Captain Bligh's Logbooks To Yield Climate Bounty

Pickens writes "The BBC reports that researchers are digitizing the captains' logs from the voyages of Charles Darwin on HMS Beagle, Captain Cook from HMS Discovery, Captain Bligh from The Bounty, and 300 other 18th and 19th century ships' logbooks to provide historical climate records for modern-day climate researchers who will use the meteorological data to build up a picture of weather patterns in the world at the beginning of the industrial era. The researchers are cross-referencing the data with historical records for crop failures, droughts and storms and will compare it with data for the modern era in order to predict similar events in the future. 'The observations from the logbooks on wind force and weather are astonishingly good and often better than modern logbooks,' says Climatologist Dr. Dennis Wheeler from the University of Sunderland. 'Of course the sailors had to be conscientious. The thought that you could hit a reef was a great incentive to get your observations absolutely right!' The logbooks will be online next year at the UK's National Archives."

Comments

Captain Bligh's Logbooks To Yield Climate Bounty

[Anonymous Coward]

no comment!

Bligh was a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

The mutineers were really the scum of the earth. They ended up knifing each other to death on the island where they settled. Bligh on the other hand made the most spectacular sailing feat of all time in order to get to Fiji, in a small boat with hardly any provisions. (The accusations against him btw are largely based on legend, not fact.)

Re:Bligh was a genius

[haruchai]

He was probably not much worse than the average captain of the time and nowhere near the league of George Vancouver when it
comes to being a heavy-handed hardass. But genius or not, he was no saint, never really learned to balance power and personality - witness his
time as Governor of New South Wales - and obviously didn't learn enough from Captain Cook about leading men.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[gmhowell]

All rational research points out that he was no worse than the average captain. There are multiple reasons we remember him as being evil, but all stem from the fact that Fletcher Christian's family was reasonably well off, and was able to pull off one heckuva PR campaign against him. Bring that through to modern times when people used that telling to create movies, and the idea of Bligh as a despot is cemented.

In addition to all (save one) of the mutineers being killed violently by their brethren, let us also remember the 250 years of child rape perpetrated on Pitcairn Island.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually all the evidence points to Bligh being the very opposite of a despot. Check out the number of floggings on the voyage. (pretty much none, in an era where weekly floggings were the norm.) He was not in fact a harsh disciplinarian, and neither was Cook, who was his mentor. Of course the type of voyage they were doing was not routine, and so the crews were not the usual scum of the earth. I think the problems was that Cook had the strength of character and leadership to cope with any problems, while Bligh did not. Obviously Fletcher Christian became a problem.

Blighs voyage to Timor in an open boat rates as one of the greatest navigational feats of all time.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[Anonymous Coward]

In addition to all (save one) of the mutineers being killed violently by their brethren, let us also remember the 250 years of child rape perpetrated on Pitcairn Island.

I'm thinking of it now.

giggity.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[haruchai]

Right, it must have been genetic - those freaks of nature who developed the mutineer gene and the closely-linked child-rape gene.

Good thing they mutineed and fled otherwise, their nasty deviant genes might have contaminated the upper crust who only suffered from the benign flogging gene, press-ganging gene and last and of course least, the colonize-the-bloody-heathen-wogs gene.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[Capsaicin]

... but all stem from the fact that Fletcher Christian's family was reasonably well off ...

I agree that the Christian Family were reasonably well off and more than that, Bligh managed not only to inspire his men to munity against his command of the Bounty, he also caused the colony he was sent to govern to rise up in armed rebellion. The real question is not whether Bligh was despotic or not, it's why the British authorities saw fit to appoint a man, who had proven himself a singuarly ungifted commander, to be the governor of it's most far flung colony. If you were on a board of directors, would you appoint the CEO of one of your failed subsidiaries to the same position in the principal company?

You'd think that after 1775 they would have realised that the heavy handed approach to colonial government wasn't going to work. OTOH the choice of Bligh's successor (Lachlan Macquarie) shows that maybe, just maybe, London did learn that appointing a talentless despot like Bligh to a position of authority had been dumb move.

Still, I did enjoy your revisionism quite a bit. It would be amusing to see you try to save ... I dunno ... say Saddam Hussein's reputation. If you are feeling up for the challenge that is. ;)

Re:Bligh was a genius

[gmhowell]

Go read a book. (Preferably one written without the Christian family's tract being the sole primary source) Seeing Mel Gibson as Christian, while I'm sure it gave you a stiffy, is not an accurate portrayal.

Go spend a little time in Tahiti and tell me you wouldn't like to go native.

As far as the rebellion, your own link provides plenty of information indicating that success on the part of Bligh was nearly impossible given how many factors were stacked against him.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[TheDugong]

(Slightly under half of) the sailors were inspired to mutiny by Tahitian pussy, or lack there of after five months of it. Bligh was too nice in letting them live ashore with the Tahitians, having relations with them, and not flogging them enough.

The Rum Rebellion happened because he tried to remove the advantageous position some people in the Sydney colony had. This position would be called a monopoly nowadays.

So, maybe not a genius, but he tried to do the right thing(tm).

Re:Bligh was a genius

[Runaway1956]

Whatever else Hussein was, he managed to maintain a semblance of order in a rather fragmented society. When the US leaves Iraq, you can expect a Shiite led government to align itself a lot closer to Iran than Hussein and his crew would ever have permitted. The results aren't in yet. Yeah, Sadman was really a savage despot, with an arm's length list of crimes against his name, but he helped to balance power in the Mideast. Bush tipped the scales, and it's anyone's guess how they will balance in the future.

Countdown to being trashed by a crowd of neocons 3 - 2 - 1 -

Re:Bligh was a genius

[Sique]

At least he was the very antithesis to an islamic-fundamentalist ruler. In fact he was an pan-arab dictator running on a socialist and nationalist platform, and a fundamentalist cleric was considered an enemy to the state like any other person who was propagating a rule different to the baathist one of Saddam Hussein.

(Recommended reading: Anything about the Baath movement, baath beeing arab and meaning renaissance, a movement founded by secular arab intellectuals to replace Islam as the common factor of the arab people with a secular pan-arab idea.)

Re:Bligh was a genius

[drmerope]

"Captain" Bligh of the Bounty was a lieutenant. Young and still a bit green as a commander.

Bligh and _2/3rds_ of the crew were placed into a small dingy and set adrift. Having only a compass and sextant he went 6700km and nailed the nearest British outpost Timor. Only one man died on route.

Further wikipedia concisely notes:
"The Bounty's log shows that Bligh resorted to punishments relatively sparingly. He scolded when other captains would have whipped and whipped when other captains would have hanged. He was an educated man, deeply interested in science, convinced that good diet and sanitation were necessary for the welfare of his crew. He took a great interest in his crew's exercise, was very careful about the quality of their food, and insisted upon the Bounty being kept very clean."

Re:Bligh was a genius

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Actually all the evidence points to Bligh being the very opposite of a despot.

Perhaps, but his overall career points towards the type of man to inspire mutinies. He even managed to get the Australians to rebel during his stint as governor. You don't have to flay people alive to get them to rebel, but you generally do have to be a fairly incompetent leader.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[Stargoat]

I suspect that the lack of marines on the Bounty had a great deal more to do with it. It was standard practice in those days for all military ships to have marines. Bligh was required to maintain military discipline without military means, an untenable position.

Re:Bligh was a genius

[hitnrunrambler]

The real question is not whether Hussein was despotic or not, it's why the American authorities saw fit to support a man, who had proven himself despotic and ruthless in his rise to power, in an aggressive action against Iran. If you were on a board of directors, would you appoint the CEO of one of your failed subsidiaries to be it's bastion against communism in the Middle East?

dunno sounds plausible... either I guess it comes down to "Government mismanagement does not excuse despotism, and the fact that someone is later publicly revealed to be a despot does not remove government responsibility"

Re:Bligh was a genius

[gmhowell]

I agree 100% that Tahitian pussy was the cause of the Bounty mutiny. Fine island women or go back to troglodytes in the UK? It's a simple answer even today.

What you present as the reason for the Rum Rebellion is what I understood it to be, but I won't draw a hard line in the sand, owing to little knowledge on the subject.

We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

If the logbooks don't support human-induced climate change, the media will ignore them.

Don't you DARE call it "science" when skepticism is met with derision.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah that's unfortunately true. I'm sure it will be bias somehow and support climate change, since the BBC is reporting on it, though.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[wizardforce]

I am sure Fox news would gladly pick up on it.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[je ne sais quoi]

And would you ever admit that you're wrong if the logbooks do support it? We already see from the tone of your statement that you've already decided that there is no climate change.

You can't keep calling it skepticism when faced with a continual stream of evidence, that's called denial.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Cute, but you're already reading about it.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[s-whs]

> If the logbooks don't support human-induced climate change, the media will ignore them.
> Don't you DARE call it "science" when skepticism is met with derision.

Whatever.

Just about all the skeptics I've heard talk or read something from, are complete and utter fruitcakes. People from unrelated disciplines or not having any decent science background, let alone the ability to analyse and reason above the level of a 5 year old toddler. I don't mean to imply that those with a science background can/do analyse/reason. I've seen plenty of those (PhDs, professors) who are quite close to being morons. I don't know where they got their degrees, but nowhere good I'm sure...

When and if there are skeptics that provide good arguments, they should be heard. I don't think any of the skeptics I know of, provide arguments that are worth listening to, and the arguments given can easily be discounted.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[corbettw]

There was plenty of skepticism about evolution (or at least, Darwinian evolution) when the theory first appeared. But it's been vetted for 150 years now, and with modern forensics, DNA sequencing, and even the observation of speciation events, there's really no credible evidence disproving the central tenets of Darwinian evolution. Though there have been some huge advancements in our understanding of it. For instance, while IANAEB, it is my understanding that evolutionary biologists no longer view evolution as a straight-line sequence from simpler animals to more complex ones, like Darwin did. Instead, we now know that our understanding of what constitutes a "species" is pretty arbitrary and creatures in the wild cross species lines quite often. Instead of a tree coming up from a single ancestral organism, life is more like a complex web, with some branches ending, some continuing, and some merging back into the main trunk (or another branch).

And don't even get started on the tags, they just make it more confusing!

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[corbettw]

Most of the cogent skeptics out there seem to be skeptical of either AGW, not GW itself, or are merely skeptical that we should do anything to stop it, arguing that it's a net boon to mankind for the climate to be a bit warmer. But yeah, anyone who argues that the climate isn't warming on average at this point can be safely ignored.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, there is nothing wrong with skepticism about evolution either, other than it being a bit fruitless.

Skepticism != doubt. Doubt can be rational or irrational; skepticism is by definition rational. I think that's the point that the grandparent poster was trying to make. Doubting the evidence of the theory of evolution would be irrational and factually wrong. But being skeptical about the theory of evolution would mean refusing to believe it in the absence of evidence for it, which is sort of vacuous since there is no such absence.

And, unlike with evolution, there is still some room for rational doubt about human-induced climate change, particularly on some of the finer sub-questions such as "how screwed are we?" And skepticism in open questions of science is always warranted.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, who has heard that the ice melt across during the Antarctic summer (October-January) of 2008-2009 was the lowest ever recorded in the satellite history?

The paper Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability. Geophysical Research Letters, 36, L18502, doi:10.1029/2009GL039186 gets no mentions.

More here:

Antarctic Ice Melt Lowest on record

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sorry but there has NOT been a continual stream of evidence at all. There have been a lot of claims made (completely unsupported by any scientific research) and a great deal of BAD science along the lines or correlation equals causation. Personally I don't know one way or the other whether there is human induced climate change as their has been a lack of any quality research on the matter. I do know however polution is bad and whether climate change exists or not we should clean up our act.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Gun love in the NRA usually involves pointing guns at other things. So if that was really his bent, making out with his shotgun would be more likely to involve pointing it at you.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Totenglocke]

You can't keep calling it skepticism when faced with a continual stream of evidence, that's called denial.

