Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change?

Hugh Pickens writes "David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate. But behind the scenes, a different story is emerging that offers reason for optimism: the world's largest economies may be in the process of creating a climate-change response that does not depend on the politically painful process of raising the price of dirty energy. Despite some high-profile flops, like ethanol and Solyndra, clean-energy investments seem to be succeeding more than they are failing. 'The price of solar and wind power have both fallen sharply in the last few years. This country's largest wind farm, sprawling across eastern Oregon, is scheduled to open next month. Already, the world uses vastly more alternative energy than experts predicted only a decade ago,' writes Leonhardt. Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago. Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible which, while far from perfectly clean, is less carbon-intensive than coal use. The clean-energy push has been successful enough to leave many climate advocates believing it is the single best hope for preventing even hotter summers, concludes Leonhardt, adding that while a cap-and-trade program faces an uphill political battle, an investment program that aims to make alternative energy less expensive is more politically feasible. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.'"

Comments

Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[crazyjj]

even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)

Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)? Hotter than when earth's surface was made of *molten lava*? Really?

I have no doubt that global warming is happening, and am willing to accept that the cause is, at least in part, caused by man pumping shit-tons of crap into the atmosphere. But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!! And spouting off laughably ridiculous "facts" like "the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998" only makes them sound even more like a bunch of religious zealots than they already do.

The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore, lest someone label them a GW denier.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have reading comprehension problems? The quoted text says "on record". Go look back how far we've been keeping temperature records. Nobody was sitting around with thermometers in the Paleozoic era.

FWIW, Antarctica is still a desert.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you missed the words "on record".

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[geekoid]

Bear in mind, those years where during a period where normal cycles should have been flat of slight cooler.

That's why they are more proof of Man Made Climate change.
It's also important to remind people like that because some conservatives make the bald face lie that the last decade or so was cooler. When presented with the actual facts, they refuse to reconsider their opinion. So we need to counter the people spreading that lie as well.
Could it be more precise? probably. OTOH if you want that level or precision there are plenty of excellent scientific papers on the subject

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you, at least someone gets it. We have only been keeping detailed weather records for around 100 years and now were supposed to believe that this is the hottest its ever been, thats crazy. Is climate change happening, probably. Are we the cause, partially at least. But does this mean that some catastrophic end is coming in the near future, probably not. We survived an ice age whats to say we cant survive the planet heating up a bit

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[gregulator]

All winter they tell us not to look at short term, localized temperatures. Now that it is warm, the summer's heat is proof of anthropomorphic global warming.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[CosaNostra Pizza Inc]

by "on record" I assume they are referring to direct temperature measurements. In other words, since people started recording temperatures.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Shagg]

Exactly. I'm sure climate change is real... I'm also sure it's been going on for several billion years.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[DanTheStone]

Not to mention that the U.S. also wasn't around in the Mesozoic. It's not even 250 years old.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't say on record about the 13 warmest years. It says this is the warmest on record.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[the_Bionic_lemming]

I musta missed the last few years then, when was it a middle Carboniferous era after 1998?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Sparticus789]

even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)

Didn't you know that ~160 years of climate observations determines the entire history of the planet? Unless you are a creationist who believes the Earth is 6,000 years old, that 130 years is a statistically insignificant amount of time.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

ON RECORD
I had to point this part out.

We didn't record those temperatures in core samples. Nature did that job for us. We just uncovered those temperatures.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Quantum gravity]

So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era

Detailed temperature information exists since 1850 so that must be the time range referred to.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[DeTech]

"they" are telling us not to look at the weather ("boy it's 'whatever' today"), and to look at the climate data ("ooh look at that trend line" )

If you think "they" are saying anything else you are listening to the wrong "they".

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

You and parent obviously doesn't get "warmest year on record"...

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[geekymachoman]

They just gonna use this as an excuse to push some new law which will be (again, same as last ... well, just look at last 15 years that's enough) in their interest(*) and for which you gonna pay up. By they I mean these centralized governments we have today. The others just follow that, even when they are not a part of it.
If not, the centralized governments public relationship office, namely, mainstream media, wouldn't bombard people with these sort of thing all the time. They aren't doing it because they like you, certainly not. If you think this is some sort of conspiracy theory, then you retarded.

You'll see in few years. If you not think so, then like I said above.. look at the trend from last 15 years. Imagine how world will look like in 50.

(*) Money, power, duration of exploitation of planet/resources, something else.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

So it's a natural record. No one said human record. If dinosaurs kept records, would you not count those either?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[nomadic]

"But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!"

Can you name a single person who has advocating abolishing all industry?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

hear hear!

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!

The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore, lest someone label them a GW denier.

What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate. (Since these resources generate on geological timescales, not human timescales.) Even if we don't care about the environment, once these resources are depleted, say goodbye to a high-tech human civilization unless we have developed alternative energy sources.

(Note that we will probably not be able to develop alternative energy sources once we have reached that point, since the development of alternative energy sources will require a high-tech human civilization.)

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[i kan reed]

With highish first derivatives of temperature over time being on the order of a couple of degrees C per millennium, and second derivatives operating on the order of .1 degree per millennium per millennium. To treat 1800-2015 as the same as -10000 BC to 1 AD is crazy.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[SomeKDEUser]

We'va also had 5 majour extinxion events during those millions of years. And all of them had something to do with major shifts in climate, caused by external factors: the big meteorite did not kill the dinosaurs. The nuclear winter which followed did.

Large, fast changes in climate don't matter much to life. It'll recover. We may not. Or we may, but our civilisation is a goner. Or maybe, if we are extra-lucky, we get to only have a major economic crisis. Something like the industrial revolution in reverse.

Global warming is a serious threat. And we will --those of us below fifty -- have to face its consequences directly. We can only hope that it won't be as bad as the scientists think it'll be, and that it much, much worse than what you see in news.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[ackthpt]

So it's a natural record. No one said human record. If dinosaurs kept records, would you not count those either?

I can just see it now ... New York Times bestseller: The Dinosaur Diaries - all the dirt, all the scandal, everything you wanted to know about those Diplodoci next door!

It's fun debates like this which undermine both sides.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[bhagwad]

I seriously doubt if humanity can survive an ice age today. I certainly wouldn't.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[khallow]

What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate.

Use something else. As fossil fuel products increase in price, alternatives will become attractive. The gasoline car might be scrapped for an electric car or it might run on biofuels. Just going up in price will make a number of alternatives realistic which aren't realistic now.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[erice]

Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)?

While I agree with the premise that the Earth has been a lot warmer in the past, your examples fail to account for continental drift.
Antarctica wasn't was not at the South Pole during the Mesozoic. Even when it did drift South, it didn't actually freeze over until it separated from South America and was surrounded by the circumpolar currents.

In the Paleozoic, Antarctica did not yet exist as a continent. I don't know where all the parts were or what pre-Pangea land masses they were attached to.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Chris Burke]

Yes, it's perfectly clear that the "on record" qualifier still applies to the immediately appended parenthetical about the 13 warmest years, goldfish brain.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[mr1911]

AC, if you've got a comment, you didn't make that comment. Someone else made that happen.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[TheNucleon]

The 13 years are those for which we have records. When the Earth was covered with lava, I don't think anyone had a thermometer, smarty pants.

The vast majority of scientists in the applicable field believe the Earth is warming. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

The vast majority of those scientists believe that the warming is being significantly accelerated by human processes, and that the trend line is far sharper than standard climatic cycles would ordinary produce. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

Most outcome predictions based on the rate of change we're seeing include massive effects on humanity. If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

But sadly, you are our problem. People who, despite growing evidence, fail to grasp the urgency of the matter will be our collective downfall. Even though I tend to get very frustrated at the ignorance, I've pretty much just come to accept it. The thing that really ticks me off is that my children will suffer because of people like you, spreading the "it's not that bad" schtick.

And by the way, industry can mean a lot of things. A clean energy industry would be awesome.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Bigby]

Is it really the warmest on record? On what record? The mercury thermometer record? Tree ring record? Ice core record? It was certainly warmer a little over 1000 years ago and one could consider them "on record".

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[benzaholic]

Concur.

Once I saw that unqualified phrase about the 13 warmest years for the entire planet, I just could not bring myself to read any more of the post.

Either it is true but unsupportable by documentation, or it is false as stated. Either way, it grossly diminishes the implied accuracy of any additional claims.

Props for getting first post with an intelligent bitchslap of bullshit.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Mashiki]

Is it really the warmest on record? On what record?

Good question. In parts of Canada, that record is only 30 years. In other parts, it's 10 years. Yet it's being included in "climate data" as a pure baseline sample. Heck, where I live they don't even have a weather station for reporting the data. The temperature is now recorded and reported from 48KM away. My sister's place out in Alberta? 16KM away, in a gully, next to a stream, full of cold mountain water. Oh and it's shady until about 2pm.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[khallow]

Why wouldn't they be able to? Adaption is second nature to humans.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[ravenshrike]

Accurate temp records, as in less than a 5 degree error bar, weren't kept until sometime after the start of the 20th century.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[jc42]

The sentence says this year is the warmest on record for the US. It says the past 13 are the warmest period for the whole planet, no mention of recorded or time at all.

Actually, you're just showing off a poor understanding of the English language. The actual text in question is:

... even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998), ...

Anyone with minimal competence in (written) English will understand that the parenthesized part is an addendum to what came before, and what came before included "on record". So that "on record" would normally be understood to apply to the parenthesized extension of the sentence.

Of course, such a misreading could be due to ignorance or malice. But it's fairly common to make "mistakes" like this for propaganda purposes. I suspect that this was the case here. In particular, I suspect that the parent comment was written by someone (Baloroth 3270816) understood the statement quite well, but decided to ignore the normal reading of the typical English speaker, and claim that it said something other than what it actually said. This was done for the usual propaganda reasons.

(It can be useful to study propaganda techniques; it gives you the ability to both see through them and also use them for your own purposes. ;-)

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I came in here to see if anyone bothered to point out the absolutely asinine statement of 'warmest years for the entire planet' there.

I was not surprised, as it was at the very top.

Warmest years in RECORDED history perhaps.

Perhaps the alarmists may want to study up on the definitions for 'ice age' and 'interglacial'. Hell, even giong to the wikipedia article for interglacial, the last sentence is:

During the Eemian Stage sea level was about 8 meters higher than today and the water temperature of the North Sea was c. 2C higher than at present.

Well shit son, looks like I already disproved the summary of the article.

FUD. Troll article. Move along, nothing to see here.

And to those who are complaining about the 'on record' and 'recorded' and whatnot, the summary is stated in such a way that it implies it's in the history of the planet. It's very poorly written, and I have no doubt that it's deliberate to just cause more panic, thus more ad views as people scramble to read how many hours left until the planet is wiped out from the heat wave never ceasing and all life on earth ending.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Bardez]

"David Leonhardt writes in the NY Times that even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998) [...]"

Actually, the parenthetical claim is clearly saying that the absolute warmest years for the entire planet have been since 1998. The claim is an example of poor writing. Just because the meaning can be inferred does not mean that it should be necessary to do so. The possibility of inferring the meaning does not excuse the writer from the onus of clear and precise communication.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]Who exactly has reading comprehension problems? The sentence says this year is the warmest on record for the US.[/quote] ...and it's factually wrong; the heat waves of the 1930s were far worse than what we're seeing now, according to data provided by the EPA. Research shows that the temperatures from around AD 400 - AD 1100 were warmer than they are now.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Yay Canada. No real problems for me. Worst case scenario, I pack up and book it a few days drive North. No having to worry about Customs, or burocratic road blocks, or immigration, or whatnot. Not like the area up North is too populated to be able to find a place to stay.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[cekander]

RTFA before you get so angry. The idiot is the one posting the slashdot story, not the original author. Your assaults on reporters is ill-founded in this case, bucko.

From the article: "The United States is now enduring its warmest year on record, and the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998, according to data that stretches back to 1880."

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Chris Burke]

No, "for the entire planet" means in contrast to specific parts of the planet which have not necessarily had their warmest years since 1998, as in global average temperature. Repeating "on record" every single time once the context has already been established would be bad writing.

Just because it is possible for you to deliberately smash the language centers of your brain that normally work just fine so as to manage to misunderstand perfectly clear English does not make it the writer's problem.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

... endures its warmest year on human record created by temperature measurement devices and logged either by hand onto a piece of paper with ink in some big log book or logged into some electronic database taken by (the 13 warmest years on human record created by temperature measurement devices and logged either by hand onto a piece of paper with ink in some big log book or logged into some electronic database taken by for the entire planet have all occurred between 1998-2012 when you are reading this article)...

Is that better for you? It's amazing how much willful ignorance goes on when people read something they don't agree with.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[drinkypoo]

Yes, it's perfectly clear that the "on record" qualifier still applies to the immediately appended parenthetical

...unless, of course, one is being completely disingenuous or is in total denier-al.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phantomfive]

Global warming is a serious threat. And we will --those of us below fifty -- have to face its consequences directly.

What threat in particular is it that scares you so much? The 3mm per year rise in ocean level?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[thed8]

Totally agree. The Warming advocates have done outstanding work on how to select headlines that will glare like the sun, but never state the basis of the assertion nor adequately reference sources. They are great at this! I just wish they were as good at real science than at writing headlines and fudging data. If you looked at each of the warming headlines recently you woud find them over blown, e.g. the Greenland melting. I could list these for you, but if you are a warming advocate you stopped reading a long time ago, if you are someone interested in checking facts you don't need me to.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phantomfive]

People who, despite growing evidence, fail to grasp the urgency of the matter will be our collective downfall.

What downfall are you envisioning here? What is the urgency? Or are you using hyperbole to make your post more interesting? Because it might be that alarmists like you are the real problem, by making it sound much worse than it is and turning people off to the topic.

It's like the anti-drug programs, that make you think drugs are the worst things in the world. Then you actually try drugs and realize, "hey, no one ever told me they were this good. Those guys were completely wrong!" Overstating the bad causes people to not believe you.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Asic Eng]

Come on, "the entire planet" is a location, "on record" is a period of time. The statement is correct and it's part of a summary. If you want to know the details you need to read the details. Which are linked.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

"The vast majority of scientists in the applicable field believe the Earth is warming. If you don't believe it, that's your problem..."

" For the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. "

(Phil Jones - Head of the UK Climate Research Unit)

There, fixed that for you....

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's the NOAA record, which has been adjusted so the old records are colder than what was measured.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[iamwahoo2]

There is currently no technology in place to mitigate for the eventual rarity of fossil fuels and there does not appear to be anything on the horizon that can meet the demand in the time scale needed.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[he-sk]

even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)

on record: since 1850 (thermometers), or for the last 2000 years (tree rings, ice cores), or for the last 800.000 years (ice cores), according to Wikipedia. Doesn't really say which, but the Mesozoic era ended 65 million years ago, so it's not covered.

warmest years for the entire planet: if one considers global temperature averages. Note that local climate is not a good indicator.

But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!

Straw man. Actually, the total opposite of what the article is about.

And spouting off laughably ridiculous "facts" like "the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998" only makes them sound even more like a bunch of religious zealots than they already do.

Pot, meet kettle.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[jmorris42]

Technically it would have to be read as only the hottest in the hundred or so years we have records for. But it was written such that most people will read it with the meaning of 'hottest evar', especially since hottest in a century wouldn't scare many people and the whole thing was written as one big frightfest.

Reality says it has been both much warmer and much cooler than present. And probably will be again.

As for the rest.. Meh. Show me a 'green' energy source that can exist without government subsidies and I'll show you an energy source that the greens have either already turned on or soon will, Because the last thing they want is clean energy, what they want is for industrial civilization to go, depriving it of energy is just one of the ways to bring that about.

And in the end they are even sorta right, there ain't no such thing as energy without side effects. TANSTAAFL. Any energy source widely deployed will reveal that it ain't free, limitless and clean.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Well instead of reacting so dismissively, a more constructive response would be to post something like the following:

"endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years on record for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)"

and added, "There, FTFY."

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Serious guys? Pretending shock and amazement at the lack of editors on slashdot?

I don't really give a fuck whether it's warmer or not then a 1000 years ago. If it did matter to me at that time, I'd be dead already. I care more about what the impact on me is the next 50 years. And those of you with children might even care beyond that.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[SomeKDEUser]

No. More like actual risks of famine and drought. In fucking developed countries.

Also, I don't like heat very much, but that is pretty minor ;)

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phantomfive]

What do you estimate the risk of famine would be in fucking developed countries? (The risk of drought, of course, is 100%, but that even if we manage to get some global cooling).

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Chris Burke]

Technically it would have to be read as only the hottest in the hundred or so years we have records for. But it was written such that most people will read it with the meaning of 'hottest evar'

The context of "on record" was clearly established. The only part of the context that changed -- from hottest year in the U.S. to hottest years for the whole planet -- was also clearly established. Most people do not have goldfish brains and can keep track of this context for six whole words.

So, only people who wanted to invent a reason to complain would read it that way. Everyone else knows that the author did not suddenly, mid-sentence, despite already qualifying their claims with "on record", expand the context to the entire history of our rock ball which was at one point molten.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Dahamma]

Even if your (or the previous similar comment's, or the original poster's) interpretation made sense - which it doesn't - what amazes me is how perfect an example these posts are of the usual bullshit arguments against climate change.

You can't question the facts, so you question the grammar of the person stating the facts. I believe that's called an "ad hominem"...

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[SomeKDEUser]

I don't know. I lack the data. The current bad crop in the US is going to have some significant effect on prices. How much, I do not know. How much margin do we have? I do not know.

I do know that the trend is not good, and that it had been a very long time since crop yields in America have been news. You should be worried: if large parts of the Midwest become unfit for growing crops, you will get Dust Bowl 2.0, and no big improvement in agriculture productivity forthcoming to compensate.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[AmiMoJo]

Of course not, they don't exist outside the real of media fantasy. A carefully edited soundbite here, a quote taken out of context there...

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Obviously you are intended to read a horribly unqualified parenthetical in a way that makes you part of the smart crowd. Given the forum, it should also be obvious that the smart crowd here expects no dissent from the AGW hypothesis. If you disagree, then you're just not smart enough. The debate is over.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh...

You are, of course, talking about the people who spout the bullshit about how if we dare to be a little more conservative with our fossil fuel use, the economy will collapse and we'll all live in caves, right?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[jmorris42]

> Most people do not have goldfish brains and can keep track of this context for six whole words.

Ahem. Two words: Jersey Shore. How about two more: Daily Show. As in how many people think it is a news program instead of half unfunny satire/comedy half DNC propaganda.

Yes, most people now have the brains of a goldfish, thank TV and the government schools. That was what so diabolicaly clever about the way it was written. Those people (otherwise known as the base of the Democratic Party) get the intended "weesa gonna die! Everybody panic now!" message while the author can disclaim all responsibility because he clearly did not say anything that wasn't totally correct by any literate reading of the text.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

There is currently no technology in place to mitigate for the eventual rarity of fossil fuels and there does not appear to be anything on the horizon that can meet the demand in the time scale needed.

There is always nuclear fuel technology.... However, people seem to have decided collectively that they don't want those potential consequences and are looking for better options. Hopefully some people will find better options.

If the shit hit the fan and no compelling technology is available at that time, I'm sure at some point the consequences payoff matrix of nuclear fuel technology may change a bit. A bit of basic economics might also predict if the demand exceeds the supply, the "price" will go up until the demand abates. This would likely mean that the average standard of living will most certainly decline for most of the world's inhabitants, but not only because of the "price". In more real-world situations, the price elasticity is very low for commodity products so the more likely result is just social unrest which reduces efficiency even more than would be suggested by simple supply/demand.

At some lower levels of standard of living and social stability, different choices are made about potential consequences. If you've never been in these situations, don't fool yourself, many people do make different choices in those circumstances than they might make in other circumstances and those people likely include you...

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists are predicting major problems in the ability to grow staple crops, and widespread famine across most of the planet. That means the death of billions of people from starvation, and billions more due to the chaos involved when half the planet is starving and will kill other people to find food for their children.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[SlippyToad]

ow see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era

Are you seriously that fucking stupid? It's statements like these that make me dismiss the fuck out of anything else that EVER comes out of your stupid mouth, k?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[khallow]

There is currently no technology in place to mitigate for the eventual rarity of fossil fuels and there does not appear to be anything on the horizon that can meet the demand in the time scale needed.

One doesn't need to mitigate rarity of fossil fuels, but merely find a replacement as they become scarce (which incidentally will happen for coal over millennia). Biofuels and electric vehicles are current replacements for petroleum or petroleum-powered vehicles, for example.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phantomfive]

I don't know. I lack the data.

I'm glad to see that your fears rest on such a solid foundation.

You should be worried: if large parts of the Midwest become unfit for growing crops,

Yes, and if we have an Ebola epidemic, I'll likely die quickly; but generally we like to back up our ideas with data, not make wild assertions. Stop that.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

The above poster employs the logical fallacies of 'Red Herring', and 'Straw Man' to set up a baseless 'Ad Hominum' attack against those urging action against human-caused climate change, and he diverts attention from the facts in the article.

By focusing on an unlikely parsing of the first sentence the poster is employing a Red Herring. In this way we waste energy arguing syntax rather than addressing the simple fact - that the planet's 13 warmest years in recorded history have all occurred since 1998.

The poster employs the Straw Man fallacy by suggesting that a significant percentage of those concerned about human caused global warming want us the think "abolish all industry" is the only way do address it. But even the most alarmist of those concerned about global warming do not suggest that.

He uses mocking and gross exagerations and language like 'fanatical', 'chicken little' and 'crazy-eyed alarmists' in his ad-hominum attack on those suggesting action.

I'm not certian if he is himself a AGW denier. But in the above post he uses at least one of the typical denier tactics:

Here are five tactics of denial.
        Conspiracy theories â" Dismissing the data or observation by suggesting opponents are involved in "a conspiracy to suppress the truth".

        Cherry picking â" Selecting an anomalous critical paper supporting their idea, or using outdated, flawed, and discredited papers in order to make their opponents look as though they base their ideas on weak research.

        False experts â" Paying an expert in the field, or another field, to lend supporting evidence or credibility.

        Moving the goalpost â" Dismissing evidence presented in response to a specific claim by continually demanding some other (often unfulfillable) piece of evidence.

        Other logical fallacies â" Usually one or more of false analogy, appeal to consequences, straw man, or red herring.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[PraiseBob]

In experiments in petri dishes, and sometimes unintended experiments with islands & ecosystems, life has always followed a common trend. Every living thing reproduces until it runs out of resources, and then has a population crash. This has happened over & over & over again. Do you think humans are too smart, and immune to this? It has happened repeatedly in human history.

We have enough resources currently to feed the planet. However, we have reached a position where we know for a fact, that we are causing changes to our environment. These changes are, thus far, causing reduced food production.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

OT: but the best anti-drug campaign I ever have seen refers to the kids sitting around on the couch smoking weed...and basically doing nothing but smoking weed. Not out robbing, killing, maiming to support their habit. Just sitting playing games and smoking the ganj. Realistic, effective, and actually made me think about doing something else with my life.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[History's Coming To]

"Records" include ice cores, pollen samples, a lot of contemporary data going back a long way. I found the phrase ambiguous too, although not to the rage level of the OP.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phantomfive]

I think your example of petri dishes, while it may indicate a problem, is not related to global warming. Try again.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[SomeKDEUser]

No, an ebola epidemic is a small risk: very virulent, short incubation period. It does not pose the kind of risk global warming does. Not even comparable.

You asked me for a probability estimate, and I told you I cannot give you one. I am honest enough to say that. The risk does exist, however, and it is not negligible: this year's crop situation would have been unthinkable only ten years ago.

The risk of global warming is that: weather extremes disrupting the economy and making us lose the guaranteed access to food we have. Not nice. This is a risk aka "can happen". It has a probability > 0. It is easy enough to find academic papers which predict a complete collapse of crop yields by the end of the century from current trends. It is hard to find papers which predict improved or stable yields.

So yeah, you should worry too, based on data and actual models.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phantomfive]

No, an ebola epidemic is a small risk: very virulent, short incubation period. It does not pose the kind of risk global warming does. Not even comparable.

How can you be so certain of the dangers of global warming with your admitted lack of data?

this year's crop situation would have been unthinkable only ten years ago.

You only think that because you lack data. Those who remember the droughts of the 80s would never call it 'unthinkable.' Seriously, go look at data before you make assertions. You'll double your intelligence level immediately.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

"the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998"

I find that statement disingenuous.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[rubycodez]

there are fossil records of higher temperatures.

And the error in measurement of the early 20th century could very well mean the hottest year was in the 1930s.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[hkmwbz]

That last quote is fake. It's a misrepresentation by the Daily Fail. Educate yourself.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[hkmwbz]

On what record?

The one with actual measurements. I'm guessing you knew that, though and are just faking ignorance because it helps you undermine the science.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Based on your reading, the statement may make more sense, but the claim is much less impressive.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Turing Test Result: FAIL

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why does the IPCC ignore this info? Are you sure it is "scientists" saying this? What is your source? If it is from the news then don't bother.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing that really ticks me off is that my children will suffer because of people like you, spreading the "it's not that bad" schtick.

Whose fault is that? I'd say it's yours. If you can see the big picture of what's going on then you can plan for what's likely to happen, and you won't have to worry about suffering. The only people at critical risk of anything are those at sea level. Weather patterns might change and industries might be affected, sure. We aren't guaranteed anything in life. I'd say the benefit of industry well outweigh the drawbacks. We will eventually learn to cope with or mitigate the changes that occur.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[riverat1]

Accurate thermometers are far older than that. In 1724 Daniel Fahrenheit produced the first mercury thermometers. There were accurate thermometers before 1800. There are two kinds of accuracy to consider with thermometers, repeatable and absolute. Repeatable accuracy is how well a thermometer repeats the same reading for the same temperature, absolute is how well it shows the true temperature as defined by our temperature scales. For climate change it's the repeatable accuracy that's most important because you're interested how temperature changes over time rather than what the specific temperature is. Given the statistical nature of climate science it is not necessary to measure to tenths of a degree, one degree is good enough.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[riverat1]

Cherry picking that line out of the whole sentence is rather disingenuous too.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[AssholeMcGee]

They have only been keeping records for 150+ years, and there is no telling how accurate the early records really are. Take into account that most cities were still rural (like) and not as advanced as cities today with being primarily asphalt and concrete, which adds another 10+ degrees to the actual temp. There were not as many cities recording and reporting temps like there have been prior to the 90's. I could go on and on.. I am not denying global warming, but if you are going to be fair and scientific you need to look at all the factors, the idiot media takes scientific reports out of context to make a buck.. People should stop worrying if it is true or not and ask themselves what if? I am not sure if people are just arrogant with there belief systems thinking it is god will, or the figure they will not be alive by the time anything major happens so f**k it. Take a quote from Master Shake's Self Help book When a problem arises, and there appears to be no solution!!! "lets all take a nap and hope it goes away"

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Mindcontrolled]

Utter stupidity, hateful strawmen and sneering condescension born out of an echo-chamber reinforced overblown feeling of self-worth. The holy trifecta of the modern right wing, it seems.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

you actually try drugs and realize, "hey, no one ever told me they were this good. Those guys were completely wrong!" Overstating the bad causes people to not believe you.

