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."
So you have ruined the global economy through frivolous waste and fraud, perpetrated wars that have caused the deaths of over a million people in recent years, and now just when you elect someone to be your leader who has the semblance of common sense, there is a push by "the usual suspects" to push back human progress by decades. It is true that the US is the last best hope of humanity, for China builds the equivalent of a coal plant every week. If the US does not act to reduce the 'carbon footprint' of humanity, we are all going to be fucked. The atmosphere will be un-breathable, the trees will be gone, desertification will take the rest of our water, and the oceans will be reduced to vast life-less voids of acid. Will Americans overcome their innate fear and ignorance to reclaim leadership of the free world? Stay-tuned.
Assuming this is done fairly (insert groan of 'yeah right' - I doubt either side will play fair) and this goes against the 'Global Warming' crowd - I wonder what impact, if any, this would have on Al Gore's Nobel Prize for all the work on 'Global Warming'. I, personally, believe *most* of the 'Global Warming' rhetoric is nonsense and there simply isn't enough data to support Humans are the primary cause of any major changes and that the 'science' fails to take a lot of other things into account. But that's just my opinion, I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be. That does *not* mean I support destroying the environment!
A question for conservatives out there:
Why is it that conservatives believe in these kinds of myths? Why is it that conservatives, even congressmen believe in myths like the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, Young earth creationism, Climate change denial, and what not. I can't think of a single conspiracy theory mainstream democrats subscribe to; while some fringe liberals believe in the 9/11 attacks being faked, this is a definite liberal fringe in the US (just as Holocaust denial is a fringe with the right-wing).
I mean, to me, I understand the "big tent" thinking of Republicans, but it has to be embarrassing to be associated with a party with senators and house members who acknowledge the above fringe theories as being established fact, instead of looking at facts and evidence in an objective manner.
It's ridiculous that a supposedly rational, enlightened society would permit the existence of these kinds of these blatently political star chambers.
Sadly, there is a certain part of American society, particularly on the pro-business, conservative side of politics, which is yet to move beyond the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials. This is an example of that kind of medieval, irrational mindset.
What's so galling for me, is the existence of people, particularly on the political Right, who think they can change reality for their own benefit, by wishing for it hard enough.
This kind of violent, wilful irrationality will be the death of America.
People will believe what they need to believe..
It's sad and unfortunate, but with all the evidence from the Garbage islands to the fact
that the Ozone holes shrunk massively the two days after 9/11 and the US saw almost no flights, Big
biz will tell the gov to tell you what is correct to think, otherwise you "hate America".
Bush might be out of the White house but at some point we're going to have to admit publicly that
big biz runs the show, PERIOD. Money is king and damn the masses since they'll cut off their own chance at health care if we tell them "Socialism" is coming.
Whether or not humanity is helping "Global Warming" is a wild goose chase.
We need to curb our actions now. But since our lifespans are so short, we seem to choose
short term solutions that make the long term worse.
If you had to choose between being relatively comfortable doing what you want, and scarifying for the future, what would you do ?
Humanity is doomed and I think many people are starting to understand this, and choose to make the bucks as opposed to trying to save a planet they'll only be spending 78 years on.
End of Line.
Your first assumption loses.
Sorry, the scientific community doesn't buy global warming, especially the part about man's involvement.
What the US government has been doing is pure lunacy based on the political aspirations of a few nut cases claiming to be scientists who happen to be the ones who get airtime (because of course civilization and especially the United States MUST be evil).
Critical thinking needs to be taught in schools again.
Creationism is ok in the classroom, but not in a science class. It's not science, it's philosophy.
Free Martian Whores!
Typical irrational, truthy conservative shit talk.
It won't be a business organization arguing against scientists, or religion vs science as in Scopes, this will be science vs science. Green environmental whacko supporting scientists against rational scientists. The summary tries to make it sound like this is a "settled" matter with scientific "consensus" whereas the opposite is true. All the scientists who support the concept of global warming agree of course, as does the liberal mouth organ media and politicians. There is an equal consensus on the other side which believe there is no global warming phenomenon or immediate danger to humans as the other side has contended. As it is the evidence against global warming is mounting, so much so that the zealots have had to rename their cause as "Climate Change". The whole episode of global warming is laughable.
To throw a common phrase scientists use back in their face, "correlation does not imply causation."
Sorry, but your statement fails miserably as proof.
EU has already committed on co2-cuts, signed the Kyoto treaty etc.
Really? Do they limit CO2 emissions in the EXACT same manner that they limit Asbestos and Chloroform, which is exactly what classifying CO2 under the clean air act would do? Last I checked, BMWs have worse emissions than Toyotas and Hondas.