You can't keep calling it skepticism when faced with a continual stream of carefully selected evidence, that's called denial.

There, fixed that for ya!

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha you called someone ELSE a twat.

That's my LOL for the night.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Artraze]

For the last decade there has been no global warming, at all, while producing more CO2 than ever. During that decade we have taken measurements with the goal of testing global warming, and found none. These measurements are taken from all over the world, and are the most accurate and analyzable (for sources of error, etc.) that we have or will have. The have uncovered _global cooling_.

Scientifically, this _necessarily_ throws global warming into serious doubt. The assertion that global warming exists cannot be made without correcting the errors in the old GW model to properly align with our current observations. The idea that some old temperature logs made with an uncalibrated thermometer by someone without a particular interest in accuracy could overshadow careful modern measurements is a sick joke.

The real deniers at this point are the ones that insist that global warming is a fact.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Capsaicin]

For the last decade there has been no global warming, at all, while producing more CO2 than ever.

1. 10 years of noisy data is not significant enough to reverse the significance of the warming trend over the entire instrumental record. 2. The last decade as shown a warming trend of 0.11C/decade.

Scientifically, this _necessarily_ throws global warming into serious doubt.

So long as science relies on whacky stuff like statistics, no it doesn't.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Climate ain't just about temperature, Go do some studying and come back when you've done some learnin'

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

And who's we, exactly?

You know we the sane rational people, whose view of reality is informed by Western Science, as in "unlike those ancient authors, we now know that the Earth is not flat." Oh, sorry you don't know sane? Well you can fix that easily: take you science from authoritative sources such as the ISI peer-reviewed literature, or the IPCC, rather swallowing the BS fed to you by some denialist blog. Oh, you actually prefer being hoodwinked by pseudo-science and running with paranoid conspiracy theories of UN world government ... well your choice.

Here's a tip. Wanna save the world? Reduce the population. Start with yourself by making out with a loaded shotgun.

Better still, why don't you make out? That way we'll reduce the population and increase the mean IQ all that the same time!

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Why Global Warming is Probably a Crock
By James Lewis

As a scientist I've learned never to say "never." So human-caused global warming is always a hypothesis to hold, at least until climate science becomes mature. (Climate science is very immature right now: Physicists just don't know how to deal with hypercomplex systems like the earth weather. That's why a recent NASA scientist was wildly wrong when he called anthropogenic warming "just basic physics." Basic physics is what you do in the laboratory. If hypercomplex systems were predictable, NASA would have foolproof space shuttles --- because they are a lot simpler than the climate. So this is just pseudoscientific twaddle from NASA's vaunted Politically Correct Division. It makes me despair when even scientists conveniently forget that little word "hypothesis.")

OK. The human-caused global warming hypothesis is completely model-dependent. We can't directly observe cars and cows turning up the earth thermostat. Whatever the human contribution there may be to climate constitutes just a few signals among many hundreds or thousands.

All our models of the earth climate are incomplete. That's why they keep changing, and that's why climate scientists keep finding surprises. As Rummy used to say, there are a ton of "unknown unknowns" out there. The real world is full of x's, y's and z's, far more than we can write little models about. How do you extract the human contribution from a vast number of unknowns?

That's why constant testing is needed, and why it is so frustrating to do frontier science properly.

Science is difficult because nature always has another surprise in store for us, dammit! Einstein rejected quantum mechanics, and was wrong about that. Newton went wrong on the proof of calculus, a problem that didn't get solved until 1900. Scientists are always wrong --- they are just less wrong now than they were before (if everything is going well). Check out the current issue of Science magazine. It's full of surprises. That's what it's for.

Now there's a basic fact about complexity that helps to understand this. It's a point in probability theory about many variables, each one less than 100 percent likely to be true.

If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.

Now imagine that all the variables about global climate are known with less than 100 percent certainty. Let's be wildly and unrealistically optimistic and say that climate scientists know each variable to 99 percent certainty! (No such thing, of course). And let's optimistically suppose there are only one-hundred x's, y's, and z's --- all the variables that can change the climate: like the amount of cloud cover over Antarctica, the changing ocean currents in the South Pacific, Mount Helena venting, sun spots, Chinese factories burning more coal every year, evaporation of ocean water (the biggest "greenhouse" gas), the wobbles of earth orbit around the sun, and yes, the multifarious fartings of billions of living creatures on the face of the earth, minus, of course, all the trillions of plants and algae that gobble up all the CO2, nitrogen-containing molecules, and sulfur-smelling exhalations spewed out by all of us animals. Got that? It all goes into our best math model.

So in the best case, the smartest climatologist in the world will know 100 variables, each one to an accuracy of 99 percent. Want to know what the probability of our spiffiest math model would be, if that perfect world existed? Have you ever multiplied (99/100) by itself 100 times? According to the Google calculator, it equals a little more than 36.6

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[tsm_sf]

There have been a lot of claims made (completely unsupported by any scientific research) and a great deal of BAD science along the lines or correlation equals causation.

Oh what the fuck, man. Can you not take a class? Can you not even fucking call your local community college's geo prof? What the hell makes you think you're entitled to an opinion when you totally fail to educate yourself?

You are not entitled to an opinion when it comes to science. You need to earn this. This isn't an area where your touchy-feely republican sensibility will allow you to bullshit your way through life, this is an area where serious men with serious mustaches do real goddamn work.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[zippthorne]

Something is fishy there. What source is putting 2005 at a higher temperature than 1998?

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Capsaicin]

What source is putting 2005 at a higher temperature than 1998?

When you read the article linked to you will see that the issue here is not whether two selected years are hotter and colder than each other (eg. 1850 vs 2005), it's whether the decadal trend is rising, steady or falling. Do you already understand why even if the trend over the last decade were falling (it wasn't) that would not necessarily be significant when viewed against all of the data from the instrumental, a fortiori the extra-instrumental, record?

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[ciderVisor]

If I know that my six-sided die isn't loaded, I'll get a specific number on average one out of six rolls. Two rolls of the die produces 1/6 x 1/6 = 1/36. For n rolls of the die, I get (1/6) multiplied by itself n times, or (1/6) to the nth power. That number becomes small very quickly. The more rolls of the die, the less likely it is that some particular sequence will come up. It's the first thing to know in any game of chance. Don't ever bet serious money if that isn't obvious.

Wow, just wow.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[MrMista_B]

All the evidence, carefully selected and taken as a whole, shows that human activity has increased the global surface temperatures of the earth.

Why is that strange to consider?

You think we're ghosts or something who can't affect the world around us?

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[koiransuklaa]

Dear AC,

As far as I know, since the American Association of Petroleum Geologists changed their mind, there have been no scientific organizations of any importance who reject human influence on climate change.

In a recent study Doran & Zimerman concluded that there really isn't even any debate about the authenticity of global warming among those who understand long term climate processes... Practically everyone agrees that it happens. Take a look: http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

So... exactly what the are these people missing that only you are seeing?

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

and creatures in the wild cross species lines quite often. Instead of a tree coming up from a single ancestral organism, life is more like a complex web, with some branches ending, some continuing, and some merging back into the main trunk (or another branch).

While true, it's a bit out of proportion. The vast majority (> 99.99%) of "evolutionary branches" (ie. species) are extinct. There are over 400 known types of human (and a few million years of missing pieces), and there are 4 left alive. Mergers are unheard of (except 1 special case : that a part of a species starts to differentiate, and that differentiation ending, which happens constantly)

So perhaps rephrasing your sentence would be appropriate :

Instead of a tree coming up from a single ancestral organism, life is more like a complex web, starting at a single ancestral organism and branching out, the vast majority of branches being dead ends. The very, very few branches continuing, a few times swapping genes with eachother (via viruses) in addition to mutating (the advantage of gene swapping is that it gives an evolutionary advantage much quicker). While there is a "main trunk" (a single species will eventually destroy all others, and be the only line left), we have no idea which species are part of this "main trunk", and specifically we don't know if humans are part of it (I'm betting "no").

What you might call a "merger" is what you see happening to human races right now. The globalisation has caused intermarrying between all human species. The only reason those human species were separated is a very, very long physical separation, preventing intermarriage. But not long enough to actually create separate species. A merger can, however, only happen to different races, not to different species.

So now we do have intermarriage, thanks to the emancipation (of blacks) movement started in the United States, so the genes are getting mixed. What will happen next (and in an astonishingly short timeframe) is that in a few generations all humans will have genes from all races. Genes that used to be distinctly "african" or "european" 100 years ago. Then evolution will force a choice between useful and useless genes, and all our great grandchildren will end up with a very, very similar set of genes. They will not differ in color like different races do today.

The scary part is that this will happen in less than 400-500 years and the process is already 100 years or-so underway.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[goose-incarnated]

While I understand both the gamblers fallacy and the point the grandparent was making, I'm not sure what it is you are trying to say with "Wow". GP doesn't seem to be committing gamblers fallacy at all.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[nyctopterus]

For instance, while IANAEB, it is my understanding that evolutionary biologists no longer view evolution as a straight-line sequence from simpler animals to more complex ones, like Darwin did.

Darwin certainly didn't view evolution as a straight line, he viewed it much like modern evolutionary biologists (you only have to look at his diagrams to see that!). The straight line (or ladder) stuff was mostly later (mis)interpretation, mostly by lay-people, but also some scientists.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Zonnald]

Where are the comments claiming this information is bunk?

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[_xen]

I'm sure it will be bias somehow and support climate change

Its not so much that these logs will "support climate change," by which I guess you mean "will support the scientific understanding of why climate change is happening," what it will do is help us give us some insight about the extent of climate change. More specifically it will give us some insight in an area where we do not have good historical records of climate before the industrial revolution, and an area where the effects of climate change are already being acutely felt (ie. low-lying coral-reef based nations).

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[_xen]

There was plenty of skepticism about evolution (or at least, Darwinian evolution) when the theory first appeared.

The most recent figures I've seen on this topic show that only 40% of Americans accept Darwinian evolution today. The whole idiotic (or should that read suicidal) rejection of science in regard to climate change is a symptom of a much wider malaise.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Attila Dimedici]

And who's we, exactly?

You know we the sane rational people, whose view of reality is informed by Western Science, as in "unlike those ancient authors, we now know that the Earth is not flat." Oh, sorry you don't know sane? Well you can fix that easily: take you science from authoritative sources such as the ISI peer-reviewed literature, or the IPCC, rather swallowing the BS fed to you by some denialist blog. Oh, you actually prefer being hoodwinked by pseudo-science and running with paranoid conspiracy theories of UN world government ... well your choice.

Here's a tip. Wanna save the world? Reduce the population. Start with yourself by making out with a loaded shotgun.

Better still, why don't you make out? That way we'll reduce the population and increase the mean IQ all that the same time!

Well, obviously you can't be bothered to study history since there was never a time when a significant number of those who were literate thought that the earth was flat.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

All scientific evidence is carefully selected. There is a very high level of scrutiny and honesty in science, unseen in most other walks of life.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Hellsbells]

For the last decade there has been no global warming, at all, while producing more CO2 than ever. During that decade we have taken measurements with the goal of testing global warming, and found none.

The have uncovered _global cooling_.

In this decade so far, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, were all warmer than any year in the 1990s except for 1998 (due to its extreme El Nino event), so that statement is an outright lie. 2009 is predicted to be around the 4th hottest year on record based on temperatures so far.

Here's a good image, graph and explaination of the state of the climate at the end of 2008 from NASA:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=36699

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Until Microsoft 'research' hits the scene and Microsoft 'researchers' and 'interns' show up on your university staff or faculty...

