Slashdot Mirror
Congressional Testimony: A Surprising Consensus On Climate
Lasrick writes: Many legislators regularly deny that there is a scientific consensus, or even broad scientific support, for government action to address climate change. Researchers recently assessed the content of congressional testimony related to either global warming or climate change from 1969 to 2007. For each piece of testimony, they recorded several characteristics about how the testimony discussed climate. For instance, noting whether the testimony indicated that global warming or climate change was happening and whether any climate change was attributable (in part) to anthropogenic sources. The results: Testimony to Congress—even under Republican reign—reflects the scientific consensus that humans are changing our planet's climate.
Sadly there is no scientific consensus on whether this method of determining a consensus works or not.
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
Statements by scientific organizations of national or international standing - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Concurring:
over 50 organizations including the Royal Society, American Chemical Society, American Institute of Physics, American Physical Society, Australian Institute of Physics, European Physical Society, etc, etc, etc.
Dissenting:
NONE
1) There is no such thing as climate change
2) Climate change exists, but it isn't happening now.
3) The climate is changing, but it isn't being caused by humans
4) The climate is being changed by humans, but we can't (or shouldn't) do anything about it.
5) We could have averted climate change, but it is too late now.
Apparently, we've just passed step 3. With step 4, expect a deluge of reports about how we shouldn't try messing with the climate because we just don't understand it well enough and probably will make things worse, or because any benefits from changes WE make will be lost because THEY following suit (for various values of "they", but most likely China or India) or because the potential loss of revenue to a few entitled mega-corporations is far too important to risk by imposing ecologically-responsible regulations. In short, the arguments will be that since we can't make everything 100% better, why should we make any attempt at all?
Climate change deniers will continue to be wrong until we reach step 5, when they will suddenly - and to all our misfortune - be right. We can only hope that the ecological mess they cause in the name of short-term profits won't be so catastrophic for the rest of us.
You've got it exactly backwards. If people with private/corporate power didn't act like selfish dicks a lot of the time, maybe we wouldn't need as much government.
And maybe we wouldn't be wiping out species and ecosystems at 100 to 1000x background extinction rate, and maybe we wouldn't be warming the climate and acidifying the oceans.
If only. I'm an environmentalist because I know more about what's actually going on, from both a physical-scientific and sociological perspective, and it scares the shit out of me.
"Environmentalist" is also the wrong term, because it implies we are only concerned when it is going to affect us.
"Eco-system integrity advocate" would be a better term.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
I I say that even if we had half of the government we have now we'd still have clean water, fresh air, clear skies, safe and nutritious food, and warm houses. How can I say that? Because generally people aren't dicks to their neighbors and tend to care about their children growing up to have children of their own.
What? Seriously, what?
I live in western PA, the land of strip mining, acid rain, and the Smoky City. Much of the countryside around here is still trying to recover from your idiotic companies who "aren't dicks to their neighbors". Guess what: when money is involved, many people are dicks to their neighbors, their workers, and their own children. Not everyone, but many people, And guess what; those people are the ones most likely to rise, scheme, and backstab their way into running large companies or other positions of power.
Things were getting better (not because of the EPA, sadly, but because it was no longer economical for big industry to exploit this land), but now the frackers are destroying the water table that most people outside of cities in this area use for drinking water.
Seriously, how can you look at history and believe that people are not dicks to their neighbors? We're humans. We don't care about far away people, but we HATE our neighbors. Have you read any history at all? We invented government specifically because it was the only way we could advance beyond tribes of 20-ish people trying to kill our neighbors. You think people can live well without government? Prove it; move to someplace with no effective government (Somalia is nice this time of year) and prove to us all how well they all get along.
Exactly. Science is not a democracy. We don't get to vote on the rules of physics, they are what they are even if we agree with them or not.
However we have no way of getting to know those rules except through a social process in which scientists read and argue about each others' research.
Trust me, if the majority of scientists hadn't agreed on Newton's laws of motions you'd never have heard of him. Of course then we wouldn't be having this technology-mediated conversation; we'd probably be throwing rocks at each other instead.
People that believe we should reduce carbon output and also believe that nuclear power will kill us all are rejecting science twice over.
Disproof by counterexample: me. I think we should reduce carbon output and I think nuclear power could be useful, provided that plant developers post a bond to cover the decommissioning costs. I won't bother to address your point about wind power, but I do recommend you take the the drive from Los Angeles to Palm Springs sometime. You might find it enlightening.
A true scientist would admit we know very little about the environment. Anyone that says they've solved the equation is either delusional or trying to sell something. I'm not buying.
And no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.
Just because scientists don't know *everything* doesn't mean they know *nothing*, or that they don't know enough to have a more informed opinion than a layman.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
The climate and environment in general are a shared resource and nobody wants to be the one to hold back because they'll be the one stuck with the cost while everyone else reaps the benefits.
And unlike at the national level where a central government can FORCE you to pay for it collectively, the environment is a global resource and there is no way to enforce proper sharing of the resource.
If I can't confirm it for myself, it isn't science.
*FACEPALM*
Scientific results exists even if you personally cannot confirm them. The point is that someone can confirm them, and does.
Can you personally confirm that electrons exist? Probably not, because you haven't actually seen one. But there is a great body of evidence that supports the existence of electrons. Therefore, I accept that they exist.
Can you personally confirm that the Pope exists? Probably not, because you haven't actually met him. But there is a great body of evidence that supports the existence of the Pope. Therefore, I accept that he exists.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.