originally found over the poles because we suddenly had the ability to see it via satellites.

Bullshit! Ozone has been measured at least since 1928.

> scientists claim that it was the ban on CFC's that saved the world.

It's a fact that CFC's (among other stuff) destroys ozone.

But at least you were modded insightful for your FUD. Always something.

May I refer you to my comment HERE

Basically, it says the ozone took billions of years to form, a few years to destroy (your words, not mine) and even fewer years to rebuild.

Really? Does that make sense to you? What in our atmosphere has caused the ozone to rebuild in less than 20 years that was NOT present before, causing to take billions?

Re:There is money and publicity

[maxume]

Don't forget the billions of individuals that have an interest in cheap energy.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Tenebrousedge]

The article you are linking to is a collection of opinions, some of which are related to the article in question. Most of them seem to have been taken entirely out of context. It presents a one-sided explanation of the results and significance of the study. It does not discuss methodology at all. The quality of the information presented is absolutely terrible, in point of fact, and given the source, it is extremely questionable whether this represents the current scientific consensus on the matter.

Why is it so important for you to push an agenda rather than hard data and unbiased critical analysis? What good does that do?

Re:There is money and publicity

[joocemann]

you watch too much tv.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Walkingshark]

Damn it, I always get credibility wrong.

As far as your actualy point, just because you've shown that you can do science in one field does not mean that you have the knowledge, expertise, or experience to do so with any real meaning. Being good at physics does not qualify you to speak with authority or credibility about the details of climate science. To say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand what science is and how it works. So far, almost every post I've read in this discussion that supports Dyson's position has done so based on appeal to authority, but only based on authority in an unrelated subject. Somewhere in this thread a poster used the example along the lines of asking a car mechanic to perform dental surgery on you, because hey both of those guys are professionals and they both use tools, right?

Re:There is money and publicity

[RedWizzard]

Because they are trying to save their jobs. Let's take a look at the facts, the REAL facts and use it to analyze what they are saying here:

First, the given FACTS: 1) The Ozone layer took millions, if not BILLIONS of years to form OK, so we just need one.

Now, let's look at what you are saying: 1) CFC's in our AC's and deodorant cans broke the Ozone layer, by 90% in some places. It took less than 100 years for this to happen. 2) We reduced (not stopped) our CFC usage a couple of decades ago and now the Ozone layer has repaired itself.

Now, look at our given FACT and then look at #2 above. If the Ozone layer took millions/billions of years to form naturally, then... and here is the important part... how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?

Who the hell said it had repaired itself? I live in New Zealand and I can tell you that burn times here are much lower than they were 20 years ago. Being directly affected by it I have no doubt that the ozone hole is a fact and that it has not noticeably recovered since CFCs were banned. What has happened is that it has stopped getting worse. Look at these graphs. The ozone hole has not repaired itself.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"the REAL facts"

In most cases this term is followed by bullshit, your post is no different.

"how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?"

1) The point is it that the "hole" has stopped growing.

2) The ozone "hole" MAY have started to repair itself.

"Because they are trying to save their jobs."

Can we drop this bullshit, it just an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and make stupid noises. IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the reports. The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors and confrence rooms.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ElectricRook]

And that's going to somehow stop the Coriolis effect from stacking water in the gulf of Mexico? That stacked water has to go somewhere, and it goes north & south, the northern flow becomes the gulf stream.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ketilwaa]

I'm now 31 years old. I was taught the about greenhouse effect and the ozone layer in school here in Norway when I was ~13. That's 18 years ago, so Norway must have dodged those buzzwords.

Re:There is money and publicity

[arminw]

..a majority of the scientists...

Of course, once upon a time the majority of scientists thought the earth was at the center of the universe. The majority of doctors and medical scientists believed that disease was caused by bad air and fought early pioneers and advocates of rigorous cleanliness in hospitals tooth and nail. The majority of cosmologists today believes that electricity plays no role whatsoever in the large-scale operation of the universe. Some of them will desperately oppose anyone who even breathes the word "electric" or "plasma" in connection with cosmology or astrophysics.

Since when has the majority had a corner on truth? Has it ever been? No? Well maybe the majority is wrong here also. When it comes to science, the stupidest thing I know of toward the validity of any scientific statement or argument is to invoke the majority.

In the case of global warming, the majority is clearly wrong, once again, as usual. The Earth has cycled between warmer and cooler for ages. Where, for example, did all that carbon comes from that is stored in the fossil fuel we burn today and have yet to burn? How does the carbon, along with hydrogen become hydrocarbons? Why do we call it fossil fuel? Is that not all solar energy stored as chemical energy? What mechanisms converted and stored this chemical energy, if not photosynthesis? Today, plants get the carbon they need to grow from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Where did the plants of long-ago which we now burn in our gas tanks and power plants get their carbon dioxide they needed for the process of photosynthesis?

If we burned every possible gram a fossil fuel, would that not return Earth's conditions to what they were before the fossil fuels were formed in the first place? If that happened suddenly, it would be rather catastrophic, but not if it took place over many generations of humans.

Re:There is money and publicity

[NinjaCoder]

Still totally untrue. *London* might not have had snow for decades, but the *UK* sure has. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/28_30october2008/ "The last occurrence of sleet or snow being reported across these areas was October 2003." and later on in the article "A number of stations across the climate district of SE & Central S England reported a day of snow on 28/29 October 2008, including Reading University, Whiteknights (Berkshire), Hampstead (Greater London) and Odiham (Hampshire). The last previous date that any snow was recorded during October over this climate district was 29 October 1974, but in London it was 31 October 1934."

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

Pretending something hasn't been wieghed and measured is a common tactic used by people who don't like what the science tells them and haven't got the balls to question their dogma.

Re:There is money and publicity

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Oh, for the love of Jesus, Y2K? On Slashdot?

People who actually program computers know that Y2K was about wrong dates.

Journalists claimed that elevators, pacemakers, and even nuclear missile launch systems would go wild.

A programmer (even if he hasn't programmed anything more complex than mergesort) would think "why in this lovely Blue Marble would a pacemaker or an elevator cease to work because of a wrong date?"), and a person with the common sense of a 5 year old knows that nuclear missile launch systems are not controlled via software, or at least not purely via software.

People with a minimum of knowledge knew that the problem would be mostly restricted to legacy systems, and that while some problems would not be fixed on time, the errors would be mostly obvious and would be found out and corrected, unlike the journalist panic that "EVERY BANK ACCOUNT WILL BECOME 1 MILLION NEGATIVE AND PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO WORK AS SLAVES FOR 30 YEARS TO PAY THE DEBT!!!"

Re:There is money and publicity

[NinjaCoder]

The UK had its first snowfall in October in 74 YEARS!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3278378/Snow-covers-parts-of-England-as-winter-weather-sets-in.html

Mod parent down!

Utter rubbish - *LONDON* has not had snow for decades, the UK certainly has. Actually even the link you provide says that. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/interesting/28_30october2008/ has more details.

Perhaps your recollection of the articles in National Geographic are as inaccurate as your recollection of the Telegraph article?

Incidentally the Met article suggests that the recordings of snow/not snow happen at 9am every day, so it is entirely likely that there HAS been snow in the last 74 years, but it wasn't measured because it melted by 9am.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Fibban]

Well, there wasn't much to Y2K, they all said your freezer would stop and planes falling out of the sky. As an IT-specialist I said "bullocks, there might be a few problems but it's overrated, and YES, I was right. But then, you may be ironic, but you got it right in the lines above:)

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

As long as scientists work for politicians, expect the scientific consensus to be based one politics, not science.

From HERE:

The IPCC is a political organization and yet it is the sole basis of the claim of a scientific consensus on climate change. Consensus is neither a scientific fact nor important in science, but it is very important in politics. There are 2500 members in the IPCC divided between 600 in Working Group I (WGI), who examine the actual climate science, and 1900 in working Groups II and III (WG II and III), who study âoeImpacts, Adaptation and Vulnerabilityâ and âoeMitigation of Climate Changeâ respectivelyâ¦They accept without question the findings of WGI and assume warming due to humans is a certainty. In a circular argument typical of so much climate politics the work of the 1900 is listed as âproofâ(TM) of human caused global warming. Through this they established the IPCC as the only credible authority thus further isolating those who raised questions.

And from HERE:

In an early March briefing before congressional staff, members of the press, and scientists, Professor Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute for Technology assailed the politically driven work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), charging the panel misrepresents the work of its contributing scientists to fit a preconceived agenda.

Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Panaphonix]

When your Federal Reserve Notes are worth less (or worthless) can we complain then?

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"I'm surprised how many people believe that there is huge money in climate science."

Thing is the money spent on climate change research is generally viewable, the money spent (by both sides) on climate change propoganda is generally not viewable. The IPCC budget is on the web, it totals $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations. The IPCC scientists do not get paid for the effort they put into what is essentially the tedious (and generally thankless) job of peer review. Compare this transparency to (say) the Cato institute.

The OP with the list also has to fool himself into believing these problems pop up out of nowhere once per decade, it's what I like to call the "overnight success" delusion. In the list he gives AGW is not the most recent idea, it was first proposed a century ago and the NAS have been issuing warnings about rising CO2 since the 50's. Yes scientists also talked about cooling in the 50's because smog cools while CO2 warms, the biosphere is a system not a series of independent phenomena. The irony here is that if China follows the west and cleans up their smog first, they will remove a large cooling effect.

Re:There is money and publicity

[yumyum]

Go ahead. Publish your findings. I eagerly await your paper. But I do think black holes and neutron stars have been detected. I guess you are a troll. Enjoy your food.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"There's big money in pushing global warming, too"

I see you are promoting the notion that warnings from science are politically skewed by politics and money, so let's look at the favorite target of these attacks, namely the IPCC.

1. The 2500 scientists do not get paid for the peer-review work they are doing (and btw that's all the IPCC does).

2. The lead chapter authors get "free" plane tickets to go to the "free" confrence rooms and work.

3. The budget is $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations, most of it is spent on the "perks" in #2 above.

Here are the gory details, now can we drop the unoriginal corruption meme.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Antique Geekmeister]

And he doesn't remember the effects of increasing acid rain on marble on bathroom decks, or stone sculpture that had survived thousands of years.

Re:There is money and publicity

[fritsd]

IANACS, but I read the reason that the destruction and (after the Montreal Protocol) current rebuilding of the ozone layer is so fast, is because not much of the CFC's were needed to alter it: radiation split a halogen atom off of them, forming free radicals, and these reacted with the O3 forming oxygen and the same free radical again, ready to do the same reaction again (linky).
The greenhouse effect of CO2, on the other hand, is related to how much CO2 there is in the atmosphere (I think the bulk of the effect is due to how CO2 strongly absorbs infrared light, as discovered in 1896. So, the effect of the CO2 is not as strong and you need more of it (which we do in fact).
However, what I think is not really taken into account much yet is possible positive and negative feedback effects that might become more noticeable at higher CO2 concentrations.
Freeman Dyson mentioned a negative feedback effect: that trees would be happy to absorb more CO2 (esp. his idea of genetically engineered CO2 eating trees). This might be a good mitigating idea, especially combined with "bio-charring" them to put a bit of the sequestered carbon in the ground, out of the biological cycle.
<speculative_rant>
What worries me more is *positive* feedback effects. When the arctic cap melts, the sea underneath is probably darker than the white ice we have currently, so the albedo of the planet might change a little bit and reflect less of the sunlight. When or maybe if the methane clathrates at some places of the seabottom burp up and the Siberian permafrost melts, large amounts of methane get in the atmosphere, and they'd either add to the greenhouse effect (stronger than an equivalent amount of CO2) or if there's enough methane maybe they'd even burn, warming the tundra up even more (and who knows how long it takes to put that out, if a large area is on fire fueled by deposits of long-frozen rotten stuff; e.g. coal mine fires can last long)
</speculative_rant>

Re:There is money and publicity

[ScrewMaster]

regulation of the free market caused this mess (housing bubble, subprime lending).

That's not really true. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999 had a lot to do with it, and it did so by making the market freer. In essence, it repealed portions of the original Glass-Steagall Act of 1933, which was put in place to limit some of the banking practices that contributed to the Great Depression. At least, that's how I understand it ... anyone who knows better feel free to correct me.

Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain. In a previous century they called that laissez faire, and it didn't work. Look, like it or not we need the institution of government and the corporations that provide goods and services require regulation. The people that run them have demonstrated unequivocally that they cannot be trusted with our lives or livelihoods without some form of governmental controls in place.

We just have to make sure that that regulation works for all of us.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

If you the same intellectual coward that is promoting the notion that science is politically skewed by politics and money then let's look at the favorite target of these attacks, namely the IPCC.

1. The 2500 scientists do not get paid for the peer-review work they are doing (and btw that's all the IPCC does).

2. The lead chapter authors get "free" plane tickets to go to the "free" confrence rooms and work.

3. The budget is $5-6M/yr and is sourced from 300+ politically diverse nations.

Here are your citations, now STFU with your unoriginal corruption meme.

Re:There is money and publicity

[kramulous]

2000's Global Warming? remains to be seen where this goes.

I've changed my use of energy, at home as well as work. I don't leave things on standby. If it doesn't need to be on, turn it off. Whenever I'm not sitting at my desk, I turn my 30" LCDs off. I use laptops instead of PCs at home. One fridge and make sure it's seals are good. Use air-conditioning, but limit it to the room you are in and not the whole house. Don't spend more than 4 minutes in the shower (Brisbane, Queensland and we can only use 170litres of water per person per day - up from 140litres due to recent rains)

Will the message of global warming be to pay just a little more attention to the smaller details?

Stupid, unsustainable 'initiatives' like "Earth Hour" just make people feel good while smelling their farts.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Burnhard]

You could always try reading the most up to date research rather than quoting from Wikipedia. The latter does after all contain many articles that are "managed" by various activists and that therefore cannot be trusted. I find it's better to remain open minded. The Environmental movement would not agree with me however.

Re:There is money and publicity

[fritsd]

I'm not saying Y2K and global warming aren't real, I'm saying it's still important to separate the facts from the half-truths and outright lies that alarmists spread for their own gain.

Uhuh. Agreed.. but they are both real, you know.
Any amount of saying "it's a conspiracy of alarmists" doesn't make the absorption spectrum of CO2 go away. Do you know what I think we should do with all that CO2? Sequester the excess in people and send it off to the stars by space elevator :-) (I'm in a weird mood today).

About Y2K:
I don't know about your

cause elevators to catastrophically fail

, but I know for a fact that at least one company would have had great trouble shipping elevator spare parts if the company I worked for then hadn't helped them with their Y2K problem :-)
There was *SO MUCH* extra work we had to do.. but we managed it, and thanks to that.. it was business as usual and people just forgot.
Hopefully in 500 years our descendants can say the same about the greenhouse effect problem.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Enahs]

Free market ideology works great, as long as you ignore human history and herd mentality, as well as ignoring just who pushed for all that government regulation in the first place.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Morten Hustveit]

momerath2003:

Then again, Science News also chooses to report a 9% growth in the arctic ice as "A near-record Arctic melting"

The article does not say what you want it to: it was not a 9% growth in ice volume, but a 9% growth in surface coverage.

Quoted article, further down:

First-year ice typically measures between 1 and 1.5 meters thick, whereas multiyear ice averages about 3 meters thick. That disparity, plus the near-record low sea ice extent this year, suggests that the total volume of ice floating atop the Arctic Ocean this summer dropped to a new record low.

Re:There is money and publicity

[tie_guy_matt]

Proof of claim of aerosols caused famine in Africa in the 80's? It's called google! Maybe if you have been using this internet thing for a while you should try it. But since you are too lazy I guess I will do it for you. How about:
http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2002/07/22/aerosol020722.html
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-54622826.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0721-07.htm
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2002/2002-07-22-africandrought.htm
Basically all over the freaking place. I also saw it once on nova on pbs, here I think:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/

Re:There is money and publicity

[squiggleslash]

In the case of global warming, the majority is clearly wrong, once again, as usual. The Earth has cycled between warmer and cooler for ages

"My god, why didn't we think of that?" (*sound of thousands of foreheads being slapped*) - The Majority Of Climate Scientists.

Thank God you put them right with something they clearly would never have thought of themselves. What I'd love to know is why did you post this in Slashdot? Why not announce it at the Academy of Very Very Important Climate Scientists?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Ouilsen]

Today the US haven't signed the Kyoto protocol, the third world has still its debt and alternative energy sources are starting to make their first profits without being subsidized (at least here in Europe).

Re:There is money and publicity

[arminw]

...Go ahead. Publish your findings...

Somebody already has published this in a book. The author's name is Dr. Donald E. Scott, the book's name is: "The Electric Sky" and the ISBN number is:0-9772851-1-1

The main premise of the book is that present day astronomers and astrophysicists completely ignore the force and laws of electricity and the fact that 99% of all matter in the universe is electrically charged and therefore subject to these laws of electricity as formulated long ago by Maxwell, Lorenz and many other pioneers in this field. Electric interaction is 49 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity and can repel as well as attract. If electricity is taken into account and used to interpret the data sent back by Hubble and other modern instruments, the explanations are much simpler and do not require esoteric math nor nonexistent dark matter or energy or black holes and other weird and exotic constructs.

If you are interested, this book will give you a very good introduction into an interpretation of cosmology that is relatively simple and free from weirdness, since these interpretations rely on the well-known, experimentally researched laws of electricity and magnetism.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"Better yet, just google IPCC politics and read for yourself."

What's the point in that? Like you I will only find the politics I want to see and we would simply hurl links to our favorite political hacks at each other for a few posts and get nowhere.

I suggest we short circit that argument with some old fashioned intellectual honesty. Try googling for the IPCC BUDGET and other financial information, the main points of which you will find sumarised in my other posts. It is not the "only credible authority", it is a peer review process that is endorsed and performed by virtually EVERY "credible authority" on the planet.

The fact that you posted a link to the heartland institute means we obviously have different interpretations of the meaning of "credible authority", it is run by the geriatric ex tabacoo scientist Fred Singer. Perhaps you could look up who funds them and let us all know, a similar googling makes it look impossible to find out from their own site?

Once you have defeated your political conspiracy delusion, you may want to actually read what the reports say rather than let political hacks tell you what's in them. If you do manage to filter out your own politics and gain a decent understanding of the basic science you may recognise Lindzen for what he is, ie: a WSJ opinion columnist with a political axe to grind.

Re:There is money and publicity

[MadAhab]

Not only that but it's much easier as you don't have to do peer-reviewed science and get a roomful of PHDs trying to knock down your study. Instead you get to present to credulous dummies.

Re:There is money and publicity

[MaskedSlacker]

I'm burning all of the mod points I just used to say this:

Laissez faire is a policy. 'Free market' is a mathematical model.

Repealing Glass-Steagall did NOT make the market more free.

'Free market' does not refer solely to the absence of government regulation it refers to the mathematical assumptions that the model is based on:

1)Full transparency--all buyers and sellers know and understand exactly what they are buying and selling.

By repealing Glass-Steagall and not regulating CDOs the government actually decreased the transparency of the market making it LESS free.

2)Full mobility of goods -- this is the one that government regulation usually interferes with by compartmentalizing and breaking markets in goods and labor.

The argument behind the 'free market' as a policy goal is that the model is maximally efficient--we get the largest amount of goods and services from a particular quantity of resources. However, LAISSEZ FAIRE != FREE MARKET, mostly because of the transparency point. In the 1800s, this was less the case than it is to day, owing simply to the radical change in the sophistication of our technology since that time--most people don't understand how the things they buy work, and are completely unqualified to judge whether the products they buy are any good--which is a massive decrease in transparency. Add in the nature of modern advertising, a practice which is inherently designed to decrease transparency and you have a situation that is far more complicated than the old intellectually bankrupt ideologies would have you think.

Re:There is money and publicity

[sed quid in infernos]

The Electric Sky has been pretty thoroughly debunked. For example.

Re:There is money and publicity

[LingNoi]

Your Y2K comment just lost you any creditability you had.

There WAS NOTHING to Y2K it was hyped up bullshit and since you're on slashdot you should know that.

Re:There is money and publicity

[that this is not und]

Regulation and Central Planning work, as long as you ignore the 20th century's history of Central Planning and Regulation. Witness the USSR. A paragon of Central Planning and Regulation.

Re:There is money and publicity

[sycodon]

At the moment, everyone's authority with respect to Climate Science, except for just a handful of people, is based on authority in an unrelated subject, is it not?

Re:There is money and publicity

[mariox19]

No. Deregulation is what we need more of. What we need less of -- in fact, none of -- is government favoring some businesses (notably, huge quasi-governmental businesses) over others, and government fiddling with the money supply by promoting so-called "easy money" policies.

We're in this mess because government created two huge entities, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mac, subsidized them with all kinds of tax breaks and anti-competitive advantages, fueled them with tons of inflationary credit, and then encouraged irresponsibility and certain, eventual loss by directing them to make bad loans to people with poor credit, all the while winking to investors all over the world that they never need worry about these banks failing because the US government would write any checks necessary to keep them solvent.

This was the beginning of the speculation in housing, which led to the secondary speculation in mortgage instruments. What hurt was not deregulation, but government favoritism and a policy of socializing losses.

Pro-capitalist is not the same as "pro-business," when pro-business has come to mean Washington gets in bed with big business and writes laws to favor their buddies. That's cronyism. Capitalism means government stays out of the economy completely.

Re:There is money and publicity

[nabsltd]

The fact that climate change now has a great deal of non-scientists talking and writing about it basically means the following have been invoked:

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong. —Clarke's first law

When, however, the lay public rallies round an idea that is denounced by distinguished but elderly scientists and supports that idea with great fervor and emotion—the distinguished but elderly scientists are then, after all, probably right. —Asimov's corollary to Clarke's first law

Basically, this means that as more of the general public state that global warming is fact, it is more likely that the scientists who state that more study is needed are actually correct.

Re:There is money and publicity

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

Let me tell you something that is 100% FACT! The climate is going to change. It always has, and it always will. No matter what happens, there will be people who ignore the fact that the climate has changed since the Earth began to cool and blame whatever changes they see now on the activities of man. It's the height of arrogance!

You are correct. And there are always those who blindly refuse to believe that humans can have any /possible/ impact on these natural cycles, which is its own kind of arrogance.

I'm not saying that we are or aren't impacting it - I'm only saying that unless you can prove it either way, you really don't know. Neither do I.

Re:There is money and publicity

[nabsltd]

A programmer (even if he hasn't programmed anything more complex than mergesort) would think "why in this lovely Blue Marble would a pacemaker or an elevator cease to work because of a wrong date?")

Any programmer worth his salt would easily see that an elevator can have programming such that on certain days of the week (or at certain times of day) it will alter its behavior. Say, being more likely to quickly return to the ground floor from 7am to 10am.

And, this sort of programming could fail if Y2K was not taken into account. The failure may be spectacular (e.g., constantly moving from the top to the bottom floor, stopping nowhere else and eventually burning something out), very bad (e.g., not working at all), or just annoying (e.g., running the "Sunday" schedule on Tuesday).

As for pacemakers and ICBMs, I don't know what sort of day/date things the software might rely on, but I could imagine something like "if you haven't heard from central missile command in the last X days, assume destruction by enemy forces and launch at your target". Sure, that'd be stupid, but nobody has ever lost money betting on the stupidity of a government.

Re:There is money and publicity

[nabsltd]

One fridge and make sure it's seals are good.

You still use a fridge instead of one of these?

<faux anger>Don't you care about the environment?</faux anger>

Re:There is money and publicity

[cheater512]

So that means they are completely infallible and must be completely correct then?

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"So that means they are completely infallible and must be completely correct then?"

No, it means you're a fool standing on the shoulders of a giant strawman.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Belial6]

That is an interesting idea. Not the most practical for day to day refrigerators, but if it really uses as little energy as it claims, it would be ideal for replacing the "soda" fridges that many people have.

Re:There is money and publicity

[rtb61]

That is really incorrect. Surely you should have seen the way modern marketing and PR works. They simply lie, they know they are lying and they don't care, just as long as they are being paid to lie. No matter how many facts they are presented with that show the errors in their statements or substantiate the scientific theories they are attcking, they don't care. They will simply wait a couple of weeks, slightly adjust the lies and start all over again.

The corporations that pay for this activity fulfill their stated goal of maximum short term profit for shareholders by using this advertising to continue the exploitation of the environment. Even when this is pointed out they simply reach for the good old, prove it (no matter how many times astroturf has been proven in the past) or, you are accusing them of lying because your theories have holes in it (regardless of how much science you show them).

So no theories work, no explanation works, no science works because they already know the truth, the are simply being paid to lie, so they lie. Too put an end to the deceit you simply have to find and target those paying for the deceit. As for Freeman Dyson, born December 15, 1923 ie. 85 years old, perhaps not quite as sharp or with as reliable a memory as he used to have, I certainly wouldn't chastise him for it, it is simply the way of things. Personally I prefer the work of a large group of diverse scientists in the prime of their intellectual lives 40 odd to 70 odd, specifically in science but not necessarily in philosophy.

Re:There is money and publicity

[DustyShadow]

The UK had its first snowfall in October in 74 YEARS!

Oh yea? Well so did New Orleans. Quite a big latitude difference there. It also snowed in Atlanta less three weeks ago. The winters seem to be getting colder everywhere.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"That is really incorrect.

It's not up to the media to decide what is a lie, it's up to the reader, it's the other half of the free speech thing but it's not as popular. If you can't look at an issue and deliberately question your own bias you will never be able to spot other people's lies that appeal to them. You will also never obtain a good understanding of the issue in order to make rational decisions.

Some quick examples that science usually wins the argument, if not the war.

1. Tabacco science.
2. Gaslight industry vs Edison.
3. Lead in petrol.
4. CFC's
5. Smog, (in the west).
6. The road toll, (in the west).

The political truth about AGW is there will be winners and losers no matter how the politician react. The science and economics says there are more losers from AGW than winners. The insurance industry were the first to recognise themselves as losers about a decade ago but most coporates now see themselves as losers and are demanding regulartory certainty in the form of an international cap and trade treaty. Even companies like woodside petroleum here in Oz are using the IPCC reports when risk managing their offshore wells.

OTHO it's becoming more certain the coal industry has only a couple of years left to demonstrate clean coal and avoid near extinction over the next 50yrs, it's kinda natural they are pissed off and lying through their teeth (especially here in Oz at the moment).

Re:There is money and publicity

[drmerope]

Huh? I think parent was mentioning that the CFCsOzone hole link has been fairly discredited in the past several years.

Re:There is money and publicity

[GodfatherofSoul]

The term Free Market doesn't indicate an absolute state. You're making a semantic argument. The problem is government took the approach that less regulation and intervention would pay off. So, they passed laws repealing Great Depression-era regulations and looked the other way when they couldn't get the votes to repeal laws. What happened? Corporate America used their new-found freedom to exploit their long leash.

And, as was predicted the federal government now finds itself in the position of bailing out this risky behavior.

Please don't try to redefine what Free Market means now that we're seeing how the ideology is falling on its face. That's called Rationalization, another term you're struggling to understand.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Archtech]

And that is why it is generally a lot safer to call it "climate change".

Re:There is money and publicity

[Rockoon]

Here is an observation for you.

The biggest attention getting papers are all using highly advanced (ie: hard to apply properly) statistical methods, which SHOULD be performed by experts in STATISTICS.

So here we are, letting novice statisticians convince us all that global warming is (A) real (B) man made, and (C) a threat...

...based on their practice in a field that they are not experts in.

...you were saying?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Rockoon]

So which field exactly is it that you must master in order to be a creadible expert on climate?

You claim its not physics, and it sure as hell isnt statistics (since NO climate scientist that I am aware of is an expert statistician) .. so what is it?

Re:There is money and publicity

[bit01]

Capitalism means government stays out of the economy completely.

No, capitalism without government is warlordism, might makes right.

Government is about stopping all the negative ways that people can compete (e.g. protection rackets, deceptive advertising, monopoly market manipulation, dangerous products, externalities such as pollution, child/vulnerable exploitation, violent crime) while still allowing positive competition (e.g. better products, cheaper prices, honest advertising, no spamming).

That doesn't mean that business people are absolved of any ethical responsibility for not competing positively. Government is just a backstop to control the sociopaths.

Being a human institution democratic government (one person, one vote versus one dollar, one vote) makes mistakes all the time but it's the best we've got.

---

Anonymous company communication is unethical and can and should be highly illegal. Company legal structures require accountability.

Re:There is money and publicity

[tick-tock-atona]

Your post displays breathtaking ignorance

..a majority of the scientists...

Of course, once upon a time the majority of scientists thought the earth was at the center of the universe.

No they didn't. The majority of people thought that the earth was at the centre of the universe. Of course this was before the discipline known as "science", the scientific method and all that comes with that. Most people used religion to explain the unknown and religion decreed that the earth was at the centre of the universe.

The majority of doctors and medical scientists believed that disease was caused by bad air and fought early pioneers and advocates of rigorous cleanliness in hospitals tooth and nail. The majority of cosmologists today believes that electricity plays no role whatsoever in the large-scale operation of the universe. Some of them will desperately oppose anyone who even breathes the word "electric" or "plasma" in connection with cosmology or astrophysics.

Since when has the majority had a corner on truth? Has it ever been? No? Well maybe the majority is wrong here also. When it comes to science, the stupidest thing I know of toward the validity of any scientific statement or argument is to invoke the majority.

The mistake you make here is to mistake the majority of evidence with the majority of people . In the examples you cite, scientific methods had not been devised, and so it is valid to claim them as examples of historical ignorance. In the case of global warming however, there is an enormous majority of evidence in favour of global warming, which is what climate scientists base their opinions on.

In the case of global warming, the majority is clearly wrong, once again, as usual. The Earth has cycled between warmer and cooler for ages. Where, for example, did all that carbon comes from that is stored in the fossil fuel we burn today and have yet to burn? How does the carbon, along with hydrogen become hydrocarbons? Why do we call it fossil fuel? Is that not all solar energy stored as chemical energy? What mechanisms converted and stored this chemical energy, if not photosynthesis? Today, plants get the carbon they need to grow from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Where did the plants of long-ago which we now burn in our gas tanks and power plants get their carbon dioxide they needed for the process of photosynthesis?

If we burned every possible gram a fossil fuel, would that not return Earth's conditions to what they were before the fossil fuels were formed in the first place?

Yes it might. Prior to the evolution of photosynthesis, approximately 3.4 billion years ago, the sun was up to 1/3 dimmer than it is now, however due to the effects of greenhouse gases (much higher than at any other time in earth's history), temperatures were comparable to today. Interestingly, carbonate rocks from this period are rare, as the oceans were far more acidic than they are now. So if we were to revert to this, say goodbye to pretty much the entire oceanic food chain, and possibly your ability to breathe.

If that happened suddenly, it would be rather catastrophic, but not if it took place over many generations of humans.

Once again, the changes from those conditions to today's took place over 3.4 billion years. We are seeing changes occur due to human activity on timescales which are several orders of magnitude shorter than this.

Please go and educate yourself on these issues - not just for your own sake, but for everyone else's too because your vote is worth the same as mine.

Re:There is money and publicity

[sumdumass]

A scheme failing to work doesn't mean it wasn't a scheme. As for the alternative energy sources making a profit, that generally only happens when energy costs are artificially high which would be the case with cap and trade in the EU as well as the bubble that busted last fall.

The EU has experienced about a 3% inflation rate over the last year. This is a little disturbing when you consider that Euro dollar is worth about 1.5 US dollars. Actually today it is 1.32 but on average over the last few years, it has been more to the point of 1.5 or so. That means the 3% inflation is more like 4.5% in the US. In contrast, the US inflation rate typically runs around 3% even though 2008 saw a 3.8% rate. Now the EU rates actually vary from member nation to member nation and I took the current average rate expressed by the HICP data availible which is measured in and adjusted to 2005 Euro dollars.

Anyways, the EU imposed several different energy tariffs and actually had a consumer rights deal worked out because their energy costs were too high for their poor to afford. Sadly, if the Obama Cap and trade system is put in place, we will see that in the US too. And yes, the US is already eyeballing tariffs to place on imports to ensure that we pay as much as possible.

Anyways, despite what you think is exculpatory evidence simply because something failed to materialize, all you have to do is ask a few questions and you can clearly see the idea isn't to stop global warming as much as it is to siphon money and alternative political agendas.

The first question might be, if global warming is so problematic and it is the human contributions to GHGs,- then why is the focus solely on limiting what people can do or by taking a sum of money from them instead of creating an international research group that does nothing but explores technology to reduce emissions, make alternative energy sources affordable, advance the state of plug in electric vehicles or perhaps small but efficient power generating systems like Fuel cells of hydrogen peroxide "on demand" charging systems, and then make those discoveries availible to any industry wishing to implement them while eventually phasing older systems out or retrofitting them as repairs become necessary.

Another question would be why aren't caps imposed on all Kyoto signatories instead of just the wealthy ones? Even if the caps settled on an over all larger amount of emissions on a world wide scale, the developing countries would be benefiting from advancements in efficiency and emissions controls from industrialized nations and we would be on a world wide effort to reduce emissions instead of attempting to punish just the rich nations.

Another question which I think is the most telling is with the caps, why isn't there a provision for one nation to implement changes in another as a means of capturing part of the carbon allotments. If the UK could contract with corporations in the US or Germany or France or China or whoever to upgrade to cleaner or more efficient systems, they should have the ability to claim ownership of some of the carbon offset by those upgrades. Lets say they can upgrade a facility and save 200 m-tons of emissions a year, and they can do that upgrade for $1000 per ton, that may be cheaper then purchasing 100 metric tons of carbon units from Tuvalu or the economic losses from exporting industry to India or China or where ever the hot spot might be that isn't restricted by carbon caps.

Finally, why isn't the goal to stop emissions. Sure, people think that is a goal but it has never been expressed in any political solution presently or previously at the table for consideration. All political solutions to date have contained only a reduction of emissions, most of them were reductions in increased emissions, and they all contained a way to buy your way out of obligations.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Troed]

I'm sorry, I think you need to re-read the link and the included citations. You've obviously not understood the contents.

(And neither has anyone who's moderated your post positively. Please verify before claiming someone is "informative")

Re:There is money and publicity

[sumdumass]

No, just about every affluent country has negative population growth. The total populations of affluent countries are increasing only due to immigration.

Well, yes and no. What your referring to is the natural growth rates. Well, I assume that is because your link which displayed information from Wikipedia wouldn't show anything but the links to Wikipedia for me. Anyways, the natural growth rate is currently around .8 to .9 percent for the US per year. The rest is immigration as you mention. The problem is that the growth rate is not exactly exponential, it is compounded and influenced directly by the immigration. So lets say that a real population increase is 2% but only .8% is natural growth. Lets also assume that we have 100 people. In the first year, we would have a total of 102 people with .8 of them being from live births and 1.2 of them being immigrants. But the next year, if things stay the same, we now have 2% of 102 people making it 104.2 people total with .83 of them natural and 1.25 being imported. So lets say this goes on for 10 years, using a simple compound interest calculation with the values of 100 at the start and 2% increase per year for 10 years, we end up with 121.9 people. That's a real growth of 21.9% over those 10 years. If after the 10 years we find the savings, then in 10 more years with the same numbers, we would have around 148.6 people. That's only another 21.9% or so increase but 10 years into the furter it would be a real 48% increase in population.

This is what makes it so difficult to go backwards like they attempted to do with Kyoto. In was out and offered roughly 8 years after the 1990 numbers were locked in, signing it, ratifying it, and starting to legislate it could reasonably take another 2 years. That would effectivly take the goal to ten years back but instead of starting with 100 people, you are starting with 121 people. Now if it takes ten years to realize the 30% emissions savings, you then have the 148 people using them. You haven't reached your goals yet.

Lets look at the http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_submenuId=population_0&_sse=on >USA's population. Now this is going to get a little sloppy because I had trouble finding population information from the same source and this site stops in 2008 which 2010 would fit better. Anyways, in 1990, the US's population was 248,709,873. In 2000 or 10 years later (symbolic of implementing Kyoto standards) the population was 281,421,906. A difference of 32,712,069 people or about 13% more people. The 2008 population says 304,059,724 or 55,349,851 more people then the 1990 levels. This is roughly 22% more people at the end of ten years (actually only 8 of the ten) working towards a ten year old number. Now here is the effect, if each person used x units of energy and produced 10 units of Carbon emissions a year and it took ten years to get a 20% reduction in emissions, we are only 2% under the 1990 levels. That can be negated in one or two years.

And the hard problem we have is that most all processes are at or near peak efficiency. There isn't much more that we can do outside of sequestering the emissions or removing it from the air directly. But again, I have to ask why are we even worrying about it when we don't care about the emissions of 70% or better of the rest of the world? We know that trees aren't the answer unless we cut the trees down and use them for something, we know that wind and solar are too costly at the moment, but all of that is moot when we don't care if there is an increase in total world emissions as long as it doesn't come from the wealthy nations.

I will go into why the immigration is so important when I answer the other

Re:There is money and publicity

[taucross]

Well said.

Becoming less wasteful and consuming only what you need may or may not benefit the Earth, but it will certainly benefit those who have to live on it.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Qrlx]

Multiple unpopular actions? Carter only tried to rescue the hostages once.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ChrisMaple]

Smog: depends on location. Los Angeles and most of the US, it's better. Same for London and Europe.

Ozone Layer: I'm not well-informed on this, but other posters are claiming that we've turned the corner.

Acid rain: Depends strongly on local conditions. Note that much of the early "acid rain" claims were based on lake acidity rather than direct measurement of rain, and lake acidity is increased by reforestation.

Global warming: So many people think it's a bad thing. I disagree.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Yokaze]

> It's the height of arrogance!

And what would you call judging experts on a matter at hand based on cursory knowledge of a matter?

Re:There is money and publicity

[mdarksbane]

I'm sick of this "global warming will decimate humanity" bullshit. Unless you actually meant the original meaning of decimate (to take one tenth) as opposed to the current standard usage.

If I accept that it is a problem, that it is caused by mankind, and that the ice caps will recede a bit and coastal areas will be flooded. (Right now I accept completely that they have observed a warming trend that could be linked to man-made carbon emissions and which may continue in the future.)

That in NO way correlates with destroying mankind. It correlates very strongly with yet another set of human migration waves which could potentially be very disruptive to economic purposes. But it could also just mean that we can grow a ton of grain in Alaska and the California desert becomes prime beach front real estate. Even the worst predictions I have seen will give people years to move and adjust. It's not like one day the whole ice cap is just going to be gone and a 100 foot wave will ride over Florida.

Humanity has been dealing with climate change for thousands of years. There have been many studies linking major historic and prehistoric migrations to natural differences in climate.

I'm not saying it's a good thing. But I see no reason people won't adjust. And in the mean time, I agree 100% with Dyson's argument that we need to make sure that we consider the real human cost of reducing CO2 emissions.

Re:There is money and publicity

[krou]

Except that it is happening suddenly in relative terms. How long does it take for oil and coal to be created (and in turn store carbon), and how quickly are we releasing it back into the atmosphere?

Current estimates place the process of creation of oil to be around hundreds of thousands of years. To try and claim that it's taking a long time in human years and thus will have little or no effect is disingenuous, considering that some already believe we're approaching (or have already approached) peak oil (ie. we've depleted approximately half of the world's oil reserves), and we've managed to achieve that in around 200 years.

And while I agree that quoting the "majority" as a reason is not a valid argument, your logic that the majority were wrong before therefore the majority are wrong now is a logical fallacy. Clearly the majority currently believe that the earth is NOT the centre of the universe, which demonstrates the absurdity of your argument.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Hognoxious]

Of course this was before the discipline known as "science", the scientific method and all that comes with that.

So can you tell me the precise date (am or pm) that science was invented and scientific method arrived at - and how?

And if "scientists" didn't previously believe the geocentric model (which at least some did, like Ptolemey), why all the fuss about Copernicus?

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

OK, we'll do another source. See, that's why I said you should google it yourself. That way, you could find a source you trust and maybe even educate yourself a little. Either way, here's Wikipedia:

The IPCC does not carry out research, nor does it monitor climate or related phenomena. A main activity of the IPCC is publishing special reports on topics relevant to the implementation of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC),[3] an international treaty that acknowledges the possibility of harmful climate change; implementation of the UNFCCC led eventually to the Kyoto Protocol. The IPCC bases its assessment mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific literature.[4] The IPCC is only open to member states of the WMO and UNEP. IPCC reports are widely cited in almost any debate related to climate change.[5][6] National and international responses to climate change generally regard the UN climate panel as authoritative.[7]

In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC.

Re:There is money and publicity

[squiggleslash]

Funny, I read the opposite. The "Popular" view on Climate Change is what you appear to believe, that it's almost certainly all the scientists being wrong again (cue utterly moronic "They all said the world was cooling in the 1970s!" line.)

The scientists are saying one thing. Politicians trying to be populist are saying they're wrong. Talk show hosts are saying they're wrong. For the most part, Dyson excepted (and this isn't his field) the "elderly distinguished scientists" are those saying the evidence is that Global Warming is real, and that the primary cause is likely to be human activity.

Asimov wouldn't have sided with Rush Limbaugh and the Cato Institute on this one.

Re:There is money and publicity

[ceoyoyo]

Having lots of knowledge in one field of science doesn't mean you're going to be good at doing research in another field, but familiarity with the scientific method and assessing scientific results does mean you should be able to asses the results and conclusions of research in other fields. If that's no the case then there are two possibilities:

1) your field isn't really science
2) the other field isn't really science.

Dyson may not have the experience to be immediately productive if he decided to become a climate researcher. I'd also be very careful about any positive conclusions he advanced in that field. But he's eminently qualified to look at the methodology and call into question whether the conclusions are justified by the research.

Re:There is money and publicity

[JWSmythe]

    Ya, decimate is one of those terms that's more often than not misused. For everyone else who has no clue, it's to remove 10% of whatever. As I've heard the Romans would do as punishment, they would kill every 10th person. I wasn't there, so I can't testify to that. :)

    I don't see any event, other than say the planet exploding, that would cause humanity to disappear. We may make it bad enough where a large portion doesn't survive though. Losing 10% wouldn't be catastrophic. Losing 90% wouldn't be so bad either. There are an awful lot of humans on the earth. I would just prefer not to fall into the categories of being one of the chosen lost, nor the person choosing them.

    With the population clusters that we have now, mass migration is a very bad thing. It wouldn't have been so bad with a tribe of even 100 people, but if a million move from one area to another, that's going to be catastrophic for the destination.

Re:There is money and publicity

[j_166]

"Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain."

Evidence: You only need to look at things that would not happen without government intervention to back this up. The fact is, there are things that the free market won't pay for because there is no profit motive, or no obvious immediate profit motive in them. Broadband penetration in the US is one example. 3G penetration in the US is another. There are vast areas of the country that will never be covered by broadband or 3G unless there is some sort of government intervention, simply because the cost of providing this coverage and associated maintenance outweighs the profit derived from providing it. This is where the free market breaks down.

Now, the larger problem with using the free market to solve the problems of the finance industry, in my estimation, is that the economy was never based on free market principles to begin with, largely because of the above mentioned breakdown of the free market. To attempt to solve its problem using free market principles would logically not work out for society (although it might indeed solve the immediate 'problem', but the damage to society would be too great because wealth would become ever more concentrated into the hands of the super wealthy).

In a truly free market, like attracts like, so money attracts money and poverty and debt attracts poverty and debt. This is something our society is trying to solve, as fairly as possible for both sides of the equation.

Re:There is money and publicity

[stdarg]

9% in ONE year versus 34% in 30 years seems "crappy" to you?

Re:There is money and publicity

[disputationist]

when your alternative is wage parity with taxi drivers, not such a bad choice. Rail on you rebel you.

Which taxi driver makes over 100K? He is a tenured professor. The point of tenure is that you can say what you think is right without being worried about your salary/livelihood.

Re:There is money and publicity

[JoshuaZ]

I linked to Wikipedia because the article contains a large number of good references as I explained. I did read the article before linking to it (It might have made sense to link to a stable version. I sometimes do that. I should do it all the time when linking to Wikipedia but ah well...). Also linked to a source other than Wikipedia for the main point I was making concerning when ozone monitoring started.

Moreover, the Wikipedia article contains a large amount of data about the matter, not just a specific issue.

Finally, the article you link to isn't even that relevant. The article you link to is primarily interested in why ozone levels are cyclic. As I explained in my earlier comment, the CFCs created a general reduction beyond that of the what occurs cyclically. The cause of the cycle isn't terribly relevant to that.

Re:There is money and publicity

[gwait]

If your information was true you might have had a point.

I've never heard that the oceans might be a source of Chlorofluorocarbons. A little surprising considering how contrary to the debate your claim would be.

A quick google on the subject did not find a single reference to your claim, in fact quite the opposite.

Many articles mentions techniques for the use of the absorption of CFC's into ocean currents as one possible tracer. If your claim was true then this would never work, the human generated ones would be swamped by the alleged ocean made ones.

Another article also states there are no natural sources of Chlorofluorocarbons.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=tFJRLhSez_YC&pg=PA236&lpg=PA236&dq=are+the+oceans+a+source+of+Chlorofluorocarbons&source=bl&ots=NQ_LTh4Zra&sig=d953hZLC8Pc8YRPnDo0bihSAp1g&hl=en&ei=FcfPSZmyGJCusQOu6cygAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

So I call bullshit. I don't need reminding that correlation is not causation. You need reminding that you should stick to the facts in a debate about science.

Re:There is money and publicity

[tie_guy_matt]

Hmmm, so what you are saying is that next time I read something on the internet I shouldn't bother to look to see if it is true or not? I should just sit on my ass and let the person saying it prove it to me? Should I then believe everything I read on the internet if the person writting it sounds plausable?

Look I made a statement, and then a couple of people asked for a source and suggested I made the entire thing up. I really wasn't starting an argument but I guess if my statement differs from your world view you might think that it was an argument.

Then I pointed out that if you go onto google you can see a bunch of references to my statement in peer reviewed journals and see that I wasn't making it up. Frankly I was in shock that someone would come to any conclusion at all about my statement without at least checking google first. But I guess it is easier to post something on slashdot asking someone to look something up for you than it is to actually look something up for yourself. Maybe that is why we have so many intellectually lazy people in this world.

Here is a little tip for you, if you see something on the internet and you aren't sure if it is true or not maybe it would be a good idea to see for yourself. Heck if you see something on the internet and you are pretty sure it is true maybe you should check anyway. Even if it sounds logical you can't believe everything you read on comments on slashdot. It is not up to someone else to hold your hand and show you how the world works.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Patch86]

I've never understood that argument. Most credible evidence points to the fact that recent rise in average global temperature is tied to greenhouse gas emissions. Whatever the causes for the changes in the past billions of years, that appears to be causing this particular bout.

And people say "oh, the earth is always turning itself from parched wasteland to giant snowy tundra and back again- it's natural". Natural or not, it's still not something I really want to experience ever so much, seeing as it'll probably mean the collapse of modern civilization, big death toll, genocide, that sort of thing...

I mean hell, even if we didn't cause it, I'd still quite like to find a way of stopping it. Mucking around with nature is supposed to be what we do best- can't we fix this and worry about who's to blame later?

Re:There is money and publicity

[Evil Pete]

Yes Dyson is a bright guy. I really admire his scientific creativity. But you know, that doesn't make him right.

The funny thing about most of the 'skeptics' is that they aren't really skeptics at all. They don't look at the real science and the real evidence. They choose a side based on a political or philosophical view. Well, you know the universe doesn't give a shit about that ... and it doesn't care if the food regions collapse and there is massive starvation. Perhaps you imagine that your imaginary friend in the sky will come and help or that the aliens will arrive and we will all be ok. Me ... I worry for my children and I wont accept this namby pamby anti-intellectual cop out if their lives and future are at risk.

OK, rant over.

Re:There is money and publicity

[gwait]

I agree with everything you're saying, and I'm also convinced human activity is behind both the rise in CO2 and the predicted global warming, and the extreme weather that would result.

Yet we can't let the ideologists/extremists turn the global warming scientific debate into a religious argument, that's not going to get everyone on board for a range of potential solutions.

It does seem that many in the climate research field are not being open minded about the many conclusions made so far, so it's not a bad thing that Dyson is challenging them to do a better job of proving the theories.

No scientist should ever say, "trust me, I'm right".

Re:There is money and publicity

[Hognoxious]

The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors

Now there's ironic, isnit?

Re:There is money and publicity

[atraintocry]

The majority of scientists (in this field) believe that the evidence supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming. This isn't science vs. the people.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686#

Obviously "more study is needed". It's happening as we speak. But the reality is that no matter how good your figures are, the politicians will twist it around. But at least for me, I'd rather listen to what the actual scientists are saying. And what they're saying is that an alternative hypothesis that fits better with the data doesn't exist. Many have been tried, of course.

Note that Dyson does not have any data here, he is whining about not being taken seriously by the scientific mainstream, vaguely criticizing the methods of a generation of scientists, and basically making the assumption that because he's the underdog, he's at least "useful" if not correct.

But the nice thing about science is that the evidence decides if you're correct. Clarke's law is, of course, not an actual "law" of physics but the observations of a (granted, brilliant) science fiction author. It is too general to help us here.

Re:There is money and publicity

[bhiestand]

Certainly NOT flamebait. Moderations like this are why a can't believe anything you man made global warming types say.

Comments like this are why we can't accept criticism from you "can't believe anything we man made global warming types say" types as intellectually honest.

Re:There is money and publicity

[atraintocry]

In case someone didn't want to read all that:

• This is somehow all about Israel
• Kyoto is politically motivated, and also imperfect
• We're still 'outsourcing' social costs like pollution to the third world (what a shock!)
• omg socialism
• Politicians are politically motivated
• Solar power sucks because it was invented a long time ago

Nobody gives a crap about Kyoto *now*. You think people are going to care more about it when the polar ice caps are gone, and we have much larger problems to deal with? At one point you say "even if global warming is real". So I can understand why you think this is a lot of scaremongering. All I can suggest is that you read more on the topic. The science side of it, since you seem to be well versed in the history/politics.

Global temperatures have been increasing. No, it's not increased solar output. No, it's not just natural cycling: past climate trends have had satisfactory explanations outside of human activity, these do not. Yes, there is a consensus (cf. survey studies by Schulte and Oreskes). No, they don't have it backwards and the globe is cooling off. And so on and so on. The science is out there if you care to read it. And Dyson being an underdog doesn't automatically make him right. Neither does the politically-charged nature of Kyoto. You are basing your view about what is happening physically on the political response to it. That needs to be reversed.

Also, please read up on solar power. Photovoltaics date back to the 1950s, not the 1800s. And every decade has seen improvements to the cost and effectiveness of solar power. It is by no means "outdated" or the dead end that you proclaim it to be.

Re:There is money and publicity

[budgenator]

Wow, references to the lay popular press really supports any complex scientific debate! I do admit that PBS's Nova is the elite of the lay science press.

Re:There is money and publicity

[budgenator]

You know I read the article and I failed to see where Dyson stated a position that he thought either the globe was warming, cooling or in an effective steady state; nor did he state where any possible temperature were anthropogenic or not. What I did see was that he thought that the science as it stands has an over reliance on computer modeling and that AGW has become a religious dogma.

It would be a shame if we missed the opportunity to prevent a catastrophe because the scientists supporting the position were too self-assured to actually do enough good science to convince their opponents.

Re:There is money and publicity

[EastCoastSurfer]

Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work, at least, it doesn't work unless you happen to be at top of the corporate food chain. In a previous century they called that laissez faire [reference.com], and it didn't work.

A free market works fine when it is free. What we have now is a bastard child of regulated and free that we are getting the worse of both worlds from. No free market would have a government setting interest rates and printing money at will. The very base of our economy (money) is not free (and hasn't been for a long time) and it is one of the main drivers of the mess we are now in.

Re:There is money and publicity

[budgenator]

Actually CFC's were only banned in developed countries which had the technological ability to recover the CFC's from the equipment using them; they are still allowed in third world countries that are most likely to release the CFC's into the atmosphere during equipment repair or disposal.

Re:There is money and publicity

[arminw]

....the sun was up to 1/3 dimmer....
That is pure conjecture with no evidence whatsoever. What known mechanism is put forth that would reduce the power output of the sun by a third? If the sun is indeed powered by hydrogen fusion, as is commonly assumed today, what would slow down the fusion reaction by one third, or conversely what would make it go faster today? If the power output of the sun were to change by such a large amount, its spectrum also would have to change unless the sun got significantly larger as well. As it turns out, the process of photosynthesis is finely tuned to the wavelengths of light in the solar spectrum. This fine tuning is mainly in the strength of the electrochemical bonds involving the carbon atom, not only in living things simply adopting to the altered spectrum of the sun.