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[SnapShot]

It looks like there might be an organization of "skeptics with mod points" who reject anthropogenic climate change.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

The likelihood that a particular sequence will come up in a purely random system is exactly the same no matter how many times you roll the die. If you've just finished rolling 1,1,1,1,1,1 the chance of your next roll being 1 is EXACTLY 1/6. Similarly, the if you've just finished rolling 6,5,4,3,2 the chance of your next roll being 1 is EXACTLY 1/6. The chance of your first roll being 1 is 1/6, chance of your next roll being 1 is 1/6, the chance of my roll being 1 is 1/6, the chance of your roll being 1 is 1/6. The chance of rolling a 1 on a 6-sided die is EXACTLY 1/6. There is no "state" to a die roll.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[microbox]

It's not skepticism that's met with derision my friend.

If you've got an open mind, see what David Suzuki has to say on the subject.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on your comments, I can only assume that you believe EVERY climate change was caused by man.

As everyone should know, climate change is natural and has been happening for millions of years. Antartica once had a tropical forest. I'm certain that humans didn't cause that.

The REAL debate is how much humans have impacted the CURRENT climate changes. Remember, Earth is not a closed system, and things such as the Sun's cycle do affect climate change too.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[KnownIssues]

You can't keep calling it skepticism when faced with a continual stream of evidence, that's called denial.

No, it's called faith.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[geekoid]

All branches are dead ends eventually.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[geekoid]

Actually you broke it. It sin't a stream of carefully selected evidence. It's a torrent of a wide range of evidence supported by data outside climetology and nused in practical day to day work.

Take a look at insurance data and how they are using climate data for actuarials.

If the actuaries are taking into account, then there is serious data supporting it.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, obviously you can't be bothered to study history ...

Well you obviously like to jump to false conclusions, in point of fact I did outrageously well in my history degree.

... since there was never a time when a significant number of those who were literate thought that the earth was flat.

Never? That's a big call! Now since you have so willingly accepted the onus of proof, how are you going to prove that for all places and all times?

Moreover that statement is almost certainly false. And since it's completely unsupported, I could simply reply with "throughout most of human history a significant number of those who were literate believed the world to be flat, immovable and at the centre of the cosmos." See, two can play that game.

So let's consider the assumptions of "those ancient authors" by looking at what they actually wrote. If the earth were not flat, how could it have "four corners"? If it were not flat, how could the dawn "take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it?" If it were not flat, how could one see "all the kingdoms of the world" from "a very high mountain?" And I believe you will understand that the biggest lie about 'global warming' is that the very term contradicts the word of God. And did you already know that a significant number of Islamic scholars to this day insist that any claim that the world is not flat amounts to apostacy and should be punishable by death?

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[Totenglocke]

No, all of the evidence taken into account shows that over a short time period, temperatures have gone up. Temperatures before the Little Ice Age were in fact warmer than they are now. It has also been shown that those "green house gasses" don't actually create a greenhouse effect like they supposedly do.

Regardless, there is nothing what so ever showing that humans have any effect on the climate.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[corbettw]

The globalisation has caused intermarrying between all human species. The only reason those human species were separated is a very, very long physical separation, preventing intermarriage. But not long enough to actually create separate species. A merger can, however, only happen to different races, not to different species.

So now we do have intermarriage, thanks to the emancipation (of blacks) movement started in the United States, so the genes are getting mixed. What will happen next (and in an astonishingly short timeframe) is that in a few generations all humans will have genes from all races. Genes that used to be distinctly "african" or "european" 100 years ago. Then evolution will force a choice between useful and useless genes, and all our great grandchildren will end up with a very, very similar set of genes. They will not differ in color like different races do today.

The scary part is that this will happen in less than 400-500 years and the process is already 100 years or-so underway.

What the...? Who let a Klansman get an account on Slashdot? Go back to your mountain friends, Senator Byrd.

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[silburnl]

What source is putting 2005 at a higher temperature than 1998?

The GISTEMP series puts 2005 above 1998 - the global anomaly figures for the two years are close enough to be within each other's error bars however, so technically they are a statistical tie.

Both of the other instrumental networks (HADCRUT3 and NCDC) and the two satellite series (RSS and UAH) put 1998 above 2005.

Regards
Luke

Re:We'll only read about it if they support AGW

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Yeah well, obviously one cannot talk about evolutionary theory without being called racist.

That's the fate of so much research these days. Different impacts of disease on different ethnicities. Racist ! Aspects of environmental impact of cultural traditions. Racist ! Statistics on the prevalence of disease in different countries ... Racist !

Stating that having different races within a single species is extremely rare in nature, and really only occurs with physical walls of separation between groups of said species ... now that's racist. Stating that breaking down said walls in all experiments resulted in an end to differing fenotypes ("races") ... that apparently makes ons a "klansman".

I realize science does not quite agree with your political ideology and that name calling is oh-so-comforting. But please. Get your head out of your ass.

In before the global warming discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure that this is going to devolve (pun intended) into a discussion about global warming (an argument often put against global warming is that we just don't have enough data to prove it exists). Regardless to how people feel about said subject, I hope you guys focus on how cool it is that we're preserving old information from paper-rot.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Anonymous Monkey]

Agreed. This is science taking from it's environment and making something more (Primer quote). It's shows that if you look at what information you have from a different perspective you can find lost of intriguing patterns and learn lots of new things. It is amazing what you can learn by throwing data into a spreadsheet and then looking for order.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[andymadigan]

All of what you state is true for the Northern U.S., but could be explained by ice melting as a result of global warming. Climate change is on a massive scale, and it will affect different parts of the world differently. Even if humans aren't causing global climate change, cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health.

The work in climate engineering (or whatever it's called) is good too. We shouldn't assume that the Earth will always be habitable by humans without us needing to fight for it. None of this is going to make us 'poor' either, that's a lot of hooey. The economy runs on work, any kind of work will do. It might mean some businesses fall while others are created, but that's how capitalism works.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[je ne sais quoi]

I agree completely, it's really cool regardless of the outcome. Some of this type of historical data has already been used: Records of bird migration in particular are useful because the date is known precisely and the record doesn't rely on a measurement, i.e., all you have to do is answer the questions does the bird in question migrate earlier or later than previously, and how much so? Some examples are the snow goose (pay link, sorry) from the Hudson Bay Company and other records. Here's a full article that shows that birds are migrating to and from the UK an average of 8 days earlier than 30 years ago.

Also, some evidence of hurricane patterns is from Spanish records of ships in the Caribbean from 1500 to 1600.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[JonBuck]

The thing is, those logs have already survived decades on a medium that requires no special equipment to read. How many records have we lost over the past 40 years simply because of changing hardware and file formats? In that time we've gone from delay line/ferrite core memory to 2TB hard drives. To say nothing of thousands of different file formats.

Call it a digital dark age. Will someone be able to read this post in 50 years?

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

Work generally creates value that people are willing to exchange goods or money for. There is no direct value generated by cleaning up the environment or lowering the earth's average temperature.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

We're now going to use completely unscientific accounts from long ago

How are Royal Navy log books "completely unscientific"? The age-of-sail professional navies had a paramount interest in accurate weather recording and prediciton. The men doing the measurement and recording had an even greater personal interest in maximal accuracy.

The tools used were standardized throughout the organization and improved using feedback from ships encountering the whole gamut of weather conditions. There were no agenda to skew the weather data from reality.

I'm sure you do not understand what "scientific" means. You are confusing it with TV-induced fantasies.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[reub2000]

I wouldn't use the sporadic sighting of hurricanes by ships to try and construct patters of hurricanes. The data is way too incomplete to get any real idea of what is going on.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as we're just guessing:
1. You do not understand what "global" means
2. You do not understand what statistical relevance is
3. You have no idea how the royal navy operated back then
Did I get three out of three?

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[mrmeval]

How many have been changed to fit an agenda? On paper those are difficult to modify but how long after they are in digital form will they be massaged to promote someones religious beliefs?

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[ZarathustraDK]

This just in: North part of the US = The World

Please update your encyclopedias.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[robinjo]

Even if humans aren't causing global climate change, cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health.

Reducing pollution is definitely a good thing for our health. However, concentrating on CO2 has lead to boneheaded legislation and subsidies that result in increased pollution.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Attila Dimedici]

cleaning up the air is a GOOD THING for our own health. .

The problem is that the argument is not over "cleaning up the air", it is over whether CO2 represents something that needs to be cleaned up. While most people agree that reducing the amount of pollutants we put into the air is a good thing, not everyone agrees that CO2 is a pollutant.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[CrimsonAvenger]

The economy runs on work, any kind of work will do. It might mean some businesses fall while others are created, but that's how capitalism works.

No.

While it is true that most any kind of work will do, not all kinds of work will do. Useless work is, well, useless.

If any kind of work will do to make our economy function, then paying people to dig holes in their front yards every morning and fill them in every afternoon could make us all millionaires.

All other things being equal (and they seldom are), doing two hours of work to accomplish what used to be accomplished in one hour will lower standards of living, not raise them.

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Ferretman]

I agree! Despite any so-called global warming angle to this, it's just plain cool that these logs are still around. Anybody know if they're online somewhere?

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Ferretman]

Doh! I see in TFA that they are going online next year. Yay!

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Anonymous Coward]

The bigger question, which sounds like sniping but isn't, is, 'will there be any reason for anyone to read this post in 50 years?'

This discussion, including (especially) my own comment, are hardly matters for the historical record.

Someone shouts from the edges, "but look at how useful this old data about wind &cetera is becoming now! Save it all!"

To that I say, someone's life depended on getting that data correct. It's DATA. Data can be re-used, often in ways that were never originally intended.

What we're doing is called bloviating...

Re:In before the global warming discussion

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

god knows

the little ice age

[alen]

didn't the little ice age end last century? that means the world is supposed to be warming unless the ice age temperatures are considered normal?

Re:the little ice age

[wizardforce]

Even if that were true, anthropomorphic greenhouse gas emissions would exacerbate any non-anthropomorphic warming effect. It would be like claiming that the thermostat in your house is slowly increasing the temperature in your room so therefore there's no harm in raising the thermostat further.

Re:the little ice age

[TheGreenNuke]

It would be like claiming that the thermostat in your house is slowly increasing the temperature in your room so therefore there's no harm in raising the thermostat further.

But I don't see any harm in that. I may actually like a 1 degree annual average increase. Possibly improve my comfort, and possibly save me some money if spaced correctly (when considering the air conditioning). Thanks for the idea.

Re:the little ice age

[Idiomatick]

If we had a one degree annual increase for any length of time we'd all be dead pretty fast... I guess this is a troll but still I see people that really believe that a few degrees don't matter. It is hard to tell if people are trolling you or not when your opposition is so incredibly dumb.

Re:the little ice age

[JimFive]

Even if that were true, anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions would exacerbate any non-anthropogenic warming effect.

. FTFY, I couldn't stand it any more.
--
JimFive

Re:the little ice age

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be like claiming that the thermostat in your house is slowly increasing the temperature in your room so therefore there's no harm in raising the thermostat further.

But I don't see any harm in that. I may actually like a 1 degree annual average increase. Possibly improve my comfort, and possibly save me some money if spaced correctly (when considering the air conditioning). Thanks for the idea.

Well, AGW is raising sea levels and drying up the Tibetan plateau, which is already causing much hardship in places like Bangladesh. But I understand - they are not Mericans, so they don't count. But why don't you go check out the impact of AGW on forest fires in the western US? It turns out that increases in fires are not just due to bad forest management by the evil guvmint (who ignored what all the nice lumber companies kept telling them) but are also being exacerbated by earlier spring melts

Global climate change is true!

[Anonymous Coward]

Global climate change is true. Even if it's not true causing pollution is not good. Hopefully these logs will provide support for global climate change but if not it could be argued that reporting techniques of the time were crude.

Re:Global climate change is true!

[tnok85]

Global climate change is true. Even if it's not true causing pollution is not good.
Hopefully these logs will provide support for global climate change but if not it could be argued that reporting techniques of the time were crude.</quote>

I like this train of thought. You can't lose. "Hey, if this supports our theory, then it can be hailed as definitive proof. If it conflicts with our theory, well, they were wrong, and it'll be easy to discredit."