EU's economy is 30% larger than the U.S.,
They are also 50% larger by population. What's your point?
so maybe you should start to be reasonable and do what every other Western nation does.
They don't do what this law is asking. But don't let FACTS get in your way.
But no, Americans reduce the debate on these idiotic false dichotomies, it's either Stone Age or the American dream. Also, the European Union is not seeing their economies collapins (well, apart from the global depression created by Americans). In fact, EU is a leader in "green tech" thanks to this regulation.
Well, they have a lot of money to devote to it since they don't have to spend ANY money on defense. If the USA took all of its money from defense and put it into Healthcare or "Green Tech," then yes, we'd be able to claim advances in those areas. But we can't, because we're the only Western World with a _real_ military and we use it to protect all of the other countries, and they know it. If America suddenly disassembled its Military, every other country would have to step up and pick up the slack to a have a force to send into every hotspot on the planet and to keep the other guys from attacking.
Your absolutely right. In fact this is going to have the opposite effect that warmers are hoping for. What's going to happen is electricity prices will go through the roof, gas prices will go through the roof, the economy will plummet, and the social backlash will be so violent that they won't know what hit them. Then all the really cool things that get funded like medical and space research will get killed off because we can't afford them anymore.
Yes humans pollute, they aren't going to stop until the last one is killed off.
What we NEED to do in my opinion is drop all this crap about warming the planet. We only need to be concerned about pollution to the point that it makes people unhealthy. Trust me the planet will survive, it's survived a hell of a lot worse than us, and it's been a hell of a lot warmer with much more abundant life at points. The only thing that will kill the planet is that big ball of fire called sol in 5 billion years or so. What we NEED to do is stop spending the public money in these asinine ways, and start actively colonizing other moons or planets. That's really the only insurance policy we would have against asteroids, plagues, nuclear holocausts, etc.
WE HAVE TO GET OFF THIS ROCK. It's a jail, and someday something will happen to cause our extinction here. I love nature as much as the next person, and spend a fair amount of time out in it, but it's a fleeting anomaly.
Why can't people see that is the big picture.
That's good. Because this is science, and science is not about what you fucking believe. For the latter, consult your local priest / shaman / witch / Fox news shithead.
Cite please. You lambast the GP for his unsupported assertions but fail to support any of your own.
Please be more specific. Do you want a citation for my explanation of how the scientific method works or do you want a meta study showing the consensus of peer reviewed, scientific journals on the topic of global warming or do you want scientific studies of marketing in global warming and creationism?
This is an informal discussion, I'm not going to footnote and source everything I write, just specifics. Please, by the way, do a 3 second Google search for any information in doubt before asking for a citation. Pretty much everything I said can be quickly demonstrated in such a way.
Try again.
Al Gore's "inconvenient truth" (really Big Fat Lie, which makes him Big Fat Liar) not only was less scientifically accurate than the sci-fi movie "The Day After Tomorrow", but is actually banned from being shown to schoolkids in Britain because it is so inaccurate.
Much of "climate science" is turning out the same way. NASA's major climate "researcher" James Hansen has been repeatedly caught doctoring his data when it didn't support his predetermined conclusions. Other NASA groups have been caught screwing up, announcing "catastrophic" figures, and then silently releasing "corrections" later that disprove the global-warming hysteric crowd.
The end result is, the "climate change" folks have lied, repeatedly. They are the boy who cried wolf. And we are getting pretty damn tired of this constant "OMG we have to save the planet" drumbeat. I'll make meaningful conservation efforts and am all for clean air and efficient technology as their own reward, but don't fucking lie to me or try to scare me into accepting major taxation and other nonsensical changes.
Exactly. There is still very little _EVIDENCE_ of mankind-created global warming.
Yeah, just like there's little evidence than Obama's not born in Kenya, or that 9/11 was not an inside job, right?
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.
Yeah, Obama STILL refuses to show his birth certificate!
We know wtf happened. It's all over the fossil record. Sea levels rose, species died out, new ones emerged.
The problem here is that it's going to be very fast. Instead of changing over hundreds of millenias (which is very rapid indeed by geological standards), this is going to change in a matter of decades. So species will die out.
And then in a million years' time, new ones will have adapted. In the mean time, well, the place's going to be slightly uncomfortable, for large values of "slightly," and that, mainly because of rich white christian asswipes.
I have often said that AGW could not be even proven to be happening in a court of law. Bring in one good statistician, and the entire case is thrown out for lack of:
1) Relevant control data supporting the assertion.
2) Enough relevant data to even produce a sample size of ONE (which would still be statistically irrelevant).
When so-called scientists stop trumpeting 30 years of data as "all of recorded history" (which, when referring to the Arctic Ice, they regularly do), they can begin to be taken seriously. Until then, their data only makes sense, as with all conspiracy theories, when kept apart from the necessary (though inconvenient) context of opposing data.