Be that as it may, the fact is that the temperature of the Earth was considerably warmer than it is today, yet well within the parameters of, in fact more favorable to living things than today. With the rate of present-day consumption, it would take centuries for humanity to consume enough of the stored fossil fuels to return all that carbon to the air where it could be used by plants. So even IF global warming is real and caused by people burning fossil fuel, it could only be beneficial for the whole planet, provided it happens slowly and not all at once. As the Earth and its atmosphere became warmer, humidity, everywhere even in deserts would rise dramatically, taking up much of if not all the water now locked up in glacial ice. In fact, taking a look at an undersea map of the whole globe, it is possible to see the course of great rivers such as the Amazon, the Nile, the Mississippi and others carved across the continental shelf and falling into the abysmal depths of the ancient oceans. This means that the ocean levels were much lower than they are today.

(...Once again, the changes from those conditions to today's took place over 3.4 billion years. We are seeing changes occur due to human activity on timescales which are several orders of magnitude shorter than this. ...)
OK, let's assume a factor of 100 speed up, so even then we are still talking about 34 million years, not centuries the global warming alarmists keep talking about. Even with a factor of a thousand, it would still take over 3 million years which is an unimaginable timescale for us humans.

Re:There is money and publicity

[arminw]

...Depending on the degree of change it causes, it will probably require a lot of expensive engineering though....

If the change took place over three or four centuries, all our engineering and infrastructure would have to be renewed anyway. Most man-made things, including durable things like hydroelectric dams generally don't last that long. The United States alone is enough coal, that the present use rate, would last at least 300 years. If we humans don't incinerate ourselves before then, we might have learned to come up with a way to live in peace and develop renewable energy sources or even thermonuclear fusion.

A uniformly warmer Earth would be a blessing rather than a curse. Do you really think that it would be considered a negative if bananas would grow in North Dakota or tomatoes above the Arctic Circle? Increased warmth would allow the entire atmosphere of the earth to hold a huge amount of water, possibly even lowering the level of the world's oceans by more than the melting glacial ice could raise them. Has anyone ever done a calculation how much water would be suspended in the Earth's atmosphere if its average temperature at sea level were, for example, 70 F.?

Re:There is money and publicity

[theNAM666]

Hello. ^^^ I would presume that those of us who know the difference are not commenting ;)

Re:There is money and publicity

[Zoxed]

> There's big money in pushing global warming, too.

Where ? And is it bigger than oil, motoring, excessive consumption ?

Re:There is money and publicity

[kauttapiste]

If we burned every possible gram a fossil fuel, would that not return Earth's conditions to what they were before the fossil fuels were formed in the first place? If that happened suddenly, it would be rather catastrophic, but not if it took place over many generations of humans.

Wtf? No! Are you serious?

Re:There is money and publicity

[sumdumass]

In case someone didn't want to read all that:

You really have no reading compregension skill do you? The mere mentioning of Israel was nothing but ancillary information to set the time line. If any weight was put on Israel over what I said, it was purely because of your reading into it and most likely your guilt somehow not letting you settle.

As for outsourcing pollution being a shock, it fucking should be. Is the global warming rallying cry not something about Co2 destroying the world or making it uninhabitable and unhospitable to humans? If any of that is remotely true, then shifting it from person A to person B is not a fix even though it is somehow being proclaimed to be. The point that you seem to be missing is that the mandated actions do nothing to solve or relieve the problem that brought the actions out. It would be like all the sudden they said you had to make love to your dog,- sure your doing something but it has absolutely no effect on global warming.

Kyoto, socialism, political motivation, those are the key elements of the scam. If a society goes into a socialist contract with it's members, that fine and dandy, if that society is tricked into that environment of fake OMG the world is going to end scares, then that is no different then you taking your car to the service center for an oil change and them telling you that it needs $5000 in sensors and other repairs when there isn't a damn thing wrong with it. I know, your a douche and don't own a car because oil changed always seem to cost 5 grand, but the point is still there whether you take it willingly or not.

Oh yea, solar power sucks because it's too damn expensive and couldn't compete with traditional energy source even back when it was inflated to 3 times it's value. The point about it being old is that solar is somewhat well established and we are about to the point of efficiency without some major breakthrough. Solar simply will not be competitive without some new major advancement. You won't be able to manufacture the costs must lower, you aren't going to get much more efficiency with current tech, and with the need of storage and inverters, it will always be at a disadvantage.

Nobody gives a crap about Kyoto *now*. You think people are going to care more about it when the polar ice caps are gone, and we have much larger problems to deal with? At one point you say "even if global warming is real". So I can understand why you think this is a lot of scaremongering. All I can suggest is that you read more on the topic. The science side of it, since you seem to be well versed in the history/politics.

Actually people do give a crap about Kyoto and in the context of the post, it was more then appropriate. Context is something you seem to be missing though. I don't know why it is a problem for you, but the entire post was set to a time line and even if Kyoto isn't important today, it was during the time line. More importantly, the reason people don't care about it today is because it has been exposed as a scam that did nothing to limit the flow of Co2 into the atmosphere. The fact that people don't care any more predicates that the entire process was/is and still is little more then a scam. You do understand what a scam is right? That's when someone tricks you into doing something your expecting to benefit from but they withhold the benefits.

BTW, the Even if Global warming is real was a qualifier to state that the failures in the political solutions and the hijacking for ulterior reasons doesn't negate any evidence of global warming. This goes back to that context thing that you have demonstrated the inability to handle. If X-1=a+b then any perversion of a or b would not necessarily corrupt X, it would just means that in the context used, X-1!=a+b or X-1=(a+b)-any_perversions. The point is, the political hijacking doesn't change the first part of the equation, it is still X-1. If X-1 is bad at all, then it is our duty,

Re:There is money and publicity

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Detailed global circulation models that predict climate accurately are still young. You are correct that we cannot tell definitively what will happen everywhere.

However, the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere is well understood. And the rate at which CO2 is being added to the atmosphere is also well understood. And the gross changes in earth's thermal radiation is also well known.

So we have ideas about what will happen. Ice caps melting at the poles, which raises sea levels and might change ocean currents. Warmer surface waters in the tropics, which is expected to increase storm frequency and intensity.

Do we keep on adding more CO2 to the atmosphere as if none of those effects will happen? Or do we change course?

Re:There is money and publicity

[ArcherB]

"the REAL facts"

In most cases this term is followed by bullshit, your post is no different.

"how could it REBUILD itself naturally in a couple of decades, what took millions/billions to do the first time?"

1) The point is it that the "hole" has stopped growing.

2) The ozone "hole" MAY have started to repair itself.

"Because they are trying to save their jobs."

Can we drop this bullshit, it just an excuse to put your fingers in your ears and make stupid noises. IPCC scientists do not get paid for their work on the reports. The IPCC budget is a total of $5-6 million/yr donated by 300+ nations of all political pursations, most of it goes on plane fares for lead chapter authors and confrence rooms.

First, here is where I get that the ozone is rearing itself, source cited earlier:

Over the course of two to three months, approximately 50% of the total column amount of ozone in the atmosphere disappears. At some levels, the losses approach 90%. This has come to be called the Antarctic ozone hole.

In spring, temperatures begin to rise, the ice evaporates, and the ozone layer starts to recover.

the IPCC is a UN agency. Here is what you said about the UN in another thread:

Yes, and that is exactly what happens with "citizens" of Earth at the UN, of course the only power the UN has got is held by the 5 permanent members who religiously veto their own pawns. If you believe your own freedom rhetoric and follow it to it logical conclusion, you will discard the prosters call to censor the OIC and at the same time applaud the UN for (ironically) allowing the OIC to stand up and speak for themselves.

So, which one is it? The UN is good when they say something you like. The UN is bad when they say something you don't like. Please, try to be consistent.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Mr. Firewall]

Detailed global circulation models that predict climate accurately are still young.

No, they are nonexistent. There are no models that accurately predict climate.

However, the physics of CO2 in the atmosphere is well understood.

Yes, such as the fact that Earth's current concentration of CO2 is already near its asymptote for heat absorption, and increasing -- even doubling -- the amount of atmospheric CO2 will make a difference that is very near zero.

Do we keep on adding more CO2 to the atmosphere as if none of those effects will happen? Or do we change course?

Considering that the only way to "change course" involves killing hundreds-of-millions to billions of human beings, and condemning the rest to a pre-Industrial-age existence with all of its attendant poverty and disease, I vote for the former.

There is simply NO way to avoid adding CO2 to the atmosphere without destroying civilation. And it won't do a damn thing to global temperatures, since those are caused by changes in solar radiation, not by carbon dioxide.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Mr. Firewall]

Global Warming: A theory based reams of data with the support of a majority of the scientists who have worked in the field of climate studies.

<loud buzzer> WRONG.

First of all, we're not dealing with a single theory here. We are dealing with three different statements*, only one of which is true.

Secondly, the sum of the three statements is believed by only a tiny minority of scientists (meaning: climatologists actively working in, or retired from actively working in, the field).

The idea that "the vast majority" of climatologists agrees with the Global Warming Alarmists is pure bunk. Just because a majority of scientists agree with the first statement does NOT mean that they agree with all three statements.

-----------

*

1. "The Earth has warmed over the last 150 years" (true)
2. "This is caused by humans emitting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere" (partially true; the human contribution is extremely tiny)
3. "It will cause an environmental apocalypse" (100% false)

Re:There is money and publicity

[atraintocry]

I don't understand why you will fight tooth and nail to insist that global warming is real and exists in the way all the hype is claiming

It's not that disagree with you about the reasoning behind Kyoto, or the effectiveness of selling carbon credits. But neither of those things have anything to do with what is presently happening. That you fear the political implications does not suddenly transform good science into hype and FUD. It would be better for me if I contented myself with the idea that AGW is some "vast left-wing conspiracy". I have too much to worry about in my own life. But that's not how it works.

I suspect that you are going with your gut on this one rather than looking at the empirical evidence, which very clearly shows warming. There are decades of measurements from weather stations, satellites, weather balloons as high as the stratosphere, ocean temperatures both from the surface and the depths, rising water levels, loss of sea ice, increased hurricane activity, melting permafrost, expanding lakes, changing ocean currents and jet streams, and tropical life moving away from the equator. People live out in the middle of nowhere so that every day they can gather this data. So who do I trust on whether the earth is warming? Not Gore, not Rumsfeld, not you, not me. Them.

If someone came to me and showed that data to be wrong, then I'd concede that it was "brainwashing". But that's a tall order. Dyson's a smart guy, and his main beef is with the accuracy of the models that are showing/predicting global warming. Sounds reasonable enough. But here are a few things that he likes to leave out:

- No one has come up with a model that accurately predicts past and current climate trends without accounting for human CO2 production. That includes Dyson. It's not that these other models don't exist, it's that they're not as accurate.
- James Hansen and others have been able to predict the last 20 years of climate changes for the various layers of atmosphere with amazing accuracy.
- The models tend to be conservative, and where they get it wrong, it's because they fail to predict just how much the warming is capable of accelerating.

Science deals with the physical world. I don't even know what the hell politics deals with. But I know that when you mix the two, bad things happen. So if you want to know the truth, go straight to the source. I'm not the source, though, and either way I'm done with this. Done with the name-calling, as if desperately calling someone brainwashed has the power to change reality. I'd say, "let's wait and see" but I have a feeling you're just going to continue to interpret things in whatever way you please.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Lost Engineer]

The repeal of Glass-Stegall allowed banks like Citigroup to buy CDOs, but it didn't create them or even change the they were (not) regulated. AIG, for instance, would have been able to do what it was doing regardless. On the other hand, the repeal did allow banks to merge after the crash in ways that would have previously illegal, creating needed flexibility.

Re:There is money and publicity

[Lost Engineer]

The problem with your argument is that the provisions GS that GLB repealed were actually pro-cyclical. Notice that when the Fed did choose to intervene they were not worried about separating holding companies from investment banks. On the contrary they were actively engineering their mergers.

Re:There is money and publicity

[TapeCutter]

"In other words, the IPCC picks and chooses the data that will push the agenda of its supporting members (Kyoto, for example) and backs up the UNFCCC."

Yes it informs the UNFCCC, how many nations in the UNFCCC? I'll leave that as an exercise but the IPCC has 300 odd memeber nations, look it up in the financial records available by searching for "budget" on their site (it's a research method called the original source). Yes, there are a handfull of nations that do not CONTRIBUTE but that has fuck all to do with kyoto. The IPCC is a "state of the science" report written by thousands of scientists using thousands of peer-reviewed papers as input, the papers must be at least a year old so that scientists have time to digest them and see any counter arguments. It's nothing less than a giant fucking textbook that is 2yrs out of date when published. The improbability of getting that many experts to agree on anything virtually dictates that the reports will be scientifically conservative.

In other words it's one of the largest, longest running, and most rigorous, peer-review excercises ever undertaken.

Now before you troll me again with politics we have to agree there is a problem, if you disagree there is a problem then I need to see some extrodinary scientific evidence that one or more of the three basic claims in "the consensus" is either false or exagerated. Since I have been following this shit for 25+yrs I think you will have a hard time but if I didn't look at contra-evidence then I wouldn't be a skeptic would I?

And please, I'm not interested in dragging around red-herrings, give me something orginal, all you have done so far is played the part of the shop keeper in monty python's dead parrot sketch.

As I said before, there is no point in discussing the politics of the issue if you refuse to accept the scientific evidence in favour of your dogmatic belief that (all?) science is agenda driven. Your insistence that it's some sort of conspiracy indicates you have not reasoned yourself into your position. Experience tells me it's unlikely I can reason you out of it since you're the only one who can question your own political dogma with any effectiveness (re: sig below).

You will never understand the problem by analysing the politics but you can often understand the politics by analysing the problem.

This nerd with a lame hat will set you straight, no politics, plain english and way more information that you want. Go to the "no holds barred #1" clip if you want to see a good rundown of where I'm coming from with the IPCC.

One more thing. Your statement that it's closed to non-kyoto nations is bullshit, there are a truckload of scientists and organisation from the US (a non-kyoto nation), including but not limited to NAS, NAAS, NASA, NOAA. Do you even know what the letters WMO stand for?

Re:There is money and publicity

[sumdumass]

OK, your still not seeing it, I will give it another try and I will attempt to be a little more civil this time. But before we get started, I want you to read this article to get an idea of the issues I'm talking about.

It's not that disagree with you about the reasoning behind Kyoto, or the effectiveness of selling carbon credits. But neither of those things have anything to do with what is presently happening. That you fear the political implications does not suddenly transform good science into hype and FUD. It would be better for me if I contented myself with the idea that AGW is some "vast left-wing conspiracy". I have too much to worry about in my own life. But that's not how it works.

The issue is that the science is directly connected to the politics and when you see an attack on the politics, you are taking it as an attack on the science. I originally made no reference to the science behind global warming and even stated it was independent of my argument when I made mention to the "even of it is happening, the so called solutions aren't addressing the claimed problem and all of them have been hijacked for political manipulation and gain" Now those aren't my exact words, but it's close enough. You took that as an attack on the science without any consideration of what was actually said or the context in which it was said.

And it isn't just you, when a journalist quote or represent conclusions or statements of the science and people point out their flaws or unsupported statements, it is taken as an attack on the science. Gwynne Dyer said in an Op-ed back in 2005 over an interpreted a statement from James Lovelock concerning global warming "it would cause a massive human die-off" Lovelock's state actually was "Unless we stop now, we will really doom the lives of our descendants. If we just go on for another 40 or 50 years faffing around, they'll have no chance at all, it'll be back to the Stone Age. There'll be people around still. But civilization will go." So does the science affirm that there _will_be_ a massive human die off or then end of civilization? No, it doesn't those are opinions and interpretations of possibilities. The science doesn't exactly rule it out but it doesn't rule out aliens coming in with some laser refrigerator large enough to cool the planet with technology unimaginable to us and thereby saving the world either. Yet when criticizing those comments, We are labeled as "deniers" and attacked by people like you for being stupid and not knowing science as if the science actually does say civilization will be destroyed in 50 for certain. But some how, we should be prosecuted like Nazi war criminals as David Roberts suggests with this comment. "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg."

Now, knowing that in today's environment the politics and the science can't be separated, you end up with scientific conclusions or statements made for the purpose of furthering the politics. Germany's Environment Minister, Jürgen Trittin claimed that Katrina was caused by Global Warming stating the the US had to sign Kyoto and refused to back down on the statement even after the science and scientists said it had nothing specific to do with global warming.

But wait, it gets better because now we only have two months to save the world. Does the Science actually say that if we don't act within two month, we will definitely see the "killing or making refugees of billions of people in Asia, Africa and America"? Does the science even speak of ""The first offers must come from the rich countries lik

Re:There is money and publicity

[MaskedSlacker]

What the hell?

I'm not redefining anything--read any economics textbook from the time of Adam Smith (hint: 230 years ago) on. It will tell you exactly what I said: that a free market is a market which meets certain specific conditions, particularly transparency and mobility--and that when those conditions are met the market can be modelled in a convenient mathematical fashion.

The ones who changed the definition were the Republicans--you'll certainly get me to agree that their ideology is falling on its face because they promoted a conditional conclusion to the status of axiom and repeated it until they were blue in the face without ever actually understanding it. The republicans are to the free market what the Soviet Union was to socialism--a gross perversion derived from a lack of intellectual rigor.

Your Orwellian effort to claim that I am rationalizing an ideology that I was criticizing is bizarre.

Repent now, the end is near

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Anonymous Coward]

In fairness it will only keep on not happening until the day it does happen.

AKA, it's not a matter of "if."

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[StartledGnu]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

"Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results"

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Adrian Lopez]

The world will go on, but humanity might not.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Every single measurement of the "climate" is not a unrelated sources. There are no climatologist suggesting the end of anything. A few feet of water and a few degrees and perhaps some rain pattern changes *worst case*. How the hell is that going to even get close to end of the world bunk?

Re: Repent now, the end is near

[Alwin Henseler]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

That holds true whatever we do. If mankind would turn this planet into a radioactive, toxic wasteland that's uninhabitable for humans or animals, we might just succeed in making ourselves extinct (like the dinosaurs). Given enough time, environmental conditions would change/improve and other lifeforms would rule the planet. 'Mother earth' will be fine regardless.

But perhaps it's better to look at climate change as a simple cost problem. Raised CO2 levels might cause higher global temperatures, sea level rise, more often occuring weather extremes, droughts, crop losses etc. And from that: property damage, hunger disasters, armed conflicts and so on. The total of all these effects could be a huge price to pay, if ignored.

The problem is 2-fold:

• It's often impossible to calculate all actual costs / benefits for any of your actions, due to the many (invisible) factors/effects involved, and
• Much of that cost will be paid by other people than the ones doing the damage. That's true for many environmentally-destructive activities.

So is there an optimum, and how to determine it? Simple answer: perhaps, but impossible to calculate, or enforce. All you can do is make educated guesses, and stay on the safe side.

But IMHO there's nothing wrong with doing that as much as possible. If you build a new house or office building, make it as energy-efficient as reasonably possible (using existing tech or innovate along the way). If you buy a new car, make the fuel-efficiency among your top priorities, regardless of current fuel prices. If you have to route traffic trough an existing forest, build eco-friendly railroad first, before putting down a 5-line highway.

And what's optimal then? My guess is somewhere between 'going overboard' and 'relaxed, gradual, pro-active measures'. To be decided by improving ways to calculate total, real costs, and charging those parties causing them.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[smoker2]

It won't with that attitude.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[eyv]

Well, end-of-the-world theories are unfalsifiable. Always bet against the end of the world -- you can't spend the money if you bet on it and win.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Dreadneck]

Not if it's a 24-hour clock.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Main Gauche]

I agree. Let's abandon realism for our own good.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[binary paladin]

We've killed God around here so people need some fiction to replace it. The people around here, for instance, have global warming. (And when that's not enough, someone always starts up a conversation about superior programming styles or paradigms, which is far more religious than any tent revival I've ever seen.)

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[orzetto]

First off, no one has ever said that "global warming will mark the world's end". Its consequences are claimed to be very expensive to handle, involve lots of suffering, massive displacements of populations and annexed refugee problems (see recent Bangladesh flooding pattern).

Second, it is also funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is just fine:

• Don't worry, that horse is a sign of the gods! Break the wall to let it pass!
• Barbarians? How could that be a problem for the largest empire of the world?
• Nah, the Turks are only talking—we Armenians will just have to endure some insults, like all the other times, that's all.
• They've been persecuting us for almost two millennia now, yet we're still here.
• Ivan, run this test tomorrow night on reactor 4. Stop whining about safety, nothing bad ever happened before.
• Levee maintenance? Oh please, every how many years do we get a Cat 5?

Predicting doom may or may not be right. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not. It is the merit of the question that has to be addressed, and if the consequences are claimed to be serious it should be a case for increased attention, not discredit.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[binary paladin]

Which is exactly what every other fanatic would say. There's a reason people can go on selling snake oil until hell freezes over: statements like that will whip the gullible into a frenzy time and time again.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Jurily]

FTFA:

I dont think of myself predicting things, he says. Im expressing possibilities. Things that could happen. To a large extent its a question of how badly people want them to. The purpose of thinking about the future is not to predict it but to raise peoples hopes."

That man really is a genious.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Cyberax]

"A few feet of water and a few degrees and perhaps some rain pattern changes *worst case*"

How about "dustbowls in USA every single year" bad?

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[fastest fascist]

I haven't seen anyone sane saying the world will end, or even that humans will rapidly go extinct, just that climate change will cause many changes, potentially threatening food production, water supplies, causing political destabilization etc, generally changing much of the world as we know it. In other words, what's being said is things could get quite difficult.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Not end of the world bad. Ironically a lot of these kind of problems are caused by bad farming practices (aka 1930s dustbowl), which gets very little attention these days.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[CyprusBlue113]

Not that I am agreeing with the global warming thoughts, but your counterargument is a fallacy

You could say the same thing over the course of life of a lightbulb, if you knew of only one bulb, that it had worked forever and everyone keeps saying it is going to burn out, but you haven't seen it happen yet. That doesn't change the fact that you are limited by scope and will not see it until it happens, and in this case, it invariably will happen.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[rubycodez]

nah, that's the message the climatologist were preaching in the recent drought, before that they were saying more rain. At the moment we have flooding, and they'll go back and cook their books and say "see, we predicted this with 4 out of our 12 best models"

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Cyberax]

Of course, it's not the "end of the world" in the sense of "the Earth is destroyed", but in practical terms it'll be VERY bad.

There's a good article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming - some effects are ALREADY very visible (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming#Acidification is my favorite).

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Cyberax]

Can you provide quotes of relevant articles?

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[bakuun]

Well, how do you feel when your temperature goes up "a few degrees"?

Anyway, the earth will be fine. Humankind is in deep trouble if we don't seriously get moving, but the planet is fine. :)

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Hal_Porter]

Second, it is also funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is just fine:

• Don't worry, that horse is a sign of the gods! Break the wall to let it pass!
• Barbarians? How could that be a problem for the largest empire of the world?
• Nah, the Turks are only talking—we Armenians will just have to endure some insults, like all the other times, that's all.
• They've been persecuting us for almost two millennia now, yet we're still here.
• Ivan, run this test tomorrow night on reactor 4. Stop whining about safety, nothing bad ever happened before.
• Levee maintenance? Oh please, every how many years do we get a Cat 5?

Predicting doom may or may not be right. Sometimes it happens, sometimes it does not. It is the merit of the question that has to be addressed, and if the consequences are claimed to be serious it should be a case for increased attention, not discredit.

This post has finally convinced me that global warming is a serious problem.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Doctor Morbius]

You can't kill something that doesn't exist.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Kohath]

And everything is perfect now?

Why is it guaranteed that when things get "quite difficult" it's worse than the difficulties we currently have? Or the difficulties we'll have if we "fix" global warming?

You're promising a worse future if we do something and a better future if we do something else. Why should we believe you can predict these outcomes accurately?

The world's climate and economy and social and political systems are complex. The global warmenists would have you believe they've mastered the understanding of all of them together and can navigate toward the best possible outcome, predicting events and steering a course 20 years in advance. They haven't. They can't.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[binary paladin]

I agree.

But since, at a minimum, the concept exists, it can be killed and replaced. Whether or not an actual being or deity exists isn't relevant in this context. All that matters is that humans are all too willing to be religious whether it's God, global warming, OS X or Emacs.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[n dot l]

Funny how since the beginning of history, groups of people have been claiming that the world is going to end. And it keeps not happening.

That depends on your definition of "world". Sure, the planet's still here, but there are a lot of cities, religions, races, and empires (in essence: ways of life) which have died or been destroyed. If your civilization was where a desert is now, and you're watching the unending drout destroy everything you know, how do you express that? Or if you see that your nation's trade is falling apart, the military is too small, the people are as likely to start killing and looting each other as they are to band together to pull through a crisis, the barbarians are massing at the borders, and the emperor won't do a goddamn thing because he's off having a drunken orgy with his friends?

Honestly, it comes down to this: if you are about to die, and everything you know about the world - everything you have worked to build - is about to vanish, then what's the difference, from your point of view, between the whole world ending or just your tiny little corner of said world?

If we're going to make the implicit assumption that the past keeps repeating, then may I point out that no civilization has ever survived intact forever. At best they are replaced by something vaguely similar, but even then only after periods of chaos and suffering on a monumental scale. At worst we find a stone tablet somewhere praising king X for wiping out every man, woman, and child in neighboring city Y in only a day.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[sumdumass]

The issues as I see it is that those problems won't happen over night. They will be gradually phased in over time and humans are more then capable of adapting and engineering around nature.

You know, it isn't much different then florida, it's water table is severely close to the surface yet we have buildings with basements. It gets pounded with several hurricanes each year and after the mid 80's (Ivan I think) the building codes were adjusted and now the buildings are damaged instead of destroyed. Warning systems have been put in place and now people have time to evacuate the dangers as they come buy as well as places to go. Florida still is one of the top agriculture producing states in the US.

Yet when people start talking about dealing with the effects of global warming instead of mitigating the problems, they are called shills for BigOil, idiots and so on. New Orleans was a failure of government to act and/or act properly. There is no reason to believe that in 100 years when the oceans have risen 3 foot that dams and levies can't be in place, that building codes won't reflect the new environment or that people won't be farming new lands and producing food in places it hasn't been before. Humans adapt, we have this ability to not only use tools but to think about the use of a tool and build better tools to use. It's not like one day we will wake up and realize that no one did anything.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[aleatory_story]

Between billions of years of planetary bombardment by comets/asteroids/meteors, worldwide floods, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, recurring ice ages, black holes... it's only a matter of time. If anything, we aren't paranoid enough considering not only our world but the universe's natural tendencies toward destruction. We as a species haven't been here long.

Now, onto the OT: is it really worth it to gamble on something like global warming? We obviously aren't going to be colonizing any other planets soon. We might as well try to take care of this one as best as we can. It's for our own survival. Even if it's a .001% chance that Al Gore's vision of global warming is correct, I say we heed it anyway. Maybe that's not a logical position for a scientist, but it is a logical position for a human being.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[dontmakemethink]

However there are numerous examples of the propagation of fear for the purpose of controlling the masses. 9/11 is dubious at best, no WMD's were found in Iraq, and there is no tangible evidence that greenhouse gasses represent a significant cause of global warming compared to a natural phenomenon. The Earth has been much warmer in the past and had much higher CO2 levels prior to industrialization, which is exactly why dinosaurs were so enormous, they needed enormous air cavities to extract sufficient oxygen.

I am still an environmental advocate, since there is also no reason to make things any worse, but really, do Americans actually have anything to fear from Iraqis or "terrorists"? There are plenty of those who benefited immensely and are capable of perpetrating such frauds on the American public. I don't claim that's what happened, I merely do not accept the story fed us by Fox news unchallenged, and there are too many unexplained holes.

Re: Repent now, the end is near

[Dr. Spork]

Much of that cost will be paid by other people than the ones doing the damage.

So let me guess: Your remedy for this is to have the industrialized countries take out a loan and buy up acres of solar panels. Yes, your children will thank you, because now it won't be 1.5 degrees warmer as they perform their indentured service.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Humankind has weathered worse. And will survive this without that much effort really.

I the next few 100 years I pretty sure we give ourself far bigger direct problems that climate change. We did in the last 100 years thats for sure

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[BlackSabbath]

"A few feet of water"
- can mean massive problems for those in the Pacific islands, Holland, London and other very low lying areas, or where they are already fighting to keep water out.

"a few degrees"
- of the *average*. Says nothing about minima/maxima. But can be the difference between crops being viable or not. Can be the difference between methane laden permafrost staying frozen or not. Can mean much less Arctic sea ice, massively reducing the albedo/reflectivity provided by the ice cover (the last two we are actually seeing and are reinforcing GW).

"some rain pattern changes"
- can mean that rainfall no longer falls over catchment areas (we're seeing this a lot in south-east Australia). Urban areas can easily become unviable in such circumstances (or alternatively resort to building massive desal plants like we are).

No one is predicting the "end of the world". But claiming that "a few degrees" has no effect just trumpets your ignorance.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Oh we managed to end sea food as we know it without climate change. Commercial fisheries the world over are in deep dodo.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

The context was end of the world predictions, and yes just look at some of the reply s. People really think there will be no more humans or we will be in a new stone age after the effect of climate change.

When did I say the change won't have any effect? I never said the effects would be small either.

At least somebody didn't hide behind AC.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Citation needed. No it hasn't, its suspected.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Walkingshark]

We've killed God around here so people need some fiction to replace it. The people around here, for instance, have global warming. (And when that's not enough, someone always starts up a conversation about superior programming styles or paradigms, which is far more religious than any tent revival I've ever seen.)

For sufficiently secular values of the world religious, yes.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Walkingshark]

world^word

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[BlackSabbath]

> People really think there will be no more humans or we will be in a new stone age after the effect of climate change.

Those people are deluded. However, consider Africa. In many parts, people are subsisting as is. A few degrees for them might mean that the current "trickle" of immigration out of Africa becomes a flood. Many countries are already struggling trying to throttle their refugee intake. How will they cope with an order-of-magnitude or two increase in people knocking at the door? Also, the economic effects on largely agrarian economies can be massively destabilising (if a countries prime cash crop collapses for example). Things are definitely going to get interesting.

> I never said the effects would be small either.

Fair enough. My apologies.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[theheadlessrabbit]

...A few feet of water and a few degrees and perhaps some rain pattern changes *worst case*. How the hell is that going to even get close to end of the world bunk?

if you happen to live on one of those low areas, you will be flooded out and lose your home.
if you live on one of those areas that will see a massive increase in storm activity, you could lose your home.
if your food is grown in areas that become deserts, you will lose your food.
tropical diseases will move into temperate areas, and you will have to fend off new illnesses to which you have no immunities.

and, if none of these hardships happen to you directly, you will have to deal with a few hundred million people who have lost their homeland and have to move into yours.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Thinboy00]

If we're going to make the implicit assumption that the past keeps repeating, then may I point out that no civilization has ever survived intact forever. At best they are replaced by something vaguely similar, but even then only after periods of chaos and suffering on a monumental scale. At worst we find a stone tablet somewhere praising king X for wiping out every man, woman, and child in neighboring city Y in only a day.

May I point out China?

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[The Mighty Buzzard]

"A few feet of water" - can mean massive problems for those in the Pacific islands, Holland, London and other very low lying areas, or where they are already fighting to keep water out.

Fuck em! Serves the bastards right for living closer to the beach than me.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

And when that's not enough, someone always starts up a conversation about superior programming styles or paradigms, which is far more religious than any tent revival I've ever seen.

You must have seen only mostly homogeneous groups in tent revivals, then. You should see the way people act when group A and group B hate each other, and group B shows up at group A's tent revival.

I've never seen a flamewar about programming languages that approached the levels of hatred that exist between fervently religious people with differing doctrines.

Of course, it's always possible that I haven't seen the "best" that programming style/language/paradigm flamewars have to offer.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[lgw]

So, worst case, many people have to move? Over the course of many decades? I grew up with The Bomb, this crap isn't even a little bit scary.

Also, it's a hoax. Specifically: trying to grab political power by claiming that "you had better live like I tell you to live or Global Warming will get you!" is a scam, a hoax, a lie, a deception, an untruth, and largely malicious in the realm of politics.

Worst case, emitting lots and lots and lots of CO2 might be costly, as people might need to relocate. Reducing CO2 emissions is absolutely costly - very very much so. Stop trying to force other people to share your values and lifestyle!

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Tr3vin]

Yes! I've always thought of cubism as a sharp approach.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Reziac]

I've noticed that most "alt-energy" tech has the same drawback: it costs more than it saves, usually in terms of scarce resources (frex, rare metals required for solar panels). Furthermore, funny how each restriction on our use of some resource is coupled with an equal and opposite subsidy for an alt-energy company that couldn't make it in the open market.

We get a lot of voter propositions on the California ballot about such things, and being a reader of fine print, I've noticed that in every case, some special interest was served first and foremost, and that the NET savings of resources was often negative.

So, yeah, I've become downright cynical about the motivations here... especially after hearing about the "subsidies" Mr.Gore has gotten from alt-energy interests.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[felix rayman]

Funny how people claiming cigarettes will kill me when I've been smoking them for years and it keeps not happening.

Re: Repent now, the end is near

[russotto]

But perhaps it's better to look at climate change as a simple cost problem. Raised CO2 levels might cause higher global temperatures, sea level rise, more often occuring weather extremes, droughts, crop losses etc. And from that: property damage, hunger disasters, armed conflicts and so on. The total of all these effects could be a huge price to pay, if ignored.

Now consider the effects of a cap-and-trade system set at current levels or below. Tyranny (to enforce it), misery, and death.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Tycho]

Yet, there are currently inactive sand dunes in Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas, that reactivated several times a century, during sustained years of drought, in the last millennium. A sand dune reactivates when there are no roots from vegetation holding the sand in place. At which point, you pretty much get unpleasant sand storms and they leave clearly identifiable sand deposits behind.

The 1930's dustbowl could have been less extreme if the farming practices were better. However, now we are wastefully draining underground aquifers at a rate higher than the rate of recharge when there is not enough rain.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[colinrichardday]

The Church of GNU Emacs may be sillier than any major religion, but I'm pretty sure that there is a GNU Emacs.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The Earth has been much warmer in the past and had much higher CO2 levels prior to industrialization, which is exactly why dinosaurs were so enormous, they needed enormous air cavities to extract sufficient oxygen.

Wait.. What?!!?

So you are claiming that the atmosphere during the dino's time was much harder to breath, so we humans, who did not exist back in that environment are going to be just fine?

Seems to me that just because the CO2 was free a long time ago doesn't mean that:
(a) we don't have anything to do with freeing it up again or
(b) we shouldn't be taking action to reduce the total amount being freed up.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Burnhard]

Are you saying flooding in Bangladesh is caused by Global Warming? If you are, then you are an idiot. I would love to contribute some knowledge in this area, but I fear you are determined to assign a cause to every single natural disaster, regardless of whether or not they are actually related. Let us just say that Geology and Geography are the reason for Bangladesh having issues with flooding, just as here in the UK covering over river flood plains with concrete and building houses on them isn't the smartest idea. Of course, that doesn't stop the environmental nutters claiming it's global warming, when in fact it's the very limited ability of concrete to absorb H2O. If you know about this stuff, then you'll know that the ocean is rising, but has been for a very long time (centuries and millenia) and has not been accelerating. Increasing sea level, it seems to me, falsifies theories of Global Warming. It isn't happening.

With respect to claimed consequences being taken seriously, we know one thing for certain: many more people will die if it becomes colder than if it becomes warmer. How do we know this? Because it happens every year. My theory on AGW is that people are fundamentally irrational, credulous and unbelievably stupid. Recent research shows that people lose their ability to be rational when confronted by an "expert". People like Hansen and Gore claim to be "experts", but they are only interested in promoting their own ideas, not in discovering truth.

In my view a rational response to Global Warming would be to get out a deck-chair and crack open a beer.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[MisterCIA]

Your analogy is flawed. If the bulb was created by aliens and contained millions upon millions of cooperating devices that where influenced by yet more millions of possible conditions then perhaps you would have a point. We simply do not know enough to say with any accuracy what would happen to said bulb if we where to change a certain condition.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[mattwarden]

And what observable evidence are you basing that on?

Let's not confuse science with religious belief and assumption.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[BlackSabbath]

> So worst case, many people have to move? Over the course of many decades?

"Many people" may translate into many millions, and even over the course of several decades this is a massive change. How would the US respond to and additional 5 million South American refugees trying to get in? I believe that there is already an outcry in the US over immigrant numbers. How would Europe cope with an extra 10 million Africans trying to emigrate? I think it highly likely that their will be significant armed conflicts over people movements, water rights (especially), grazing land, etc over the next 30-60 years.

> Its a hoax.

By whom and for what purpose? (please don't mention any NWO conspiracies). Let's say there is a hoax going on. Which is the hoax? That there is AGW or that there isn't? If you don't trust the scientists and unless you're in on the scam you can only identify the hoax indirectly. Let's try then. Which is more likely?

A) That there is a massive global conspiracy of scientists across many related disciplines who are faking results at the behest of a global political cabal pushing a some sort of NWO-like totalitarian agenda? Or...

B) That a bunch of VERY well-off companies in whose interest it is to maintain the status quo are funding a very effective obfuscation/PR campaign (including buying off a few select politicians)?

Me, I've read some of the science, try to keep up with the current state of research and pretty much believe the scientists. I guess I can't accept option A. I don't necessarily believe option B however the circumstantial evidence for it is pretty high in my estimation.

> emitting lots and lots and lots of CO2 might be costly, as people might need to relocate. Reducing CO2 emissions is absolutely costly - very very much so

Well, there has been the Stern report as well as (in Australia) the Garnaut report. Both by well respected economists. They both try and put a figure on the direct and indirect effects on the economy of GW as well as the costs and benefits of various mitigating strategies. Their main conclusion is that its cheaper (in the long run) to act. But I guess if you believe in the global scientific conspiracy, then believing that the economists are in on the scam is pretty easy.

By the way, both the science and the economic studies are all openly available for your edification and critique. However, what I see VERY little of is criticism of the science (or economics) and a lot of irrelevant arguments based on politics, conspiracies, personalities etc. When the temperature rises - it does so for those of all political persuasion.

> Stop trying to force other people to share your values and lifestyle!

I'm guessing your an American. My sympathies to those of your countrymen that aren't complete whack-jobs. You will notice that neither I nor most scientists reporting on AGW are telling anyone WHAT to do. They are just saying DO SOMETHING! Politicians and their constituencies must decide what if anything to do.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[mattwarden]

Pretty sure you missed the point. Parent's point is that "the world is going to end" is intended to spark emotion (ie, fear), which is NOT science. If we can make a scientific argument, let's do that. If we can't, then we have no business substituting science for fear and still calling it science.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[pmdkh]

Concerning sea levels, have you read the IPCC FAQ on the issue?

"This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3 mm yrâ'1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century."

If you have, and you don't think it's correct, why is that so?

If you take the time to read the IPCC reports, you'll see a frank discussion of the issues and an upfront assessment of how certain they are concerning different factors of climate change. But that doesn't stop people from dismissing them as "environmental nutters."

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[feepness]

I am still an environmental advocate, since there is also no reason to make things any worse,

This is my feeling exactly. There are enough good reasons to lower pollution we don't need such a controversial one. Just as there are enough good reasons to be nice to each other we don't have to need an invisible sky-Daddy watching us with threats of burning.

Actually, both belief systems tell us we must repent our ways before it is too late lest we face high temperature torments. Interesting.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Burnhard]

Are you joking? 3mm per year? Have you ever heard of thermal expansion? Is Ocean temperature regulated by atmospheric temperature? The last time I looked, Ocean thermal heat capacity was over 1,000 times greater than atmospheric heat capacity; the former being heated by the sun and the latter the ocean itself in combination with the sun. Ever heard of the PDO? Today it's negative. Over the last few decades it's been positive.

Why do you take the IPCC seriously? It published Hansens hockey stick with a straight face and continued to do so until its last report!

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[acheron12]

Terminal anthropic principle: if the world had ended, you wouldn't be here commenting about it.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[w0mprat]

No you see, what they are saying is the end is near, which is wrong, the world won't end, we will prevail (we always have) it'll just get seriously messed up and our descendants will be cleaning it up for generations to come.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[dirtyhippie]

He meant comparable to. Not as an example of global warning. You, sir, are an idiot for jumping to conclusions.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[dontmakemethink]

No, I'm saying we can adjust to climate change, or suffer an irrational fear that it's all our fault and adjust to climate change. Makes more sense to try to understand what really caused it, rather than just accept Al Gore's fancy presentation uncontested. AFAIC it's just another WMD scare. US politicians get absolutely no credibility from me.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[TheTurtlesMoves]

And even if it *is* that bad, its not close to the end of the world. History is interesting, you would be surprised how often big shifts have happened in the past. Sure there are more people now, but its even easier to move around than ever before.

As I understand quite a few people have already lost their homes to economic crisis.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[bug1]

Are you saying flooding in Bangladesh is caused by Global Warming? If you are, then you are an idiot.

If you are saying one isolated (and probably misinterpreted) statement makes a person an idiot, you are an idiot !?!

blah blah blah they are only interested in promoting their own ideas, not in discovering truth.

In my view blah blah blah

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[amck]

I've never died before, but this isn't proof i'm immortal.

Of course mankinds never gone extinct before, but this is not proof that it won't. Large sections of mankind, Civilizations, have done so;
frequently or typically due to climate change or resource overuse: because these are major events that take a lot of work to prevent or adjust
to. A good book on this is Jared Diamond's "Collapse".

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Tarwn]

I believe "logic" is the answer your looking for, not observable evidence.

If the world ends, then it no longer exists.
If the world exists, then it could not have ended.
Therefore the world can only end once because afterwards it will no longer exist to end a second time.

So to the original authors point, the world will continue not ending until the day it actually ends, at which point it won't be around to continue not ending any further (or to end a second time).

I believe the only observation that his/her logic rests on is the observation that the world has not ended yet, and therefore the day it does end has not occurred yet.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[mattwarden]

> If the world exists, then it could not have ended.

Please prove that the world has never ended before.

> Therefore the world can only end once because afterwards it will no
> longer exist to end a second time.

Please prove that the end of the world is the end of the lifecycle of everything.

> I believe the only observation that his/her logic rests on is the
> observation that the world has not ended yet, and therefore the day
> it does end has not occurred yet.

The only thing the author is saying is that we're currently not in a state of non-existence. Thanks. Everything else, including that there will ever be a state of non-existence, is based on conjecture, not evidence. It's akin to saying "I am not currently being eaten by a lion", supported by the fact that I am currently not being eaten by a lion. The suggestion that there is any explanatory or future predictive value is just flat-out wrong.

So, his comment was fine until he threw 'AKA, it's not a matter of "if."' in there.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[theNAM666]

GNU! GNUs! All GNUs is Good GNUs!

(Sorry, had to !)

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[phlinn]

That article should be named "Possible negative effects of rising Carbon Dioxide concentrations". It is only the negative effects, some of them are predicted but not seen, and your ocean acidification is explicitly an effect of rising CO2 concentrations, not an effect of global warming.

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[Cyberax]

Anthropogenic global warming is also a direct effect of rising CO2...

Re:Repent now, the end is near

[phlinn]

Yes, but ocean acidification and global warming have a common cause instead of the latter causing the former. Therefore, ocean acidifcation is not an effect of global warming, and does not belong in that article as currently titled.

In all honesty, I'm more frustrated by the utter lack of positive effects. They may not outweigh the negative effects, but by not including them the article paints a false picture.

History...

[sogoodsofarsowhat]

will of course prove him right. But that wont stop the scam that is going on. Im all for conservation and greener technologies. But this is not what is driving the Global Warming folks. Its good old MONEY/POWER. History will show Dyson to be a man of enlightened thinking, a beacon of reason. Course it will be only long after hes gone. Ask Galileo. It takes a truly great society to accept the great thinkers in their time. Plato?

Re:History...

[FauxPasIII]

> Im all for conservation and greener technologies.
> But this is not what is driving the Global Warming folks.

Speak for yourself. That's _exactly_ why I'm in so strongly favor of listening to the overwhelming consensus of climatologists.

Re:History...

[AJWM]

Actually climatologists are pretty divided on the whole global warming issue -- they understand the details a whole lot better than the hordes of laymen or non-climatalogist scientists who keep shouting about it.

Re:History...

[Ironsides]

Since when has science been based on consensus? The 'consensus' has been wrong before and they will be wrong again. Likely, they are wrong on something right now, it is just a matter of what.

Re:History...

[polar red]

hordes of laymen or non-climatalogist scientists who keep shouting about it.

like 99.99% of slashdot-people ?

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're really not divided. A small number of people disagree, and have spread this idea that there's a lack of consensus.

Which isn't to say that dissenting opinions are bad, quite the contrary. But its important to look at their sources of data and what they chose to ignore or dismiss.

Re:History...

[tie_guy_matt]

In 2007 Exxon-mobile made more money than any company in the history of mankind. It seems there is more money/power in denying global warming.

Anyway, how do you know how history will see Dyson? Does your crystal ball work better than mine? I have no problem with a crazy old physicist coming out and saying that all of your theories are wrong. If you can prove the crazy old man wrong then that just strengthens your theory -- if you can't prove him wrong then you must question your theory. The problem I have is that faux news is probably going to turn this into a full blown "news" story about how we should all keep our SUVs.

Look, even if Dyson is correct the fact is that there are only so many fossil fuels on the planet and the Earth is making more a lot more slowly than we are burning them. All of our energy and technology are linked to this stuff. Even if global warming is caused by something else, we will need to switch to green technology sooner or later. And if we beging to switch sooner rather then later then it will be cheaper in the long run. Energy costs are just going to go up and up and up until we find renewable sources.

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

consensus!=(science || scientific method)

Re:History...

[FauxPasIII]

> The 'consensus' has been wrong before and they will be wrong again.

And in this case, if we follow the consensus and it turns out they're wrong, the consequences of that are what?

We've dramatically cleaned up our environment, achieved energy independence, freed ourselves from the political constraints of fossil fuels and massively bolstered our economy with a whole new class of green businesses.

Explain again why you're so against this?

Re:History...

[SerpentMage]

No actually I believe there is global warming. As I run a financial blog I did some number crunching on CO2, energy and the likes. Conclusion, unless we cut by 50% we are screwed. So my advocacy is that we need to deal with the change coming.

Do I care if it came from humanity or not? Not really, actually it's beside the point. Sort of like arguing about a truck that's about to hit a crowd of people and asking, "well did that truck stop before making a right hand turn or not?" I said who shives a ghit, we need to do something about the ramifications of the truck....

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

They keep propagating this nonsense with statements just like yours. "If I say it is so it is" is not fact it is vapor.

I am all for cleaning up the air and environment and have been for 30 years but this global warming nonsense is a huge power and wealth grab and nothing else.

"A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes â" all under the supervision of the world body."

Re:History...

[Plaid Phantom]

Fine, then let's use that argument to convince everyone to switch to greener technologies. I would like to think that adults would be able to work things out through logical, reasonable discourse and not a global warming boogeyman. I guess not.

Re:History...

[Totenglocke]

Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.

I always recycle, I drive a car that gets close to 40 mpg, don't waste electricity, etc but I'm not going to risk damning our society just because spreading fear is a great way to make money / gain political power and people realised that if they start shouting "the human race will die out / the planet will die if you don't do what we tell you to" that they'll have all the money and power they could ever imagine.

Re:History...

[m0n5t3r]

this reminds me of Michael Crichton's "State of Fear"; while being rather lousy piece as literature goes, it is still an interesting read as a rant on media hyped bad science :)

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

And we have a 50% unemployment rate, fuel rationing, energy caps per household and a government in the U.S.A. that now dictates everything about business.

Then again that is exactly what the current administration is heading us too.

Most people want exactly what you say until you start putting reality in to the equation. Once you say that Gas would cost 5 to 10X as much as it does now and that we will probably be back to the Jimmy Carter era, they tend to not want this. Now "if" you are talking about making nuclear power a real alternative in the U.S.A. then that is another discussion. However, I would be willing to bet the environmentalist would have an issue with that.
   

Re:History...

[Theolojin]

No actually I believe there is global warming. As I run a financial blog I did some number crunching on CO2, energy and the likes. Conclusion, unless we cut by 50% we are screwed. So my advocacy is that we need to deal with the change coming.

Do I care if it came from humanity or not? Not really, actually it's beside the point. Sort of like arguing about a truck that's about to hit a crowd of people and asking, "well did that truck stop before making a right hand turn or not?" I said who shives a ghit, we need to do something about the ramifications of the truck....

Actually, it matters greatly whether global warming is caused by human behavior. If it does not---if it's actually a naturally occurring phenomenon, whether caused by the sun or some other extremely complex and poorly understood source---then it is very unlikely that human behavior can change it. That is the problem with incredibly expensive plans such as Kyoto (trillions upon trillions of US dollars). We must first understand the cause before we can correct it---if it's even correctable. If it is caused by human activity then changing human activity should be able to correct it. If it is not it is doubtful that changing human activity can have much of an impact. I think we need to have a much better idea of the cause before we make decisions that could greatly alter human society.

Re:History...

[wizardforce]

I think that among the knowedgeable on the subject the problem isn't whether or not to address the issue, it is how to address the issue. There are several methods which have been proposed to deal with global warming and curbing CO2 emissions and unfortunately most of these rely on the extensive use of governmental power and international cooperation. This is unfortunate because at least from my viewpoint, to rely so much on government which ahs shown its self to be quite fallible and generally inefficient seems not to be the way to go in order to well and truely fix the problem. Internationally, the first/second largest CO2 emitting countries have a history of opposition to any treaties/international agreements on the matter for fear of weakening their economic position, namely the United States and China. That is the problem. What we really need is to learn from biology and use CO2 as a resource rather than just punishing those who emit it outright because China isn't going to play along otherwise and frankly our fossil fuel reserves are going into the ground eventually and we'll still need a carbon source to make all of those consumables that the world wants.

Re:History...

[Jurily]

We've dramatically cleaned up our environment, achieved energy independence, freed ourselves from the political constraints of fossil fuels and massively bolstered our economy with a whole new class of green businesses.

Who is this "we" you're talking about?

Re:History...

[OrangeTide]

The consequences are that political control is lost.

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love these ever changing rationales for presenting the same wrong position.

1) Global warming is about stealing political power and money.

2) There is no consensus among climatologists anyway, it's about a 50/50 split among members of the field.

3) No it is not, the dissenters among the climatological sciences are small in number and use selective (cherry picked) data.

4) Science is not about consensus, anyway.

And on and on it goes.

Nowhere is there evidence presented in this thread that global warming is about government theft: it's just stated as an uncited fact. The claim of a 50/50 split among Climatologists is easily debunked. So, that claim becomes unimportant.

The Slashdot community enjoys referring to itself as smart - as if it is some oasis of genius - while everyone else must thus be comparably stupid. But one look at these threads shows that the community - and especially the comments modded up by those community members - has absolutely no idea of the intricacies being discussed. As Feynman would have said: You're not even wrong.

Sadly, this community has become filled with egocentric ignoramuses. You're one of them.
 

Re:History...

[Goodgerster]

We've dramatically cleaned up our environment, achieved energy independence, freed ourselves from the political constraints of fossil fuels and massively bolstered our economy with a whole new class of green businesses.

What planet do you live on? I'll take the next hyper-shuttle there.

Re:History...

[SerpentMage]

Here is the thing...

We probably agree that climate change is coming, yes?

If I say it is human activity how much would we need to change to make an impact? Remember we are dealing with a dynamic system.

Here are my calculations:

http://www.happyasahippo.com/~christianhgross/?p=296

Look at the core of the problem. We need to DRASTICALLY change our habits. And you and I know that change is not coming.

So if climate change is our fault (assuming it is) we are not going to change until it hits us flat in the face.

Ok let's take the other side of the coin. Let's say we are not at fault. It is indeed a earthly thing. What then? Keep pumping into the air CO2, since it does not matter anyways? Not change because we are screwed anyways?

My answer is that we need to start preparing ourselves through proper planning. This means changing our habits of how we grow things, build housing, etc, etc... Since those areas that were very suitable for growing and living probably are not going to be anymore.

Re:History...

[jav1231]

Not according to Al Gore. He claims there is no more debate and refuses to debate anyone on the subject. Of course, he's no expert on the subject at all. He merely summoned experts with whom he already had agreement. Current "Climate Change Theory" isn't science at all, it's politics. Those doing the real work are honestly debating the subject. Those seeking fame, power, recognition are using the "everybody knows" argument to silence dissent and reap the spoils. In the meantime the climate will change as it always has. It may be influenced by man it may not. It may not be that simple. In the end it won't matter if propaganda wins.

Re:History...