Re:Global climate change is true!

[orangesquid]

Agreed that the GP is using faulty logic. However, "Even if it's not true causing pollution is not good" is something worth studying further.

Oceans fix CO2 and plants metabolize CO2 to O2 (well-known facts). CO2 is a greenhouse gas of sorts (known fact). Humans pump out a not-insignificant amount of CO2 through industrial processes (known fact). Whether we're messing up the climate or not is something we can never really prove, either way; rather, it's a question of whether investing the money in improving industrial processes to be more efficient in their recycling of CO2 production. I think the whole climate change propaganda is missing the point on this.

Re:Global climate change is true!

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe in climate change, and I'm pretty sure it's man-made (that's my assessment of the evidence I've seen, but I'm not a scientist).

However, tnok85 is right. We ought to talk about this stuff by making some reference to logic, rather than starting from what we believe and trying to trace a path backwards to the evidence that we're using for support.

Not old enough

[Anonymous Coward]

We need transcripts of the logbooks of 16th century pirates and merchants, to accurately measure the temperature when pirates abounded.

Re:Not old enough

[ciaohound]

Yes, and it would be really helpful if those pirates kept detailed records of atmospheric CO2 concentrations as well.

Re:Not old enough

[timmarhy]

i refuse to buy into this bullshit that CO2 is evil - CO2 is a key component to beer, and nothing related to beer can be evil, so shove it.

Re:Not old enough

[mister_playboy]

Plants make use of CO2 in photosynthesis, and they (along with other producers such as algae) are the ultimate basis of all biological energy on Earth. Frankly, I find it a bit impressive to believe that all the world's various plants can survive on the small fraction (~0.25%) of the atmosphere that is CO2.

Re:Not old enough

[Idiomatick]

They don't have a very high metabolism... Aren't running around much wasting energy....

Re:Not old enough

[zippthorne]

I prefer beer that uses N2.

Re:Not old enough

[dzfoo]

We can't. For He has destroyed the logbooks with his Noodly Appendage.

(I can't believe nobody else got the reference!)

      -dZ.

Re:Not old enough

[maxume]

Hangovers?

Re:Not old enough

[SCHecklerX]

I can't believe that nobody got the COTFSM reference. Slashdot, I am disappoint.

Re:Not old enough

[Chris Burke]

i refuse to buy into this bullshit that CO2 is evil - CO2 is a key component to beer, and nothing related to beer can be evil, so shove it.

What a simple view! Beer is like the Yin and Yang, both good and evil simultaneously in a delicious paradox.

To quote the Pope of Beer, Homer Simpson: "Here's to alcohol! The cause of... and solution to... all of life's problems."

Shhh!

[Das Auge]

It common knowledge that nothing on this planet ever changes. Most certainly not the temperature or weather!

Of course, three thousand years ago, the Sahara was a savannah and not the desert it is today. But we all know that's just the product of oil companies' propaganda.

Re:Shhh!

[wizardforce]

We generally know why the climate changed in the sahara region just as we know pumping enormous quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere causes a warming tend. Non-anthropomorphic causes of warming do not satisfactoryly explain the current warming tend.

Re:Shhh!

[Das Auge]

"Non-anthropomorphic causes of warming do not satisfactoryly explain the current warming tend."? You do know that this isn't the warmest the Earth's ever been, right?

I like how a less than one degree of change over the past 200 years is clearly not normal. What's even more interesting is that pro-global warming charts only go back 200 years or so (some go back 500 years). And not say...back past 10,000 years ago. Which was the end of the last ice age. Of which there have been many.

I'm not going to go so far as to say with 100% certainty that mankind isn't responsible for any of the warming. However, until you (and pro-global warming people like you) even acknowledge that the planet changes its temperate most of the time, I just can't take you seriously.

Re:Shhh!

[wizardforce]

You do know that this isn't the warmest the Earth's ever been, right?

There was a cause for that warmth, the current warming trend can not be explained by natural causes. The warming trend is explainable when human emissions are taken into account.

I like how a less than one degree of change over the past 200 years is clearly not normal.

it isn't normal if the possible causes have been ruled out.

I'm not going to go so far as to say with 100% certainty that mankind isn't responsible for any of the warming. However, until you (and pro-global warming people like you) even acknowledge that the planet changes its temperate most of the time, I just can't take you seriously

Most competent "pro-global warming people" acknowledge tat the Earth's climate changes however, those changes require a cause. Asteroid impacts, volcani activity, large quantities of greenhouse gases all can cause these changes. Until you admit that this is the case, *you* should not be taken seriously.

Re:Shhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-anthropomorphic causes...

Anthropogenic.

There are some good arguments against the IPCC's report(s). And hasn't there been a cooling trend for the last decade or so?

Re:Shhh!

[kenwd0elq]

Climate fluctuates in thousand-year cycles. The Romans in England grew wine grapes, and the Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland. Vinland was in Labrador. In between, there were some nasty cold spells. A little warmer is better than a little cooler, from the point of view of crop growth if nothing else. If the climate were to warm a LOT, I might be worried, but the current evidence does not, on balance, suggest any substantial warming, James Hansen's frauds to the contrary. And the current extended "solar minimum" would seem to indicate that slightly cooler temperatures are more likely than any warming.

Re:Shhh!

[retchdog]

They do acknowledge that; have extremely elaborate physical and statistical models for it; and do the best they can with data from a huge number of sources. That you believe otherwise about these things, almost invalidates anything you have to say. I mean, you're not even saying that they're wrong; you seem really to be saying that they haven't even thought of fitting a model like f(x)=c*sin(a*x)+b*x.

Re:Shhh!

[Idiomatick]

Interesting that we only have climate data going back 200~500years yet I have a picture showing it go back 5million years. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png Damn science, able to figure things out without people actually being there and measuring it at the time. Who knew that paleoclimatology was a whole science. Troll :/

Re:Shhh!

[Idiomatick]

Nope there has been a warming trend. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Satellite_Temperatures.png But don't let satellite imaging fool you I'm sure the devil is playing tricks on our billion dollar incredibly accurate satellites. And I hardly see any correlation between those three lines.

Re:Shhh!

[techno-vampire]

Most competent "pro-global warming people" acknowledge tat the Earth's climate changes however, those changes require a cause.

OK, wise guy, what caused the Early Medieval Warm?

Re:Shhh!

[timmarhy]

how do you know the CO2 rise is man made in the first place, and not oh say from the oceans which are the largest stores of CO2? everyone who's sane agree's the climate changes, whats not clear is that it's man made or that we even need to do anything about it. we don't have the kind of grasp on how climate works to be able to make such massive calls - we can hypothesis, but the pro global warming camp seem to jump instantly from hypothesis to theory instantly if it fits their world view, but dicredit anything that disagree's as funded by the man.

Re:Shhh!

[sadness203]

Hey! I was born the same year these three lines started... So I can clearly see a correlation between this graph and my hotness.

Re:Shhh!

[totally bogus dude]

I think you got the wrong end of the stick there; they weren't claiming such data doesn't exist. They were pointing out that "pro-climate change people" tend to use graphs that only show the last few hundred years, because when you look at graphs that go back a significant period of time the current warming trend suddenly stops looking abnormal and alarming.

Re:Shhh!

[styrotech]

You do know that this isn't the warmest the Earth's ever been, right?

Yep. It was a lot warmer back in the days before all that carbon we're releasing got sequested underground as oil and coal.

Unfortunately all the ecosystems and species adapted for those conditions aren't really around anymore - they eventually got replaced by ones better adapted to cooler conditions.

I'm not going to go so far as to say with 100% certainty that mankind isn't responsible for any of the warming. However, until you (and pro-global warming people like you) even acknowledge that the planet changes its temperate most of the time, I just can't take you seriously.

Huh? Of course the climate changes a lot naturally - it always has. The issue is how fast change is happening and how disruptive that change will be to societies and ecosystems. Obviously the faster it changes the harder it will be to adapt and the more damaging the change will be.

The Earth and life in general eventually adapts just fine, but it is usually always at the expense of the predominate species (ie us this time around). I'm sure humans as a species will adapt too (we're like that), but it could be very costly in the meantime.

Re:Shhh!

[Idiomatick]

We have graphs going back 5million years. The satellite temperatures are just super accurate. Also the GP made a comment about specifically the last 10years. I was responding to that. I wouldn't make use of just this graph trying to prove global warming trends generally. Good job attacking something unrelated fallacious bastard.

Re:Shhh!

[riverat1]

We know approximately how much CO2 human activities produce each year. We know how many tons of coal we burn, barrels of oil we consume, cubic feet of nature gas used, how much cement we produce, etc. We can calculate how much CO2 each of those activities produces.

The increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is less than total human emissions by a significant amount (a bit less than 50% of it remains in the atmosphere after 5 years I believe).

Logic leads me to believe if humans weren't pumping any CO2 into the atmosphere levels of CO2 would be changing significantly more slowly than they are now.

Re:Shhh!

[riverat1]

They only go back a couple hundred years because that's the depth of the detailed, accurate instrument records. Before that climate is mostly implied from surrogate measurements like tree rings or isotope measurements.

Re:Shhh!

[Petrushka]

Non-anthropomorphic causes of warming do not satisfactoryly explain the current warming tend.

I have this sudden image of a giant cloudy figure in the shape of a man stalking across the countryside, smashing villages with its mighty fists. "Oh no! Here comes the dread monster Pollu! Who will save us now?" But fear not! Gojira to the rescue! He will put this horrific fiend that walks like a man back in its place.

For crying out loud. This is a most dysturbing tend. I'm normally on the (relatively) green side of arguments (except when it comes to obvious things like nuclear power). But with friends like you, who needs enemies?

Re:Shhh!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the old "we don't have a bullshit tag so we'll use informative instead" gag.

"Climate fluctuates in thousand-year cycles." Congratulations! You win the award for unsupported, nonsensical, arbitrary statement of the year!

And "A little warmer is better than a little cooler, from the point of view of crop growth if nothing else." is a close runner up in the what-the-fuck-are-you-talking-about-you-ignorant-shortsighted-simpleminded-numpty category.

Re:Shhh!

[Coryoth]

how do you know the CO2 rise is man made in the first place, and not oh say from the oceans which are the largest stores of CO2?

By isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2. The isotope ratios for carbon from fossil fuels are distinct from those of carbon in CO2 outgassed from the oceans. By looking at the (changing) isotope ratios of atmospheric CO2 it is possible to track the relative origins of the increasing amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere. It turns out the increase is due to humans burning fossil fuels.

Re:Shhh!

[ericrost]

Yawn:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/english-vineyards-again/

Re:Shhh!

[KeensMustard]

You do know that this isn't the warmest the Earth's ever been, right?

Sounds like you think the problem with anthropogenic climate change is the static mean temperature. If you don't even understand the issue, why would we accept your alternate theories?

I like how a less than one degree of change over the past 200 years is clearly not normal. What's even more interesting is that pro-global warming charts only go back 200 years or so (some go back 500 years). And not say...back past 10,000 years ago. Which was the end of the last ice age. Of which there have been many.

Again, it sounds like you don't understand the problem well enough for your theories to have credence.

I'm not going to go so far as to say with 100% certainty that mankind isn't responsible for any of the warming. However, until you (and pro-global warming people like you) even acknowledge that the planet changes its temperate most of the time, I just can't take you seriously.

Not to be rude, but why does it matter whether or not you accept it? Come time for the Copenhagen round of talks, there will be no discussion on whether or not Climate Change is real nor it's cause. It will simply be a wrestle between those with a short term view (protecting the coal industry) and those with a longer term view (protecting the future economy and well being of our race as a whole). Nobody is going to ringing you to ask your opinion or permission. If you want to prevent action on Climate Change, if you want to prevent economic measures in that stead, you will need to produce some pretty convincing evidence for your alternate theory on what is actually causing the warming we are experiencing. If the denialist movement is marked by one thing, it is a lack of detail and any observable metrics to justify your theories.