This has to be the worst analogy I've ever read.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)

I would think the years when the planet first formed were the warmest. After all the ground was still liquid rock from being so hot.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, you fools. The earth is still here, and populated even though the "scientists" have said for each year, that we are killing it. I was born in the 1940's. The great fear then was the coming ice age. Taught thru the 80's when it was changed to the coming death by heat. But since then, I've learned the basic science of weather forcasting, It's hot now, must be summer here in the northern side of the world. So it must be winter in the southern hemisphere. So it must be cold there. Get the idea. I read some, but i don't pontificate, I study, but try not to upset those who don't. But the items I've studied have been changed. Some higher authority has changed the past. They have adjusted the warmth of the past down, to create a new past. Why? to alarm us? to frighten us into a action that isn't necessary.
I read above in the articles, by other alarmists that population control is necessary, are you volunteering to do such?
I read where it is necessary to tax you and me for a brighter future, thry solar and wind energy, but the sun dosen't shine all day except for several areas on earth, and then you have to have six months of batteries before it becomes feasable again, same with wind, the hotest and coldest days there is generally less wind. Poor storage solutions mean less for the most people. Less ability to store energy equates to less available food storage, fewer happy people. If these scientists are so concerned, why are they just posting warnings, why not solutions that don't kill people. Lower CO2, fewer plants, more problems.
Yes i'm against pollution, people must have food and water and air. Otherwise they, the people, will kill to get it. Same as in the old prehistoric days.
 

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

And so to compensate for this we use computer models not just for the periods that we don't have, but for the ones we do as well. When compared to the temperature data we do have it's been discovered that these models are ... how shall I put this? Highly inaccurate. Ever see the hockey stick graph that shows a dramatic increase in temperature since the 1960s? Young people eat this crap up because they weren't alive then, but the folks who were aren't quite as easily snowed (at least those who remember the 60s and yes they were there they just chose to USE their brain instead of ruin it). When analyzing the real data that we do have it's pretty obvious that climate change has been happening for centuries, and these computer models only echo what has been fed to them for purposes having nothing to do with science. To answer the OPs question why lie? Think about it. As a politician what better way to make yourself look brilliant than to solve a problem that has already been solved. As a businessman what better way to grow a business than to require federal funding to "save the world" by solving a problem that's already been solved? After years of pouring money into the "problem" you can say if we hadn't done that we wouldn't be here today. No need to thank us, we're just here for the benefit of all mankind. Gimme a break.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[oh_my_080980980]

Somebody watches Fox News.....

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[spidercoz]

People like you are the reason we can't have reasonable discourse in this country anymore.

"Democrat delenda est" Really? I'd tell you to go fuck yourself dickhead, but clearly your head is so far up your ass it would be redundant. Try cutting the inflammatory rhetoric bullshit and actually LISTENING for once. Maybe actually think about viewpoints that disagree with your own. Open your fucking mind.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

egads what would we ever do without our helpful and loving uncle sam?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[drinkypoo]

If you don't believe it, that's your problem.

Well, no. If they don't believe it, it's everyone's problem. The corporations have got us fighting each other over whether they're even fucking us over when we should be fighting the corporations to stop them from fucking us over. The people running them don't care because they'll be dead by the time it gets really bad. The people working for them don't care because they need a job and that's where the jobs are and morality is always harder to maintain when you're hungry.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Bigby]

We have actual measurements of temperature going back thousands and even millions of years. The accuracy of the methods of those measurements are a question. However, they are good at predicting the relative temperature changes over time. We are VERY certain that the Medieval warm period was warmer than today. Not only because of "the record" with "actual measurements", but because of the factual history of Greenland and the Vikings.

Where am I undermining science? Only the ones say that the last 10 years are the "warmest on record" are undermining science. If they said the last 10 years are the "warmest on the record of recording temperature using thermometer readings at multiple locations around the globe for the last 150 years", then it isn't undermining science.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[phlinn]

I have a complaint with the nature of the record. Consider the statement about the US, which is probably only true after the USHCN adjustments are applied, just like when they said the same thing about 1998. Said adjustments have a larger trend than the raw data. Even ignoring that, since the summer isn't over with it's too soon to claim it's the warmest year on record. It may or may not beat 1934.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[hkmwbz]

"Record" is referring to something very specific, and you probably know that. So it's puzzling why you are still arguing about it after several people have told you what "record" means.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason nobody cares about global warming is it is much ado about nothing. Temps up 0.7 degrees in a century. On track to go up another 0.7 over the next century. Even though co2 went up negligible last century and is doubling this century the rate of temperature increase is about the same. Not 3 or 4 degrees as they predicted. The problem with using all theses predictions from models is the models are terribly wrong. Every modeler will tell u that. The models are bogus and cannot predict temperatures over any time frame. Study after study of models show they have no predictive ability at all for anything not temperatire, moisture, storms anythijg. They have done a terrible job over the last 30 years. Temps are below the lowest predicted rise in the case of no co2 increase. Co2 has gone up 10% in just the last few decades but temperatures have actualLy stagnated. The statistical trend in temperature for 20 years is 0.0. So besides the fact the whole thing is based on bogus models the real temperatures have barely budged. Yes they're up but unfortunately for agw enthusiasts they're up at about the same rate the us government is paying on bonds ... Close to 0%. The same is true of sea levels. Sea levels have gone nowhere. They are showing a decelerating trend going from maybe a 7" rise by 2100 down now to maybe a 4" rise. It's just much ado about nothing. Latest satellite measurements of Ice loss showed that the melting of mountain glaciers was 1/4 what they thought. Scant coverage was given to this fact. They scream and scream about how horrible it is but it isn't horrible. There is no rising temperature that will have any consequence. The oceans aren't rising fast enough to worry anyone. The whole thing is way way way overblown.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[Anonymous Coward]

The use of the word "endure" is interesting. A few years ago we endured the coldest winters. Frankly most people like warm years as does all life. Energy = life. More energy more life. Another way to say is it is enjoyed record warm years. Has a totally different meaning. What if temperatures were freezing ibstead. Then you'd get people motivated to do something. It's just not that compelling to most people on the earth who live in freezing temperatures for much of the year to find that it's more pleasant.

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this

[dcbrianw]

'09-'10 Winter drops 2+ feet of snow in the mid-Atlantic Alarmists: "Don't you people know the difference between climate and weather?"

'12 Summer brings 2 stretches of 100+ degree temperatures Alarmists: "See! CO2 emissions cause global warming!"

In the good ole' USA it's dead

[Anonymous Coward]

And mainly because of the great job of idiots who can't seem to make any decisions for themselves unless it's tied to money, power and greed (e.g. politicians). Never mind that 1/2 of Greenland just fell off last week and into the ocean, or that the oceans are actually rising or that the wildfires this year were the worst ever, or the worst drought in the USA since 52, or that the inland lakes and waterways are mostly
off-limits to dangerous levels of algae and e-Coli.
Nothing is wrong - nothing is strange - and 85 degrees for a week is common in the upper-Midwest (sorry Apple, Cherry, Plum, Peach and Pear farmers) in the middle of February....

What a joke this country has become in so many senses!!!

Re:In the good ole' USA it's dead

[Charcharodon]

Greenland has a massive ice melt off every 150 years or so. Nothing new to see here, move along.

Re:In the good ole' USA it's dead

[Anonymous Coward]

As it apparently does about every 150 years and it's right on time. You actually need to read the report to find that out though. The headline was tragically flawed!

Re:In the good ole' USA it's dead

[sl149q]

The original "Nearly all of Greenland’s massive ice sheet suddenly started melting a bit this month, a freak event that surprised scientists."

Then the media conflated "massive ice sheet" and "started melting" to give us the headline "NASA: Sudden Massive Melt in Greenland".

Reality check, live webcam: http://www.summitcamp.org/status/webcam/

The summary is all over the map

[Anonymous Coward]

Natural gas is good? It's replacing coal? It omits the fact that the gas is coming from... FRACKING!

The whole summary is just full of contradictions and ommissions like that. A transition to green power without political pain? Of course. We're sliding back into recession. A bicycle with a little trailor on the back for your groceries is very green. Nevermind that no overt political decision was made that prevented you from affording a car and gas.

Re:The summary is all over the map

[Anonymous Coward]

It's replacing coal?

No. The coal is being burned in China. We are exporting our energy consumption beyond the reach of our regulatory regime. Natural gas only offsets growth in our domestic coal consumption.

The result is a net increase carbon emissions.

Nevermind that no overt political decision was made

Only a policy deliberately designed to make cars and fuel unaffordable may be questioned? The secondary effects of emissions standards, energy regulation, mileage standards, manufacturing regulation, safety standards, etc. on cost are all somehow immune from scrutiny?

Re:The summary is all over the map

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind that no overt political decision was made

Only a policy deliberately designed to make cars and fuel unaffordable may be questioned? The secondary effects of emissions standards, energy regulation, mileage standards, manufacturing regulation, safety standards, etc. on cost are all somehow immune from scrutiny?

Yes!!

You're not part of the intellectual/political elite, you don't get to have an opinion, serf!

Now get back in your hovel before we send someone over to serve and protect the shit out of you!

O'Rlly

[Anonymous Coward]

>> the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998

Where's the O'Rlly Owl when you need him?

Re:O'Rlly

[ocean_soul]

I'm quite sure the thirteen warmest years all happened around the beginning of the mesozoic era...

Re:O'Rlly

[gurps_npc]

You are absolutely correct. He did in fact leave out the words "on record". If he had put that in, his statement would be right.

Of course, that means his point is still valid, even if sentence isn't. You on the other hand either have no point (was making a joke/just commenting about his gram error) or don't understand rather simple, obviously true concepts, such as IT'S HOTTER than any other time since human beings have recorded the temperature.

Since you can't argue with that basic fact, you can instead point out irrelevant, minute flaws in how people state the argument.

Re:O'Rlly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm also quite sure that the "on record" before the parenthetical comment also applies.

I'm also quite sure that by record, he means the collection of data created from temperature guages by (insert research group here).

However, I don't like what the OP wrote. In fact, I'm going to take what the OP wrote as a personal attack on myself, and resort to pendantic grammer/meaning nazism instead of searching for the records that would either support or contradict what the OP meant.

Re:O'Rlly

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just say that you're right and it's one of the thirteen hottest years on record (for all types of records) for the entire planet (not just sections of the planet), then why don't just go buy an air conditioner?

Re:O'Rlly

[murphtall]

13 warmest year in a few thousand compared to not nearly as warm as its been on many occasions in 4 billion is quite different. Your anthropocentric "on record" comment is amusing at best.

Re:O'Rlly

[drinkypoo]

Your anthropocentric "on record" comment is amusing at best.

If anthropocentricism doesn't make sense to you, I wonder, what species are you, anyway? It's natural to be concerned about things that will impact the species to which you belong.

Re:O'Rlly

[murphtall]

One that think humans are effing up the planet and the universe would prolly do best to wipe them out. I mean we exhale co2, that evil greenhouse gas that traps heat after all

Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

even as the U.S. endures its warmest year on record (the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998)

Now see, statements like this are what make me so wary of trusting anything out of the mouths of the more fanatical members of the environmental movement. Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era,

What part of "warmest year on record" is unclear to you?

What part of the temperature during earlier eras where we weren't on top of the food chain is relevant?

The sad thing is that most reporters don't even question this patently obvious bullshit anymore

The sad thing is that many slashdotters wouldn't question your patently obviously boring rhetoric.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

After all, humanity as a whole has prospered when the overall climate has been warmer in the past, and all attempts to claim runaway behavior from existing climate change have been proved to be bunk. . .

Whereas humanity has stagnated during times of technological upheaval and jamming our heads in the sand has been proved to be wise?

Or is your objection just about the fact that AGW proponents are dominating the debate among mildly educated observers, and this annoys you for some reason?

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

But that's what happens when body start slappin' from doin' the wild thing

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[gmanterry]

Almost all the problems facing mankind and the earth are caused by the same thing. The solution is easy to see but difficult to get people at embrace. There are simply too damned many people on this globe. The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size. We need to trim down the population of the world. At the present growth rate of the population, we will again double in another 58 years. Instead of trying methods to change the climate which will probably not go the way scientists plan, we need an incentive for the peoples of the world to start limiting their reproduction. However the religions of the world will fight any attempt at population control. Like it or not, overpopulation is the underlying cause of climate change and decreasing the population is the solution. It will happen one way or another. We cannot continue to reproduce like rats and rabbits.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

Perhaps the part where the year is not yet finished

Yes, and it's still summer. Guess you missed that part. It's only going to get hotter. Also, that's totally fucking irrelevant, because it's about how hot it's gotten, not just about the average temperature for the year.

every single Warmist Chicken-Little alarmist such as yourself proclaiming weather is the same as climate

Show me where I said that. Come on, show me. Oh, you can't? That's because I didn't say that. You're a liar.

(but not when winters are colder! No sir, then it means nothing)

Record winter lows are a predicted sign of global warming. I'm not surprised you don't know that, because you are clearly willfully ignorant.

all attempts to claim runaway behavior from existing climate change have been proved to be bunk

We're not talking about runaway behavior right now, we're talking about AGW. Although, now that you mention it, ice on land is melting faster than it's being replenished, faster than projections, and faster than in recorded history.

your high priests

Your attempts to demonize science? They fail.

along with your high priests inability to predict anything about climate changes that actually happen going forward

And you fail again. In fact, record highs and lows are predicted. Ice melting is predicted, and it happening faster than predicted is not a cause for you to celebrate. All it means is that even scientists are optimists.

why should we treat you and your disciples

I have disciples now? Awesome. I hope I don't get nailed up. You are hereby cordially invited to eat my body before my death. Pucker up.

It all started when you claimed AGW was based on "science", a curious science that silenced detractors and ignored requests to review raw data

And you lie again. The raw data has been available to anyone in a position to understand it all along. That doesn't include you. Detractors have not been silenced; Big Oil has spent vast amounts of money on studies trying to find some support for their assertions, the same assertions you share. Only, now even Big Oil is admitting that AGW is a real thing. Now, they're only arguing that it is not as serious as it is made out to be. As a predictable next step, they will announce that no, we're actually all screwed. Then they'll announce that they have some kind of solution. I don't need to be prescient, I only need to remember what you have forgotten: the lessons of history.

and you wonder why more reasonable heads fail to support you now.

Well, no, in fact, more reasonable people (who are more than just a head, this ain't Futurama — today, "head" more commonly means drug user, but I already knew you were hopelessly out of touch before you said that) actually do support "me" (or in fact, the science of AGW) and you don't. I already know you're not reasonable from your history here, but I decided to respond to you anyway because I had time and I didn't want someone to think that a failure to respond to your inanity was due to believing it.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size.

Yeah, ask the Chinese how they feel about that. My family has been fortunate enough to have that opportunity.

Meanwhile, there's an argument to be made about finite resources and human population making for a self-limiting system. Who wants to breed 10 more children if they're having problems keeping the first one fed? The only loophole is sex drive. So let's get birth control out to whoever wants it, without the religious stigma.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[serviscope_minor]

It's exactly people like you that make me utterly ignore, and in fact work against when possible anyone of your dour faith.

So because some people whose reasoning you feel is inadequate support position X, you assume that position X must be wrong and you will work agains it.

So can you enlighten me as to how exactly you've come to the conclusion that you should come out against AGW rather than for, since there is plenty of bad reasoning by on both sides.

After all, humanity as a whole has prospered when the overall climate has been warmer in the past,

Humanity will survive. A few billion might not, but little threat is posed to humanity as a whole. If most of the world's cities flood, humanity will survive just fine, and eventually recover.

nd all attempts to claim runaway behavior from existing climate change have been proved to be bunk

[citation from a reputable source needed]

along with your high priests inability to predict anything about climate changes that actually happen going forward, why should we treat you and your disciples with anything but utter scorn and ridicule?

[citation from a reputable source needed]

It all started when you claimed AGW was based on "science",

It is.

curious science that silenced detractors and ignored requests to review raw data... and you wonder why more reasonable heads fail to support you now.

Oh is that the one where the CRU wouldn't give people access to data that they didn't own? And instead of people going to the owners of the data, they had a shit fit?

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Hotter summers AND colder winters are BOTH validation of the scientific theory of anthropogenic global climate change. Indeed, that's EXACTLY what the theory precisely predicted. More CO2 means more heat absorption. More heat absorption means more atmospheric internal energy.

More internal energy means more entropy and extremer extremes. So we'll get records on both ends: higher highs and lower lows. Wetter floods and dryer droughts. Et cetera.

We are seeing exactly, almost down to the year, what was predicted by the rigorous scientific models of the impact of increased anthropogenic (not anthropomorphic) CO2 emissions.

So when you wonder why the "warmists" (whatever that means) "ignore" every time there's a cold winter, they don't. They know that it's exactly what the theory was predicting all along.

Frankly, I'm not waiting for the invasive species to come out in force before we start junking the SUVs.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

We need to trim down the population of the world

I think the Earth can support this many people with sane practices. I don't think we're using them.

We cannot continue to reproduce like rats and rabbits.

This, I agree with.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not just religeon that would fight population control, it's people's ideology. Take for example, here in the good ol' USA, if anything like reproduction control was suggested, you'd be met with "How DARE you tell me how many children I can or can't have. It is part of my 'freedom' to choose to have however many kids I want."

Unfortunately, not many people really think about what sort of impact this would have on the overall society. You're essentially increasing resource consumption rates when you already have limited resources. If you even "dare" to bring up that sort of argument, you'll be labeled a socialist and thrown in the same lot as the 'big bad' Chinese government.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[jc42]

... all started when you claimed AGW was based on "science", a curious science that silenced detractors ...

Hmmm ... If that's what those evil AGW "scientists" have been doing, they've been remarkably incompetent at the job. Every discussion I see on the topic on any of the various forums that I follow seems to be dominated by he AGW "deniers". The scientists seem to have utterly failed to silence any of their detractors, even in "geek" forums like /. where you'd expect that they'd have the upper hand.

Actually, I'd question whether the climate scientists have even been trying to silence anyone. Is there much evidence of this? It seems a little odd that they'd waste their time, since the general scientific approach is to encourage "independent testing" and publishing of all contrary results. Fighting unscientific comments from non-scientists isn't generally considered worth the time it would take. But I suppose it's possible that climatologists are an exception to this pattern, and I'm just not aware of the evidence that they're trying (and failing ;-) to suppress the independent research.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Johann Lau]

Perhaps the part where the year is not yet finished

So? If it's already the warmest on record, how could that change over the course of the remaining year?

WTF?

That's your argument? That's what you pin your dumb fucking rant on? Hahahaha.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

every single Warmist Chicken-Little alarmist such as yourself

I'm so glad topics like this never depart from civil debate.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[jmorris42]

> So can you enlighten me as to how exactly you've come to the conclusion that you should
> come out against AGW rather than for, since there is plenty of bad reasoning by on both sides.

Ohh! Can I answer that one! Please?!?

Simple. There is so much FUD and obvious self serving interest on BOTH sides that trust would be stupid. So I apply logic to the situation thus:

What are the probable results of the four possibilities? Because that is what it comes down to, we can say with some confidence that there are four, what we can't say with high confidence is the probability of each because the science has become far too politicized.

1. AGW is real and we accept the IPCC/Progressive solution. According to their own predictions we are probably boned anyway. Implementing the One World Government/Police State that is proposed as the answer to totally regulate carbon, wrecking the first world, transferring most of the remaining wealth to the developing world, etc. leaves us an impoverished socialist hellhole unable to cope with the warming that will happen anyway, just a little less because we won't be emitting much anymore. Better for the Earth than #2 but almost certainly worse for us.

2. AGW is real and we ignore the greens (mostly because of fear of the reds within their ranks). Things will get warm. Yea it might suck. But it probably won't be the worst to happen to the Earth in the last million years, certainly not the worst thing since the dinosaurs had a very bad day. Good side is we will have plenty of wealth to throw at the problems and Free peoples have a way of overcoming.

3. AGW is bunk and we fall for a scam anyway. Hosed almost as bad as #1 except without the getting hot part.

4. AGW is bunk and we are smart enough to avoid falling for the scam. Good times. And soon enough we will move to something better for energy anyway, dead dinosaur isn't going to last forever. Even with fracking.

So my problem is to pick between 1/3 or 2/4. Can't know which one of the pair I'd actually get though. But from where I sit 2 is better than either 1 or 3 and 4 is of course full of win. So I will take 2/4. Logical choice, logically arrived at.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[STRICQ]

The thing only a few have pointed out is that the "on record" part is factually wrong. Records were kept in the 1930s and it was far hotter then. The number of high temperature records broken since 2000 is a drop in the bucket compared to how many high temperature records were broken in the 1930s. These records still stand today.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[thesandtiger]

In nations where women have good access to education and birth control and where basic infrastructure is sound, the birth rate is lower than the replacement rate.

The best way to curb population growth is to improve the lives of women and to improve overall public infrastructure.

Laws like Chinas one child law lead to abhorrent acts and an unstable situation with a radically skewed demographic that will most certainly end in tragedy. Much, much better to improve education and access to birth control and improve public health and the issue will resolve itself without trampling freedoms.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[JWW]

Malthus? Is that you?

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost all the problems facing mankind and the earth are caused by the same thing. The solution is easy to see but difficult to get people at embrace. There are simply too damned many people on this globe. The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size. We need to trim down the population of the world.

Poppy cock.

We can keep the population just where it is—or even reduce it—and we'd still have a problem as the countries develop and want to live high on the hog like us Westerners do.

Reducing the population (in numbers and growth) can certainly help, but more important is proper user of resources. That means using less, more efficiently, and finding new sources of them (e.g., asteroid mining—which sounds like SciFi, but so did landing on the moon in 1912).

The overpopulation meme has been around since Thomas Malthus published his work in 1798, and more than two hundred years later it has continued to be wrong:

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

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Except those aren't the only possibilities, at least not the way you described them.

If global warming is real, you aren't limited to choosing between doing nothing and accepting some proposed solution wholesale.

1. Global warming is real, and we "accept the IPCC/Progressive solution."
1a. Global warming is real, and we do something else.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Tongo]

Except there is no plan 1a. being thrown about by anyone (maybe a small and silent minority). As an outsider watching the news and checking a few websites, I see option 1 as the only options from the greenies. I've came to much the same conclusion as jmorris42.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Evil buffoons like Dawkins have changed the public perception of science.

Now, people expect scientists to be activists, and if they're not then it must be because they have something to hide. Never mind that traditional science has done its job much better via experimentation, publication and peer review than via the media circus.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[budgenator]

Seems odd that a theory is able to be validate by any condition, the models predict everything happening.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Vancorps]

How do you come to this conclusion? Jmorris positted that wealth would be transferred to 3rd world countries, leaving the U.S. an impoverished socialist hell hole. That is pretty hard to reconcile, like environmental consciousness is something that only socialists would support which is patently absurd.

Where is the proposal for one world government? Where is the proposal for a police state coming from greenies?

Perhaps most importantly, how is an efficient use of resources a bad thing?

It's pointless to attack the facts, the debate should move on to what we can realistically do about it. Society doesn't have to be dismantled, but the South Carolina approach of ignoring scientific measurement because it's inconvenient isn't going to help anybody. The oceans will rise and pretending they won't is just assinine. We should be prepared for the things to come instead of ignoring what is in front of our faces.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[jmorris42]

Unless you propose a method of installing me on an iron throne it does come down to the basic decision of "believer or denier" because the same consensus on AGW is already quite settled upon the only thing they are willing to accept as a solution. And equally true is the reality that if as a polity we decide to ignore the warmer warning we aren't likely to do any half measures. So my only decision to make is do I believe the warmers or not and then, assuming my decision ends up being in the majority and implemented, to find out which of the four possible futures we get as a result of that decision combined with the result of waiting long enough to find the answer to he question of whether AGW was/is happening. Because by the time we know for sure it will almost be far too late to do anything to stop it. According to most of the greens it is already too late.

Just to show I have been thinking on this a bit, here are some other possibilities:

1. We could go all in on fission with modern safe(er) reactor designs, perhaps thorium. We know it would work so there is no risk and lots of side benefits like getting to tell the Saudis and the rest of that gang of miscreants to go pound sand. The GWOT would be over. Bonus! And we would probably have to execute most of the greens and lawyers to have any chance of building enough in a short enough time frame to make a difference. Bonus!

2. We could embark on a massive quest for a real viable alternative energy source. Fusion perhaps? It would be betting everything on a moonshot type R&D effort that with the current fragile economy could bankrupt the world if it failed but usher in a whole new world of plenty if it succeeded. Big risk, big reward. Don't like it right now, world is pretty fragile now.

3. We could launch a massive geoengineering project to mitigate the effects. If the projections are real and not just to scare us into doing something stupid we probably should start now since we have no real hope of getting the developing world to stop emitting in time even if we euthanized ourselves next week. Big engineering, massive new push along one of the major tech ladders. Bonus!

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[rubycodez]

the part where you left out "in the USA", which is a totally irrelevant matter to global climate or any change in thereof.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

the part where you left out "in the USA", which is a totally irrelevant matter to global climate or any change in thereof.

Yeah, how dare I focus on how global warming effects the country where I live? That is so unreasonable.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[irenaeous]

The Chinese policy is not really one to emulate. Here are some resources explaining why:

1. China’s Population Destiny: The Looming Crisis. This explains the demographic changes (way to many men due to the excessing aborting of girls), and an aging population that will likely cause much of China to become old before they become rich. If that proves to be true and Chinese economic growth stalls then the policy may even prove to be counter productive over a longer time frame since poorer people have higher birthrates.