[init100]

No, they're really not divided. A small number of people disagree, and have spread this idea that there's a lack of consensus.

That looks very much like what the creationists try to do about the theory of evolution, i.e. pretend that there is a controversy among scientists, where none really exist.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

And in this case, if we follow the consensus and it turns out they're wrong, the consequences of that are what?

- Massive unemployment
- greatly increased worldwide poverty
- advances in technology not made or delayed by many years
- thousands of brilliant scientists wasting their lives in pursuit of nonsense
- government tyranny and possible permanent loss of freedom
- extreme drops in living standards

potential secondary effects:

- wars (possibly WWII-scale wars)
- famine
- millions dead from diseases not cured
- developing countries halt their progress in developing (or it takes another 50-100 years)

People will die if the global warming "remedies" are put in place. People in poverty have a greater incidence of premature death. Slower development leads to cures not found and deaths not prevented.

Millions of people have died from malaria since DDT was banned. Global warming remedies could be much more destructive.

Progress saves lives. Global warming remedies will cause us to regress.

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

I was simply pointing out that if you want to make a scientific point you can't use a consensus argument. Its a political one. There comes a time when the discussion dose become political, and then perhaps a consensus is relevant. But it is still not a scientific argument.

My bone to pick with the whole thing is that its *only* political now. Even when discussing with fellow scientists. Which is a shame really.

Re:History...

[Dr. Spork]

if we follow the consensus and it turns out they're wrong, the consequences of that are what?

The consequences are the same as the downside of any sort of fanaticism. Even if that goal is good, it crowds out all other goals, including better and cheaper ones.

In a world where so many people don't even have clean water and basic medicine, isn't it a bit vain for rich people to ignore their problems and invest trillions (which is what it will cost) to fight the CO2 dragon that might not bite, and if it does, it will force us to build bigger dikes and levies?

Please watch this, and come back if you have a reason to disagree with it.

Re:History...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. You're using any and every argument at your disposal, regardless of factual veracity. It's called: sophistry.

Re:History...

[ducomputergeek]

Waste of economic resources that could have been spent elsewhere. Want an example? Last year we had money left in the bank where I work. If the employees took anymore home in pay, it would have bumped us up a tax bracket and we would have made less after taxes. So what were our options?

A) We could retain earnings, watch 50% of it go to the government in the form of corporate income tax.
B) We could donate to a local charity, such as the food bank or Good Samaritan House.
C) We could put up Solar Panels to cut our utility bills and free up cash flow.

We chose C. We saw a slight uptick in business from the environmental who saw us as going "green" and how great that was for everyone. Maybe Michael Gecko was right: "Greed is good." Because we didn't do it to be green. We did it to be greedy and save money.

Now let's say 25 years from now, Global Warming turns out to be nothing more than a lot of hot air from enviromentalists. We've spent Billions (or Trillions) of dollars on green technologies. Great. But if Global Warming turns out to just be hot air and nothing more, what else could we have done with those Billions or Trillions? Feed the homeless? Provide universal heath-care? Funded a cure for AIDs and the common cold? What was the opportunity cost?

Sorry if I take global warming with a grain of salt. I remember being a kid an the wackos coming to my school, telling us kids how bad McDonalds was for using styrofoam containers because they weren't "Bio-degradable". Then McDonalds switches to wax paper, which is just as bad if not worse.

I honestly believe that Global Warming has more to do with natural cycles than what we've done. Have we aided and abetted? Yeah, probably. But what no body seems to be saying is that we're on course for another major Ice age because:

A) Some of the climatologist are right and the global temperature spikes just before an ice age.
B) Enough polar ice melts to affect the ocean's salinity and the Atlantic Conveyor breaks down.

Re:History...

[phantomfive]

Explain again why you're so against this?

Exactly, you exactly stated the reason why global warming is so pervasive. It is a convenient idea. So many people have an interest in it, those who want to achieve energy independence, those who want to clean up the environment, those who like green technology, in fact there are lots of reasons to support the global warming idea even if you don't care a thing about it.

There is one reason to be against it, and that is if it's not true.

That is enough. People who close their eyes to evidence, who close their eyes to the truth, are silly and have immediately lost all credibility. This is what he is suggesting Al Gore et al have done, they are not looking to find out what is real, they are looking to prove a point. And when that happens, all science goes out the window, regardless of hypothesis, peer review, or any of the other standard trappings of science. You must be willing to accept whatever is true, and your goal must be to find it. That is real science.

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Coming from a AC. Yea, you showed me.

Re:History...

[ZDRuX]

I`m glad to see these types of replies here. Last time I posted something anti-globalwarming, I got mauled by Al Gore fanboys who just jump on any popular bandwagon of the year. And this year, it's Man-made Global Warming (and has been the bandwagon of choice for many years now:)).

Nobody talks about global cooling that was suppose to end life on the planet as we know it in the 1960's. We are so eager to forget history.

Re:History...

[metacosm]

FauxPasIII... once again, you prove how much closer the green movement is to religion than to science.

You basically have paraphrased "Pascal's Wager". Which is basically "If you believe in God and are wrong, you loose nothing (and maybe gain some things) -- but if you DO NOT believe in God and are incorrect, fire and pain, etc... Therefore being an atheist is illogical".

If you replace "God" with "Global Warming" and "atheist" with "global warming doubter"... got got your argument.

There are a couple reasons why Pascal's Wager (and by extension your argument) is incorrect. Let me answer your questions...

"if we follow the consensus and it turns out they're wrong, the consequences of that are what?"
- The lack of study on real issues, the lack of honest and directness can decay science as a whole. We could have global cooling, or some other major issue going on -- that we choose to overlook because of our obsession with follow a consensus rather than fact. I believe there are many dangers in this.

"We've dramatically cleaned up our environment,"
- Possible a real benefit

" achieved energy independence,"
- Maybe, with a massive investment in nuclear power, but I think if you look at the fundamentals of most of the other energy streams, you will be sadly disappointed. Look into how much energy it takes to MAKE a solar cell, look at how much energy it takes to TRANSMIT wind power... etc, etc.

"freed ourselves from the political constraints of fossil fuels"
- I assume this is a reference to 'no blood for oil' and similar chants. I will just gloss over it, as it is more politics.

"and massively bolstered our economy with a whole new class of green businesses."
- This isn't a fact, it isn't even a logical follow-on, this is hope. You "hope" a green economy will explode creating new jobs. Read some of the old clippings about nuclear power and you will do the time warp again! My point is, this is blind hope / faith -- like believing in a fancy place in the clouds waiting for you ... it isn't based on any facts.

"Explain again why you're so against this?"
- Because, I want science to be driven by truth... even when that truth is unpopular, even when that truth is frustrating, even when that truth goes AGAINST political causes. I want science to be unburdened by such things.

Re:History...

[amorsen]

--if it's actually a naturally occurring phenomenon, whether caused by the sun or some other extremely complex and poorly understood source---then it is very unlikely that human behavior can change it.

I believe you are vastly underestimating the capabilities of humanity. We can certainly terraform Earth, if we so choose.

Re:History...

[interstellar_donkey]

The man is a fool to ignore the warnings of Al Gore. When man-bear-pig comes to get him, I doubt Gore will do much to help.

Re:History...

[jamesivie]

Actually, depending on what you do to "combat global warming," the consequences may be enormous. If human-released carbon isn't an issue, spending money on carbon-fixing and carbon reduction ends up being a complete waste of resources that could have been used doing other more useful things (improving education, sanitation, food production, health care, etc.). The effect of this cannot be minimized because, although nobody talks about it, the cost will certainly be a significant percentage of the world's economy, and would disproportionately affect the poor (because they spend more of their money on energy than the rich). As a result of this fact, much of the proposed changes to combat global warming include redistributing wealth to the poor, which seems to be a popular idea these days, but which, as history has shown, always results in increased government control (ie. loss of freedom) and has never actually resulted in improving the lot of the poor, because giving them a handout without giving them skills to be productive only keeps them poor (and under government control). That particular issue is negated by the fact that we would be giving them money to compensate for artificially high energy prices, but the change in the nature of government that will result from such policies will be disastrous to society. Have you ever thought about how hypocritical it is of Mr. Gore to fly all over the world, spewing millions of tons of CO2 from his private jet, to speak to people about how bad CO2 is? If you believe it's all human-caused, by all means, STOP EMITTING CO2 YOURSELF! If you don't practice what you preach, I for one will not listen to anything you say.

Re:History...

[Endo13]

I could not agree more, for many reasons.
There's plenty of evidence showing that the earth has been significantly warmer in the (not so distant) past than it is now. So is the global climate getting warmer? Perhaps. Are humans causing it? Not likely, but it's possible. Is it a huge problem? Almost certainly not. Which is Dyson's whole point.

Re:History...

[odourpreventer]

> Millions of people have died from malaria since DDT was banned.

Problem with DDT was, it caused more problems than it resolved.

There are plenty of ways to prevent, treat and fight malaria. The obstacles are as usual political.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

> Millions of people have died from malaria since DDT was banned.

The families of the dead malaria victims might disagree.

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

...replicated parts of the experiments,..

Thats the bit that matters. Thats the data. Also its the why that any *single* paper/result is aways treated with "salt" regardless of what the general consensus is. If we didn't need the data, there would be a lot of need for the LHC now would there. The consensus it that we will find the Higgs particle.

In God we trust. The rest of you show me the data!

Re:History...

[TheTurtlesMoves]

True. Better double check the code I wrote today ;)

Re:History...

[AdamHaun]

If the employees took anymore home in pay, it would have bumped us up a tax bracket and we would have made less after taxes.

This is not how taxes work. Tax brackets are always incremental, meaning you pay the same tax on e.g. the first $15,000 regardless of how much additional money you make.

Re:History...

[tie_guy_matt]

Ok, we are only say 99% sure that global climate change ... no let's meet you half way and say we are only 70% sure global climate change will cause havoc with local weather. It could cause famines and other serious problems. It could make it difficult for the earth to support human life as we know it. This is the earth we are talking about, the only planet we know of where any life at all can survive. But you are right 99% or 70% or whatever isn't 100%.

So if it will make you feel better, we are 100% sure that if we do not do something to switch to green renewable technologies then it will lead to an energy crisis that will cause havoc throughout the world. It could lead to famine (so much of our food productiion depends on cheap energy) and may make it impossible for civilized life as we know it to exist.

Either way I think we should think about listening to the tree huggers over the multi-national corporations on this one -- but that is just me and BTW I don't always listen to the tree huggers on everything.

Re:History...

[Rob the Bold]

Last year we had money left in the bank where I work. If the employees took anymore home in pay, it would have bumped us up a tax bracket and we would have made less after taxes. So what were our options?

I'm assuming you're in the US, or if not, somewhere else with progressive marginal income tax rates. If that is so, then it sounds like the folks where you work got suckered. Additional income would have only bumped some or all of the difference into another tax bracket. You'd still take home more if you got a raise/bonus/whatever. They also forgot other options like D) Paying the employees in the form of non-taxable benefits, like retirement plans and health coverage expansion.

More info on marginal tax rates: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2008_income_brackets_and_tax_rates

Re:History...

[shadowbearer]

My bone to pick with the whole thing is that its *only* political now. Even when discussing with fellow scientists. Which is a shame really.

  Your opinion is that it's only political. Which is hardly scientific, is it?

  Don't conflate the media hype and actions of a lot of fanatics on either side with what the scientists actually doing the research believe or think.

SB

Re:History...

[shadowbearer]

Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.

  Evidence?

  I'd like to point out to you that many global warming "advocates" (that's a loaded word, be careful of where you point it) are saying that we nuclear power in addition to solar/wind/hydro.

  I'd also like to know why you think that alternative energy solutions would result in technology "stagnating". ALL of those alternative solutions require MORE research and MORE advanced technology, not less.

  Which leads me to believe you're just blowing smoke out your ass.

SB

Re:History...

[Totenglocke]

I've yet to hear of anyone who'd have the ability to force a change (read: government) support nuclear power as opposed to purely solar / wind / hydro. Should we use solar / wind / hydro? Sure. We should also keep researching ways to make them more efficient. However, without using nuclear power, solar / wind / hydro technology can NOT currently begin to come close to fulfilling our power needs (unless Dr. Manhattan comes and gives us an overnight 50 year jump in technology).

As for why these things would result in technology stagnating? Well for one, the taxes people like Obama want to put in place to kill off demand for fossil fuel power will cause money that would have been spent on technology (newer more powerful computers, things like the Kindle or iPhone) will instead be spent on paying those taxes. Sales decrease and some of those technologically advanced gadgets will no longer be available since they won't be profitable any more. Another reason would be if we use only solar / wind / hydro that we simply won't have the power necessary to keep doing these things since all the power will be directed to more important things like electricity for homes, government buildings, etc. Also, even if you take into account the technology that needs to be invented for us to purely use solar / wind / hydro power, it would require diverting resources from other research just to find ways to provide electricity, therefore slowing down (or bringing it to a screeching halt) the advancement of other technologies.

Re:History...

[shadowbearer]

  Nuclear power: You haven't been paying attention. For the first time in decades we are actually authorizing and putting into construction new nuclear power plants.

  Just because Greenpeace et al don't support their construction doesn't mean that many environmental activists don't.

  Your comment about Obama just shows your ignorance of the agenda he is trying to push - which is putting government funding into alternative energy solutions. That much is obvious to anyone following the fight with congress over it. I for one would much rather pay extra taxes for alternative energy solutions that are already in the pipeline than more taxes for oil or "cleaner" coal solutions.

(newer more powerful computers, things like the Kindle or iPhone) will instead be spent on paying those taxes. Sales decrease and some of those technologically advanced gadgets will no longer be available since they won't be profitable any more.

  What do Kindle or iphones or more powerful laptops have to do with becoming energy independent? I fail to understand your reasoning, if there is any.

  We don't need more powerful computers, we need more energy efficient homes and industry. Just because the mass market demands prettier gadgets doesn't mean the 'mass market' knows what is important.

  Solar technology, by itself, is becoming massively profitable. If it wasn't there wouldn't be the explosion in companies doing it. You are probably too young to remember a few decades ago when it wasn't profitable at all because there weren't many people doing it.

Also, even if you take into account the technology that needs to be invented for us to purely use solar / wind / hydro power, it would require diverting resources from other research just to find ways to provide electricity, therefore slowing down (or bringing it to a screeching halt) the advancement of other technologies.

  What the hell are you talking about? What "other research"? Hydro has been with us for hundreds of years - all those dams built over the last ten decades and some didn't come into being because someone thought they would make a nice way to sequester fish.

  We aren't building wind farms all over because they "aren't profitable".

  Solar tech is taking off in a big way - again, I think you are too young to have known a time when it wasn't worth doing. I do. There are many times more solar power installations, even here in the US, than there used to be. Those numbers will continue to increase as the technology gets better - and it's getting better because WE ARE PUTTING IT TO PRACTICAL USE AND FINDING BETTER SOLUTIONS THRU EXPERIENCE.

  I won't even go into how the first part of your post contradicts the second part - I'll leave that as an exercise for the student you obviously are ;)

  You have a lot to learn. Quit listening to Fox news (a lot of your talking points sound like the crap I see on there) and start learning things for yourself.

SB

 

Re:History...

[Enahs]

I don't think it's so much getting away from wanton pollution and fossil fuels that people are against; it's the useless legislation like carbon credits, which companies have said they'll just use both as a reason to shutter factories, and to raise their prices to pass the cost on.

And of course you have a gazillion goons who have to run around saying, "government BAAAAAAAAAD!!!" on anything like this, along with an earful of Rothbardian nonsense.

Legislation isn't a problem, but bad legislation is.

Re:History...

[Hellsbells]

It is extremely rare to find a climatologist that doesn't believe in global warming.

I don't think that there is a single denier in the CSIRO Atmospheric Research division and I'd imagine that it would be pretty much the same for all such institutions around the world.

Re:History...

[kramulous]

We've dramatically cleaned up our environment ...

Really? Out of sight, out of mind. A garbage tip in the ocean twice the size of the continental United States and getting bigger.

I know you probably won't read it because it's buried under a lot of other comments, but it may well change the statement you made above.

Re:History...

[Totenglocke]

Try reading what I wrote again. I'm sure you'll still miss everything I said just because I don't worship our Lord and Savior Obama, but I did address the nuclear power issue and explained why this would be bad for technology. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and guess that you were just too obsessed with watching Obama's latest photo shoot to read what I wrote instead of just intentionally ignoring everything I said.

Re:History...

[Ironsides]

Not true. Deductions phase out as you make more money. As such, it is possible to have a $2000 increase in pay and lose enough deductions such that you wind up paying over $2000 more in taxes.

Re:History...

[Ironsides]

Not true. Deductions phase out as you make more money. As such, it is possible to have a $2000 increase in pay and lose enough deductions such that you wind up paying over $2000 more in taxes.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

ALL of those alternative solutions require MORE research and MORE advanced technology, not less.

Which diverts resources from things that actually help people.

We could use our resources to cure cancer, predict earthquakes and tsunamis, and provide cheaper, healthier food to developing nations. Or we could use those resources to replace cheap, reliable electricity-generation from abundant coal with expensive, unreliable electricity generation from solar and wind. Do we want advances that make human life better, or do we owe it to The Earth to make human life worse?

Re:History...

[shadowbearer]

  If that's what you think I was thinking, then you are a damned fool kid.

  I'm old enough to remember 3MI and when the moratorium was put on new nuclear power plants in this country.

  You - and the other responder to this thread - seem to think that I'm some sort of Obama worshipper. Your responses just tell me that you didn't really read my post, nor did you understand it.

  I feel sorry for you. You are so butt-blind partisan in your hatred of Obama you can't even respond intelligently to a post which questions your opinions.

  Too bad for you. I'm done here. You are not worth my time.

SB

Re:History...

[Totenglocke]

I did respond intelligently. You ignored what I said and harped on about things that were completely irrelevant to what I said / made no sense given what I said. You've proven that you have no argument, or else you'd be able to read what people say and respond accordingly.

Re:History...

[AdamHaun]

Can you give a specific example of this? I couldn't find much information except for this article which claims that the old system (which is being phased out) is that the deduction limits are lowered at a rate of 3% of whatever your income over the AGI limit is. So gaining $2000 would lose you $60 in deductions. Even if that's $60 per specific deduction, you'd still need 33 of them to make up the difference. This year the phase-out was reduced to 1%, and next year it's gone. So if even if there was a (small) problem, it sounds like it's gone now.

I could be totally wrong, of course. Please feel free to enlighten me if I am.

Re:History...

[HanzoSpam]

Ok, then - how about hearing from a comedian?

Re:History...

[shadowbearer]

  Fine, then. Rebut what I said, point by point. Pay attention.

  Anyone who uses the phrase "Lord and Savior Obama" or anything of that sort does not earn my respect and isn't worthy of conversation. To put it in perspective, I'd think the same thing if the word "Obama" was replaced with the word "Bush".

SB

Re:History...

[corbettw]

I was going to reply with much of what you've said in your post. So I'll just say "this" and leave it to the moderators to mod your post and the GP down.

Re:History...

[Ironsides]

Consider that they only mention when itemizing and not using the standard deduction. Also, I know individuals (personally) that even before the 90's had that problem. Now, as to todays tax code, there is the IRA deduction (phases out), Student Loan Interest Deduction (flash out), Tuition and Fees Deduction (form 8917) (flash out), the AMT, child tax credit (phase out), charitable giving, the reduction in the personal exemption and probably some others I am missing. It's not impossible, it just happens to a number of people and it still occurs. Each of those has their own reduction in the deduction amount as you make more (some based on total income, not AGI) that would be compounded with the AGI limit referenced in that article.

Again, that article only talks about certain deductions and only for those that are itemizing and not taking the standard deduction. There are also several other deductions not included in itemization that are listed elsewhere on the 1040 tax form that do not fall under itemization.

Re:History...

[ChrisMaple]

The excessive use of DDT may have caused problems; there is some contrary evidence. Application of small amounts of DDT around the house is enough to greatly reduce malaria without significantly affecting desirable wildlife. Note that malaria is a problem mostly in poor countries, and many of the proposed solutions are expensive or very inconvenient. (How'd you like to wear mosquito netting 24/7 ?)

Re:History...

[durrr]

In malaria dense regions DDT is actually still in use due to it's high efficiency. People figure that rather that getting their ass handed to them by malaria they'd rather suffer the more subtle effects of DDT exposure.

Re:History...

[jbeach]

So don't do those things. Do the things that make sense. Like investing in clean energy. That means jobs and technology that can't be outsourced overseas. Or electric cars. Even if we never run out of oil - which is a fantasy, we all know we will run out - that will be a good thing. If we have to switch to goal, we can still drive places. Aren't those good things, even if global warming never actually happens?

Re:History...

[jbeach]

Nonsense.

"- Massive unemployment" - why? Why would new energy jobs automatically be fewer than old energy jobs?
"- greatly increased worldwide poverty" - why?
"- advances in technology not made or delayed by many years" - solar, wind, nuclear and goethermal aren't technology?
"- thousands of brilliant scientists wasting their lives in pursuit of nonsense" - aren't the scientists the best judgement of that?
"- government tyranny and possible permanent loss of freedom" - HOW??? That's total science fiction.
"- extreme drops in living standards" - as opposed to the worst case scenario of Global Warming?


potential secondary effects:

"- wars (possibly WWII-scale wars)" - as opposed to wars over oil resources?
"- famine" - as opposed to famine caused by our current (and increasing) freshwater shortage - and the spoiling of freshwater by encroaching seawater?
"- millions dead from diseases not cured" - see above, replace 'famine' with 'disease'
"- developing countries halt their progress in developing (or it takes another 50-100 years)" - as if they aren't going to run out of oil with the rest of us?

Progress saves lives - and research in alternate energy technologies is progress. Isn't it?

Re:History...

[jbeach]

So you go to 1000 doctors and they all tell you, "Stop eating potato chips or you'll have a heart attack."

Then one guy who writes novels says, "They just hate potato chips", and another retired doctor says "Maybe you won't get a heart attack, you'll just be fat and look older than you are."

Pascal would say it's illogical to stop eating potato chips?

Re:History...

[mystuff]

Actually climatologists are pretty divided on the whole global warming issue -- they understand the details a whole lot better than the hordes of laymen or non-climatalogist scientists who keep shouting about it.

They are divided only in the magnitude of the effects, i.e. 1.6m or 60cm rise of the sea level before 2050, not about the global warming issue in itself, as is often suggested by people such as yourself.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

Progress saves lives - and research in alternate energy technologies is progress. Isn't it?

It's a discount form of progress. When denied actual progress, it can act as a poor substitute.

For example:

Coal is very cheap and very abundant. You can burn coal when you need electricity. Solar power is comparatively very expensive. It only works when the sun is out. If I can only afford ten scientific researchers, should I pay them to try to cure cancer, or should I pay them to make solar power a little cheaper (but still much more expensive than coal)?

If you make "progress" and only force people to pay 5x for their electricity instead of 8x, is that really progress? They're still paying $50 for electricity they used to be able to get for $10. It seems like negative "progress".

Progress is when you make things better for people. When you make things worse for people to benefit The Earth, it's hardly "progress".

Re:History...

[Rob the Bold]

Not true. Deductions phase out as you make more money. As such, it is possible to have a $2000 increase in pay and lose enough deductions such that you wind up paying over $2000 more in taxes.

OK, That might be possible in particular cases. You also could get into trouble with the AMT. But neither of these arguments could be used against an across-the-board pay raise for an entire staff. That would require the employer to have extraordinary knowledge of every employee's tax situation and a great deal of coincidence.

At any rate, the OP said the excuse was that the extra pay would bump them into a higher bracket, not that it would cost them deductions. So I still think that if this really happened, the employees got the "song and dance".

Re:History...

[jbeach]

So we agree that solar, wind, geothermal, and other sorts of energy will be progress. Your argument is that they won't be as much progress as, say, switching to coal.

That's a subject that reasonable people may differ on. The one thing that renewable forms of energy have over coal and even nuclear, is that the fuel is limited *and* leaves behind dangerous waste products. Coal is also dangerously polluting in it's actual usage - which is a concern not only for Global Warming, but for general human health.

So renewable forms of energy also have this benefit: once set up, they use no fuel. All the cost is in the development, and then the maintenance; none is the fuel usage.

Me, I'm for whatever works. But it makes logical sense to me that if you can build a coal-burning power plant and a plant that generates electricity from ocean wave motion for about the same amount of materials, and the ocean wave motion might require more R & D up front but, once done, has zero fuel costs and zero pollution, that is greater progress than the coal plant - because savings will only increase over time.

Re:History...

[Ironsides]

Depends on the number of employees. The way ducomputergeek describes it, it could be a mom and pop shop with only a handfull of employees. We'd have to ask him to find out.

Re:History...

[stdarg]

One example is the Saver's Credit: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f8880.pdf

It's got a discrete phase out rather than continuous and it's really steep. Married filing jointly $31999 you get a 50% credit on up to $2000 you saved for retirement (so $1000). $32001 you get a 20% credit so $400.

My girlfriend actually ran into this (for the single's bracket obviously). After graduating she only worked a few months in that tax year and missed the cutoff for 50% by like $200. It sucked.

There are other examples I'm sure, check the Earned Income Tax Credit, that may have something similar.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

But it makes logical sense to me that if you can build a coal-burning power plant and a plant that generates electricity from ocean wave motion for about the same amount of materials...

But you can't. You might as well ask for energy from magic beans. "If we can get energy from magic beans, what do we need coal for?" Because magic isn't real.

I'm for what works too. Not what "might work" if we charge everyone 5x for electricity. Not what "might work" in 200 years. Not what "might work" if magic were real. If "alternative energy" worked (and was cost-effective in the real world), it wouldn't be called "alternative energy". It would just be called "energy".

BTW: The "alternative energy" crowd plans to win this by forcing everyone to pay a huge tax on their energy. When you artificially raise the prices high enough, alternative energy can finally compete. But everyone who uses energy is poorer. Poorer developing countries develop slower. Poorer people are more prone to premature death. Poorer people can afford less scientific research into disease cures. Poorer people buy less, so the people they buy from can employ fewer workers.

And why wouldn't we just use cheap energy instead of the luxury "alternative energy"? Government force. Governments will force people to act against their own interests. They'll deny people freedom. This is known as tyranny.

To top it all off, we're in danger of slipping into an economic depression. This additional forced impoverishment for The Earth will prolong and deepen the economic downturn. The last depression resulted in WWII.

Why would we want to risk all the possible problems with the global warming remedies without a guarantee that anthropogenic global warming is actually real (and an actual problem)? And why do it in the current economic circumstances, when we can least afford it?

Re:History...

[jbeach]

Oh, come on. Solar, wind, geothermal, et al are not magic. Getting energy from these methods are already understood science.

The problem is in getting energy from them cheaply enough, that it replaces the current cost of fossil fuels. Whether or not that's feasible is an engineering challenge - it's not magic beans!

Please.

And why wouldn't we use cheap energy? ***Because, among many other reasons, fossil fuels are finite and not renewable. So it won't be cheap when we run out of it.***

And our population and thus energy needs are ****increasing**** even as our supply is decreasing. So soon we are going to be hit with a double whammy - decreasing amounts of fuel when we need more fuel than ever.

You can see the basic facts of that situation, right?

That's why I would think it's smart to tray and switch off of fossil fuels for a lot of reasons, rather than wait to see if we survive - when there's already a lot of problems coming our way. Whether or not you accept the current scientific consensus on Global warming, that's really only one of several problems that come from pretending that fossil fuels will last forever. Coal is a band-aid we may need to tide us over - but it's gonna run out too.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

You can see the basic facts of that situation, right?

Yes. But there's enough coal for hundreds of years. There's enough oil for hundreds of years too. Oil might start to get expensive. When it does, there are lots of new sources of oil available at higher costs: shale, tar sands, coal gasification, or just oil that's difficult and expensive to drill for.

"Running out" of fossil fuels is a problem for when it happens. Why should we impoverish people now to solve some issue that may happen in 100 years? With 100 years of technological advances, they'll be in a lot better position to solve it when they actually need to.

"Running out" of fossil fuels is also ignorant of economics. You could never "run out". Eventually, fossil fuels will just get expensive until other substitutes are competitive. And the alternative energies will finally have a place. At this future time, it will be because they're the best choice for people, not something clearly worse that people are forced to use by their tyrannical overlords. People will choose them freely when they actually help out.

Free markets allow people to solve these problems in the most cost-effective way at the most cost-effective time. We don't need a government overlord telling us to buy the thing that works best for us. When "alternative energy" works for people at a competitive price, then people will switch to it. Forcing it before that time makes people worse off.

Re:History...

[jbeach]

1. You assume that spending money looking for other fuels now, will impoverish people. Not true.

2. You assume that we will better be able to research alternative fuels when fossil fuels become too hard to retrieve therefore expensive. Not true. This will be a far harder time to begin the research and infrastructure necessary.

3. You are really collapsing this idea of researching alternative fuels with "tyranny". They have nothing to do with each other.

Giving tax breaks and funding research is not tyranny and does not crush people - AND is not against the "Free Market" either.

Re:History...

[jbeach]

Oh, and I dispute that there is enough coal for hundreds of years. Especially in the face of our constantly rising energy needs.

So please find a source that is NOT from an oil or coal company, saying that if we switch to coal or oil, it will last for hundreds of years.

To get a picture of our current reality, you may also want to examine this chart: http://www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/energy-supply.php

Re:History...

[Kohath]

1. The global warmenist plan to tax energy will make people poorer. When you can afford less energy (or less anything) with the same amount of money, you're poorer. This is true by definition. Please explain how this can be disputed.

2. Please explain how the next 10 or 20 or 100 years of technological advances will make it harder to switch to alternative energies.

3. Forcing people to pay a tax or use inferior products against their will is oppression consistent with tyranny. What if the people disobey? They get rounded up and imprisoned.

If all the global warmenists wanted to do was cut taxes, I'd be in favor. But they want to punish people who use fossil fuels.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

When fuels get more scarce, prices increase. In a free market, people start examining substitute fuels that are now competitive at the new price. What's wrong with this again? Why does the world need you to second guess everyone's choices?

Also, why would anyone in the coal or oil industry want to pretend there's plenty when there's actually a shortage? If there's a shortage, they can charge more. Because there are the same number of bidders trying to buy a smaller and smaller supply. Or are you saying you know better than the people in the coal and oil industries?

Re:History...

[jbeach]

What's wrong with this again? Why does the world need you to second guess everyone's choices?

a) I am not second guessing anyone's choices. You are projecting something onto me that is coming from you.

b) when something that's vital becomes scarce, the fact that it's cost increases doesn't solve the problem.

Imagine a long-expected famine comes, and there isn't enough wheat to go around. The price of bread costs $1000 a loaf. Does that solve the problem? No. People will starve to death - or switch to other foods if they can.

But if people wait until they *have to* have other forms of food to grow, process, ship, buy and then eat - they will starve to death or suffer greatly until those forms of food are available. WHich is a completely unnecessary amount of suffering, if instead they had just planned ahead for the expected and predicted famine.

And if the famine never came, no problem - they have a range of foods other than wheat.

Do you see?

If you're smart, you plan ahead for crises that are clearly coming. You don't do nothing and hope that the 'Free Market' will solve it. That's like hoping Zeus will solve it.

Now you can intentionally use the Free Market to solve it - by providing incentives.

Also, why would anyone in the coal or oil industry want to pretend there's plenty when there's actually a shortage?

So they can keep making money for the next quarter, year, or 20 years. Because that's all executives are hired to care about. And they can make far more money if 100% of US energy needs are switched to coal - as opposed to if even 80% are switched to coal and 20% is switched to renewable sources.

You can see that, right?

Still waiting for that "there's enough coal for hundreds of years" citation, by the way.

Re:History...

[Kohath]

If there were a shortage of wheat, the price would go up. People would then travel long distances to trade for food. Before the price increase, it wasn't worth it. Now it is. The traders bring back food. It is expensive and not the food that the folks were used to, but they are hungry so they eat it. No one starves. I'm not sure I understand what the point is.

You apparently think that on a Monday there will be oil and fuel will cost $3 and then on Tuesday it will all be gone forever. The world doesn't work that way.

The future scarcity of oil and coal is built into the current price. If there is a shortage, people will pay more. If I own oil in the ground, I can either pump it today or wait and pump it later. If the price is going to double next month because we're running out, then I can just sit on my oil and double my money next month. Why wouldn't I? Am I irrational? Maybe I don't want more money? Do you secretly know more about the world's oil supply than the people in the oil business?

If you're right and everyone will run out of oil at a specific time, then you can make some specific oil futures trades with that knowledge. But you haven't done that. Why not? It's because you really don't know.

Your understanding assumes specific people are either stupid, irrational, shortsighted to the point of being irrational, uninformed about their own industry, or willing to take economic losses as part of some grand evil conspiracy to rule the world.

This is not a new argument, you know. It's the same set of talking-points going back many years. They seem to make sense if you don't apply any critical thinking. But everything you say is based on how you know the future and you know what the Right Amount is to put towards The Right Research into The Right Energy sources.

But no one with these talking-points ever uses their Knowledge to trade oil futures and cash in. They never even try it. It's because they don't know. They repeat the words and join the social circle, but they'd never risk their own money on something they haven't thought critically about. They're happy to spend other people's money on it though.

---

Here's that link for you:

http://www.clean-coal.info/drupal/secure

It's from those liars in the coal industry though. What do they know about coal? They're just lying to keep their profits low. It's all a grand conspiracy, I'm sure.

What was the point of that link? So you can say you don't believe it? So you can link to someone else (someone not in the coal industry, with no direct knowledge and no financial incentive to be correct) who does some shallow rhetorical analysis and discovers that coal actually runs out next Thursday at 4:45 AM?

I can't provide empirical evidence for any specific amount of coal. Neither can you. It's all underground, not sitting on a precisely-calibrated scale. Even the guys who study it and are supposed to get it right can only estimate. I'm sure their estimates are imperfect. So what was the point?

Re:History...

[kauttapiste]

The thing I have a problem with is that the "let's burn moar oil" folk won't listen to anyone until there is no "scientist" or politician left who disagrees with the climate change predictions. No consensus my ass.

Secondly they won't even consider any prediction until the models will predict with perfect accuracy their local weather at least one year in advance. Anyone in their fucking right mind would realize that's not possible. Thus only way they'll agree is after the I-told-you-sos. It was an unusually cold night last week, let's burn some moar motherfucking oil.

Good old GWB, god bless him, left US out of Kyoto stating that it would hurt their economy. Well as it turned out they didn't need Kyoto to do that after all! I mean who knows, maybe investing all that excess money to proper research of sustainable energy and industry would have saved the world this economic fuck-up.

Nothing like a short lil rant to bump up the global temperature. ;-)

Re:History...

[kauttapiste]

What happened with the splendid republican governance that was protecting the so called economy from the horrible doom of environmentally sustainable living? That's right, they fucked it up big time! I mean goddamn, I hope people would forget the bullshit propaganda of "more oil burned, more standard of living" already.

Re:History...

[LordVader717]

How the hell is styrofoam better than wax paper? Wax paper doesn't even com close. I mean, it's just wax and paper.

Re:History...

[riverat1]

Your list is pretty much what I see happening if we don't effectively respond to the threat of climate change.

Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[watermodem]

the Zealots are always willing to burn a heretic.

Dyson is one of the greats and as Einstein said:

        "Greatspirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."

And God knows there are a sh*tload of mediocre minds involved with gerbil wormening
Not to mention with Lefties, politicians, movie stars..
If movie stars are in favour of it, it pretty much guarantees it's a bad idea.

Freeman Dyson has, apparently, angered all the right people.
FOR MORE THAN HALF A CENTURY the eminent physicist Freeman Dyson has quietly resided in Princeton, N.J., on the wooded former farmland that is home to his employer, the Institute for Advanced Study, this country's most rarefied community of scholars. Lately, however, since coming "out of the closet as far as global warming is concerned," as Dyson sometimes puts it, there has been noise all around him. Chat rooms, Web threads, editors' letter boxes and Dyson's own e-mail queue resonate with a thermal current of invective in which Dyson has discovered himself variously described as "a pompous twit," "a blowhard," "a cesspool of misinformation," "an old coot riding into the sunset" and, perhaps inevitably, "a mad scientist." Dyson had proposed that whatever inflammations the climate was experiencing might be a good thing because carbon dioxide helps plants of all kinds grow. Then he added the caveat that if CO2 levels soared too high, they could be soothed by the mass cultivation of specially bred "carbon-eating trees,"

His most useful contribution to science was the unification of the three versions of quantum electrodynamics invented by Feynman, Schwinger and Tomonaga.

        Wikipedia on Freeman Dyson
Although Dyson has won numerous scientific awards, he has never won a Nobel Prize, which has led Nobel physics laureate Steven Weinberg to state that the Nobel committee has "fleeced" Dyson. Dyson has said that "I think it's almost true without exception if you want to win a Nobel Prize, you should have a long attention span, get ahold of some deep and important problem and stay with it for 10 years. That wasn't my style."

Dyson worked as an analyst for RAF Bomber Command at RAF Wyton during World War II, where he would come to create what would be later known as operational research. .... his major awards and accomplishments run for pages....

Dyson Sphere, Project Orion - on and on.,.

his home page:
http://www.sns.ias.edu/~dyson/

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[DarkOx]

Given the class of folks behind "Gerbil Warmening" ( I like that I am going to borrow it from your ) the fact that they need to resort to personal attacks like calling him "an old coot" and like is both unsurprsing and farther proof they are not worthing listening to and that Dyson probably is...

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Avumede]

Your post above is an excellent example of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[watermodem]

Anonymous Coward
Anonymous Coward - yes he is!
An Anonymous Coward has less cred than a Movie Star.
Show some strength and at least choose a nym.
As for the world - What have you done yourself to make it a better place?

as for Dyson...
Project Orion rocked...
His physics rocked.
His space science is a path the Human race was too chicken and bureaucratic to tread.

Dyson sphere
Main article: Dyson sphere
" One should expect that, within a few thousand years of its entering the stage of industrial development, any intelligent species should be found occupying an artificial biosphere which completely surrounds its parent star.[16] "

In 1960 Dyson wrote a short paper for the journal Science, entitled "Search for Artificial Stellar Sources of Infrared Radiation".[17] In it, he theorised that a technologically advanced extraterrestrial civilization might completely surround its native star with artificial structures in order to maximise the capture of the star's available energy. Eventually, the civilisation would completely enclose the star, intercepting electromagnetic radiation with wavelengths from visible light downwards and radiating waste heat outwards as infrared radiation. Therefore, one method of searching for extraterrestrial civilisations would be to look for large objects radiating in the infrared range of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Dyson conceived that such structures would be clouds of asteroid-sized space habitats, though science fiction writers have preferred a solid structure: either way, such an artifact is often referred to as a Dyson sphere, although Dyson himself used the term "shell". Dyson says that he used the word "artificial biosphere" in the article meaning a habitat, not a shape.[18]

[edit] Dyson tree
Main article: Dyson tree

Dyson has also proposed the creation of a Dyson tree, a genetically-engineered plant capable of growing on a comet. He suggested that comets could be engineered to contain hollow spaces filled with a breathable atmosphere, thus providing self-sustaining habitats for humanity in the outer solar system.
" Plants could grow greenhouses...just as turtles grow shells and polar bears grow fur and polyps build coral reefs in tropical seas. These plants could keep warm by the light from a distant Sun and conserve the oxygen that they produce by photosynthesis. The greenhouse would consist of a thick skin providing thermal insulation, with small transparent windows to admit sunlight. Outside the skin would be an array of simple lenses, focusing sunlight through the windows into the interior... Groups of greenhouses could grow together to form extended habitats for other species of plants and animals.[19] "

[edit] Space colonies
" I've done some historical research on the costs of the Mayflower's voyage, and on the Mormons' emigration to Utah, and I think it's possible to go into space on a much smaller scale. A cost on the order of $40,000 per person [1978 dollars] would be the target to shoot for; in terms of real wages, that would make it comparable to the colonisation of America. Unless it's brought down to that level it's not really interesting to me, because otherwise it would be a luxury that only governments could afford.[16] "

Freeman Dyson has been interested in space travel since he was a child, reading such science fiction classics as Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker. As a young man, he worked for General Atomics on the nuclear-powered Orion spacecraft. He hoped Project Orion would put men on Mars by 1965, Saturn by 1970. He's been unhappy for a quarter-century on how the government conducts space travel:
" The problem is, of course, that they can't afford to fail. The rules of the game are that you don't take a chance, because if you fail, then probably your whole program gets wiped out.[16] "

He still hopes for cheap space travel, but is resigned to waiting for private entrepreneurs to develop something new--and cheap.
"

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Draek]

Yeah, well, they also got mad at Hitler, despite being considered one of the 20th century's greatest strategists.

And that, my friend, is why Appeals to Authority are considered a logical fallacy ;)

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[yali]

I wish I had mod points to mod you up. I don't. So instead I'll quote this guy:

In Dawidoff's piece, Dyson comes off as a classic contrarian, sounding off late in life. A journalist with a scientific background would know how important it is to take such people with a grain of salt-no matter how distinguished their scientific work may be in other areas. Dawidoff, though, just goes for it-for 8,000 words of it. He writes foolish things like this: "[Dyson's] dissension from the orthodoxy of global warming is significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science." Um, no, it isn't. It isn't significant at all. Dyson's fame and authority don't buy him any special deference in this area; science does not work that way.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Tenek]

"Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment, you must also be right." - Robert L. Park

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[MrHanky]

I can't tell whether that's satire or just plain retarded.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Dr. Spork]

I agree, nobody gets special deference in these questions, especially not people who aren't climate scientists - which includes Freeman Dyson, Vaclav Klaus and Al Gore.

But I think that there is a related debate about our priorities which we should all be having: The debate about the best way to use our resources to make a better future. At this point, I think it's fair to assume that there will be some global warming in the next 100 years. My answer to what we should do about it is basically articulated here.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[c_forq]

What is his speciality? Quantum electrics? Nuclear engineering? Mathematics? Space exploration? He has kind of made some significant contributions to many fields. I hate this view of "you have to have a specialty to contribute to the field". Einstein as a patent worker when we wrote the theory of relativity, Jared Diamond studied birds before entering into the political science sphere.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[DerekLyons]

the Zealots are always willing to burn a heretic. Dyson is one of the greats

Dyson worked as an analyst for RAF Bomber Command at RAF Wyton during World War II, where he would come to create what would be later known as operational research. .... his major awards and accomplishments run for pages....

Dyson Sphere, Project Orion - on and on.,.

And some people are willing to take a celebrities opinion on anything. It doesn't matter is it's soap or global warming - going 'celebrity x must be right because they are famous' is bad.
 
 

And God knows there are a sh*tload of mediocre minds involved with gerbil wormening
Not to mention with Lefties, politicians, movie stars..
If movie stars are in favour of it, it pretty much guarantees it's a bad idea.

Fifth grade name calling - check. Blind stereotyping - check.
 
You are your own worst argument as to why we should believe Dyson.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Bogtha]

You have fallen for the Galileo fallacy. As Carl Sagan puts it:

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Beezlebub33]

Einstein as a patent worker when we wrote the theory of relativity

You are well aware that Einstein didn't just spout off about relativity in a magazine, right? He actually wrote a paper, submitted it, it got reviewed, and published. And now he's famous for it. Maybe the people that are saying that climate change is wrong should try doing the same.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[4D6963]

The point is that credibility is irrelevant, which he is using to get his misinformed point across. His point has no merit, and to top it off he didn't do any actual research or try to publish the results of such research. Einstein did that.

People like you need to get a clue about how science works and STFU.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Tenebrousedge]

Please don't talk about Einstein and Jared Diamond in the same context. Jared Diamond and Dyson have not been publishing studies in peer-reviewed journals, they're just assholes with opinions. They have some interesting ideas, but their contributions to climatology and political science are pretty negligible. Especially compared to Einstein, good grief!

Is it really so hard to understand that your position of authority in one field is irrelevant to another, completely unrelated field? You wouldn't take into serious consideration a plumber's opinion on a medical study, why is a physicist qualified to speak about climatology? It's the same damn thing that we keep seeing with the Creationists, where they get professors of geology to decry evolution. It doesn't work that way.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[moderatorrater]

So, instead of actually inspecting Dyson's opinions and statements, they're attacking him for being a classic contrarian late in life? In addition, while they're absolutely correct that science doesn't work that way, when it comes right down to it science also doesn't work the way that climate change studies do either. Where's their reproducible experiments that hold all variables constant except for one? Do they have another planet whose climate is their control?

Going a step further, the discussion around climate change isn't about science anyway, because the science isn't anywhere near definitive. It's about whether or not it's worth taking action at this point, which requires input from many knowledgeable people. In that sense Dyson's fame and authority absolutely buy him special deference in this area.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[kandela]

In fairness, if you read the article (all the way through), and read between the lines, you'll see that this ('...significant because of his stature and his devotion to the integrity of science.') was meant in comparison to the stature of other Global Warming dissenters. Further, it's his adherence to the scientific method that gives him stature, not his fame as such. And if you read far enough into the article you do see that Dyson HAS published in this area, something like 40 years ago, he's not completely uninformed.

He admits he may be wrong. But if you read between the lines what he objects to most is the culture that any science that questions global warming must be wrong, and the reliance on computer simulations. He feels the models aren't inclusive enough of a broad range of fields that could have something to say on the subject.

In particular, he says biology has been ignored. He asks what is the role of chemistry and biology in determining environmental conditions? He thinks that biology will adjust and correct/mitigate changes we create.

Most recently, we say the result of dumping huge amounts of Iron into the oceans to increase plankton numbers. They were all eaten by other sea creatures! Something that wasn't expected, and importantly was a consequence of biology. The article doesn't mention this, but it's a point in favour of Dyson's position.

He also thinks that the environment is what we make of it, this more than anything I think puts him at odds with modern thinkers who think humans shouldn't go messing with it. Dyson says, we're part of the environment. It is certainly a position that is much more likely to have been held by past generations. We think about preserving the environment the way it is, this seems an alien concept to Dyson, and one I think he thinks is a bit naive. Dyson believes we can't help but change the environment, we should make that change work for us, and it will adapt.

Sorry for the verbosity but it's hard to summarise 8 pages for so many people who haven't read TFA. Even if you read it maybe you didn't really read it. It is subtle in some ways and requires you to pay attention - a rarity, most of the articles we get to read here are net-bites.

Hey, I know it's 8 pages long but the global warming angle was not the most interesting part of the article. I've read Dyson, he writes of the future in such an expansive and imaginative way that only Asimov can be compared to him (You could call some of Dyson's writing science fiction without the fiction). The insight we got into his character from this piece was really good writing.

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[Antique Geekmeister]

Yes. It does. It makes Dyson's reasoning more credible both to scientists and to the populace, and makes it more likely to take him seriously. This is because a scientist also has to judge the credibility of his instruments, and of theories proposed in order to allocate time to testing or refuting them.

Many scientists have, historically, gotten very strange and hawked nonsense after their original great revelations of science: Pauling got into the "vitamin C cures everything" cult, and Isaac Newton himself spent much of his later career practicing pretty nonsensical alchemy, seeking transmutation and the Philosopher's Stone. But I've actually met Dyson: he's a strange man, but well worth taking seriously. (His thoughts on how to provide eternal life for organisms are actually a good model of how to extend sensor battery life and laptop battery life.)

Re: Yeah, well, they also got mad at Galileo.

[stonewallred]

I disagree. If I have a mass of data, and lack the time, energy and probably intellectual ability to understand it all, then I am forced to believe someone else's interpretation and conclusions. If the people I have to choose from have histories, then I have to make my basis of choice from those histories and their percentage of previous correct calls on other cases, along with the amount of understanding they show on the current case. Dyson, in his thoughts on global warming shows pretty sound ideas, throws out easily implemented solutions and makes the case that it is not something to be as alarmed about as the global warming supporters want us to be. With his track record, I make my choice to believe him. YMMV as it goes though.

beacon of hope

[okooolo]

I dread the day we stop questioning ourselves

Re:beacon of hope

[JeanBaptiste]

well I don't question myself, I'm pretty much perfetc.

Re:beacon of hope

[JeanBaptiste]

Joke

----

You

Re:beacon of hope

[Virak]

I more dread the day we think questionable logic, misrepresenting the facts, and outright lying to support our personal agenda counts as 'questioning ourselves', because it is sadly already here.

Re:beacon of hope

[bluej100]

Agreed. I saw Thomas Friedman give a speech and was disgusted hearing him refer to "climate change skeptics and deniers" in the same tone of voice people usually use referring to Holocaust revisionists. Skeptic should not be a derogatory term.

Re:beacon of hope

[Rakshasa Taisab]

I dread sitting in the same car as a driver who is questioning himself... 'Should I slow down, or should I not? The cliffs are rather steep, but then... If i drive at 120 km/h we'll be there 10 minutes sooner.'

It is not the questioning that is to be dreaded, it is the hesitation, the inaction.

Re:beacon of hope

[gwait]

Indeed, skepticism is the one thing Science has going for it!

I'm (just inside) the global warming belief camp, and I believ Dyson is doing a good thing by challenging the Global Warming scientists.

Even if we had 100% agreement in a conclusion of global warming, we don't want a bunch of poorly thought out crackpot "solutions" to global warming, which could turn out far worse than the disease.

Re:beacon of hope

[jellomizer]

You must have always lived in fear. As this has happened for Millions of years, and will happen for millions afterwards.

Re:beacon of hope

[Fibban]

Yeah, that would probably really mean the end.

Re:beacon of hope

[Mr. Flibble]

Quod erat demonstrandum.

How do you say 'WOOOSH!' in Latin?

Re:beacon of hope

[drolli]

I am a scientist. I like scepticism. However history shows:

a) Any comparatively new theory (climate models *are* new in terms of a scientific theory will always get an over-proportional share of skepticism for some time. This skepticism will take longer to rise and stay longer the further the skeptic is away from the subject. Quantum mechanics and Special/General RT are two good examples: The first skeptics where physicists, and after a few years that was settled. Then came some phase during which vague ans strange concepts where sold as paradoxes to moderatly interested people (e.g. physics teachers), who in turn stated that "these theories are not well understood". Nowadays sometimes social sciences/politicians/pure philosophers try to think about it and sometimes refers to or criticized the theory of relativity completely out of context.

b) The likeliness of normal people to believe "skepticism" depends strongly on how convenient it may be. For example people, who assured you ten seconds ago wholeheartedly that nuclear power plant are safe because "scientists proveed that hundred of times", even if scientists have a heavy debate ongoing (and no idea at all) where to go with the nuclear waste, will assure you in the next moment that in the case of global warming it is better to listen to a bunch of sceptics, mostly unqualified in CFD simulations or climate research in general and discard the results acquired with great care in favor of some book written by somebody holding no degreee in natural science at all. While in one case listening to scientists makes electricity cheaper, in the other case listening to skeptics makes driving a car cheaper.

c) Books/articles which reference mainly publications from the own institute are, in my experience not worth looking into.

d) Scientists who circumvent peer review, are arrogant at best and liars at worst. But no matter what their motivation is, a lot of pre-publishes mathematical (non)proofs caused embarrassment for the author who believed he does not get enough glory if he asks other mathematicians first. And cold fusion, once circumventing peer review completely, a second time on "fast track" online publication two times turned out to be a failure.

The bear can't be wrong

[Lightzout]

You can include Owsley Stanley amongst the naysayers. While its hard to imagine billions of humans and their herds not farting up the globe dissent and criticism are always a good thing.

Re:The bear can't be wrong

[Galactic Dominator]

There's two people I work with who are convinced global warming is some sort of liberal fraud. Should I list their names here too since they are as exactly relevant to this thread as Owsley Stanley?

"heretic"

[Anonymous Coward]

A heretic is a person that believes in the same thing, but has their own angle not following the exact doctrines. However, the church has managed to change the public perception of the word into something so extreme, it's as bad as falling out of the devil's bottom and calling yourself jesus or some other mythical character.

Re:"heretic"

[shaitand]

From Merriam-Webster (definition of heretic):

1: a dissenter from established religious dogma ; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth
2: one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine : nonconformist

You are confusing the definition of heretic with a description that fits popularized groups that were historically called heretics.

Dyson is a scientist who dissents on the subject of global warming.

'However, the church has managed to change the public perception'

Public perception defines the word. If they change the public perception then they have changed the definition.

Re:"heretic"

[feepness]

and calling yourself jesus or some other mythical character

I'm pretty sure Jesus existed, though I'm more sure that if he did he wasn't divine.

Re:"heretic"

[alexo]

I'm pretty sure Jesus existed, though I'm more sure that if he did he wasn't divine.

Likewise, I'm pretty sure Divine existed, though I'm more sure that if he did he wasn't Jesus.