Then throw in Al Gore's admission that the whole AGW issue is about giving the U.N. control over the planet (while he makes billions off of C&T), and any credibility in support of this "cause" is gone.
Can't reproduce supernovas. Astronomy is bullshit.
Can't reproduce dinosaurs. Evolution is bullshit.
Can't talk to Caesar. History is pointless.
Here's one anyway, regarding the banning of the film from viewing in British schools: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm
Dark Reflection
[Wikipidiot Unneeded]
The thing is, pollutants like arsenic are readily traceable to health issues; not only can't scientists prove that human-produced CO2 is making the earth warmer, but they can't even prove it IS getting warmer (it hasn't since 1998)! It's like trying to solve a murder without a body, but even worse, you're not even sure the victim actually existed.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
Just FYI, the APS is currently reviewing their official position because of the complaints they have received from their members about it.
"The "climate change" crazies have one thing in common: they all know how to lie with statistics [amazon.com]. My clearest evidence against them is the fact that their "argument" relies more on the star/celebrity power of their spokespeople than on actual scientific evidence, just like the anti-vaccination crowd." You are appealing to reason, but you categorically dismiss people that hold the view you are opposing as crazies? What an ass. Emotion, not reason is what is motivating you. There are some serious questions to ask here, but you have obviously already made your decision based on something else other than reason. Why dont you just simplify it and start ranting about liberals? By the way, those "crazies" happen to include the vast majority of climatologists, you know, scientists that study climate, rather than say petroleum engineering, or geology, or geophysics, or develop nuclear warheads, or various other disciplines that are not climate. Ive read quite a few articles, by scientists that do not study climate, decrying Anthropogenic Climate Change. Often some very good criticisms of the science or presentation are raised, some that I have seen addressed and some that I haven't. This is good, what isnt good is how often the argument degrades to complaints about media, celebrities, economics, political issues and other things that are not science, and how often climate change itself is attacked even though the articles usually start with a disclaimer that that is not what they are disputing. I take the good, leave the bad, and remember that there is a discipline of science that studies climate, and that these guys are criticizing from outside the discipline, which is good but does not put their contributions above those within. There are some serious criticisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change that need to be addressed, but that those that hold that view are "crazies" is not one of them.
You are appealing to reason, but you categorically dismiss people that hold the view you are opposing as crazies?
Everyone I've ever met who believes in "global man-caused climate change" also believes that Jenny McCarthy, MD, can "cure" children of autism.
By the way, those "crazies" happen to include the vast majority of climatologists
Please look again at the research. Given that the majority of the UN "climate change" panel members are NOT climatologists, and a number of climatologists quite the panel in protest of its unscientific methods, you're not on solid ground making that claim.
There are some serious criticisms of Anthropogenic Climate Change that need to be addressed, but that those that hold that view are "crazies" is not one of them.
Then the movement should stop putting their crazies front-and-center as their spokespeople.
And also, they need to stop lying about their financial stake in this.
So looking at extreme scenarios and admitting that a model has some unknowns is equal to "doctoring his data"?
The data didn't change. His tone and presentation of it might have.
The unknown variables was mine. It's well known that we don't know all there is to know about climate. There are many variables we simply don't have the answers to. So instead of filling these variables in with... say, real time or real world data, they fill in their own numbers, either pulled out of their collective asses, or calculated from earlier "simulations". This is how the hockey stick graph came into being. An analogy to what they saidis, "It's been getting warmer since March. If we take the rate of increase and apply it to the future, all life will be dead in four years."
Now, I noticed you did not touch the quote of Hansen where he said, "Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time..." Picking out the most extreme scenarios and presenting them as fact while omitting anything that is contradicts your predetermined conclusion is "doctoring the data".
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
However, it seems that the carbon dioxide levels increase about 40 to 50 years *after* the temperature increase.
Are we are talking about that wonderful graph that Al Gore shows us in that fictional Uncertain Truth movie? The carbon dioxide does correlate nearly perfectly with the atmospheric temperature change. The only problem being that the carbon dioxide is released from the ocean when things get warmer. The actual difference in time was 800 years. the temperature went up and then 800 years later the carbon dioxide levels increased. What has surprised me whilst(grammar Nazi paged) reading the comments on this subject is that the number of people here on /. that appear to have imbibed deeply of the AGW Kool-Aid. It also seems as if the Kool-Aid drunk here by /. users has very high levels of psychotropic agents(and I aint just talkin' about Flouride - girls). AGW is an outright lie and is a perfect example of why socialism disguised itself in green credentials decades ago - 'just think of the grand-children'.
A great movie to watch (regardless of your position on the matter) is The Great Global Warming Swindle
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.