2. Encourages Voluntary Limits, A June 1998 report from U.S. Embassy Beijing.. This explains that China's policy is not that effective as compared with voluntary efforts.

All this is well explained in the recent Ted talk by Hans Rosling: Hans Rosling: Religions and babies

Rosling's talk also makes it clear that religion has very little effect if any. The main consideration is the economic well being of the population. A prosperous people will have fewer children because they do not rely on the children for their "social security", so there is no need to have as many children as possible to ensure their own future welfare. Also, the children of economically well off people are also well cared for, and expensive, so people have fewer of them.

Of course global waning cannot be denied. A few years ago I was more open minded regarded climate skepticism, but the berkeley study(skeptical science finds evidence for global warming), plus this recent weather has removed all my doubts regarding climate change.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[rubycodez]

if it's affectnig the whole globe, it's not global warming. You have some hot weather. The warmest decade was the 1930s, the record highs for most of the USA weree set in 1936, there just wasn't density of temperature measurement as we have today.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Religion is a symptom, not a cause. Population growth is strongest in places where belief in, and access to, health care is most limited. Those are also the places where people tend to believe most and pray most. Contrary to what you may have learned from 'Civilization', the fastest population growth happens when people are not well fed or cared for.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

The warmest decade was the 1930s

Maybe you want to do some reading on the great depression and the dust bowl. If your argument is that it was a bit warmer in the 1930s, you might want to consider what you're talking about.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Dr. Hellno]

[...]the One World Government/Police State that is proposed as the answer to totally regulate carbon, wrecking the first world, transferring most of the remaining wealth to the developing world, etc. leaves us an impoverished socialist hellhole[...]

Bunk!
So much bunk.

Maybe some people are proposing something like that. I've definitely seen quotes like "cap first world economic activity". But while you're arguing with an imagined, monolithic group of "greenies", people in the other corner are busy having a heated conversation that goes something like: "Well, people don't believe science. So what ELSE can we do?"

Isn't this article proof enough that people are talking about lots of ways of addressing the problem? Government investment in green tech on a larger scale, that's one way to go. Nuclear is another, and despite what you think about "greenies", I'd bet that most people who've accepted the AGW science would also accept nuclear solutions. If that's not enough of a debate for you, there's also been plenty of research and discussion about "climate engineering" based solutions. Some people are even saying "preventative action is impossible... so how can we prepare?"

Honestly, there's a simple fact you've missed: you can't trust one side to report to you on what the other side is saying. Never trust fox about what a democrat said, or MSNBC about what a republican said, or Drudge about what AGW scientists say.

If you knew what the other side was actually saying, you wouldn't be having this ridiculous joust with a strawman.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, are you asserting that the Great Depression and Dust Bowl led to higher temperatures? Or perhaps you are trying to say that no one had a job to document the temperatures correctly or something? I'm not really sure what you're trying to assert with your statement, but since you feel so militant about being modded troll, I'll just post as AC and ask you to please clarify you statement. There is nothing informative in your attack, nor do you address the assertion, so please STFU about being modded troll earlier in the thread, or provide the facts that you so desperately assert weren't used against you earlier.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[jmorris42]

> If you knew what the other side was actually saying...

Actually I do follow both camps on most issues. First to know who is my enemy, then I continue to follow both to know thy enemy.

And if you follow the major threads of warmer thought, especially the UN/International conference crowd, you know every plan always begins with some sort of global carbon tax with trillions of dollars sloshing through the UN. The exact reasons why and where it is to be spent vary but it always starts with trillions and it always flows from the developed world to the developing world. Essentially because most of the world is unfree hellholes and the UN is a parliment of tyrants; the ones who would be getting all that cash vastly outvote the ones who would be expected to give. In the political reality of the UN it can't be any other way. The UN is a bizarro world where Iran and Cuba can sit in judgement of Human Rights.... and nobody is supposed to laugh.

Choose any/all of the following popular reasons for the flow. We have to give the lions share of the revenue from the carbon tax to the third world because A) it is unfair to forbid them to develop, B) social justice, C) economic justice, D) reparations for our raping their pristine environment, E) we must pay them off to use sustainable development, F) we must tax carbon to encourage the developed world to switch to green energy, the wealth must leave to make it painful, G) because they want it! Pay up sucka.

> Government investment in green tech on a larger scale, that's one way to go.

Except it probably isn't. None of the proposed techs can replace current demand, and demand is going to grow. None of them are close to profitable without massive subsidies. Money wasted in a time of huge deficits around the world. Attention diverted from directions that could be productive. Like...

> Nuclear is another, and despite what you think about "greenies", I'd bet that most people who've accepted the
> AGW science would also accept nuclear solutions.

I have heard of a couple. True believers like the founder of Greenpeace, they believe it is a big enough problem to put aside the no-nuke signs over. But the vast majority aren't close to being willing. Yet another reason for distrusting their actual motives. If they really believed it was a matter of the importance they claim they should be willing to build modern safe(r) nuke plants. Worst case, nukes are a risk, AGW is supposed to be CERTAIN DOOM! I know which I would pick of that selection.

If greens were truly interested in using energy that didn't involve carbon, would they be a) protesting to build more hydro dams, or b) declaring "there will never be another one built." or c) doing b while trying to demolish existing ones. Hey, maybe there are some problems with hydro that fish ladders and such can't fix but I thought this was an EMERGENCY with CERTAIN DOOM! if we fail to act. When are their actions going to match the PR?

When actions do not match words you should always suspect deception or mental defect. I suspect more than a little of both.

> there's also been plenty of research and discussion about "climate engineering" based solutions

Only one problem. The world's economy is in the crapper. Not entirely sure we could afford a massive project if we had to deflect an asteroid right now. The only scenario where we would even try is if an overwhelming majority believed the warmer theory and then the UN wins and there won't be any money for a big project.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

Seems odd that a theory is able to be validate by any condition, the models predict everything happening.

This is a typical response by someone who doesn't understand what was said versus what they imagined. The models do predict these types of event, however.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[BlackSnake112]

Record winter lows are a predicted sign of global warming. I'm not surprised you don't know that, because you are clearly willfully ignorant.

Wasn't that from a movie? Oh yea the Day after Tomorrow.

What I find funny is that most of the scientists that say that all started saying that after that movie came out.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

What part of "warmest year on record" is unclear to you?

What part of the temperature during earlier eras where we weren't on top of the food chain is relevant?

Ahh. So we "weren't on top of the food chain" in the 1930s, when the heat wave index was higher than it is now?

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[drinkypoo]

What I find funny is that most of the scientists that say that all started saying that after that movie came out.

What I find funny is that you don't understand the difference between "most" and "all". I would say "don't use words you don't understand" but it appears that rules out even monosyllables for you.

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

Once again people, there IS no AGW. the data and charts you have been using are all bogus because the data was cherry picked to push forward a political view. In truth, we are heading back towards a cooling trend.

Proof? Citation? Sure. http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

That is what you get when you use ALL the data points. Enjoy the read!

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[spidercoz]

That was beautiful, man

Re:Now see, This is why you are a boob

[Anonymous Coward]

"And you lie again. The raw data has been available to anyone in a position to understand it all along."

Total BS. Go ask the folks at climateaudit.org how much fun it was and still is getting the raw data. You are either not being truthful or are completely ignorant of the facts. Either way you are WRONG.

Natural gas is not clean energy

[guanxi]

Natural gas is not clean energy. I seem to remember that the greenhouse gasses emitted during extraction and processing of shale gas, which is the source of most of our current boom IIRC, offsets any benefits. Does anyone know?

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[sepiroth]

Yes, you have to burn it to extract energy from it. Which means CO2 and water (at least) will be emitted, like for burning any other organic substance. That is so anti green one can only imagine.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Antipater]

Jury's still out on that one. The data is very mixed. Some wells leak methane, some don't, and the oil industry giants try very hard to keep it under wraps whether they drill high-quality wells or not, so it's hard to get an average.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Hentes]

Neither is ethanol. As many of the simple minded radical greens, the author can't tell the difference between clean (as in less pollution/harmful environmental effects), renewable and low greenhouse gas emitting.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[operagost]

It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand. It also creates greenhouse gases to build solar panels and wing generators.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Sir_Sri]

Natural gas is not clean energy.

The point is that it's better than coal, there's no such thing as clean coal, and if you can't get people on nuclear, and solar and wind aren't economically viable the natural gas is at least less bad than whatever else we're doing.

The big thing missing from this discussion is that there *are* government investments in alternative energy, not so much US investment (some though), but it doesn't matter if the tech is developed in Finland or Philadelphia it can still be used, and that matters a lot. Once you figure out how to build 1 commercially viable solar panel the private sector will happily run all the way to the bank with it. BP had several years of investing in green tech, and even within the US research establishment there's research in green tech, but a lot of it wasn't 'extra' research money it was just refocusing what was there.

But yes, shale fracking can release methane, of course if you can capture methane you can do something with it, so having it escape is probably not ideal for anyone.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Anonymous Coward]

It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand.

No. They just understand that it is still too dirty. This the thing that the climate alarmism alarmists don't understand.

It also creates greenhouse gases to build solar panels and wing generators.

As long as it creates less greenhouse gases than coal, I assume that you are fully on board.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[drinkypoo]

The real problem with natural gas is that we're already running into the limits of supply, and how do we increase those limits? By fracking. Which, for anyone who hasn't been paying attention, causes increased seismicity while it's going on and for a time afterwards, and which leads to contamination of water. Burning natural gas is better than letting it escape, it actually produces less global warming. But when you go fracking to get more, now you're causing actual problems.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[guanxi]

It's far cleaner (and greener) than coal, which is what we call "compromise" and taking "baby steps". These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand

Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[guanxi]

Why do so many critics of climate change mainstream resort to name calling? I think it's a rhetorical tactic, to appear uncompromising and intimidating. But at the same time, it undermines credibility -- it seems like you have nothing to say and are falling back on tactics.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[slew]

Why do so many proponents of climate change mainstream resort to name calling? I think it's a rhetorical tactic, to appear uncompromising and intimidating. But at the same time, it undermines credibility -- it seems like you have nothing to say and are falling back on tactics.

FTFY. Not that I don't belive in unavoidable climate change that will affect our way of life. I just object in principle to agreeing with people that call other people that don't agree with them uneducated idiots.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Hentes]

I'm no big activist, but I've done some work for the environment, and like to think of myself as someone conscious about our biosphere. Which is why I find it so annoying when I'm being confused with the radicals chaining themselves in front of nuclear plants, advocating ethanol, fighting for yet another kitten asylum and generally doing more harm than good. They are the reason environmentalism has lost its credibility, and the public doesn't even hear about issues much more pressing than global warming like pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing/hunting and global extinction.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Falconhell]

I see no problem when they so obviously are uneducated idiots. You didnt fix anything you broke it.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[dr2chase]

The more subtle point is that on the one hand it is notably better than burning coal for energy, but on the other hand CH4 is such a potent greenhouse gas that if very much at all is leaked in the process of drilling/shipping/storage, then all the benefits are lost.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[dr2chase]

In this discussion here, the name calling came from the a self-styled skeptic -- "simple minded radical greens". The reply did not call any names at all. This makes your entire "FTFY" exercise a little backwards, since the so-called skeptics are the ones slinging names, and the proponents (who you seem to be unable to agree with) did not.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[dr2chase]

I think you need to some references to support these things you claim exist. In your list of environmental "stupidities", the only one I know of in recent years is opposition to nuclear plants (given the explosions in Japan and the proliferation risks in Iran, are you sure nuke opponents are really all that crazy? I mean, think of all the setbacks in Iran's clean energy program caused by whoever developed Stuxnet. Way more effective than anyone chaining themselves to a plant. Do you suppose that was a Greenpeace operation?). On the other hand, I have certainly recently read of activists opposing habitat destruction, overfishing, high rates of extinction, and pollution. Are you sure you have an accurate picture of what environmental activists do? Where do you get your information?

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Patch86]

Ethanol is renewable and zero carbon. Zero carbon because in order to make the ethanol, you grow plants which absorb CO2 out of the air. The amount of carbon those plants absorb must be at least equal to the amount released when you burn the end product.

Ethanol has "non-green" drawbacks. Burning it still produces air pollution in the original sense, and growing feedstock for bio-fuels deprives people of land for growing edible crops.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Mindcontrolled]

It would be zero-carbon if we wouldn't put a shitload of petroleum derived fertilizers, pesticides and transportation fuels into its production. In its current form, corn ethanol is only slightly less unsustainable than using oil in the first place.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[DarenN]

issues much more pressing than global warming like pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing/hunting and global extinction.

Really? One of these things is not like the others :)

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[bkaul01]

You can't get high enough yields to produce any quantity without using modern agricultural methods (and associated machinery). US corn yield, on average, was around 29 bushels per acre in 1900, and is approaching 200 bushels per acre now. Some of the recent increase has been due to rapid biotechnological advances, but even in the 1990s, yields were around 130-140 bushels per acre. That increase over the decades was due to mechanization, fertilizer technology, etc. If you want corn ethanol production without fuel use, you'll drop back to a 20-40 bushel per acre yield and not be able to produce enough feedstock for your fuel production.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[bkaul01]

(See Figure 3 here for historical trends.)

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[guanxi]

They are the reason environmentalism has lost its credibility, and the public doesn't even hear about issues much more pressing than global warming like pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing/hunting and global extinction.

The reason is an extensive FUD campaign by the carbon industries. In no way are the impacts and risks of those other issues greater than climate change.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[Anonymous Coward]

Shale gas (from fracking) has some downsides (one being the possibility of groundwater contamination from a broken pipe supplying the slurry used for fracking), but it isn't as CO2 intensive as coal, and I believe better than oil as well. Also coal has the nasty side effect of putting mercury into the air and water supplies, and often is extracted using large strip mines and mountain top removal, which really decimates the local environment. There is no such thing as "clean coal" currently, although such a plant is suggested to be built in Illinois.

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[scot4875]

The accurate picture of what environmental activists do is irrelevant. The caricature of them being hysterical chicken littles that chain themselves to (insert object of their objection here) is all you hear from their opponents. It's a convenient straw man to paint the other guy as completely unreasonable when you're trying to woo people to your side of an issue. I think this is what the GP was referring to.

It doesn't matter that only a tiny handful of people ever did chain themselves to anything; it only matters that you paint anyone that disagrees with you as being just like those crazy people.

--Jeremy

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[scot4875]

These are things that the climate alarmists don't understand.

There's that strawman again. "Anyone who doesn't agree with me is an unreasonable alarmist."

--Jeremy

Re:Natural gas is not clean energy

[drinkypoo]

You can't get high enough yields to produce any quantity without using modern agricultural methods (and associated machinery).

That's why turning topsoil into fuel is entirely wrongheaded. It's not stupidity, of course, but greed — selling out the future for some profit today. It wouldn't even profitable without subsidies that big agribusiness neither needs nor deserves, either.

If you want corn ethanol production without fuel use

I don't. I want Biodiesel and Butanol. BP and DuPont are aggressively preventing the production of Butanol. Efficient production of biodiesel (from algae in open raceway ponds) requires the complicity of the government because of the scale of the project and the red tape in the way.

Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change?

[Paradigma11]

That's an easy one:
"No."
Next question please.

Re:Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change?

[rrohbeck]

Yup: To stay below 2C warming, we can afford to emit another 565 Gt of CO2, but five times as much is in proven gas, oil and coal reserves, the reserves that corporations lend money against and that states plan their budget around. Now who thinks that those reserves will remain buried?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-20120719
4 to 6 C, here we come. Good luck with that, next generations. Yeah I'm too old to see it.

It's always been TOO LATE

[OakDragon]

It seems to me ... and I cannot provide references ... that it's been "too late to do anything" for ten years or more. This always seemed to be a counter-productive way to evangelize. If it really is too late, we need to put resources more toward mitigation (which I suspect will be the case anyway).

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[phantomfive]

Here are some references:

From 2009, Obama has four years to save the world.
From 2009, Global Warming is now irreversible
From 2006, the end of the world as we know it
2005, Past the Point of No Return
2004, Damage becoming irreversible
1989, We Have 10 Years.

Personally I think we've missed a huge opportunity to fund fusion research. It wouldn't actually take that much from a global community perspective. If Copenhagen had focused on funding Fusion instead of trying to make transfer payments to 3rd world countries, they could have gotten support and actually accomplished something. It would have been great. Oh well.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

we need to put resources more toward mitigation

I thought you said "migration" in which case I fully agreed.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[dr2chase]

We've been funding fusion research for fucking forever, and we're still far from anything practical. We should be funding lots of research, in hopes that we'll generate enough wins for enough niches to really make a difference, and soon. Necessarily, we will also fund flops, and afterwards we can all point to those flops and criticize the idiots who wasted money on them.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[phantomfive]

Look at the graph before you comment about funding.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Fusion? What makes you think fusion power is at all close to being possible? And who cares? It's not like there is a shortage of uranium around.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[Namarrgon]

Define "TOO LATE". Temperatures have already risen, so it's too late to avoid any change at all. It's also too late to prevent further rises, as the planet has been accumulating an energy excess for years, and will keep rising for a while even if we halt all emissions overnight.

It may now be too late to avoid hitting a 2-degree rise, which has been internationally agreed-upon as a significant threshold before things get unpleasant - but even this depends on how drastic our action is. Is it too late to avoid tipping points like the methane Clathrate Gun? Time will tell, but the process has already started.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

One way of mitigation is trying to ensure it's not getting worse.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Good. We're fucked. Will the Warmberbaters please shut the fuck up now?

This just in: the 18,000 warmest years on record were all in the last 20,000.

Re:It's always been TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

It kinda depends on what you're too late for. It's too late to keep temperatures like they were in the 70's and 80's. We might avoid serious positive feedback loops (from melting hydrate deposits and loss of reflective snow in the polar regions), but every year that goes by makes the solution more economically painful and therefore less likely to happen. I think now they're just hoping for change that happens slowly enough that our society can deal with it without large food price increases, but change will happen regardless.

In short? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Doing anything would be HARD and EXPENSIVE and what if it turns out we didnt need to do anything...
We just cleaned up our air for NOTHING!

Maybe some future generation will look back and think 'wtf was wrong with them they didnt fix this problem when it was easy to fix'.
Either way.. I won't live long enough to see it get real bad. So fuckit. Why spend my now money for the future generations... Fuck those people.

It's a very corporate trendy thing to say...... Why? because fuck you thats why! I got mine!

Note to future generations: HAHA!

Wait, Wait, Wait

[chimerafun]

Hold on so what this article is saying is that once again the free market is taking care of us where the government has failed miserably? But thats not what the democrats tell me. The liberals keep telling me how bad the free market is at responding to, well, anything.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[operagost]

It's free market and a tad bit of conscience, which leftists tell me I can only exercise as "collective salvation" through government.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[gurps_npc]

I am a liberal and I have never heard that at all.

What I have heard is a ton of conservative saying that government never solved anything. If you check what you wrote, soemthing pretty close is in it.

In other words, the claim you just made against the liberals? The opposite claim is what I hear from the conservatives.

Both are entirely ridiculous. Any sane person recognizes that if something always does bad, it gets replaced with something better.

You are clearly a hypocrite. People that live in glass houses have no business throwing stones - and you built a glass house with your post.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[Anonymous Coward]

Hold on so what this article is saying is that once again the free market is taking care of us where the government has failed miserably?

Thanks in part to earlier government investments...

But thats not what the democrats tell me. The liberals keep telling me how bad the free market is at responding to, well, anything.

Strawmen are so easy to beat. Try fighting a real debate some day.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[Bodhammer]

I believe the term is "Enlightened Self-Interest".

Man’s unique reward, however, is that while animals survive by adjusting themselves to their background, man survives by adjusting his background to himself. If a drought strikes them, animals perish — man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes them, animals perish — man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks them animals perish — man writes the Constitution of the United States. But one does not obtain food, safety or freedom — by instinct.
—AYN RAND

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[fiannaFailMan]

The liberals keep telling me how bad the free market is at responding to, well, anything.

Straw man, much?

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[Bodhammer]

Any sane person recognizes that if something always does bad, it gets replaced with something better.

Which is why we have elections and they matter. Hopefully this one will throw out these progressive, ideological, fascist idiots we have now before the US is fucked forever...

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[Brannoncyll]

Hold on so what this article is saying is that once again the free market is taking care of us where the government has failed miserably? But thats not what the democrats tell me. The liberals keep telling me how bad the free market is at responding to, well, anything.

The free market is doing what it does best; taking existing technology and improving it in order to make money. However without the government most of these technologies wouldn't exist in the first place as very few companies are willing to invest in long-term research projects. Nuclear power was obviously developed with government funding, but (large scale) wind power technology was also (by the US DoE and NASA). Solar power developments are not so clear-cut, but the large-scale adoption and falling costs of these technologies are likely due to government incentive programs. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the role of the government.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[chimerafun]

This of course is a completely false statement. The government has been involved in funding tech for many years but not as a altruistic endeavor. Instead every 'research' group has had its own lobbyists to try and shift legislation in a way that will allow them to pursue their path. While many call this supporting alternative energy and the environment, lets call it what it really is, misappropriation of public funds for private projects. So many of these projects have been dead-ends and lost funds, with most of our biggest technological gains in most energy tech coming from the private sector. While the government has shifted funding all around the map from geothermal to hydroelectric, to solar, to fuel cell, to wind yeilding little to no overall demonstrable benefit in the grand scheme of things, some of the United States' largest corporations have had ongoing, consistent, research programs with singular intent. To make money by providing what they feel will be the energy sources of the future. It's not rocket surgery, there are large companies that are poised to make billions as our energy economy shifts naturally and not through any urgings of the government. These companies are smarter than the alternative energy and global warming nuts. They know that nothing changes overnight, they know that the best way to be involved in new tech is to be there for the shift and be ready to fill demand with products as that demand exists. Make no mistake our energy economy is shifting slowly but surely. It is not because of the railing of the fanatics however, it is because of the conistency and persistence of some of our greatest minds. Companies and people who are often looked down upon because of their tremendous means and their ability to do things such as avoid taxation our are salvation in this matter. Some will call me a libertarian nut for these statements, others a Randian psychotic. But there is no denying the truth. Just because the government was there for a particular change doesn't mean that they played any significant role in it. Correlation is not causation, the corollary between the government and alternative energy is simply that it has provided a platform for our politicians to run on, in order to pretend they are doing something real. The facts are there but you'll need to examine them yourself or you will never believe.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[Brannoncyll]

Public money is the only way of funding blue-sky research. No company is going to invest large enough sums in a long-term research project that may or may not pan out. However sometimes those projects result in major leaps that would not have happened otherwise. It cannot be argued that government funding has not resulted in significant breakthroughs in energy generation; just read up on the history of nuclear, wind, wave, and even hydroelectric power (you think the Hoover Dam was a private enterprise?). Whether the subsidies are effective or not is another matter, and I will be happy to examine the facts that you mention.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[chimerafun]

Ummmmmm... Hoover dam is an interesting argument. Back in the early 1900s industrialists would have died to be able to build a dam, however the rivers were public property. So here is a place where we could argue that government interference has quite potentially inhibited the growth of a technology. Hoover dam was certainly an impressive project and its power output is nothing short of amazing. The public loan was paid off only a few short years after its construction through the sale of the power that comes out of it. However government regulation has stifled growth and improvement in this sector, as public projects hydroelectric dams have not significantly changed their technology in almost a hundred years. Have you ever visited Hoover dam, as it happens I live very close to it. I've been their many many times and rarely are they running even one generator. They are allowed to create only enough power to pay their operating expenses and beyond that they are not allowed to compete with the public market. Is this the kind of innovation you are talking about because to me it seems this is the exact opposite of encouraging innovation. Having visited many operational dams the picture isn't any better throughout the US. Once the government has its mits on your industry you play by their rules and innovation is stifled. Early avenues that should have been explored in wind and solar power often times weren't because of government funding. Some startup wind companies wanted to explore combining wind and powercell technology to store energy at low demand times to be released at higher demand times. However due to the structure of public funding they had to choose one or the other and we missed out on a potentially beneficial technology that is now being brought to market by companies that don't have to care about public funding. Then there is the case of Nuclear power, do you truly think that nuclear would only have been developed through public funding. I would argue that had it been privately funded, the drive behind the development of nucleics would have been that of clean energy and not weaponization. Atomic theory was there prior to government funding of the Manhattan Project which was driven by weaponization goals. Private industry picked up the tab on nuclear energy development.

Re:Wait, Wait, Wait

[sjames]

Let's see:

Mitchell Energy's first horizontal well was subsidized by the federal government, according to former geologist and Vice President for Mitchell. "They did a hell of a lot of work," said Steward, "and I can't give them enough credit for that. DOE started it, and other people took the ball and ran with it. You cannot diminish DOE's involvement."

In 1999, when the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission required Xcel Energy to double its renewable energy commitment to one gigawatt, it was a pretty big deal.

So, no. Looks more like the evil gubmint applied a combination of carrot and stick to get good results out of the market.

petroleum is going to run out some day

[beschra]

I've always thought an excellent common ground, regardless of opinion on AGW, is that the carbon based stuff in the ground is not inexhaustible. You can even disagree on how long it's going to last, but why not plan for the inevitable and really invest in alternatives? It addresses long term supply concerns, reduces pollution, and, if you're of a certain mindset, helps keep the planet from melting. Win, win, win.

Re:petroleum is going to run out some day

[Anonymous Coward]

When oil from the ground becomes more expensive than growing synthetic alternatives there will be a switch, unless some form of extremely cheap electricity is invented the combustion engine is going to be with humanity forever.

FOREVER

Re:petroleum is going to run out some day

[i kan reed]

Coal and natural gas, which also produce CO2 in plentiful quantities when burned, both exist in multi-century supplies. We can't use them for that long without finding some way to seriously recycle the carbon dioxide, which in turn means we need SOME kind of solar power capable of overcoming the chemical potential gap of super-stable carbon dioxide. It can be algae, but fundamentally, we're using the sun to deal with the problem, and man-made solar power is more efficient than organic.

Re:petroleum is going to run out some day

[garett_spencley]

Prices are determined by the law of supply vs. demand. As supply of fossil fuel decreases the costs will rise and that will leave people very hungry for energy. People are already complaining about rising energy costs and fossil fuel is still relatively extremely cheap.

So long as "we all agree" that fossil fuel is not inexhaustible, then it's pretty much common sense that there is going to be a massive market for alternatives in the future.