Re:Thank goodness

[Anonymous Psychopath]

You know he actually was quoted saying "I am not going to let science get in the way"...

Googling 'gore "I am not going to let science get in the way"' returns 0 results.

The last 50 years or so, summarized.

[Anonymous Coward]

1960s Environmentalists: Hey, maybe we like, shouldn't piss in our own drinking water and stuff.

Entrenched corporate interests: Fuck off, hippies.

1970s Scientists: Hmm, we probably shouldn't piss in our own drinking water.

Entrenched corporate interests: Fuck off, hippies.

1990s Scientists: Hey, we're really pretty sure about this not-pissing-in-drinking-water thing now.

Entrenched corporate interests: Fuck off, hippies.

Everyone else: Hey, so I saw this Inconvenient Truth thing, and I gotta say, this not-pissing-in-drinking-water kind of makes sense.

Entrenched corporate interests: Fuck off, hippies.

Re:The last 50 years or so, summarized.

[DarkOx]

"Inconvenient Truth" ah yes one of the most widely debunked documentaries in recent years that now I am convienced oh wait no I am not,

F**k off hippie

Re:Thank goodness

[okooolo]

Well whether it's bad science or not, it at least encourages humanity to clean up our act. Which is kind of ironic when you think about it..

Heretics are GOOD

[DreamsAreOkToo]

A lot of time in Science, you see people get aggressive towards dissenters of the popular opinion. Not aggressive in a good way, mind you. Heretics are GOOD because they strengthen or destroy good/bad science.

Just remember that next time you read an ID article ;-)

Re:Heretics are GOOD

[shaitand]

ID isn't science, good or bad.

Re:Heretics are GOOD

[Tenek]

Competent heretics who are willing to research and provide actual evidence for their own claims are great. People who scream persecution when science doesn't validate their religion are not contributing anything.

Re:Heretics are GOOD

[shaitand]

Some are, some aren't. I think most ID people also believe in science.

Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately, he also happens to be wrong. He is a lone voice who has never published or conducted any research in Climatology; it is not his field. Those who insult and demean Dyson because of his views engage in abhorrent rhetoric. But the fact that some crazy people engage in abusive conduct does not make Professor Dyson's scientific views on this issue correct. It simply means that some people are assholes.

I'm sorry. There is a strong sentiment among slashdotters that Global Warming is bunk. Which shows just how ignorant the population at slashdot really is (never mind the general public).

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[TheTurtlesMoves]

.. who has never published or conducted any research in Climatology;

Neither has Al Gore.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[okooolo]

Questioning global warming theory does not make you ignorant; not questioning does.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Anonymous Coward]

What the hell does Al Gore have to do with climatology science? Nothing. The claims of climatologists have a large data set backing them now. It is far more than just a few computer models. That was the case in 1988. Today, there is over twenty years of accumulated hard data from ice cores, tree rings, and geological evidence showing change over time going back from thousands of years (tree ring) hundreds of thousands of years (ice core) to millions of years (geologic). This is not about simple computer models any longer (though those models from 1988 have been borne out as accurate anyway).

Hard data gets in the way of your ideology. In time, hard reality will get in the way of your and your children's lives. Mother nature has a way of being a real bitch if you don't get out of her way. Earth may well survive this, but that doesn't mean humanity will as well. Better get yourself and your kids ready for a rollercoaster ride without handrails. But who cares? Because rollercoasters don't exist anyway! I heard someone say that, it must be true.

You're full of shit.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Interesting. What is my ideology? Cus i have never said what it is.

By the way I was working with Climatologist. One was my supervisor.

You're full of shit.

The ACs today. Grow a pair and put you name with your ideology.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[mrraven]

You got that one right:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

(Peer reviewed science journal Science)

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[phantomfive]

He is a lone voice who has never published or conducted any research in Climatology

Nope, that's where you are wrong. He has published in the field of Climatology. He is a physicist, but he has spread into other fields. It's not really that hard, it only takes what, 8 years to get to the front of a single field? Then after that it becomes easier in the next field, especially if it is related. By the time you're 80, if you've been working at expanding your knowledge, you can be pretty good in a lot of fields. Don't assume he is just a physicist.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[nedlohs]

So because he got bored with climatology after working heavily in it in the 70s mean you just dismiss him as "out of his field". Seems strange, especially since cross-discipline stuff is Dyson's strength, and he was working on on carbon dioxide being pumped into the atmosphere and its effects on climate before most people had ever heard of the concept.

He just happens to think that we can genetically engineer trees and plant large numbers of them to suck up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere once it actually becomes a problem, instead of condemning the bulk of humanity to a pre-industrialization standard of living.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

The ACs today. Grow a pair and put you name with your ideology.

As if "TheTurtleMoves," with a very high UID at that, is any less anonymous.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Enahs]

See, here's what people are getting at. Since you seem to be quick to lean on the idiot's crutch of using profanity and intimidation in lieu of intelligent discourse, I'll keep this as simple as possible.

Someone like, say, Michael Chrighton, or Freeman Dyson, is vilified for speaking out against AGW, especially given their lack of expertise in climatology.

Al Gore, however, is treated like a hero, despite having not only no experience in climatology, but his total lack of scientific expertise, because he espouses an opinion for which there is scientific consensus.

Have you got it, or do you need it to be further dumbed down?

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[marco.antonio.costa]

Yea!

Today is the day when a respected and acclaimed scientist is tagged "wrong" by an AC and I'm just rolling with it. Fuck it!

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[mattwarden]

> There is a strong sentiment among slashdotters that Global Warming is bunk.
> Which shows just how ignorant the population at slashdot really is (never
> mind the general public).

Funny how you point out that name-calling is not a scientific argument, and yet you seem to favor it anyway.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[jwhitener]

So... you claim it is a double standard to harshly criticize someone speaking without evidence backing his points, while agreeing with someone with evidence backing their points, just because neither are qualified to gather said evidence?

That makes no sense whatsoever.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Ferzelic]

Someone like, say, Michael Chrighton, or Freeman Dyson, is vilified for speaking out against AGW, especially given their lack of expertise in climatology. Al Gore, however, is treated like a hero, despite having not only no experience in climatology, but his total lack of scientific expertise, because he espouses an opinion for which there is scientific consensus.

Uh, yeah?

So Al Gore is acting (to a degree) as a spokesperson for the scientific consensus.
(Consensus based on repeatable results, not just "we all agree with that guy", by the way.)

Anyone taking a contrary position to the scientific consensus will need to have some fairly impressive scientific results backing them up, if they want to claim the majority of climatologists working in their own specialist field have got it all wrong. If you haven't got some real compelling research, and it's not even your field of expertise, then you run the risk of looking like a crank.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[TheTurtlesMoves]

At least you can read my history. Or burn my karma to hell. But what does a AC have to lose?

As for the high ID i change accounts quite often. About once a year. But my first account was still a bit higher than yours. But how does that even matter?

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[professionalfurryele]

Dyson is wrong on some things. He has put his name to statements like "The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years", which are frankly false.

On the other hand one has to keep in mind his background, hard science. Climate models are in many ways deficient. They fail to predict some very basic climate phenomena. They vary wildly in certain other predictions. They contain quantities that are very poorly known or borderline unmeasurable that rather than being predicted from the physics are just read from past data.

The big problem I see Professor Dyson has with current work in climatology is with the extremists most of whom are not scientists. People who don't understand where climate research is at present and make extravagant claims. He is wrong, but he is only a little wrong, if you catch my meaning.

The way I see it, current climate research looks something like this. The best models predict that there is a very high probability (I've heard statistics of the made up on the spot variety on the order of 90%) that over the next fifty years there will be catastrophic climate change if nothing is done. My numbers are out of date and we are probably even more certain now. The problem is at the moment there is a 100% chance that we have catastrophic famines, diseases and the like. Because of his background Dyson is more likely to want to fix the problems we definitely have and which are already catastrophic than those problems we almost certainly have and which will almost certainly be catastrophic.

I think he is wrong. On the other hand Dyson has a point about considerations of other disasters. Consider the truly lack lustre response of the world to the AIDS crisis. If sea levels rose by 20 cm (give it anywhere between 10 to 100 years and they probably will) we would have on the order of three quarters of a million homeless in Nigeria. Sounds very bad (and it is). But at present that country has on the order of two and a half million people with AIDS. I picked Nigeria because it is a country that will be severely affected by climate change.

The point is that on net climate change will be a global disaster (probably much worse than AIDS), causing wars, famines, flooding and potentially a new ice age. However, it is hard to estimate these things, and I can forgive Dyson for wanting to fix the problems we have, rather than the problems we almost certainly will have. His dissent is of the usual kind on gets in the sciences, and the only thing I can fault him with is allowing himself to be used as a pawn by people with an agenda. A crime some on the correct side of the debate commit with aplomb.

I'd also like to take issue with your suggestion that there is a strong sentiment among slashdotters that climate change is bunk. I've posted on the topic before and ignoring the usual cranks and anonymous cowards my postings are well received. I think climate change is real, that something needs to be done about it and that that something will be expensive. I don't think we can rely on future technologies to get us out of the bind we are putting ourselves in. I agree with carbon emission targets.

I just hate it when people on both sides misrepresent the debate or talk in crazy absolutes and resort to insults, especially when they are directed at eminent scientists such as Professor Dyson, who while in my opinion wrong (and bias by a career dealing with the certainties of physics) have a valid contribution to make to the debate. I don't think you are in any way guilty of such an offense, but many on this forum are.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

At least you can read my history. Or burn my karma to hell. But what does a AC have to lose?

No, you can't read YOUR history. You can read the history of an id. That means little more than nothing because people can run multiple ids for things like sockpuppets as well as to set up arbitrary personalities, any of which they might decide to break at any point. As for burning karma, big deal, it doesn't really hurt and you can always make more with a new id.

As for the high ID i change accounts quite often. About once a year.

Clearly the irony of that statement eludes you. Who knows if "TheTurtleMoves" won't be abandoned tomorrow. After all, by your own words, you've done it regularly for around a decade now.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[danbert8]

Wow, I have never seen an AC rant so quickly destroyed by such a short statement.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[jbeach]

This is because Al Gore is agreeing with the experts.

Michael Crichton is disagreeing with the experts - and that's his privilege. However, he is saying that his knowledge and judgement are **superio** to experts who have put their lives into a certain field. Therefore, to disagree with the experts, he should be able *disprove* them. To show superior facts and knowledge. Rather than just say there must be some way they're all wrong, and not propose any alternative theories or evidence that explains the same data.

Freeman Dyson on the surface carries more weight than Crichton, being of a deeper scientific background - however, it still is not his field *and* he's disagreeing with the experts. Therefore he starts at zero, and must build his case.

Think of it as if I am getting a diagnosis - a doctor says I'm in danger of a heart attack if I don't lose weight.

All the other doctors I go to agree. My local Congressman (Al Gore) agrees, so he doesn't need to disprove the doctor. But this other guy who's not a doctor but writes General Hospital (Michael Crichton) episodes *disagrees*. AND this other retired doctor who's background is neuroscience disagrees (Dyson) - but it's not his field.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Personally I don't see why people have such a problem dealing with Global Warming as a possibility. Let's say we put a lot of work into avoiding Global Warming, and it turns out Global Warming wouldn't have happened anyway - we have a cleaner, more efficient world and a bunch of new jobs in new industries. That's a problem?

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[TheTurtlesMoves]

So why is a low id better? Did you buy yours or did you "earn" it?

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[SetupWeasel]

There is evidence backing his point. It is just much more lucrative to ignore it.

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[Requiem18th]

Al Gore isn't a climatologist but has worked with many climatologists. He is more like their sponsor and mouthpiece.

  We need heretics but do we still need another Global Warming denialist? Are you gonna suggest we start arguing for a flat Earth too again?

Re:Professor Dyson is a very smart man

[huckamania]

Amongst other things, he believes that even if GW is occurring, it could actually be good for humanity. Not all humans everywhere, but humanity as a whole. More than anything, Professor Dyson is opposed to the doom sellers (Al Gore) and hockey stick proponents (Hansen) whose huge egos prevent any discussion at all.

If you claim to have proof of the doom of humanity and someone asks to see the proof, your responses should not be "Trust me, I'm much smarter then you" and "No, I won't show you cause it will only serve to bolster my critics". Nor should it be "Buy my Academy award winning movie, go to my Emmy award winning web site and purchase carbon credits from my company".

Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[MrHyd3]

Its all about control and taxation. Taking from the haves and giving it to HAVE NOTS by force. SUN SPOT cycles have more control over our environment than all humans combined. The Earth has had COLD and WARM cycles centuries before the SUV was created.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[polar red]

your claim has been debunked. before. lots of times.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/11/climatechange.climatechange1

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[shaitand]

'Its all about control and taxation. Taking from the haves and giving it to HAVE NOTS by force.'

Yes, they call that society. Societies also have these law things where the collective force is used to make individuals behave the way others think they should. And if they don't act and think like they are told then we starve their children, beat them, throw them in a cages and rape them (by proxy because they know the rapists are there and take no actions to prevent it), and then declare that they have no rights and aren't entitled to ever make a real living again for the rest of their lives.

If you are opposed to all of that, well, that'd make you an anarchist. Isn't it grand?

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[Walkingshark]

Its all about control and taxation. Taking from the haves and giving it to HAVE NOTS by force. SUN SPOT cycles have more control over our environment than all humans combined. The Earth has had COLD and WARM cycles centuries before the SUV was created.

I know that thinking is hard, but can you please come up with some new lies to support your incorrect assertions? Re-using the ones we've already debunked is just lazy trolling.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[MrHyd3]

Negative. And you reference a whacked newspaper? Nice. Good for you.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[MrHyd3]

Your response is disturbing. A lot of reference to rape, however, you're missing the picture. Zoom out a bit and you'll see.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[MrHyd3]

We've? So you're part of the HAVE NOTS? Speaking of trolling :P

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[Walkingshark]

I like to think of myself as a "have a little more than I need to live comfortably." My ultimate goal is to maintain, for as long as possible, my ability to live happily while at the same time leaving the planet a better place when I die than when I was born. Practically this means continuing with my work and studies in my chosen field while playing video games and having lots of stimulating discussion and enjoyable sex with my significant other. Anyone who threatens that by being a lazy minded willfully ignorant twit who likes to advocate against someone based solely on some sort of idiotic tribalist definition of "the other" deserves as much scorn and ridicule as I feel I can spare the time for. After all, a vital part of a functioning marketplace of ideas is the active scorn and derision of those who fail to argue in good faith. Like global warming deniers and anyone who uses the word "Liberal" as a pejorative.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[shaitand]

Sorry, this point of yours that is so blatantly clear to you that you think you don't actually need to say what you are getting at... well, its actually not clear at all, or its very clear but easily invalidated by a slightly deeper look.

Re:Its all a LIE for MONEY & Control

[MrHyd3]

I guess you're missing my point, again. I don't care what you do with yourself and friends. It means ZERO to me. You appear to fall under the guise of a Libertarian, good. Anyone who's tries to control MY environment and restrict my freedoms outside what this Gov established 240 yrs ago is treading on me.

"Anyone who threatens that by being a lazy minded willfully ignorant twit who likes to advocate against someone based solely on some sort of idiotic tribalist definition of "the other" deserves as much scorn and ridicule as I feel I can spare the time for."

You state EXACTLY what I'm talking about....it's all a lie! and the lemmings follow...

Yawn

[jamie]

Oh look. Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.

Non-experts who disagree with experts are a dime a dozen in any field, but for some reason, global warming seems to be the only field where they make headlines. Wonder why that is.

The sports writer who for some reason was tasked with writing this science article let Dyson get away with a couple of groaners. One was his comment:

The warming, he says, is not global but local, "making cold places warmer rather than making hot places hotter."

Climate scientists will be the first to tell you that global warming affects the poles disproportionately. That doesn't make it "local" -- and the fact that those words are not in quotes suggests to me that Dyson never said it. Dyson seems well aware that the climate is, in fact, warming.

Dyson's wrong to repeat the "global cooling" myth, and in his Salon interview a couple of years ago, he was wrong to assert that polar bear populations are increasing. But then, he didn't almost win the Nobel Prize for Polar Bears. He's undoubtedly a genius when it comes to physics, but why does the media love to find global-warming contrarians who are not experts on global warming? There's a question I'd like to see explored.

Re:Yawn

[okooolo]

but you need to be one to actually prove it

Re:Yawn

[Gerafix]

And you don't have to be a statistician to realize that the risk of inaction is far more serious than the risk of action.

Re:Yawn

[gilgongo]

You don't need to be an alchemist to to proclaim the absurdity of turning lead to gold.

And your point is what, exactly? Until you can prove that lead cannot be turned into gold, it doesn't matter if you're an alchemist, a chemist, or a bowl of soup.

Re:Yawn

[Anonymous Coward]

And you see, this is why they look at the global warming deniers, and think, "Are you goddamn retards?". Since when is pointing out flaws in reasoning or fact and requiring actual evidence to back up their claims "silencing dissent"? Questioning the prevailing view is all fine and good, as long as it has some basis in reality and you're not just pulling shit out of your ass.

Re:Yawn

[jfengel]

You don't need to be an alchemist to to proclaim the absurdity of turning lead to gold.

But you need to be an expert in the field to show why. It's not at all obvious that you can't do it. It wasn't until the 20th century that scientists began to understand the nature of the atom.

And not too long after that, they DID actually turn lead into gold. In trivial amounts, a few atoms at a time.

The moral being that significant changes to the scientific consensus nearly always come from experts inside the field, rather than from crusading outsiders. Insights are great, but you need to know what you're having an insight into, or you're just guessing.

Re:Yawn

[jaypifer]

Nearly all isn't all.

If it makes you feel better, you could think of it as he's agreeing with the climate experts that do not believe in global warming.

Re:Yawn

[okooolo]

I agree with your sentiment, but you cannot prove a negative in this case.

Re:Yawn

[Brandybuck]

Non-experts who disagree with experts are a dime a dozen in any field, but for some reason, global warming seems to be the only field where they make headlines. Wonder why that is.

You ought to take a look at economics sometimes. EVERYONE has an opinion on how to get out of the recession, but most are so ignorant of economics that its laughable.

Re:Yawn

[pete-wilko]

A fundamental problem with this remains the use of language. The term "global warming" should be dead, as it provides on the surface legitimacy to comments such as local changes (re dyson's comments to sports writer).

The term is "climate change" - the climate is changing in a far accelerated fashion than any previous observations, which in itself is creating a feedback cycle which is only increasing the rate of change. This change unabated will greatly alter the environment as we now know it.

Anytime you see the term "global warming" you are pretty much 95% certain that the article will be by someone who is trying to cast doubt on accelerated climate change - this term needs to stop being used ASAP.

Re:Yawn

[Dr. Spork]

I agree that the "debunker" movement is mainly composed of shills and idiots. Vaclav Klaus, my president, is one of the idiots. The "global cooling scientists" are paid shills.

Freeman Dyson is neither. Bjorn Lomborg is neither. You shouldn't judge them by the company they keep.

Re:Yawn

[Rakshasa Taisab]

But you _can_ prove a positive.

Re:Yawn

[Belial6]

The problem with that example is that clearly, most of those that are "experts" in economics are also so ignorant of economics that it is laughable.

Re:Yawn

[Belial6]

You are going to need to think of an even better term that "climate change". The climate always has changed, and always will change, so the term is not going to have the impact that you hope.

Re:Yawn

[phantomfive]

Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.

You're off there. In fact, in the article you linked to on the very same page, you see that he has published at least one paper in the field. Sure, his main field is physics, but how long does it actually take to become an expert in a field? By the time you're his age, you've had enough time to expand into a lot of areas.

Dyson seems well aware that the climate is, in fact, warming.

Did you actually spend any time figuring out what he does claim? Once again, in the first paragraph of the article you linked to, Dyson states his opinion "[Global warming] is a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe. The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm."

Dyson's wrong to repeat the "global cooling" myth

He was actually there in the late 60s. I had a textbook that talked about global cooling, and gave possible solutions. Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that eventually we will enter into another ice age. The paper linked to in your link basically outlines the path scientists made from thinking in terms of ice ages, solar forcing, etc. to becoming aware of the consequences of human interaction on the global climate. It shows convincingly that in those days no one was worried about immediately entering into an ice age. However, it doesn't contradict, and in fact confirms, that there was a general consensus that we would eventually enter another ice age.

Basically you're a troll who didn't even read your own articles. And a slashdot editor. Wow, should that be a surprise?

Re:Yawn

[Walkingshark]

Story time!

One time, I was driving from Texas to Florida, it was the middle of the night, and we were somewhere deep in the dark swamps of Louisiana. This was before MP3 players and I didn't have a CD player in my car, and all I could find on the FM dial was country music, so I was running a scan on the AM band when I heard someone talking. Starved for entertainment after hours in the car, I tuned in to hear this preacher talking about evolution.

So I start listening to this guy talk about how evolution was a bunch of crap because of the Bible and all the usual stuff, and then he gets all serious for a minute and he's starts telling his listeners that not only does the bible disprove evolution, but so do SCIENTISTS!

Yes, thats right, all kinds of famous SCIENTISTS think evolution is just wrong! These are highly regarded, credible SCIENTISTS! He then starts naming names.

My response, naturally, was to laugh uncontrolably as he starts running down a list including such legendary biologists as Sigmund Frued, Marie Curie, Albert Einstein, Galileo, and a whole raft of other people, many of whom were born and died before Darwin and none of whom were biologists. Not even one.

This is just that again. An appeal based on the credability of a SCIENTIST that is inherently a fallacy because there are different types of SCIENTIST, and specialization in one field has nothing to do with competence in another.

Al Gore, through virtue of reading and studying the subject for decades, knows more about climate science and is vastly more qualified to talk about it than Freeman Dyson. This whole thing is just more propaganda from climate change deniers who, I am beggining to suspect, are having their puppet strings pulled by some seriously malthusian ultra-rich people who think the planet would be nicer if it didn't have quite so many messy people on it.

Re:Yawn

[Blakey Rat]

He's not saying they're *wrong* about climate change, he's saying it's nowhere close to the most important problem we face as a human race. Which I personally agree with.

I'm sure Slashdot editors have some kind of automatic +5 ranking, but please at least *read* the article before spreading bullshit on your own forum.

Re:Yawn

[gilroy]

However, it doesn't contradict, and in fact confirms, that there was a general consensus that we would eventually enter another ice age.

And there still is such a consensus. The tricky bit is, what is "eventually"? People were always thinking in terms of 20,000 years or longer. Even if we fail to act on C02, eventually the Earth will return to glaciation... if you wait long enough.

Re:Yawn

[blueg3]

I can turn uranium into lead. Is that close enough?

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

  No, but you should at least be a chemist to be able to publish proof in a peer reviewed journal.

SB

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

  There are plenty of economists who predicted the housing and financial crash.

SB

Re:Yawn

[EvolutionsPeak]

why does the media love to find global-warming contrarians who are not experts on global warming? There's a question I'd like to see explored.

Look at the number of responses to this article and you have your answer.

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

  He says*:

  There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global. I am not saying that the warming does not cause problems. Obviously it does. Obviously we should be trying to understand it better. I am saying that the problems are grossly exaggerated.They take away money and attention from other problems that are more urgent and more important, such as poverty and infectious disease and public education and public health, and the preservation of living creatures on land and in the oceans, not to mention easy problems such as the timely construction of adequate dikes around the city of New Orleans.

  While I agree with him that those are important problems - particularly infectious disease - I disagree with him that those problems are *more important* than something which has the potential to wipe out civilization.

  (I'll give him the infectious disease in that respect - although we have survived global pandemics before - although global warming also has the potential to *increase* the danger of infectious disease, by shifting the ecosystems that certain diseases thrive in.)

  Dyson is a very talented and brilliant physicist, but he is not a climatologist nor does he come close to approaching the amount of expertise across various related fields that contribute to our understanding of what's happening today.

  Everyone who feels they have something to contribute in this debate should read the article I link to below from which those quotes were taken. Read it *thoroughly* and then go and find out for yourself what many other people in the fields he addresses think about the issue. You'll find that, for example, a majority of scientists disagree with his analysis of biological carbon sequestration, and unlike Dyson, they have data to back up their peer reviewed publications.

  This quote is particularly illuminating:

  When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories. Many of the basic processes of planetary ecology are poorly understood. They must be better understood before we can reach an accurate diagnosis of the present condition of our planet. When we are trying to take care of a planet, just as when we are taking care of a human patient, diseases must be diagnosed before they can be cured. We need to observe and measure what is going on in the biosphere, rather than relying on computer models.

  In which he is saying we need more data. So essentially he is saying the same thing that nearly all the climatologists and everyone else involved are saying - WE NEED MORE DATA. More funding, more equipment, more science and less hype. More funding! Dyson is a "global warming heretic" yet he's saying the same thing most of the scientists involved in the research get 'accused' of asking for?

  Keep in mind that all of our science and knowledge to date could very well be *understating* the potential problems, as well. Which if you look at predictions from only a few years ago of arctic melting and permafrost CO2/methane release, you'll find that the scientists doing those predictions then were actually being *optimistic*.

*http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dysonf07/dysonf07_index.html

SB

Re:Yawn

[Ghubi]

The problem with Bjorn Lomborg's list of priorities is that it doesn't account for the impact of climate change on non-human species. Not that I could do any better. It is exceedingly difficult to economically quantify the suffering of millions of humans vs. the extinction of other species.

I also notice Lomborg doesn't include overpopulation in his list of problems. Attempts to rectify the problem of overpopulation by killing people will not be enough. The US campaign in Iraq only managed to kill about a million people, a mere fraction of the number of births over the last 6 years. We have to focus on prevention. I hope you all are doing your part by not breeding.

Re:Yawn

[Scrameustache]

Non-experts who disagree with experts are a dime a dozen in any field, but for some reason, global warming seems to be the only field where they make headlines.

There's biology, disagreeing laymen get a LOT of press on that. And epidemiology.

Re:Yawn

[ArsonSmith]

That's the problem with predictions, when everyone has a different one some will be right. It's not much different than the 9/11 FBI reports about possible terrorist flight training happening in Arizona that actually turned out to be where they learned to fly commercial plans. In hind sight we think why didn't we take them serious. At the time, the report was dropped in the bucket with 20,000 other similar reports that all turned out to be false.

Re:Yawn

[ArsonSmith]

I think the appropriate term shouldn't be "global warming" or "climate change." The best word to fit would be "weather"

whether the weather is cold
or whether the weather is hot
we're going to have weather
whether or not.

Re:Yawn

[Dr. Spork]

Regarding non-human lifeforms, Lomborg thinks that resources should be focused on preserving habitats and preventing extinctions. Both of these are many orders of magnitude cheaper that a rushed retooling of our entire energy industry, and they are being ignored. And here I agree.

I don't remember him addressing overpopulation, but here's what I'd say about that: human depopulation is far more likely than overpopulation. Look here for the authoritative talk on the subject, by Philip Longman. (mp3 and ogg of the talk)

Re:Yawn

[russotto]

He was actually there in the late 60s. I had a textbook that talked about global cooling, and gave possible solutions. Indeed, there is no reason to doubt that eventually we will enter into another ice age.

I was there in the 70s, and I remember Global Cooling as well. The revisionist claims that there was no such panic are part of my reason for being extremely distrustful of the global warming cabal..err, "consensus". Sort of like if 10 years from now, a consensus of historians were to proclaim that the Soviet Union was a myth.

Re:Yawn

[ozbird]

Just because they aren't shills or idiots doesn't mean they aren't wrong.

Re:Yawn

[Goldsmith]

Have you read Dyson's paper on global warming?

It's essentially a description of how we could grow plants to take CO2 out of the air. He advocates a carbon tax to pay for this. He estimated that around 2000 the problem with CO2 may or may not be acute, and the problem may not be solved so easily. This was in 1977. His estimates and descriptions are very simple, but he admits that. On the other hand, he provides a very workable solution: tax CO2 production and then use the money to sequester the carbon. He's not some romantic scientific "heretic," he was an early believer in global warming, an early believer that it was a problem and an early believer that economics could be used to help solve it.

It's really too bad more people didn't listen to him back then.

As you point out, his problem is with the panic over global warming (he may have a point), but he's allowing himself to be used a poster-boy for the "global warming doesn't exist" crowd. When Dyson says to simply tax CO2 and use the money to capture it and you're solved the problem, he means it. He means it exactly when he says global warming is a political problem, he thinks the science is done. However, that is all he expects is necessary to say to solve it.

That there should be any more debate or that some politician would not take his advice is unreasonable (this mindset is common in physics, we often don't understand why people don't take our advice, and his advice is obviously scientifically good). The political debate is so distasteful to him that he's separating himself from any scientists who are engaging in politics. That Al Gore is trying to get people to agree to his solution doesn't matter. That a politician is acting like a scientist and gaining popularity from that act is a more important problem to him. This is a mistake of an older (more naive/less cynical) generation of scientist.

Re:Yawn

[Fibban]

Well, I didn't read it the same way, as I saw it he didn't really disputed the global warming, but he said it was mostly natural and the influence of humans is proven, but that it is a small chanse that it will be as catastrophic as most of us believe. Well maybe nit, but I think there are an overreaction againg CO2, If all cars go electric, we get bigger problems with battery manufactoring. I live just about 200 meters from an old batteryplant, It still leaking heavy metals into the groundwater after 20 years...

Re:Yawn

[Quothz]

Oh look. Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.

You believe Freeman Dyson is not a climate scientist? Are you sure you don't mean you just disagree with him?

Dyson's led a number of climate-related research projects which issued peer-reviewed papers. While his conclusions are often criticized, his methodology is not. You're gonna need a better argument than dismissing one of the most renowned scientists in the world as an amateur.

Re:Yawn

[antirelic]

Yeah, *YAWN* The experts could never be wrong. We should have stopped ALL progress back in the 1970's to stop global cooling dead in its tracks... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling I think people are just tired of bullshit "the sky is falling" warnings coming out of scientific circles. 40 Years ago the world was freezing, 5 years ago the world was "warming" and now its just that the climate is "changing". Has anyone learned anything about the boy who cried wolf? The rhetoric keeps changing and people just dont want to hear it anymore.

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

My point to the parent poster was that not all experts are fools.

SB

Re:Yawn

[stephanruby]

Economics is not a Science. It never was. Even fools can get some predictions right. Just take a look at Astrology.

Re:Yawn

[Garse Janacek]

I was there in the 70s, and I remember Global Cooling as well. The revisionist claims that there was no such panic are part of my reason for being extremely distrustful of the global warming cabal..err, "consensus".

I've read a number of "I was there! I remember the panic!" posts over the years on slashdot, and yet I've still never seen any of them who were able to point to any significant body of actual scientific research that supports it. Media distortion of scientific research is easy to find. Can you point to actual scientists (preferably peer-reviewed) who were suggesting this was a serious danger?

Since the claim is evidently that there was a "panic" about the whole thing, realistically to support it you'd need a fairly broad citation list, at least several papers (or a couple papers that cite several others)... but I'd be interested to see if there was more than one, or even one paper, that both (1) shows evidence that global temperatures are cooling, and (2) makes any kind of prediction that this trend will continue in such a way as to pose a serious danger (not necessarily an absolute doomsday prediction, a serious suggestion would suffice, but it should be a serious suggestion and not just "we should probably study this some more to see if..." -- otherwise it in no way compares to the level of widespread confidence among climatologists today on global warming).

Pointing to old media articles is not a substitute for this kind of evidence, nor is "I was there and I remember" good enough unless there is some additional evidence that what you "remember" is scientific consensus and not media alarmism.

Re:Yawn

[ConceptJunkie]

A million people?! The best estimates aren't even a tenth of that, and that's all civilian deaths, not just the ones caused by the U.S.. I'm glad you're not breeding, my kids will grow up in a world with that many fewer brainwashed, America-hating people.

Re:Yawn

[jamie]

Another non-climate-scientist

You're off there. In fact, in the article you linked to [salon.com] on the very same page, you see that he has published at least one paper in the field.

His paper was published in Energy, which was not a journal of climate science. The paper is not one on climate science.

He briefly discusses the concept of global warming in broad strokes, and then writes "The time is now ripe to ask a different question. Suppose..." at which point he switches to the topic of speculating on possible carbon sequestration methods.

As I said: Dyson is not a climate scientist.

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

  Oh, I agree.

  But economics at least has some basis in reality. Astrology doesn't.

SB

Re:Yawn

[MisterCIA]

Not to mention the fact that while it is prohibitively expensive and technically difficult, it is possible to change lead into gold using nuclear transmutation.

Re:Yawn

[mattwarden]

> Slashdot editors ... please at least *read* the article before spreading
> bullshit on your own forum.

Are you serious? In this economy, I wouldn't risk my job like that.

Re:Yawn

[stonewallred]

I can change lead to gold. Send me a few tons of lead, and help me get to the nearest star ready to go supernovae and presto-chango, lead to gold. I will even let you gather up all the gold.

Re:Yawn

[Brandybuck]

If you're talking about all those government economists who will say whatever the powers that be tell them too, then you are indeed correct. Keynesian Economics has been thoroughly disproven, discredited and debunked. It is the Lamarckian evolution of economics. Yet because it offers an excuse for deficit spending, it is back in vogue.

p.s. Not that I am excusing Supply Side economics. Deficit spending is bad regardless of whether it's a liberal or conservative congress and administration doing it.

Re:Yawn

[Brandybuck]

Economics is a social science, with as much validity as anthropology and psychology. Unfortunately, many economists like to fantasize that their field is as rigorous and deterministic as physics.

Re:Yawn

[ChameleonDave]

The lowest estimate says 200,000. The best estimate says at least 1,000,000.

Re:Yawn

[shadowbearer]

  Agreed wrt to anthropology. At least that has physical evidence that can be viewed by others and debated.

  Psychology, tho? Come on ;)

SB

Re:Yawn

[Ghubi]

Iraq War Casualties

Best estimates are less than a tenth eh? The IBC number isn't an estimate it's a tally. It represents the absolute minimum number of deaths due to violence alone. Where do you find estimates (plural) below 100k? And what makes those estimates better than the other estimates?

Yes, I used the largest estimate. I did so because the larger number is less supportive of my assertion that war is not significantly decreasing global population.

If I had been trying to make some sort of anti-American statement I would have used the smaller numbers. No need to quote the larger estimates to call attention to the fact that your average American is more upset by the little more than 4,000 American casualties in Iraq than by the roughly 100,000 confirmed Iraqi casualties, caused by an unnecessary assault on a nation that posed absolutely no threat to national security, regardless of whether they have any personal connection to any of the soldiers killed in Iraq. Or the fact that most Americans have no perspective about the fact that the number of Americans killed in the World Trade Center in 2001 is less than a tenth of the number of Americans killed in traffic accidents each year.

Re:Yawn

[jamie]

Cites?

Re:Yawn

[phantomfive]

He spent a good portion of the seventies studying the carbon cycle. He knows more about it than most people, and he knows how to use good scientific technique, unlike some other climatologists (I'm looking at you, James Hansen!).

Other than that, point conceded.

Re:Thank goodness

[okooolo]

I guess computer science got in your way.

Re:Thank goodness

[cam_macleod]

Yes, yes, one study was debunked. The infamous hockey stick graph was based on incorrect data. However, over ten other non-debunked studies show very similar data, so it's time to grow up and stop complaining about one single tree in a forest.

See these sites for helpful links to other studies, and accurate graphs showing that there is still an obvious issue we need to be concerned about:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/broken-hockey-stick.htm

http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/14/01828/236

Read his actual opinions

[artor3]

I'm sure this discussion will be flooded with global warming deniers, but if you actually read Dyson's opinions, he believes that global warming IS happening and we ARE to blame.

His only complaint with the science is that he feels that some of the computer models are fudged to make the results look worse than they might actually be.

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[artor3]

You're an idiot. That word dates back to the 15th century.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/denier

Re:Read his actual opinions

[PolygamousRanchKid]

His only complaint with the science is that he feels that some of the computer models are fudged to make the results look worse than they might actually be.

An engineer, a mathematician and a computer scientist are being interviewed to become CFO of a big company. The CEO asks, "What is two plus two?"

The engineer whips out his cell phone, uses the calculator, and shows it to the CEO. "Two plus two is four!"

The mathematician whips out his portable whiteboard, scribbles some stuff one it, and shows it to the CEO. "This proves that two plus two is four!"

The computer scientist whips out a computer model, shrugs, sighs and asks, "How much do you want it to be?"

Re:Read his actual opinions

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone with a phd in physics has gone through a rigorous exploration of science and understanding. A man of Dyson's standing in the physics field is more then qualified to take any truly scientific theory and analyze it for its strengths and problems. I fully admit his analysis will not be as in depth as someone who has wasted years of their life studding climate change; but, with his grasp and understanding of basic science he will be able to point out flaws in logic and shoddy results. You know kind of like asking an electrical engineer why the bridge built out of swiss cheese isn't holding up very well.

Personally, having gone through a much more watered down education in getting my phd in physics then Dyson, I actually respect his analysis on climate change more then most of the real climate change 'scientists'.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[gripen40k]

What?

Re:Read his actual opinions

[blueg3]

His opinion seems predominantly about how to deal with it, not whether or not it's happening. Despite the science being on their side, there are quite a lot of environmentalists that approach this issue with something more along the lines of uneducated fervor. (The same is true of the anti-warming crowd, too.)

Dyson's a long-standing dissenter on whatever is readily available to dissent on. His tree suggestions is fairly typical -- theoretically interesting, but practically unviable.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[shaitand]

No, the term 'deniers' was first applied to anyone who denies something.

For god sake, move on from the damn holocaust already.

'And you should go to a Holocaust museum and reflect on the insensitivity of your juvenile prank.'

Precisely whom was he insensitive to even if it had been a reference to the holocaust? Were you a jew in nazi germany? No? Guess it wasn't you then.

The holocaust happened, it was terrible. Was it the most tragic event of the 20th century? One of them but there are a dozen others to go along with it and even lesser scale events that are probably more tragic because of the impact they had on the world. The war itself was tragic, the holocaust impacted a large number of a single isolated group of people who just happen to control large amounts of wealth and have a loud voice.

Stop leaning on the identity of a group and start owning your own identity, things that have happened to you, and things you have accomplished or not accomplishments.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[4D6963]

Plus, he sugggested that a solution to it would be genetically engineered trees designed to "eat" carbon more efficiently. So basically it's "do nothing and wait for a solution that doesn't exist and that no one is working on and that would be unfeasible (out of scale) anyways"

Re:Read his actual opinions

[kilgortrout]

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

Have you somehow missed the irony of your statement? I have no idea what your qualifications are to make that observation but they are undoubtedly less than the person you are criticizing. More to the point, none of us here have the qualifications to make a detailed assessment of the methodologies involved in examining projected climate change; we're all taking this on faith one way or another. Kind of smells like religion on both sides of the aisle to me which undoubtedly explains the religious zeal of those opining on this topic.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[Walkingshark]

The preacher pulls out a cross and begins praying and then replies, "If God had wanted you to know he would have put the answer in the bible. Some things Man was not meant to know."

Re:Read his actual opinions

[syousef]

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

Even a layperson can debunk bad science if the logic the scientists are presenting is obviously flawed or false. Now whoever does this needs to be able to look at the detail and will come to a point where their knowledge is inadequate and they need to concede one or more points, or learn enough to read the presented evidence.

In this case denying that humanity is having an impact on the environment, even with a basic knowledge of what's going on seems stupid to me. With the amount of CO2 we're spewing into the atmosphere, at best the question is where's the tipping point and have we reached it (and all evidence points to the fact we have). That doesn't mean we should treat our scientist as holy and untouchable. You'd think in this day and age we could remove more of the bias created by scientific association and accreditation bodies. (No where is this more evident than medicine, where practioners routinely abuse the scientific process to their own ends. Doctors in particular seem to be arrogant and all too willing to ignore factual evidence....and who hasn't heard of a scientific paper or trial which was biased)

We ALL need to be involved in the environment and we ALL need to think critically. The process needs to be a genuine and intellgent attempt to analyse what's going on, rather than a biased attempt to prove things are the way we want them to be.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[russotto]

In this case denying that humanity is having an impact on the environment, even with a basic knowledge of what's going on seems stupid to me. With the amount of CO2 we're spewing into the atmosphere, at best the question is where's the tipping point and have we reached it (and all evidence points to the fact we have).

Actually, an earlier question would be "is there a tipping point?" With enough negative feedback, there simply isn't one.

Also, if we have already reached a tipping point, there's no point in worrying about it; there's nothing we can do anyway, we're headed to Venus.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[phantomfive]

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

You're wrong. He's spent a good chunk of time working in the field of climatology, and even published a paper dealing directly with climate change. He is not new to this field.

And in all honesty, his work is at least as reliable as that of James Hansen, who for some reason gets a lot of respect from politicians.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[feepness]

I'm sure this discussion will be flooded with global warming deniers,

I don't think anyone denies that's it's a gotten warmer over the last decade. The question is whether that is man's fault.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[syousef]

Actually, an earlier question would be "is there a tipping point?" With enough negative feedback, there simply isn't one.

Also, if we have already reached a tipping point, there's no point in worrying about it; there's nothing we can do anyway, we're headed to Venus

Even after you reach a tipping point it's possible, though it would require extraordinary effort to reverse things. Your argument that we should just not worry about it if there is anything we can do to slow things down or reverse them is just irresponsible.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[Macthorpe]

He used the term "deniers" to make the inference. Then he got called on it.

denier [di-nahy-er]
-noun

a person who denies.

In Canada, where I live, you'd be put in jail for this.

Quick! Make sure everyone who has a dictionary is put in jail! I wonder if you ever considered that it was only you that made the inference? Following on from that, maybe you could conclude that instead of uncovering some over-arching anti-semitic conspiracy on Slashdot, all you've done is reveal that you're just an over-sensitive ego-centric tool?

Re:Read his actual opinions

[ceoyoyo]

Why is his opinion pointless? Science is science. Yes, a scientist from one specialty probably doesn't have the background to immediately do original research in a different specialty, but ANY scientist should be able to do a basic assessment of ANY scientific conclusion. That's one of the important properties of science.

If you're in the habit of defending your results by saying "oh, well, you're not active in so you're not qualified to critique my work" then you've got problems. If your entire field uses that excuse then your entire field has problems.

If Dyson said "hey, I made this computer model and it disproves global warming!" then he'd but full of crap. He didn't. He questions whether the existing scientific evidence is sufficient to justify the details of the conclusions.

An example for any science: if I come along with my 10 subject study and a result with a p-value of 0.05 and a conclusion that my results are iron clad and we should take immediate and expensive action, ANY scientist would be justified in challenging that conclusion.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[russotto]

Even after you reach a tipping point it's possible, though it would require extraordinary effort to reverse things.

A "tipping point" in this case would be a point at which positive feedback in the environment would, even if humanity didn't release a single extra molecule of greenhouse gases, cause the Earth to become significantly and permanently warmer. While it is true that this could theoretically be reversed (e.g. through some process which removes massive amounts of greenhouse gasses from the atmosphere, at a rate faster than they are being added due to aforementioned feedback mechanisms), humanity lacks the technology to do so.

Your argument that we should just not worry about it if there is anything we can do to slow things down or reverse them is just irresponsible.

My argument was that IF we had reached a tipping point, there's no point in worrying about it. Since the other half of my argument is that IF we have reached a tipping point, there _isn't_ anything we can do, I didn't make the argument you claim is irresponsible.

Re:Read his actual opinions

[Requiem18th]

The computer scientist does
>>> 2 + 2
4
>>>

Re:Read his actual opinions

[Mover]

and, 7 x 13 = 28. -Lou Costello

Global warming is a politically painful subject.

[Futurepower(R)]

My biggest personal problem with global warming is that it is so cold all the time. In Portland, Oregon, it snowed in March, even though it usually doesn't snow at all. In another city with which I am familiar, in the southern hemisphere, there was no summer, only two warm days.

Global warming is politically difficult to sell to people when they are experiencing record cold.

Climate, pollution and consequences.

[Narpak]

While I will wholeheartedly agree that there are dogmatic idiots on both sides of this issue. And while I have no personal experience or knowledge on how, what and why things happen the way they do; I feel that those supporting doing nothing and ignoring any potential problem related to global warming and increased pollution are sticking their heads in the sand.

This isn't just about Environmental Nutters (though there are plenty of those); it's about responsible use of our resources and how to dispose of any waste generated. Continually, and increasingly, dumping chemicals and pumping exhaust from cars and factories into the atmosphere is not a positive thing. Our planet is big, and the problems related to increased pollution builds up over time; but it is absolutely clear in my mind that we can't keep doing what we do; there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste (especially at the level we now generate and discard it).

Basically my point is that investing and researching more energy efficient ways is a good thing. Cutting down on consumption, and perhaps thinking a bit more about the stability and continuity of our ecosystem is a good thing.

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[TheTurtlesMoves]

Honestly I don't care much for the climate thing. But Russia were cutting off gas to eastern and central Europe to to show who's boss. I don't need AGW to want to find more long term solutions to the energy problem.

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[cdw38]

I feel that those supporting doing nothing and ignoring any potential problem related to global warming and increased pollution are sticking their heads in the sand.

By "doing nothing," what do you mean? There is a huge difference between (1) global warming "believers" encouraging people to use resources more efficiently and to invest in finding the "cure" for the global warming problem, and (2) arguing for the State (whereever it may be) to violently oppress the people and organizations they feel "cause" this problem. I'm no client scientist, but from what I can gather it's far from certain that human production of greenhouse gases even causes global warming. In fact, it seems far from certain that the Earth will even continue to warm (considering 2008 was the coldest year of the decade, among other things). To argue for vast increases in State power to regulate and tax CO2 producers is to argue against the entire concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Basically my point is that investing and researching more energy efficient ways is a good thing. Cutting down on consumption, and perhaps thinking a bit more about the stability and continuity of our ecosystem is a good thing.

I agree. But I'd disagree with someone who says the State should violently suppress consumption of resources or greenhouse gas production.

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[Narpak]

When it comes to "innocent until proven guilty" I am more in favour of a "sceptical until proven safe" in relation to Co2 or pollutants. And in a marginally capitalist society taxation is one of the tools available to regulate the level of such.

However, it should be noted, that for me it isn't as much a debate about climate (which I feel is affected by our waste); but about the build up of chemicals in the ecosystem. Many of these by-products of our industry and consumption are building up in water, air and most importantly (to me anyway) inside the human body. There is no doubt in my mind that the insufficient oversight of how industrial waste is handled is directly related to a range of health issues (like cancer and asthma). In short the accumulation of waste (industrial or otherwise) can have serious long-term negative consequences for us; simply saying "innocent until proven guilty" seems a bit simplistic to me.

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[evilviper]

there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste (especially at the level we now generate and discard it).

As population rises, we continue to further and further process and treat our out waste.

Sewage is a good example. Originally, you just dumped it wherever you liked. Then, containing it, to keep it away from population centers, and dumping it into water ways was a great improvement. Now, sewage is treated, removed of toxic materials, and converted into a form which can be reasonably safely dumped into water-ways. But we still don't make a complete cycle of it, nor could we practically do so.

Now, if you were to go back into the dark ages, and tell those subsistence farmers that they needed to stop dumping their waste in holes in the ground because they were hurting the planet, and needed to build sewage treatment plants, you'd be laughed at, and rightfully so.

The same scenario is happening, today, with respect to global warming. We've continually cleaned up our emissions from fossil fuels, several orders of magnitude, to the point that there's little more than clean carbon dioxide emitted from many power plants. Telling people, today, that they need to stop emitting carbon dioxide, is tantamount to telling a caveman he needs to build sewage treatment facilities. Yes, it's possible, but it's at the very fringes of human capability to do so, and it is MASSIVELY expensive and crippling to many industries which we all very much like. In short, you're asking everyone in the world to fundamentally change everything about everything, so that their feet don't get wet. (ie. Moving away from the coasts, and/or building levies is by far the cheaper and easier solution for the next century or so). The fear mongering doesn't help matters AT ALL. Global warming has far too long been inextricably linked with extreme "environmentalists" who are only too happy to try and impose what they already beleived humans should be doing, as the only answer to global warming.

Environmental protection has, from the beginning, been a by-product of ever advancing technology. When sewage treatment gets cheap enough that it's less expensive than beach closures, it starts taking hold. Until alternate energy sources are further developed, it's fossil fuels all the way, with merely a tiny but vocal minority trying to shame people into making empty gestures which don't really help, and or governments oppressing their people into extremely "low-impact" living (ie. poverty).

While I've gotten a bit off track, the upshot is that we most certainly CAN continue to do what we are doing, indefinitely. The consequences are unfortunate, but there are options for those, which are far and away less costly, and less onerous than those being pitched by the rich people with a self-hating streak. Environmentalism extremists are merely the least terrible of known human rights violators, and are getting their insanity a voice in large part because of the screwed up state of our system of entertainment and news media, with only incidental help from slowly rising global temperatures.

Mod away...

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[kwantar]

... there are simply too many people on the planet for it to magically absorb and breakdown all our waste ...

Speaking of disasters that will bring on the end, all we need is for the 'big one' to flip over a continent or two and voila, problem solved.

Re:Climate, pollution and consequences.

[Farmer Tim]

Many of these by-products of our industry and consumption are building up in water, air and most importantly (to me anyway) inside the human body.

So stop eating people.

Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted in r

[SmallFurryCreature]

He hasn't lost his mind, it just ain't particullary rooted in reality. Never was.

His solution should CO2 become a problem? Plant trees.

Forest around the world are being cut down. Where would we plant not just the trees to replace the ones we had last year but the ones we need extra? He doesn't so much deny that CO2 is a potential problem but seems to think planting lots of trees is the answer without apparenly ever having thought about how we are supposed to do that. Great minds are like that, they can think about immense and complex things we can't fathom, but can't quite grasp that the world can't just turn farmland into forests.

"Bio-tech, he writes in his book, Infinite in All Directions (1988), offers us the chance to imitate natures speed and flexibility, and he imagines the furniture and art that people will grow for themselves, the pet dinosaurs they will grow for their children, along with an idiosyncratic menagerie of genetically engineered cousins of the carbon-eating tree: termites to consume derelict automobiles, a potato capable of flourishing on the dry red surfaces of Mars, a collision-avoiding car."

A potato that grown on Mars. How nice. And how do we get there einstein? This is the kind of stuff we read about 20 years ago that would be with us in 20 years. It is flying cars. As well all know, they don't exist and probably never will. Why? Because they are practical.

Enviromentalists like Al Gore have to be practical. They are dealing with the very real effects of ricing sea levels NOW because you can't just build higher dikes when they have been destroyed by a storm. That is for instance the problems in Holland right now. As a country we are more then rich enough to raise the dikes but we need to do it NOW when the danger is years or even decades away because it will take years and even decades to finish and worse, if the predictions are to conservative, then those higher dikes might be needed sooner rather then later. You can't just plant a lot of trees if Dyson is wrong in 30 years. By then it will be to late.

That is the real problem with the supposed climate change. Say we follow Al Gore and there turns out not to be a problem. We would have wasted lots of money. Say we don't follow Al Gore and he is right, then we are in deep shit and it is to late to do anything about it. That is roughly the left and the right. The left want to be save and pay insurance now. The right wants to keep their money and their childeren be damned.

Re:Thank goodness

[stevew]

I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached. Science simply doesn't work that way! Then he follows up with "the discussions are over." No they are not. Real science is a process of ALWAYS questioning your theories and assumptions and going where the evidence leads.

There is some evidence that there is some heating. The evidence that it is caused by CO2 or is man-made is tenuous at best! Depending on computer models that are not historically consitant is also ludicrous. All you really need to do is look at the prediction results for a Hurricane track. They use 10-15 different models and get that many different results. Usually as they show tracks taking off from Cuba - the run anywhere from the Yucatan to curling around and hitting Florida - and this for 3-4 days out!

Further - a lot of the data that they use for their arguments of warming are things like the temperature readings in the US - where it has been proven that a goodly chunk of these numbers are biased by Urbanization, but the numbers haven't been corrected for this affect!

Remember the announcement that 1998 was the warmest year of the century -well it turns out that these biases through them off. !934 or there abouts where (remember the great dust bowl???) 1998 was one of the 10 hotest in the century, but not the worst. Further - we've been having a cooling trend for nearly 10 years now! How does that jive with global warming?

Re:Thank goodness

[AvitarX]

Yes,

and searching for 'gore "science get in the way"' similarly turns up nothing useful (except for maybe a video I am too lazy to watch).

Mostly I see forums discussing it and it not even attributed to Gore. Sometimes I see it attributed to him similar to the GP. I don't see evidence that is was actually said by Gore though.

I believe it is a more relevant search because it removes the possibility of contractions throwing off the results.