Re:Shhh!

[Lord Crc]

how do you know the CO2 rise is man made in the first place, and not oh say from the oceans which are the largest stores of CO2?

IIRC it's from the ratio of carbon isotopes. The ratio found in oil being different from the ratio in CO2 produced by living things.

Re:Shhh!

[Lord Crc]

Small correction: I should have said fossil fuel instead of just oil.

Re:Shhh!

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

The Romans in England grew wine grapes, ...

This is a classic anti-fact. What you say is completely factually correct, but a naive reading of it would lead one to conclude a total falsehood, namely that grapes were only grown in England long ago by the Romans because the climate was hot at that time. This is demonstrably false. In fact, wine has been grown in england since the time of the Romans. In fact, from that every same link

"The period from the end of the First World War to shortly after the end of the Second World War may well be the only time in two millennia that vines to make wine on a substantial scale were not grown in England or Wales."

Those are the real facts. The real truth is that wine has always been grown in England irrespective of climate cycles, and it is only in the modern era that this growth has declined. As to the Vikings, Greenland is still inhabitable and the failure of their colonies had a lot more to do with deforestation and overgrazing than a cooling period.

Factual contextomies such as yours typify modern discussion of science and indeed topics in general. It's unfortunate that posts such as yours can mislead so many unwary minds, but that's simply reflective of the lack of critical thinking in our society, even among many who consider themselves educated and savvy. It takes more than unthinking digestion of facts to discover the truth.

Re:Shhh!

[SCHecklerX]

Regardless of which side you are on, how about just doing the right things to keep our air clean and our forests/etc intact for the sake of conversation itself? We don't need the threat of global warming (the earth has been through much worse, and our entire history on this planet is a blink of an eye to it) to make our own quality of life while we are here better.

Blah.

Re:Shhh!

[Hellsbells]

So many urban myths quoted in a single paragraph, that's probably a new record ...

The Romans in England grew wine grapes

The Romans tried growing wine in England, but they failed, producing very poor quality wine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_from_the_United_Kingdom#Roman_to_19th_Century

England's wine industry is currently thriving due to global warming.

the Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland. Vinland was in Labrador.

There has been cattle in Greenland for decades. New Scentist has a good article on this myth:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england.html

And the current extended "solar minimum" would seem to indicate that slightly cooler temperatures are more likely than any warming.

Even with this solar minimum, 2008 was the 7th hottest year on record, 2009 is predicted to the 4th hottest, and 2007 is around the 3rd hottest.

Re:Shhh!

[hitnrunrambler]

IMO there are 3 significant facts:

1) We cannot prove/disprove Global Warming in a satisfactory way, if we wait for proof then the time to react in either direction will have passed.

2) CO2 either DOES or DOES NOT affect the environment as a whole, ultimately it has become a political football.

3) We ARE treating the earth like a whore.

There is nothing we can do about the first 2 facts.

Re:Shhh!

[microbox]

The Romans in England grew wine grapes, and the Vikings had dairy farms in Greenland. Vinland was in Labrador.

These were localised phenomena. It was also quite cold in East Asia at the same time. Don't forget we're talking global climate change.

Re:Shhh!

[frogzilla]

True, the vikings had dairy cows on Greenland. The fact is that at the time of viking colonization Greenland was a miserable place (climate wise, I can't speak to the cultural milieu of the time) as it is now. There were only ever a few small pockets of land, in sheltered bays, on the coast, suitable for habitation by farmers. Even then their lives were not easy. They could barely make it work. People have lived on Greenland since the time of the vikings and even with modern comforts it's not an easy place to live.

Re:Shhh!

[geekoid]

Not true. the speed at which we are trending, and the fact that the trend doesn't match other trends for non-manmade enviromental impacts.

The excess CO2 is another factor in the climate; one that's make achanges at an alarming rate.

Re:Shhh!

[DriedClexler]

The Romans tried growing wine in England, but they failed, producing very poor quality wine:

LOL! "Poor quality wine"? That can only mean that they didn't define "liking Britannia wine" as part of what it meant to be a "good cultured Roman citizen".

Seriously, wine "quality" is totally an artifact of the social consensus.

I'm not trying to use the old "they used to make wine in England" argument, nor am I trying to deny the significance of global warming, but one data point I would completely ignore is wine "quality".

Re:Shhh!

[Hellsbells]

Look, the Ancient Romans wrote that England's weather was too cold and too wet to grow grapes for making wine.

I didn't post to argue about the Roman civilization's taste in wine, just to disprove the myth that England was some kind of dry, warm wine growing paradise during Roman times. There are plenty of other sources of temperature data in England to support this assertion.

Re:Shhh!

[silburnl]

"Non-anthropomorphic causes of warming do not satisfactoryly explain the current warming tend."? You do know that this isn't the warmest the Earth's ever been, right?

I like how a less than one degree of change over the past 200 years is clearly not normal. What's even more interesting is that pro-global warming charts only go back 200 years or so (some go back 500 years). And not say...back past 10,000 years ago. Which was the end of the last ice age. Of which there have been many.

I'm not going to go so far as to say with 100% certainty that mankind isn't responsible for any of the warming. However, until you (and pro-global warming people like you) even acknowledge that the planet changes its temperate most of the time, I just can't take you seriously.

Quite remarkable.

Para 1 asserts a commonplace of paleoclimatology (something as basic as 'the sky is blue') as though it were some damascene revelation that all the 'pro-global warming people' are completely unaware of.

Para 2 then claims that we don't have the records going back to the last ice age that are the prime evidence in support of the fact mentioned in para 1. To the OP - if we don't have this evidence then what is your basis for claiming that the Earth has been warmer in the past?

Finally in para 3 he chides the 'pro-global warming people' that he won't take them seriously unless they acknowledge the 'fact' from para 1, even though it was 'pro-global warming people' who gathered the evidence (that he claims doesn't exist) for this fact in the first place...

I haven't seen such a beautifully incoherent piece of denialist rhetoric in oh... days.

Regards
Luke

Re:Shhh!

[DriedClexler]

I agree with you on that. I thought I was clear about it :-/

Day 322 - Shore leave.

[djupedal]

The climate on shore is, well, far from dreary. Safe to say all hands finding no restrictions to exploration of terrain. Clear, smooth and moist in all the right places.

ARRGH!!

[Anonymous Coward]

There be too much booty!

"Bounty"

[adavies42]

I see what you did there!

it's all about the snowfall

[stokessd]

There's little hope that the log books had accurate temperature readings, but the climate change could be inferred from things like snow depths on fiji. In fact I'm pretty sure the average snowfall on fiji has remained pretty constant in the last couple centuries, potentially refuting this whole global warming thing.

Sheldon

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[wizardforce]

Do you have any evidence to back up your assertion? The whole point of this work is to gather more data and possibly confirm or refute your hunch on the matter. Climate science can not rely on a hunch, it needs data and that means utilizing data from every source we can.

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh.

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[Anonymous Coward]

Please note that s/he said "fiji", not "Fuji".

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[Anonymous Coward]

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Does_it_snow_in_fiji

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[RuBLed]

Bazinga!

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[st0nes]

Even today most ship weather observations are little better than estimates, especially when it comes to wind speeds. The officer of the watch looks at the sea state and makes an estimate based on the Beaufort Scale. Sea temperatures are measured from an engine room intake that is often in a "hot" area such as a seperator room, so aren't spectacularly accurate, either. Cloud taxonomy and coverage are subjectively estimated by looking at the sky, and so on. Atmospheric pressure is usually fairly accurate because there is a requirement to have barometers checked for annual surveys. I refer to merchant ships of which I have experience, not naval. I should imagine that three hundred years ago weather observations, whilst not useless, should be regarded with some sceptisism and certainly not considered accurate.

Re:it's all about the snowfall

[sorak]

Bazinga!

Is that yiddish for "whoosh!"

A small glitch in the weather readings

[Waffle Iron]

Captain Bligh's log for April 28, 1789 contains only this scrawled entry:

"I'll see them all hanging from the highest yardarm in the British Fleet!"

Re:A small glitch in the weather readings

[ZarathustraDK]

27. April 1789

Well, we've been seriously delayed, the weather sucks. At least it can't get much worse.

28. April 1789

OMG FAILBOAT!

Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[novae_res]

Have any of these climatologists considered climate change is a natural cycle of the planet? The ice record reveals that the extreme swings which our planet undergoes in each cycle are perfectly natural. And the evidence clearly shows that CO2 levels increase after warming occurs, not the other way around. This whole pseudo-science is fundamentally flawed. The idea that we as humans can control or even reverse this process is highly egotistical, and perhaps even delusional, for a single super volcano can produce more CO2 and other pollutants than we can collectively in 20 years. Now I do agree that excess energy consumption and general pollution should be reduced as that impacts all of us, but all this climate change propaganda drives me nuts!

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[Anonymous Coward]

The idea that we as humans can control or even reverse this process is highly egotistical, and perhaps even delusional, for a single super volcano can produce more CO2 and other pollutants than we can collectively in 20 years

I think your post is egotistical to assume that we don't have an impact. Facts:

1. Trees take CO2 out of the atmosphere. We have a lot less trees today because of human activities.

2. Fossil Fuels when burned release CO2 into the atmosphere. We have been burning it relentlessly for the last 100 years. Without human activities, all this CO2 would be trapped in the earth.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[twotailakitsune]

I think what the climate change people are saying is that the movement from world cold to world less cold is faster then in our past. Maybe it is the other way from what the dinosaurs had. I do not know why they care so much about CO2. We need to deal with the other pollution 1st.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[kenwd0elq]

Of COURSE human activities have an impact on CO2 levels. It's just that, compared to NATURAL causes, the anthropogenic factors are relatively small. Primitive "slash and burn" agriculture probably released FAR more CO2 than our more "refined" techniques do today. Trees? North America probably has more forested acres now, under cultivation, that EVER grew wild. I agree that we need to reduce CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels, but I would further suggest that petroleum is too valuable as feedstocks for chemical processes to be wantonly incinerated for fuel. We should be heating our homes with electricity - from NUKES! Or solar-power satellites.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[jfengel]

Have any of these climatologists considered climate change is a natural cycle of the planet?

Why... no! No they haven't! Thank you for bringing that to their attention.

How astute of you to see what none of the several thousand PhDs working the subject for the last few decades have noticed. I'm sure they'll get to work on your brilliant insight right away.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[Idiomatick]

Responding only cause you got modded up

Of course they considered it, the ice records to which you refer were constructed by climatologists. I mean... it was their idea.

The evidence doesn't show that, it shows temperature increases out pacing co2 but the co2 increases first according to ice cores. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg

Calling it a psuedoscience is just name calling.

A super volcano has a massive cooling effect, they throw up a ton, many tons of sediment and global cooling gasses into the atmosphere this basically shadows the earth and cools the earth, krakatoa is a good example. Next when volcanoes produce a lot of co2 they do not produce more than mankind does and they don't produce a lot of other greenhouse gasses we do. We make 120x the CO2 vs all the volcanoes (including underwater). http://environment.about.com/od/greenhouseeffect/a/volcano-gas.htm

Egotistical? Hell I bet if we set our minds to it mankind could cut down every tree on the planet in a half dozen years. We've wrapped the planet in wires. Built cities so wide spread that at night (on the dark side..) when you look at the planet from space you clearly see lights across the whole damn thing. We could easily extinct almost any animal we choose in a year. Saying humans can't have an impact because the world is so big is very 1800s of you but I assure you it isn't still true.

Propaganda? When is the last time 1000s of scientists got together and lied? Hell pretty much ALL scientists (over 95%) in agreement. NEVER.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[misanthrope101]

Have any of these climatologists considered climate change is a natural cycle of the planet?