I have nothing at all against investing in those alternatives. I just don't see the point in using tax money to do so. Not only do I think it's unnecessary but I think it's counter-productive; which is to say if anything is going to prevent alternatives from coming to market it's going to be government intervention that keeps new energy start-ups out of the market as a favour to the giants who lobby and buy politicians. One can even argue that direct funding of alternative research by government is potentially dangerous to the emergence of "viable alternatives" because tax money doesn't generally have a way of finding itself in the pockets of those who are competent and capable of building, producing, marketing and distributing things on their own. Instead it finds it's way into the pockets of those are really good at getting things from government.

Re:petroleum is going to run out some day

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with your reasoning is that fuel prices are not actually linked with the 'progress' of global warming. In other words, by the time the cost of carbon-emitting fuels gets higher than alternatives, it may be very hot indeed; it's already pretty hot. As a result, I think the premise of the article is incorrect, and it actually makes a pretty convincing case for why a carbon price is necessary.

Re:petroleum is going to run out some day

[i kan reed]

Did you read my post? Plants are incredibly inefficient, require water to function, and RIGHT NOW can't keep up with CO2 production. This is a non-answer.

We can do what we can to stimulate plant growth, but that's absolutely no match for algae, which is still not as efficient at using solar power(thus binding the carbon) as solar cells are.

Really?

[ocean_soul]

Even on /. this kind of hyperbole gets credit? I'm disappointed in the scientific standards. Now this site has stooped to the level of mass media. As an actual scientist (partially involved in research concerning atmospheric processes, by the way) I find this very sad...

Re:Really?

[Spy Handler]

Since you're a scientist, what do you sense from the other scientists you know, regarding "climate scientists"?

I know a few people who do hard science, and they regard climatology about as scientific as sociology and child psychology.

From TFA: "the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate"

Possible reason for this is that climatology doesn't quite pass the bullshit detector test. Every summer when it gets hot, they proclaim it's the hottest year in the history of the universe. But in the winter when it gets really cold and snows a lot, they say it's just the weather not climate. (even though in their private emails they express sorrow at the record low temperature in Denver and what a travesty it is)

Re:Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

... endures its warmest year on human record created by temperature measurement devices and logged either by hand onto a piece of paper with ink in some big log book or logged into some electronic database taken by {insert research group here} (the 13 warmest years on human record created by temperature measurement devices and logged either by hand onto a piece of paper with ink in some big log book or logged into some electronic database taken by {insert research group here} for the entire planet have all occurred between 1998-2012 when you are reading this article)...

I modified the summary a little according to what I understand that the author meant. You are free to disagree with me.

I don't see the problem here.

[oic0]

You say climate change, I say beach front property. No problem here.

Re:I don't see the problem here.

[PeanutButterBreath]

You say climate change, I say beach front property. No problem here.

The problem is that the boardwalk is in Utah, but the waterline is still in California.

Re:I don't see the problem here.

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is a problem... Why?

Get it!

[Antipater]

A ray of hope? Quick! Trap it in the greenhouse before it radiates away!

Global warming advocates UNITE!

[Bigsquid.1776]

I kind of like the changes predicted for us here in Colorado. Is there a group out there in favor of global warming I could join?

Re:Global warming advocates UNITE!

[Anonymous Coward]

I kind of like the changes predicted for us here in Colorado. Is there a group out there in favor of global warming I could join?

Perhaps you could see if the Colorado home owners that recently tragically lost their homes to wildfires would agree with you statement?

Re:Global warming advocates UNITE!

[Troyusrex]

Haven't you been listening to the media? Global warming is 100% bad with no possible benefits to anyone. You must be one of those evil greedy capitalists maybe even one of those... gasp... frackers!

There is a big ray of hope: Sensible policy

[guanxi]

There is a very straightforward solution: Sensible policies.

I know what you are thinking: 'That's politically impossible'. That's what obstructionists want you to think, that nothing can get done. Don't be so easily intimidated and demoralized. If you want it done, it will happen. Every other advanced economy manages it; we can too.

The obstructionists are out of steam; their tactics are obvious and they have little left to say. I think Churchill said, 'America always does the right thing, after exhausting all other possibilities'. I think we're just about at that point.

Re:There is a big ray of hope: Sensible policy

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately. This is a global problem and you are only thinking of yourself. See how well you go at enacting your policies in China whose pollution levels recently exceeded yours. All a cap and trade system does is make producing things in places where pollution laws are bad more attractive, something which Australian politicians may never learn. Let's hope that nobody else follows those idiots.

Unfortunately, it is a FACT that all the clean, green energy we deploy will be offset by increased consumption in developing countries. They are right when they say they deserve the same standards of living that we enjoy. Unfortunately, when you go from a billion people consuming 11 times their sustainable resource footprint to 4 billion people doing it you really don't have a hope in hell.

For every gram of coal you don't burn, China will be only too glad for you to export it there for them to burn. Shut down the coal export industry and you might have a chance.

Re:There is a big ray of hope: Sensible policy

[bhiestand]

...they have little left to say.

That's what I thought about the Tea Party. It turns out they don't need to say anything coherent, they just need to keep yelling louder.

Normal is the new Freakout

[SuperKendall]

Never mind that 1/2 of Greenland just fell off last week

You were aware that glaciers calve ALL THE TIME?

Sigh. Such ignorance to display before the learned...

Wonder What Russia Thinks

[Anonymous Coward]

Vast quantities of untapped natural resources lying in wait underneath the permafrost tundra.

Add a little global warming, and suddenly they are the wealthiest nation in the entire world ...

and ... right next door to China for trading opportunities.

solution for just $280 billion

[SergeyKurdakov]

solution to fix all things ( and maybe even improve climate variability ) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081222114546.htm to change 'local' climate - there is need for much less area. I think that mass produced aluminum foil on some substrate could be used as well ( will be easy to scale back reflection if needed )

Speaking of hyperbole...

[tgibbs]

I have no doubt that global warming is happening, and am willing to accept that the cause is, at least in part, caused by man pumping shit-tons of crap into the atmosphere. But I've grown more than a little sick of Chicken Little, crazy-eyed alarmists preaching apocalyptic sermons with utterly ridiculous language that makes it sound like the fucking end is nigh if mankind doesn't abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!! And spouting off laughably ridiculous "facts" like "the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998" only makes them sound even more like a bunch of religious zealots than they already do.

Personally, I'm a lot sicker of people talking about "crazy-eyed alarmists" preaching that "the fucking end is nigh." Who, specifically, are these "crazy-eyed alarmists" and where are they making such predictions? I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they? Where are they preaching that I've never heard them?

And while we are at it, who is insisting that we need to "abolish all industry NOW NOW NOW RIGHT NOW!"? Again, I know who it isn't. It isn't climate scientists. It isn't the IPCC. It isn't even prominent non-scientists like Al Gore who have popularized the concerns of climate scientists. So who are they?

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[tgibbs]

Hockey-stick graph ring a bell? Have you read any of the reports they have produced? Some of them are apparently bordering on Dr. Strangelove, based on the reports I've read.

Bzzzzt! Yes, I've read the "hockey stick" papers. I've read the IPCC reports. But it sounds like you haven't, because there's of that crazy hyperbole there (if you claim otherwise, quote it)

Thanks for playing. Care to try again?

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[phantomfive]

Personally, I'm a lot sicker of people talking about "crazy-eyed alarmists" preaching that "the fucking end is nigh." Who, specifically, are these "crazy-eyed alarmists" and where are they making such predictions?

Hey, and I'm sick of people who are sick of things without even using sick Google! Here's one example of what an alarmist said:

Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.....If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.

He's trying to be alarmist, he's not hiding or denying that; he wants you to think it's apocalyptic. If you look at his predictions, a lot of them are wild and not backed up by science. "Over the next several decades,....California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated." There is absolutely not scientific consensus on these ideas, and climate models are known to be inaccurate at such small scales.

And this is one of the world's most prominent climatologists.

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[Anonymous Coward]

Al Gore didn't politicize the concerns of climate scientists. He monetized it. Why do you hate the free market? Should Gore not be allowed to make a sensationalist movie and sell it as fact to make money? Fox News does that. In fact, they went to court because one of their "journalists" refused to report a story that was already known to be false.

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[WrongMonkey]

You don't need global climate models to predict that the Central Valley is drying up. You just need to track the water table levels. Whether this is directly related to AGW is, perhaps, debatable. But it's a reasonable hypothesis.

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[phantomfive]

The central valley is largely irrigated by canals from reservoirs. Whether irrigation can occur is mainly affected by rainfall. Rainfall is heavily affected by El Nino, which probably can't be predicted by tracking water tables.

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[tgibbs]

Hey, and I'm sick of people who are sick of things without even using sick Google! Here's one example of what an alarmist said [nytimes.com]

Twenty to 50 percent of the planet’s species would be driven to extinction. Civilization would be at risk.....If this sounds apocalyptic, it is.

And these concerns are eminently reasonable. There is evidence of species loss, and loss of many species would be a bad thing to be sure, and I can see how a taxonomist would consider that apocalyptic. But seriously, do you regard that as "the end [being] nigh?" And if reasonable concerns about massive displacement of populations due to rising seas and famine due to disruption of food production in currently highly productive turn out to be true, I think that it is reasonable to expect that civilization would be at risk in many countries. After all, there are some countries where civilization already seems to have fallen apart do to political conflicts--severe weather, large numbers of refugees, and interruption of food supplies might tend to aggravate those problems, wouldn't you think? Bad things to be sure...but do you really think that if those predictions come true over the next century or so, then "the end is nigh"

If you look at his predictions, a lot of them are wild and not backed up by science. "Over the next several decades,....California’s Central Valley could no longer be irrigated." There is absolutely not scientific consensus on these ideas, and climate models are known to be inaccurate at such small scales.

The words "could be" acknowledge that there is uncertainty. But once again, they are very reasonable concerns. This is, after all, an area where water supplies are already stressed, and the models, however imperfect, predict greater weather extremes. Besides, these are local problems. Would you say that inability to irrigate part of one state constitutes "the end is nigh?"

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[phantomfive]

Uh, you are making a good effort to be an apologist. But not of your assertions are backed up by science, thus these are not, in fact, reasonable concerns, they are alarmism.

Re:Speaking of hyperbole...

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no "weather extreme" proven. I ask every 20 year old nubile kid who thinks this is the only time in history with extreme weather to take a look at the 20th century. From the early part of that century 100 years ago we had floods and heat waves and droughts that killed milions and millions of people. You testy eyed children have no clue because you think everything that is happening is all about you and if you have a bead of sweat on your head it must be the cause of some evil corporation or something. You have no sense of history. Everything is about you. So now you think there is a heat wave it's unprecedented horrible and 100 years ago MILLIONS died from heat waves and floods and food losses from storms and on and on. Look it up kids. You don't live in the worst of times. All through history there has been extreme weather.

Also new studies show that temperatures in the mideivel warming period and the roman era were 1C warmer than today with no SUVs around. There is clearly more going on than co2.

Also for your childish mind to comprehend this: the earth today is in an interglacial warm period that is bound to collapse into another ice age. The period we are in now is the coldest in 30 million years. The earth and.most of the creatures and living things on it evolved and were gestated in temperatures warmer than today. The idea they would all die off if temperatures went back up a little is absurd. There are models of extinction. These models are way
Less accurate than climate models which have been shown mathematically to be twice worse than predicting the temperature with random walk. The extinction models recently were shown to be off by a factor of 10 in their predictions. However this is something we can't possibly know because we really don't know the species creation rate, the normal species extinction rate or even the number of species. Everything is a complete guess by people who have a huge stake in Alarmism. Surprise surprise their alarmed.

And in future reporting...

[fahrbot-bot]

Thanks in part to earlier government investments, energy companies have been able to extract much more natural gas than once seemed possible ...

... The Wall Street Journal will attribute this solely to corporate innovation -- probably Xerox :-) -- like it did for the Internet.

Re:And in future reporting...

[operagost]

ALL energy is subsidized by the US government, which is pretty stupid when you think about it.

Fax 2.0 to the rescue!

[microcars]

to save mankind.

TL;DR

[Anonymous Coward]

We need a TL;DR summary for the article summary.

Re:TL;DR

[MozeeToby]

Government and private investment in renewable and clean(er) energy sources is having a larger than expected (though really quite small) impact on carbon emissions (within the US).

Better?

It's all for economic reasons.

[Anonymous Coward]

The price of oil has been going up because of increased demand from Asia, especially China, and from other developing nations. Production hasn't increased that much because oil is getting harder to get and subsequently more expensive to get.

As this trend continues - and I don't see what it wouldn't - solar, wind, and other "green" energy (Natural Gas is not a green energy source) will become more and more economical for two reasons.

1. technology and manufacturing improvements lowering the costs of these energy sources.

2. As oil continues its price increase, green energy will become more competitive and one day become more cost effective that oil and maybe even coal.

But it won't be a panacea. Every manufactured good has an environmental impact.

...and I've stated the obvious. Time to become Capt. Obvious' side kick named - D'Uh or You think?

Our best hope? Please.

[WillAffleckUW]

Our best hope is a radical alteration using chemical means?

Are you kidding me?

We still use HALF the energy in the US and Canada heating and cooling mostly empty buildings. We could easily just change zoning and tax laws to encourage buildings to have green roofs, provide their own power, use half the energy to heat and cool, and build them for barely more than we pay for buildings nowadays. Practically the entire campus here is built using such buildings now.

We still have massive untapped energy sources of hydro, mini-hydro, micro-hydro, geothermal, wind, urban wind, tidal and other energy sources that would dramatically impact GHG impacts. In America.

We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars. Or people could bike or walk more.

There are a lot of very simple things we could do today.

But ... we're lazy whiners. Period.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Vaphell]

We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars.

- energy cost - replacing perfectly fine 36mpg car with brand new 60mpg one is a net loss for the environment. It is estimated that the half of total car-related energy expediture is during its production. In other words even doubling the efficiency doesn't make you break even, and that's not counting additional polution (mining for resources, junking old cars)
old car: X production, X exploatation
new car replacing old car: old car already produced X, X production of the new one, 0.5X exploatation
2X < X + 1.5X
in short: upgrade treadmill is bad, we should use products to their fullest before replacing (unless new tech is *orders* of magnitude more efficient)

- bang for the buck - electric cars don't have one yet no matter how you slice it. That's equivalent to asking people to voluntarily take a very real hit to their standard of living.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[the eric conspiracy]

Actually there is no hope.

Energy consumption growth with economic development of emerging economies is inexorable.

Population growth looks like it's going to take off soon because the largest generation of human beings in history is reaching breeding age.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[WillAffleckUW]

Actually there is no hope.

Energy consumption growth with economic development of emerging economies is inexorable.

Population growth looks like it's going to take off soon because the largest generation of human beings in history is reaching breeding age.

Flooding of lowlands coastal areas may change the total population load of the Earth.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[WillAffleckUW]

Please. The average lifespan of vehicles used to be 3-5 years before they were swapped out.

Even with GDP stagnation, it's around 5-10 years.

We're making tires out of soybean oil already.

Why do you hate technology?

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[CrimsonAvenger]

Population growth looks like it's going to take off soon because the largest generation of human beings in history is reaching breeding age.

"the largest generation of human beings in history" has applied to every generation in the last couple centuries. Yes, in spite of the best part of 100 million deaths in WW2, the there were more people alive at the end than at the beginning.

And yet, population growth rates have been declining pretty steadily for decades.

USA and Europe are into negative population growth when immigration is ignored.

China is theoretically into SEVERE negative population growth (one child per family implies a pretty massive population implosion coming up this generation) - though whether they're actually even close to achieving one child per family is debatable.

The rest of the world is busy trying to keep global populatin growth positive, but as they grow wealthier, their population growth rate is declining as well...

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a whiner. Replace my car for me - please. PLEASE. I need a better car. Just buy it for me.

Because no, I can't afford to run out and get a new one for your save the planet crusade. I just assumed you would be buying since you were coming up with solutions.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Energy consumption off the grid in the two most populous states of Australia, Victoria and New South Wales, actually fell last year. One reason is the explosion in the fitting of solar panels which are now relatively cheap. Developing economies have the choice of creating large scale, expensive infrastructure or taking advantage of alternatives that exist right now. So there is plenty of hope.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[r0ball]

I don't think your figure of 50:50 is right - e.g. for a Mercedes Benz E220 2.1L Diesel, the CO2equivalent emissions are split: 82% in-use, 18% production. Even a Prius has a split of 71% in-use, 26% production (3% disposal), so your energy use figure of 50% production 50% in use (even if it's close to accurate) masks the actual environmental impact.

Reference document: LowCVP / Ricardo Report on Life Cycle Emissions of Passenger Cars - see p46.

Incidentally, I agree EVs aren't quite there yet, but as more plug-in hybrids make their way to market, and fuel prices continue to rise, I think a lot more people will consider them as a viable option for use in and around cities.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

"We still use HALF the energy in the US and Canada heating and cooling mostly empty buildings."

Geothermal :)

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you've been drinking the koolaid. Why don't you step away from Slashdot and go do some research. The cost is significantly greater to do what you're suggesting regarding self reliant generation. Additionally, creating a bunch of small DIY generation projects is not green. Not when you think about the fact that in the long term that stuff will break down and need to be disposed of. Additionally, it wouldn't be enough to power most homes. The best you could hope for is to offset your usage. A home is a lot different than a campus. A campus has numerous users that work all throughout the day and night, more space, and can more efficiently utilize what is generated. Solar is your friend there. In a home, solar is generated all day, but most people are at work all day. Sure you could store it in a battery array, but those need to be replaced every 3-5 years. How is that good for the environment? A home typically has a smaller number of users than a campus so there is far more waste. Mom and Dad get home and pick up the kids and life starts around 5 PM M-F ending around 10PM when everyone goes to bed. On the weekends they go out to the park, or events, or to church so even in that situation usage fluctuates and is sporatic.

Wind is a loser as well. As a utility we recently discovered that on one of the hottest days of the year the wind was calm and provided almost no benefit. We get the most wind between 12-5PM (before everyone gets home and turns on the A/C) and 12-5 AM (when most people are asleep). This is for a utility with thousands of users. On an individual basis it doesn't really get any better. Most folks I know who have their own generation use a hybrid of wind and solar combined with a battery array. It usually costs 20-30k to put in and by the time you get an ROI you are looking at buying a new system. In the mean time they're still paying an electric bill every month, it just keeps them out of the third tier. So instead of paying the evil utility, they opt to fund these "green" startups that generate far more waste than their local utility. It does make for good politics and financial gain though.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[dkleinsc]

So riddle me this: Why are manufacturers making new vehicles that get 25mpg when we know how to make ones that get over 60mpg?

I agree that running out and replacing perfectly good cars is dumb. But replacing bad cars with more bad cars is also dumb.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

Incorrect on both accounts. Energy consumption per GDP has decreased when the price of oil increased. We learned to be more efficient and still produce the same amount of goods (increased productivity, the economists call that). If that improvement balances the increased standard of living in developing economies is dependent on the global economy and the price of oil, but it is possible to raise all boats if we put some attention on it.

Also, the trends on population growth are pretty clear - we'll be leveling off (if current long term trends continue) about 2050-2070, probably about 9-10 billion people. Urbanization and economic development reduce the family size dramatically. You get off the farm and need to educate your children, so suddenly they go from being an economic asset (helping herd cows, plant crops, etc.) to an economic drain. Plus, many populations are now aging. Japan, Russia, Italy, etc. are all worried about declining populations. U.S. is growing almost entirely because of immigration, not from births outnumbering deaths. I wish the population growth would've stopped 10 years ago, but at least the growth rate is indeed slowing down.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Anonymous Coward]

We still use cars that only get - and this is from an ad last nite - only 36 mpg when we can easily crank out 60 mpg cars today. Or replace 15 mpg vehicles with 30 mpg versions that function THE SAME using technology we HAVE TODAY. Heck, we could replace them in areas where electricity is mostly green (e.g. populated coastal areas) with plug-in electric cars.

- energy cost - replacing perfectly fine 36mpg car with brand new 60mpg one is a net loss for the environment.

For the reading comprehension impaired - the key phrase in the GP's post is "from an ad last nite". Although it is theoretically possible that some moron paid for ad time to sell a used car, it is clear from the context that this refers to new cars. And new cars at 36 mpg is a stupidity we should end.

You're welcome.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[bhiestand]

Population growth looks like it's going to take off soon because the largest generation of human beings in history is reaching breeding age.

Highly unlikely. Watch Hans Rosling's TED Talk on Population Growth. I agree with his assessment. Unless we crash first, we will probably hit 10 billion... but not because of a new baby boom.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[drinkypoo]

energy cost - replacing perfectly fine 36mpg car with brand new 60mpg one is a net loss for the environment. It is estimated that the half of total car-related energy expediture is during its production.

No, it's only about a third. A shift from 36 to 60 mpg would be worth it. Also, the cars with better fuel efficiency also tend to contain less materials, and that third is on average, so the energy cost of production of the replacement vehicle should be well below the average, unless of course it is a stupid hybrid.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[the eric conspiracy]

> Energy consumption per GDP has decreased when the price of oil increased.

Not globally.

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+energy+consumption

> Also, the trends on population growth are pretty clear - we'll be leveling off

10 billion people + consistent economic growth will in fact be a global warming nightmare.

Re:Our best hope? Please.

[Magius_AR]

So riddle me this: Why are manufacturers making new vehicles that get 25mpg when we know how to make ones that get over 60mpg?

Because some of us actually want to get from 0 to 60 in less than 10 seconds.

When you decide to do something.

[geekymachoman]

Stop being greedy self-centered asshole that main purpose in life is consumation. And it is main purpose in life for many of people. All those that, like George Carlin say, buy things they "DON'T NEED" with money they don't have.

I don't own a freaking iPod or iPad or 50 pairs of shoes and pants and big screen TV, and don't have a need to "get one" as soon as it starts hitting the media... if there's a practical need for me to get one, I'll get one. I'm not gonna go blindly buy everything. You may think this isn't related, but it is. 90 % of stuff you can buy/posses is BS. More worse, stupid BS. But as long as it's fancy and flashy ... it's alright eh ?

When you stop simply consuming without thinking, all those factories will gonna close down. Lost jobs ? Oh well, you can't sit with one ass on two chairs.
Stop bloody complaining, and do something about it.

Re:When you decide to do something.

[Anonymous Coward]

Whomever modded this flamebait is an idiot.

Sadly, it's right on the money, but this isn't what we want to hear.

No shit. It is time to THINK, then DO.

Re:In short? No.

[SomeKDEUser]

You know the greatest generation, who went through depression and war? Their kids, The Baby Boomers will be known to history as the Shittiest Generation.

They got everything, and they destroyed the future out of greed and selfishness.

What's the hyperbole?

[i kan reed]

You're either so focused on one part of the summary I didn't read or you so dead set on some political belief that you're willing to cast any discussion of climate change as hyperbole. Please clarify your concern.

Natural gas a distraction in context of climate

[DragonWriter]

Natural gas, the use of which has jumped 25 percent since 2008 while prices have fallen more than 80 percent, now generates as much electricity as coal in the United States, which would have been unthinkable not long ago.

That's nice, but while natural gas is "cleaner burning" than some other fossil fuels in ways that are very significant to a number of other environmental concerns (particulates, sulfur emissions, etc.), its only very slightly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for the energy produced, and even completely replacing all coal power generation overnight wouldn't do much for climate change. In the context of climate change, natural gas is red herring, not an alternative.

Re:Natural gas a distraction in context of climate

[vlm]

its only very slightly better in terms of greenhouse gas emissions for the energy produced, and even completely replacing all coal power generation overnight wouldn't do much for climate change. In the context of climate change, natural gas is red herring, not an alternative.

To inject a little science and engineering into it beyond DragonWriter says so, you can't transport natgas by shoveling chunks of it into a barge, and you can't store it by merely creating a pile of it out in the open. Yes it takes more energy to dig coal out of the ground than natgas, but it turns out to be pretty cheap compared to the transport and storage energy costs. The mine vs well thing is pretty much a non-starter WRT to EROEI ratios.

The real tragedy of burning natgas as a primary energy source is its so freaking useful in the chemical industry for fertilizer and plastics and who knows what else. Its kind of like burning fine art paintings to keep warm, what a waste. Someday some poor bastard is going to be gassifying coal to make synthetic natgas to make fertilizer so he can eat while damning us for "wasting" the natgas by burning it.

Short version is natgas is insane expensive to transport and store and is "more valuable" in the long run as a feedstock than as a fuel.

Re:Natural gas a distraction in context of climate

[the eric conspiracy]

Yes, natural gas as it is currently processed is greenhouse neutral and not a benefit as is currently supposed by just examining the combustion step.

However a lot of the current technology is just flat out sloppy and definitely could be improved pretty easily. Some efforts are in progress.

http://www.epa.gov/gasstar/basic-information/index.html

By including methane in greenhouse gas amelioration efforts quite a bit can be done more cost-effectively than by tackling CO2 alone.

Re:Natural gas a distraction in context of climate

[drinkypoo]

The real tragedy of burning natgas as a primary energy source is its so freaking useful in the chemical industry for fertilizer and plastics and who knows what else

Strongly disagree. Fertilizer should be made from organic sources — and I don't mean USDA organic, I mean the dictionary definition that was in there for ages. It doesn't make sense to make synthetic fertilizers or pesticides because it doesn't make sense to use them, because they harm soil diversity by killing off most of the beneficials in soil. Healthy topsoil is up to 60% living organic material.

We should use natural gas for energy, because it is convenient. But we should not try to develop more sources of it. We should be making plastics from oil. We should be operating vehicles electrically, but until then we should be using biofuels like biodiesel and butanol. Biodiesel cannot be made economically because the government owns the land needed for its economically-sound production and will not grant a permit for so much as a solar thermal plant on BLM land; how far do you think you can get with a permit for an open raceway pond algae field? Butanol cannot be made because BP and DuPont hold the patent on making it cost-effectively and instead of producing it are operating as patent trolls, suing anyone with the audacity to bring us this 1:1 clean(er) gasoline replacement through their shell company, Butamax.

Short version is, corporations are using our government to fuck us for profit at the expense of our future. No, this is not news. Yes, it is what matters.