Re:Thank goodness

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Who mods this stuff up as informative? This seems a lot closer to flambait to me. It mentions (but doesn't cite) what seems to be a fictitious quote from Gore and makes reference to "lord and master Barrack". If that isn't inflammatory, what is it? The whole thing is misinformation and ad hominem/argumentum ad verecundiam.

Bad studies don't support the opposite case. There was a flawed study on global warming (assuming one agrees with such an assessment) somehow makes all the other studies on the subject less credible or valid? Anyone making such a claim doesn't understand how science works.

We need opposition with DATA

[damn_registrars]

It is one thing to oppose an idea because you dislike it or you distrust it. There is no shortage of people running around claiming global warming to be total FUD.

However, there is a distinct shortage of people who are actually able to provide DATA to support their opposition to it. There is a significant difference between saying "I don't agree with that data" and "I have this data set that shows that data set is wrong". Global warming, by definition, is based on the global mean temperature of the earth. Plenty of people try to go for statements like "it snowed in Atlanta, so global warming must be BS"; though of course a statement like that ignores the global aspect of global warming.

As I don't have a NY Times account, I could not read the article provided. Can anyone tell us, did he actually provide meaningful data, or is he just criticizing the existing data?

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[artor3]

He's not a climatologist. He has never done research on global warming. He has absolutely no data of his own. He is not an expert in this field. There is no reason, whatsoever, to listen to his opinions.

You might as well have your car mechanic perform surgery on you. After all, he's a professional, right? Therefore he must be qualified!

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[John Hasler]

> He's not a climatologist. He has never done research on global warming. He has
> absolutely no data of his own. He is not an expert in this field.

Whereas Al Gore is a ???

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[Gerafix]

Yeah because the entire scientific community under climatology rests on Al Gore's shoulders.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[Dr. Spork]

Al Gore is a politician, which guarantees that he has no ulterior motives. Get with the times!

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[drhank1980]

I have a NY Times account and accually read the whole atricle.

There is no data in the article to support the summary, and it is mostly a fluffy Biographical piece about a great particle physicist who isn't 100% convinced that global warming will be that bad that hard to fix.

This whole discussion has been blown way out of proportion.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[GodfatherofSoul]

Thank you. You've just given me reason to ignore you.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[sabernet]

Of course he isn't.

He's also been demonstrated to be quite a bit of a hypocrite.

However, Gore never said he was a climatologist. He was a presenter. A marketeer. The Sham-Wow guy for climate change. Anyone who thought otherwise is a twit.

It doesn't make what he was selling any less real.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[Walkingshark]

Al Gore has been studying and working on climate issues for decades, and consults with some of the most respected scientists in the field. He is a spokesman, but one who knows his stuff. His critics are generally anti-intellectuals who oppose him because he's been declared "the other" by the leaders of their tribe, and in order to curry favor and rise within the ranks of that tribe they must at least give lip service to hating "the other."

It would be sad if it wasn't threatening human civilization.

And yes, most likely some people will survive. But civilization, everything that billions of people have fought and bled and sweat and died for, will not.

But then, I guess thats what the denier tribe wants. They want everything to be clear cut, black and white, us and them, WBush vs Algore, whatever. Its fucking pathetic and if we continue to coddle these idiots we're going to let them drag us all down with them.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[EvolutionsPeak]

Plenty of people try to go for statements like "it snowed in Atlanta, so global warming must be BS"

And plenty of people try to go for statements like, "it snowed in October in the UK, so global climate change must be real".

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[phantomfive]

He's not a climatologist....He is not an expert in this field

Ah, but you are wrong. As a matter of fact, he is a published researcher in the field of climatology. Just because he is a physicist doesn't mean he hasn't done other things. How long does it take to get a physics PhD? 8 years or so, and if you want another PhD after that, it will go much faster. This is a man who has a proven ability to take what he has learned in one field, and apply it in another field.

Check out how many degrees he actually does have some time. He has them because he's done valuable work in many fields. He is someone worth listening to, because he knows how science works.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

The Sham-Wow guy for climate change.

<creepyguy accent="Brooklyn">"Now watch what this CO2 graph does--you following me, camera guy?"</creepyguy>

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[mrchaotica]

Plenty of people try to go for statements like "it snowed in Atlanta, so global warming must be BS"; though of course a statement like that ignores the global aspect of global warming.

Worse than that, it ignores the local aspect too. Unusual snow in Atlanta (which hasn't happened, by the way -- one snowstorm per year, which is what we've had so far, is pretty normal) not only fails to refute global warming, but actually supports it because increasing atmospheric energy implies increased volatility and extremes of weather. Extreme heat, extreme cold, extreme rain, extreme drought -- all of it is an expected and predicted consequence of global warming.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[phantomfive]

You are wrong. He is a climatologist, has done research on global warming, and has been published. Read the article, it mentions it there.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[mrjantz]

Not a climatologist, but they all agree with him.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[mattwarden]

The problem with your point of view is that the burden of proof is on the scientists saying there IS global warming. We do this for a very specific reason. It would be nearly impossible to PROVE that variations in temperature are due to randomness or are no different than in the past. Our statistical tools require significant evidence for us to conclude otherwise, but the other way around doesn't work so well.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[Snaller]

"

> He's not a climatologist. He has never done research on global warming. He has
> absolutely no data of his own. He is not an expert in this field.

Whereas Al Gore is a ???"

God you are a moron, I hope you never vote.

Gore is someone who had spoken to so many scientists who all said the same that he decided to believe their hard facts and tried to wake up the rest of the world. Its not what HE says, but what the thousands of scientist who are behind him says.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[meson2439]

I assume that you are ignorant of the fact that climatology or meteorology in general is an interdisciplinary science. Most climatologist are also physicist or mathematicians. Some are geologist, chemist or biologist depending on what the subject is. If it involves modelling or statistics that person is likely to be either be a physicist or mathematicians like the all powerful deity of global climate change - Hansen.

In the case of physics and mathematics I would seriously doubt that Dyson are incompetent in either discipline.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[1729]

Check out how many degrees he actually does have some time. He has them because he's done valuable work in many fields.

To my knowledge, Dyson has only a B.A. in mathematics (excluding honorary degrees). He's a rare example (Andrew Gleason being another) of someone who made the leap from graduate student to professor without finishing a PhD.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[drew]

Global warming, by definition, is based on the global mean temperature of the earth. Plenty of people try to go for statements like "it snowed in Atlanta, so global warming must be BS"; though of course a statement like that ignores the global aspect of global warming.

Interesting how that logic goes out the window when discussing, say, the decreased snow coverage on the peak of Kilimanjaro.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[vectorious]

Al Gore is not, but he does agree with those who are - as opposed to people who don't know anything and disagree with theose who do. Al Gore's position is rational from this point of view, but a non-specialist's denial is not.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[ceoyoyo]

His particular criticism doesn't require data. He's not arguing about whether global warming is happening, nor even about whether we're contributing to it. He is questioning whether currently existing data is sufficient to support some of the conclusions that have been made. That is a basic scientific function that every scientist is supposed to do when they consider any scientific result.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[jbeach]

Al Gore's not disagreeing. If you are disputing the majority consensus of an entire field of experts, you should at least be able to show that you have studied the matter somewhat near as much as they have. Because I know how to fix a car's alternator, doesn't mean I automatically know how to fix a truck's transmission. So if I tell someone a truck mechanic is ripping them off, I should at least know what I'm talking about.

Re:We need opposition with DATA

[JoshHeitzman]

Also up for debate is that an increase in average global temperature is problem in need of solution.

Re:His story is typical.

[metalhed77]

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.

Ummmmm, every ideology has a subset of people who behave this way.

Saying stuff like this helpfully labels you as being the kind of rabid fundamentalist you're accusing your opponents of being.

Although I still think global warming real...

[John Hasler]

...and human-caused, Dyson has far more credibility with me than Gore does.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[John Hasler]

Is there some point you are trying to make?

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[steak]

unfortunately not everyone is as open minded as you. case in point Heidi Cullen saying that any weatherman who disagrees should not be given an AMS certification.

I mean how can someone try to make the argument that anyone who disagrees with global is also someone who believes in the moon landing conspiracy, when one of the few humans to ever walk on the moon (Harrison Schmitt) is one of the people who disagree with anthropomorphic global warming.

personally, the only thing i am sure about when it comes to this debate is that there are not enough human beings on earth to significantly change a structure as large and complex as the earth's atmosphere. the earth has been and will continue to change on its own; whether there are humans to see it or not.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[Chris Burke]

As well he should, with regard to all matters of science, in particular in regards to physics, and in so much as either are stating their own views of science.

Al Gore doing a presentation that was created from the data of actual climatologists should have a lot more credibility than Dyson saying all those climatologists are wrong. One is a non-expert in the field quoting experts, the other is a non-expert in the field pontificating.

There's a difference here. Start looking at Mr. Gore as a spokesperson not a wanna-be climatologist and you'll get it better.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[gilroy]

personally, the only thing i am sure about when it comes to this debate is that there are not enough human beings on earth to significantly change a structure as large and complex as the earth's atmosphere.

Then you are sure of nothing, because it's already well-established that the activities of humanity have impacted the atmosphere. Ever hear of acid rain? or the ozone hole? or even just heat-islands around cities?

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[Walkingshark]

...and human-caused, Dyson has far more credibility with me than Gore does.

All you've done here is publicly advertise your lack of judgement. Thanks for pointing out you have a big blind spot in your ability to rationally think.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[phantomfive]

Dyson doesn't disagree with what you said. His actual point is:

I believe global warming is grossly exaggerated as a problem. It's a real problem, but it's nothing like as serious as people are led to believe. The idea that global warming is the most important problem facing the world is total nonsense and is doing a lot of harm. It distracts people's attention from much more serious problems. That's an example. It's not so much to do about science. It's really a political question.

And I agree with him. He says we should do real science, the right way. Not deal with things like 'scientific consensus' which is not evidence of anything.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[grumbel]

So instead of basing your judgement on what the actual climate scientist say, you prefer to base it on two talkers that don't actually work in the field. Good luck with that. Just because a lot of the global warming paranoia is complete bullshit doesn't mean that global warming isn't happening or that burning fossil fuels is a good idea.

I prefer to base my judgement on good old common sense: polluting the environment has never produced much good, so we should limit it whenever possible. Global warming or not, clean air is a good thing either way.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[Goldsmith]

Good... Dyson thinks global warming is real and human caused. He's just pissed at Gore for pretending to be a scientist.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[Qrlx]

Care to guess at how many humans it would take to change the atmosphere?

In about a century, CO2 levels have risen to roughly twice what they've been for the past 500,000 years. If that wasn't caused by humans, what did it?

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[ceoyoyo]

Dyson thinks global warming is real and humans make a contribution to it as well.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[steak]

Correlation does not imply causation, just because humans were here to see it happen doesn't mean we caused it. by the by i have a rock that keeps tigers away, you can have it for $100.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[steak]

true but those are localized and temporary as soon as humans are gone so are acid rain and smog. as for the hole in the ozone how do we know it hasn't been there before? we have only been watching it since the 70's, for all we know it is also a natural fluctuation like the climate. we already know that the hole fluctuates seasonally.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[Qrlx]

You really think it's a hasn't-happened-in-a-million years climate event and not us?

Going back, there's a clear pattern of oscillation between 180 and 280 ppm. But now it's way higher. What drove it higher? "We did" doesn't seem like an unreasonable explanation, considering all the fossil fuels we've been burning.

Re:Although I still think global warming real...

[riverat1]

Steak,

There are a couple of things that show human activities have caused the increase in atmospheric CO2.

First, we know pretty accurately how much CO2 human activities release in a year and the growth in atmospheric CO2 levels accounts for only around 2/3 of that total so the rest is being absorbed in the carbon cycle. An example of how we know how much CO2 is released is that a ton of coal is about 70% carbon on average. That's 1400 lbs. of carbon. Combining each carbon atom (atomic weight 12) with 2 oxygen atoms (atomic weight 16) produces CO2 (atomic weight 44). So burning 1400 lbs. of carbon produces 5133 lbs of CO2. Put another way burning a ton of coal produces about 2.57 tons of CO2. Similar calculations can be made for other human activities that produce CO2 and we gather all sorts of statistics about those activities.

Second, the carbon in fossil fuels has a different C12/C13 ratio than the atmosphere as a whole because plants (the original source of the carbon in fossil fuels) prefers the lighter C12 over C13. So burning a lot of fossil fuels should change the C12/C13 ratio in the atmosphere and that change has been measured. And don't confuse this with carbon dating which uses C14. C12 & C13 are both stable.

I would say both of those facts are strong evidence that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere is due to human activities.

Dave

Re:The world is now in a cooling trend

[DarkOx]

Nope that is what is so crazy about this.

Everytime they models don't predict the results there is an excuse. Global Warming has become as unfalsifible as any Religion every has been.

Oh well the ICE caps got bigger, umm umm, CO2 is makeing more clouds and keeping us cooler for the moment but its going to get hot we sware..just wait

Oh well core samples and focile records show we have been though much more extreeme temperature swings and more fequently in the past long before industrialization.., umm umm, yea some stuff and whatnot but this time its diffent. Just wait for this next *Nino Cycle to end then the wether is gonna get crazy...

Oh forget global warming, its global cooling.... ...

Oh forget global cooling/dimming its global warming... ...

Ok Ok global climate change, we have not idea whats happening but we know we are somehow responsible for it and its going to be a catastrophe. - Sounds oddly religious to me.

Re:Thank goodness

[grahamd0]

Well whether it's bad science or not, it at least encourages humanity to clean up our act.

The truth doesn't matter as long as everyone else lives by your standards?

You should get into politics.

Re:His story is typical.

[Narpak]

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.

And how is this different from how a "conservative" deals with the same situation? There are dogmatic believers on both sides (and honestly there are far far more sides than just Liberal/Conservative). People that believe you have to chose between Liberal or Conservative are already taking a step into a world of Us Vs Them that instils in their followers a world view that scares me; and leaves many of them incapable of dealing with Reality in a reasonable and pragmatic manner.

People are people whatever party/faction/group they support. The Us Vs Them mentality is the death of debate, reason and democracy.

Re:Let me see if I can cool things down here

[iminplaya]

Heeeey! I remember Frosty

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[polar red]

that's because 'global warming' is a badly chosen term. the average temp may go up, but lots of places are going to get colder, hotter, drier, wetter for longer periods.

Re:His story is typical.

[MobyDisk]

Yes, all liberals are that way. Thanks to whoever modded-up such a blanket political statement. Lets also mod-up replies such as "all Republicans are rich old men", "all Greens are hippies", and "all Slashdotters are male virgins who live at home."

Re:Thank goodness

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Funny, I found two results pretty quickly.

For a different search, how surprising. Not two mention to hits to somone's comments on Digg, don't count as an actual source for a quote of that nature. Looks like a bloody lie.

Re:Thank goodness

[IQgryn]

Following a few links from googling 'gore "not going to let science get in the way"' led me to this: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=13773. Seems he did say something of the sort, anyway.

Re:His story is typical.

[grahamd0]

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a liberal the liberal only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.

In all fairness, that statement is equally correct when written:

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a conservative the conservative only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.

And is more accurate when written as:

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against an ideologue the ideologue only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats.

Few of us have the integrity and intellectual curiously to acknowledge our bias and challenge our own ideas.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[StartledGnu]

Global warming is politically difficult to sell to people when they are experiencing record cold.

That's because people tend to take 'global warming' as literally meaning that 'everywhere gets hotter'. Of course, some places get warmer and some get cooler but the average global temperature increases and the planet experiences more erratic and extreme climactic behavior as a consequence. 'Climate change' is a more useful term.

give me a break

[damn_registrars]

Why that biased partisan rant posing as a comment was moderated to (+5, insightful) is beyond me.

Global Warmin is bad science, as a general rule

And that statement is bad English, as a general rule. The word is Warming, not Warmin. If you want to be taken seriously please avoid slang.

facts are thin, and or simply made up

Can you provide a specific example?

the Hocky-stick report was done with largely fictious data

OK, you gave an example, that is a start. Care to tell us why you call it "largely fictious" (sic) data? Can you point to a data set that specifically disproves it?

I don't understand how the public can stick behind this garbage

You aren't helping your cause when you just keep criticizing people without providing a reason to believe your argument.

their lord and master Barrack

You really are doing yourself a disservice, here.

And the first name of the current President of the United States is Barack. Please, learn to spell it correctly.

Queen of the Damned herself Nacy;

Cute. Her name is Nancy, if you are talking about the speaker of the house.

Though again you do yourself no service by going for insults rather than information.

pathetic pitchmand Gore says

I suspect you wanted the word pitchman?

You know he actually was quoted saying "I am not going to let science get in the way"

Do you have a source for that quote?

why anybody takes anything these people say seriously without first independantly verifying it is beyond me.

You would do yourself well to take your own advice and provide some verification for your own claims.

Dyson on the other hand is a great thinker who has done great science

Again, a source would be nice.

Re:give me a break

[Dr. Spork]

Again, a source would be nice. (ad inf)

Gah, can't we count on people to know things anymore? If you don't know that Dyson is a great thinker who has done great science, that's your fault. If you're older than 15, you have no excuse for not knowing that.

You also seem to be unaware that the internet has sources for every piece of idiocy, so providing sources doesn't settle anything. The sources need to be evaluated by people who know stuff. The existence of Google and Wikis doesn't relieve you of that burden.

Re:give me a break

[damn_registrars]

You also seem to be unaware that the internet has sources for every piece of idiocy

No, I am well aware of that

providing sources doesn't settle anything

I disagree with that statement. If the original poster were to actually respond with sources (though I'm not holding my breath), it would show the source of their opinion. Often just seeing the domain of their sources tells a lot; if they cited these idiots or these other idiots as sources then we know they aren't thinking much about the actual science. On the other hand if they cited an academic or scientific source to support their claims, then there would be reason to believe the poster actually does think before spouting off rhetoric.

As it is, the poster is essentially just gossipping. They have provided nothing but noise, and I am asking them to support their statements (if they can).

Re:give me a break

[darksear]

Attack the idea, not the language to convey that idea.

Great slogan, don't you think?

Attacking language is the elitists way to diminish and idea without actually touching it. They just assume that because the language is shoddy the idea is shoddy as well.

And about Man-Made Global Warming. I ordinarily would just have this to say: Prove it. And then show how I really don't care as long as no one tries to "fix" it.

But, I'm in a good mood, today. You get a discourse. Lucky you.

Lets start with the obvious target. No not Al Gore. I don't want to be THAT obvious. I'm talking about the "Hockey Stick Graph" that proves that the earth has been warming steadily for the past half a century. But, there is just one problem with that. There is no dips at all. And if the warmest year of the 20th century was 1934 and not 1998, sorry NASA, then there should be a huge frigging climb before it jumped down right around the 1934 to 1950 area on the graph. Kind of suspicious isn't it. And then there is the story about a group of people, that they were scientists has not been confirmed, who managed to get their hands on the equation that created the "Hockey Stick" and found out that even when putting in data progressing from 100 to -100 you still got that "Hockey Stick". While I'm not sure if that story is true it would explain a lot. And then there was the push to have 1998 be named the hottest year of the 20th century. Why was that? It matched the "Hockey Stick Graph". Flawed. Yet they won't toss it out. Kind of like Al Gore.

I did NOT promise that I would not make fun of Al Gore I just said he was too obvious of a target.

I mean I can make the same argument that it was advanced medicine and medical technology that is the cause of global warming. How? Its allowed not only more human beings to live, but more of the livestock as well. And we really are walking heat factories aren't we. That and we produce more global warming gases than our cars do. They only produce CO2. We produce a variety of gases that can and have been declared toxic.

So the solution is clear. Get rid of warning labels and advanced medical techniques. My belief in Darwinism says that the strongest shall survive and we will be stronger as a whole. That and I won't have to deal with idiots over the phone.

Or...we can do nothing and I can finally have that beach front property I wanted so badly here in Arizona.

See? Win-Win.

I could be wrong

[fermion]

Repeat that 20 times a day, and one can remain objective. Modern science is based on that premise. This is beyond simply observing the natural world and deriving defensible predictive processes. It is admitting that even though these processes reliably predict all known verifiable phenomena, it could still be wrong.

This is what Kuhn was saying in the Structure of Scientific Revolution. Paradigms, as defined and used in the book, not in the modern sense corrupted by brain dead executives, are created by an elite group of scientists and these paradigms are mistaken for truth. It is a priori truth instead of a posteriori truth, but if we are actively searching for the ultimate nature of the divine, and not just the static representation, then truth is of no use.

History has shown that our static representations of the truth are always incomplete. In An Incomplete Guide to the Art of Discovery Oliver asserts that such incompleteness can be the basis of science. By finding the one verifiable phenomena that does not seem to fit perfectly, we can do science, either by showing an error in the measurement or interpretation of the phenomena or showing that the theory used to describe the phenomena is incomplete.

Which is to say we should really think about what we are talking about. For the most part when scientists argue about this stuff, they are fighting over old and new paradigms. It is often not about whether humans are impacting the climate, which is a conclusion, but often how we go about collecting data and developing the processes used to quantify those changes. Because the average person only cares about conclusions, they really don't see the subtle difference, and they just see a person who says that people they disagree are wrong. But it is not about right or wrong. It is not about really about whether the earth is 10,000 years old or 10,000,000,000. It is about whether we are being honest and developing ideas that reflect the observations we make, and not just what we are raised to believe.

Re:I could be wrong

[Gerafix]

That's the best thing with reasoned logic. It doesn't even matter if you are right or wrong about certain things. You can assess the situation to see what the probable results will be if you act or do not act. The risk of inaction in the case of prolonged global warming would be quite considerable. The risk of taking action, you will be putting money into infrastructure (creating jobs), science (spinoff tech, jobs, etc), plus you reduce global warming or its possible consequences, whether they are serious or not. In my opinion putting money into this or any science related field would be put to much better use than dying multinational corporations...

Re:I could be wrong

[jfengel]

> Which is to say we should really think about what we are talking about.

For the most part "we" aren't really entitled to an opinion. I'm not a climate scientist, and (most likely) neither are you. Neither as Al Gore, nor Freeman Dyson. And definitely not James Inhofe.

"We" need to sit down and listen to what those who are climatologists say. It's practically impossible to get that information, unfortunately, because you'll find that most people go out and select scientists who agree with what they want, regardless of whether they understand the work. That clutters up every source except (maybe) the peer-reviewed journals with misinformation and half-truths.

The peer-reviewed journals, the ones written by climatologists and reviewed by other climatologists, are pretty clear and consistent in their conclusions. Leading to either two possibilities:
1. They are correct
2. They are part of a large and elaborate conspiracy

I find option #2 bizarre, but it seems to be pretty popular.

Re:I could be wrong

[JoshHeitzman]

There is a third possiblity: groupthink Just because group of people believe something that isn't actually correct and true doesn't mean they are consciously doing so and conscious choice is require for a conspiracy. The problem with so-called climate science is that it isn't science at all, as it isn't possible to get any further through the scientific method then forming a hypothesis. In order to test a hypothesis, it is necessary to repeatedly do controlled experiments and compare the results for consistency. The problem with so called climate science is that we can't do any controlled experiments to test the hypothesis, so there is no way to prove any of the hypothesis regrading the climate to be correct. If the scientific method can not be fully utilized in a field of study, then it isn't science at all.

Re:I could be wrong

[jfengel]

> The problem with so called climate science is that we can't do any controlled experiments to test the hypothesis,

In fact, they do. They don't get to have entire control planets to test the hypothesis directly, but a lot of fields of science are subject to the same limitation, from biology to astrophysics.

So they do indirect tests, from computer modeling to core sampling. The same data are open to everybody. If you want to demonstrate that they're guilty of groupthink, then all you have to do is get yourself educated and re-interpret the data.

Re:I could be wrong

[JoshHeitzman]

Computer modeling is only useful if the model can be tested for correctness. If it can't all it is a hypothesis in software form. Core sampling is not a test of climate theory, its a way to gather data upon which to create a theory. Average global temperature analysis and prediction very closely resembles finical price movement analysis and prediction. In both field there is lots of historical data and there are attempts to create models that will predict what will happen in the future based on what has happened in the past. There is a ton of money to made from a model that can consistently and accurately predict were prices will go and as a result there has been a huge investment in attempts to create such models, but has anyone yet managed to create one that is consistently and accurately predict were prices will go? Not that I'm aware of; I see no reason why a field (climatology) that is significantly less well funded would produce a more accurate and consistent model.

Re:His story is typical.

[Selfbain]

Any time someone has a dissenting opinion against a conservative the conservative only seems capable of defending their argument with insults and threats. In the past, some scientists who have came out against the war actually received death threats. The sad thing is that the evidence for war is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it. The same immature responses occur when conservatives are arguing about evolution. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Conservatives don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case. That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[John Hasler]

How long a period does your "all the time" cover? Decades? Centuries? We've had quite a cold winter here in Western Wisconsin, but twenty years ago it would have been average.

Global warming is not about your local weather over the past week.

Everyone's entitled to their

[thestupidwhiteguy]

own opinion, man. Just cause he might be more educated than most, doesn't mean he's right! And, I got proof. Right here: http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/1a4af347eb/eco-commando-episode-1

Skeptics are usually crackpots

[s-whs]

Skeptics, here in the Netherlands, are almost exclusively people who are not working in even a related field, or retired. Now, being retired means you have no more career/position to worry about, and for many such people apparently the 'old boys network' of friends is more important than actual science. It's nicely summed up here in a response to an article in the Volkskrant (2007.1.11) about some "scientists who say the cimate problem isn't caused by humans":

http://www.volkskrantblog.nl/bericht/100021

But on examining their credentials, they aren't really scientists, or if they are, well, they actually *were* (i.e. retired) or the few that still are, are so in some completely unrelated field. Then their arguments don't hold up (because they don't actually give hard facts and reasons), etc. The article that was published in the paper is what's referred to as an 'opinion piece".

I've checked out several other people on the 'skeptic' side, and never seen a proper argument, but plenty of nonsens and unbelievably inane arguments that would be a disgrace to a five-year old kid.

What Dyson himself said in a previous slashdot article makes me see him in the same light:

Dyson: There is no doubt that parts of the world are getting warmer, but the warming is not global

No need: due to extra CO2 more energy is being stored in the earth, could be water warming up, etc. Also, ocean currents could change, which would mean an ice age in Europe despite global warming is possible. The average temperature goes up though. And that's what's meant by global warming.

Dyson: When I listen to the public debates about climate change, I am impressed by the enormous gaps in our knowledge, the sparseness of our observations and the superficiality of our theories.

He shouldn't listen to public debates! That's almost always not where real science is done or shown.

Whether global global warming really is a problem or not, you need to take it seriously and try to pollute as little as possible, because it's moronic to gamble with this one ecosystem we have.

Re:Skeptics are usually crackpots

[Dr. Spork]

Whether global global warming really is a problem or not, you need to take it seriously and try to pollute as little as possible, because it's moronic to gamble with this one ecosystem we have.

First of all, I agree that most "skeptics" are either stupid or bought. I'm ashamed that my president, Vaclav Klaus, is as stupid as he is.

I also think that we should do every easy thing we can do to not pollute. But that's not what Gore is for. Gore wants to embark on a program that's so dramatic and expensive that it will basically leave us no resources to do anything else meaningful.

If you're curious why I think that's wrong, inhumane and illiberal, I can't say it better than Bjorn Lomborg.

Re:His story is typical.

[polar red]

The Us Vs Them mentality is the death of debate, reason and democracy.

and people. see : Palestine, Iraq, ...

Re:His story is typical.

[glitch23]

Good personal attack against Liberals there.

Really? I didn't know I named any names to make it personal. It was a general statement and there are exceptions as with everything. It is general in the sense that not all liberals react that way but it is not general in the sense that a high-profile opponent of a high-profile debate always get personally attacked for their dissenting opinion. Dyson is an exception himself which is why he is being personally attacked. If someone on here is offended by my statement then that is there problem. Should I have said as part of my post "you know who you are" so that you would realize you could excuse yourself from being part of the target of my statement, if in fact you either aren't a liberal or aren't a liberal who attacks someone for disagreeing with you? You should be capable of excusing yourself anyway if someone makes a general statement that you know doesn't apply to you. My statements only described what actually happens (especially when it is easy to see because it forms a pattern) rather than describing what isn't actually true (e.g. calling someone a mad scientist when they really are not). It is sort of like profiling. Many people view it as bad but it is a way to predict when someone may do something based on previous patterns of people conducting similar activities. It has a high degree of success at the expense of some exceptions being included.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[SerpentMage]

Actually you should be VERY concerned...

As I wrote in a previous part of this article, the fact that it is cold and it should not be should make you very concerned.

In Europe we have the same thing happening. This is actually part of the global climate change problem.

Do some research into the Atlantic conveyor and the ramifications of its change. Answer (and I read about this five years ago) exactly what you are experiencing now.

Thus you should become VERY concerned because once the conveyor changes whole sections of climate change will occur. My mother lives in BC and she is getting tired of the cold...

Re:Thank goodness

[okooolo]

truth is relative. Real question is: can we handle it?

Just as I have been called names

[Jane Q. Public]

here on Slashdot. Some of the same things, and for the exact same reasons.

Re:Just as I have been called names

[Tenebrousedge]

Yeah, I've noticed that. I think it has more to do with your perceived attitude than the veracity of your statements.

Dyson is also speaking completely out of his field of expertise, without any data in particular to back his statements, against a great number of people who have considerably greater expertise and data. I would humbly suggest that if you are feeling the ire of the community here, it may be helpful to avoid similar behavior.

Re:Just as I have been called names

[Jane Q. Public]

It was inevitable that somebody would say that, but that is not what I was referring to. What I wrote was "for the same reasons".

Since the subject was brought up, however, I will say that perceived attitude does not necessarily have much correlation to my actual attitude. It appears to me that a lot of people here put a lot of energy into projecting. I would also like to point out that attacking the messenger, regardless of their perceived attitude, is not in any valid way an argument against the message, no matter how much some people would like it to be.

In any case, back to the subject I was discussing: although I used myself as an example (I don't mind doing that) I was referring to the degree to which anybody here on Slashdot gets attacked when they challenge the "popular view". I have seen it happen to lots of people, not just myself, and not (in the context of this discussion) in any way related to "attitude".

It is rather sad, and it says a lot about the general population that hangs around Slashdot. Do not misunderstand me; there are a lot of fine people here.

But as for your other comment, it is simply false that Dyson is "without any data in particular to back his statements". There is a huge amount of data to back up his statements, as has been discussed right here many times now. If you want an example of people who are outside their fields of expertise, and making statements that do not have REAL data to back them up, try the UN's IPCC, and Al Gore. Even if there is a perceived "consensus" on the issue (and it is very much debatable whether there is), consensus is not science.

But if by attitude you mean the courage to stand up and say what I believe is the truth even if most of the people "in the room" feel otherwise, then I plead guilty. I am not feeling the ire of anybody in particular. I tend to get along rather well with most people here. There is the occasional exception, certainly, but that is to be expected. Considering the actual ratio, I submit that perhaps their own attitude might bear some examination once in a while. And, to be honest, if I am arguing science against someone who is arguing consensus, then I really don't much give a damn if they become irate. Or maybe that is the attitude to which you refer?

People that think humans...

[DamienNightbane]

...can actually have a significant effect on the atmosphere and climate really have no idea just how large the atmosphere is and just what natural events pump into it normally on a yearly basis.

Re:People that think humans...

[okooolo]

Yes you're right, humans cannot affect the weather. Let's have a nuclear war or two.

Re:People that think humans...

[DamienNightbane]

Well, it would certainly end the debate about global warming.

Can we start by nuking the Chinese?

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[Arthur Grumbine]

--
People who claim we can't influence climate should be locked up in a garage with a running engine.

I can tell by your sig that you in no way can possibly be considered to have a quasi-religious fervour about this topic. Nope. Not you. No way.

And we do we care about his opinions?

[Overzeetop]

Well, anymore than they guy next to you on the subway. As far as I know, the whole global warming issue comes down to computer modeling which extrapolates historic data (for which we have an exceptionally short, well documented data set). There's no simple, theoretical mathematics which describes the interaction of human activity with the global environment. Tight now, the most effective way we have of predicting long term climatological trends is via computer simulations, which happen to vary in accuracy based on the time scale seen, the boundary conditions, the granularity of the simulation, and our ability to model accurately.

I happen to side with the camp which says we're affecting the system, and that life on earth has grown accustomed to the current conditions. I won't argue what the "best" conditions are, just that the current conditions (less human population growth) appear to be conducive to human life and overall stability. I'm not really of the mind that accelerating a change away from this local equilibrium is a smart bet. Sort of "a bird in the hand" take on environmentalism.

Actually no, peer reviewed article from Science

[mrraven]

First off I want to say Freeman Dyson is a brilliant physcist and we should all be grateful for his work in physics, he is not however a climate scientist, climate scientists have a rather different view of the whole thing:

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

(Peer reviewed science journal Science)

So do some research about the mainstream of climatology before jumping on the Dyson bandwagon.

And yes Al Gore is often an exaggerated propagandist and he isNOT helpful in this debate, that doesn't however mean that there isn't real climate science out there pointing to the anthropogenic origin of observed climate change.

Re:Actually no, peer reviewed article from Science

[Beezlebub33]

And yes Al Gore is often an exaggerated propagandist and he isNOT helpful in this debate, that doesn't however mean that there isn't real climate science out there pointing to the anthropogenic origin of observed climate change.

I'm not sure that this follows. One of the problems with science in the US is that it is poorly taught and largely ignored by the public. A bunch of scientists saying 'yep, we're undergoing climate change' has no effect on anything. In addition, the solution to the issue is not primarily a scientific one; it's economic and social. Thus, you need to have a political person or group discussing it, promoting solutions, and generating the interest and political momentum to get anything done.

I can't claim that Al Gore is the best spokesperson possible, but at least he's publicizing the issue, presenting solutions, and moving the country in the right direction, something the scientists by themselves could not do. Answer me this: who's the second most important politician talking about climate change? I can't even think of a second one that's passionate about it, much less who is the most important.

Re:Actually no, peer reviewed article from Science

[phantomfive]

Scientific consensus is not evidence of anything. Whenever anyone says, "you should believe this because there is consensus!" you know immediately that there's some bad science going on. Not even the paper you link to draws that conclusion, because, well, it's not a valid conclusion.

A few years ago I entered into a correspondence with a researching psychologist. He told me explicitly that he had stopped doing research in a certain area because of what other people thought; it was too politically charged of a research area, so he stopped researching it. He didn't want to risk his career on that point, when there are other interesting things to research.

As far as papers that go against the standard idea of global warming, they do exist. Here is an article, and here is a non-paid summary of the article. Notice that the natural conclusion is that global warming is more related to aerosols than CO2. However, the author doesn't make that point, he instead says, "This will add more fuel to the debate as to what's causing the increase in sea surface temperature." He would have fallen into the neutral territory.

Global Warming is an area that is charged politically right now. Any careful scientist will be wary of making a strong statement either way, and will instead present the evidence, and let you draw your own conclusion.

Don't rely on consensus.

Re:His story is typical.

[shaitand]

'"all Slashdotters are male virgins who live at home."'

You were on a roll with your righteous anger and then you go and blow it at the end.

Re:Thank goodness

[okooolo]

now I even sound like a politician

But the real data is worse than the models predict

[presidenteloco]

Particularly unfortunate then that the real data over the last decade has been showing across several indicators that the reality of warming is worse than the consensus model interpretations are predicting.

So he may be right that the models are inaccurate, but the general theory of the greenhouse effect is simple and correct, and is impacting us more than models guessed.

Re:Thank goodness

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached.

Yes, as soon as he says that a consensus has been reached, that argument is loosed.

Science simply doesn't work that way! Then he follows up with "the discussions are over." No they are not. Real science is a process of ALWAYS questioning your theories and assumptions and going where the evidence leads.

Yes, there is always room for more science and theories to be revised. That does not, however, change the fact that the consensus of scientific evidence and experimentation to date is the only rational belief and making claims that we need to do more science while refusing to take actions based upon the existing evidence is a strategy of failure and denial. Since we can always do more scientific experimentation, at some point we need to accept that the preponderance of evidence is unlikely to change, relative to the ramifications of inaction.

There is some evidence that there is some heating. The evidence that it is caused by CO2 or is man-made is tenuous at best!

Even Dyson acknowledges that there is real global warming going on and that it is probably the result of CO2. He just disagrees about the predictions of how much temperatures are likely to change and how quickly. The most well supported scientific theory to date, is that global warming is partly caused by the actions of man, including CO2 emissions. Every true scientist should believe that until we have a better theory with more data. To do otherwise is forming opinions unscientifically.

Depending on computer models that are not historically consitant[sic] is also ludicrous.

Historically consistent? Have you been watching Fox "news" or something? The computer models I've seen are all predicated upon historical data.

All you really need to do is look at the prediction results for a Hurricane track.

That's funny. I was just reading a New Scientist article by a meteorologist specializing in computer models of hurricane activity complaining about how hurricane modeling is so often mistaken by the press for general climatology models, when in truth none of the general climatology models in use make predictions on small enough of a scale to predict a given hurricane season.

Further - a lot of the data that they use for their arguments of warming are things like the temperature readings in the US - where it has been proven that a goodly chunk of these numbers are biased by Urbanization, but the numbers haven't been corrected for this affect!

Really? All the main studies I've seen account for many different sources of temperature, many relying largely upon ocean temperature readings. What study (still being used) are you referring to?

Personally, I don't have a vested interest in the global warming debate. It's outside my expertise, but something I follow. For me it is more interesting from a propaganda perspective. I lump it in with evolution. Both topics are well supported by the evidence, more so than many scientific theories accepted by pretty much everyone to be facts at this point. Both are overwhelmingly supported in one direction from experts in the field and scientific journals. The real difference from other scientific subjects is that there is a huge, well funded propaganda campaign being waged to convince not scientists, but the general public that the consensus of scientists is wrong, or more subtly that what is the consensus is not really so and that there is still a real debate among the experts.

Bravo!

[Brandybuck]

Bravo Freeman! It's about time a scientist of this stature declared that the emperor has no clothes. This is an issue that has NOT been driven by science, but driven by control freaks in government and fearmongers in the press.

Lest you immediately rush out to stone me, I am not denying that climate change is occurring. I know the climate is changing, because that is what the climate does! Yet I am still skeptical of the details that the press and government have oversensationalized.We have had significant warm and cool spells in recorded history, as significant as what we are being warned against. Yet the planet was not destroyed.

Even the silly non-science doesn't bother me much. What I object to are the government "solutions" to this crisis. I've seen solutions that range from banning black cars, to banning all cars entirely. They all involve using police and courts and jails to take freedom away from people. Government isn't about helping people, it's about controlling their lives. Government does perform some useful services, but above a certain size it all gets drowned out by the evil.

The real heresy isn't denying global warming, it's denying that government is the appropriate solution to every problem in life.

Re:Bravo!

[HertzaHaeon]

While there are indeed many who look to governments for solutions on climate change, claiming they are somehow the only option is obviously false. Lots of people look to private interests for solutions, and they have them in droves.

I could be wrong, but I think government regulation has helped us before. By banning CFCs governments helped save us from the ozone hole. But it was scientists and manufacturers who gave us the alternative solutions. Who misses his freedom to own a fridge packed with CFCs today?

Some people put too much trust in the capabilities of the government, but who else is going to regulate dangerous substances and pollution? We simply have to be as watchful with the government as we are with corporations, but while we acknowledge hat they both have roles to play.

Re:Bravo!

[Ripit]

We have had significant warm and cool spells in recorded history... Yet the planet was not destroyed.

Tell that to the dinosaurs.

Re:Bravo!

[Walkingshark]

Bravo Freeman! It's about time a scientist of this stature declared that the emperor has no clothes. This is an issue that has NOT been driven by science, but driven by control freaks in government and fearmongers in the press.

Paris Hilton is even MORE famous than Freeman Dyson, knows just as much about climate change, and is therefore, by your measure, even more qualified to criticize climate science. Or physics too for that matter.

Re:Bravo!

[phayes]

My budgie (thats dinosaur to you) tells me that way back when his cousins ruled the earth that the average temperature was higher than today and that they were all very happy with the higher temperatures. He adds that almost all of his cousins died when a very very big rock impacted the earth near present day Chicxulub and provoked a few years of global winter.

Re:Bravo!

[Ripit]

Yes, the meteor precipitated a quick and drastic climate change. Just because man-made carbon emissions don't have the sudden impact that the meteor did doesn't mean the effects can't be as extreme over a long period of time.

Also, just because dinos liked the higher temperatures doesn't mean it will be safe for us.

Re:Bravo!

[Brandybuck]

Who said anything about famousness being a criteria. Dyson may not be climatologist, but he has earned the right to be critical of other scientists. He's got the credentials to know when an issue is being driven by more by politics rather than by science.

p.s. Throwing Paris Hilton into the equation is stupid. She no more insight on this matter than does Al Gore, another non-climatologist.

Re:Bravo!

[Brandybuck]

I was talking about recorded history. And specifically, within the past fifteen hundred years. We had a medieval warming spell, followed by a "mini ice age". Of course, like today, the warmer period wasn't uniformly warmer, nor the colder period uniformly colder. But the trends were there. Some evidence suggests that the medieval warming spell was warmer than the predicted anthropomorphic change.

Re:Bravo!

[Walkingshark]

Dyson may not be climatologist, but he has earned the right to be critical of other scientists. He's got the credentials to know when an issue is being driven by more by politics rather than by science.

I hope it is evident to others how intellectually dishonest and blatantly contradictory your assertions are. You come right out and say that the man has no qualifications to speak as to the credibility of climate science, but then say he does anyway because you say so. This issue wasn't political until the Republican party seized on it as part of their longstanding war on science and rational thought, a movement directly motivated by their desire to keep people ignorant, divided, and more easily controlled. People like yourself.

Re:Thank goodness

[drinkypoo]

I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached.

You lost your argument when you failed to correctly distinguish between "loses" and "looses", and also failed to spell "consensus" correctly. Perhaps you should use Firefox, which underlines such errors so that you don't look like a total asshat. (It also underlined asshat, but I'm sure I know how to spell that.)

There is some evidence that there is some heating.

There is overwhelming evidence that the average global temperature is rising.

The evidence that it is caused by CO2 or is man-made is tenuous at best!

CO2 is a known greenhouse gas. We emit more than ten times the CO2 emitted by volcanoes on average, and nobody denies that the CO2 that they emit is a significant greenhouse gas. QED, humans' emissions of CO2 have a significant effect on global temperatures. Nobody can be sure of the extent to which this is true; we can be sure that CO2 is contributing to the eventual death of all oceans on the planet everywhere due to acidification. The carbon is normally fixed from the ocean mostly by subaquatic limestone, but this happens at too slow a rate for the amount of CO2 we have released into the atmosphere, and are continuing to release, for the ocean to survive the abuse. Thus, even if CO2 were not a known greenhouse gas, there would be ample reasons to curb our release of CO2.

CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history. If you think we're going to get away without any effects, think again.

Remember the announcement that 1998 was the warmest year of the century -well it turns out that these biases through them off.

Your comment is ridiculous through and through. But that's not the version of the word 'threw' that you were looking for.

Re:the global warming heretic ..

[steak]

so people who disagree with anthropomorphic global warming are not only flat earthers, now they're racists?

Re:His story is typical.

[MadUndergrad]

The only person I see here throwing around insults is you. Take your head out of your ass and maybe you'll notice that you're accusing others of doing what only you are doing.

Mod parent up

[orzetto]

Of course, his opinion on this seems utterly pointless to me. The man is a physicist, specializing in solid-state and quantum physics. He's no more qualified to analyze the science behind climate change than an electrical engineer is to build a bridge.

... and get this sentence engraved on every global-warming sceptic's monitor. It will be big news when a climatologist actually publishes research disproving global warming in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Re:Mod parent up

[Quothz]

It will be big news when a climatologist actually publishes research disproving global warming in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

While ignoring that Dyson has published climate research in peer-reviewed scientific journals? And never mind that a degree in climatology didn't exist when Dyson studied. Ignore the fact that kids studying climatology today have to learn about Dyson, because he did some of the original research in the field.

He must be an amateur, because he doesn't call himself a climatologist.

Mind you, his research doesn't disprove global warming, nor does he claim the phenomenon is false. His research affirms global warming; he claims the phenomenon is exaggerated.

Re:Mod parent up

[orzetto]

While ignoring that Dyson has published climate research in peer-reviewed scientific journals?

...disproving global warming? That was not the impression I got by reading the article.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Your ad hominem attack on the parent poster shows you are a prejudicial bastard that few people would want to be around. Yes. Yes you. Yes way.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[presidenteloco]

Why is a person who is aware of and opposed to the large-scale destructive effects and massive alterations we are having on Earth's ecosystems and climate called a "nutter" (translation for US audience: "Crazy wackjob")

whereas

someone who is either ignorant of these problems, incapable of comprehending them and rationally analyzing them, or willfully denying our negative environmental effects in order to selfishly further a comfortable but unethical and unsustainable lifestyle,
is presumeable called a normal sane member of society?

Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.

Re:His story is typical.

[glitch23]

In the past, some scientists who have came out against the war actually received death threats.

Never saw this in the news or heard of it elsewhere but if you say it then it must be true instead of only saying it to match the pattern of my message.

The sad thing is that the evidence for war is subjective and yet people think they should make death threats to defend it.

Again, never heard of any death threats being made in the news but if you say it then it must be true instead of trying to match my message tit for tat. Based on one AC's message, should I now complain that you made a gross generalization that anyone who supports the war made death threats against those who did not support it? Should I now be offended because I may have supported the war without making death threats to anyone? No, I'm capable of realizing that I'm an exception to your statement because I have a higher level of thinking and reasoning. Others should do the same with my original message.

The same immature responses occur when conservatives are arguing about evolution. They believe they are always right and if you aren't on their side you must be stupid, your PhD backing your credibility is actually worthless, and you must be a member of the sheeple party. Conservatives don't have a higher level of thinking to get past the subjectivity of the evidence they rely on to make their case.

Actually, the conservatives in general don't call people names. It any given conversation it is the evolutionist calling the creationist names. If you don't believe me then you obviously don't pay attention to those debates that happen on this very website. Conservatives do have a higher level of thinking about evidence. They don't make assumptions about evidence nor interpret evidence to fit needlessly complex ideas/assumptions to cover up, not fill in, all the gaps. It is not up to them to need a higher level of thinking however in order to make their argument. They only have to fight for their ideas when the evolutionists challenge them on those beliefs because evolutionists believe they have an agenda they must push to indoctrinate others. I'm sure you'll say that religious nuts (and I'm sure that would be similar to the name you would use because you would feel compelled to use an insult but deny it since I called you on it) are always trying to indoctrinate others. The difference is that religious *people* don't have to lie to get additional members and there is no agenda involved either.

That very well may be the reason they attack those who do have the higher level of thinking. That hearkens back to school days where the stupid kids are the bullies. A lot of times those kids also had broken homes but a correlation I believe exists between their intelligence and their personality trait that makes them lash out as their only defense mechanism.

Well, it is good to know you can copy/paste from other people's messages without making any modifications. I guess imitation is the greatest form of flattery.

Re:Thank goodness

[Rakshasa Taisab]

Well, now it will soon return hits to a very respectable news site.

This has all happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems to me like we are operating within historical parameters. We could even see it get a good deal warmer and STILL expect another "mini ice age" if you believe in natural cycles

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/11/a-2000-year-global-temperature-record/

Re:This has all happened before

[Cyberax]

I have some first-hand experience in the field of climate science.

I got tired of fighting with trolls on forums, because people somehow think that their gut feeling is better than real science.

The current warming trend is NOT a natural cycle, its parameters are all wrong.

Re:This has all happened before

[ssintercept]

lets go back millions of years.
alaska's north slope was at time 300 miles from the north pole and the climate was tropical: http://www.blm.gov/ak/st/en/prog/culture/dinosaurs.html
http://www.arcus.org/TREC/VBC/index.php?autocom=custom&page=arctic_dinosaurs
http://aprn.org/2007/08/24/dinosaur-excavations-underway-on-the-north-slope/
national geographic had a great special on this topic too.

Re:This has all happened before

[ssintercept]

the point is that global warming is not new. it's cyclical. life goes on and that i was agreeing with the post i replied to, while adding further info.

your point is...?

Re:This has all happened before

[Cyberax]

The last figure is from ice-core samples in Antarctica. And it's very misleading.

Look at the scale. One pixel on this diagram is about one _thousand_ years, and it takes tens of thousands of years for significant changes.

Yet we see MUCH more rapid changes. As in 100x more rapid than the changes on your graph.

The cycles on this graph are very well known, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles - they were first derived by purely mathematical methods.

PS: Do you REALLY think that all climate scientists are stupid idiots and/or parts of global conspiracy?

Re:This has all happened before

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate scientists? No. "Environmentalists"? Yes.
I can simply point to the irrational fear of nuclear power by environmentalists as evidence of this.

However, a climate scientists doesn't need to be a stupid idiot in order to be wrong. Much of what we were taught in school concerning fundamentals of physics were "wrong" (e.g. 4 phases of matter; 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimension; proton is the smallest fundamental particle, etc). Not because of conspiracy or stupidity, but because of ignorance. By that same token I hold the opinion that the AGW/Climate Change argument is ridiculous.

I personally don't care if it's true or not. If you really believe it, then there are solutions to solving it that don't require control of others. Let's go nuclear. Let's seed the oceans with iron (which also has the added side effect of increasing fish populations). Let's put up the solar shades. Let's move the earth to a wider orbit. Let's sequester the CO2 on Mars.

All I see is debate after debate about whether it's real or not. I don't see people implementing the solutions that already exist.

Re:This has all happened before

[Cyberax]

"However, a climate scientists doesn't need to be a stupid idiot in order to be wrong. Much of what we were taught in school concerning fundamentals of physics were "wrong" (e.g. 4 phases of matter; 3 spatial dimensions + 1 temporal dimension; proton is the smallest fundamental particle, etc)."

And guess what, they taught you RIGHT. Because all these facts are quite true, they just do not hold at some extreme conditions. In other words, all our theories are incomplete.

But good theories have predictive power within their domain. This is quite true about 3 stages of matter in 'common' life, for example.

"I personally don't care if it's true or not. If you really believe it, then there are solutions to solving it that don't require control of others. Let's go nuclear. Let's seed the oceans with iron (which also has the added side effect of increasing fish populations). Let's put up the solar shades. Let's move the earth to a wider orbit. Let's sequester the CO2 on Mars."

Let's ask a wood fairy to fix all that's wrong...

Re:This has all happened before

[Cyberax]

Of course, it's impossible to assert that the current climate change is not natural only from looking at the ice core data.

Fortunately, we have A LOT of other data from different sources with much better time and resolution.

You actually don't even _need_ to use tools to detect global warming, its effects can be seen with naked eyes. Look at corals, for example.

Re:This has all happened before

[Snaller]

"I got tired of fighting with trolls on forums, because people somehow think that their gut feeling is better than real science"

Its a psychological copying mechanism, they can't deal with the truth so they invent something they can deal with. One of the big problems of democracy, it only works if you have a really well education population who can rise about the emotional turbulence.

Re:This has all happened before

[Yokaze]

I applaud you, for still speaking out on that topic. It must be frustrating to be confronted with people, having only gained knowledge from pop-sci yet doubting people, which actually have worked in that field.

Re:This has all happened before

[moortak]

Iron seeding didn't work http://www.popsci.com.au/cocktail-party-science/article/2008-07/inside-planktos-failed-iron-seeding-mission

Re:This has all happened before

[Cyberax]

Not necessary.

I worked with climate scientists as a computer scientist. My job was helping to implement, tune and parallelize computer simulations. Otherwise I was not involved in climate science at all.

There's a lot of people in climate science. Our group consisted of geologists, archaeologists, biologists. We even had one sociologist :)

Linus Pauling

[hachete]

Yes, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century - a greater scientist than Freeman Dyson if one counts Nobel Prizes - and for years he kept banging on about Vitamin C as a cure for cancer. At one time, he even put his wife through the treatment. Vitamin C as a cure for cancer is baloney. Pauling wasn't a nutritionist.

If you dab your toe in a field outside your expertise, you're liable to get it bitten off. I wouldn't take the advice of a Doctor of medicine on writing PERL.

Re:Linus Pauling

[hachete]

I trust Gore in the field of policy; not in science. In this case, and in most others, the Gore meme is a straw-man intended to misdirect the discourse. How he is impugned as "untrustworthy", I have no idea. Indeed, Gore is renowned for being rather a dull, bookish fellow, one of the reasons people did not vote for him. Maybe you have some contrary evidence from a reputable source?

I trust the consensus of climatologists, which, AFAIK, seems to indicate that Global Warming is taking place. Unless someone can show me some strong positive evidence to the contrary, I'm inclined to believe the majority in this case.

