Slashdot Mirror
Norwegian Study: Global Warming Less Severe Than Feared
Numerous news outlets are reporting the findings of a study from the Research Council of Norway — a government agency — which concludes that (in Bloomberg's version) "After the planet's average surface temperature rose through the 1990s, the increase has almost leveled off at the level of 2000, while ocean water temperature has also stabilized." The New York Times' Dot Earth blog offers some reasons to be skeptical of the findings.
The so-called "global warming deniers" are to be scorned, ridiculed, and otherwise have their professional reputations destroyed by any means necessary but it's just fine and dandy to be skeptical of this study.
Quickly looking at the story, the conclusion I HAVE to come to is AWG proponents have lost. Their viewpoint is either AWG is so horrible and so far along that there is nothing we can do about it, so why would we even bother? Or, if they become reasonable at this point and say, like this article attempts to, that it isn't so bad that there is something we can do about it, the anti-AWG people will destroy them with pointing out their previous lies (Gore's hockey stick graph comes to mind).
So its either unavoidable, or the AWG people lied to the point where no one will ever listen to them again. Either way we do nothing. Let this be an object lesson, but really you should have learned this in elementry school with "Peter and the Wolf". I guess that just shows AWG people are unable to be reasonable and have pushed everyone who isn't a wacko like them so far against them they will never become mainstream.
Congratulations on defeating yourselves.
Norway is one of the richest countries in the world... it has the second highest GDP per capita. Norwegians enjoy an incredibly high standard of living across the board... there is very little wealth-disparity and almost no poverty. Education is free and health-care is universal. It's a good life! And it's all largely thanks to oil, of which Norway has lots. Over 55% of Norway's GDP comes directly from petroleum. Imagine if you and all your fellow citizens had half of your assets invested in oil companies and depended on those investments for half of all your income and half of all your future retirement... in Norway that's the reality.
I wouldn't accuse the scientists of Norway's research council of fabricating data or anything, but they can't help but have a strong bias.
I love how you ask the same, hackneyed "questions" that climate change deniers have been trotting out for a while now. But keep going...
And why are the climate change alarmists vilifying this study?
Because both groups are driven by political agendas and personal beliefs that are largely unconcerned with science or figuring out what is actually going to happen or how best to fix it.
That's the scientific method: we don't accept things as fact until they have been convincingly proven through reproducible experiments and logical arguments.
And it's not a question of "how bad it is" (global warming is obviously not very "bad" so far), it's a question of "how bad will it become".
I don't have to "Google it", I've read many of the papers.
Even the last IPCC report didn't reach that conclusion. Furthermore, all those studies have methodological errors. And, finally, agreement is irrelevant in science; what matters is sound, logical arguments and reproducible experiments.
The "debate" is between evidence and special interests
That is an outrageous lie. Given how often the counter position is stated, there is no way that you are now aware of it. So you must be telling what isn't truth despite the fact that you know that it is false. That's a lie. The interests on the side of AGW theory are much better funded and have much more at stake than the skeptics. So as far as the funding is concerned, it is the skeptics who have an uphill battle. As far as calling the collected data "evidence", that is also a lie, because most of the skepticism is of the conclusions drawn from the collected data. You don't need evidence to counter a bad conclusion if you can show that the interpretation mechanisms are flawed.
specifically, giving up fossil fuels
How do you fail to grasp that this is a multi-trillion dollar endeavor and an unprecedented power grab? How do you shill for a study which might even slightly question the extremes of AGW predictions. AGW is a theory which is used to make calls for drastic dystopian change to the world. How do you possibly ask to do that without at evidence even when it is presented?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.