Re:Natural gas a distraction in context of climate

[Anonymous Coward]

The assumption being that there is a direct correlation between greenhouse gas and global war.. er.. uh.. climate change. I have yet to see proof of that. In fact, with the email scandle in the UK, several dissenting scientists saying they and their families were threatened, the amount of political and financial motivation involved I'm fairly convinced that the whole concern of climate change is the only thing man made about it. No one can deny that it's getting warmer. In the 70s it was getting cooler and we were headed for the next ice age. It's cyclical, it's part of life on earth, and even if we all went back to living in communes of tree houses with no electricity or running water the climate would be quite content to give us all the finger and do what it's been doing for centuries.

Re:Natural gas a distraction in context of climate

[Anonymous Coward]

NG emits about 1/2 the CO2 per unit of energy. Also, NG is suitable for use in more efficient Brayton cycle generators (~50 thermal to electricity or 50% efficient) as compared to teh Rankine steam generators used for coal (~33% eff). Clearly, this should be used as a "political" interim, until advanced machine automation is used to mass produce batteries and solar collection (for pennies on the dollar).

Is There Still a Ray of Hope On Climate Change?

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope not. I believe that we MUST care for our planet. But there is natural climate variability that explains this. The sky is not falling. The objective of "GLOBAL" warming is and will always be global government. But global warming is a hoax. Hottest 13 years on record... By what measure? If it is conciseness is it science? Do you really think the scientific method is used in global warming research? How are detractors treated? Very scientific. To be clear I believe that we MUST care for our planet.
http://www.beaufortobserver.net/Articles-NEWS-and-COMMENTARY-c-2012-06-23-261150.112112-Godfather-of-catastrophic-climate-change-exposes-the-Green-hoax.html

It's science, not hyperbole.

[plover]

thank you, at least someone gets it. We have only been keeping detailed weather records for around 100 years and now were supposed to believe that this is the hottest its ever been, thats crazy.

No, he doesn't "get it". Have you never heard of paleoclimatology? Scientists down in Antarctica have sampled cores of ice that have been trapped for millennia, and have been able to correlate the temperatures of the ice as well as trapped atmospheric particles with the time they were trapped. From them, they have determined an approximation of the average global temperature back through time, as well as estimates of things like the percentage of Earth's surface covered by wetlands based on methane levels indicating decomposed bacteria.

The Antarctic ice sheet has a pretty good record going all the way back to the previous ice age and a bit earlier. It's not like an almanac, where they can ask "what was the temperature on July 4th, 4004 BC", but they can see slow moving trends. For example, they can see a small dip that correlates to the Little Ice Age, and a more dramatic dip from an earlier ice age.

And the ice sheets aren't the only evidence. Geological records also contain clues about the earlier weather, in the forms of rock scratchings where they were pushed by glaciers, glacial moraines, ancient dried lake beds, etc. And the distribution of fossils can show where climates went from "hospitable" to "inhospitable" to certain forms of ancient life.

It's just the kind of data you need to have if you are trying to figure out if this decade is warmer than all previous decades in the last 40,000 years.

There is nothing crazy about it. It's just science.

Re:It's science, not hyperbole.

[murphtall]

Going back one ice age. ReallY? That's a quarter as useful a going back all the way. Geez.

Re:It's science, not hyperbole.

[Anonymous Coward]

...The Antarctic ice sheet has a pretty good record going all the way back to the previous ice age and a bit earlier. It's not like an almanac, where they can ask "what was the temperature on July 4th, 4004 BC", but they can see slow moving trends....

Of course they can't the Earth wasn't created until October of that year.

Re:It's science, not hyperbole.

[plover]

Going back one ice age. ReallY? That's a quarter as useful a going back all the way. Geez.

I should have actually said two ice ages, counting the Little Ice Age. And that was significant because it gave them two sample events to compare against the other physical evidence, not just one. Plus they were able to calibrate their shallowest samples against the last hundred years of very detailed and scientifically measured global weather data.

But yeah, they found that as their drills reached closer to bedrock, the core temperature of the Earth was warming the ice from below, significantly altering the directly measured ice temperature data. So the rest of the record of previous ice ages is derived from archaeological, geological and paleological evidence.

Anyway, it's so cool that they were able to figure this stuff out that it still amazes me.

Re:It's science, not hyperbole.

[Anonymous Coward]

The current climate change debate is lead by the blind leading the blind. Theorist computer modellers who believe their climate model is sacrosanct. A diversionary tactic to prevent the masses from discovering the truth. The real issue is that the current climate change debate is a farcical to impose a new tax on the working class.

Instead of reading the climate change spin, read geology reports.

The biggest short term climate change is caused by the gravitational pull between the Sun, Jupiter, Saturn and the Earth. Long term our solar system flying through the Milky Way Galaxy.

The Earth’s axis over time can wobble up to 15 degrees. The last major climate change was 10,000 years ago. Greenland and Antarctica were free of ice.

6000 years ago there was no Sahara Desert. Afghanistan was a mild Mediterranean climate.

In 500 years of New York City climate records the seasons have move 3 months.

Do your own research and make your own conclusions.

Re:It's science, not hyperbole.

[murphtall]

Anyway, it's so cool that they were able to figure this stuff out

yea I agree. Figuring out ice age stuff is really, really cool, glacially so!

That's right!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll never ever support idiotic ideas such as cap-and-trade - what a friggin' insane cluster fuck that idea is! I can't even begin to articulate the level of stupidity involved to embrace it. Ethanol is also a complete dumb-ass unmitigated disaster. However, if someone, anyone, makes solar panels that are actually affordable (including the battery storage), I'll be happy to cover my entire roof with the things. The answer, is 'green' energy that makes economic sense. Do that and you'll find lots and lots of people who will get behind it - even those whom liberals disparage as 'right wing nuts' - those 'nuts' will support all kinds of 'green' technology when it actually works, and when economic destroying policy is left out of it.

Re:In short? No.

[khallow]

They got everything, and they destroyed the future out of greed and selfishness.

In their defense, that didn't happen. It's just a fad to blame them for everything. Looking over garbage like this, I'm tempted to write a parody book where the Boomers get blamed for everything wrong that has ever or could ever happen, real, imagined, or fantasized about.

The universe turned out imperfect? God was a lazy ass boomer watching TV when he created the universe. All pain and suffering in this universe flow from the Howdy Doody Show.

Not even close

[SuperKendall]

We are currently at around seven billion people, starvation we see currently is from political, not technical issues. We do not have too many people, we have some people that suffer needlessly - an entirely different problem.

The upper growth is around 10 billion people, after that the population will remain fairly stable. There's no reason to think that with technological improvements in obtaining food we could not support that population indefinitely, assuming some vast plague does not take us down a lot...

Ironically, current warming trends would help us with more arable land, if scared fools would allow climate change to proceed normally.

Re:Not even close

[drinkypoo]

current warming trends would help us with more arable land

Only if we are willing to engage in deforestation that would exacerbate the problem. Did you get these ideas out of a Big Oil coloring book, or what? Meanwhile, our existing arable land is showing massive crop failures for this year, and food is already 20-33% more expensive than it was last year. As it turns out, when you have record highs and lows in the same place in the same year, there's no crops that want to grow under those conditions. There is no plant whatsoever that likes temperatures over 100 degrees (though many plants have adaptations to permit them to avoid damage in those conditions) and no plant that can handle those temperatures likes to be frozen. In addition, there has been inadequate rainfall in our existing farmland.

Re:Not even close

[iamwahoo2]

Consider looking at population through the prism of a world without fossil fuels and other natural resources. These fossil fuels pretty much make modern agriculture what it is today. It is hard for us to picture a world in which human beings become less capable and have less technology because it is not something we have observed in our lifetimes. However, it can happen, and currently we have no mitigating plan to deal with the dwindling availability of fossil fuels. Once fossil fuels become too expensive for agriculture, we could all be in big trouble.

Re:Not even close

[guises]

Even at only seven billion we can't sustainably support the people that we have. We are wholly dependent on fossil fuels, and even if the "ray of hope" from the article somehow miraculously solves our energy problems, and cuts down on carbon emissions enough to alleviate climate change, we would still be dependent on fossil fuels for fertilizer and for plastics, neither of which we can live without. Organic farming couldn't support even three billion people, and that's assuming all forests were cut down. That's also ignoring topsoil:

"In order to reduce gross agricultural topsoil loss to the natural rate of agricultural topsoil creation, the Earth's population would need to fall to about a fifth of its present value--perhaps 1.2 billion."

From: http://www.ecofuture.org/pop/rpts/mccluney_maxpop.html

There are certainly political issues as well, politics is what keeps us from putting reasonable caps on population, among other things, but the fact that the population looks like it's going to level off at around ten billion should not be a source of relief. Not to mention: the ten billion number considers current technology. Sure there may be some improvements in food or energy production, but it's not like medicine stands still. I would expect corresponding improvements in lifespan which would only exacerbate the population issue.

Re:Not even close

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironically, current warming trends would help us with more arable land, if scared fools would allow climate change to proceed normally.

Nonsense.

Northern climates may well be warmer, but they'll still be dark 16 hours a day in autumn, winter, and spring. Regardless of temperature, you can't grow many food crops (fruits, vegetables) when there's not enough light to, say, run a solar panel enough to keep lights on after dark.

It gets night-time dark before 5pm in Canada in the winter: stuff doesn't grow, even in places rarely below freezing.

Also, without adequate snow pack in the mountains there may well be water shortages, further making supposedly newly arable land ... not arable.

But a fool like yourself cannot be expected to understand something that complicated.

Re:Not even close

[Anonymous Coward]

The crop failures in North America are the result of lack of rain. Not heat.

If you want to be treated seriously and not get modded a troll, you could start by not sounding like a whiner that doesn't bother to get basic facts right.

Natural Gas == Fracking

[assertation]

Natural Gas == Fracking == Destruction Of Dwindling Clean Drinking Water.

Not much of an improvement

Re:Natural Gas == Fracking

[the eric conspiracy]

Citation of existing case of this happening needed.

Re:Natural Gas == Fracking

[Anonymous Coward]

Citation of existing case of this happening needed.

See the film Gasland.

And also read this paper:
Osborn, Stephen G.; Vengosh, Avner; Warner, Nathaniel R.; Jackson, Robert B. (2011-05-17). "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (20): 8172–8176. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1100682108. Retrieved 2011-10-14.

Re:Natural Gas == Fracking

[berbo]

Citation of existing case of this happening needed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6G6Ap-mF0k&feature=fvwrel

Yes there is hope.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes there is hope. Cheap commodity (relatively - we are still talking millions/billions invested) wind and solar generation plant is producing electricity at 2 - 10 c/kWh (yearly average, local currencies) around the world. It may not seem like that in the USA, but now the right decisions are being made, which may be followed by action. E.g. This year the big change in focus from high-tech-high-performance solar to commodity-but-not-as-effective (again relatively) solar is a straight copy of the Chinese billionaires. There may be a glut of solar plant, but not for long.

The end...

[Anonymous Coward]

...of any credibility this site had.

Now reduced to regurgitating spurious nonsense about Man Made Global Warming. No such thing exists, but the present climate of rabid hysteria and made up science will have none of it.

Sad? Yes.

Predictable? Also,yes.

One by one, the voices of reason and skepticism are silenced, and with them we lose any hope of progress.

To quote Carl Sagan

That kind of skeptical, questioning, "don't accept what authority tells you" attitude of science — is also nearly identical to the attitude of mind necessary for a functioning democracy. Science and democracy have very consonant values and approaches, and I don't think you can have one without the other.

Not sad, smart

[SuperKendall]

What is even more sad is that there is currently no realistic plan for how to deal with the fact that we are currently spending resources like coal, oil, and natural gas significantly faster than they regenerate.

Sure there is. We use the resources we have for the next few hundred years, but over time technologies like solar and hydrogen and nuclear power become more and more reliable and competitive with extracting natural resources from the ground.

It is inevitable this will happen, what is sad is that some people cannot accept this must happen at it's own pace and there is just so much you can do to hasten the arrival of alternative energy.

Re:Not sad, smart

[BlueStrat]

It is inevitable this will happen, what is sad is that some people cannot accept this must happen at it's own pace and there is just so much you can do to hasten the arrival of alternative energy.

Stane: "William, here is the technology. I've asked you to simply make it smaller."

William: "Okay, sir, and that's what we're trying to do, but honestly, it's impossible."

Stane: "Tony Stark was able to build this in a cave! With a box of scraps!"

William: "Well, I'm sorry. I'm not Tony Stark."

---

Strat

Hey retard

[Snaller]

"Really? So it's hotter today that it was during the Mesozoic era, when Antarctica was a desert (or even during the Paleozoic era, when it was a swamp)? Hotter than when earth's surface was made of *molten lava*? Really?"

No you fucking moron, its the warmest since they started keeping records not since the planet coalesced.

Please read "2052"

[DaPhil]

I recommend reading "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years" (http://www.amazon.com/2052-Global-Forecast-Forty-Years/dp/1603584218).

It is written by the same guy who co-wrote the 1972 report "The Limits Of Growth" and deals with what humanity will likely do (globally) in the next 40 years (not what we SHOULD do, but what we will most likely do).

It is very interesting (and actually quite easy) to read and deals among other things with the expected results of climate change.

Re:Please read "2052"

[Anonymous Coward]

It is written by the same guy who co-wrote the 1972 report "The Limits Of Growth"...

Written by the same guy who wrote a completely discredited report with highly questionable methodology? Why would I read that?

Re:Please read "2052"

[interval1066]

the same guy who co-wrote the 1972 report "The Limits Of Growth"

I was a kid in the 70's, and lemme tell ya (finger shake) people have been writing books about over population and economic collapse since then, and well before even. I deffinately recall that back then, among other things, there was a hue and cry about a new ice age. I had a class in jr. high school that had the teacher makin us watch "The Population Bomb" and that famous one about information overload and modern life (forget the name), and seriously, its a little nuts to take any one view point too seriously.
Sure, there may be something to the current notion of global warming. But there was something to the Cultural Revolution as far as the Red Guard were concerned as well. Entirely made up of empty-headed 20-somethings waving a little red book around destroying everything in their path. Anyone who questioned them was made to wear a dunce cap. Let's not do the same thing with this global warming scare.

Re:Please read "2052"

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been 40 years since 1972. How accurate was he?

Re:Please read "2052"

[DaPhil]

Apparently, not so bad: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16058-prophesy-of-economic-collapse-coming-true.html

I have not read the 1972 book, but I think the main point was that economic growth has to stop at some point (because the planet won't support it) and we have to go for a steady-state economy. The problem with that is, while it is perfectly possible to do, it apparently still just doesn't fit into the heads of the people responsible.

Re:Please read "2052"

[Anonymous Coward]

'Limits to growth' was a wakeup call, but in terms of specific predictions it has been, as near as makes no difference, 100% wrong.

If that's the author's greatest achievement, I'd say he's a competent evangelist but an absolutely terrible forecaster.

Re:Please read "2052"

[Anonymous Coward]

No. The problem is that it ("steady state economy") does not work. It was confused drivel when it came out and it remains as such until this day.

NO. It is a lie.

[Anonymous Coward]

NO. It is a lie. There should be no hope. You are being manipulated. The only thing better then a real crisis for those who want control is a manufactured crisis. We see this again and again in this world. Every crisis used to take more and more freedom. Global warming is the best crisis ever... never ending, it requires control of everything and everyone to fix. Nice job.

Re:In short? No.

[SomeKDEUser]

No it is a case were a particular generation, due to demographic factors, always got its way, and upset the intergenerational transfers, where education must be balanced with retirements and unemployment. The baby boom passing through the system tilted it always towards them. They got their education cheap, they got inflation as wage earner which allowed them to buy property for cheap, and now that they retire, they force deflation and cuts to education to pay for their retirement.

Their parents, on the contrary constructed a society for their children rather than for themselves. Are they responsible for all the ills in the world? No. Are they responsible for being selfish arseholes (collectively) who caused a situation were education and research get sacrificed on the altar of retirement funds? you bet.

And that is stealing the future.

AGW is a red herring.

[Anonymous Coward]

All global warming seems to serve as is a distraction. Get everyone riled up about something they don't really understand.

It doesn't matter whether you believe in AGW or not -- there are things we can do better. Warming or cooling or not, we can use wind and solar power.

Climate change or not, coal, oil, and gas are finite resources dictated by the confines of a finite planet. We shouldn't be wasting time arguing about what fossil fuels may or may not do to the climate in the future, when the obvious "we're gonna run out sometime" is staring right at us. Renewable energy is simply the way forward, if we want to keep using energy.

Cap and trade is old school thinking.

[wcrowe]

I remember twenty years ago or so when Al Gore was stumping for more public transportation. Even then I thought what a ridiculous, old-school, political-suicide-inducing idea that was. Why the hell are we commuting in the first place, when so many of us could do what we do perfectly well from home (or some other location)? Instead of forcing people to ride buses like a bunch of proles, the government could create telecommuting initiatives. At least it would be a lot cheaper and bound to be more popular.

 

Re:Cap and trade is old school thinking.

[CannonballHead]

A lot of jobs *cannot* be telecommuted to. In fact, I'd venture to say that *most* people can't telecommute to their jobs... only white-collar computer jobs. Construction, menial, farm/agriculture, and in-person services can't ... which, I dare say, probably accounts for more jobs than white-collar/tech jobs.

That said, our internet infrastructure has problems. I'm 10 minutes from 35,000 pop town and 20 minutes from 1,000,000 town and the best I can get is satellite or line of sight wireless.

Re:Cap and trade is old school thinking.

[Anonymous Coward]

Cap and Trade is not thinking. It is simply taking a problem, and making it someone elses problem.

Re:Cap and trade is old school thinking.

[dkleinsc]

It's always interesting to me to notice how many of the anti-public-transit arguments are cultural rather than practical. It seems to go something like this: "Public transit systems are for poor people. Nobody who's capable of driving should ever use public transit. Also, if I use public transit systems there's a chance I may come in contact with bad or scary people, so to avoid them I shouldn't go near a bus or train."

What's interesting about this argument is that it's unaffected by anything the public transit authority could possibly do. If you hold this cultural view, making it cheaper or faster just means that poor people get where they're going more easily. Adding more security and policing reinforces the belief that there are lots of serious crimes on public transit (otherwise, why would police be necessary?). And adding convenient routes doesn't matter, because this person is going to drive regardless.

What does seem to make a difference is having a city where public transit has always been a regular part of civic life: New York, Boston, and Chicago all have public transit systems widely used by people of all stripes since before cars were popular.

Re:Cap and trade is old school thinking.

[wcrowe]

But that is exactly my point. It is cheaper for the government to support building out the internet infrastructure to your area, than it is to build and support, say, a rail system.

Re:Cap and trade is old school thinking.

[CannonballHead]

I realize that. I'm saying that *most* people aren't in my situation. They need to be physically present. :)

No it is a lie.

[CrackedBen]

No it is a lie. If it is conciseness is it science? It is a hoax. Governments ALWAYS want more control. So they never let a crisis got waist. But global warming is very special to the power hungry. 1. It never ends & can never be fixed. 2. it requires control of every one and everything to fix. Tyrants ALWAYS have a problem to fix or an enemy to stop. So the result is never ending total control of everyone.

Re:In short? No.

[khallow]

No it is a case were a particular generation, due to demographic factors, always got its way, and upset the intergenerational transfers, where education must be balanced with retirements and unemployment.

What makes you think intergenerational transfers work at all? Here, you're just saying that a slightly larger generation upset the balance (and would have occurred with any other generation that happens to be above average in size). Such fluctuations probably will happen again and again. So what makes this the boomers fault rather than bad system design?

Oil is your master

[Anonymous Coward]

There is not alternate energy source capable of replacing fossil fuels - none. Until some magical new fuel is discovered that will replace oil and other fossil fuels you have but one option if you want to reduce green house gassess and that is to change modern society, since our entire economy and way of life is built upon the assumption (and consumption) of cheap fossil fuel. I still don't think people realize how deeply entrenched our reliance on these fuels is. They just can't magically be "replaced" by solar power, wind power, corn or whatever. Most alternative enegry simply haven't proven themselves to be practical which is why they haven't caught on. Sure you can supplement fossil fuels with some of these alternatives but oil is still king.

Unfortunately, no current energy source is as cheap, flexible or powerful enough to replace oil so you aren't going to fundamental change the way people live. Your stuck, sorry. Get over it.

Not all scientists believe that we are the cause

[DaCaptn19]

As a matter of fact they believe it was warmer than current temps just a short time ago. As it shows in this article http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/23/warm_period_little_ice_age_global/

Re:In short? No.

[SomeKDEUser]

Look, you are libertarian and you don't believe in societies. I like living in one and so does most of my species.

I believe believe in public education, healthcare, unemployment and retirement. All these are fundamentally intergenerational transfers. The problem is not that they work or not, the problem is that they are necessary and have to be made to work. The alternative is living in Somalia.

I've seen this logic before

[hort_wort]

Every time I read one of these climate change stories and the comments shouting "hoax!", I think back to a story. A professor was asked to study the atomic bomb yields and say whether or not it would ignite all the oxygen in the atmosphere and destroy the Earth. He came back a short time later and said, "No, of course not!"

After the test, his colleagues asked him how he arrived at his answer so quickly. He said, "Well, if I was wrong, who would've known?"

Ahem. Global warming and the self-destruction of mankind is a hoax!

Also, if a scientist came along with conclusive evidence that there was no such thing as global warming, he'd get a *LOT* more money. Think about it. How much would the oil companies pay for such information? There's no selfish reason to lie about this.

Re:I've seen this logic before

[Anonymous Coward]

www.climatedepot.com

There is no such thing as 'man made global warming'.

How is natural gas less carbon-intensive than coal

[Dcnjoe60]

How is natural gas less carbon-intensive than coal? IIRC, it takes 1 cal of energy to heat 1g of H2O 1 degree. Since the energy comes from oxidizing the molecular bonds in the fuel, it would seem that both are going to consume approximately the same about of carbon to generate the same BTUs. Wouldn't it still require the same amount of energy to run a steam turbine? NG may burn cleaner than coal, but it has lower BTUs and requires more of it than coal. Besides, the by-product of burning natural gas is still CO CO2 and H2O.

REAL Warming coming soon

[Anonymous Coward]

Read Isaiah 30:26 and Revelation 16:18-19 in your Bible. Scripture, so far has always been right. There is no reason to believe these prophecies will not be fulfilled. Perhaps the process of global warming has already started. Feeble humans however have nothing whatsoever to do with this REAL coming global warming!

Re:REAL Warming coming soon

[WillAffleckUW]

Last time I checked you're still ignoring half of the writings that weren't even included in the "Bible", such as the ones attributed to Judas or Mary.

Most of which was written many centuries AFTER the events of the Bible, of course.

Too late for what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mankinds arrogance is astounding to me. We believe as if we have effected climate or that we can stop it or alter it. Its pure arrogant, bullshit non sense.

The planet has been around for billions of years that we know of. Man kind has been around for thousands of years. We have only been in heavy industry what the last 75 years maybe, if that? And we think we have managed to damage an entire planet and its climate that has exsisted for billions of years? Give me a break.

Now lets remember this planet has survived world wide fires, world wide floods, ice ages, cosmic bombardments, comets crashing into it, whatever that killed all the dinosaurs, world wide vocanic activity, continents actually breaking apart and sinking, earth quakes and all sorts of other things. With that in mind who is to say the earth isnt just naturally making another of its millions of climate shifts that it has been making since its start? We dont control the earth or effect it, we just live on it and are along for the ride.

Besides science is bullshit on this topic and completely non factual. Sure some may say they prove it but in the 1970s they proved that nuclear power was causing another ice age that would kill us all. Hell it was on the cover of time magazine and every scientist in the world knew and proved we were causing an ice age. But guess what? It didnt happen and now suddenly every scientist is proving were going towards global warming? Give me a fucking break. I dont believe any of it. And guess what? If the world is going to heat up and we all die then there isnt shit we can do about it.

Language is a Slippery thing.

[Anonymous Coward]

Here we have a statement of "fact": the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998. This statement hides two very important things from you to make an impression that runs contrary to it's own narrative.

All of the years since 1998 have been less warm than 1998 itself. It's not been a warming trend since 1998 with temperatures soaring ever higher for the last 13 years. It was really warm in 1998, and has been cooling off somewhat since. So, keep that in mind - it does make the claim seem a bit less impressive.

According to historical records, 1934 was actually warmer than 1998, but it has been "adjusted downwards" in the GISS temperature record from what is suggested by the actual temperatures that were recorded at the time. Not really sure of the scientific reason why that adjustment was necessary.

Also, headline is a question, therefore the correct answer is "No".

Wait wait wait....

[interval1066]

the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998

I could have SWORN I heard in the media a few years ago (like within the last 3) that the US experienced the COLDEST winter ever. I'm not trying to flame, just seems to me that I remember such comments. Am I losing it or what?

Re:Wait wait wait....

[DaPhil]

US != World

But in general, "the media" loves to report stuff like this, normally completely without citations of course.

Re:Wait wait wait....

[interval1066]

US != World

Ummm... yeah, the news stories I commented on however were regarding the US, so... I'm not going to embellish, just report.

Re:Wait wait wait....

[festers]

How about actually siting/quoting one of these stories?

Re:Wait wait wait....

[interval1066]

No. Not that important, and hardly out of the realm of possibility, in fact they've been big enough for you to easily google up such stories yourself. It it sounded too fantastic to believe I might, but sadly, easily believable in my opinion.

AGW deniers? Let's do the atmospheric gas math!

[cplusplus]

Okay, atmospheric gas math, third grade style! First, what gasses is the atmosphere composed of?

Nitrogen - about 78%, followed by Oxygen - about 21%, and then other gasses - under 1%

Quick quiz - are Nitrogen or Oxygen greenhouse gasses? If you answered "NO", you're right! Okay, that leaves us with less than 1% of the atmosphere that is partly composed of greenhouse gasses. Let's ignore the nitrogen and oxygen for now, and focus only on that remaining 1% of atmosphere that contains actual greenhouse gasses. So, what's that 1% composed of? Well...

Argon - about 94%, followed by Carbon Dioxide - roughly 4%, then Neon - 0.2%, Helium - 0.05%

...and so on... Anyway. Quick quiz! Which one of the above gasses from that 1% is actually a greenhouse gas? If you said "Carbon Dioxide", you win! That means only 0.0004% of the atmosphere is actually C02, and that's the highest concentration greenhouse gas we have! Yay!

And, finally... bonus question! How much has the industrial revolution increased the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere? If you said 37%, you win again! If you really think increasing the primary greenhouse gas by 37% in only a hundred-or-so years isn't going screw with temperatures, you probably have your head shoved pretty far up... somewhere. Was this too hard to follow? Should I try and dumb it down a little more next time?