Re:Linus Pauling

[hachete]

Actually, your slur on poor Gore is quite amusing.

I suppose you mean Jim Bakker - that's two k's - whose benighted career had the virtue of being somewhat racey. When I was watching the US elections that Gore lost, I found myself hoping - desperately - that Gore would find the common touch, some excitement, some charisma, some racey-ness, if you will. Alas, no. I felt I was watching a dull, provincial bank-clerk clearly out of his depth. And so it goes.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Chris Burke]

So, we should take the advice of a former politician who is now an environmentalist?

No, dumbass, you should take the advice of climatologists when it comes to the climate. If Al fucking Gore is not your preferred mechanism for finding out what climatologists say, then maybe you should try something else. I don't know, you could read a book or a journal or something. I hear scientists sometimes publish those.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Culture20]

If you dab your toe in a field outside your expertise, you're liable to get it bitten off. I wouldn't take the advice of a Doctor of medicine on writing PERL.

Heck, I wouldn't take the advice of a Doctor of Computer Science on writing PERL.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Snaller]

"Yes, one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century - a greater scientist than Freeman Dyson if one counts Nobel Prizes - and for years he kept banging on about Vitamin C as a cure for cancer. At one time, he even put his wife through the treatment. Vitamin C as a cure for cancer is baloney."

Not of course since, more and more tests are showing it seems to have an effect. You know, the scientific method as opposed to just chose to believe what you feel like.

Re:Linus Pauling

[hachete]

indeed. I live by the scientific method. And google.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7540822.stm

so ... maybe

"There is currently no evidence from clinical trials in humans that injecting or consuming vitamin C is an effective way to treat cancer.

"Some research even suggests that high doses of antioxidants can make cancer treatment less effective, reducing the benefits of radiotherapy and chemotherapy."

The human body discards Vitamin C once it has reached saturation.

Re:Linus Pauling

[ChrisMaple]

Pearson and Shaw noted the effect of vitamin C on radiotherapy many years ago and recommended increasing radiation to counter the vitamin C. They reasoned that the combined technique would be better at eradicating the cancer and safer for healthy tissue.

Vitamin C in the body doesn't truly reach saturation. Higher dosages decrease absorption; higher densities in the body increase the breakdown and excretion. There's no sharp cutoff as implied by the word "saturation".

Re:Linus Pauling

[ceoyoyo]

Your example sounds good, but it's actually irrelevant. Dyson is saying "I don't think your data is of sufficient quality to support your conclusions." Pauling was saying "hey, this is a cure for cancer!"

Dyson doesn't have the data to say global warming isn't happening, we're not contributing to it, or anything like that. But then, that's not what he's saying.

Pauling didn't have the data to support his vitamin C theory. Yet he DID claim it was a cure for cancer.

It's important for scientists in various fields to keep an eye on each other. If one field makes big claims that are not sufficiently supported by evidence (and nutrition is a field that's famous for that) then ANY and ALL scientists are not only qualified, but have a responsibility to challenge those conclusions.

Re:Linus Pauling

[mk2mark]

My Father is a civil engineer by trade, his only programming experience was a small amount of pascal in college. However during my own college degree in programming I was pretty astounded at the insight he had into what I was doing based on the small overview of things I gave him. He wasn't able to deal with specific syntax but he could clearly see what was happening on a conceptual level - sometimes even to the point where he could assist. Frustratingly, I particularly found this happened after extended stints of fighting with language specifics - he tended to pop up at the end of said stints and say "why didn't you do it this way", proceeding to point out something that tended to be a lot simpler than what I was doing.

I'm not really trying to make a larger point with regard to this topic, but sometimes people _can_ just be intelligent and insightful enough to the point of indeed being able to even see the overall picture better than someone one who spends their time doing it.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Reservoir Penguin]

The ultimate irony is that PERL itself was created by a linguist studying extinct African languages, not a professional computer scientist.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Mover]

There may be some Climatologists who oppose the popular and money making mainstream. List of scientists Opposing the Mainstream Scientific Assessment of Global Warming

Re:Linus Pauling

[Chris Burke]

There are precious few Climatologists on that admittedly incomplete list, but if I'm going to be impressed with the level of dissent by people who are versed enough in the science to have their dissent mean something to me, it should be stocked solely with climatologists. If there are too many of them to include in the list, then that'll be something. But of the ones on the list, their complaints as summarized read mostly that the IPCC projections are not likely to be accurate and that the outcome of warming is essentially unknown.

Which really is where the debate as it exists in science is mostly centered. Yes there is much debate and not a true consensus as such, but that debate is more around specific aspects of global warming and our ability to predict its effects and in analyze its causes in detail, and not the "Yes vs No" that is dominating the non-scientific public debate on places like /.

Re:Linus Pauling

[Snaller]

""There is currently no evidence from clinical trials in humans that injecting or consuming vitamin C is an effective way to treat cancer."

Except the news has also reported that it does work against cancer (in lab animal tests) - but not from eating it (or injecting it), you had to do something with it first.

So I chose the believe that (and no, I can't be bothered to see if its also online somewhere)

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[polar red]

My sig should tell you : I can't accept people NOT accepting the possibility that we can affect climate.

Re:Thank goodness

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

You know he actually was quoted saying "I am not going to let science get in the way"

So after much googling and reading other slashdot posts I finally found this DailyTech article about Dr. William Happer from 2008:

In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said.

So a scientist with an axe to grind with Al Gore "remembers" something Al Gore said to him 15 years later. What does Al Gore have to say about this episode? If their versions differ, would you automatically believe Dr. Happer's version over all Gore's? Why? Do you have a bias?

And as for the content of what Dr. Happer testified about, ozone depletion? Do you really not think that was/is a problem? From the wikipedia article on ozone depletion:

On October 2008 the Ecuadorian Space Agency published a report called HIPERION, an study of the last 28 years data from 10 satellites and dozens of ground instruments around the world among them their own, and found that the UV radiation reaching equatorial latitudes was far greater than expected, climbing in some very populated cities up to 24 UVI, the WHO UV Index standard considers 11 as an extreme index and a great risk to health. The report concluded that the ozone depletion around mid latitudes on the planet is already endangering large populations in this areas. Later, the CONIDA, the Peruvian Space Agency, made its own study, which found almost the same facts as the Ecuadorian study.

Maybe you and Dr. Happer are just among those who don't believe CFSs and such had anything to do with ozone depletion... from the same wikipedia article:

[after banning CFCs] A 2005 IPCC summary of ozone issues observed that observations and model calculations suggest that the global average amount of ozone depletion has now approximately stabilized. Although considerable variability in ozone is expected from year to year, including in polar regions where depletion is largest, the ozone layer is expected to begin to recover in coming decades due to declining ozone-depleting substance concentrations, assuming full compliance with the Montreal Protocol.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[Tubal-Cain]

-- People who claim we can't influence climate should be locked up in a garage with a running engine.

I fail to see how locking them in with a catapult will prove any points about global warming, anyways.

Re:His story is typical.

[Selfbain]

Well then I apologize for painting an entire group with a broad stroke using baseless claims.

Because denying global warming lets you stay rich

[presidenteloco]

And keep doing things the easy, cheap, and unsustainable way,
you'd have to convince me that global warming denial or human causation denial is not just self-serving rhetoric.

Once we got past that problem in the debate, and were both willing to just open-mindedly say "Well lets see where the data takes us, using our best modelling techniques", then we could have an objective scientific debate about this sort of issue.

I really hate positions which run essentially like this: "I really really want/need things to be this way (X), so I will believe and try to convince you that (X) is the case." This is political manoeuvring, not rational scientific debate or investigation about what actually, and perhaps inconveniently, is the case.

Quality

[lymond01]

Dyson spoke at our university recently. When one of our physics professors was asked if he was going to attend the lecture, he replied, "Meh. Dyson just reads the slides."

Credentials

[Windrip]

Dyson's opinions on climate are as valid as Shockley's on genetics.

The science of global warming is settled

[krygny]

The votes are in. The cutoff point for new knowledge has passed.

We have to have a cutoff point. Otherwise we might discover we were wr... wr... misinterpreted and taken out of context.

Same old same old.

[smoker2]

I posted my position on this on the Hungry Crustaceans topic the other day. Look at the graphs, look at historical records in the rocks. Ask yourselves, did we cause global warming or are we merely part of it ? I think the graphs speak for themselves. The hockey stick graph is a lie because it makes it seem as if the normal CO2 level was almost constant. This cannot be further from the truth.

Aim at surviving the consequences, or it will be too late to organise anything.

Re:Same old same old.

[IncandescentFlame]

I looked at the graph that you wished ... this one. As a scientist (a theoretical physicist... FWIW) I do not understand how anyone can look at this graph and not be convinced that something is different this time around. I mean c'mon ... Forget the "hockey stick", the important part is the whole graph. Current CO2 levels are approaching 400ppm, i.e. 133% of the previous maximum of 300 ppm for the past 400,000 years. Surely that strongly suggests that we are contributing to the problem.

Re:Same old same old.

[Marcika]

Have you actually looked at those graphs that you posted? The Vostok graph actually shows that the CO2 concentration was fairy constant between 200 to 280 ppm, even on a 500,000 year scale. So it might be a slight pointer for worry that in less then 200 years, humans have managed to increase the concentration to way beyond that to almost 400 ppm! (You might be right in the need for preparing for the worst, though.)

Re:Same old same old.

[SuperBanana]

The hockey stick graph [wikimedia.org] is a lie because it makes it seem as if the normal CO2 level was almost constant. This cannot be further from the truth.

Both graphs show exactly the same thing- that we're in an upswing with CO2 levels, but that the upswing this time is significantly higher than every other cycle, going back half a million years. Also, notice something funny about the last few thousand years temperature-wise? Namely that the pattern is also broken there?

You're an utter moron, as is whoever modded you up. Time to start metamoderating again.

Re:Same old same old.

[smoker2]

So if I'm an utter moron, why does the graph indicate that over the past 400,000 years, there is a natural peak at which CO2 levels cease rising and suddenly drop ?

This surely indicates that there is a natural limit beyond which CO2 uptake by the atmosphere is not viable, and a significant change takes place to lower levels. If you were to study a graph showing levels dating back millions of years, you would see that even though AGW has caused levels to go higher than any time in 400,000 years, there are peaks much higher in the overall record. The overall trend is repetition of up then suddenly down.

I am not claiming man has had no influence on the (very) recent climate, or that we won't see significant effects from that influence. I am merely pointing out, that as the historical record shows, the beginning of our influence began towards the end of what seems to be a well established cycle. It is therefore quite possible that even though we may have hastened the downturn in that cycle, that downturn was already going to happen. Trying to prevent us reaching the top of the cycle is already moot. We will eventually see a significant drop in CO2 levels as the system resets. Trying to hold on to the halcyon days of pre-AGW is ridiculous. Training the general public to expect constantly increasing temperatures is lying on a grand scale. Even if the pundits were to mention that our rising emissions are hastening the return of global ice sheets, it would be more honest than threatening rises in temperature and long term flooding. Statistically, the future points to a massive downturn in CO2 levels, and yet we are being terrorised with reports of a constant rise in levels.

And the hockey stick graph misrepresents the situation. CO2 was not constant prior to the 1800s, the trend is upwards. Yes it rose at a steeper rate after the 1800s, but the hockey stick doesn't show that whole picture. It is merely statistical mummery to prove the graph makers point. The hockey stick is what is used to brow beat the general public. If you zoomed in on that long term graph to the same scale as the hockey stick graph, you would find many "hockey stick" events. What really makes me mad is when the pundits speak about "stopping" global warming. We have no way of doing that, and even if we did, due to our position at very nearly the top of a long term warming cycle, it would very likely be too late anyway. All we can do is limit our effects, and deal with it.

Do you really think that our influence has ended a repeating cycle millions of years old and CO2 will rise forever if left unchecked ? If not, then you agree with me. I also think it is unlikely that humans can have evolved at such a rate as to go from primitive apes to controlling the climate in the space between the bottom of 1 climate cycle and the top of the next (roughly 100,000 years). Please note I am not suggesting we do nothing, I am suggesting we be realistic, given the entirety of the data we currently hold. All the facts tell us we are in the last throes of an interglacial period. Do you disagree with that too ? Can we prevent another ice age ? Be serious. If I were to place a bet I would bet on another ice age coming. Would I ever win that bet, or is global warming going to continue for ever ? Which way would you bet (given the historical record)?

Yours sincerely,
An utter moron.

force

[zogger]

"they won't do it unless forced"..well, that can work, but it is the "stick" method, you get bludgeoned by government to do something, because they sayso and threaten you with dire consequences if you don't jump.

  There *is* another method to bring about constructive change that the government can do, that is called the "carrot" method. You give tax credits for those technologies and practices that seem a lot better.

    Now, what isn't going to work, but is what they want to do because it also gives them a lot more power over other humans, which is what they also really like to have, is force-instituting another huge global "market" skimming industry. Ya know, middleman traders who do nothing but buy and sell those "war on carbon" credits.

  Looking at the biz headlines, seems we already have enough of them sort of money vampire dudes mucking up the economy as it is. And now they are going to want to tax you on top of that. The taxes will primarily go to running the new government (federal, UN global, whatever they scheme up) department of accepting the carbon tax monies department, to fund busywork "broken window economic theory" jobs.

I'm for conservation, clean air, clean water, diversified and decentralized alternative energy and so forth, and have been since I was a young man and got into solar power and so forth. The easiest way for people and corporations to afford this is to let them take a chunk of their money that now goes to the government busywork jobs industry and buy into newer cleaner and more efficient tech. Oh noes, gov gets less money! But the tech gets adopted then, and much faster than the double whammy of forced purchasing of carbon credits, then getting taxed on top of that. You make it a much better deal for people and companies to "go green", they will do it gladly and more or less voluntarily, whereas if you double whammy them on costs plus threaten fines and whatnot, they are going to look at the whole situation as another bogus ripoff and power grab, which the current schemes are, in spades.

Here's an example: You want to know why SUVs took off so much, even for people who apparently didn't need a big station wagon with 4wd? Joe government made it very lucrative for them with their tax deductions, they offered a bunch of carrots, it was cheaper for them to get those sorts of vehicles than anything else.

    Now, if they want much better mileage cars and cheaper to afford, all they would need to do is offer a REAL tax credit incentive, and you'd see those car companies burning the midnight oil to get 20 grand cars that got 60 mpg and be plugins plus and were built good out there. Same with solar power, same with what I think makes the most sense today, retrofitting buildings to "superinsulated" levels, eliminating a lot of the demand for electricity and natgas, meaning less is burnt, meaning less of that e-vile greenhouse gas stuff. If it also helps the climate on a macro scale, it probably would, that's just frosting, more good news.

Carrot or stick, and who likes to be bludgeoned over being fed again? Ya, they are both examples of government social engineering, but which seems more attractive and more likely to succeed and cost the actual real consumer less, when you look at what they get? Tax money volume X is already a blackhole the way it is now, if you could have the same amount, and wind up with a cool ride in the driveway and solar panels on the roof, which would you rather have, that stuff, or knowing you were paying for more bureaucratic jobs? Either way, that loot is coming out of your wallet, so that's a wash. I will ponder on this.... me, I'd prefer the carrot and having the cool new high tech ride in the driveway and the solar panels on the roof.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[Narpak]

Why is a person who is aware of and opposed to the large-scale destructive effects and massive alterations we are having on Earth's ecosystems and climate called a "nutter" (translation for US audience: "Crazy wackjob")

They aren't, well not by me anyway.
However those that done the mantle of environmentalism and then go too far; using their cause as the ultimate justification for anything and shouts mindlessly at any thing, or any one, that is perceived to either disagree or be "one of them!". That goes for people in all groups, political, social, sports related, and so on.

Re:Thank goodness

[Dr. Spork]

Thank you for digging this up. I don't want to get mixed up in the he said/she said dispute about whether Gore said "science was not going to intrude on public policy."

I think it's fair to ask, though, whether Gore acts as though he's not prepared to let science intrude on public policy. I happen to think he does, and I think that gives some corroboration to Happer's story. But whatever. Just because Gore wants you to shut off your brain doesn't mean you should.

Maybe I'm just too liberal for Gore, but I think that Bjorn Lomborg is absolutely right in this debate. Take 15 minutes to see where he's coming from:

Bjorn Lomborg talk on TED

Re:heat = energy

[tie_guy_matt]

Heat is a form of energy, but not all energy is equally useful. See the second law of thermodynamics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics Sadly that law of thermodynamics states that you can no more turn wasted heat back into useful energy than you can produce a propetual motion machine, (or throw a bunch of bits of china on the floor and expect them to turn back into a coffee cup.)

Re:Thank goodness

[Troed]

CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history

... in reality, they've been more than a magnitude higher.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

We emit more than ten times the CO2 emitted by volcanoes on average ... but what about the oceans?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/24/study-hemispheric-co2-timing-suggests-that-annual-increases-may-be-coming-from-a-global-or-equatorial-source/

Re:heretics unite

[Dunbal]

I think a majority of the public bases most of their thinking

      I would argue that only a minority of the public are capable of much rational thought beyond what channel on the television to watch and where the beer is.

I am not a climate scientist, but...

[MpVpRb]

I am skeptical about our ability to accurately predict the future using current mathematical models.

They can't even accurately predict the weather a week in advance.

That being said, I am an environmentalist. I strongly believe that we should stop burning coal and oil. I am also a big supporter of renewable energy.

I even write songs on the subject...

http://loudroundrecords.com/Light.htm

http://loudroundrecords.com/Oil.htm

Being a skeptic about predicting the future does NOT automatically mean that one believes in the philosophy of "drill baby drill".

It is possible to be an environmentalist AND be skeptical about our ability to predict the future.

Re:I am not a climate scientist, but...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I am skeptical about our ability to accurately predict the future using current mathematical models. They can't even accurately predict the weather a week in advance.

You should recognize the fallacy in this reasoning. Scientists can't tell me if it's going to rain two weeks from Monday. They can, however, tell me it is going to snow next February. They climatology can predict large trends based upon past data, even if they can't make micro-predictions about what is going to happen a given day. In fact, the models in use to predict overall temperature changes have been fairly accurate, but they don't make predictions on small enough of a scale to predict what will happen in a given year even, just what is likely to happen in a given decade.

For another example, scientists can't tell you what day you're going to die, but they can tell you the general trend as to how many people will die at a given age. Not being able to predict the former does not make the latter any less possible.

Re:I am not a climate scientist, but...

[russotto]

You should recognize the fallacy in this reasoning. Scientists can't tell me if it's going to rain two weeks from Monday. They can, however, tell me it is going to snow next February.

They can tell you that, but can they be right more often than a simple historical model (i.e. "It's snowed in February in the last 75 out of 100 years") would predict? If not, their predictions aren't worth squat.

Re:I am not a climate scientist, but...

[maxume]

The evalutation for the models can be sarcastically summed up as "they do a pretty good job with the 20th century":

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/309.htm
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/336.htm

(a later edition of the report is available here:

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm

but only as pdf, I am talking about Chapter 8; skimming it a little bit indicates that the above statement continues to hold.)

I'm not qualified enough to pretend to have an opinion on the accuracy of the reports or the likelihood of significant anthropogenic climate change, but I get an uneasy feeling when I compare the apparent confidence of the scientists and the apparent confidence of a lot of advocates.

Re:I am not a climate scientist, but...

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

They can tell you that, but can they be right more often than a simple historical model (i.e. "It's snowed in February in the last 75 out of 100 years") would predict? If not, their predictions aren't worth squat.

But they have been more correct, both for the last few decades where they were making predictions and for the predictions they make about times past when you look them up and compare them to predictions. That's the whole point. Our most supported (by predictions) models indicate that CO2 is a factor and is leading to climate change at an unprecedented rate. The long term consequences can be estimated with less reliability, but the potential negatives are severe enough and the amount of time needed for corrective measures to take effect long enough, that we need to be cautious.

Do you have a cite for your bullshit?

[Nicolas MONNET]

There was a paper reviewing bona fide climatology paper, and it found 99%+ supporting the idea.

Re:His story is typical.

[Dreadneck]

The 'Us vs. Them' mentality evident in the climate change debate is a shining example of the logical fallacy of the false dichotomy.

Personally, I'm glad that people like Dyson are around. Good science demands skepticism. It keeps the discipline honest. Personal vilification of one's critics, rather than satisfying their doubts with solid evidence and sound reasoning, is bad science.

Re:Thank goodness

[Troed]

Maybe you and Dr. Happer are just among those who don't believe CFSs and such had anything to do with ozone depletion

Which, of course, would be true.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/26/galactic-cosmic-rays-may-be-responsible-for-the-antarctic-ozone-hole/

Re:To believe the Global Warming Dogma ...

[Dunbal]

3. Humans are causing the warming.

      Not only that, but humans are "causing" the warming with CO2 which, instead of appearing magically underground 6000 years ago because "God" knew the human race would eventually need crude oil, was actually fixed from the atmosphere by millions of years worth of microorganisms and plants that ended up forming sludge at the bottom of lakes and marshes. Yet somehow all that carbon that was taken OUT of the atmosphere millions of years ago (when life apparently seemed to be doing quite well thank you) will cause "THE END OF THE WORLD ZOMG OUR PLANET IS GOING TO TURN INTO VENUS" if it finds its way back in to the atmosphere.

      I for one welcome the thought of 40 degree summers in the arctic circle - think of all the crops we'll be able to plant.

Re:Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted i

[Brandybuck]

Forest around the world are being cut down

There is more forest acreage today in the U.S. than there was in 1920. Our acreage is coming back! There's a reason for that, and you need to understand it before you start punishing the US for destroying the planet.

http://www.postal2020.com/?p=29
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/who-is-destroying-the-worlds-forests/

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[HertzaHaeon]

Some call it "global wierding" instead, which seems more fitting.

Re:Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted i

[Troed]

They are dealing with the very real effects of ricing sea levels NOW

I'm sorry, what rising sea levels?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[Arthur Grumbine]

My sig should tell you : I can't accept people NOT accepting the possibility that we can affect climate.

What your sig actually says: People who believe something contrary to what I believe (i.e. the possibility that we can affect climate) should be executed.

Re:Because denying global warming lets you stay ri

[neo-mkrey]

"I really really want/need things to be this way (X), so I will believe and try to convince you that (X) is the case." This is political manoeuvring, not rational scientific debate or investigation about what actually, and perhaps inconveniently, is the case. You've just made a good point against FUD global warming.

Yet we are not a signficant

[Shivetya]

contributor of CO2 in our atmosphere, so what little we do to reduce it has no true effect on the condition. Why waste money on such an endeavor when there are far better things to spend it on (like clean water)

Re:Yet we are not a signficant

[TapeCutter]

"Why waste money on [CO2 reduction] when there are far better things to spend it on (like clean water)"

There are a couple of BILLION people depending on the Himalayan glaciers alone, at a minimum a few hundred million will be driven out of low lying areas like China, Bangladesh and other parts of SE Asia. Here in Oz with our "extended drought" we have found that for each 10% drop in rainfall we get a 30% drop if run-off to the catchments and rivers.

AGW really does overwhelm all other global polution problems, the runner up is smog that ironically has a cooling effect but comes at the cost of acid rain, on a global scale both CO2 and smog come mainly from coal.

Like so many other things, clean water for all is currently impossible without a clean environment.

North Central United States

[codepunk]

I would have to agree with the man, consider this fact. The area in which I currently live was just 10,000 years ago covered by a glacier nearly a mile in thickness. Now we
certainly where not burning fossil fuels 10k years ago, yet somehow global warming caused the glaciers to recede and melt. Yes I do believe in global warning it has been going on for over 10k years, I do not
however believe that man is the ultimate and or major cause.

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I would have to agree with the man, consider this fact. The area in which I currently live was just 10,000 years ago covered by a glacier nearly a mile in thickness. Now we certainly where[sic] not burning fossil fuels 10k years ago, yet somehow global warming caused the glaciers to recede and melt. Yes I do believe in global warning it has been going on for over 10k years, I do not however believe that man is the ultimate and or major cause.

Consider this fact. 10,000 years ago people were murdered. Now we certainly were not firing guns 10k years ago, yet somehow bladed weapons caused people to die. Yes I do believe in murder has been going on for over 10k years, I do not, however, believe that guns are a main tool used to commit murder.

Hopefully my analogy has demonstrated to you that you've provided no support whatsoever for the theory that current global warming trends are not caused by mankind in general or greenhouse gas emissions in particular, as the scientific models with the best experimental evidence to date seem to indicate. If you'd like to present alternate theories that show how the unprecedented rate of change fits within a different model where greenhouse gasses from human activity is not a major factor, and then perform experiments and make falsifiable predictions until your theory has more evidentiary support, please do, it will be a boon to all of mankind. If you'd care to cite peer reviewed scientific models and experiments of others that you think already show this, by all means enlighten me. As a scientist and a rational person, I form my beliefs based upon the results of the scientific method and the results all seem to be showing the same thing, to one degree or another. I see a lot of unscientific PR pieces that disagree, but no real science. Sadly, it seems PR works as well as anything to form opinions, which is why people persist in such unscientific beliefs and deny manmade global warming or the evolution of man or the spherical earth theories; which science has pretty well established as facts at this point.

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I wish I where as smart as you sir, perhaps I could figure out how you just disproved my theory with two paragraphs worth of utter bullshit.

Calling my logical argument "bullshit" does not address any of the points I made. I'm sorry you're too close minded to learn the scientific method and how you can apply it to more accurately form correct beliefs.

I am sorry I will head over to You Tube so I can watch a true scientist (Al Gore) describe the armageddon we will endure within the next ten years if we don't buy his book.

Following up your proclamation with such an obvious and weak strawman doesn't help.

Re:North Central United States

[StormReaver]

The Little Ice Age to which you refer was caused by changes in ocean currents which normally bring warm water from the south to the north. When those currents changed, North America froze. When those currents resumed, the ice melted.

Global warming, unlike the Little Ice Age, is not a localized event. It is a global average over time. The impact of global warming is going to be vastly different than the impact of the Little Ice, as they are two totally different things with totally different causes.

Re:North Central United States

[Lurker]

I wish I where as smart as you sir, perhaps I could figure out how you just disproved my theory with two paragraphs worth of utter bullshit.

It was in the first paragraph, so concentrate your efforts at understanding there. If you're having trouble understanding any of the big words, ask an adult to help you. Also, try googling "Post hoc ergo propter hoc".

Re:North Central United States

[noidentity]

I would have to agree with the man, consider this fact. The area in which I currently live was just 10,000 years ago covered by a glacier nearly a mile in thickness. Now we certainly where[sic] not burning fossil fuels 10k years ago, yet somehow global warming caused the glaciers to recede and melt. Yes I do believe in global warning it has been going on for over 10k years, I do not however believe that man is the ultimate and or major cause.

Consider this fact. 10,000 years ago people were murdered. Now we certainly were not firing guns 10k years ago, yet somehow bladed weapons caused people to die. Yes I do believe in murder has been going on for over 10k years, I do not, however, believe that guns are a main tool used to commit murder.

Consider this fact: Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more importantly, you have to ask yourself: what does that have to do with the climate? Nothing. Dear reader, it has nothing to do with the climate! It does not make sense!

Re:North Central United States

[EmperorOfCanada]

Being Canadian the ice over my head 12k years ago was only a kilometer thick. To me the whole global warming thing is simply a case of follow the money. There are a huge number of people talking about Carbon taxes and others like Gore making a fortune out of global warming. Whereas the lesser number of vocal skeptics are for the most part going to take financial damage from voicing their views. So quite simply on the surface who should be listened to: respectable people who loose money and careers saying that global warming is bunk or lesser known people in science (and mostly politics and the arts) who are making money, (and Nobel prizes), and getting to tax some of the biggest businesses in the world? The main problem I personally have with the probably false global warming hysteria is that there are many genuine pollution and environmental problems that will find the same tide that eventually turns against global warming nuttery turning against them as well. This will be sad and a genuine threat to humanity.

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Why is it when people post completely unsupportable assertions, they usually do so from anonymous coward accounts?

Re:North Central United States

[kholburn]

It's amazing that Americans climate change deniers focus on Al Gore so much. Al Gore making a fortune? You have to be Joe King.

How much money is involved here? How much in Oil, Coal and the energy industries? Many, many Trillions. How much in the side of scientists studying climate change? Relatively very, very little at all.

Al Gore is a wookie. Look! Al Gore, lives on the planet Endore.

Re:North Central United States

[angel'o'sphere]

It seems to me everything talked about AGW (artificial or andropomorph global warming) did not reach you or?

You talk about the last 10,000 years. Sorry, what exactly is your point about this?

We are talking in AGW about the last 100 years, and not about a few stone age hunters making a barbecue. The CO2 increase in the last 100 years is about 1000 times stronger than the 9,900 years preceding that when your glacier melted.

CO2 is the prime climate gas, triggering all others like methane and water vapour.

90% of the CO2 we currently have in the atmosphere is human made.

So obviously the current warming is artificial and caused by our CO2 exhaust. By what else should it be caused? Ever thought about that? What else should have caused the dramatic increase in temperature during the last 30 years if not the piling up concentration of CO2?

angel'o'sphere

Re:North Central United States

[ceoyoyo]

Good point. Now, if I were to take your results and claim that banning guns would end murder, what would you think?

Re:North Central United States

[bencoder]

Because I let my emotions get the better of me and didn't want that to affect my karma :) my apologies. I'll be civil.

I stand by my points though. There really isn't any proof that there has been an "unprecedented rate of change" recently.

Temperature has fluctuated throughout the ages, and not because of carbon dioxide(there is a correlation, but the CO2 levels change after the temperature), and we haven't reached anything close to the top or bottom of the ranges that the world has been in in the past.

Now, I realise that people don't want to have to deal with global change, but the world is a damn complex system... there is absolutely no way to know how our actions affect it exactly, nor what we should change that will improve the situation for us.

Now I totally support reducing(through social and economic means, not through government regulation) pollution, nastiness in our atmosphere, things that statistically show that people who are exposed to it have shorter lives. But CO2 doesn't have any negative effects to our bodies, nor is there any statistically significant evidence to show that it has an effect on the world, except perhaps to allow more trees to grow.

There's my more reasoned points. Perhaps you can understand a bit better.

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I stand by my points though. There really isn't any proof that there has been an "unprecedented rate of change" recently.

Both IPCC and CSIRO reports disagree with you. If you look at things on the scale of thousands of years of change, then ti has been over a million years since we've had this rapid of temperature change (then at the end of an ice age). If you look at it on the scale of hundreds of years, we have no record of any global temperature change as rapid as we've experienced in the last two hundred years.

Temperature has fluctuated throughout the ages, and not because of carbon dioxide(there is a correlation, but the CO2 levels change after the temperature)...

That is not the scientific consensus. The most supported (by experimental evidence) scientific model is that rises in greenhouse gasses are causative of temperature change. You may have a different theory, but to date the evidence has not supported that conclusion and the IPCC report concurs with this.

...and we haven't reached anything close to the top or bottom of the ranges that the world has been in in the past.

Of course not, but if we did can you imagine the ramifications for humanity? Even moderate changes, relative to the top and bottom, are enough to lead to massive death and upheaval. A small, regional climactic change resulted in the displacement of people and thousands of deaths in Darfur. A global change of a five degrees would likely result in such enormous expense and loss of life that it would be unprecedented.

Now, I realise that people don't want to have to deal with global change, but the world is a damn complex system... there is absolutely no way to know how our actions affect it exactly...

We do have a method of determining the most likely explanation for how things happen. It's called the scientific method. It is not a logical method of defending a belief, but a formal, logic method for forming the most likely correct belief. It works.

Now I totally support reducing(through social and economic means, not through government regulation) pollution

How can you disassociate social trends and the economy from government regulation/deregulation?

But CO2 doesn't have any negative effects to our bodies, nor is there any statistically significant evidence to show that it has an effect on the world, except perhaps to allow more trees to grow.

Why is it every scientific paper I've read disagrees with you? New Scientist, Scientific American, the IPCC report, the CSIRO report. Literally everything in peer reviewed journals seems to disagree with you. The only things that agree with you are non-scientific PR pieces. I'm curious, what peer reviewed, scientific papers have lead you to form your belief?

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Good point. Now, if I were to take your results and claim that banning guns would end murder, what would you think?

That you missed the point of the analogy and are trying to claim current attempts to mitigate climate change are like gun control laws, when they're a lot more like investing in bulletproof vests.

Re:North Central United States

[ceoyoyo]

Think a little harder.

Your analogy was that, though murder has been happening for a long time (like climate change), guns are a major tool that are used to make it happen (like carbon dioxide).

My analogy was that gun control (CO2 emission control) shouldn't be expected to end murder (global warming).

Dyson's point is that he believes the data on the magnitude of the CO2-climate change link (guns-murder connection) is insufficient to scientifically justify some of the climate change predictions and CO2 reduction strategies (gun control laws) that are being pushed.

Personally I think you picked an unfortunate analogy since it's, if anything, MORE politically charged than climate change. FYI, I'm a Canadian, who thinks are more strict gun control laws make us a safer country than the US, and I generally agree with initiatives to decrease CO2 production and increase efficiency. I ALSO think that, at least in this particular case, Dyson is making a positive and important contribution to discussion of important topic.

PS: your mention of bullet proof vests seems to be an ill conceived and poorly thought out attempt to play on the politics of gun control (which you picked as an analogy in the first place). A bullet proof vest in this analogy would be more like building underground bunkers, or space colonies. Something that would protect us regardless of what the causes of climate change are.

Re:North Central United States

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Your analogy was that, though murder has been happening for a long time (like climate change), guns are a major tool that are used to make it happen (like carbon dioxide).

Yes.

Dyson's point is that he believes the data on the magnitude of the CO2-climate change link (guns-murder connection) is insufficient to scientifically justify some of the climate change predictions and CO2 reduction strategies (gun control laws) that are being pushed.

Except, scientifically, there isn't a much of a "gun-murder connection" Gun control laws don't correlate well with rates of violent crime and murder. The best scientific model established for reducing murders is to decrease wealth disparity, which has a very strong correlation.

CO2, on the other hand, has been determined by the scientific method to be the most likely causative factor for the rapid change in global temperature. That's where the analogy falls apart, you see?

Personally I think you picked an unfortunate analogy since it's, if anything, MORE politically charged than climate change.

Maybe that makes it a better example. What I'm advocating is following the scientific method and looking at the published, peer reviewed data, rather than paying attention to PR pieces, paid adverts from special interests, or politicians who we all know want votes more than effective solutions. This particular article and discussion are very relevant because much of what people are attributing to Dyson are quite the opposite of his actual opinions; both in discussion and in articles from the press.

FYI, I'm a Canadian, who thinks are more strict gun control laws make us a safer country than the US...

I don't think the science supports that belief. Looking at correlative and potentially causative factors for violent crime (lack of safety), It would be supportable to say that socialized healthcare makes you safer than people in the US. But from the data, you'd have t conclude gun control laws have little or no impact on violent crime in Canada.

...and I generally agree with initiatives to decrease CO2 production and increase efficiency.

But the real question is why you support those initiatives. Is it because you feel you should and justify it with reasoning, or is it because you looked at the application of the scientific method and decided CO2 is the most likely cause of a problem and changes to CO2 production are thebest solution based upon the leading theory?

I ALSO think that, at least in this particular case, Dyson is making a positive and important contribution to discussion of important topic.

Dyson's comments are a mixed bag, by themselves. Some of his comments are valid criticism, much of which applies to things already addressed by the models. Other of his comments (especially about remedies) are ill conceived and have no scientific backing at all. They're just guesswork on his part and guesswork from a not very informed perspective and with no scientific evidence to back them up. Moreover, the effect of Dydson's comments is to provide fodder for the propaganda campaign trying to prevent any actions that might reduce their profits, regardless of the truth.

PS: your mention of bullet proof vests seems to be an ill conceived and poorly thought out attempt to play on the politics of gun control (which you picked as an analogy in the first place). A bullet proof vest in this analogy would be more like building underground bunkers, or space colonies. Something that would protect us regardless of what the causes of climate change are.

I disagree. The mention of bulletproof vests is a more apt extension of the analogy because bulletproof vests are scientifically supported as a good model for reducing murders. Passing gun control laws are not scientifically shown to have any such effect, ba

Re:North Central United States

[ceoyoyo]

Except, scientifically, there isn't a much of a "gun-murder connection" Gun control laws don't correlate well with rates of violent crime and murder. The best scientific model established for reducing murders is to decrease wealth disparity, which has a very strong correlation.

Scientifically there's excellent evidence for a gun-murder connection. There are good, easy to find statistics on how many murders involve guns. What I think you meant to say is that there might not be good scientific evidence for the hypothesis that reducing guns reduces murders. The two are different. That distinction transfers through the analogy to climate science (not necessarily the presence/absence of evidence, but the distinction).

CO2, on the other hand, has been determined by the scientific method to be the most likely causative factor for the rapid change in global temperature. That's where the analogy falls apart, you see?

Dyson isn't disputing even that point. He's concerned that some estimates of the magnitude of the effect, and the urgency of taking action are not sufficiently supported by the data.

But the real question is why you support those initiatives. Is it because you feel you should and justify it with reasoning, or is it because you looked at the application of the scientific method and decided CO2 is the most likely cause of a problem and changes to CO2 production are thebest solution based upon the leading theory?

Because those initiatives have benefits regardless of the details of the climate change link and have a risk/benefit profile that is in line with the strength of the scientific evidence. If we're talking about some of the more extreme solutions, those advanced in response to the estimate that concern Dyson, then my opinion is different. Should we be seeding the ocean with billions of tonnes of iron? Should we be launching trillions of satellites to form a sun shade? Should we ban CO2 emission? No. Those schemes (and others) either carry risks that are not adequately understood or are too high in light of our understanding of the details of CO2 and climate change.

Dyson's comments are a mixed bag, by themselves. Some of his comments are valid criticism, much of which applies to things already addressed by the models. Other of his comments (especially about remedies) are ill conceived and have no scientific backing at all. They're just guesswork on his part and guesswork from a not very informed perspective and with no scientific evidence to back them up. Moreover, the effect of Dydson's comments is to provide fodder for the propaganda campaign trying to prevent any actions that might reduce their profits, regardless of the truth.

Dyson seems to like to be particularly radical in order to make a point. You've made his point admirably though. Let me quote it again for emphasis: "Moreover, the effect of Dydson's comments is to provide fodder for the propaganda campaign trying to prevent any actions that might reduce their profits, regardless of the truth."

Dyson's major point is that most, if not all global warming discussions have ceased to be scientific. As soon as arguments such as yours, that you shouldn't say things because they might encourage dissenters are taken seriously, you've lost any scientific content you had to start with. In a scientific argument you encourage critical review. Whether Dyson's detailed points are correct or not is irrelevant. If they are incorrect they should be easily dealt with by appeal to the data. His point that we don't even consider scientific alternatives anymore is the important one.

I don't think the science supports that belief. Looking at correlative and potentially causative factors for violent crime (lack of safety), It would be supportable to say that socialized healthcare makes you safer than people in

What is cap and trade?

[mosb1000]

I recently saw an article titled this way on CNN. I can't grasp why this is the preferred global warming solution amongst "environmentalists". It is complicated, difficult to understand and difficult to work with.

It seems to me this is the ideal solution as far as a politician is concerned, however, because people won't be able to see whether or not it's working, and even if they could there will be no accountability. Remember, the most recent banking crisis was caused by a similar "liability" trading scheme. Supposedly, no one saw it coming, but it should have been obvious that no good would come from people pouring trillions of dollars into a system they didn't understand.

Cap and trade will be a huge tool for politicians to take away more of our freedoms and make us less able to "get by" so that we have to come crawling to them for help. Remember, a politician's job is gaining political power. Why, then, are there still people out there who think our representatives are there to help us? No one who honestly wants to help people would be a politician.

Man-made global warming is a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

MYTH 1: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.

FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. The ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects").

There has been no catastrophic warming recorded.

MYTH 2: The "hockey stick" graph proves that the earth has experienced a steady, very gradual temperature decrease for 1000 years, then recently began a sudden increase.

FACT: Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. For instance, the Medieval Warm Period, from around 1000 to 1200 AD (when the Vikings farmed on Greenland) was followed by a period known as the Little Ice Age. Since the end of the 17th Century the "average global temperature" has been rising at the low steady rate mentioned above; although from 1940 Ãff" 1970 temperatures actually dropped, leading to a Global Cooling scare.

The "hockey stick", a poster boy of both the UN's IPCC and Canada's Environment Department, ignores historical recorded climatic swings, and has now also been proven to be flawed and statistically unreliable as well. It is a computer construct and a faulty one at that.

MYTH 3: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.

FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no proof that CO2 is the main driver of global warming. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Geological field work in recent sediments confirms this causal relationship. There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.

MYTH 4: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.

FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, (about 97%) of water vapour and clouds, with the remainder being gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O, of which carbon dioxide is the largest amount. Hence, CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. While the minor gases are more effective as "greenhouse agents" than water vapor and clouds, the latter are overwhelming the effect by their sheer volume and Ãff" in the end Ãff" are thought to be responsible for 60% of the "Greenhouse effect".

Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention this important fact.

MYTH 5: Computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming.

FACT: The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate. You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption - that is circular reasoning and is illogical. Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks. They

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax

[SlashingDots]

Thank you.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[Arthur Grumbine]

I fail to see how drawing attention to the parent's desire to have those who disagree with him executed means I'm a prejudicial bastard.

Unless, of course, by your comment you meant: "I agree with the polar_red's main point/comment, and am angry that you have made an observation about him that potentially taints the reception of his main point/comment", in which case I do understand.
I find myself constantly frustrated when nutjobs defend something I believe in. This is not aided by the fact that the other side in a debate has a tendency to focus on the extremists instead of the substance of the argument. But for me, I try to point out the extremists/dogmatists/zealots no matter what side of the debate they fall on.

Re:136 degrees on 13 of Sept 1922

[HertzaHaeon]

Weather != Climate

famous person says crazy shit when older

[jollyreaper]

Not exactly news. Ray Bradbury said all sorts of horrible things about Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 911 and was a huge supporter of the Bush wars. Issac Newton believed in alchemy and conducted all sorts of pseudo-scientific experiments in nonsense. Edison spent the last years of his life working on a spook phone to talk to the dead. Orson Scott Card is a Mormon and says bad things about gay people. George Lucas went from Beloved Creator of Star Wars to the Beard, Defiler of the Films.

People start saying and believing stupid shit when they pass their prime. They'll also mistake specialist expertise in one field for generalist expertise in everything.

Re:famous person says crazy shit when older

[BLT2112]

Issac Newton believed in alchemy and conducted all sorts of pseudo-scientific experiments in nonsense. Edison spent the last years of his life working on a spook phone to talk to the dead. Orson Scott Card is a Mormon and says bad things about gay people.

Interesting that you would compare believing in alchemy and working on a "spook phone" with being a member of a particular religion with over 13 million members.

People start saying and believing stupid shit when they pass their prime.

Obviously alchemy is bunk, but just because you don't agree with something doesn't mean it's stupid.

Re:famous person says crazy shit when older

[Uberbah]

Interesting that you would compare believing in alchemy and working on a "spook phone" with being a member of a particular religion with over 13 million members.

So what? There are lots of fundamentalist Muslims out there, and they're batshit insane, like most fundamentalists. Mormons wear magic underwear and their founder talked to a hat. That they are generally nice, cheerful people does nothing to change the fact that they are nice, cheerful nutjobs.

Re:famous person says crazy shit when older

[ChrisMaple]

Michael Moore and Ray Bradbury are both bad examples if you're trying to find rationality, and always have been. Bradbury is strongly religious (to the point of exclusion of reason) and his fiction is more about emotion than good science. At least he seems to be gentle. Moore is nasty, out to make trouble, and has shown he has no intention of showing the whole truth. His method is to try to generate indignation and anger in his viewers.

Re:famous person says crazy shit when older

[jbeach]

Thank you.

Michael Crichton in particular is annoying for this. Just because someone's a good novelist doesn't make them a good scientist. Imaging the reverse - do scientists automatically write great novels? If so, Einstein would have outsold Edgar Rice Burroughs.

Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[dfenstrate]

He's not a climatologist. He has never done research on global warming. He has absolutely no data of his own. He is not an expert in this field. There is no reason, whatsoever, to listen to his opinions.

You might as well have your car mechanic perform surgery on you. After all, he's a professional, right? Therefore he must be qualified!

If your car mechanic tells you that you need to pay $790 to replace your gizrogyronmeter before you car implodes- when you brought the car in for an oil change- you don't have to be a mechanic to figure out you're being bullshitted and he probably has something else besides your best interests in mind.

If your surgeon is trying to sell you a $32,000 surgery on your feet because of hyspotoxiomosis of the anterior legamoid deltamint, and you came in for a mole removal, you don't have to be a PHD to see he just wants to fund his next vacation.

The fact is that AGW advocates demand 'solutions' involving control and expenditures that are entirely out of whack with their established credibility and perceived integrity.

Claiming "you can't understand it, it's too complex" in the face of the legitimate questions about the intent, integrity, and aims of Global Warming's high priests and salesmen is an evasion of the issue.

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[shadowbearer]

  I'll bite.

  I'm a pretty good computer mechanic; been doing it since the 80s. A couple days ago I had a customer call me - her mouse cursor wasn't moving. She had a wireless mouse, and my first thought - after running her thru the procedure for wireless connection - was that her wireless mouse receiver had failed.
  I went over there and after some diagnostics found out that I was right. At the same time, I noted that she had a virus infestation - something she wouldn't have had the expertise to notice (excessive network traffic). So what should have been ten bucks + parts for replacing her wireless receiver ended up being a fifty dollar virus removal (installed Firefox and adblock for her, too, that should hopefully mitigate any future problems.)

  So ... by your analogy, I would be that mechanic telling her he noticed other problems with her vehicle in the course of a routine oil change.

  Foot surgery: Funny you should mention that. A few weeks ago I sprained an ankle very badly - maybe the fifth or sixth time in twenty years I've done so - badly enough that I suspected it might be fractured. I went to the hospital to get x-rays of the ankle, because while a sprained ankle might heal in a week or so, a fracture won't, and I rely on my feet for a living.
  After the examination they found that I had a bone spur growing on my foot that, if it wasn't removed, might cause me a lot more problems in the future. The surgery is next week and I wish I'd found it a lot sooner, as it would have been easier to remove.

  The fact that people who study things for a living that I don't MIGHT JUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT... need I say more?

SB

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[Locklin]

Actually. The intelligent response to either your mechanic or surgery analogy is not simply to ignore them because they sound "fishy," but to seek a second opinion from another expert. When you start find that surgeon after surgeon is saying you need the surgery, you might actually need the surgery.

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[AK Marc]

Claiming "you can't understand it, it's too complex" in the face of the legitimate questions about the intent, integrity, and aims of Global Warming's high priests and salesmen is an evasion of the issue.

I've seen data indicating that the earth is getting warmer. I've seen nothing that indicates it's getting cooler. Yet the anti-global-wamring nuts claim that because it's been warmer before than it is now, it's not getting warmer. They state that it's also getting warmer on Mars, so the Earth isn't getting warmer. They state all sorts of excuses regarding things that address the question of whether it's man-made, but where are the statements "I believe global warming is happening and is a very real problem, but isn't caused by man." They just aren't out there. They tackle the second question of cause without ever addressing the primary question of whether it is happening. And if it is happening, whether it is or isn't caused by man, we need to know the results. Even if it isn't caused by man, if the results will be harmful to man, is there anything we can do about it? If we can do anything about it, should we? These questions are all without touching the question about whether it is caused by man, and that's the one that the anti-global-warming nuts go on and on about. Drop it and move on. Even the most outspoken anti-global-warming nuts haven't presented real data indicating a cooling trend. If they can't produce any evidence at all supporting their position, why should I listen to their rants about causes and actions we should take?

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[mrjantz]

Nobody says "you can't understand it, it's too complex." It's just that when we try to explain it, you put your fingers in your ears and spout bullshit like a child.

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[Garse Janacek]

If your car mechanic tells you that you need to pay $790 to replace your gizrogyronmeter before you car implodes- when you brought the car in for an oil change- you don't have to be a mechanic to figure out you're being bullshitted and he probably has something else besides your best interests in mind.

And when climatologists claim that global warming will kill everyone on earth unless we give trillions of dollars to the climatologists, then that point will be relevant. But a lot of the research is being done by people who do not have a serious personal investment in people believing global warming is a danger when it is not. And while many suggestions for possible ways to deal with the issue would be expensive to implement, by and large that money would not be funneled into the pockets of the people making the suggestions. (Disclaimer: yes, there are greenwashing companies that would like you to buy their products. That is not where the bulk of the credible climate research is coming from, however.)

Claiming "you can't understand it, it's too complex" in the face of the legitimate questions about the intent, integrity, and aims of Global Warming's high priests and salesmen is an evasion of the issue.

Then it's a good thing that that's not what people are saying. Certainly they might say "You don't understand it [or, more commonly, 'You're misinterpreting it'] because you haven't acquired the necessary background in the field". But if you're going to say that someone who has devoted their life to studying this is completely wrong in their conclusions, and yet you're not willing to put in the work to establish yourself as at least minimally competent and credible in that area of research, then it's unreasonable to be offended when they say you don't understand.

In any case, if you are willing to develop the background, the relevant research is readily available. In fact, even as a layman, if you look around (say, on Google) you can find point-by-point discussions of common "legitimate questions" about global warming. These things aren't secrets, and your implication that the scientists involved are ignoring and dismissing questions while asking for more money is a total straw man.

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[Marcika]

If your surgeon is trying to sell you a $32,000 surgery on your feet because of hyspotoxiomosis of the anterior legamoid deltamint, and you came in for a mole removal, you don't have to be a PHD to see he just wants to fund his next vacation.

Yes, some people (not you, presumably) would check out what a second surgeon is saying, and a third, and so on - because you cannot say for sure as a layman. And when 99% of surgeons (none of whom will perform the operation) agree, some people (not you, maybe) would actually pony up for the legamoid peppermint operation...

There's skepicism - and then there's sticking your head into the sand... Given that so many of those "GW high priests" have tenure anyway (read: no risk of anti-consensus views) and would achieve global fame for disproving the GW "myth", your cynicism about their aims and your lack of cynicism about the anti-GW high priests and salesmen (who have vested interests that are way more obvious) is disingenuous.

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[jbeach]

Here's what's wrong with your metaphor: it should be more like:

3000 mechanics say car transmissions will need to replaced within a year. So start saving your money now, or start thinking about how you'll get to work if it breaks down.

Your local congressman agrees.

*But* your buddy who writes science fiction novels, and a guy who builds great boats everyone likes, say those mechanics are probably wrong. But they don't offer a coherent explanation for why your car's gears are slipping and making that awful grinding noise.

So you tell the 3000 mechanics to stop ripping you off, and keep downshifting in the fast lane? Good idea? Or no?

Re:Complexity as an attempt to hide lies.

[jbeach]

Hit submit too early: my other post should say "3000 mechanics say *your* car's transmission will need to replaced within a year. "

Re:There's no such thing...

[westlake]

Periods of warming and cooling are periodical.

That doesn't help you if your coastal plains had only a small aboriginal population in 1600 - and not the tens or hundreds of millions of people they do now.

One thing for certain

[Runaway1956]

Any damage caused to the environment is a result of wastefulness. As an American, I'm ashamed that the US consumes about 1/4 of the total energy used, world wide. We waste, waste, waste. If Americans practiced conservation, all the damage that we have done to the environment would be cut in half, at least. If Americans practiced INTELLIGENT conservation (complete with workable recycling projects) that damage would be cut even further. So many ways to save energy - starting with working near home, or moving closer to work. Millions of Americans sit for HOURS every single week in traffic, with their engines dumping pollution into the atmosphere. Then, they may or may not send Al Gore a couple dollars for an idiotic carbon credit certificate that does absolutely NOTHING to recover all that wasted fuel, or to recover the pollution. Oh - did I use the word intelligent above? Sorry, I apologize. We aren't. We demand what we want, and we demand it NOW!!! Screw intelligence - we are to damned greedy.

To put this article in a more local perspective...

[macraig]

... if Dyson were commenting regularly at Slashdot, sans his well-known reputation, he would be routinely modded down as Troll.

Being an alleged Troll is sometimes a good thing.

Re:Thank goodness

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

How's about this one then: Ãoescience will not intrude on public policy.Ã

That's a quote from Dyson about what he says the administration made clear to him, not a quote from Gore.