Do you seriously think that hasn't been considered? Seriously? Do you seriously think that climatologists all over the world are so mind-numbingly stupid that that hasn't occurred to anyone? Yes, that has been addressed, time and again. We are *worsening* and *accelerating* the warming. No one has said that climate never ever changed until humans screwed stuff up. The only way you can ask that question is if you've only gotten your information from right-wing BS sources like Beck.

The idea that we as humans can control or even reverse this process is highly egotistical

The idea is that we are having a negative impact on our environment, and that we should try to minimize that as much as possible. No one said we can master global climate and roll back the clock. The simple acknowledgement that human action can degrade the environment in which we live is not egotistical--it's pretty much the opposite of that. It's not arrogant to say we have the capacity to damage our environment. If you think we can have no impact on the environment, then sit in a closed garage with a car running for a few hours. Should you turn off the car and open the garage door, or would it be arrogant to think you can avoid killing yourself by cutting back on the pollution you're pouring into your immediate environment?

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[rsclient]

No, they're all thick as posts. So dumb, several types of rocks have more intelligence. They are so woefully short of understanding their instruments, they regularly burn down their labs. They have so little knowledge of the animals they study, they leave out saucers of milk for the lions. Heck, most of the vulcanologists think the red oozy stuff is badly made jello!

And they thank you for pointing out that you, a mere Slashdot reader, have managed to understand more about global climate change in five minutes of careful study (six, if you include the fox news commercials) then they've learned in ten years of careful data collection and vigorous debate. Wow! What a champ you are!

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell no they haven't considered that, they would all be out of jobs.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[mjwx]

Have any of these climatologists considered climate change is a natural cycle of the planet?

Oddly enough yes. You haven't trumped the entire field of meteorological sciences, sorry.

Historically rapid temperature changes (in geological times) have coincided with significant events or more specifically extinction level events such as a super volcano or asteroid impact. The temperature of this planet does not vary rapidly in the space of 200 years on its own. a heating or cooling event occuring naturally should take thousands of years, not hundreds.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[ericrost]

Yawn!

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[Chris Burke]

I don't think you need to link realclimate.org, because if I'm not mistaken, the OP was generated by a script that grabs random misconceptions from realclimate.org and strings them together. Or the same was done manually. :)

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[ericrost]

I think you're mistaking realclimate.org for some other site. realclimate.org specifically refutes the inane misconceptions that are out there from AGW deniers.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[Chris Burke]

I think you're mistaking realclimate.org for some other site. realclimate.org specifically refutes the inane misconceptions that are out there from AGW deniers.

Nope, I'm well aware. That was my whole point, that realclimate.org is basically a list of well-refuted misconceptions. So by creating a post by stringing those together, you're creating a post that is pre-refuted.

Even though my "theory" is just a joke, I don't think it's an accident that at least when I last looked at it, the OP was modded funny. :)

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[frogzilla]

Dear Fellow Human,

You have shown incredible disrespect to a large number of hard working professional people. If any one of these people came to your work place and mocked you in this manner you would become quite upset. Please consider the following. The basic principles involved in actually understanding climate are not difficult. If you are capable of high school math and are willing to accept a few results from thermodynamics and physics in general you can actually do the math yourself. A simple model of radiative equilibrium is actually something you can write down and solve with pencil and paper, yes even including an atmosphere with "greenhouse" gases. After that, yes, it does become more complex. It turns out that the climate system contains many interconnected processes that respond to forcing in feedback loops. Computers do become necessary. However, the physics and mathematics behind it all are accessible. Please do yourself the favour of using your mind a little. You might be surprised how useful a tool it is.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[novae_res]

Erm.. I'm not a bot lol. And I did do a small amount of research into the subject, but of course I'm willing to keep an open mind. That article was interesting, if not perhaps a little beyond my understanding. From what I could discern, the article admits to this temperture-CO2 differential, but argues that regardless of ice-core evidence, the increase of CO2 production has an amplifying effect and thus increases temperatures further. Still however, I don't see any long term evidence of how increasing CO2 levels affects temperatures. And before you label me as a troll or dismiss me as right wing, I do believe in reducing pollution and caring for the environment in which we live. I simply believe in questioning everything.

Re:Shock Horror - the climate changes!

[novae_res]

I do apologise if I offended anyone. I was merely stating my opinion on the matter and meant no disrespect to anyone in the field. Of course I'm only a layman, but the ice-core samples do belie the popular belief of human induced global warming theory. I may not be a math or science wiz, nor did I conduct all the calculations done by climatologists, yet the ice-core evidence is readily understandable and does suggest a disconnect between increasing temperatures and CO2 levels.

Even modern data isn't accurate

[Ritchie70]

I hit a reference to this in the Analog magazine I'm currently reading:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf

Entitled "Is the U.S. Surface Temperature Record Reliable?" it reviews the accuracy of the current US surface temperature measurement network and finds it woefully lacking for the sort of analysis that results in things like 0.7 degree changes over decades.

As a quick summary, there are the following issues with the temperature measurement methodology:

1. The measuring statements are often either surrounded by asphalt or in the air path of air conditioning exhaust or other hot air.
2. Data points are often not collected, and the missing points are created by interpolation.
3. Exterior finish specification changed from whitewash to latex paint, and that change has a significant impact on measurement results.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

If I recall correctly, the Australian pan evaporation rate data suggests it is getting warmer, and they are some pretty accurate data.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Kevinv]

answers here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/07/no-man-is-an-urban-heat-island/

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Anonymous Coward]

Watts spent most of his meteorology time as a TV weatherman, so he assumes everyone else has just heard of the urban heat island effect. In fact it makes little difference and NASA already corrects for it. He's like the Kent Hovind of meteorology.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Tracy Reed]

Modern data IS accurate. The report you linked to is not. You are going to LOVE this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_0-gX7aUKk

That weather station location study discussed in the video you linked to attracted the attention of NOAA who wrote a reply:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/about/response-v2.pdf

Those white boxes which make up the old style weather stations that Anthony Watts (the guy who did the video you linked to) is investigating are called "Stevenson screens".

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

They form the oldest weather network in the US. They have been replaced with much newer units. The stevenson screen setups don't even have anemometers.

But the data from those stations are only a very small fraction of all of the weather measurements taking place on earth. Satellites have been used extensively:

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

As have radiosondes attached to weather balloons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiosonde

as well as many other natural indications.

Quoted from the above linked video:

> In order to test the validity of Mr. Watts' accusations,
> the NOAA scientists made a comparison of
> temperature trends, using Mr. Watts' data. Two graphs
> were plotted using the same technique. One analysis
> was for the full data set of 1221 US weather stations.
> The other used only the 70 stations that Mr. Watts and
> his volunteers classified as "good" or "best". If climate
> denier theories are correct, the temperatures at the
> optimally sited stations should be markedly different
> from the data as a whole. In fact, the curves show
> virtually no difference. That's right. Even using the
> cherry-picked stations listed in Watts' publication, the
> data -- according to leading scientists at NOAA --
> shows no evidence of distortion.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[IflyRC]

If climate denier theories are correct...

What the heck is a climate denier? THERE IS NO CLIMATE. ITS ALL IN YOUR MIND

Actually, that statement right there already tells me that the article has an agenda.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Troed]

When quoting on a debated subject, always make sure you're using the most current information. That quote and investigation has been falsified. Oddly enough, NOAA scientists don't seem to know much statistics ;) While they claim they use the data from those 70 stations, in reality they apply a modification algorithm to it first. It's like wanting to compare apples and oranges, but starts out by genetically modifying the apples into oranges and then act surprised when oranges actually are like other oranges! :)

You'll find the info at the end here, after all the rants about the video:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/07/30/on-climate-comedy-copyrights-and-cinematography/

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Tracy Reed]

Homogenization or not, what we are looking for is a temperature change over time. Homogenization will not affect that. He dodges that issue.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Ritchie70]

I have no idea how correct the report I linked is.

If I'd thought about it, it would have occurred to me that people who do know about the issue would respond, and that's really one of the great things about Slashdot.

I do, however, still think the report is interesting, even taking into account its issues and perhaps bias.

Re:Even modern data isn't accurate

[Troed]

That depends on the homogenization process, and as far as I understand it it would indeed affect temperature over time. If you have other information then feel free to reply with your view of the process.

The correct action to take would of course be to use non-homogenized data. The reason they didn't is either incompetence or by purpose.

Time to get my grant boilerplate updated

[Anonymous Coward]

I will be applying for "Maritime Paleoclimatology Researcher" grants now.

And This is How the Data Will be Used

[Anonymous Coward]

Multiply the rate of natural disasters from the time period by the percentage of warming since then, and immediately use it to SCARE THE SHIT OUT OF EVERYONE.

filtered for quality too

[danlip]

The thought that you could hit a reef was a great incentive to get your observations absolutely right

And filters out the data of the people who got it wrong!

Limited use

[SEWilco]

Too bad it's of limited use. Day 175: No breadfruit.
Day 176: No breadfruit.
Day 177: Breadfruit.
Day 178: No breadfruit.

CO2 is 400ppm

[bobbuck]

Not to be a jerk, but it's really less than 400 parts per million. 0.04%

(I know, you want me at your next party...)

Captain Bligh's powers of observation ...

[PPH]

... left something to be desired as far as the morale of his crew was concerned.

I agree, climate change isnt real (troll)

[bug1]

I feel sorry for all these climate change people, they have all been sucked in. As you point out, the data that climate change bases its information on might have been influenced by external events (like hot air, CO2 etc).

I even heard a rumour that all this climate change shenanigans is just a cover story being driven by lobbyists from the Dutch Windmill Company Pty Ltd, apparently they have some patents on windmills and they have executing a now 30 year plan to destroy the oil industry, an industry that is essential if we are to maintain our mass produced throw away culture.

The Odyssy of Odysseus

[flyingfsck]

Hmmm, my analysis of The Odyssy (written in the 9th century BC), suggests that the climate in the Mediteranean was pretty much the same as today while sea levels have gone down dramatically in some areas and up in others.

Re:The Odyssy of Odysseus

[Petrushka]

Hmmm, my analysis of The Odyssy (written in the 9th century BC), suggests that the climate in the Mediteranean was pretty much the same as today while sea levels have gone down dramatically in some areas and up in others.

Quite aside from the fact that you really need to start using a spell-checker, it would be kind of hard for the Odyssey to be written a century or two before the invention of the Greek alphabet.

(I probably wouldn't have even picked on this if your joke had been funny.)

Re:The Odyssy of Odysseus

[radtea]

it would be kind of hard for the Odyssey to be written a century or two before the invention of the modern Greek alphabet.

Fixed that for you. The Greeks wrote in Linear B prior the the Greek Dark Age. Admittedly, in 900 BC they weren't writing anything that we know of, although it's possible that oral versions of stories that resulted in the Homeric poems have their origins in that time, much as the stories of King Arthur have their origins centuries before Mallory et al.

Now all that's required is for some even more pedantic person to reply to this pointing out that the classical Greek alphabet differs from the modern one.

No need to go back that far, just look at first...

[herojig]

No need to go back that far, just look at the first IPCC assessment report issued by the UN. Then look at the second, third, and subsequent. The initial report concluded that natural causes are to blame. Then read what Nils-Axel MÃrner, the leading Swedish paleogeophysicist has to say about the UN fudging the numbers in later reports. Then read the recent IPCC report, and note that the #1 concern is cow farts. Thus conclude it's all about bullshit.

Did Bligh have Aspergers?

[Capsaicin]

Go read a book.

I read quite a few actually, but there's one book I'd particularly like to read, namely the one you are citing to establish your claim that the Pitcairn Islands have seen 250 years of continuous child rape. Or was that merely defamatory? (And yes I'm familiar with the more recent events).

Seeing Mel Gibson as Christian, while I'm sure it gave you a stiffy, is not an accurate portrayal.

What do you base this certainty on? I'm sorry, I don't share your homo-erotic attraction to Mel Gibson. I haven't actually seen the movie you are referring to, but I'm glad you enjoyed it. But look Bligh was not the first, nor would he be the last captain to suffer mutiny. It's his subsquent career that reveals the full extent of his ineptitude. And once familiar with his failings, that particular mutiny will be seen in a different light.

As far as the rebellion, your own link provides plenty of information indicating that success on the part of Bligh was nearly impossible given how many factors were stacked against him.

You're right. Bligh was never going to achieve what he sent out to do. He simply lacked any political or interpersonal skills. To carry out his ambitions would have required both of these in abundance. Apparently he also lacked any realistic understanding of his limitations or even the ability to learn from his past mistakes in mishandling command. He was a pretty nifty sailor though, it's a shame they let him anywhere near any position that required people skills. What legacy (apart from the street bearing his name) did he leave behind in NSW?

Compare and contrast Bligh's litany of failure with the tenure his successor Macquarie who eventually was recalled because London became alarmed at his being too successful and, not to mention, independent (a la Douglas MacArthur in Japan).

Re:Did Bligh have Aspergers?

[gmhowell]

Interesting question you pose. An original thought, or something you picked up elsewhere?

This is the book that recites the modern events. It's clear from a reading that sexual abuse has been an issue on Pitcairn for far longer than Steve Christian and his father have been around.250 years may be a slight exaggeration, but 100 years is supported by at least one account from the turn of the last century (referenced in the book).

Now, on the the question of governorship: how does an inability to govern an island while London is undermining you support a claim that Bligh was inept at captaining a naval vessel. One must also look at his crossing to Timor (?? I can't remember if that's where he went after the mutiny) as an indicator of a set of skills that you and I certainly do not possess. IIRC, he continued his mapping mission while this was underway as well.

Re:Did Bligh have Aspergers?

[Capsaicin]

Interesting question you pose. An original thought, or something you picked up elsewhere?

I'm not sure which particular question you are referring to, but since almost all my thoughts are interesting, chances are it was original. ;)

This is the book that recites the modern events. It's clear from a reading that sexual abuse has been an issue on Pitcairn for far longer than Steve Christian and his father have been around.250 years may be a slight exaggeration, but 100 years is supported by at least one account from the turn of the last century (referenced in the book).

Props for coming up with a reference, props for admitting the rhetorical hyperbole. The fact that sexual abuse is not entirely new on Pitcairn should hardly come as a surprise, given it's remoteness and relative lack of government. Nor is sexual abuse necessarily limited to the remote and ungoverned corners of the world. In any case I think we can both agree now, that this is unlikely to be caused by the genetic legacy of the mutineers. Now just reversing your next observations:

One must also look at his crossing to Timor (?? I can't remember if that's where he went after the mutiny) as an indicator of a set of skills that you and I certainly do not possess. IIRC, he continued his mapping mission while this was underway as well.

Oh I agree that he was a skilled mariner. As I wrote "[h]e was a pretty nifty sailor." Indeed my dig about Aspergers in the changed subject was to imply a certain geekishness, that is to say, technical skills: high, interpersonal skills: low.

Now, on the the question of governorship: how does an inability to govern an island while London is undermining you support a claim that Bligh was inept at captaining a naval vessel.

Because the skill set for being an extra-ordinary captain, as Cook apparently was, are the combination of technical and people skills. As I said, one mutiny could be forgiven, two (and the second far better documented) reveals how terrible was his lack of political and managerial skills. Skills, in addition to Bligh's nautical expertise, you and I also don't necessarily have.

You have to understand that from the point of view of an historian living in NSW, the Bounty episode was trivial in comparison to his governorship. Accordingly you'll note in my original post, I pay hardly any attention to his naval career, focussing instead on the more important events. Macquarie found himself in a situation hardly less difficult (admittedly the reformation of the troops helped tremendously), and by a variety of strategies was able, if not quite break the back of the elite, at least diminish their power tremendously. In part (and only in part, Macquarie could be quite the despot when required), he did this by advancing men (sic) of talent, even (or perhaps) especially ex-convicts. Moreover Macquarie was able to advance the colony tremendously. His genius puts in sharp relief Bligh's lack thereof.

Re:Did Bligh have Aspergers?

[Capsaicin]

The word 'tremendously' really got away from me in that last paragraph %(

Re:Did Bligh have Aspergers?

[gmhowell]

I'll defer to you on the governorship, as my knowledge of the subject begins and ends with Wikipedia articles.

But let me ask this: was Bligh's poor performance as governor based on absolute merits, or on his abilities relative to his predecessor?

A *royal* pain in the butt...

[Anonymous Coward]

The temperature are accurate. actually, very accurate.

Although scanning them will preserve them, they are handwritten.
OCR is completely and utterly useless.
You have to type them all in,
and then have someone verify them...

Its 40,000 pages of dangling chads. Have a look!

It will takes approximately a fortnight to get the page to a accuracy where it would be usefull.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46500000/jpg/_46500485_shipslogbounty.jpg

Feel like transcribing that?

Quality of data ...

[Netssansfrontieres]

Some of the old data can be of great quality - so these exercises can be highly useful.

A couple of decades ago, I worked - as a student intern - at British institution. A question came in on wave heights in the North Sea ... a firm was wondering about engineering tolerances for oil rigs and such. I had to go to the data: much from the last few decades was already computerized and I did a quite stats analysis - and was surprised at how many BIG waves were observed. This would be very costly to the rig builders ... so I was told to go and re-sift the recent data and dig up older data. The recent data sift yielded the same output. The old data ... going back to the 1700s ... showed the same statistical patterns (so long as you squinted at it a bit - the responsible sailors either were not at sea and certainly were not taking measurements in big storms, or didn't get to survive). The outcome was - as I recall - that in this particular spot of the North Sea, you'd see a wave (or cluster of waves) over 40' high every two or so months.

The reason for the tight correlation, of course, is that the data was being taken the same way: sextants and the like, with data literally tabulated by hand: and - registered vessels had someone on board whose job it was to take and log the data - it wasn't something done ad hoc. The systemic errors were consistent for two-plus centuries. Data since the 1980s is automated and since the 1990s is from satellite maps.

Forget the logs...

[__aaclcg7560]

They should search all the old maps to locate the sea monsters and Atlantis.

Re:Forget the logs...

[maxume]

They are over thar.

Science is BAD, m'kay?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are not entitled to an opinion when it comes to science. You need to earn this.

How dare you say he's not entitled to an opinion. This is a democracy! Everyone is an expert on everything! Well everyone apart from the scientists, obviously. They're all evil atheistic conspirators hell bent on installing a liberal-communistic international dictatorship and filling the minds of the unsuspecting with lies.

Remember, if more than three scientists agree on anything, you know it must be a lie!

Dr.Wheeler

[BigBadBus]

I know Dr Wheeler; at one point he was reported as researching the weather and ice patterns leading up to the Titanic's sinking. Nothing came of this, and I did a study myself.

Darwin ?

[smoker2]

Why is the Beagle only noted for Darwin when the other Captains are mentioned by name ? Robert Fitzroy was the captain of the Beagle on Darwins voyage, and it is his logs that are being digitized.

Re:No need to go back that far, just look at first

[mvdwege]

How about you produce some quotes to prove that? I say you are lying.

Mart

Surely...

[mingle]

... the logbooks will be online next year at the UK's National AAARRRchives!

Brazil

[zogger]

This mixture is probably better represented in Brazil today than the US, so it gives a sneak peek into what humans will look like in the future.

This will probably happen unless someone or group releases some "race" specific/tagged bioweapon. Of course we could easily see an entire human "race" bioweapon that would be near unstoppable, say it had a very long incubation period.

I think if we do make it 500 years civilization will be pretty neat though, just judging by the last century of development. It's a big "if" right now though I think.

Re:Brazil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Nearly every civilization has fallen, which usually meant the death of > 99% of it's people.

Easter Island, Inca's, Maya's, (and there were several others in that region), Lots of Chinese civilizations, Buddhists, Persians, Babylon, Mamluks, Ottoman (the various "muslim" (though mostly less than 10% actual muslims) civlizations), ... all have perished and taken a huge death toll in their last few years.

But we can derive a lot of hope. Western, Christian civilization now continuously exists for over 1500 years. You might even say 2000 years. That's a hell of a long time, and few others have ever reached that age.

I disagree with the bioweapon stuff. Ethnic cleansing, whether we're talking about the muslim black gold (the muslim slave trade in blacks), or even the WWII atrocities against jews and pow's were done using relatively low tech means. The vast majority of victims died of starvation and illness. The quintessential state that comitted masses of ethnic cleansing, the muslim mongol state, did so manually. Using just knives, they literally massacred their way into majority in an area larger than the entire US. Whatever the weapons, the ideology behind them is to blame. The main ideologies that have comitted massive ethnic cleansing in history are well known : islam, fascism and communism. Those are to blame, nothing else.

Besides, those massacres did not allow them to survive, and for all their troubles, they (mongols) got massacred by the arabs. Funny how things turn out.

Re:Brazil

[CrimsonAvenger]

Nearly every civilization has fallen, which usually meant the death of > 99% of it's people.

No.

While it is true that many civilizations have "fallen", in almost no cases were those falls accompanies by loss of 99% of the people of those civilizations.

Note also that your definitions of "civilization" are largely arbitrary, and designed to support your conclusion. Lumping the various European civilizations together into one "Western Christian civilization" is misleading, at the least.

Re:Brazil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Note also that your definitions of "civilization" are largely arbitrary, and designed to support your conclusion. Lumping the various European civilizations together into one "Western Christian civilization" is misleading, at the least.

Perhaps. However there is a continuing civilization during all that period. You would be correct to state there is no continuous state structure (though in that contest western civilization also "wins" : Christian empires populate 4 positions out of 5 for longest existing state structure, otoh that form of state doesn't exist anymore ...)

Nevertheless everyone who looks at the different other civilizations, and where to split them will agree with the massive split that existed, for example between Inca's and Maya's. Or the massive split that the shift from abbasids to mamluks to ottomans represented. These, despite current propaganda to the contrary, represented huge differences in the way everyday life proceeded in those parts. Just to name one thing : they each burned their predecessor's books (and yes there are *some* ottoman exceptions, but not many).

I realize that today you have this "multiculturalism" that states all cultures are "equal". I haven't got a clue what "equal" means in that sentence though. I can tell you what it does not mean :

it does not mean human rights accomplishment equality ... all human rights are singularly the product of western civilization (specifically it's origin is catholic)

it does not mean cultural accomplishment equality ... 90% of all cultural accomplishment occured within western christian civilization. The rest being the largely the product of very active tiny minorities, the Jews being the most famous example, but Japanese belong in there, along with a few (tiny) Chinese kingdoms. Even though these had an output far greater than their numbers would suggest, they are only a small influence in the total. muslims, mongols, Incas, or Mayans just either did not produce any significant amount of culture, or failed massively in the preservation of it.

it does not mean economic accomplishment equality ... I doubt there is any need for further comments here. Note, though that the situation you see today in economics has been "roughly" a constant throughout history : western christians having large numbers and large output, several minorities having large output disproportionate to their numbers (Japan, Jews), and the rest of the planet ... basically does nothing at all. Generally the rest of the planet doesn't even have an economy at the subsistence level, but actually below it (and "aided" by the rest)

it does not mean scientific accomplishment equality ... there are precious few civilizations that have noteworthy accomplishments, Mayans, Incas, Chinese, Japanese, and Christian. All of these, except Japanese and Christians managed to destroy their scientific accomplishments. Muslims inherited massive scientific knowledge from their conquests ... and destroyed what they had instead of building upon it.