Re:AGW deniers? Let's do the atmospheric gas math!

[Oakey]

So from 0.0004% to 0.000548%?

Re:AGW deniers? Let's do the atmospheric gas math!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your numbers are wrong. Try .039% for CO2, and water vapor can be considered the primary greenhouse gas at .4% for the whole atmosphere.

Try this visualization: every year humanity burns a cubic kilometer of oil. This is vastly more than all the carbon produced by volcanoes and animals*. Ask: Does that gas do nothing? Does it go away on its own?

Then perhaps you can talk about how the partial pressure of CO2 keeps going up. I'd leave numeric details to more scientific venues and just focus on getting people to concede that there's some anthropogenic causation.

* decaying vegetation still trumps it but it's not like we're having a plantopocalypse, that stuff is pretty constant.

Re:petroleum is going to run out, NOT before bad

[neurocutie]

Known proven oil/gas resources/reserves global are a lleast FIVE times greater than the amount needed to raise the temperature 2degs C, a rise generally viewed as borderline disasterous. This means that we shouldnt come anywhere near "running out", if we know whats good for us. This fact has serious implications for the current valuation of our oil companies.

Climate Change is a Natural Cycle

[ilikenwf]

While humans do effect it, mother earth always manages her ..erm...cycles... Let's call it "those times of the millenia..."

It's not TOO LATE; it's never TOO LATE

[Ken_g6]

Given enough clean energy, we can always build a plant that will take CO2 from the air, combine it with hydrogen from water, and make hydrocarbons. We can then gasify the hydrocarbons to produce carbon. And pure carbon (as opposed to CO2) we can sequester easily.

Don't believe me? Look out your window. See that plant? No, the living one. That's such a plant. Then the gasification produces charcoal. Or, if you can't get enough of those plants, for this function, they can be replaced.

Re:It's not TOO LATE; it's never TOO LATE

[Anonymous Coward]

Monsanto engineered sky algae? Okay, before that, what makes you so sure such a thing can be engineered in time? Yes there is a time, it's like pooping on the floor in your house, eventually you will fall to disease, but that specific moment is impossible to predict doesn't mean you should throw your toilet out and save a few bucks on your water bill. In fact, you probably wouldn't be able to practice this long enough to die of disease because an externality in the form of your peers regulating your living conditions would prevent that for the common good through citations or possible arrest.

Re:It's not TOO LATE; it's never TOO LATE

[r0ball]

Except that the data shows there's a time lag between adding CO2 to the atmosphere and an increase in atmospheric temperature, ocean pH etc. By the time the effects of ocean acidification and temperature rise become a serious problem, we may well have locked ourselves into making thousands of species extinct, with untold consequences to the ecosystems that depend on them (see coral reefs for example). Ecosystems are fragile things - sure, they'll find a balance one way or another, but that 'other' way is likely to be a whole lot less beautiful, complex and interesting, and sure as shit won't take long-term human welbeing into account.

I think the reaction against some of the climate change 'deniers' posting on this thread (throwing insults at them and implying they're uneducated) is largely because of their refusal to even consider the risk that the scientific consensus might be right. Even if they have some doubt about the cause or scale of the problem, if after taking a rational look at the data and reading arguments from both sides of the debate, they still think there's no risk of serious climate problems, or nothing we can do about it, then their level of education should rightly be called into question.

There is no hope

[gweihir]

Just read through the comments here: Many people still deny climate change is human made, despite its blatant obviousness. It seems most of the human race is incapable to affect a targeted long-term change, and the few that would be able to lack what it takes to get into power in this mostly dysfunctional human race. If human civilization survives, it will be by accident, as there clearly is not even an approximation of the maturity needed to actually shape our future intelligently, instead of driven by localized greed, stupidity and blindness.

Of course, said "accidental" chance comes with a big question mark. First, the disruptive technology needed would need to manifest. Then it would need to be cheap enough to kill its competitors that continue to mess up the climate. And finally, from all scientific reports, climate chance is already a given for the next 100 years, the only thing the scientists are debating is how catastrophic it will be. That is will be catastrophic is also already a given and not in dispute among people that actually do understand the subject matter.

So, consider me skeptical. I do expect a vast die-off of humans in the next decades. After all that is how nature regulates overpopulation that destabilizes its host system.

Re:There is no hope

[Spy Handler]

Many people still deny climate change is human made

Including some of the smartest people alive on the planet, such as Freeman Dyson

despite its blatant obviousness

What's blatantly obvious to a true believer isn't necessarily so to the skeptic.

Re:There is no hope

[gweihir]

Smartness does not help. You need to be a climate expert. This is not something that is simple to understand without a decade or two as an active researcher in climatology. Freeman Dyson is not an expert in this field and obviously is not smart enough to recognize his own limitations. Or maybe he is going senile.

Just keep kidding yourself.

What are we doing about it?

[bzipitidoo]

Never mind the trolls. And forget about our nominal leaders. They follow us, not the other way around. So, what are we going to do about climate change?

My house is a 70's era of about 2200 sq. ft., with a gas furnace, gas water heater (tank), and a 12 SEER A/C. The location is suburbia, and there's nothing I can do about that. It's be nice to be within walking distance of necessities, but that's just not happening. I've got us down to about $1500/year on energy costs. I understand that's very good. But I'd like to do more. I've already done most of the easy stuff. Most of the lights are CFLs. I set the thermostat at 82 in the summer and 70 in the winter. (I'd push that further, but the rest of the family whines too much when I do.) The house is well shaded by mature trees on the south side. But according to my calculations, half of our energy still goes towards heating and cooling. I have fuel efficient cars, and a plug in electric mower that I use as little as possible. I was very happy to bid farewell to the CRT.

I'm looking for paybacks of no more than 5 years, but that depends on price. I'll accept longer paybacks for cheap stuff. Ideas like putting in double pane windows filled with argon gas, roof vents, solar cells, solar water heaters, water recapture, and other expensive home remodeling notions simply aren't worth the cost. I heard that leaky ductwork can be a big waste of energy, but in this house, the ductwork is inside. The hallways have lower ceilings than the rooms. Anyway, it's a poor quality cookie cutter home. Hate to spend money on a piece of crap house. But if a bit of remodeling isn't worth doing, then knocking it down and starting over sure isn't worth doing. There are other things. I have a few 80%+ efficient computer power supplies, and some of those green power strips that automatically cut the power to peripherals when the main computer is off. For convenience I leave a computer running all the time, however it takes only 20 watts. It'd be better if I could get power management working in Linux. Even at only 20 watts, automatic suspend to disk could be a big saver if only it worked. Replaced a 40 watt fluorescent light fixture with the new 32 watt kind when the ballast went bad.

In any case, I have the feeling that's all "small ball". As a whole, our houses are poor and our cities are oblivious to all forms of transportation other than the almighty car. It's exasperating how much low hanging fruit we are ignoring. Automobile aerodynamics is a big one. Why isn't the underside of every car nice and smooth? Because no one looks at that part of the car. Why don't we have skirts on the wheels? Because they look "ugly"! A huge saver would be the electric car. I'm impatiently waiting for decent batteries. Would like to see at least 500 km capacity on a 15 minute charge, and able to last several thousand cycles.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[dr2chase]

Suggestions I can come up with:

1) you might be able to shave a degree or two off the 70F. Lower temperatures are more tolerable with better clothing (I'm up near Boston, we get low temperatures, and we have oil heat, so $$$$); stretch polarfleece tights are effective. (I've got various bits of winter bicycle gear that are comfortable enough to wear in general, and not the ugly stuff you usually see sold "for cycling"). A small wood stove is also an option for heating a room or two, and that might let you lower the temperature elsewhere or simply cut the furnace load.

Solar water heaters are almost within reach for DIY, depending on your roof angle, latitude, that sort of thing (my father built several when I was a kid. You can do a lot with a piece of metal sheet, some copper pipe, fiberglass insulation, and some greenhouse ribbed lexan for the front. Use wire ties to hold the pipe to the metal sheet, and paint it all black.)

2) you might get some summer savings by painting your roof white, even above and beyond the shade from trees. That's pretty cheap. Be careful, apparently there can be paint-roof incompatibilities ("elastomeric" paint and asphalt shingles are anti-recommended; I used exterior latex, and intentionally did a crappy paint job so that the shingles could still breathe and were not painted together, which is apparently the issue. Note that I did this on a non-visible section of the roof; it's not something I'd call attractive.)

3) what's your commute/shopping obstacles that keep you in a car? What I'm looking for are things like distance, scary roads, hot, or cold. Scary roads are probably a show-stopper, but distance and hot you can address with some sort of a small motor (i.e., motorcycle, scooter, or assisted bicycle). There are cargo options that will pretty easily get you to six bags of groceries, and with a trailer, the limit is mostly the size of your motor (whether it's you or the assist) and your patience. But if the roads suck, probably forget it.

I think your electric car expectations are not realistic. 500km times the power required per mile to propel a car means a crapload of energy, and you probably don't have the electrical service that would let you deliver that much energy in 15 minutes. Downsizing the vehicle (scooter, or assisted bicycle) downsizes the energy required, which means that the fast-charge power requirements become somewhat more realistic, and you also acquire the option to buy spare battery packs and carry them. Unfortunately, e-assist for bicycles is not cheap, and until just now (when I googled for "cargo scooter") I did not know of any "cargo scooters".

Re:What are we doing about it?

[Maxo-Texas]

Solar attic vent made a big difference to me. The air started blowing colder in seconds after it startted.

If you are in the south, EER matters more than SEER.

I found that wrapping the ductwork in radiant barrier was cheap and highly effective.

I mostly went straight to LED. 3000kelvin is a better quality light than 2900 (too orange).
The new 3500 kelvin CFL light from Home depot (red box) is nice. Real white- not blue- light.

My bill is down from 1500kwh to 1243 kwh.

I recently bought a "Spinray" solar panel. These only make sense at $500 a panel. With federal tax credit they currently run $1000. They were $700 with credit when I bought mine but they shot up in price.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[bzipitidoo]

The elderly members of the house refuse to go below 70F. They like it hot, wearing sweaters even at 75F. They also have many bad memories of wood stoves, so that's out. I agree with them that a wood stove is not a good idea, what with the dangers of fire and burns, the hassle of supplying wood and cleaning out ashes, and having to install a flue. Do a bad job on the flue and you may end up burning your house down. The house has a fireplace, but it's really an entertainment item, not a serious way to heat. We've never used it.

The nearest businesses are at an intersection about 1/4 mile away. Of course the ones I care about are on the opposite corner from me, and while one of the roads is a street, the other is an extremely busy highway. I sometimes cross them both on foot anyway. It's a typical strip mall with a solid wall all along the back side. I once suggested that the city make a tiny little change to their ordinances to allow these malls to have gaps in this wall so pedestrians wouldn't have to go all the way around. They would not be required, merely allowed. A shopkeeper heard this and went absolutely ballistic. Said at great length that this would force the mall owner to raise his rent to pay for cleaning up the back areas and taking on more liability because the back areas are dangerous and no place for people, it would increase his insurance rates (because pedestrians are more likely to be criminals as well as injury prone klutzes, you see), would drive away the good customers, and on and on. Wouldn't let anyone else get a word in.

I know electric cars can't yet do 500km on a 15 minute charge. No I was not thinking of getting a charge like that at home. I want to be able to take such a car on a long trip. I'd visit charging stations instead of gas stations. As long as the best that batteries can do is something like 30 minutes for sufficient charge to go only 100km, it won't do.

Here's an example of the kind of pains involved in trying to be greener. I hunted down how to set up automatic suspend to RAM in my particular Linux setup (Arch Linux + LXDE). It should have been much easier than it was, but evidently such things are not a priority for most people. There should have been some option in a GUI configuration tool, but no. A search through all the options in all such tools was in vain. Documentation is, as usual, poor. So here's what I did. pm-suspend is a command to order the computer to suspend to RAM, no need to hunt further on that. Then I needed a way to detect inactivity, and 'w' didn't cut it. Didn't want a screensaver, just an inactivity detector. Some threads suggested writing my own program for this. Also thought of crontab. But I found xautolock. Next problem was how to launch it. Do I edit X configuration files? /etc/X11/xinit/xinitrc? Something in /etc/rc.d? Maybe inittab? bashrc? /etc/profile.d/xorg.sh? The window manager configuration files? chkconfig? Under LXDE, one place to launch X apps is /etc/xdg/lxsession/LXDE/autostart, but this doesn't work if root access is needed, and I didn't want to drag out sudo or hack pm-suspend's privileges. (I know LXDE can suspend to RAM from its logout menu, but am not sure how that works.) Can't run xautolock before X starts, so /etc/rc.d/ is out. Turns out /etc/lxdm/LoginReady runs scripts as root at the right time, but there is a bug. This script is never run if lxdm is configured for automatic login. Had to change to a timed login.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Solar attic vent made a big difference to me. The air started blowing colder in seconds after it startted.

Second for a solar attic fan. Big, big difference. We also installed an extra circuit running to the attic so the fan will continue to spin on hot nights. We live in a 50-year-old brick box house, and used to be very hot in the summers. With the attic fan, we barely need to run the A/C in summer, only on the very hottest of days. A lot cheaper than running the A/C, for sure.

We also planted non-destructive runner vines (Virginia creeper) covering the west side of the house which absorb some of the hot afternoon sun.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[dr2chase]

A quarter mile is not a very long shopping trip; with a 100km range on your hypothetically inadequate electric car, that's 50 round trips. You could dedicate a cheap bicycle and a trailer to that task if you wanted; for a quarter mile-trip, you're not going to be nearly so bothered by issues of fit, and it would take you forever to wear out even cheap parts. For example: http://www.bikesatwork.com/bike-trailers/model-64a-bike-trailer.html That distance you can hack pretty well even in a hot climate if you just take it slow, and it's not like car AC has enough time to do any good either.

For the elderly members, maybe electric blankets, or electric heating pads? Resistive electric heating is normally gruesomely inefficient, but if you use it to put the heat right where you need it, it wins.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[BlackSnake112]

Put evergreen trees/bushes on the north side of the house. Add more insulation to the attic and walls if you can. Sorry but replacing the windows with double pane one or even triple pane ones does pay off. If you have not done so put vinyl siding on the house. Remember to add the insulation that goes under it when you do. I think you can do the same with aluminum siding. It has to be done when the siding is being put up. Also how old is the roof? Adding the attic vents when the roof is being done is not really a major expense. If you do get a new roof, do not be too surprised if they say you need the wood replaced as well. If you have a poorly vented roof, the wood gets soft. It adds to the cost, but if they rip off the roof wood and all that is the perfect time to add insulation to the attic. How old is the gas furnace? If it is original, time to upgrade that. If you get it changed in the summer , it is cheaper than the in winter. Remember to pick an efficient one. The same goes for the fridge, washing machine, drier, and dishwasher. If they are 10-15+ years old. Look into upgrading them to newer more efficient ones. Those are more of things you change when they break items though. Also look at your doors. Like windows, if they are original, they could be changed to more energy saving ones. Remember to insulate around the door frame. Even if you use that spray foam insulation. I did that on a sliding glass door that was installed in the 1960s in a house (build in the 1940s). That alone helped keep the heat inside in the winter.

Of course if you are not planing on being there for the net 10 years skip all that.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[xenobyte]

Sorry buddy but that doesn't fly here... I like to keep 75F (24.5C) all year around, especially during the winter.

Why, because I hate being bundled up and prefer to run around in a t-shirt and shorts when I'm inside (or outside when weather permits). That takes around 75F to be comfortable.

My apartment is heated by central heating (radiators) fed the surplus heat from a large waste incinerator plant, so CO2-wise it's pretty much free heat as the waste will be incinerated anyway. Sure, I have to pay for the heat but that's not a problem - I just save money elsewhere.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[RockDoctor]

Would like to see at least 500 km capacity on a 15 minute charge, and able to last several thousand cycles.

Not disagreeing with your general points, but have you worked out what that sort of demand means in terms of chemistry? Unless the battery is also the main structural material for your vehicle, and the payload is a 70kg human plus 5kg of freight, then you're likely to be requiring energy densities that imply internal electric fields near to the ionisation potential of covalent bonds. At which point you leave normal chemistry and are breaking into the field of liquid plasmas. MHD batteries, here we come.

Chemistry does have limits. We may not be approaching them (yet), but that doesn't mean to say that they're not present.

Re:What are we doing about it?

[Tamerlin]

If our government were even marginally competent, we'd have invested heavily in updating our antiquated electrical and telecom infrastructures. One immediate benefit of that would be creating jobs in order to actually do the work, but another longer-term benefit is higher efficiency in transporting electricity, since the current power lines lead around 30% of the power that they're transporting. Instead of course we gave money away to one of the most useless industries in existence (financial), as a "punishment" for hosing the economy.

Re:In short? No.

[slew]

So what makes this the boomers fault rather than bad system design?

One can make many assumptions here:

- boomers helped design the system.
- boomers knew the system was broken and could have fixed it, but didn't.
- boomers should have know the system was broken and fixed it, but were clueless.
- system was designed by some god, and we have no free will and can't change it, and boomers broke the system.
- boomers want to blame broken system on someone else.

Pick one or two of the above. Then we can discuss.

Re:In short? No.

[khallow]

Look, you are libertarian and you don't believe in societies.

Who said I or libertarians don't believe in societies? Instead, it's pretty obvious that societies would carry the load from a reduction in government power and responsibilities.

I like living in one and so does most of my species.

Most libertarians do as well.

I believe believe in public education, healthcare, unemployment and retirement.

So what? Reality trumps belief every time. And once again, I'm left to ponder the internal confusion you must experience when you say that Boomers are wrecking everything because a) they're somewhat larger than other "generations", and b) they're doing the wrecking with intergenerational transfers such as what you "believe" in.

That's it. The politically powerful take from those who aren't. Big dog eats first.

So we can attempt to "make it work" even though it fundamentally doesn't work. Or we can find an approach that does work. The libertarians have some ideas here, should you ever be interested in things that work rather than merely things you believe in.

this "Man-Made Global Warming" story is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

"Climate Change" is a natural phenomenon. The Earth's climate has always been changing, in regular intervals, since the Earth was formed. And the variations in the Earth's temperature are due to changes in the activity of the entity who warms it - the Sun. It's the variations in the Earth's temperature that lead to variations in CO2 levels, and not the other way around. And this happens with a 800 years discrepancy. (See explanation here or here.)

The whole story about "Man-Made Global Warming" is a fraud. (See this very good documentary, for example.)

The main scientists involved in this swindle have already been exposed in a scandal known as "Climategate", in which it was denounced that the data presented has been faked.

This was not only exposed in the so-called alternative media, but has also been talked about in the mainstream one.

(I'm surprised that the people at slashdot don't seem to have read about this(?)...)

You are all being brainwashed and lied to. And this whole story is only a big excuse to preserve valuable natural resources for the elites promoting this lie.

And no, I'm not an ignorant person who doesn't read newspapers (controlled by this same persons). I'm a person who also swallowed this fraud for about 10 years, until I realized I was being lied to.

Everybody stay calm - This is NOT happening!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know what some of you must be thinking: The day has come when where all going to go down, etc etc, but let's get away from what's happening and let's look at the facts.

To my troll mod mod troll

[drinkypoo]

If only you could refute my ideas instead of moderating my comment "troll", you would have something. But your attempt to silence me through moderation proves both that my ideas are a threat to you and that you have no valid rebuttal. I will make sure to repeat these ideas as broadly and loudly as possible. Thank you.

Re:To my troll mod mod troll

[guises]

Moderators moderate, it's up to other people to refute. Sometimes you get a bad moderator, or maybe a good one makes a mistake, but complaining about it doesn't do anything positive. Go meta-moderate if you don't like it.

Re:To my troll mod mod troll

[drinkypoo]

Sometimes you get a bad moderator, or maybe a good one makes a mistake, but complaining about it doesn't do anything positive

Well, you're wrong. Often, it results in people noticing the downmodded comments, and then modding them up. Any other ridiculous notions I can disabuse you of? I recognize that you're new here.

I'm done arguing

[ghostdoc]

Can't be arsed to spend the time or energy arguing any more.
I've done the research, I'm still watching the blogs and journals, but I'm done with the discussions. It's become too polarised, it seems there's no longer a sane middle ground that says 'I don't think we know this as well as we think we do'. And I'm as guilty as most of taking a side and arguing it, instead of admitting my ignorance and being objective.

So, from now on I'm just going to vote for and donate to the people who seem to be making sense, and wait for the thermometers and tide gauges to tell us who was right and who was wrong.

I'm pretty sure, however, that we're not going to drown or burn, and neither are we going to be herded into green work camps by a new UN World Government. The truth, as always, will be somewhere in between.

Re:I'm done arguing

[drinkypoo]

I'm pretty sure, however, that we're not going to drown or burn, and neither are we going to be herded into green work camps by a new UN World Government. The truth, as always, will be somewhere in between.

right, we won't drown because we'll be herded into work camps by our own governments. ;)

List of things Caused By Global Warming

[Anonymous Coward]

A List Of Things Caused By Global Warming
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html

More H, less C

[Anonymous Coward]

A joule is a joule, but for a given amount of energy, less carbon is released from burning methane than coal. This a consequence of methane's higher H to C ratio. I.e. A greater fraction of the energy comes from converting H-C bonds to H20 molecules. The difference isn't huge, but it isn't total greenwashing either.

   

Re:More H, less C

[WillAffleckUW]

Some of problems arise due to the complexity of the molecules.

Not all gasoline in your engine is burned. Not all diesel is burned.

A fuel cell has a high burn rate, because it's pretty much H and O without a lot of C added.

I could point you to rafts of scientific articles on different fuel cell technologies, and the chemical methods used to store the energy, if you wish.

The wrong questinos are being asked

[Anonymous Coward]

If global warming is a threat, then is global cooling beneficial? What is the optimal global climate for humans? Is that a meaningless question? Would Candide say the average climate in 1900 was the best of all possible climates?

Re:Now see, it's hyperbole like this on record

[WillAffleckUW]

While Japan did keep records much longer than we have, and France has some that go back a bit, most of the world doesn't have recorded temperatures, just inferred temperatures.

China kept a lot of records, but I don't recall that temperature was one of them. They have a few thousand years of history too.

Re:In short? No.

[khallow]

And what would the point of making assumptions be? For example, boomers couldn't have helped design the system, because that was designed by a few thousand lawmakers, aides, and lobbyists. Boomers have some sort of vague distributed blame because they voted for the people who made the final decisions. It's also worth noting that the libertarian movement started as a resistance to this sort of thing and had and still has a bunch of boomers in it. So you can't say every boomer was equally blame worthy.

A lot of people should have known better. But as we see with the original poster that I responded to, blame gets attached to a vague generation rather than the system. How should we expect the boomers to know better when a lot of people don't now, even with decades of history to guide them?

My view is simply that this is a bad system, but one which wasn't obviously bad over the time it was implemented. It's only now with the intergenerational conflicts that we can clearly see something went wrong.

The problem with skeptics is too many are liars:

[bussdriver]

It is one thing to believe the majority of scientists IN THE RELEVANT sciences and quite another thing to be a "skeptic" too lazy to educate yourself. As far as their "prove it to me" attitude, I think it merely indicates the pointlessness of talking to them and possibly a lack of a fundamental understanding of science.

Maybe education and expertise means nothing and going to college was a big scam that only made people believe you know more than a novice?? I do not think so.

Most these "skeptics" are just using skepticism as a cover for their own personal beliefs. This is why study after study shows that introducing more facts and truth is ineffective and can even strengthen their resolve. The reason is because it is off topic, it is about beliefs and emotions NOT facts and reason. Therefore, addressing the "skepticism" facade is a complete waste of time; a distraction to keep you from going after the real reasons for their opposition. Could be it is a defensive tactic because the real reasons are too sensitive...

I know that in Australia they had great success undermining support by marketing the global scientist conspiracy as part of their conservative identity. So part of believing you are a conservative is drinking this cool aid; and since it may be a life-long identity nearly impossible to give up, piggybacking an issue onto the definition engineers their unwitting submission.

Re:In short? No. or y Boomer suck so bad

[WillAffleckUW]

I don't recall the kids in high school (boomers) thinking about any of the above things at all.

All they cared about was how hot their car was and how loud the engine was.

Or did you know someone who claimed that Boomers were different?

Cause I can tell you they were obsessed with speed and noise. ... which leads directly to today's problems, if you think about it.

Oh look it's my mod troll again

[drinkypoo]

But this time he chose "overrated", which is the most overrated moderation ever. I wonder if he works for BP, or DuPont. Probably just sad and lonely at home, and upset that no one agrees with him.

Re:Oh look it's my mod troll again

[SwampJack]

I'm not the mod but obviously your comment was marked overrated for a number of reasons. Ascribing it to an agent of BP or DuPont is a delightful display of your paranoid personality disorder. As though the people that run this world give a crap about your high and mighty opinions. A glance at the prolific number of comments you make on Slashdot each and everyday reveals you have very little to do with your life but try to prove others dumber than you. Well done. But, back to your comment. It was modded overrated because it is dismissive without much substance. You make assertions without backing them up. Some of those assertions are just plain wrong. For example, the original poster makes a valid point about the role of fossil fuels in the development of agricultural revolution. Your assertion that things can be grown just as efficiently organically is baseless, incorrect, deluded hippie-speak. On to your completely incorrect, yet ironically entertaining, understanding of economics. If something is "cost-effective" that means it is profitable to use it instead of alternatives. Do you see how stupid it sounds when I say "BP and DuPont could make a larger profit by switching from oil to algae, but instead they are financing a conspiracy to make smaller profits -- just so they can destroy the Earth" ? Its ridiculous and reveals a person who, behind those words, sees the world in an illogical way. The only consistency I see to your words is that you feel everyone (except you) is evil and everyone is out to get you. I would go on, but since you don't generally give people the consideration of thoughtful discourse, I see no point. But, if you get a chance, define narcissist.

Re:Oh look it's my mod troll again

[drinkypoo]

I'm not the mod but obviously your comment was marked overrated for a number of reasons.

You're also a spanking new account which has never said anything about anything except climate change and nukes.

Ascribing it to an agent of BP or DuPont is a delightful display of your paranoid personality disorder

There is plenty of astroturfing going on here on slashdot, and it has been identified in numerous cases.

As though the people that run this world give a crap about your high and mighty opinions.

Of course they do, if it conflicts with their party line, and they can suppress them cheaply.

A glance at the prolific number of comments you make on Slashdot each and everyday reveals you have very little to do with your life but try to prove others dumber than you.

I don't have to do that. They do that themselves. I don't think I'm the smartest guy here, of course. That doesn't stop there from being a lot of people dumber.

Your assertion that things can be grown just as efficiently organically is baseless, incorrect, deluded hippie-speak.

That is not my assertion, but I can see how a troll or shill (or just an idiot) might say that.

If something is "cost-effective" that means it is profitable to use it instead of alternatives. Do you see how stupid it sounds when I say "BP and DuPont could make a larger profit by switching from oil to algae, but instead they are financing a conspiracy to make smaller profits -- just so they can destroy the Earth" ?

Luckily, I didn't say that. What I said is that they are preventing others from using the technology. They want to sell as much oil as they can before they're forced to do something else because they already have infrastructure in place, much of which will be useless for making other fuels. You can make biofuels in a petro reactor column, but it takes a lot more energy than making butanol and biodiesel the old-fashioned way, and there's very little benefit. It might be useful for making bio-based diesel that is less likely to gel when used in cold climates.

Its ridiculous and reveals a person who, behind those words, sees the world in an illogical way

Yes, you are an asshole who has twisted my words to make me seem illogical, but I didn't say any of those things which is why you are a liar. Of course, you are almost certainly someone's third or tenth or twentieth account, as well.

The only consistency I see to your words is that you feel everyone (except you) is evil and everyone is out to get you

No, those are your words. I didn't say any of those things.

But, if you get a chance, define narcissist.

Well, I do also assume I'm better-looking than you are. As within, so without, and you are ugly on the inside. Maybe you're young and your attitudes haven't twisted your face yet, but the hilarious truth is that if you make an ugly face enough times, your face really will freeze that way.

Thanks go Governemnt???

[inthealpine]

So thanks to Government natural gas production is up? In what world? The Government has been caught off guard and is rushing around trying to impose regulations to stop exploration based on no science at all. The private sector exploited the resources so quickly it has changed the peoples views of energy.

Overpopulation is a myth

[INowRegretThesePosts]

The Chinese had it right with their limit on family size

Shame on you. The forced abortions, forced sterilizations and other extremely authoritarian methods used by the Chinese government are crimes against humanity.

Plus, there is no global overpopulation. Some places (such as Japan) are already experiencing population aging and decline, which is bad in many ways. Other places (such as the USA and specially Europe) already have sub-replacement fertility rates, and their population only grows because of demographic lag and immigration. It is predicted the the European Union population (now at 503M) will reach zero natural population increase by 2015 and zero total population increase in 2035 (at 520M), then start declining.

The USA will grow from 310M in 2010 to 403M in 2050. [1]
Asia will increase from 4.2B in 2010 to 5.1B in 2050, then start declining. [2]

The only region that is really growing is Africa. It will increase from 1B in 2010 to 2.2B in 2050. [2] Then its population density will be 73/km2. [3] Compare that to the current population density in Portugal (115/km2), in South Korea (487/km2) and in Taiwan (641/km2). [4]

Global population is predicted to grow from 7B in 2011 to 9B in 2050 and 10B in 2100 [5] and start falling soon after [6].

And according to [7], 40-50% of America-produced food is thrown away. According to [8], 1/3 of the world food is thrown away.
And this does not take into account that people eat, just for pleasure, excessive quantities of resource-intensive food (such as meat). If Americans/Europeans want to help the poor, an easy way would be to decrease (say, by 30%) their diet of meat. This will immediately reduce food demand and, for double bonus, the saved money can be donated to charity. And much arable land is wasted on subsidized inefficient corn-based ethanol. You can lobby your government to stop that.

Plus, there does not seem to be a negative correlation between population density and GDP per capita. [9]

African hunger is not caused by overpopulation. It is caused by corrupt and authoritarian governments, and by guerrillas/terrorists motivated by Marxism, Islamism, ethnic hate or simply greed.

Overpopulation fear-mongering is very old - at least as old as Malthus. One of its more recent incarnations was the 1968 book "The Population Bomb", which predicted mass starvation to occur in the 1970s.

Anyway, for better or for worse, there is already strong action taken by individuals, foundations, and Western governments, to restrict fertility in Africa.

1 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_11.htm
2 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_2.htm
3 : According to [2], Africa will have 2.2B people in 2050, and according to Google[10] and Wikipedia [11], the area of Africa is 30,221,532 km2
4 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_population_density
5 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_1.htm
6 : http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Analytical-Figures/htm/fig_6.htm
7 : http://www.foodnavigator-usa.com/news/ng.asp?id=56376-us-wastes-half
8 : http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/74192/icode/
9 : http://sanamagan.wordpress.com/2011/03/10/population-population-density-gdp-per-capita-ppp/
10 :

whoops

[drinkypoo]

Yeah, how dare I focus on how global warming effects the country where I live? That is so unreasonable.

Before my fellow grammar nazis descend and rip me apart, I know the difference between affecting something and effecting something... I simply failed here. Next time, I may use preview.

China is the real problem

[exabrial]

If you think the USA is bad... Visit China. Every day has nasty smog and the visibility is only about 1-2miles. Every time I've visited, it's gotten worse.

Children are good

[INowRegretThesePosts]

We cannot continue to reproduce like rats and rabbits.

This, I agree with.

First, it is dehumanizing to speak of human beings like that.

Second, the world fertility rate is at only 2.47 children per woman, and falling. [1] Our population will only increase to 9 billion by 2050, then crawl to 10 billion by 2100, then start falling.

There is absolutely _no reason_ to worry about alleged "overpopulation".

1. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/xx.html

Carl Sagan on Climatology

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's hear a little more about what Carl Sagan actually thought about the science of Global Warming:
"For our own world the peril is more subtle. Since this series [Cosmos] was first broadcast the dangers of the increasing greenhouse effect have become much more clear. We burn fossil fuels like coal, and gas, and petroleum putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and thereby heating the earth. The hellish conditions on Venus are a reminder that this is serious business. Computer models that successfully explain the climates of other planets predict the deaths of forests, parched crop lands, the flooding of coastal cities, environmental refugees; wide spread disasters in the next century, unless we change our ways. What do we have to do? Four things:
(1) Much more efficient use of fossil fuels. Why not cars that get 70 miles-per-gallon instead of 25?
(2) Research and development on safe alternative energy sources, especially solar power.
(3) Reforestation on a grand scale.
and (4) Helping to bring the billion poorest people on the planet to self-sufficiency, which is the key step in curbing world population growth.
Every one of these steps makes sense apart from greenhouse warming! Now, no one has proposed that the trouble with Venus is that there once was Venusians who drove fuel inefficient cars, but our nearest neighbour nevertheless is a stark warning on the possible fate of an earth-like world."
Carl Sagan, Cosmos (episode 4: Heaven and Hell (update - 10 years later))

AGW is probably real, but still the end isn't near

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Big Oil has spent vast amounts of money on studies trying to find some support for their assertions, the same assertions you share. Only, now even Big Oil is admitting that AGW is a real thing. Now, they're only arguing that it is not as serious as it is made out to be. As a predictable next step, they will announce that no, we're actually all screwed

I agree with much of what you said (except with your rudeness), but I have two objections:
1.) There is no sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy. Yes, they funded many studies. But people with an environmental bias have oodles of money too. Don't present the situation as "a vast powerful Big Oil conspiracy against powerless honest scientists". It is not.
2) We are not screwed. As TFA explains, we are in the right direction. The price of solar power is collapsing, and wind is going down too. It is predicted that half the world will reach residential solar grid parity as early as *2015*; wind will reach grid parity by 2025. And there are even other options such as next-generation nuclear.

If the government still thinks the market is moving too slowly, I can accept some gentle intervention (by slightly subsidizing renewables and slightly overtaxing oil and coal, for example). But the proposals to reduce human population, cripple the economy, or create an oppressive UN environmental agency to erode national sovereignty, are all unthinkable.

See

1. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (an example of the severe climate alarmism)
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

The end is NOT nigh.

Um, duh?

[Quiet_Desperation]

I said this from the very start. Remain calm, and carry on inventing. Try not to fuck up the economy with panic measures so there's money for research both private and public. Sadly, the alpha sociopaths fucked up the economy, but still human ingenuity ticks away.

The media IS very alarmist

[INowRegretThesePosts]

There are many lunatic environmentalists that claim "civilization as we know it will be no more" because of global warming, unless we reduce global population by 90%, or mandate 20 years of zero economic growth for "rich countries", or something equally absurd. Some borderline sociopaths have even calculated the carbon footprint of African babies. Oh, and waging a campaign of hate against "deniers" does not help (see that infamous 10/10 video).

See
1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/8165769/Cancun-climate-change-summit-scientists-call-for-rationing-in-developed-world.html
2. http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm (lots of examples of ridiculous alarmism)
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_parity

Now, let me make myself clear: AGW is probably real and it makes sense to work against it. Still, the end is NOT nigh, and there is no reason for authoritarian measures such as reducing human population or severely crippling the economy.
The market is already moving in the right direction. If we want to accelerate it, then some slight subsidy for renewable coupled with some slight overtaxing of oil/coal is enough.

civilization now is a roll of the dice

[WOOFYGOOFY]

. 'Our best hope,' says Benjamin H. Strauss, 'is some kind of disruptive technology that takes off on its own, the way the Internet and the fax took off.

Which is to say that thanks to conservatives, the fate of all human civilization has been imperiled to a point such that everyone's fate is left to chance.

Another way to say this, democracy has fundamentally failed its first and primary function to protect itself and human civilization itself from the ravages of cultural and religious conservatives.. There is no way to whitewash this basic fact. There is no other way to think about this.

From 9-11 and the Twin Towers, to climate change and evolution, conservatism and civilization are fundamentally incompatible.

Science should consider it its foremost goal to find the genetic and/or cultural defect that causes someone to become conservative and bring all knowledge, money and effort to eliminating those causes before conservatives succeed in killing us all.

Re:civilization now is a roll of the dice

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Oh no someone marked me down as trolling. Am I trolling? I ask you, am I merely trolling? Or am I just speaking a plain and unpleasant truth?

Re:civilization now is a roll of the dice

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Oh no another mod down.... the only problem is, what I am saying is perfectly true. Conservatives exclusively have denied and forestalled the change needed to address global warming in time. That is a fact. But for conservatives, we would have already effectively be limiting carbon emissions to keep us under the 2 degrees centigrade we need to be under. If not for conservatives we would right now be at a WWII level of national mobilization to reduce our carbon footprint.

Mod me down, have fun. Meanwhile, at a place called "reality" , which is different than slashdot, the inevitable is barreling down on you in full rage form. Don't like what I'm saying? Read a little history have you? Don't like the inevitable place this leading to and what it means for you? Never mind modding me down on slashdot. Make it not true.

Population growth is the great satan.

[Anonymous Coward]

The main source of global warming is an exponential increase in population. You want to do something about global warming? Make the average birth rate be less than replacement. Unless you do that, nothing will help, because exponential growth outstrips everything else. You want to cut CO_2 emissions per capital by a factor of 2? No problem. In a few years, exponential growth will bring up totals by a factor of 2.

Any other things you do are just shooting yourself in the foot, while the rest of the world laughs at you.

If it's any consolation, eventually global warming will result in negative population growth. It won't be pretty, but it never has been.

So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what not all writings were included in the Bible? I fail to see your point.

(posting anonymously because any defense of Christianity gets moderated down).

Re:In short? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thats not the worst part. The worst part is how hypocritical they were about it all.

Free love, free drugs, rock and roll forever, fight the power, we're gonna change the world!

Turned into...

Screw you, i got mine. And now we're taking it all apart so you can't have it too!

Well let me tell ya boomers. As a member of the next generation after you... I have learned the lessons you taught well. Might not be the intended lessons. But there it is.

When you're old and grey and need help. I'm gonna make you pay for it. Over and over. And the second you cant fucking pay me... i'm throwing you out to die in the street.... I'm gonna try to scam you every way i can. I'm gonna work hard to get anything i can from you. And i'm not going to be nice about it.
Why?

Because screw you, i got mine.

Old age for boomers is going to be brutal. Especially those who are not rich.

Growth can continue

[INowRegretThesePosts]

I have not read the 1972 book, but I think the main point was that economic growth has to stop at some point (because the planet won't support it) and we have to go for a steady-state economy.

Given that the economy is becoming knowledge based, and computer based, I think we can peacefully grow for at least many centuries to come.

By the time we reach the limits of Earth (if that day ever comes), we will long have colonized other planets.

Re:Growth can continue

[drinkypoo]

Given that the economy is becoming knowledge based, and computer based, I think we can peacefully grow for at least many centuries to come.

There is an upper limit to the number of people who can work for service industries in our current capitalist/mercantilist system, which is part of what the GP was talking about.

By the time we reach the limits of Earth (if that day ever comes), we will long have colonized other planets.

This is not about limits of physics, this is about limits of politics, and the apparent lack of limits to human greed.

Re:Growth can continue

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Given that the economy is becoming knowledge based, and computer based, I think we can peacefully grow for at least many centuries to come.

There is an upper limit to the number of people who can work for service industries in our current capitalist/mercantilist system, which is part of what the GP was talking about.

Why? Manufacturing and agriculture become ever more mechanized. To me, it seems that by 2112 every uncreative job will be performed by robots - except the police, the military and the intelligence agencies, because we don't want robots running those (imagine what a computer worm could to an army of robots!).

And, by 2112, "uncreative" will be a _very_ broad term - with 2112-level AI, I think a very large proportion of today's jobs will be considered "uncreative".

Re:Growth can continue

[drinkypoo]

There is an upper limit to the number of people who can work for service industries in our current capitalist/mercantilist system, which is part of what the GP was talking about.

Why?

Because the system is designed not just to be inherently unfair, but also to eliminate any unneeded population. They drive people into homelessness by tampering with the economy, homelessness is effectively illegal not to mention people who are starving find new limits to their morality. Once you commit a crime (or once they criminalize your activities) they can put you in prison where your odds of death go up year by year. Your children can be taken away and placed with other families, and tend to have a higher rate of crime themselves, et cetera. The plan of the mercantilists is simply to kill off the population they see as undesirable, not with tailored plagues or military action, but simply through uncivil attrition.

To me, it seems that by 2112 every uncreative job will be performed by robots

Quite so, and the powers that be have no use for the rest of us. In their vision, it's just the racially privileged (descendants of royalty and so on) and a few engineers and robot repairmen that will be left.

Re:The problem with skeptics is too many are liars

[gweihir]

Well said. Conservatives would have to acknowledge a whole set of facts that do not fit their limited world-view if they recognized science as what it is, namely our best path to the truth. I have to say the recent research showing that conservatives are shallow thinkers is eminently consistent with the observable facts.

Now, if they were destroying only their own planet with their stupidity, but unfortunately we are sitting on the same one...

AGW is likely real, but still the end is not nigh

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Large, fast changes in climate don't matter much to life. It'll recover. We may not. Or we may, but our civilisation is a goner. Or maybe, if we are extra-lucky, we get to only have a major economic crisis. Something like the industrial revolution in reverse.

The very *civilization* is at risk? Please. See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921

Still, the end is NOT nigh

[INowRegretThesePosts]

See http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

I thought /. kept up on developments.

[Anonymous Coward]

A recent study of tree rings shows that man made climate change is a scam to get in your wallet. It was warmer in Roman times for one thing. Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2171973/Tree-ring-study-proves-climate-WARMER-Roman-Medieval-times-modern-industrial-age.html
          I can't believe it is even up for debate considering one major volcanic eruption puts out more "green house" gasses than most of humanities existence. Why aren't the geologists calling B.S.? The Earth is a closed system powered by the Sun. Anything else is human Hubris.
   

Tricks

[manu0601]

Hold on so what this article is saying is that once again the free market is taking care of us where the government has failed miserably?

Yes, but there are some tricks in order to achieve that goal, as it is not that easy to curb reality that far. For instance, it is reported that we use more alternative energy than expected. That is fine, but as we consume more energy overall, does this reduce the greenhouse gas emissions?

We are moving in the right direction

[INowRegretThesePosts]

Unlike many issues, it's meaningless whether we find a compromise that meets everyone's political preferences. We need a solution that meets the hard requirements of nature. Climate change won't negotiate with us.

But if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.

On the other hand, if you make sound predictions and moderate proposals, then people can actually believe you.

Also, don't worry; see http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3004663&cid=40771921.

Also, see:
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-101/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-104/
http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/11-3-11-105/

So even though AGW is probably real, rest assured that free market is moving in the right direction. Also, public opinion is becoming ever more willing to have the government interfere and accelerate the process.

In short: the end is not nigh.

Re:We are moving in the right direction

[guanxi]

if you make loony predictions (such as "the end of civilization as we know it") and loony proposals (such as forcing twenty years of zero economic growth in "rich countries"), then nobody will listen to you.

No serious party is making those predictions or proposals. Only the deniers characterize the argument that way. Read the actual science and proposals, instead of the characterizations by their political opponents; for example read the IPCC reports (or just the summaries, which are relatively short); they are what you are looking for.

Your assurance doesn't help in the face of the facts. Also, the free market would work better if those emitting carbon had to pay for it, instead of dumping the cost on everyone else: It creates a false incentive to the emitters (carbon emission is free!) and runs up my taxes and bills.

Another source.

[Anonymous Coward]

The tree ring study shows we are headed toward the next ice age. This interglacial won't last. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/07/10/global_warming_undermined_by_study_of_climate_change/

Re:AGW is likely real, but still the end is not ni

[SomeKDEUser]

Let me be clear, the idiots who think growth/progress should be stopped are more than idiots, they are advocating genocide. I loath and despise them.

This is completely orthogonal to the civilisational risk from global warming. If there is a solution to it, it is through progress, research and growth (and nuclear plants ;) ). But to deny the risk? Or to think that magically because solar is cheap coal plants will close? Or that the amount of carbon in the atmosphere cannot reach dangerous values because THE FREE MARKET, or because GOD WILL SAVE US? This is silly. Perhaps as silly and misguided as the rubbish from the fools who would have us go back to the 17th century.

Stringent environmental standards and much money poured into research/improve the energy infrastructure are a good idea no matter what. Global warming is an urgent reason for that to happen sooner than later. If we don't, bad things may happen.

Cap and Trade

[Anonymous Coward]

Some history on the good old cap and trade bill, provided by Al Gore, the man who brought you all the internet.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C28avoSrYyQ

This bit in the summary is actually good:

[Weaselmancer]

the country seems to be moving further away from doing something about climate change, with the issue having all but fallen out of the national debate

This is a good thing.

Having it be a matter for public debate means that it can become political. Which it has. And that means that every moron will be spoon fed an opinion and the debate can rage. People will use any stupid thing to play pundit with. This needs to be not one of them. It's too important.

So I'm happy people aren't talking about it anymore. We're not talking about the hole in the ozone layer anymore, right? And you know what? The guys with the lab coats were able to not have to waste time with public debate and trying to educate a nation chock full of idiots. And instead they were able to get to work, work the problem, and get on the road to fixing things.

I'm pleased this is starting to happen with global warming. Ten years from now people won't be talking about it, except the ones that you'd want to. It'll be the guys fixing things.

Re:How is natural gas less carbon-intensive than c

[Thng]

Natural gas power plants are frequently combined-cycle, where the combustion of the gas occurs in a turbine engine driving a generator, and the waste heat then boils water to drive a second steam turbine. "Because of this efficient use of the heat energy released from the natural gas, combined-cycle plants are much more efficient than steam units or gas turbines alone. In fact, combined-cycle plants can achieve thermal efficiencies of up to 50 to 60 percent." from: http://www.naturalgas.org/overview/uses_eletrical.asp (their misspelling)

No doubt about climate change...

[theendlessnow]

I have no doubt about climate change... shoot, just wait about 6 months.. it will much cooler (you'll see).

I remember the comming of the ice age in the 70's

[NetNinja]

Meaningless! Meaningless!â
        says the Teacher.
âoeUtterly meaningless!
        Everything is meaningless.â
3 What do people gain from all their labors
        at which they toil under the sun?
4 Generations come and generations go,
        but the earth remains forever.
5 The sun rises and the sun sets,
        and hurries back to where it rises.
6 The wind blows to the south
        and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
        ever returning on its course.
7 All streams flow into the sea,
        yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
        there they return again.
8 All things are wearisome,
        more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
        nor the ear its fill of hearing.
9 What has been will be again,
        what has been done will be done again;
        there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which one can say,
        âoeLook! This is something newâ?
It was here already, long ago;
        it was here before our time.
11 No one remembers the former generations,
        and even those yet to come
will not be remembered
        by those who follow them.

I love cut and paste :)

Re:In short? No.

[Anonymous Coward]

So everyone is clueless and we blame the previous generation even though they were also clueless. I see.....

coldest summer in..

[harvey the nerd]

Many people in Alaska are getting substantial *heating* bills this year. It's cooler in other parts of the world. Just bunch of whiners in the Lower 48 egged, on by the climate partisans and trade exchange fraudsters, near the current solar peak.

Global warming aside...

[jeko]

Humanity will survive. A few billion might not, but little threat is posed to humanity as a whole. If most of the world's cities flood, humanity will survive just fine, and eventually recover.

You might find people more receptive to your arguments if you didn't "hand wave" away the death of billions and the New Dark Age that would inevitably follow. I understand your point, and I've heard more than one historian credit the Black Death for clearing the way for the Renaissance, but anyone who can posit the death of billions so cavalierly scares me to death.

False

[pubwvj]

"the 13 warmest years for the entire planet have all occurred since 1998"

False. It is a shame that people who write lies like the above failed science and history. Our planet has had much warmer periods and life thrived then with more biodiversity than we have now. Today is a relatively cool period. There have also been much colder times. The problem is some people are afraid of change. The reality is, life is filled with change. The Earth has been both warmer and cooler in the past. The current temperature and sea levels are just what modern people are used to living at.

Natural gas is ... mostly (bound) hydrogen

[harvey the nerd]

Methane, CH4, is as close to a "hydrogen economy" as you can get right now.

Re:AGW is probably real, but still the end isn't n

[drinkypoo]

There is no sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy

[citation needed]

Also, you need to show where I said that there is one. The quoted text does not serve this purpose.

We are not screwed.

That remains to be seen, but I didn't say that, either.

Further, I reserve the right to be rude to people who are rude. You can say that it's not constructive, and you may be right. I don't care.

this "Man-Made Global Warming" story is a myth

[Anonymous Coward]

"Climate Change" is a natural phenomenon. Climate has always been changing, in regular intervals, since the Earth was formed. And the variations in the Earth's temperature are due to changes in activity of the entity who warms it - the Sun. It's the variations in the Earth's temperature that lead to variations in the CO2 levels, and not the other way around. And this happens with a 800 years discrepancy. (Read the explanation here or here.)

The whole story about "Man-made Global Warming" is a fraud. (See this very good documentary, for example.)

The main scientists involved in this great swindle have already been exposed in a scandal known as "Climategate", in which it was denounced that the scientific data presented has been faked.

This hasn't only been exposed in the so-called alternative media, but has also been talked about in the mainstream one.

(I'm surprised that the people at slashdot don't seem to have read about this(?)...)

You are all being brainwashed and lied to. And this whole story is just an excuse to preserve valuable natural resources for the elites promoting it.

(And no, I'm not an ignorant person who doesn't read scientific or generalistic newspapers (controlled by this same persons). I'm a person who also swallowed this fraud for about 10 years, until I realized I was being lied to...)

Re:AGW is probably real, but still the end isn't n

[Namarrgon]

"The end" may not be nigh, but trillions of dollars in climate-related costs are.

Natural gas = Hydrofracking

[Anonymous Coward]

The only reason Natural gas usage has increased so rapidly is because large energy companies are losing with oil and shifting to gas. Hydrofracking has increased -massively- in the past decades, mostly without public notice. And hydrofracking is dangerous, unpredictable, and provably contaminates wells and streams. See the film Gasland. Natural gas is not the answer, it is just the current industry solution for relatively cheap profit.. Lets not pretend things are "getting better" because the "alternative" we found is gas. The only real alternative is the sun (for input), and electric grids (for storage), which means massive infrastructure changes (away from burning).

Re:Natural gas = Hydrofracking

[Anonymous Coward]

For those who need references:
Osborn, Stephen G.; Vengosh, Avner; Warner, Nathaniel R.; Jackson, Robert B. (2011-05-17). "Methane contamination of drinking water accompanying gas-well drilling and hydraulic fracturing" (PDF). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 108 (20): 8172–8176. DOI:10.1073/pnas.1100682108. Retrieved 2011-10-14.

Brainwashed idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Try reading the truth about 'climate change':

www.climatedepot.com

Re:AGW is probably real, but still the end isn't n

[Mindcontrolled]

I'd give it to the GP that there is no Big Oil conspiracy. After all, a conspiracy by definition includes a clandestine element. Big Oil's ties into the denial-sphere are out in the open, for all to see. No need to call simple propaganda a conspiracy - which you didn't, anyway.

yes, there is hope

[kenorland]

The hope is that this stupid debate ends, we can move on with our lives, and in a decade or two, most of the world will have converted to solar and nuclear because it's the economically efficient thing to do.

If you want to speed up that process, stop subsidizing carbon based fuels, directly or indirectly. As long as US and European governments shove vast amounts of subsidies and bailouts in the direction of oil, gas, coal, auto, agriculture, and other fossil-fuel-related industries, one has to assume that their support for renewable energy and their rhetoric about climate change is just a thinly veiled attempt to engage in even more crony capitalism.

So, I'm all for strong action on climate change, starting with the massive amounts of government spending that are currently promoting climate change.

Re:yes, there is hope

[drinkypoo]

stop subsidizing carbon based fuels

So, you are a nuclear playboy.

What about carbon-neutral carbon-based fuels? Hell, biodiesel from algae has the potential to be carbon-negative if you use the waste for fertilizer, but I think we should be dumping it into an ABE process.

Re:yes, there is hope

[kenorland]

So, you are a nuclear playboy.

No, not particularly. I don't think nuclear should be subsidized either, but it also shouldn't be as ridiculously regulated as it is now. China and India are likely going to use nuclear on a big scale anyway even if Europeans get their panties in a knot over it.

I just think if governments stopped messing with the energy market, we'd end up with a much more rational mix of energies.

What about carbon-neutral carbon-based fuels?

I think no fuel should be subsidized or penalized as a matter of public policy. If biodiesel from algae is carbon-negative and can be used for fertilizer, it should win in the market all by itself.

Re:yes, there is hope

[drinkypoo]

I think no fuel should be subsidized or penalized as a matter of public policy. If biodiesel from algae is carbon-negative and can be used for fertilizer, it should win in the market all by itself.

Well, BP and DuPont hold a patent on making Butanol through their shell company Butamax, and they're not producing it, but they have sued others to prevent them from doing so. And good luck getting permits to grow algae on BLM land, which is where pretty much all the practical land for doing so is. It's going to take a seawater pipeline to get the water into the deserts where you get the most insolation, and one would need even more luck to get that run through. Of course, it's quite possible that the military's new interest in biodiesel will result in that happening eventually, largely at taxpayer expense and on behalf of some big oil company, but which one?

Re:yes, there is hope

[kenorland]

Well, geez, how could those problems be taken care of? Let's see... narrowing of patents and patent-based monopolies, more privatization and less regulation of BLM land, and reduction of the government's ability to pick winners and losers in the market place. It seems to me you agree with me: the problem is too much government interference in the market, and the solution is to reduce that.

Re:yes, there is hope

[drinkypoo]

It seems to me you agree with me: the problem is too much government interference in the market, and the solution is to reduce that.

No, I don't agree with you. I think there's too much corporate interference in the government, and the solution is to reduce that. You can't create a free market without some government influence, to maintain the fair standards of a free market. On the other hand, you can't create a free market while the government is controlled by corporate interests, either.

Re:yes, there is hope

[kenorland]

Of course there is too much corporate interference in government, of course, government is controlled by corporate interests, and of course, the job of government is to maintain a free market. How is giving even more power to the government going to fix that? The decisions of all politicians, from ultra-conservatives to ultra-progressives, are dominated by special interests and lobbies, not because they are evil or corrupt, but because the issues have become far too complex for them to deal with. Most politicians only have a vague second or third hand understanding of what they vote for.

Rational, competent government that puts the people's interests would be great, but although politicians keep promising it, nobody has been capable of delivering it. Obama has been as susceptible (if not more) to control by corporate interests as all of his predecessors. Whether it's bailouts, renewable energy, bank regulations, stimulus packages, or health care, the benefits they produce are balanced by a large amount of corruption hidden in each of them: transfers of vast amounts of money from tax payers to the rich, hurting competitors, erecting trade barriers, etc.

So, until someone figures out how to change the way that government works fundamentally, the only way we have to reduce that harm that corporate control of government does is to reduce what government can do in the first place to a tolerable minimum. We need defense, police, some public education, a legal system and courts, and a few other things. Once you take the inevitable corruption into account, most of the other theoretically beneficial government activities likely become a net loss for society.

Re:yes, there is hope

[drinkypoo]

How is giving even more power to the government going to fix that?

Attacking a straw man, I didn't say give more power to government. Government already has all the power it needs to fix this situation and then some, that's not the problem.

So, until someone figures out how to change the way that government works fundamentally, the only way we have to reduce that harm that corporate control of government does is to reduce what government can do in the first place to a tolerable minimum

Catch 22, you can't reduce what government can do to a tolerable minimum without fixing the problems with government.

Re:yes, there is hope

[kenorland]

Attacking a straw man, I didn't say give more power to government. Government already has all the power it needs to fix this situation and then some, that's not the problem.

You're talking in meaningless generalities now. I'm referring to specific things: carbon taxes, nuclear regulations, federal health care legislation, income tax increases, environmental regulations, bailouts, prisons, stimulus packages, etc. All of those refer to specific things government can either do or not do, and votes do influence the outcome. If many of the representatives who voted for these thing lose reelection, they won't happen again.

But the fact is that many people like increasing the size of government, even though they claim at the same time that they are against "corporate influence". You cannot be simultaneously for increasing the size of government and against corporate influence, because increasing the size of government automatically increases corporate influence.

Catch 22, you can't reduce what government can do to a tolerable minimum without fixing the problems with government.

No Catch-22 involved: you vote politicians out of office who spend too much money; politicians respond to that. And it is already happening, it just needs to happen more often. And by "voting out of office" I mean that: punish incumbents for kowtowing to corporate power and handing out tax dollars to corporations and banks. You'll have an excellent opportunity to punish several incumbents that did just that in the fall: look at who voted for major legislation that resulted in new regulations and expenses.

The two major political movements in recent years, the Tea Party and Occupy, are really pretty much aligned in their opposition to corporate power and crony capitalism. Unfortunately, they each are wearing ideological blinders and think that voting for one party or the other is the solution, when the solution is rather to consistently punish politicians who engage in these misbehaviors.

Re:yes, there is hope

[drinkypoo]

And by "voting out of office" I mean that: punish incumbents for kowtowing to corporate power and handing out tax dollars to corporations and banks. You'll have an excellent opportunity to punish several incumbents that did just that in the fall

Unfortunately, they will take the opportunity to scream about shit they should never have had control of like reproductive rights and it will all go in a circle with only minor changes. The ballot box doesn't work when people are easily led (and they are, not least because of the ongoing and systematic dismantling of our education system) and when the government decides who will be permitted to stand on the tallest soapboxes, via the FCC.

The Free Market is interfering in government.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, those lobbiests paid for by Fossil Fuel industry have, for 30 years or more, interfered with government doing its business.

However, because there are vastly more people and companies than sovereign governments, these lobbiests cannot stymie EVERY company, and some have gone ahead, in the face of the lobbied-for aid to fossil fuels making their product effectively dumped on the market at below cost.

Meanwhile, many governments who you would caricature as communist have done great things already. Denmark, Norway and more recently Germany.

In fact, the governments who have done nothing (at best) have been the ones who believed they should wait and let "The Free Market" do it instead. And those countries are late to the game compared to those countries whose governments started action.

Looks like the free market is slower than government at effecting change.

Use a clothesline not a dryer.

[Anonymous Coward]

Biggest single change you can make which has no effect on your life.

Let the AC go. Don't use it.

Don't keep the computer on (really, convenience? 20W is high, by the way. Less than 6W with a netbook.)

And so what if it's "small ball"? In what way is it smaller than "No ball"?

And why do you want 500km capacity for ANY length of charge? How far is it between petrol stations where you live???

Re:In short? No.

[khallow]

Pretty much. It looks to me to be just a vicious cycle of incompetence.

Wake up

[Anonymous Coward]

Only about 3.5 percent of annual atmospheric CO2 emissions are man-made (96.5 percent are from natural sources).

Re: citation needed

[pastafazou]

You can't demand a citation for his statement, as he's disagreeing with your original claim. The onus is on you to provide some documentation that provides some truth to your statement. You made the original claim of "big oil" spending vast amounts of money. Therefore, you would be the one required to provide citations that back it up. And by requesting a citation on his statement, you are implying that there is a sinister, vast Big Oil conspiracy, for which you should be providing a citation.

We're doomed

[Anonymous Coward]

All hope is lost. The end is nigh. We all gwine die. We will die horribly and in pain.
The good news is that Earth will be just fine.

James Hansen?

[pastafazou]

He's come out with some pretty apocalyptic predictions, such as his 1988 chart showing 3 different scenarios, all of which are looking to be way off the mark. And Al Gore had some pretty wild assertions about sea level rise in his movie too. Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the IPCC, also had some wild claims of Himalayan glaciers all being gone by 2035. Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted an ice free arctic by 2015. And here's another prediction for some catastrophic sea level rise. There has definitely been lots of alarmist predictions, and unfortunately the mainstream media like to give the alarmist predictions lots of coverage.

Re:James Hansen?

[tgibbs]

He's come out with some pretty apocalyptic predictions, such as his 1988 chart showing 3 different scenarios, all of which are looking to be way off the mark.

You're kidding, right. Hansen's 1988 projection for the CO2 release scenario that best matches what actually happened is way off (indeed, it is almost surely within the range of error of the temperature data, particularly after properly adjusting for unpredictable short-term effects such as volcanic eruptions. So if his projection is "apocalyptic," I guess reality is as well.

Professor Peter Wadhams of Cambridge University predicted an ice free arctic by 2015.

Funny how a speculation of one scientist somehow mutates into an absolute prediction. Here's what Wadham was actually saying in 2007: "It might not be as early as 2013 but it will be soon, much earlier than 2040." So a rough estimate of no ice at the height of summer, sometime between 2013 and 2040, and probably toward the low end (estimates of other climate scientists range as high as 2100), probably toward the low end, somehow becomes an absolute assertion that there will be no ice at all in 2015. And how is that apocalyptic? Arctic ice is floating, so it's not as if it will contribute to rising sea level. It will certainly be convenient for navigation. It is important mostly because it is yet another indicator of the warming trend.

And here's [sciencedaily.com] another prediction for some catastrophic sea level rise.

And once again, this turns out to be not a definite prediction, but a warning that there is considerable uncertainty on the high end regarding the speed and magnitude of the sea level rise, and that while the IPCC estimate is about a third of a meter in 100 years, it could plausibly turn out to be three times as large, particularly since the melting seems to be occurring faster than projected. This is, in fact, an honest account of current scientific knowledge. Is this apocalyptic? It will certainly be very expensive to deal with, even if reality turns out to be toward the low end of estimates--expensive enough to more than justify the comparatively modest costs of CO2 mitigation. A lot of people will need to move inland, producing huge numbers of refugees. But do you really consider it to be an apocalypse?

Re:James Hansen?

[pastafazou]

I don't think linking to skepticalscience helps your case at all, the site is clearly being run by people who have already decided AGW is real and happening. They're not being objective about it, they label others as "deniers" on a regular basis. Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990. Guess what? CO2 emissions continued to increase past 1990, and yet the data best fits that scenario. Secondly, don't complain that "speculation of one scientist somehow mutates into an absolute prediction". I didn't say that it was an absolute prediction, nor did I say that all climate scientists were in agreement with the statement. I presented you with multiple references to extreme predictions, as per the original comment. Why is it that you'll argue so vehemently with anyone who questions the AGW theories, but you're absolutely silent when these "extreme predictions" get posted? You're clearly not objective about the subject, you've already drawn your conclusions.

13 warmest years? Really?

[murphtall]

The 13 warmest years in over 4billion? I won't even read past that incorrect statement. It's possibly the 13 warmest in recorded history which is amusingly brief.

New York Times Reference - Argument Lost

[Anonymous Coward]

This argument started out as a failure when the precipice hung on anything the New York Times printed.

CO2 is NOT a pollutant

[Anonymous Coward]

Get a grip people. The warmest 13 years? Only if you ignore or "homogenize" the temperatures during the medieval warm period the Roman warm period etc etc.

What a joke. Please educate yourself on some FACTS starting here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/09/hockey-stick-observed-in-noaa-ice-core-data/

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is essential for life on earth and everything was fine when it was at 1000 and 2000 PPM in the distant past. During the last ice age we came perilously close to getting too low. All life above the oceans stops below 150 PPM and we got down to 170. Too close for comfort.

So the planet hasn't warmed in more than 15 years and we may be heading for much colder times but I'm sure that will be blamed on CO2 as well.

What's Possible, Now

[DaKong]

You can dramatically reduce your energy costs & carbon footprint using proven technologies. You don't have to wait for Buck Rogers improvements in battery technology and the like.

At $1500/yr you are doing pretty well relative to the American average. It sounds like you have already done the easy stuff like changing out your lights, computers, etc. But if temperature control is still the lion's share of your costs, then you can win by switching your HVAC to a ground source heat pump (GSHP) + radiant floor setup.

GSHP's take advantage of the earth's constant temp. of 50F to heat or cool depending upon the season. In the summer, bring out solution at 50F and blow air across that into your existing ductwork to cool the house. In the winter, bring out that 50F solution and boost it a little and deliver it via hydronic radiant floor heating. If you've ever encountered heated floors, you know how incredibly awesome that is; plus, it's absolutely the most efficient way to heat a room.

Sealing the envelope of the house via improved insulation and airtightness measures (basically, eliminating drafts) is the first step to take. It's not sexy, but it's the most important and cost-effective measure to take.

Replacing your windows can help, but double- and triple-paned windows are unfortunately still quite expensive per unit. It is not unusual to have the job of replacing every window in your house to price out at $10K for the dubious savings of a $100/yr.

Implementing solar and micro-wind can help you a lot, if you're using an EV or plug-in hybrid especially. Keep in mind that the highest spot prices for grid electricity are during the afternoon, the height of the day. That's also when solar panels perform their best. So if you have a decent solar array producing electricity then you're chopping the top of your personal electricity price curve. If you live in a place with at least 2mph average wind speed then there are solutions for you that reach break-even in less that 10 years, esp. when incentives are factored in.
    When you consider that most Americans commute less than 30 miles/day, which puts them well within range for most existing EVs and plug-in hybrids to run on pure electricity, you save that money, too. If you live in a state with net-metering laws, when you generate more electricity than you use (a safe bet if you work outside the house during the day, when your house's solar array is going like gangbusters) the power company has to send you a check at the end of the month.

Those are the direct savings. There are other, indirect, savings. Consider that when you spend $15K remodeling your kitchen that your home price appreciates whether or not the prospective buyers like what you did or not; IOW it's a matter of taste. But when you upgrade the house's energy efficiency, those are direct, quantifiable savings that are reflected in the value of that house. The national association of realtors and contractors agree that the present value of 30 years of energy bill savings are justifiably reflected in a home's market value. That can mean 20% or more added to the value of your home. That is, it's a much better way to boost the value of your home that remodeling anything or putting in a swimming pool. Then there are the discounts you get on your homeowner's insurance, your mortgage, your property taxes, and even carbon credits you can take and sell.

In short, upgrading your home's energy efficiency saves the earth, yada yada, but more than that it means real dollars in your pocket, right now.

   

Re:In short? No.

[ultranova]

What makes you think intergenerational transfers work at all?

The fact that we don't live in caves anymore?

NG better than coal for time being

[Anonymous Coward]

Since NG emits about 1/2 the CO2 per unit of energy AND can be used in more efficient generators, clearly it should be used as an interim energy source. Coal extraction has at least as many enviro negatives as fracking, thus the CO2 issue must trump in importance.

Obviously, we can't continue using FF's in large amounts for decades, even though we DO have that kind of resource (still). Therefore attention must be focused on developing advanced machine automation, the kind that can spit out batteries and solar panels 24/7 for pennies on the dollar.

Capital must be raised for research and development, for extraction of raw materials and delivery. A national "tax" of some sort (or investment in said corporation) is most probably required to kick start it to the point of any meaningful clean energy exponentiation BEFORE we run out of the fossil fuels to do so and before the biosphere is lacking icecaps!

Once machine automation kicks in, other countries will find it cheaper to do so too.

Only problem, machine automation will (most probably) greatly reduce most human jobs, except for parts that people can install, such as the 100,000 square miles or so of solar panels, and of course, for robotics and computer program developers.

Therefore, this WHOLE issue will necessitate a whole new social structure based on very high unemployment, yet machine made abundance.

Hmmm ;)

fireofenergy

Re:In short? No.

[mcgrew]

You know the greatest generation, who went through depression and war?

You mean the generation that spawned the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hirohito? That was the greatest generation?

Their kids, The Baby Boomers will be known to history as the Shittiest Generation.

The generation that the "greatest generation" drafted to be cannon fodder in the Greatest generation's Vietnam war? The generation that went through the stagflation the "greatest" generation caused? The generation that ended Jim Crow? The generation that got Nixon to resign? The generation that got the EPA started and cleaned up an incredibly dirty environment? The generation that invented PCs, cell phones, MRIs, the internet?

Yeah, my generation is shitty, all right.

Fuck you, kid. Get off the internet, the shittiest generation built it and you aren't welcome to use it.

Re:In short? No.

[SomeKDEUser]

Hitler, Mussolin, Stalin and Hirohito were their parents. The EPA came under Nixon, and he was from the Greatest generation (born in 1914-1924). Baby boomers were born in the 1946–1964 period (a bit later in Europe).

And all those inventions came from the public research infrastructure put in place by said greatest generation. The same infrastructure that is being dismantled to pay for the coming retirees. No, really, I have little love for the baby boomers as a group . Your attitude, refusing to own up to the state of the World as it is is pretty characteristic: it wasn't me, it was the other guy. "Vietnam was bad", but Iraq and Afghanistan are fine I guess...

see that bump in 1980-1990? That's them. The slump after? Their kids.

Typical.

Just the facts by fireofenergy

[Anonymous Coward]

XSCO2 is a proven reality because the graphs from Mauna Loa Observatory, Hawaii proves the PPM is going up. In a geological blink of an eye, it's accelerating increase matches the amount of FF's we have burned. No doubt.
CO2 is indeed an infrared absorber... Bummer!
Switching to NG would half the amount (since it emits half the amount per unit of energy) oh, and it can be burned in more efficient Brayton type generators. Coal extraction has its issues just as much as fracking... soooo, NG is better... for the time being, that is till the automated production machinery comes online.

Eventually, machines will take your job away from you, whether directly or indirectly, because machines will make "everything". Programs will displace management before robotics replace the burger flipper, but eventually, there will be robots. Not that they will replace contractors, plumbers and painters, but that they will replace all assembly line work and these things built into modular housing!

Solar panels and batteries will also be made for pennies on the dollar which brings an exception to massive machine made unemployment. There should be about 100,000 square miles of solar install jobs, hopefully enough to give humanity just the amount of time needed to adjust to machine made abundance or machine made starvation (we will have to tax the corporation who consolidates the machines which further widens the gap between rich and poor, and we will have to make constitutional amendments etc, as those born into poverty will not own any land, water or machinery with which to earn a living with. Just the "worthless" body that robotics will aptly replace).

Anyways, this whole debate will disappear once the machines come online, because advanced machine automation will make "everything" very much cheaper per unit for the corporations that can afford the research and development.

Or I should say IF (because fossil fueled depletion and or climate change may beat us to the punch). Therefore, I try to promote machine made solar and batteries, especially the batteries (which are still useful to power electric cars via advanced nuclear such as LFTR). Business as usual will not want anything of this... until they can make MORE money from it than from fossil fuels.

Enter EROEI (energy returned on energy invested). Back in the good ole days, Pennsylvania oil was like 100 to 1, that is they got about 100x times the energy from the amount of energy put in towards extraction. Now, it's down way considerably (since it's much more energy intensive for offshore drilling, tar sands, shale oil, etc). Solar isn't really that good at EROEI either, but it's still positive at about 10 to 1. I believe wind is better, since it takes less than a year to recoup.

Time for EROEI... Even when oil is only 2 to 1, it will still be MUCH faster than solar's estimated 1.5 years at advanced machine production (3 years now), even faster than wind.

This is why "America isn't doing anything about it" because it's all about the money or lose.

So what do we do? Sit around and wait for "global solar" to do it like global oil does it today? Do we create "global solar? How? Do we have enough money collectively? Will it get ripped. Chances are, we might still be able to "vote" with our pocket books and sway existing corporations (which we might want to invest in) to become just that... "Global Solar and Battery". Or we will have to promote advanced nuclear via molten salt type reactors.

Living offgrid isn't going to cut it for most of the people (though, I would love to be able to afford it), besides, planetary civilizations must network for the common good. Hmmm, research, compassion and hmmm, powerlines!

I tried to log in as fireofenergy but there's a glitch, might try later.

"Objective" = ignorant?

[tgibbs]

I've observed that people who regard themselves as climate science "skeptics" generally insist that one should disregard information provided by web sites run by experienced scientists who have studied the primary literature in depth and have concluded that the scientific consensus on the nature and hazards of global warming is broadly correct. Apparently, in "skeptic speak," having studied the evidence enough to have formed an opinion constitutes being "biased" (presumably, only ignorant people can be "objective"). So sites such as RealClimate, Skeptical Science, Open Mind, the IPCC web site, and the the NASA GISS web site are all out of bounds. Of course the distinguishing feature of climate science "skeptics" is that (unlike the skepticism of successful scientists) their skepticism is quite one-sided, and they become quite credulous when it comes to anything that seems to cast doubt on climate science--so they will happily cite sites like "WUWT."

But I cite SkepticalScience not as a source of opinion (I've already stated my opinion) but because that it is a site that provides good links to published reports that contain the evidence supporting my opinion. Nevertheless, it happens that I've personally reviewed many of the summaries provided on SkepticalScience and have compared them to the primary literature, and I find that SkepticalScience tends to be reliable and accurate, and a fair reflection of the consensus opinion of working climate scientists. This is in dramatic contrast to my experience at WUWT and other "skeptic" sites, where I often find that descriptions of the published literature are highly misleading, sometimes in ways that appear to me to be intentional.

Take a look at the chart they're using vs a google search [google.ca] for the same chart. Why is their chart different than the rest? All the other charts show that real temperatures most closely match Hansen's scenario C, which involved CO2 emissions ceasing to increase past 1990.

And here we see an example of why a site like SkepticalScience is useful, particularly compared to a Google search, which often turns up frequently-repeated misinformation. If you doubt that SkepticalScience is accurately reporting the models, all you have to do is click on the link, and it will take you to the original paper by Hansen. And if you doubt that the GISS data is accurate, you can click on the link, and it will take you to actual GISS data. Moreover, it is quite obvious just from looking at the short term variation of the models that Scenarios B and C diverge only slightly up to the present day, so it is impossible that we could have temperature data that would differentiate between them. However, the question of whether there is any evidence of the warming trend "leveling off" as described in Scenario C (which was calculated for an unrealistically optimistic scenario of CO2 mitigation that does not at all correspond to reality) can be addressed statistically by mathematically subtracting known sources of short term variation, and the answer is "No."

By the way, one way in which real scientific skepticism differs from climate science "skepticism" is that real scientists are skeptical of even their own work, and often acknowledge errors and revise their conclusions in the light of new evidence and better analysis. So, for example, based on subsequent work, it is now generally thought that

Re:How is natural gas less carbon-intensive than c

[drinkypoo]

Since the energy comes from oxidizing the molecular bonds in the fuel, it would seem that both are going to consume approximately the same about of carbon to generate the same BTUs

It takes less energy to get the natural gas out of the ground, and if it was going to escape anyway then burning it reduces its ability to contribute to thermal forcing. This holds nicely only until you involve fracking, though, and any increase in natural gas use is going to require fracking to increase production.

Extreme weather and climate change

[tgibbs]

Yes, there have always been occasional extreme weather events. But modern statistical analysis supports the general impression that weather extremes are becoming more frequent, consistent with the predictions of climate science.

30 million years is a long time. Speciation is a slow process, based on what we know about evolution, but that is plenty of time for species to recover. It is clear that there have been mass extinctions in the distant past, and species have diverged subsequently. So I imagine that 30 million years from now, species diversity will have recovered from the impact of CO2 induced global warming.

I suppose the fact that the earth is now "the coldest in 30 million years" would be of comfort to us if our species were 30 million years old. But in fact, it is not. So from our admittedly limited human perspective, we tend to be more concerned about divergence of temperatures from the range that is consistent with our modern life style, with huge numbers of people living on the coast, and with much of the globe dependent upon food produced by a few highly productive regions that up until now have enjoyed a climate consistent with highly productive agriculture.

Also new studies show that temperatures in the mideivel warming period and the roman era were 1C warmer than today with no SUVs around.

I always find it amusing that people who consider themselves to be "skeptics" of global warming become utterly credulous when it comes to anything that might seem to challenge global warming. Estimates of temperatures prior to temperature measurements are very difficult, and are based upon indirect measures of things like tree ring width and density, which are subject to a number of sources of error that are not fully understood, and which provide rather poor coverage of global temperatures. So a genuine skeptic would tell you that we really don't know whether temperatures in the medieval period were as high as today (much less as high as they are projected to become if CO2 release continues unabated), and whether the warming was global or regional to northern europe. But a climate science "skeptic" will happily acclaim third party accounts of agricultural practices in northern Europe as an indisputably accurate measure of global temperature, accurate down to a single degree.

Of course, if there really were a global medieval warming period that was not due to CO2 or to any of the other known causes of climate change, such as orbital shifts or changes in level of volcanic activity, a genuine skeptic would be even more worried. The evidence that the modern warming is due to CO2 is incontrovertible, and the degree of warming is pretty much what is expected from CO2 alone. What if there actually were some other, unknown, mechanism that could produce comparable warming? Then we have to worry that that other unknown mechanism might kick in suddenly to add to (or worse, amplify) the warming predicted from CO2. Modern projections of the consequences of global warming are very disturbing, but not what most people would regard as apocalyptic. But if there is some other unknown mechanism that could add substantially warming to that, then all bets are off, and the apocalyptic scenarios are back on the table. Of course, real climate scientists don't believe that. The "skeptics" apparently do believe it--but they don't understand what it would mean.

Re:In short? No.

[mcgrew]

I was fully against both Iraq wars. My dad was the Korea war generation, his brothers were in WWII. It isn't a generational thing, it's a rich man thing. The "greatest generation" rich were no different than the rich in my generation and the rich in yours. Don't blame the working man for what the lazy rich fatass who runs the world does to ruin it.

I have problem with first line

[Anonymous Coward]

So a journalist writes that the hottest 13 years of the entire planet have been since '98.

Really? He has data for over 4 Billion years?

We are in an inter-glacial period. That means we are still in an Ice Age since we have ice at the poles, and it does not even all melt during summer (in respective hemisphere). We left the glacial period around 11,000 years ago. Just based on that we are GOING to be warmer now than we were 12,000 years ago, otherwise it would still be a glacial period.

According to this we have been in this current ice age for 2.6M years. I would like to see the scientist show me temperature data from the last interglacial period, at about 11,000 years into it. That seems like a fair comparison to me.

Otherwise they are talking about shit they have no idea about and that would be bad science.

Yes, the planet is getting warmer. There is no debate about that. Temps also get warmer in spring and even warmer in summer. We do not freak about this because we know that it is part of a cycle. What I have not seen anyone define is that we are currently breaking out of the InterGalcial cycle or this is just a normal increase.

Re:In short? No.

[khallow]

The fact that we don't live in caves anymore?

While that's a pretty good answer, it ignores that we're speaking of public transfer of wealth not transfers of knowledge between self-interested groups. One gains little from hiding knowledge from subsequent generations, especially of your own progeny or tribe. Everyone can gain from reducing transfers of wealth such as were described originally.

No transfer of knowledge has resulted in the conflicts of interest that are manifest in public funding today. No one gains at the expense of another.