God doesn't understand Thermal Dynamics either

[bussdriver]

They will never figure it out but do agree on our impact on the system, which isn't too difficult to understand if you read into the subject a little. (FYI: air is less dense)

Any kung fu fan knows it only takes a small push in the right place to take down the largest bad-guy... We don't have to change the whole system just nudge it over the cliff; it might have been going that way anyhow-- but we may as well nudge it in the RIGHT DIRECTION instead of the wrong one. Why contribute to the problem?

GREEN ENERGY WORKS TODAY. It can be done. You only illustrate your ignorance by saying its impossible with current technology. Base load power can initially be done old ways because we can't just flip instantly. There is a WHOLE NEW INDUSTRY in power storage just waiting to get going that doesn't require new inventions... from flow batteries to flywheels -- they are in use already without an economy of scale or massive corporate welfare (like nuclear power completely depends upon.)

Besides, we need a bubble to pull us out of the last economic bubble... (since the system is not getting fixed anyhow) We will have troubles in the USA if the world doesn't desperately need OIL and its because OIL is sold in DOLLARS that most the world wants the worthless things. Undermine OIL and you undermine the US Dollar. Other nations are moving already; we will not see it coming because that is the American way.

1 calorie of food takes 10 calories of Oil/Coal.

Re:God doesn't understand Thermal Dynamics either

[Kohath]

We don't have to change the whole system just nudge it over the cliff

You present no evidence for this "cliff". Why should be believe it's on a cliff?

What if it's at the bottom of a bowl? So nudging it one way causes it to go that way and then come back to the bottom of the bowl.

Please prove the "cliff" analogy is more accurate than the "bowl" analogy before we continue the discussion. Thanks.

Re:Thank goodness

[RichardJenkins]

He possibly meant that Gore said "science will not intrude on public policy".

The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[davinc]

Anyone claiming to be sure either way is basically full of crap. Both sides are mostly opinion and world view driven. What the alarmists need to understand about deniers is that we mostly have no problems with reducing usage of oil. Most people are all for that.

The problem is that most of what is being offered up as a solution looks more like efforts to create massive world government and to legislate life itself.

There is only ONE source of carbon that is of concern, and that is oil/coal. All other carbon, be it burning trees or cow farts, is part of a self balancing biosphere.

If the concern really is just about carbon, then the solutions would be as simple as taxing well heads and coal mines, then distributing that cash back to the consuming countries to be spent on alternatives.

Tearing up rainforests to plant corn, and then burn that in our cars is not sane. It is talk of taxing animals, food, babies, and other such crap that makes people like myself cringe and eye the whole movement suspiciously.

Re:The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[maxume]

Taxing consumption probably works better.

As far as rain forests, Brazilian ethanol comes from cane which basically won't grow on the soil present in most of the rain forests. The rain forests are being destroyed by (mostly) illegal logging and subsistence farmers who come in and burn the land (the farmers only get a year or two of crops out of the soil before it isn't worth farming, then they move on to an area that has recently been logged...).

Re:The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[Culture20]

There is only ONE source of carbon that is of concern, and that is oil/coal. All other carbon, be it burning trees or cow farts, is part of a self balancing biosphere.

On a greater time-scale, oil/coal carbon is part of a self balancing biosphere too.

Re:The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[davinc]

I certainly expect so. Carbon is life friendly - oxygen is the caustic crap plants put out as waste that later lifeforms adapted to use as fuel. Really the earth is always self-balancing, the only question is whether or not it is hostile to humans. The Earth could take us or leave us, life really has no opinion on what should survive.

Re:The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[davinc]

The rain forest reference was just pointing out the absurdity of expanding farm lands, while committing land to growing fuel.

And why exactly would taxing consumption be any better? Hydrocarbons once out of the ground become a diverse array of things. Who would determine the carbon content of each product on the market? Sounds like a massive massive program that is open to all kinds of politicking. When I buy a car, would every plastic item and lubricant be tallied and carefully counted?

And if the cracking process releases a bunch of that pesky carbon, does it just go unaccounted for? I really don't understand the desire for consumption taxes when taxing a wellhead is more straightforward and harder to cheat.

But this all goes to my point - the farther you get from taxing what comes out of the ground directly and applying it to alternatives, the more it just looks like shady politics.

Re:The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[maxume]

Consumption taxes can be effectively levied one country at a time. I suppose you could tax imported oil as if the tanker was a well, but you face all the same problems as a consumption tax there (because there would be some incentive to move any production that consumed oil out of the country doing the taxing).

Re:The problem skeptics like myself have with this

[jdschulteis]

Consumption taxes can be effectively levied one country at a time. I suppose you could tax imported oil as if the tanker was a well, but you face all the same problems as a consumption tax there (because there would be some incentive to move any production that consumed oil out of the country doing the taxing).

That is why if you impose a carbon tax (or even a clumsy cap-and-trade system), you must also impose a carbon tariff on goods produced in countries that don't have a comparable tax. I've seen no discussion of this even though it clearly follows from basic economics.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[Blakey Rat]

I don't have to be Stanley Kubrick to know when a movie stinks.

I found one

[phantomfive]

I found one. In less than two minutes on the internet, here is your paper. It shows that a lot of the warming in the tropical north atlantic is mainly due to a reduction of atmospheric aerosols, not an increase in carbon dioxide. Here is a summary of that article, in case you don't want to pay the subscription.

Of course it doesn't completely 'disprove' global warming, it would take more than one paper to prove that global warming is happening, it will take more than one paper to show it's not. All this paper is doing is trying to get closer to the truth of what's happening.

I'm wondering if you've ever actually read a peer reviewed scientific journal, and I seriously doubt you've ever done peer review. The reason I doubt this is because in my time, I've stumbled across articles that are opposing the standard view of global warming without even looking.

Note that papers like this come up all the time, they just tend not to make the news.

Re:I found one

[shadowbearer]

  What is being talked about there is regional climate, not global. Your example is irrelevant to the discussion.

SB

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

There is no knowledge of the global climate that is not comprised of pieces of knowledge of regional climates. If you are willing to dismiss a region as big as the tropical north atlantic in your desire to understand the global climate, then is there any evidence you will not close your eyes to?

Re:I found one

[shadowbearer]

  Excuse me, but what exactly is the "tropical north atlantic"?

  The north atlantic is hardly tropical.

  Global climate contains the north atlantic and all other regional climates. What is happening there is not predictive of the global climate as a whole, although it is a part of the dataset.

  No offense, but you don't have a damned clue what you are talking about.

SB

Re:I found one

[Garse Janacek]

If you are willing to dismiss a region as big as the tropical north atlantic in your desire to understand the global climate, then is there any evidence you will not close your eyes to?

Who is closing their eyes more? GP, who (legitimately) dismissed your paper as being about regional climate, not global average temperature, or you, who are dismissing all of the peer-reviewed papers that talk about global climate (which don't agree with your claim), and instead choosing to focus on one paper about a specific region? The fact that "the tropical north atlantic" is a pretty big region doesn't excuse it.

Do you think it's just never occurred to the researchers who study global climate change that maybe they should be incorporating information like this in their work? Or that the paper you cited really does disprove global warming, but every single climatologist forgot to mention this in any published research (including the paper itself... talk about seriously underselling your research...)

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

Excuse me, but what exactly is the "tropical north atlantic"?

You have to ask questions like that and you say I don't know what I'm talking about? Educate yourself.

The fact is, global warming is not as clear as some people would have us believe, and a true scientist will consider all data. The topic was started when someone said that there are no peer reviewed articles showing that global warming isn't due to CO2, and I found one peer reviewed article that shows that is false. If you look for 10 minutes, you can find others. It isn't hard.

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

you, who are dismissing all of the peer-reviewed papers that talk about global climate

Who is dismissing anything? A good scientist seeks truth, and will consider it from all sources. I never dismissed any other papers.

which don't agree with your claim

What claim? My claim was that not all peer-reviewed papers dealing with global warming support the main Global Warming thesis (which is that man-made CO2 is causing a real rise in global temperatures). This is true. I merely found one paper fitting this criteria.

Do you think it's just never occurred to the researchers who study global climate change that maybe they should be incorporating information like this in their work?

I would be annoyed if they didn't. I'm not sure what your point is, though. The reality is that global warming isn't nearly as clear as Al Gore would have you believe. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a 'denier.'

Re:I found one

[shadowbearer]

  All right, I misspoke. In my defense, when I was in college decades ago, it was referred to as two distinct regions.

  The region you refer to is only called that because of the influence of tropical climate on the northern atlantic.

  If you actually read the link you posted, and follow the other links there to more specific information, what's talked about is that any warming in the more tropical regions is likely to have massive effects on north atlantic weather patterns - hurricanes are one good example.

  Seems to me you are just posting links you find without an understanding of what's being discussed. The Atlantic conveyor system still isn't very well understood, but it's been known for a long time that tropical storms tend to circulate along oceanic borders, as do the currents.

  But that's beside the point you seem to be getting at. Since you are the one saying there are more links, and you feel confident that it isn't hard to find more of them, why don't you post some? Nobody else in this thread seems to have been able to, why don't you make a name for yourself here?

SB

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

Here is one discussing the difficulty of interpreting what the data actually means
Here is one suggesting that wind, not global warming, is to blame for the recent ice loss in Greenland and the west Antarctic.

It's not my fault if no one else in the thread knows how to do research. Go to your favorite scientific journal that has anything to do with global warming and you will find similar. If you want to actually read these articles, most libraries have subscriptions to Science, you can go check them out. Or pay for your own subscription.

I'm not trying to 'deny' global warming or anything, just saying that the issue is a lot more complicated than it appears on the surface. Here is another comment I wrote that is more to the point.

Re:I found one

[shadowbearer]

Your first link doesn't discuss anything in enough detail to be meaningful.

  From your second link:

Winds, Not Just Global Warming, Eating Away at the Ice Sheets

  Keywords: "Not. Just." Winds circulate atmospheric temperatures...

  Best you can do?

SB

Re:I found one

[Snaller]

"Of course it doesn't completely 'disprove' global warming,"

To "disprove" it you would have to show that humans aren't responsible, if the atmospheric aerosols are reduced because of humans, its still humans who are the cause.

Re:I found one

[Garse Janacek]

Alright -- I misread you as making a stronger statement than you were actually trying to. But I still disagree with you: the paper you pointed to, as shadowbearer and I both pointed out, is not about global warming, and is not trying to be. So:

My claim was that not all peer-reviewed papers dealing with global warming support the main Global Warming thesis (which is that man-made CO2 is causing a real rise in global temperatures). This is true. I merely found one paper fitting this criteria.

is not accurate. The paper you pointed to is not about global warming. The abstract doesn't mention global warming at all, and the summary you pointed to only mentions global warming as a potential cause of the rising sea temperatures (the paper is claiming to show that about 2/3 of the rise is due to aerosols, leaving 1/3 from other causes). The point is that neither one is about whether global warming is happening, all that is being asked is whether this specific regional rise can be attributed to global warming, to which the answer is apparently "not entirely".

So: unless a paper that is actually about the "global warming thesis" says otherwise, there's really no reason to think that the paper has any relevance to that issue, at least without a much stronger justification. (And, again, if it did have relevance to such a hot-button issue, it seems like they'd advertise that fact, rather than leaving it out of the abstract entirely...)

The reality is that global warming isn't nearly as clear as Al Gore would have you believe. Sorry to burst your bubble, but I'm not a 'denier.'

Al Gore is neither here nor there. I'm concerned about what qualified climatologists would have me believe. When one of them says it's unclear (unclear as in "it might not be a big deal at all", not as in "we can't give a year-by-year calendar of exactly how severe the consequences will be", which is obviously true), then let me know. But even if you aren't a "denier" personally, doing things like posting articles that aren't really relevant to global warming and saying they "don't support" global warming is still misleading and falsely encourages the meme that there is still a lot of debate about whether global warming is real.

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

Find me a peer reviewed article that shows global warming is eating away at the ice, and we will compare. The actual abstract omits the word 'just'. If you want to discuss it more I can go to the library tomorrow and get the full article.

I am not certain you understood the first article. Scratch that, I am certain you did not understand the first article.

If you are unhappy with those, go find your own, I told you how. It is not incumbent upon me to compensate for your inadequacies. Closing your eyes to them will not make them disappear. If you don't know how to do science or research, that is your problem not mine.

Re:I found one

[shadowbearer]

Find me a peer reviewed article that shows global warming is eating away at the ice,

  Just what the bleep do you think is happening to it (and most of the glaciers around the world, and Antarctic ice)...??? Polar bears with hairdryers? Sheese.

SB

Re:I found one

[Chabil Ha']

If this were true, it is more damning than you think. The whole climate change initiative hinges on the elimination of one gas--carbon dioxide. If it were conclusively found that CO2 is *not* responsible for the warming trend, it effectively pops the Climate Change Syndicate's hot air balloon.

Re:I found one

[angel'o'sphere]

north atlantic is mainly due to a reduction of atmospheric aerosols

Yeah, and this and the rest of your posts show you either can not read or don't want to read.

a) Aerosols are not reduced lately, in fact their concentration increased by 50 times up to 100 times
b) the effect of Aerosols on global warming is much worse than CO2
c) just as a side note: the actual warming we observed the last 3 years is already significantly higher than predicted 10 years ago

angel'o'sphere

Re:I found one

[mvdwege]

Now that would be a feat. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Anyone trying to dispute that belongs with the flat-earthers, the creationists and the inventors of the perpetuum mobile.

Mart

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

Well that was really scientific. (Just to be clear, the previous sentence was sarcasm). So convenient to blame the obvious culprit, isn't it? But if you were to blame the obvious culprit all the time, in another century you might have been burning witches. Soooooo........

As it turns out, at least one glacier in the world isn't disappearing because of global warming. See what happens when you make assumptions without verifying? What about the others? We should check and find out.

I don't know what is happening to Antarctic ice. Perhaps it is due to the one degree of warming the earth has experience in the last 20 years. However, that is not an assumption I am willing to make without verifying it. Because

(here is a joke)

When you ass-u-me, you make an ASS out of U and ME.

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

You're brain-dead. I'm not making up stuff, I'm quoting the article. Read it and learn.

Yeah, and this and the rest of your posts show you either can not read or don't want to read.

Who doesn't want to read? Oh yeah, you didn't read the articles I posted.

Re:I found one

[phantomfive]

all that is being asked is whether this specific regional rise can be attributed to global warming,

If you cannot see how global temperatures are derived from a synthesis of regional temperatures, then I cannot help you.

The idea of global warming is that carbon dioxide is warming the earth to a degree that will be damaging (and may be irreversible). No one is doubting that the earth's temperatures rose over the last two decades. That is a measurement, and it is probably accurate. The only question is to what degree is this from CO2? That is a question we are still answering. In on particular region of the earth, it was mostly not from CO2, according to this paper. What about other regions of the earth? It is an important question, because if you don't know what has effected the temperature of the earth until now, it is going to be difficult to predict it into the future.

Re:I found one

[shadowbearer]

  Kiddo, you really should start paying attention.

  You are doing yourself a disservice by not doing so.

  *One* glacier not melting? When most of the rest are? Come on, I could come up with a better response than that - not *all* the glaciers are retreating, just most of them - the few that aren't are in regions where the climate is experiencing greater snowfall.

  I feel bad for you. Not because you don't know what you're talking about - but because you just splashed it all over in a public venue with a lot of people who know much more than you do - and you do a google search here and there to try and prove your point.

  You made an ass out of yourself. I hardly contributed to that.

(If you think that getting modded up for a comment on slashdot makes it different, than you really are a young fool.)

SB

Re:the global warming heretic ..

[MrHanky]

Yes, everyone who are wrong are wrong in the exact same way. That means you are a racist, too!

Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist

[quixote9]

He's a physicist. All he's done is show that non-specialists aren't necessarily as good as specialists at understanding the evidence.

I'm a biologist, and a good one if I do say so myself. I'm also convinced that faster than light travel (and the necessary new physics) is just waiting to be discovered. I'm sure the physics community will be immediately rethinking all their principles now.

Re:Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist

[stdarg]

He's a physicist. All he's done is show that non-specialists aren't necessarily as good as specialists at understanding the evidence.

You're already assuming he's wrong, surely you see that as a scientist yourself.

I'm a biologist, and a good one if I do say so myself. I'm also convinced that faster than light travel (and the necessary new physics) is just waiting to be discovered. I'm sure the physics community will be immediately rethinking all their principles now.

By your own argument aren't you completely unqualified to even comment on this issue? You're neither a climatologist nor a physicist.

I, on the other hand, would welcome your opinion on the actual subject at hand (global warming) because I think a biologist might have some interesting insights on things like positive feedback on CO2 production, biological methods of reducing CO2, etc. I mean, don't you think that's related to the problem even though it has nothing to do with climatology directly?

Re:Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist

[quixote9]

By your own argument aren't you completely unqualified to even comment on this issue?

Erm . . . that's precisely my point.

And, yes, as a matter of fact I do think a biologist is somewhat more qualified than a physicist to discuss climatology. Our science shares a lot more of that fuzzy uncertainty and all-around total unpredictability that physicists don't seem to be used to. I could have told the folks planning on dumping iron to remove CO2 was never going to work. That one was obvious to any biologist, or at least any biologist who didn't flunk basic ecology.

Bad URL

[The Cisco Kid]

It doesnt go to a story, it goes to a login page.

If you can't find a URL that actually links to what you are talking about DONT FUCKING POSTING IT.

It took me about ten seconds to find the URL's below. Just imagine, how much time could be saved overall, if either the submitter or the /. ed had taken this ten seconds to find a good URL, for everyone, instead of *every individual reader* having to either wade through the jackass NYT login nonsense, or google around for this themselves.

http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2009/03/co2_freeman_dyson_magic_trees.php

and

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/25/some-inconvenient-thinkers/?ref=energy-environment

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[EvolutionsPeak]

'global warming' is still a better term than 'global climate change'. At least it has some meaning. Can anyone point to any time in history where the climate was not changing?

Lets say the world's climate does change significantly over the next few hundreds of years. So what? Some people will have to move away from areas that get flooded, they have plenty of warning to do it. Some species may go extinct and some new ones will pop up as well.

I am all for controlling pollution, but certainly not in the inefficient brainless way the environmentalists are clamouring for.

"Mad scientist"?

[jw3]

"I'm not mad! I'm angrrrry! Angrrrrry scientist!
j.

Re:Thank goodness

[stevew]

"CO2 is a known greenhouse gas"

Well so is H2O and there is a substantially larger amount of H2O in the atmosphere! Further, the range of frequencies that H2O contributes to warming is far greater than CO2.

Explain then why Algore shows a plot of CO2 versus temperature derived from Ice cores and INCORRECTLY claims that CO2 Leads the temperature. If you LOOK at the REAL curve you'll find that for most of the data period (600 thousand years or so) CO2 LAGS temperature rise. (Which makes sense- it gets warmer, more life around the globe..)

That is another problem with your argument. You limit yourself to "recorded" history. That is only a 5000 year span. Even Algore goes for 600 thousand years or so - and in that period of time the amount of time we've had equivalent CO2 in the atmosphere before.

Gee - we're don't agree - that means there is no concensus. There are plenty of scientists in the field who disagree. There is nothing settled about it.

Saying it's settled is just stupid!

Lastly - starting out your argument complaining about my spelling just an attempt to belittle my points without any facts.

Re:To put this article in a more local perspective

[godrik]

I'll refer this post to prove I'm right next time I am modded troll! :) You saved my /. reputation!

Re:But the real data is worse than the models pred

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that it is impacting us worse than predicted, inasmuch as all the models I've seen showed significantly hotter temperatures by this time, some were expecting temperatures 5-10 degrees Celsius above what we have now. Have you seen the opposite? Here is an article talking about the limitations of computer models. Here is a quote "Failure to account for local warming in cities led to some claims of dramatic warming in the 1980s and 1990s and, while adjustments are made today and the predictions of warming significantly reduced, some researchers believe the adjustments to be inadequate." This is consistent with what I have observed, as well.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[ralphdaugherty]

Global warming is politically difficult to sell to people when they are experiencing record cold.

      That's why I call it Polar Meltdown. Here's what I blogged about it the other day:

It isn't Global Warming, so what is it? Polar Meltdown

We know what the symptoms are. Polar ice caps are melting. This has dire consequences to current life on earth from what I've read on it, granted I haven't taken an intense look into it due to more pressing amd immediate dire consequences, but from what I've seen...

First, and probably most importantly, the additional fresh water dilutes the salinity of sea water. I've seen estimates it would kill off lots of sea life and everything in the food chain that depends on it.

Secondly, and this is where conservatives typically scorn, is that it raises the sea level. I posted here somewhere the estimate that if the ice shelf on Greenland melted, the oceans would rise twenty feet.

First, conservatives don't believe anything is changing for it to melt, on top of that the don't believe it would affect the oceans that much, and whatever effect happens to oceans people can just move, so big deal they say. All much ado about nothing.

Mainly I would say they haven't pictured seas twenty feet higher at current beaches because they don't believe it, so painting a picture of that isn't something global warming critics would pay attention to anyway.

And I saw today that global warming critics are most of us, over 60%, hence this post. Global warming is clearly not felt, so it's not true.

Third, if the polar ice caps melt, it will change ocean currents. I've seen several descriptions of what effects that would cause, one of the most serious being that the Gulf Stream would be disrupted, throwing northern Europe's climate into the same category as Canada's for example. Now the climate there in Great Britain for example is moderated considerably by the Gulf Stream.

Probably the bottom line argument for conservatives is that it doesn't matter what happens or what is described, it's happened before, or forces stronger than dumping carbon into the air are at work, such as solar fluctuations, or even that all that carbon was in the air at some point, so what if we put it back.

So you could point out what will happen if you put it back up there, and the polar caps melt, but then it comes around full circle to they don't believe anything anyone is saying, so really just a waste of time to try.

But I would at least get the terminology accurate in describing what the problem is. It may theoretically be global warming, but it clearly isn't being felt as global warming. I would call it Polar Meltdown and focus less on immediate threats it causes to polar bears and seals because conservatives just don't care about things like that, and typical man in the street figures things like that happen and life has always adjusted and it will again.

Well, actually, life doesn't always adjust and we've had massive major die-offs throughout the history of our planet, without our help, so I would focus on whether it kills off humans or not, and if not, what it does kill off and the effect it has on us. And when exactly we have new beachfront property replacing the old if nothing changes.

Too much pussyfooting around, and not enough explicit terminology and descriptions of what the effects will be, and nutso stuff about sheep and cattle belching.

Need to get with it with Polar Meltdown if in fact it's happening, because no one is losing any beachfront property as we speak, or regaining it in the front yard.

rd

Re:136 degrees on 13 of Sept 1922

[4D6963]

No, you're just stupid. The fact that it was very hot at one point in time in one point of Earth (Libya, of all places) is completely irrelevant of the global situation. It only shows how little you understand how climate on the scale of a planet works.

experiment vs authority

[cretog8]

I fall into the scared shit about global climate change thinking we should get on the ball with a vengeance to try to fix it camp.

BUT, I don't entirely trust my own motivations in this regard. Partly it's risk-aversion--if there's a reasonable chance of the nasty predictions, it's worth trying to fix it. Largely it's accepting that the authorities who understand this shit mostly agree. I DON'T understand this shit.

That's different than, for instance, the role of vaccines in causing autism. There's really clear data that it doesn't. Even if I don't understand the mechanisms, all I have to trust is the studies weren't fraudulent and I can be quite comfortable that getting my kids vaccinated won't give them autism.

I haven't seen the equivalent for climate change. Our sample size is awfully small, even if you try to convince yourself different eras are separate samples.

I might be missing something, but if I am, I REALLY want someone to point it out to me, and to the skeptics. Where's the climate change equivalent of the vaccine studies?

In support of Freeman Dyson...

[Paul Fernhout]

Climate change happens.

Nothing being proposed by anyone will make a significant dent in it as far as CO2 levels in the next couple decades.

So why not just adapt?

From something I wrote here:
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing/msg/183fed4ee1411253?hl=en

People are regularly relocated for big things like hydroelectric dams, as
happened near where I live now, or small things like a new bridge over the
lake about to be built and needing land for an access path where a few
houses now sit. It's a messy social process, and I'm not necessarily for dam
building (there are many horror stories obviously, of natives displaced
without even any compensation), but it has happened and people have tried
(and perhaps failed) to come up with approaches towards relocation with some
sense of fairness. What's going on with rising sea levels connected to CO2
pollution can thus perhaps be thought of in those terms. It's a complex
issue; the notion of any sort of private or even public land ownership is
always problematical if one considers ethical ambiguities related to
histories of invasion and various first comers claiming special rights (why
should primacy be the highest deciding factor?). One always has to make
assumptions in talking about what is fair (including, sadly, the assumption
of what role threat and intimidation and violence plays in all that). There
are lots of ways to think about the fairness of climate change from CO2
pollution (again, see the book, "Policy Paradox: The Art of Political
Decision Making" for general ideas). What is unfair about the current
situation is these people losing their beach front property (and related
livelihoods) are paying the highest costs for the benefits of CO2 pollution
which are mostly going to other people. But, the process is effectively
irreversible in the near future. Short of some very radical plans which may
have other unforeseen side effects (dumping freighters of iron powder in the
oceans to create algae blooms which then sink?), these low lying lands will
disappear under any politically likely approach to CO2 reduction. So, rather
than emphasize slowing climate change, I think it is more important to talk
about dealing fairly with climate change (whatever "fair" means to different
people) and advancing our culture to the point where it can do what needs to
be done to give everyone an abundant life despite climate change.

But, as with reparations for other past misdeeds by large societies
(slavery, mountaintop removal, groundwater pollution, desecration of sacred
spaces, etc.), it's not clear to me how the mix should go between direct
reparations to the people involved (or their descendants, like for slavery)
or if this should instead spur us as a society towards more general social
investments that benefit everybody (like creating a general and cheap
technology to build new land in the ocean like Eric Hunting mentioned in
"Re: Land and Capital; Invention and Automation"). Probably some mix of both
would be fairest, but unfortunately often now under current economic and
political ideologies we have neither reparations nor broad public investment
in open and sustainable technology to any great degree. :-( But, we may see
that change eventually, especially as the globe generally gets wealthier and
various sustainable industrial activities get easier. ...

Let's use [someone's] figure of $1000 per square meter for artificial land on the
ocean. Even if maybe these people may someday do it for less:
http://seasteading.org/
If people need, say, 1000 square meters of ocean front land per person to be
happy and grow most of their own food near the tropics (given the ocean as a
playground too), then that's a mi

Re:Environmental Nutters

[shadowbearer]

  Because despite centuries of advances in science our educational systems still lag well behind our ability to comprehend reality. I have no evidence for it, but I suspect it's because most people still think with their glands and not with their grey matter ;)

SB

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

conflicts of interest

[moderatorrater]

Agreed, global warming could be happening anyway, but what's most profitable for those involved? People will scream until their faces turn blue that anybody who doubts global warming is doing it for money (as the OP did), but when it's pointed out that all the money right now is to be gained by verifying climate change they take it in stride. Conflicts of interest are conflicts of interest, and when it come to climate change, the reports I've seen accuse the oil companies and those with vested interests of giving hundreds of millions of dollars whereas those trying to prove climate change are spending roughly 10x that amount according to this report.

This issue is too heated for good, solid science to come out of it. The issue's too politicized for confidence and the science too uncertain to know what's going to happen anyway. Without being able to verify everything myself, I feel that doubt and skepticism are the only rational reactions to be had.

Re:conflicts of interest

[shadowbearer]

Let's take your link point by point:

# Private foundations distribute a minimum of $35-50 million annually to non-profit organizations and universities to comment on or study various elements of the climate change debate.

  A pittance compared to the many hundreds of millions and more that the opposition spends.

# Climate change-related projects accounted for over 25% of the 3-year total reported grants and contributions received by 10 of the top-20 institutions receiving support from foundations. For 6 organizations, climate change grants accounted for 50% of their reported grants and contributions received.

  So? If we are really going to discover what is going on, we NEED to spend more money on research into the problem. See another post I made in this article where I note that Dyson says the same thing.

# The federal government spent nearly $2 billion to support climate change science programs in FY 2004.

  Again, a pittance; especially considering the potential severity of the problem.

# In 28 of the top-30 R&D performing academic institutions, federal financing accounts for more than 50% of the institutionâ(TM)s expenditures on atmospheric R&D.

  Considering that climatology is *the most important part* of atmospheric R&D, I honestly can't see the point the author is trying to make.

  I agree with you in that it's too politicized. This should be an issue that is debated solely on scientific terms. Unfortunately the media and an awful lot of ignorant people out there make it an issue that is debated on emotional and monetary terms. In my estimation that makes them fools.

SB

"Warming." Then later, "Of course, cooling also".

[Futurepower(R)]

My grandparent comment was meant not to deny that there is climate change, but to express the opinion that it has been communicated very poorly.

You said, "Of course, some places get warmer and some get cooler..." But that is something only being said recently.

Many people have lost confidence with other people who insisted for years that there was "warming", then when it became colder in some places, they modified their explanation and said, "Of course it will become colder in some places". The underlying research seems to have not sufficiently reliable, and there have been many complaints about that.

Re:Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted i

[NewbieProgrammerMan]

There is more forest acreage today in the U.S. than there was in 1920. Our acreage is coming back! There's a reason for that, and you need to understand it before you start punishing the US for destroying the planet.

Hold up there---where did SmallFurryCreature rail on the U.S.? As you quoted,

Forest around the world are being cut down.

which can still be true even though the U.S. is increasing its forest acreage. Unless I misunderstand, SmallFurryCreature was just pointing out that it's easy to say, "just plant trees, problem solved!" It's an entirely different thing to actually get enough countries to plant enough trees so that there's a net increase in global forest acreage.

Re:Prove it

[Kohath]

Prove what?

- Prove that forcing people to pay 2x or 10x (or any amount) more for the same energy makes them poorer?
- Prove that poorer people have a higher incidence of premature death?
- Prove that externally-enforced poverty can lead to wars?
- Prove that tyranny can lead to wars?
- Prove that poor people have less to spend on disease research than rich people?
- Prove that disease research leads to disease cures?
- Prove that disease cures save people from dying of those diseases?
- Prove that a life spent pursuing the advancement of a false theory is a life wasted?
- Prove that poor people have less to spend on technological research than rich people?
- Prove that technological research leads to advances?
- Prove that developing countries will develop slowly when their energy is very expensive instead of very cheap?

Which one of these things is in doubt?

Re:To put this article in a more local perspective

[theodicey]

And Dyson would be rightly modded down as troll on Slashdot-- he's long on opinions and short on apparent expertise and data. He shouldn't even be giving interviews on climate much less feature articles.

I don't want to read arrogant physicists blathering about climatology any more than I want to see biologists bloviating on microkernel architecture.

However, interesting questions offered modestly are always welcome and modded as Interesting or Insightful.

Re:To put this article in a more local perspective

[macraig]

Having been modded "Troll" many times myself for merely expressing an unpopular or unexpected opinion, I understand very well the reaction(s) Dyson gets. I don't agree with all of his wacky notions myself, but I respect his willingness and ability to think outside the Groupthink Box.

Since when did "iconoclast" become synonymous with "troll"? I must have missed that memo.

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[thesupraman]

No, his facts are documented and people can go and investigate them and form their own opinions.

You on the other hand offer no facts and unfounded accusations.

You present yourself as an idiot, whereas he presents himself as well informed. Hmmm.

Re:Thank goodness

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Maybe I'm just too liberal for Gore, but I think that Bjorn Lomborg is absolutely right in this debate. Take 15 minutes to see where he's coming from:
Bjorn Lomborg talk on TED [ted.com]

I didn't have any problem with Bjorn Lomborg's talk, but he was talking about priorities for solutions to various problems. He made it very explicit that the findings didn't say global warming wasn't happening or that it's junk science. It was that maybe following the Kyoto protocol didn't make as much economic sense as spending the same amount of money on other solutions.

Actually, I'll go back on saying "I didn't have any problems with Bjorn's talk". Regarding the Kyoto protocol, his example was that if everyone immediately signed onto the Kyoto protocol it would cost the global economy 150 Billion dollars and only delay the effects of global warming by 6 years in 2100. This completely ignores the fact that no one advocating for Kyoto is saying we stop there, it would simply be a starting point. His 150 billion dollar figure also leaves out the economic costs of ignoring global warming. It also doesn't take into account the economic stimulating effects in industries that would research and develop environmentally friendly technologies. (I remember listening to a great story on the radio about an American businessman who was very eager about the prospects opening up due to tighter environmental controls. When asked about other countries (China) getting huge exemptions from Kyoto, he was even happier. If the US is forced to start working on new clean technologies now while China can wait then it means we'll get a head start and become the leaders in that technology. When China finally wants to start cleaning up their act, guess who they'll have to buy their solutions from). I also have a huge problem when people throw around big stupid numbers and say "it'll cost the economy this much." Analysts do it all the time for everything and it's nonsense.

Re:To put this article in a more local perspective

[macraig]

So someone has to be an autistic savant with a singular lifelong obsession before you'll consider their reasoning to be anything but trollish? Where's your "apparent expertise and data" for the opinion you rendered above, I wonder? It's not in evidence, that I can see.

Galactic warming??

[Reziac]

I haven't had time to look into this yet, but I found the following interesting in light of the religious fervor surrounding global warming -- explain how the activities of Earth-bound humans affect these other planets? Or is there a colonization program already in operation that none of us here on Earth know about??

=========
http://blog.tommcclintock.com/2009/03/10/the-radical-policies-of-the-global-warm-mongers/
=========
First, if global warming is caused by your SUV, why is it that we're seeing global warming on every other body in the solar system? For the last decade or so, the Martian south polar ice cap has conspicuously receded. Pluto is warming - about two degrees Celsius over the past 14 years. Jupiter is showing dramatic climate change by as much as 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Even Neptune's moon, Triton, has warmed five percent on the absolute temperature scale - the equivalent of a 22 degrees Fahrenheit increase on Earth - from 1989 to 1998.
========

Re:Galactic warming??

[ArsonSmith]

That's just how bad SUVs are. Really.

Re:Galactic warming??

[Reziac]

Wow. So, keeping things in proportion here... you're saying 18-wheelers could affect far solar systems, and railroad locomotives might even affect other galaxies?? And what about jumbo jets -- might they even affect other universes??

Damn, I had no idea we made such powerful shit!

Re:Galactic warming??

[Ambitwistor]

Your logic is bizarre. Whether or not other bodies in the solar system are warming or cooling has nothing to do with the evidence that CO2 on Earth is contributing to warming here. It's like saying, "Hey, these forests burned down due to lightning, therefore this other forest here with the matches and the campfire didn't burn down due to humans".

And "every other body in the solar system"? Why don't you ever hear about warming trends on Mercury or Venus? Or the Moon? Or Saturn? Maybe because people who like to rant about "the radical policies of the global warm-mongers" like to pick out the planets which have experienced warming at some point, and ignore the others?

The insinuation that all planets in the solar system are experiencing warming due to some common cause falls apart when you actually look at those planets and what is affecting the climate there, which have little in common. e.g., dust storms at the south pole of Mars, shifts in convection patterns on Jupiter, summer on Pluto, etc.

Not the first eminent thinker to become a crank

[SteeldrivingJon]

He gets to join the ranks of Linus Pauling, with his Vitamin C woo.

Re:His story is typical.

[shutdown -p now]

Yeah, reality has a well-known liberal bias...

Next time... do the math

[denzacar]

If you cut 10 people's carbon footprint by 30% over 20 years and during that 20 years, 3 more people are added to the group, their 70% contribution negates all savings from the 30%reduction.

I guess you were to busy driving your gas guzzling SUV, getting 2 miles per gallon, while eating big greasy cheeseburgers in those old-fashioned styrofoam containers and chucking those containers through the window of your car - to actually do some number crunching there.
30% out of 10 is 3 - yes... BUT...

Those 3 people are also gonna have their carbon emissions scaled down - so take 30% off of them too. That would be 0.9 - almost an entire person.
So, starting with 10, you end up with 13 people - who are creating as much of CO2 as 9 people did before. More people, less pollution.

Or don't have those 3 new ones cut their emissions. You still get 13 people tomorrow producing as much as 10 do today.
So, with those 10 reducing their emissions by 30%, and those extra 3 not reducing at all - you get a 7.7% reduction per capita.
Again - more people, less pollution.

Or let me illustrate it like this.

The ship is sinking in the middle of the ocean and there are not enough lifeboats.
Help is on the way, but it won't get there before crew and passengers get a chance to see just how good swimmers they are.

Each lifeboat seats 10 "regular" humans - weighing about 80 kg.
As a bunch of fat bastards from first class show up on the deck, captain decides to put a temporary moratorium on the people's rights and the democracy - takes out a gun and proclaims himself the sole authority on the seating arrangements in the life boats.

So, he has someone bring a scale to the deck and starts weighing passengers.
If you are 30% lighter than the "regular" 80-kilo human - you get an instant ticket on the life boat.

So, he fills the boat with 10 people weighing 56 kilos or less (80 kg - 30%) - and he still has weight capacity left for 4 more skinny people.
Someone will have to sit in someone else's lap - but hey... They only weigh about 56 kilos or less.
Plus... they have about 16 kilos left - captain adds 4 more babies to the people in the life boat and sends them on their way.

So... While he could have let 5 rich fat fucks take the boat, or have 10 average (spending) people rowing off to safety - with a little creative rationing the brave but politically incorrect captain got 14 people and 4 babies in that same boat.
He could have also said "Fuck the babies" and loaded the boat with 10 "light" and 3 regular people.
But saving babies from drowning illustrates the point kinda better.

you can see that it would be almost impossible to go back 10 years in carbon production while the needs of the people are constantly increasing.

You can see that it WOULD NOT be impossible.
Plus - needs of the people are not increasing EQUALLY.
A village somewhere in Africa that needs a wind or solar powered water pump DOES NOT equal one lard-ass in the developed world who spends dozen such pumps on lattes each year.

By cutting down on your own emissions and implementing clean energy sources on the large scale - YOU get to keep nearly all of your current comforts, plus you let some developing countries reach a higher level of civilization in the process.
And not only do you get to live a cleaner and healthier life with less chance for getting cancer and with a "better" body due to actually walking a bit here and there - by raising standards of those poor people in the "Third World" you reduce the chances that in the future they will feel the urge to chuck a plane or two into some buildings near your home.
Or a carcass crawling with Ebola into your local water supply.

Re:Next time... do the math

[sumdumass]

I guess you were to busy driving your gas guzzling SUV, getting 2 miles per gallon, while eating big greasy cheeseburgers in those old-fashioned styrofoam containers and chucking those containers through the window of your car - to actually do some number crunching there.
30% out of 10 is 3 - yes... BUT...

Those 3 people are also gonna have their carbon emissions scaled down - so take 30% off of them too. That would be 0.9 - almost an entire person.
So, starting with 10, you end up with 13 people - who are creating as much of CO2 as 9 people did before. More people, less pollution.

Well, one thing is for sure, I didn't have my head up someone's ass while blindly following faulty logic.

Anyways, add a unit/person or two to the mix. it's not like we are going to limit the population. If all the savings is in something automobile exhaust or electric generation the savings can be offset simply buy changes in use. The point of the matter is that population growth can over power any reductions as well as the reduction doesn't address the problem. It isn't like the emissions savings is stopping Co2 from entering the air, if pumping it in is the problem, then it shouldn't disappear because something emitted only 7 units instead of 10.

You can see that it WOULD NOT be impossible.
Plus - needs of the people are not increasing EQUALLY.
A village somewhere in Africa that needs a wind or solar powered water pump DOES NOT equal one lard-ass in the developed world who spends dozen such pumps on lattes each year.

First, I didn't say it would be impossible, read what you think you read again. Perhaps grab a dictionary in between cussing out everyone who doesn't fit your mold of an ideal existence. Second, the idiots in the country with 5 pumps each shouldn't be worried about the somewhere in Africa. Somewhere in Africa is the responsibility of their own government, not mine or me. I don't and will not be guilted because someone's people let them down when attempting to act like government. If they want our government to fix things, they need to surrender sovereignty so the resources can be exploited for the betterment of both societies.

By cutting down on your own emissions and implementing clean energy sources on the large scale - YOU get to keep nearly all of your current comforts, plus you let some developing countries reach a higher level of civilization in the process.

Actually, without either, I get to keep all my creature comforts as well as not have to pay for some others countries upgrade in civilization. And yes, it all ends up costing more, solar and electric is just too expensive, coal and oil already replaced it once. Jobs going overseas means no work at home or work that is so fudged into the mold that people not paying their mortgage two states away will cause you to lose your livelihood.

And not only do you get to live a cleaner and healthier life with less chance for getting cancer and with a "better" body due to actually walking a bit here and there - by raising standards of those poor people in the "Third World" you reduce the chances that in the future they will feel the urge to chuck a plane or two into some buildings near your home.
Or a carcass crawling with Ebola into your local water supply.

And here is the problem. You went from what might be better to telling us what to do. Why would I want to walk? I get plenty of exercise in the gym. And less chance doesn't mean no cancer. Just like me never having cancer doesn't mean I won't be effected by it some day. But you dictating how people must live, what they can't do like driving a vintage muscle car or running industrial sized mills and lathes or welders or whatever to restore them- or doing anything that uses more energy.

But here is the kicker, you think it was the third world countries because of t

not much to do with energy independence

[Trepidity]

That'd be true if oil were the main problem, but coal is, which causes a political problem, since the US has a lot of coal. Oil is comparatively negligible, because the carbon left in total remaining oil reserves is a tiny fraction of the carbon left in total remaining coal reserves.

DDT is actually allowed for malaria control

[Trepidity]

An explicit exemption to the ban on DDT was its use for malaria control, which continued to be permitted. It's possible that some people stopped using it for that also, but then the issue is why they did that, not the original ban.

Slashdot is a tech community.

[Jack Zombie]

The only worthwhile discussions in Slashdot are technology-related. Every time Slashdot delves into another field (I'm thinking psychology, for example), the comments (sometimes all comments) are, like you've said, "not even wrong".

Slashdot is a tech community. Don't expect any more from it.

Re:Thank goodness

[Wannabe Code Monkey]

Maybe you and Dr. Happer are just among those who don't believe CFSs and such had anything to do with ozone depletion

Which, of course, would be true.

From your linked article:

The results provide strong evidence of the physical mechanism that the CR driven electron-induced reaction of halogenated molecules plays the dominant role in causing the ozone hole.

Ahh... so CRs (cosmic rays) reacting with halogenated molecules causes ozone depletion. I guess you're right, looks like Freon and other CFCs are in the clear... Hey I wonder if you could tell me more about these halogenated molecules that are the real culprit? Oh, so it's a compound that contains a halogen atom. Interesting, you must be right, it has nothing to do with CFCs at all. Say, just what is a halogen atom? Oh so the following elements are all halogens: flourine, chlorine, bromine, iodine, and astatine? Looks like your story of this having nothing to do with CFCs is still holding up. I guess ozone depletion is caused by some sort of compound of one or of your halogens with some other element, say maybe chlorine and flourine with carbon. Those dumb scientists, they're probably just trying to confuse us with acronyms, I bet no one even knows what CFC stands for.

The 800 Year Gap

[Burnova]

I scanned through and didn't see it mentioned anywhere, but has anyone else heard about this problem? The entire global warming problem is contingent on the concept that an increase in CO2 leads to higher temperatures, and this is based on the data compiled into the nice chart that Al Gore displays and comments, "They look like the belong together." Or something like that. The problem is that CO2 amounts don't precede the increase in temperature, they actually lag behind the temperature changes by about 800 years. This can be explained by the idea that as the world heats up, the oceans heat as well. As the oceans heat, they release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Of course this leaves the question, "Why does the planet heat up?" to be answered, and while the data is much more limited, there seems to be a very strong correlation between solar activity and global temperature. Has anyone else come across this line of research? Or have anything that builds on or refutes this?

Where's the data?

[flyingrobots]

I found a link to raw NOAA satellite data

There are a number of places where it has been graphed, just google "t2lt" or dump it in excel.
My big question is that I've seen NASA graphs that look far more damaging than what the raw data shows. This has been of concern to me as I do not understand why there is such a difference. In looking around, I found this article that discusses this point.

I'm very concerned that the whole global warming argument is really about money, not protecting the planet. Like the above article says, taking the temperature of the planet isn't rocket science.
I remain unconvinced, I would like to see what happens to global temperatures for the next couple of years.

If the climatologists are correct and we don't do anything, the consequences will be hard to bear.
If the climatologists are wrong and we act like they are right, the consequences will be hard to bear.

We have to this right...let's keep the debate going, it's very important.
Kevin

Re:Thank goodness

[Dr. Spork]

But don't you think it would be better to stimulate our economy by building water treatment plants where they are needed, training thousands of talented people from poor countries to be doctors, bringing electricity to environmentally sensitive regions so that people don't need to cut down rainforests for firewood, making sure that all young children get enough nutrition for their brains to fully develop, preventing deaths from malaria, etc? All of these things would require work and so create many thousands of jobs.

It's not fair to pretend that if we put 150 billion into projects like these, that wouldn't stimulate our economy. It definitely would. But it would also do a whole lot of good in the world, much more good than a six year delay in global warming. So I think the true humanists should be more focused on hiring park rangers to protect endangered elephants, gorillas and tigers from poachers. If we're scared for the polar bears, let's first stop shooting them! It's much cheaper and more effective. And for fuck's sake, let's keep children from dying of diarrhea!

And as far as innovation, I think we will get much more innovation per dollar if we make a commitment to educate every boy and girl in the third world. That's where the inventions of the future will come from.

Compared to worthy goals like this, Al Gore's rapid and expensive retooling of our energy industry really does look like a bad bang for the buck in every way.

I know that projections with big numbers are always a bit sketchy. My point is that there are positive externalities to both spending big on green technology, and spending big on sanitation, education, wilderness protection, etc. I can't think of a good reason why in the long run, one is a better economic investment than the other. But I think there is a huge moral difference between these two spending strategies, so I can't possibly endorse Al Gore's priorities.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[java killed the dino]

I don't think the parent was suggesting that everyone who believes in man-made global warming is a nutter. I think there is a large population in the world that believe in man-made global warming because it is trendy, not because of data; just the same, there is an equally large (if not larger) population who believe global warming either does not exist (or is not caused by man) for the same reason.

These are the "dogmatic idiots" on both sides of the issue who hold their professed "beliefs" either because it is popular to do so or taboo not to in their social surroundings. I doubt most of the general populous on either side of the issue could quote you any data on the situation, which makes their all-knowing attitude all the more irritating. Just look at Drudge, who posts stories about global warming protests next to stories about record cold temperatures. Clearly he's missing the point. But so are those that point to those cold temperatures and say, 'well, clearly this indicates climate change.' Neither is a climatologist, and both should shut up. Maybe it's just cold this year.

We should be approaching the issue of global warming from a scientific perspective, not a political one based on "beliefs". Both sides tend toward the latter.

What does Archbishop of Canterbury say?

[blue_teeth]

God will not give happy ending

Re:Thank goodness

[Temujin_12]

Agreed.

This is exactly what Dyson is talking about. Computer models are at BEST as good as the data we put into them. What Dyson is arguing for in most of his talks/papers is that we focus more on the data we're putting into models than we currently are.

As an aside, I think that when people stop questioning things and go even further so that they resort to ad hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with them, in that moment they are no longer defending science but dogma, and their credibility is entirely lost.

raising dikes

[slashbart]

What a pile of baloney
We (the Dutch) will always be raising our dikes, because the land is slowly compacting because we have taken it from the bottom of the see. The fact that we built the 'afsluitdijk' (32 km through the North Sea) which was finished in 1932 shows that we will damn well raise the dikes when it becomes necessary, and it's absolutely bollocks to suggest that we have to start now because the oceans might be rising a meter or so in a century.
nonsense

And apart from that, the oceans are not rising at the moment, and even more damning, the heat content of the oceans over the last few years has dropped. You can find the links on this site. It will definitely turn out that the sun is a larger driver of climate than has been proposed by many, and we will all notice that in the coming years, because the sun is currently entering pretty much a state of hibernation (especially magnetically).

Re:Climate scientist conspiracy?

[Cyberax]

Virtually 100% of real climate scientists agree on global warming.

You have to scrape the bottom of the barrel even to find several dozens of real dissenting climate scientists: http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php

Oh, look!

[assert(0)]

A maverick scientist! I bet he thinks outside the box too.

He's right about the religion...

[fugue]

1) Global warming is not a hoax. We are seeing effects. Humans are doing things that produce enough greenhouse gases to affect it. There is no question. Anyone who tells you that we don't need to worry about it is either misinformed or deliberately trying to mislead you.

2) Dyson is right in an important way, though. Global warming will probably lead to all kinds of trouble including the collapse of society, but it is just one of many things that will do the same. I recommend Jared Diamond's Collapse, in which he discusses in detail 12 threats to our survival, each of which is more than sufficient to do us in. Some of his worries: species loss; topsoil loss; natural habitat destruction (including deforestation); the end of cheap energy; the end of drinkable water; toxic shit everywhere...

Don't underestimate the problems caused by greenhouse gases. But don't underestimate any of the others either--a cool, comfortable climate and secure polar ice caps aren't much good if all our surface water is toxic. Global warming is nothing more than a poster child for our imminent doom. Move away from its religion and towards an actual understanding of the issues.

Re:Thank goodness

[Draconix]

That bei--wait, you mean the Onion, don't you?

Re:Just like an environazi

[Foobar of Borg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Actually, an insult is not an ad hominem attack. He actually responded with facts to all the points OP made. The fact that he then called him an idiot does not change this.

I suppose if I said 2+2=4 you moron, you would then believe I was wrong because I called you a moron?

On the other hand, your title statement "Just like an environazi" is ad hominem since you are basically saying that, since he is an environmentalist, anything he says must be wrong.

Re:But the real data is worse than the models pred

[ralphbecket]

Where are you getting this information? Lucia's analysis shows that the models are under estimating the absolute temperature by around 1'C on average. She has another posting showing that models that take volcanism into account are worse predictors than those that don't. You might want to take model predictions with a grain of salt.

Some reports of increased warming

[presidenteloco]

Global warming 'is three times faster than worst predictions'
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 3 June 2007

Global warming is accelerating three times more quickly than feared, a series of startling, authoritative studies has revealed.

They have found that emissions of carbon dioxide have been rising at thrice the rate in the 1990s. The Arctic ice cap is melting three times as fast - and the seas are rising twice as rapidly - as had been predicted.

The study, published by the US National Academy of Sciences, shows that carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing by about 3 per cent a year during this decade, compared with 1.1 per cent a year in the 1990s.

The significance is that this is much faster than even the highest scenario outlined in this year's massive reports by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - and suggests that their dire forecasts of devastating harvests, dwindling water supplies, melting ice and loss of species are likely to be understating the threat facing the world.

The study found that nearly three-quarters of the growth in emissions came from developing countries, with a particularly rapid rise in China. The country, however, will resist being blamed for the problem, pointing out that its people on average still contribute only about a sixth of the carbon dioxide emitted by each American. And, the study shows, developed countries, with less than a sixth of the world's people, still contribute more than two-thirds of total emissions of the greenhouse gas.

On the ground, a study by the University of California's National Snow and Ice Data Center shows that Arctic ice has declined by 7.8 per cent a decade over the past 50 years, compared with an average estimate by IPCC computer models of 2.5 per cent.

Further reading: Go to pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0700609104

Re:Some reports of increased warming

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure where you got that article, but the pnas.org link at the bottom sure doesn't justify the headline "Global Warming 3 times worse than expected."

Re:Environmental Nutters

[presidenteloco]

When I used to attend environmental (forest conservation) protests, the "unbiased" mainstream media would routinely do two things.

First, they would film and interview the one or two actual "nutters" who showed up out of 2000 people at the protest. e.g. the naked pot activists cavorting in the fountain who had decided to borrow our protest, and
Second, they would only use narrow angle close up shots of small portions of the whole crowd, again focussed on the most stereotypical dreadlock types. This gave the impression that a few tens of dreadlocked hippies and naked pot activists had showed up to try to save the forest.

Be careful what you allow yourself to perceive, when intermediaries are feeding it to you.

More like this:

[Enahs]

People who don't share my exact viewpoint need to be murdered in the most horrific manner possible.

Re:Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted i

[Culture20]

Say we follow Al Gore and there turns out not to be a problem. We would have wasted lots of money. Say we don't follow Al Gore and he is right, then we are in deep shit and it is to late to do anything about it.

Ah, yes. Pascal's wager.

Past Performance

[turkeyfish]

"Past Performance is Not Necessarily Indicative of Future Results"

How ironic. Dr. Dyson wouldn't be the first aging, but unquestionably brilliant physicist at the Institute for Advanced Studies, who spent his last days pointlessly and wrongly, arguing about perceived inaccuracy of cutting edge scientific theories that continued to gain scientific credence dispite such arguments. Albert Einstein's quibbles with fundamental aspects of quantum physics are now largely forgotten.

Dr. Dyson might do better to provide detailed simulation models that counter to Dr. Hansen's pioneering work rather what offering what otherwise seems to be little more than armchair speculation of dubious relevance to global warming.

Plant Trees?

[turkeyfish]

On paper it sounds good, a simple calculation, but he never addresses how much energy that would take or where the water would come from.

Its fine to dismiss global warming

[mofag]

but I wonder if these people would be willing to go live for a month on an island in Polynesia at a point in time of our choosing in the next 50 years without scuba gear or any flotation device? If they're so certain that global warming is just unfounded hysteria, let them stand by their words.

Actually, fuck that, can we please just remember the names of all those that argued now and in the past against action on climate change and then when we're all migrating into northern latitudes and high ground, we can boat them all out to the current location of a nice pacific island, sink the boat (which wont matter if global warming is a myth) and come back in a week to look for the fuckwits.

I volunteer to remember the name of Freeman Dyson.

Its just so sophisticated to buck the popular trend isn't it? How arrogant do you have to be to think your opinion outweighs the work of several thousand researchers who have spent their lives' work studying this question. Not to mention that the IPCC is dangerously conservative in their predictions. The truly sophisticated thing for humanity is for us to decide as a species to actually make a choice not to wipe out 90% of our population.

I live in Canada so no worries here. If you live in the US and are talking this bullshit, please be prepared to swim for a while before we let you in :)

Look at your graph more closely

[Rumata]

Look at the graphs, look at historical records in the rocks. Ask yourselves, did we cause global warming or are we merely part of it ? I think the graphs speak for themselves.

Yes it does speak for it self, possibly not in the way you think, though. The large scale graph shows that from -400000 to 0 carbon dioxide concentrations varied between ~190ppmv and ~300ppmv; changes occurred relatively slowly, the fastest up-ticks are on timescales of 1k-10k years (hard to be precise from this scale).
The new peak on the far right of this graph is unique in two ways:
-The absolute level is about 25% higher than any of the 4 previous peaks and about 40% higher than the average of the graph.
-The rate of change is completely unprecedented, about 90ppmv/200years, i.e. the vertical line inside the ellipse.

I am no expert in the matter, and I know that correlation does not necessarily imply causation. However, just judging from your graph, I see a unique feature in the data, nicely aliened with a drastic population increase of a certain two-legged critter (obviously not shown here) and a change of habits of said critter (massive burning of coal/oil).
So, unless you have a compelling alternate explanation I'll stick with man-made increase of CO2 levels.

Cheers,
Michael

Re:Look at your graph more closely

[Coryoth]

Yes it does speak for it self, possibly not in the way you think, though. The large scale graph shows that from -400000 to 0 carbon dioxide concentrations varied between ~190ppmv and ~300ppmv; changes occurred relatively slowly, the fastest up-ticks are on timescales of 1k-10k years (hard to be precise from this scale).

Note that we now in fact have data that gives the same result over a 800000 year timescale.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[mattwarden]

The reason, and the point behind the article here (although I'm sure you commented without reading it), is not whether it is or isn't a problem. It'd be great if we lived in a binary world like that, but we don't. We have limited resources and must apply them to the most important things before we start going after less important things.

THEREFORE, the relative importance of global warming is of the utmost relevance. If we were to find out that global warming will cause an increase of 1C over the next 1000 years, then I think we could be putting that money to curing AIDS, cancer, or any of the million other things that are significantly larger threats to human life.

Mmmmmmmmmk?

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[khellendros1984]

No one should deny that the climate is shifting. It has historically varied by huge amounts over large time spans. The problem about making any assertions about human effects on the weather is that the amount of time that we've been doing any serious observation is a small blip. We're seeing the noise, not the "signal".

The climate shifts, and I've seen sufficient evidence to believe that we can track global average temperatures. I have *not* seen anything close to sufficient evidence to believe that it is humanity that causes the temperature shifts we see.

Dear Mr. Dyson

[Snaller]

You need to stop just following your feelings. Animals do that. It is not what science is about.

Thank you.

Re:The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Farmer Tim]

I'd also suggest watching this dissection and debate.

Re:Does C02 weight more or less than normal air...

[Farmer Tim]

I can't believe the stupidity of some of you. Why don't we switch over to C02 instead of helium for balloons? They would probably float much better than helium seeing that C02 is so light it all floats up to space damn near.

So if the weight of a gas alone determines its location in the atmosphere, why hasn't all the CO2 settled to the bottom of the atmosphere and suffocated us all?

Bolstering the economy????

[Doghouse Riley]

"...and massively bolstered our economy with a whole new class of green businesses."

There's a gentleman by the name of Bastiat at the door. He has a glazier he wants you to meet.

Any ten malcontents...

[Doghouse Riley]

... with a lawyer can tie up any major energy development in this country for a decade, and in many cases permanently.

This applies just as much to wind, hydro (what big dams are being built these days?) and solar, as it does to those eeeevil coal and nuke plants.

And with the Obama adminstration counting on trial lawyers, NIMBY "activists" and the save-the endangered-mosquito crowd as mainstays of its coalition, I look for no hope and little change.

Re:Any ten malcontents...

[shadowbearer]

  I agree with you wrt lawyers. But that's outside the scope of this discussion.
  Big dams aren't being built in this country today because we've already built them where they could be built. Smaller hydro installations are becoming more and more common, tho, especially with the newer technology that makes them profitable.

  "eeeevil" nuclear plants? Did you even read my post? I support nuclear power.

  You are welcome to your opinion about the Obama administration. I don't agree with you - but neither do I think he's some sort of saint - and your bias is showing you up as a fool.

SB

Re:Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted i

[Brandybuck]

You completely missed my point. There's a reason why the US has increasing forest acreage and other areas do not. And it's not just a simplistic "plant more trees".

Exxon: It'll never happen.

[rHBa]

Exxon: It'll never happen, why spend so much on a 0.01% chance, we've been fine for the last 16 years.
Valdez citizen: But if it does happen...
Shit happens: ...
Exxon: Profit

People persist in unscientific beliefs...

[gillbates]

because it is in the best interest of the politicians for them to do so. Facts are really problematic, and things like truth are downright impossible for a politician to manipulate to his or her advantage. There's a reason why you see people like Al Gore, instead of scientists, weighing in on the GW issue. Al Gore isn't subject to scientific peer review, and exaggeration doesn't hurt his credibility. A scientist, OTOH, has to be careful with his statements lest someone misquote him and ruin his career.

Emotional opinions are always the best for those in power, because they can be wielded toward whatever end those in power seek. The only reason why global warming is on the political horizon is because one party is using it to gain a majority of votes over the other. Both sides could care less about actual progress on the issue.

If you don't believe me, look at how the Republican party handled the pro-life issue: we've had Republican "pro-life" presidents for 20 of the last 28 years, and "liberal, socialist" Europe has more restrictions on abortion than the US.

It's not about truth, it's about political power. The actual science is irrelevant; people often believe in global warming because they don't have a religion, and others often deny it because they don't want the inconvenience of changing their lifestyle.

Re:Al Gore can't tie his shoes

[Walkingshark]

Does the hammer know why it hammers? No, and even the carpenter only sees the plans put in front of them. Even the architect only sees a piece of the whole. You can build a building and the only person who ever needs to know what it is really for is you.

I know you'll try to attack specifics in my analogy, because thats what people do, but try and see past it to the meaning that is encoded inside it. Or maybe you'll laugh it off, because surely those with power would never put plans in place to expand, protect, and propegate that power. And surely they would never take risks to that power. Nope. Nothing to see. Make a tin foil hat joke and move on.

The best part is, the joke isn't on you. Its on everyone.

Who is more wretched than the man who toils unthanked and unnoticed in the street to keep the rich men in their palaces?

Carbon

[rahvin112]

I'll admit my knowledge of climatology is very limited. I know the basics about the rain cycle, how the jet streams and rivers in the sea work.

I take a rather simple view of carbon emissions by simply looking at the history of this planet that geology reveals. A science that I understand quite well and is a very very old and well understood science. Through much of the 3 billion years that life has inhabited earth the planet has been extremely warm and extremely wet. Without polar caps the early earth had much more water coverage than today where billions of acre-ft (hectare-m) of water are sequestered in ice sitting on continental shelf's. Most of the geological record also indicates much higher temperatures than today's averages. Most of the early plants that inhabited this planet were ferns and other fungal plants. These plants must have high temperatures and moisture levels to survive. As a result of these conditions swamps and mudflats accumulated organic layers of material decade after decade for billions of years. As the organic material moved further down the geological deposits the temperatures and pressures reformed the stored organics into the fossil fuels (using a process that we can replicate today) we know today.

So it's simple. We had a planet that was MUCH MUCH warmer and wetter than it is today. Over the course of 3 billion years we sequestered much of the carbon in the atmosphere into the ground, buried it into the fossil fuels we use today. For the last several hundred million years the planet has been cycling between ice age and mild thaw with fairly even levels of carbon. The planet appears from my untrained eye to have reached an equilibrium where carbon sequestration has reached it's limit with further carbon losses causing the planet to cool dramatically trimming plant life until carbon levels can recoup.

There is a lot of evidence that the planet was on the verge of another ice age when the industrial age started. At that point we started taking those billions of pounds of carbon that are sequestered underground and started pumping them into the atmosphere.

From a simple perspective how hard is it to understand that over billions of years the earth stored carbon underground cooling the planet. We are now pumping that carbon back into the atmosphere with the only logical end result being temperatures that match the early earth. A temperature range I might add that most humans would find highly unpleasant. To me it's a fairly simple equation.

Re:Al Gore can't tie his shoes

[HanzoSpam]

Who is more wretched than the man who toils unthanked and unnoticed in the street to keep the rich men in their palaces?

How about the parasite who would deny us the opportunity to earn a living for ourselves building palaces for rich men? Presumably you would prefer no rich men, no palaces and no palace builders, either.

mod this guy up

[harvey the nerd]

Please mod this guy up. Seems to actually have a grasp of the issues.

Re:But the real data is worse than the models pred

[alemaco]

Do you know who the Heartland are?

Re:climate change as a pollution problem

[JoshHeitzman]

Smog is not caused by CO2. If there was no CO2 in the air there would be no plants. I'd guess your not even aware that you are exhaling CO2, as is every other animal on this planet, but rather you've just repeating the CO2 is bad mantra without having the slightest understanding of the role CO2 plays in the ecosystem.

Sarah Palin?

[mrraven]

Is that you?

You totally missed the point

[snowwrestler]

The point is not that Bangladesh flooding is caused by global warming. It's simply a good example of how human actions can create expensive and deadly human consequences. Global warming is such a concept writ globally. You're happy to lecture other people about how concrete can't absorb water (duh), but seem completely unwilling to listen to what other people are telling you about the consequences of increasing the heat content of our climate system.

You're right that many more people will die if it gets colder. Yet you're too ignorant to realize that global warming will likely cause some areas of the globe to get colder than they are now, due to shifting climate patterns. You would learn that and many other things if you accorded other people some of the respect you demand for your own statements.

Tired of this debate

[jwhitener]

Bah, I just typed about 3 pages of crap and then erased it...not worth it.

Bottom line: There are dozens of great reasons why moving to sustainable green energy is desirable besides climate, and many examples at the state level where mandates for green energy have been met and exceeded.

Its not hard to get moving on this issue. Someone at the federal level needs to step up and get us moving. At this point... at any pace is fine. Because as of the last 30 years, we've done absolutely NOTHING.

At what point will the evidence be clear enough? 50/50 chance? 75/25 chance? Every single scientist in the world screaming all at once?

My bet, is no level of consensus will ever move policy on this issue. It is too wrapped up in the backbone of our economy. It is going to take a few brave politicians to ease us into a green transition, show us it isn't scary, show us it won't destroy the economy, and then we can gradually increase the rate at which we transition and just get it done.

Speaking of Einstein

[snowwrestler]

He himself sounded off about quantum entanglement, and guess what--despite being Einstein, he was wrong. And scientists discarded his opinions just like they discard all personal opinions that don't have supporting evidence.

Einstein started off as a no-name patent clerk and became "Einstein" not because of his name, but because he was proven right. And although we don't remember their names now, there were prominent scientists who staked their reputations on Einstein being wrong. But over the long run in science, all that matters is what you can prove, not who you are.

Invoking the Al Gore Rule on climate science

[snowwrestler]

The Al Gore Rule, which I have formulated over the course of years of participating in discussions about global warming, is this:

The degree of a person's fixation on Al Gore is inversely proportional to their expertise in climate science.

Note that this works equally well for either side in the debate.

If you wish to disprove global warming, you do not need to disprove Al Gore's expertise. You need to prove that the data and theory of thousands of highly trained and experienced scientists around the world is incorrect. Best of luck.

Natural science vs. the dismal science

[snowwrestler]

Bolster our economy? Hardly. If we do the things many global warming proponents want, it will destroy our economy through insanely high taxes on current energy, likely resort in massive energy shortages (face it, solar / wind / hydro just don't produce the amount of power that coal / oil does), and cause technology to stagnate for who knows how long.

I love how people who question the predictive ability of a natural science theory (global warming) so readily accept the predictions of economic theory. Because, you know, economists have such a better record with predictions than natural scientists.

Besides, you're begging the question. If climatic changes due to global warming are anything near what is being predicted, then inaction will also have an economic cost, and perhaps higher.

It happens another way too

[Quila]

1) Experts predict disaster if a problem is ignored, or even unavertable disaster
2) The masses panic, but nobody does anything
3) Disaster is averted because there was no impending disaster in the first place, the experts were wrong
4) Experts continue saying we're all going to die and continue garnering fame and money
5) The mentally challenged masses keep believing, and may even strengthen their belief.

Case in point: Paul Erlich.

The reason for the continued belief is a known psychological phenomenon most commonly found in cults.

Venue shopping

[snowwrestler]

Congratulations on getting your scientific theory published in the comments of Slashdot--a venue noted for its accuracy and rigor. I'm sure our leading scientists and politicians will see it when they log in on Monday morning. :-)

The NYT Article lacks Science Knowledge

[wintermute1974]

Nicholas Dawidoff obviously is some sort of journalist graduate who doesn't know enough science to work on a story like this.

I read the first dozen or so paragraphs and then in frustration skimmed the rest actually looking for something that resembled arguments for or against global warming or climate change. I didn't find them. They're not there.

Instead we get a few quotes about what his conclusions were, a few quotes about how his opponents are wrong, and some meandering anecdotes about his wife and his background as a physicist.

I thought the New York Times knew better than this. This article is a catastrophe. Of course, science education is bad in the U.S., so those that agree with him only need to know his name, and those that disagree with him will reject him out of hand. It's quite disappointing.

fucktardius maximus

[Uberbah]

This is an issue that has NOT been driven by science, but driven by control freaks in government and fearmongers in the press.

[Citation needed]

I know the climate is changing, because that is what the climate does!

No shit, Sherlock. The point is that climate change is being driven outside of normal patterns, and that humans are the cause.

Yet I am still skeptical of the details that the press and government have oversensationalized.

Ostrich.

Government isn't about helping people, it's about controlling their lives.

Yawn.

The real heresy isn't denying global warming, it's denying that government is the appropriate solution to every problem in life.

Riiiight. Finding a politician that complains about government has been about as hard as finding a politician that talks about their faith in God.

Re:Thank goodness

[Troed]

Please read the comments to the article for more insight into that question. Humans aren't the only ones producing "halogenated molecules", and the natural ones are enough for the CR reaction to cause the (fully natural) ozone "hole".

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[kholburn]

Lots of junk references do not make his post any more real than hand-waving.

If you want some facts:
http://www.realclimate.org/

Why the Hockey stick graph has been proved wrong:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646-climate-myths-the-hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html

Come on it's all just so old.

And why bother saying climate change is not man-made if you're denying the climate change in the first place. Silly.

Oh here's 10 myths about climate change debunked:
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

"Doesn't competely disprove" ? more like proves ..

[amck]

This is a regional climate result: the Tropical N. Atlantic has been warming faster than climate models have predicted due to CO2 alone.
As the authors point out, CO2 can't warm the ocean that fast.

So the paper actually strengthens the model arguements, not weakens them.

Overblown...

[Genda]

I am in total agreement with Dr. Dyson, the need for heretics in all fields of human endeavor has never been greater. People are intellectually lazy, and we as a society allow rigorous thinking to yield to superstition and mob consensus.

Everyone deserves the right to have an opinion, and its good to regularly poke the common wisdom, because all too often it's neither wise, or observably common.

That said, there is tremendously more to the global climate problem than "Al Gore's Global Warming". Accelerating loss of glaciers and ice-sheets, ocean acidification, global climate change, global dimming, Forest die off and heat stress, drunken forests, massive wild fires, the population explosion of jelly fish, collapse of entire ecosystems, and marked change in ocean current are just a few such items. The list of related and interrelated global issues is itself growing exponentially, and our ability to predict the outcomes of all these changes increasingly lags behind our ability to collect accurate data and make meaningful models.

The good Doctor is simply mistaken. Even Einstein didn't believe God played with Dice, and that certainly put's Dyson in fine company. There is nothing wrong in being mistaken, having the intellectual courage to make mistakes is one of the cornerstones of empirical analysis... its the hubris of assuming you're right in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that one might admonish, and a man of Doctor Dyson stature always demands a modicum of respect. Anything less would lack proper decorum. This is simple, in the area of the global impact of human enterprise, Doctor Dyson is mistaken.

Ripening and emergence

[taucross]

Nature has a funny way of surprising us.

The sweetest fruit, before it has ripened, is the most bitter. As if to trick us, nature appears at its most opposite before emergence.

This principle is reflected not just on a microcosmic level, but as a fixed law within the Earth itself - everything must ripen. For this same reason, the climate will appear to separate into extremes - a desert (both sun and ice). And just before everything becomes climatically intolerable - we will emerge into a single, unchanging, abundant season.

Further reading, Everything is evaluated not by its appearance at a given moment, but according to its measure of development.

It's evolution, baby.

No you did not

[orzetto]

The paper does not even mention global warming or climate change in its abstract. It's about a local temperature change; and as pointed out by others, it actually strengthens the case for global warming, since aerosols cannot be responsible for the full temperature increase.

I'm wondering if you've ever actually read a peer reviewed scientific journal,

You are a bad guess. I happen to be a post-doc (not in climatology though) and in my collection of reference PDFs that I read since I became a PhD in 2002 I have 279 papers. I published 3 journal papers and about 10 conference contributions.

[...] and I seriously doubt you've ever done peer review.

I was called in for journal review about four times (confidentiality obviously bars me from indicating which articles), and I have actually another paper to review right on my desk.

The reason I doubt this is because in my time, I've stumbled across articles that are opposing the standard view of global warming without even looking.

I call bullshit. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs. I do not see climatologists and scientific panels at climatology conferences stating that global warming is not anthropogenic, that it is non-existing, or that it is a scam. That would make some serious news.

Re:No you did not

[phantomfive]

You are a bad guess. I happen to be a post-doc (not in climatology though) and in my collection of reference PDFs that I read since I became a PhD in 2002 I have 279 papers. I published 3 journal papers and about 10 conference contributions.

Sweet, good job. And congratulations.

I was called in for journal review about four times (confidentiality obviously bars me from indicating which articles), and I have actually another paper to review right on my desk.

My apologies. But let's be clear that peer review does not mean the paper is accurate and correct, it just means there are no big obvious holes.

I call bullshit. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs. I do not see climatologists and scientific panels at climatology conferences stating that global warming is not anthropogenic, that it is non-existing, or that it is a scam. That would make some serious news.

OK, lets be a little more clear here. No one is going to show that the earth's temperature hasn't risen over the last two decades (unless we find some serious methodology problems, which is probably unlikely given we have two different methods for measuring the earth's temperature). It's extremely unlikely that anyone will come out with a paper disproving the greenhouse effect. That is pretty standard.

But in general, Global Warming has taken on a greater meaning than that. It has taken on the meaning, "Human produced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is the most significant factor in causing the earth's temperature to rise, and will continue to do so in the predicted future, and it is a danger to the earth." This is the meaning of global warming that the general public, politicians, and policy makers are using. They are using this definition because scientists (such as James Hansen) have been preaching of the evils of carbon dioxide.

This is something that is quite a bit more controversial. What is the exact effect of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? We have estimates, but it is unclear. What is the carbon dioxide cycle, how long does it stay in the air, where does it go? This is a question we are just starting to answer. Is the current warming trend, over the last two decades, caused primarily by carbon dioxide? Well, the paper I linked showed that in at least one area of the world, the answer is no. What about the rest of the world? Hard to say. Hopefully future research will clarify these points.

The entire situation reminds me of the Y2K bug, when it became something of interest for computer scientists, and a bit of extra employment for programmers, but to the layman Y2K became a Mad Max scenario. No reasonable computer scientist thought the probability of that happening was even remotely high, but to the general public the thing got exaggerated and out of hand.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[bumby]

Because "sane" and "normal" is the same thing (from the normal peoples point of view, that is).

Double Yawn

[jmichaelg]

Oh look. Another non-climate-scientist who thinks nearly all of the climate scientists are wrong about the climate.

If you don't think physicists should be criticizing climatologists, how about meteorologists? If not the meteorologists or physicists, just who is qualified to criticize them?

The problem is there isn't a climate 'scientist' that can produce a model he published in 1990 that accurately forecast today's climate. Things like number of hurricanes, mean global temperature, etc. I'm not talking about getting one or two things right - I'm talking about getting a majority of the metrics right.

Without verifiable predictions, it isn't science.

By the way, your choice of terminology shows you missed the boat. It's no longer 'Global Warming' - it's 'Global Change.' The new phrasing is a hedge from the climatologists acknowledging that they can't accurately forecast what's going to happen but whatever does happen, they'll claim they forecast it. London Broil? Check. London Freeze? Check. They've got models that cover both scenarios - they just don't know which one will play out.

Re:Double Yawn

[mvdwege]

Rule number one in climate debates: if you can't distinguish between climate and weather, you should STFU. And I shouldn't have to explain why, just as I don't have to explain why the Sun rises in the East.

Mart

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[EastCoastSurfer]

Junk science is a good name for a climate change denying website funded by oil and energy money. Every one of your "facts" are rubbish. Why bother with the "man-made" if climate change is a hoax?

His facts link back to many websites, including gov. sites and other more balanced sites and you offer up what?

The sad thing is that we have everyone fighting CO2 and ignoring many of the other real pollutants out there (mercury in the oceans for example). How about we just start picking up our trash and cleaning up the environment and then start worrying about CO2?

Re:Not out of his mind, just not terribly rooted i

[ceoyoyo]

A potato that grown on Mars. How nice. And how do we get there einstein? This is the kind of stuff we read about 20 years ago that would be with us in 20 years. It is flying cars. As well all know, they don't exist and probably never will. Why? Because they are practical.

Enviromentalists like Al Gore have to be practical. They are dealing with the very real effects of ricing sea levels NOW because you can't just build higher dikes when they have been destroyed by a storm. That is for instance the problems in Holland right now. As a country we are more then rich enough to raise the dikes but we need to do it NOW when the danger is years or even decades away because it will take years and even decades to finish and worse, if the predictions are to conservative, then those higher dikes might be needed sooner rather then later. You can't just plant a lot of trees if Dyson is wrong in 30 years. By then it will be to late.

Wow. Nice character assassination. You take some speculative examples Dyson gave about what we might be able to do with bioengineering and sneer at him ("how do we get there, einstein?") because he didn't spell out all the details for a Mars mission? Then you bring up flying cars?

Then you mention Al Gore. Al Gore, who's private residence is a record setting example of conspicuous consumption. But Al Gore buys carbon offsets! What's one of the major components of carbon offsets? Tree planting. How ironic.

Global Warming has become a religious movement.

[Kaldesh]

I find that Global Warming has become less of a science and more of a religious movement. There are people whom I work with who actually have lost sleep, and become ill from worrying about it. Oddly enough these are the same people who become verbally abusive to anyone that disagrees with them. I thought the whole point of the scientific method was to create 'theories', even Gravity is a theory in scientific terms, not a fact. When you attempt to silence the scientific debate in a venue such as this, it reminds me of something from WWII. People always seek to shout down oposition rather than listening to what it has to say. I almost akin this whole situation to a new rendition of the Crusades. Don't agree with Global Warming? Well you're cast out from society in a social sense. I actually have friends who refuse to speak to me now because of my opinions on this subject. To me? That's just sad. I'm all for renewable energy sources, don't get me wrong. But do it when it makes economic sense, when the cost of the technology to produce per watt becomes comparable to our current methods, not before. If you suddenly take that competition out of this, I believe you'll find innovation in renewable energy go to the wayside. Why work to improve a technology if it's simply going to be imposed on the public anyway right?

Why was that labled flamebait?

[ShadoCat]

When the post he's replying to called someone an idiot? Neutral moderation would be nice.

Car analogy; Predicting the motion of a Drunk.

[spaceturtle]

That's funny. I was just reading a New Scientist article by a meteorologist specializing in computer models of hurricane activity complaining about how hurricane modeling is so often mistaken by the press for general climatology models, when in truth none of the general climatology models in use make predictions on small enough of a scale to predict a given hurricane season.

Computer models of hurricane activity are like trying to figure where a drunk crashes. Climate research is more like saying `Hmm, maybe having "one for the road isn't such a great idea afterall"',

Technically the Paleozoic period is *Prehistoric*

[spaceturtle]

CO2 levels have never been so high as they are now throughout recorded history

... in reality, they've been more than a magnitude higher.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/historical_CO2.html

Technically those would be prehistoric times.

Re: Corrective Lenses

[BoberFett]

We did away with leaded gas long ago but we still ended up with reality TV. Apparently it's something other than lead making [people stupid.

Re:Thank goodness

[jbeach]

I have to agree with you (and Dyson). Al Gore looses his argument as soon as he says that a concensus has been reached. Science simply doesn't work that way!

Would you say that biological scientists have reached a consensus about evolution?

Seems to me that they have...

Re:His story is typical.

[jbeach]

Um, I read his above post twice, and I didn't read one single insult.

I am not a climate scientist.

[spaceturtle]

Well being a Slashdot reader and all I could barely be bothered RTFA. I certainly can't be bothered spending 3 years to get even a undergraduate level understanding of Climate Science. So all I really know is that both sides can draw pretty graphs. No matter how much evidence is gathered neither side's pretty graphs will go away. However pretty much every scientific institution seems to take the threat of global warming pretty seriously. So I'd take it pretty seriously as well.

I am not doing science here. But I did not claim to be a climate scientist. I am more like the child who is told by their parent that a pot is hot, and thinks "maybe touching the pot isn't such a good idea".

Re:I am not a climate scientist.

[phantomfive]

I certainly can't be bothered spending 3 years to get even a undergraduate level understanding of Climate Science.

I'm going to reply to this part, because it is the most interesting to me.

Assuming you have reached competence in one field, it will take significantly less time than three years to reach an undergraduate level understanding in another field, because getting to the forefront of one field makes you smarter. Especially if you understand the math already, then half the problem is solved, getting an undergraduate level understanding could mean as little as reading three or four books. You don't need to take the GEs again, after all.

On the other hand, if you're not even willing to read the article, you're probably not willing to read three or four books. But don't believe that 'consensus' implies anything other than, "this is something that should be looked into." Especially when there are dissenting views from that consensus.

Re:But the real data is worse than the models pred

[phantomfive]

No, I didn't really check. I knew it wasn't an authoritative source, but it didn't matter, I was trying to educate, not prove anything. The article sums up some of the major problems with computer models, and thus saves me the time of having to write it myself. I looked over it to make sure it was not inaccurate.

The problems with climate models is known. All you need to do is look at their wildly diverging predictions to get an idea that something must not be right, and further investigation shows that they do indeed make several major omissions, and make adjustments that are rather questionable.

I would encourage you to investigate this on your own if you are interested, since you will learn much more by doing that than if I were to show you everything. If you find I am wrong, come back and let me know.

NO...you need support with CAPITAL

[bartwol]

No matter how much popular attention and intellect may seize on a particular issue, the more practical/limiting physical forces will ultimately come to bear in action. Public policy may attempt to drive capital toward climate control, but the decisions to do so can only happen through proxies, people, face to face. So there will be government guys telling capitalist guys where they want the work to go, and they will make their points about global warming with all the concern for humanity and certainty of opportunity that they can muster for this issue.

The issue will, however, rightfully compete with other concerns for humanity and certainty of opportunity. And that competition will, for its own good reason, largely limit the resources that will go to climate control.

Carbon is a Greenhouse Gas & Solar flares Know

[spaceturtle]

The entire global warming problem is contingent on the concept that an increase in CO2 leads to higher temperatures, and this is based on the data compiled into the nice chart that Al Gore displays and comments,

Al Gore's chart is hardly the basis of Climate research. It is well known that Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse Gas. It is clear there *are* greenhouse Gases, or the planet would be. It is also easy to test that CO2 allows the high energy radiation from the Sun in, but traps the low energy IR from the earth.

AFAICT the main question is, what will happen to all the carbon dioxide we release? Will it all be absorbed into plant matter? Or will it warm the planet enough to release more CO2 from the oceans which then warms the planet more which ...

Of course this leaves the question, "Why does the planet heat up?" to be answered, and while the data is much more limited, there seems to be a very strong correlation between solar activity and global temperature.

A quick google search shows up: "Researchers argue over whether or not solar variations play a major role in determining present-day observed climate change. [41] ... In their Third Assessment Report, the IPCC state that the measured magnitude of recent solar variation is much smaller than the amount of predicted climate change due to greenhouse gases." -- Wikipedia

Anti-Global Warming has become a religious movemnt

[spaceturtle]

I find that Global Warming has become less of a science and more of a religious movement.

I don't know your (ex-)friends but isn't it possible it is backed by solid science and also has crazy zealots?

There are people whom I work with who actually have lost sleep.

Which increases the CO2 they exhale, the selfish bastards.

even Gravity is a theory in scientific terms, not a fact.

I still won't jump off the 99th story. Sorry.

When you attempt to silence the scientific debate in a venue such as this,

Wait, there is scientific debate on Slashdot? I just see lots of "you are unscientific... no you are unscientific".

Why work to improve a technology if it's simply going to be imposed on the public anyway right?

So that the public will buy your solar panels rather than the ones from ACME corp that cost 99c more?

Re:Carbon is a Greenhouse Gas & Solar flares K

[Burnova]

I know of the greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect, but you really didn't address my concerns. The chart I am referring to IS the basis for the belief that CO2 has a measurable effect on the temperature of our planet. It is a compendium of all the temperature and C02 data from the ice cores for as long as we can measure them. If the link they represent is not as strong as we currently believe, we will have to find other solutions. The report you mentioned would then be completely invalid, as they are basing their information on a false correlation. The question I wanted answer dealt with the 800 year gap and explanations on why it is there. If climate scientists can't explain that problem, then C02 isn't the issue.

Re: Sane == Normal

[presidenteloco]

I agree that's the usually accepted equation. But if society's consensus opinion is to reach for the handle that is going to flush that society down the drain, perhaps we might need to reconsider our definitions.

(Unless we take it one step further and call the society's self-destructive urge a sane and noble
decision to self-sacrifice.
It does get very muddy, doesn't it.)

Re: More forest acreage today.

[presidenteloco]

Firstly, if you don't understand the difference between a bio-diverse, complex, ancient forest eco-system, and a monoculture tree farm with pesticides,
then, well,
you don't understand the difference between a bio-diverse, complex, ancient forest eco-system, and a monoculture tree farm with pesticides.

Secondly, 1920 is the wrong benchmark year.
Try 1720, before the Europeans arrived en masse.

And if you want to assess forest cover loss for, say England or Ireland, check it against 1020AD.

For Greece, check it against 1000BC

You get my point.

Re:Technically the Paleozoic period is *Prehistori

[Troed]

... and that is relevant, how?

(Since we know about the levels through proxies, they're "recorded")

Re:heat = energy

[presidenteloco]

Specifically what the previous replier is getting at is that for many purposes (to do organized work with energy) you need organized energy (you need two regions of space with an energy-level difference between them, so energy can flow in one direction between them, and that flow be converted into other organized forms of energy like a crankshaft turning or electrons flowing down a wire and making a light bulb in a particular place light up, etc.)

Heat is disorganized energy (energy with high entropy) and it takes other energy to simply lower the entropy in the heat energy, so heat energy that is widely dispersed is incredibly inefficient to turn back into valuable organized energy (low-entropy energy flows.)

Clear as mud?

Re:Carbon is a Greenhouse Gas & Solar flares K

[spaceturtle]

The chart I am referring to IS the basis for the belief that CO2 has a measurable effect on the temperature of our planet

How do you know this? It seems a physicist could easily do a simple simulation comparing the radiation hitting from the sun versus the radiation escaping through the greenhouse gases from the physical properties of those gases.

dealt with the 800 year gap and explanations on why it is there.

All I found was that there was a paper discussing this in 2007. I did not find any papers in response, although I didn't look very hard.

Re:Because denying global warming lets you stay ri

[presidenteloco]

What you fail to understand is that the want/need/incentive to deny that our current way of doing things is causing big problems is many orders of magnitude greater (more people, with a greater vested interest)

than the need of a particular group of scientists or environmental lobbyists to keep up their funding.

Scientists are clever, competent, and creative people. If funding for one topic dries up, they'll move to another with very little difficulty.

Comparing their self-interest (or a single politician's self-interest) against the self-interest of every person involved/implicated in a potentially negative core economic activity of society, is ridiculous propaganda. The former is miniscule compared to the latter. It's just that we don't notice the bias of our society as a whole because we are embedded in it.

Anti-GW ideas

[jackspenn]

I think it is very closed minded to dismiss scientist of others who suggest and attempt to explain how Global Warming isn't real.

Re:Global warming is a politically painful subject

[anarkhos]

So, how do we disprove this ludicrous theory again?

Average temp gets hotter, colder, drier etc. with or without this theory. It's called climate change, and the climate never stops changing!

Re:Carbon is a Greenhouse Gas & Solar flares K

[Burnova]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your analogy of the physicist, but it seems that you are just perpetuating the problem I pointed out. All the data about carbon dioxide and temperature from ice cores was compiled into this chart displayed in Al Gore's movie, http://www.adobe.com/uk/designcenter/thinktank/womack/tt_womack_2.jpg , The way we estimate carbon dioxide's effect on the atmosphere is then drawn from the correlation, and then that information is fed into models of greenhouse effects. If the information we drew from the correlation was wrong, which is what the 800 year gap suggests, then ALL the current models are completely worthless.

Green is not 10x the price

[bussdriver]

I will concede that it is likely RESPONSIBLE energy will cost more but that much; at some point it might be on par. Chicken or Egg.

You should read into Cost Externalization.

I can't regularly eat fish caught in any lake in my state because mercury from the coal plants have ruined the lakes and I've seen it gradually getting worse every decade. That is a real example of an externalized cost-- so if I want fish I have to pay more for it (if you catch it is free;) aside from the non-monetary costs I doubt you care about. My nephew is autistic, possibly a result higher levels of mercury... Not that we will ever solve the impacts of toxins to even half the consensus of global warming... so drink up and have another smoke!!

Massive government welfare is always included for conventional power but never for the alt power.

Nuclear: never ever has been profitable; they milk the tax payers. Its that simple.

Coal: gov subsidizes collection and the building of plants; some even get free money for upgrades!

Hydro: gov subsidizes building; its probably the cheapest conventional power source we have and its "green" but limited areas. However, they can be used for baseload power storage.

Wind: a few tax credits in a few areas for not that many years; yet they've been around for decades "competing" on their own merit anyhow.

You sound so short sighted and selfish I shouldn't waste my time... Wind / Solar / Hydro have ZERO FUEL COSTS. I can't believe how often people forget the obvious, its like they think coal just rains down from the sky... A Coal plant takes years to pay for itself but then it STILL has to buy FUEL. A wind farm takes years to pay for itself but it NEVER needs to buy fuel. Even with a higher startup cost, in the long term it wins. Its a simple problem of Maintenance (wind) vs Fuel + Maintenance (coal+plant.) Wind farms don't require as many maintenance engineers (not low paid) and operate without workers. Wind wins.

Bats are a problem. Birds are not. I won't argue this point because its the class fallacy: False Dilemma. Its like arguing that drinking sewage is no better than drinking poison. More "GREEN" doesn't have to be perfectly GREEN, just better. I suppose you want an SUV until the perpetual motion engine is perfected?

You sound like an American.

Educated Guess

[bussdriver]

The educated guess is the "cliff."

Its a simple matter of perspective; its a matter of scope. Accuracy does not apply:

A "bowl" being a "zoomed out" out longer term perspective. Seeing the lowest/worst point and the recovery; in a longer time scale.

A "cliff" would be seeing the downward slope and possibly not even looking as far as the lowest point. (Once you accelerate too fast it doesn't matter when you go splat! Once the climate gets screwed and creatures die it DOES matter if can get worse; however, in terms of prevention; its too late, you lost.)

Neither perspective is WRONG. They could agree but get hung up arguing over nothing; I've seen science nerds do this plenty of times on many things.

You can have your bowl-- but I'd rather not be pushing towards the LOW POINT-- I'd rather be slowing it down and widening out that curve to the transition is slower; if not preventing the whole thing in the 1st place (which is too late at this point... doesn't mean we should be accelerating and deepening the bottom.)

If there is nothing we can do about it (which is false) we do not require 110% to try to do something about it.

Why do we make futile attempts to stabilize and secure computers? They always have holes and they always crash. Why bother!
I work hopelessly to prevent crashes and data loss so when it does happen its not as bad/deep and not as often. It still happens anyhow. I don't think about the "bowl" when thinking about prevention because it doesn't matter that I can reboot or replace parts and rebound. I do think about it in terms of patience and not going into a panic-- the "bowl" perspective isn't wrong-- prevention and minimizing is the same solution for both.

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[JoshHeitzman]

Gotta agree with this. The environmental movement seems to have been subverted by people wanting to regulate CO2 emissions (likely for their own enrichment), such that the issues being caused by the numerous pollutants that are most definitely attributable to human activity aren't really getting much mindshare anymore.

You don't have a free market

[Colin Smith]

regulation of the free market caused this mess

That's not really true.

Um... 1% interest rates... Allan "Bubbles" Greenspan...

Truth is, a totally free market doesn't work,

Unknown. You don't have a free market. You've had the government supporting banks via a central bank and manipulating interest rates for decades if not centuries. Banks are by nature insolvent, they only hold a tiny fraction of the money which they say they hold. Without government and central bank support they would be collapsing regularly at a local level. Instead, they get to grow to massive size and take down the entire country with them. Is it 2 trillion in subsidies so far? After so many zeros one simply loses count.

We just have to make sure that that regulation works for all of us.

What, are you, 10 years old? How exactly are you going to "make sure" when the other guy has tens of billions?

Why do you think the Federal Reserve exists? It's a cartel created by Wall Street to cement their place in the national government and guarantee that profits go to the banks and losses go to the taxpayer. And... Look at what's happening... Profits are going to the banks and the taxpayer is taking on trillions in crap. Regulation working for us all.

 

Re:Thank goodness

[IQgryn]

My apologies, I did not take the time to read all the comments on the article. It seems that Happer allegedly said something implying that Gore or someone working for him said something similar to the "quote". That is to say, I wouldn't draw any conclusions from the alleged quote.

Life for SPACE

[kentsin]

We now know that life is in danger in Earth.

Life should continue after Earth is dead.

Club of Rome and other ideas could end life when Earth is dead.

We need to further develope our capability to spread life to SPACE.

So, stop thinking now is normal, we can not stop here. Life is in danger, do not stop, further further, we have things to do.

Stop wasting, because resources are limited. But we need to develop further and further, the road is very long ahead. Stop waste, hard work.

It is a shame to consider this is the end of life, Earth is mother not grave.

coldmexican

[coldmexican]

Dyson shouldn't be judged as harshly as he has been, he's just asking for more data.
Judging from some of the responses here, he might have a point.

Chirp

[phayes]

So, for you a global warming of a few degrees (which is what the most extreme forecast of global warming has come up with), that has been matched with higher recorded temperatures in the past will now cause global destruction? You also equate a global winter where all crops failed for a multi-year period & which caused recorded extinctions with higher global temperatures which have not.

My budgie tells me that you're a twit with no comprehension of the difference between warmer temperatures being bad for those in sea-level areas and planetary destruction. He says that you are part of the groundswell of uninformed zealots that Freeman Dyson was complaining about. So far, I agree with him.

Re:Chirp

[Ripit]

Nah, I'm not really a zealot. I don't believe in letting the market alone choose what is good for us and what isn't.

Just because I point out a flaw in the anti-global warming argument doesn't mean I'm a zealot.

My budgie tells me that you're a twit with no comprehension...

I have no idea what a budgie is, and it sounds like you're just upset that someone disagrees with you.

Re:Chirp

[phayes]

Yes, you are a zealot. Zealots are those who use faith instead of reasoning to determine their acts. So far, that fits you to a T. The "market" has nothing to do with global warming. Communist countries are no better than the west and are generally far worse in regard to their non-respect of the environment. What "flaw" do you think you pointed out? The only flaws so far in your posts have been in your reasoning. Global warming killed the dinosaurs? Nope, dinosaurs lived in a time of globally warmer temperatures than those prevalent today and were in fact warmer than those forecast in other than the most extreme "the sky is falling"/"we are all doomed" global warming forecasts. The first entry for ":define budgie" on google is: budgerigar: small Australian parakeet usually light green with black and yellow markings in the wild but bred in many colors I, like Freeman Dyson am upset that people like you who are incapable of looking up a words are pushing politicians who know even less into spending our limited resources on what will ultimately turn out to be a minor problem compared to others that confront us.

Re:Chirp

[Ripit]

Zealots are those who use faith instead of reasoning to determine their acts.

So this, this, and this are all based on faith? Zealots are fanatics. I'm telling you, I don't qualify. The 10 minutes it took me to come up with some links hardly qualifies me as a fanatic.

The "market" has nothing to do with global warming. Communist countries are no better than the west and are generally far worse in regard to their non-respect of the environment.

What communist countries? Please tell me you're not thinking of China as a communist country.

What "flaw" do you think you pointed out? The only flaws so far in your posts have been in your reasoning. Global warming killed the dinosaurs? Nope, dinosaurs lived in a time of globally warmer temperatures than those prevalent today and were in fact warmer than those forecast in other than the most extreme "the sky is falling"/"we are all doomed" global warming forecasts. The first entry for ":define budgie" on google is: budgerigar: small Australian parakeet usually light green with black and yellow markings in the wild but bred in many colors I, like Freeman Dyson am upset that people like you who are incapable of looking up a words are pushing politicians who know even less into spending our limited resources on what will ultimately turn out to be a minor problem compared to others that confront us.

Re:Chirp

[Ripit]

What "flaw" do you think you pointed out?

Merely that climate change has the potential to be damaging. That is all. You seem to ignore this possibility.

The first entry for ":define budgie" on google is: budgerigar: small Australian parakeet usually light green with black and yellow markings in the wild but bred in many colors

My budgie (thats dinosaur to you) tells me that way back when his cousins ruled the earth...

Oh, I just realized I was writing to someone who listens to his pet parakeet.

...a minor problem compared to others that confront us.

We agree on this. I also believe this problem is minor compared to others we have.

Re:Chirp

[phayes]

So this [edf.org], this [nationalgeographic.com], and this [climatechangefacts.info] are all based on faith?

Miss the point much? None of the references pretend to claim that dinosaurs went extinct nor was the planet destroyed due to global warming as you asserted in your initial post.

What communist countries?

China has one party rule & the rulers are the communist party. You cannot absolve the ruling party of the ecological disaster in the making that is current day china by saying that it's the Chinese capitalist's fault. Water is now so polluted in many parts of the country that significant percentages of it's cropland is being abandoned. The smog shadow produced by it's air pollution can be easily detected across the Pacific.
Russia has massive ecological problems dating back to it's communist days, or have you never heard of the (former) Aral sea, Chernobyl or the abandoned yet still fueled nuclear subs rusting away at Snezhnogorsk & Petropavlovsk?

Re:Chirp

[phayes]

Your claim that global warming killed off the dinosaurs is patently false. That claim that you made is what brought me into this thread (that you are attempting to back away from by weakly stating that "climate change has the potential to be damaging").

A parakeet with a 15 gram forebrain has more common sense than a twit who posts without thinking on /. Given the lack of reflection and intelligence you display you're either a troll or a preteen. Either way, you visibly have nothing of any value to say & I'm done trying to fruitlessly educate you. Fortunately placing you among my foes will make you disappear, never to be seen again.

Re:Chirp

[Ripit]

Your claim that global warming killed off the dinosaurs is patently false. That claim that you made...

Where did I say that?

Enjoy the rest of your life listening to your parakeet and arming your sheep!

Re:Chirp

[Ripit]

I'm not saying that China and Russia aren't ecological disasters. They are. I'm pointing out that China can't be called a communist state since private interests control over 70% of the market. Russia has been about the same for almost 20 years.

And please, I've never thought global warming made the dinosaurs extinct, and I never said that. I'm aware of the meteor strike near Mexico. They went extinct because of sudden drastic climate change. Are you debating that?

It's obvious that the global warming crowd gets you angry. I'm not sure what I can say to convince you that I'm simply not a part of the fanatics. Way more important things to deal with right now.

I won't, however, throw the little layman's knowledge about climate change that I have in the trash just because a physicist says it's all baloney.

I give you opposition with DATA

[GPS Pilot]

there is a distinct shortage of people who are actually able to provide DATA to support their opposition to it.

I am one of those people who can provide data to support my opposition to it. Namely, the very compelling data that Professor Patterson collected in the field.

Re:But the real data is worse than the models pred

[alemaco]

I see your point.
Of course models have limits. Science itself has limits, that's all I know. I plead ignorant as I am not a scientist of sort, I don't have a scientific education background and my maths grades were awful in high school so I don't believe I have many chances (will and time) to understand the science behind models and so on.
However, I profoundly doubt whatever comes out of the Heartland's mouths as they are notorious for warping information for corporate gain and I respect the work of thousands of climate scientists around the world whose independent research is pointing out - whatever the differences - to one conclusion.

Re:Man-made global warming is a hoax?

[chesky]

Lots of junk references do not make his post any more real than hand-waving.

If you want some facts:...

Oh here's 10 myths about climate change debunked: http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

Oh, they used the reverse-causality graph linking temperature & CO2; that one is my favorite. Except that the CO2 rises & falls lag the corresponding temperature changes by about 800 years. Good science, that.

Re:Carbon is a Greenhouse Gas & Solar flares K

[spaceturtle]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by your analogy of the physicist

I am not sure what you mean by analogy. Take a spectrograph of the suns incoming radiation, take spectrographs of the IR leaving the Earth under various temperatures. Take data on the how the major components (including Carbon Dioxide) of the earths atmosphere absorb various wavelengths of light. Give all this to a physicist, and ask them to estimate the temperature of the earth under various levels of CO2 in the atmosphere

If the information we drew from the correlation was wrong, which is what the 800 year gap suggests, then ALL the current models are completely worthless.

So you say. It sounds implausible to me that all the models are based on data from ice cores. It seems that Climate science is large enough that people would have used multiple different ways of estimating the effect of CO2 on temperatures. I don't see how Al Gore's movie provides any evidence that other models of global warming doesn't exist.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Environmental Nutters

[Peter La Casse]

THEREFORE, the relative importance of global warming is of the utmost relevance.

This is the most sensible position. How can we use our limited efforts to minimize risk?

Re:Thank goodness

[Reservoir Penguin]

What an interesting topic! And what a shame it was hijacked by this giant strawman argument. This is not about Dyson vs Gore. This is about Dyson vs the entire community of actual climate scientists.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[Dread_ed]

"Why is a person who is aware of and opposed to the large-scale destructive effects and massive alterations we are having on Earth's ecosystems and climate called a "nutter"

A nutter would be someone who is willing to sacrifice the comfort, well being, and even lives of other humans to achieve the environmental goals they espouse. Often the nutter does things like releasing minks from farms resulting in loss of thier lives (minks get killed from exposure, cars, dogs, etc.), emotional distress (minks kill domesticated animals, too!), and financial stress on business owners and insurers alike. Nutters also do things like burning Hummers thereby releasing in one hour chemicals far more toxic than the exhaust they will produce for the next 5 years of driving. Nutters also blow up fishing vessels, sabotage petroleum facilities, and actively encourage others to do the same.

Nutters also systematically oppose advancements in the developing world that industrialized nations already posess. Sounds ok until you consider the things they are opposing like electricity, water treatment, pesticide use, and sanitation. Those advancements could save countless lives, and yet the nutter places more value on their cause than a few million dead babies in Africa each year.

Normal members of society differ from nutters in this: they do not place the value of huiman life below the pursuit of their ideals. They also differ in the fact that most nutters can't see the clear cut for the trees, ie. nutters do things that are more destructive than the things they are offended by.

Second Degree in One year infact

[spaceturtle]

Well, I have read a number of other articles (more informative than this one). And yes, here it can take 1 year to get second degree, even with the GE if you share lots of units. The opposition to the idea of Global Warming seems rather lazy to me; I have never read an argument against global warming that tried to quantify the actual effect of unchecked growth of carbon emissions. This leaves a number of models of carbon emissions all of which agree than unchecked growth of CO2 emissions would have some pretty nasty effects over the next 100 years. The only credible arguments for doing nothing I have seen have been economic arguments along the lines of "it isn't worth doing anything yet". How we respond to any of this seems to have more to do with politics than which model is correct, but I don't see that debates on /. are going to resolve anything that climate sciences hasn't. For once, talking about M$ vs Open Sores gives us no answers.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[presidenteloco]

Firstly, humans (myself included) are not the be-all and end-all on this planet, and if you disagree with that you're an a$$.

Secondly, the overwhelming majority of environmental activists are strong believers in non-violence. It is contradictory to their cause not to be. There is a tiny fringe that believes that property destruction is justified to stop or bring attention to crimes against eco-systems, but they all stop short of hurting people, and the tactic is in any case heavily frowned upon within the movement as a whole.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[Dread_ed]

Firstly, humans (myself included) are not the be-all and end-all on this planet, and if you disagree with that you're an a$$.

Agreed. However, there seem to be many people who place the value of human lives below what is reasonable and rational. If those people also happen to be environemntal activists I would put those people in the above mentioned "nutters" category. I think they also fall into your your category of "a$$" though on the other side of the spectrum.

"Secondly, the overwhelming majority of environmental activists are strong believers in non-violence."

I never said they weren't. For instance, my sister woks for the state government in Oregon and, it could easily be argued, does more positive good for environemntal caues in a week from within the system than outside actvists do in a year.

"but they all stop short of hurting people"

I call bullshit on this. I specifically referred to people who did violent things and lumped in people who did incredibly stupid and destructive things in the "nuter" category. I also added in those who, through their efforts, cause or increase human suffering and death indirectly through their activism as those rack up the largest potential death toll. For instance, consider the misery and deaths atributed to the continued burning of coal when clean nuclear power is available. Activists who protest against nuclear power are partially responsible for this. Their obstructions go back decades and thereby have caused immense suffering. If black lung, emphysema, and death isn't "hurting people" I don't know what is.

I never implied that everyone who is an environmental activist is a "nutter." If I were a more suspicious person I would be thinking "thou dost protest too much." As it is, I will wonder why you state that a tactic you claim never happens (hurting people) is "heavily frowned upon." Why would it even come up if it never, ever happens?

The actual quote! "Science will not intrude..."

[GPS Pilot]

It's not a lie, but the person who started this thread misremembered the quote (and who said it). The actual quote was spoken by Princeton physicist Dr. WIll Happer, whom Al Gore fired. According to Happer, Gore said that "science will not intrude on public policy." Happer went on to say, "I did not need the job that badly."

Here are 96 Google hits to back me up.

Re:Environmental Nutters

[presidenteloco]

For the record, I was referring to the tactic of property damage as being heavily frowned upon, not the tactic of violence against people, which is universally condemned.

  I submit that there is a large difference between, say, for the sake of argument ;-) rolling your logging truck parked in the old growth forest off a cliff, and torching it with you in it. The mainstream media, and now the US government, makes no distinction, largely because they want to keep logging old growth forests.

Remember that while terrorism is a (repulsive and stupid) tactic, labelling activists terrorists is also a tactic in the conflict.

We are all capitalists.

[Wild_dog!]

The USSR has nothing to do with western capitalist countries. With communism there was no belief or reliance on the Markets. You can't ignore that their system has no comparable ideology similar to our own. Central Planning and Regulation is not a problem. Central Control and decision making is. Just remember that the far left in this country still believes in capitalism and relies on it. They just want more oversight. That is different from the government controlling all means of production. I have one flagrant communist friend and even she is waffles when I press her on what she actually believes.