Individuals are equal, and even then, only at birth. In practice, they are only equal in the eyes of the law. As accomplishments mount (or fail to mount) people do not remain equal. Cultures, ideas, economic systems, countries,religions (or "lack of such") ... are not equal.

Sorry if your current political ideology requires revisionism. It truly sucks in that way. I will not cater to such revisionism, however.

Re:Brazil

[CrimsonAvenger]

Nevertheless everyone who looks at the different other civilizations, and where to split them will agree with the massive split that existed, for example between Inca's and Maya's.

You almost convinced me that you weren't totally clueless, until this point.

In case you weren't aware, the Incas were an Andean civilization, and the Mayans a Central American one. Neither had the slightest thing to do with each other, so it wasn't a case of "one fell, the other rose in its ashes". It would've been about as insightful to discuss the "massive split that existed, for example, between Chinese and Zulus"...

Perhaps if you'd said "Mayan and Aztec", you might've appeared to be less clueless, but, alas, you didn't.

Re:Brazil

[jbengt]

Man, are you off base.
Some of the greatest accomplishments of civilization came from the non-christian middle east, including the alphabet; the numbering system, including the concept of zero; algebra; astronomy.
Plus ,where do you get the idea that there are 4 types of human out of 400 in the past? There's only one species of human now, there has only been at most 2 in the last 10's of thousands of years. And, biologically speaking, the human "races" are not really separate races, but, as you said, have only minor differences due to adapting to brief geographical separations.

Re:Brazil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Let's analyse the concepts :

-> alphabet : came out of Egypt (which is not considered part of the middle east. Those Egyptians specifically that it came to were Indo-Europeans. We're not sure if they were Jewish, in fact we think not, but there were Jews amongst them). Besides if you're a linguist and you look at that first alphabet, you'll see it's similar to Hebrew, even though we've not been able to translate them.

-> numbering system : The hindu numerals (the ones we use) : was created by Hindu Indians, some of which were subsequently kidnapped by muslims and sold into slavery. One of them escaped to Venice. The rest is history.

-> concept of zero : came as a free desert with the last one.

-> astronomy. Conceived of in Egypt. Again possibly by Jews. Not middle eastern.

Any more you need the history off ? The totality of important "middle eastern" (we all know you mean muslim) scientific minds is ... 2. Muslims have probably destroyed more (esp. more varied) scientific knowledge than we have today, and their own contributions can be counted, not on 2 hands. Not on one hand. Half of one hand is more than sufficient. For both cases, it is questionable if the person involved was really muslim, since their family was not. It is truly a pitiful history. Unless, of course, you count kidnapping and selling scientists into slavery as some sort of scientific achievement.

There are multiple species of the family "Hominidae" alive today, there are multiple, and historically there have been a great deal of different hominid species. Nearly all were evolutionary dead ends and do not have any descendants at all alive today. That same fate awaits over 99% of us too, of course.

The human "races" are most certainly separate races, they're just not separate species (and with a few races you could say that perhaps they are. Normally the determinant is if members of both groups cannot produce viable offspring. It is assumed possible that humans can successfully conceive with pygmees, but it's most certainly extremely difficult. Those people, however, are so extremely similar to us that you probably would never want to say they're a separate species.

Having different races in a species is in actuality an exceedingly rare phenomenon (and a temporary phenomenon). But because people are seeing an exceptional situation they don't realize just how rare it is. The same goes for religion, the "peaceful" religions are few and far between. All natural religions that I've ever taken a look at have exceedingly violent daily life for their adherents. So do most "world religions". But all people know here is Christianity, that's all they see around them, and so "everyone wants peace". Riiiight.

I know your political ideology requires massive revisionism in order to make sense (since tolerance, for example, versus muslims is not likely to increase our accomplishments in any way, nor will it be reciprocated by tolerance from them. In fact I daresay any state that chose to do so regretted it enormously).

Aren't you supposed to be against that sort of thing, revisionism ? I mean you always seem to complain loudly about it. Of course with "liberals" in general accusing others seems to be considered a way to project their own faults away.

Re:Brazil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

The incas and mayas have fought wars. So presumably one would state that they did, in fact, have something to do with eachother. They fought the aztecs too. Presumably there were other contacts between them than just wars.

Eventually, or so I've heard, both the Mayans and Incas went from large powers to much smaller ones due to internal conflict, long before the arrival of the first European. The power of the empires was broken before Pizarro "broke" it.

Re:Brazil

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Dude, you totally fail ancient history. Please go learn something about it. There are books that have been around since the late 19th century, written by white Europeans, that contradict you, let alone more modern works. (So you can drop your "revisionism" scarecrow).

I've heard all that tired old white supremacist drivel before, and dressing it up in new clothes doesn't make it any fresher or any less stupid. Please stop embarassing those of us who take history, Western Civilization, and all other civilizations seriously.

Re:Brazil

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

Just so I might learn. What exactly is wrong ?

Is the alphabet an ancient Egyptian invention ? Yes/no ...
Is the numeral system we use Indian (Hindu) ? Yes/no ... ...

What exactly is wrong ?

The Real Cause of Climate Change

[BodhiCat]

Everyone knows that the real cause of global warming is the decline in the number of pirates. Global Temperature vs. Number of Pirates

Don't let facts get in the way!

[Anonymous Coward]

For the last decade there has been no global warming, at all, while producing more CO2 than ever. During that decade we have taken measurements with the goal of testing global warming, and found none. These measurements are taken from all over the world, and are the most accurate and analyzable (for sources of error, etc.) that we have or will have. The have uncovered _global cooling_.

Scientifically, this _necessarily_ throws global warming into serious doubt. The assertion that global warming exists cannot be made without correcting the errors in the old GW model to properly align with our current observations. The idea that some old temperature logs made with an uncalibrated thermometer by someone without a particular interest in accuracy could overshadow careful modern measurements is a sick joke.

The real deniers at this point are the ones that insist that global warming is a fact.

You believe that these NASA statistics that show over a century of (increasingly fast) global warming are error in calibration?

In science you have observations and make hypothesis and theories based on them but global warming is neither a hypothesis or a theory. It is very observable fact in itself!

Be skeptic of whether it was caused by humans or not if you want to but don't try to come up with bullshit about global cooling or such. It's sad that you have been modded +4 by the "skeptics" who don't - as usual - pay attention to whether the "facts" in your post were true or not.

Yeah, but

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . will they include how many lashes were given for buggery in the forepeak?

Lewis & Clark Measurements

[swimsaturn]

This reminds me a lot of something one of my grad-school professors did: he looked at Lewis & Clark's compass & sextant measurements to re-construct the magnetic field declination in the interior continental US ~200 years ago: http://www.geosociety.org/gsatoday/archive/13/10/ they were remarkably accurate at dead reckoning direction & distance.

Carefully provide evidence for your assertion

[microbox]

carefully selected evidence

If the entire AGW is built on carefully selected evidence, then you should have no problem providing evidence for that from the preponderance of literature out there.

Try to find a single peer-reviewed article published since 2000 that unequivocally uses carefully selected evidence, and has not been subsequently corrected. That would be a very instructive exercise for you, instead of merely parroting what other people have said to be true.

Re:Carefully provide evidence for your assertion

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but the AGW articles constantly linked from Slashdot are never peer-reviewed.

Re:Carefully provide evidence for your assertion

[je ne sais quoi]

Yes precisely. Here we are with massive companies like Exxon that have market caps in the at over 300 billion dollars (1/3 larger than MS, nearly twice apple) with an annual profit of $40 billion that not only have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and to demonstrate that "There is no anthropogenic climate change(TM)" but have been outed as willing to fund that conclusion. The entire budget spent on climage change research in the U.S. is ~$2 billion a year but is spent on research where there is no foregone conclusion. Yet, despite this HUGE disparity in the amount of money that could potentially fund a given conclusion, some significant portion of people STILL believe that data after data and analysis after analysis are the result of some liberal conspiracy to punish the capitalists and put us back into the middle ages and that there's a massive media cover-up of the real data. Its no wonder people denigrate these people as "deniers".

Re:Carefully provide evidence for your assertion

[Anonymous Coward]

I would, but the AGW articles constantly linked from Slashdot are never peer-reviewed.

Get on scientifc abstracting service and do the literature search yourself you lazy shit! It's no wonder you are a denialist dupe if you can't get any information that isn't spoon-fed to you.

Look mommy, a burning strawman!

[Chris Burke]

Yes you are correct that the climate has changed plenty of times in the past. The question is: How do you know that? Let me answer for you: Some dedicated researchers figured it out for you, told you, and you believed them. As you should, since they know what they're talking about.

Do you realize how much overlap there is between the people saying the thing you automatically believe, and the people saying the thing you automatically don't?

Fuck "common knowledge". Climatologists sure as fuck are aware that the climate has changed before without human intervention. Yet they have ample reason (as in evidence) to suggest this change is different, and those reasons even take into account previous change. Maybe you should tell one of them how the Sahara was a savannah, and therefore anthropogenic global climate change isn't occurring, because that's such a good argument!

So yeah. You won a fight against an imaginary layman less educated than yourself. Congratulations. Of course your implied counter-logic of "climate change happened before, therefore this time isn't our fault" is equally flawed.

If you get rid of the "common knowledge" aspect of your post, you're basically saying "Scientists say X which is true, and that obviously means the scientists who say Y are wrong." Except the scientists who say X don't agree with that conclusion. I wonder why? Oh yes, because it's bullshit. Your knowledge is no better than that of the strawman you burned.

Limeys

[Dareth]

You know the British sailors were called "Limeys" because they drank mojitos made with lime!

So it should go like this:

Day 176: No breadfruit. Got Rum!
Day 177: Breadfruit. Got Rum!
Day 178: No breadfruit. Out of Rum!
Day 178.5: MUTINY!

Negatively insightful

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, so I get it -- you're saying that everywhere it's easy to measure, and with avialable tools for that it's hotter, but that's just because of various human failings like doing things that make yet more heat near where we measure -- and that this heat ain't heat, because it's human generated near where we live and measure?

Wow, even on slashdot, this is a new height of circular argument.

And see the other reply. Don't get your science from guys paid to say things that keep business as usual going on so they continue to profit. Follow the money to who says there is no such thing as human caused climate change, it's most enlightening to see where the "unnamed sources" come from -- those losers quit naming names awhile back as they were so easily discredited for various reasons, including where their money came from.

I have nothing against profit, I come here when bored from playing the markets, or have made a few tens of K that day (hopefully off the baby-seal clubbers, I use the money I steal from them for better things) and decided to quit while ahead.

It's just that it's not where science comes from per se. But money is sure where most of the BS and spin in the world come from.

Say what you will about William Bligh

[Anonymous Coward]

But Lt. Bligh was an amazing navigator and kept excellent records. Yes, Lt. Bligh was Captain of the Bounty. Captain is a rank and a position, one could have the rank of Lieutenant and position of Captain in the 18th c. British navy.

Read all 3 books: Mutiny on the Bounty, Men Against the Sea and Pitcairn's Island.

Not a genius

[CarpetShark]

Let's see. Take a bunch of guys, sail them around the world to a paradise island full of naked women who screw like others say "Hello", with sunshine, good food, and pristine waters... Then tell them they've all gotta give it up and go back to working their butts off like slaves on a trip home to smelly england where fishwives throw crap onto the streets. Yeah, he was a real genius ;)

Global What!

[gormanbud]

Wait I can't keep up. Is it global cooling? Is it global warming or is it climate change? Is climate change mean it is getting cooler or warmer. Does not climate always change over a long period of time. Boy the chicken littles have it all covered how can anyone disagree. Is their a group advocating for climate stagnation where nothing happens. Just clean up the air for its own sake and stop attempting to use scare tactics to extract the maximum taxation possible. You all know the monies will be used for some cockamamie scheme or to enrich the politicos. C'mon you know its all an attempt to enrich someone other then those taxed...