Slashdot Mirror
Global Warming To Be Put On Trial?
Mr_Blank writes to mention that the United States' largest business lobby is pushing for a public trial to examine the evidence of global warming and have a judge make a ruling on whether human beings are warming the planet to dangerous effect. "The goal of the chamber, which represents 3 million large and small businesses, is to fend off potential emissions regulations by undercutting the scientific consensus over climate change. If the EPA denies the request, as expected, the chamber plans to take the fight to federal court. The EPA is having none of it, calling a hearing a 'waste of time' and saying that a threatened lawsuit by the chamber would be 'frivolous.' [...] Environmentalists say the chamber's strategy is an attempt to sow political discord by challenging settled science — and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end."
and it is now a conclusive scientific consensus that it is happening and that human action is contributing to it
Even the Bush administration admitted these things before they left the building. The idea of suing for scientific consensus is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard... no, wait, being forced to give creationism equal time in class is a more ludicrous idea. But this is close...
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So, I guess you're pretty sick of the APS then? They're members of the American Physics Society, and they're not employed by greenhouse gas emitters.
I'd suggest reading a bit of:
Kicking the Sacred Cow
by James P Hogan.
You would be rather surprised and intrigued by what you'll read.
In a nut shell, the evidence via ice core samples, tree growth rings, etc do show a correlation between increased global temperatures and carbon dioxide levels.
However, it seems that the carbon dioxide levels increase about 40 to 50 years *after* the temperature increase.
Additionally, the archeological evidence coming to light now isn't that the naming of of Greenland by the vikings wasn't a propaganda triumph, but instead a quite literal statement. Interestingly enough, *farms* are being discovered under the glaciers.
True. I think that's something that's hugely overlooked---energy is becoming not only a hammer for the big corps to put the hurt smaller businesses, but the regulations are also suited that way such that only large corps are either getting paid or will meet or be excluded from the energy regs.
Also from the article summary:
"and note that in the famed 1925 Scopes trial, which pitted lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan in a courtroom battle over a Tennessee science teacher accused of teaching evolution illegally, the scientists won in the end."
Umm, no. Scopes lost in the trial. That said, the public perception of the trial was that the claims made against Scopes were ridiculous. But saying scientists won is wrong from a historical perspective, the judicial decision standpoint, and even the current, modern day standpoint where (the extent of) evolution is still debated today.
It's not a philosophy. It's fiction. It's a _STORY_, not a (to quote) "study of general and fundamental problems concerning matters such as existence, knowledge, truth, beauty, law, justice, validity, mind, and language. Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing these questions (such as mysticism or mythology) by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on reasoned argument."
Creationism is so far from a philosophy...
This is completely and utterly false. In other words, it isn't true. Case in point: Germany, like many other EU states has implemented a carbon tax to limit CO2 emissions. It's working in that Germany's emissions are now below the Kyoto accord requirements. All this, yet Germany's economy is recovering from their recession, and the recovery is faster than the U.S. recovery is. Lastly, the carbon taxes have all been projected to increase the number of jobs, not "hamstring" businesses like you say:
So when you look at the actual evidence, carbon taxes do pretty much precisely exactly the opposite of what you said. Do yourself a favor and stop reading talking points written by Exxon.
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
For example, right now (since 2000) we have global cooling (around 0.5 degrees).
That is extremely misleading. If you take the look at the chart of local temperature average and then tell me "The temperature is decreasing, actually"... Technically you aren't actually lying but either you are very close to that or very stupid.
We are also heading towards a small ice age, our eliptical orbiting around the sun is about to change as it does "frequently" leading to us being further away from the sun in the coming millennias.
Yes, in 10 000 years from now, here is supposed to be 100 meters thick ice. But when it comes to climate change, we care about what happens a century or two from now.
The IPCC still refuses to provide either the data from which they created their apocalyptic graphs from, or the models they used to do the predictions. This goes massively against the scientific standpoint of providing an open view into research to allow valid verification or falsification.
At this point it is difficult to take anything you say very seriously. However, scientists all around the world are getting to the same conclusions. With IPCC data or not. So that kind of destroys the point.
And what most people are forgetting: There is a climate change going on, it has always been going on and it will always do so. The question is how we are to adopt to it, not if we are disillusioned enough to think we can stop the planets natural processes and freeze it in something that we right now think is a global optima.
We disturb the climate a lot with pollution. We want to take an action to fix that. And you argue against that action with the "We shouldn't disturb the nature!" argument?
This is why the majority of people thinks that these "climate sceptics" are idiots. Hell, there might be someone intelligent among them, someone with good, scientific arguments that aren't intentionally misleading. I just haven't seen any so far.
... rates number 11 in this handy list of psuedo-skeptical arguments
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
This isn't Carbon Taxes. This isn't Kyoto.
It's worse.
It would classify CO2 under the same classification as Asbestos, Chloroform, and other dangerous toxic chemicals, attempting to effectively limit emissions by orders of magnitude. That's not cutting it in half, or even a third. It's cutting it down by a factor of TEN.
It's stupid and impossible.
Excellent post. The question really is whether humans are causing it or whether it is merely a part of earth's natural cycle.
And I would like to point out that it is not yet a consensus among scientists that global warming is not part of a natural cycle, or that humans are causing it. According to the survey cited in this article:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Climatologists are 97% agreed that humans are causing it, Petroleum geologists are at 47% and meteorologists are at 64%. I think engineers would be even more skeptical though one might argue that they don't have the expertise. And consensus alone doesn't mean anything. When one is among a group of people wearing rose-coloured lenses, one tends to view everything through rose-coloured lenses. Everything then begins to look like human-caused global warming.
Regardless of whether it is true or not, the way that most countries are going about it is almost laughable. At least they are trying to do something but no one talks about whether it is most the most cost-effective method. For example, spending millions to cut down on emissions from vehicles in the UK. It's admirable, but how much does it all help? Will it prevent global warming by even one hundredth of one degree C during the next ten years? Highly unlikely. Yet if they were to paint the streets white to reflect sunlight, that could potentially help a lot more and be significantly cheaper.
Here is a highly recommended video on alternative solutions:
http://reason.tv/video/show/621.html
Having read some of the posts in this discussion, I'm starting to think chaos theory should be taught in high schools, although I'd have thought that the typical Slashdot reader would have at least a basic grounding in the subject.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Oh yes please, PLEASE continue like this. CO2 reduction is BAD for American companies!!! In the mean while, here in Denmark we will develop CO2 reduction technology like insulation, biofuels and windmills. Ten years from now, you can then come back to this forum and ask yourself why Uncle Sam lost all its jobs to a "socialist" welfare state.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Have you checked whether the Romans actually grew grapes in England, or are you just repeating stuff you read on the internet? I ask since you say it's impossible today. Which it isn't. Southern England has a proper wine industry. Today, it's even possible to grow grapes some places in Norway.
I know re-posting bullshit you've seen at +5, insightful before can be tempting, but half of your "empirical" evidence is plain wrong, and I haven't found sources for the other part (not that there's much point to it).
For the first time in 6 years the Iraq war is INCLUDED in the budget. Part of that 1.8 trillion dollars is the war that George Bush kept off the books the whole time he was in office.
TRY AGAIN
Do you have a citation? I do. It's the same site listed above, which is an anti-war site, btw.
To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The national, state, and local numbers we provide are based on the total approved amounts through the end of Fiscal Year 2009.
In addition to this approved amount, the FY2010 budget shows a $130 billion request for more war spending. This would bring total war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to more than $1 trillion. When all FY2010 war-related amounts are approved, we will adjust the counter so that it reaches the new total at the end of FY2010.
If you should compare the amount displayed on the numbers in our information sheets with the Cost of War counter, please note that the information sheets include all war spending approved to date, the same number that the counter will reach at the end of the 2009 fiscal year.
Looks like they are including what was in the budget.
Here's another one from the LA Times:
If Congress approves a request for another $87 billion, the Iraq war will have cost about $694 billion.
Here is a quote from another anti-war site. The title is Iraq War: The Cost of Bush Lies and His Influence of Not Being Accountable :
$800 billion through mid-2009 in U.S. taxpayer money
Sorry. Either you're wrong or everyone else is.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
NO, Fox news actually sued for the right to NOT be credible.
http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
they are the leaders of shitbag journalism.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism