Slashdot Mirror
We Had All Better Hope These Scientists Are Wrong About the Planet's Future (washingtonpost.com)
Less than 24 hours since we read this dire climate study, an anonymous reader writes from a Washington Post report about several more concerning things: James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, says his new study suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned. The research invokes collapsing ice sheets, violent megastorms and even the hurling of boulders by giant waves in its quest to suggest that even 2 degrees Celsius of global warming above pre-industrial levels would be far too much. Hansen has called it the most important work he has ever done. "I think almost everybody who is really familiar with both paleo and modern is now very concerned that we are approaching, if we have not passed, the points at which we have locked in really big changes for young people and future generations," Hansen said.
So what? After all, we've hit peak oil and the population bomb has already gone off. We are literally lifting people in frontloaders out of the way and Soylent Green is people. This is just a drop in the bucket with all the disasters that have already befallen us that were correctly predicted in the 1970s. It doesn't seem like there will be a humanity left to even care by the time Earth has turned into Venus.
Now, excuse me, I need to go out in my gas mask and radiation gear to go salvage vacuum tubes from the ruins of civilization so I can keep my mainframe working in this post-apocalyptic world.
impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Fuck, I thought the ice caps were permanently melted last year already. Why do they still feel the need to scare us when global warming has already killed us according to these same predictions they made 10 years ago?
I don't remember that. Care to provide some proof?
If being a scientist requires the ability to look dispassionately at the evidence, Hansen's not a scientist.
I tend to be a skeptic myself, so my reaction is far from panic, but this seems like something we should be studying very objectively. It's a shame so few people are capable of doing it.
Here is the pdf. http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net...
Fuck, I thought the ice caps were permanently melted last year already. Why do they still feel the need to scare us when global warming has already killed us according to these same predictions they made 10 years ago?
Oh, and bonus points for the next time that some bot who slobbers all over this story as proof that we are all doomed DOOMED I SAY turns right back around and says that this "report" never happened in 5 years after the world hasn't ended.
Shh, they are still trying to sell the carbon tax BS, the Pope is behind this because the hookers just aren't selling anymore.
That's some sweet source you got there.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
The planet will kill off all of the humans and then get back to its regularly scheduled program. We're just a glitch.
Perhaps the increasing fervor is due to a situation that no one is addressing and that most Republicans aren't wanting to force to NOT be addressed. People like you remind me of the cartoons where the screaming character is a hilariously long distance away from the steam roller moving slowly towards him so that the character's scream is long and drawn out....until he gets ran over.
The climate is changing. The vast majority of scientists are not debating that point. IF it is man made, we may have an opportunity to fix it and we should start now because this is literally the only planet we have to support our life. The other case doesn't really matter, we're boned no matter what we do, but there's no reason outside of some people claiming that OMG CAPITALISM COULD DIE. Personally, I'd rather the death of an economic system that'll eventually die off vs the planet that sustains the life I live.
I just wish all the climate deniers would start building houses at the ocean's edge.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Dude the world has been ending since the 70s, except back then it was global cooling. AL gore swore up and down that the coasts would be under water by now 15 years ago. Just because you just started reading news doesn't mean there wasn't any before. Fear mongering gets readers. It's simple.
That's what happens when you let politicians be spokespersons for such issues, both sides.
Table-ized A.I.
What kind of idiot does that anyway? You don't need global warming to be hit by a plain old hurricane or flood.
It's worth noting that this is just one paper, and some reservations about this paper have been expressed by peers:
Michael Mann, a Penn State university climate scientist familiar with the original study, commented, “Near as I can tell, the issues that caused me concern originally still remain in the revised manuscript. Namely, the projected amounts of meltwater seem unphysically large, and the ocean component of their model doesn’t resolve key wind-driven current systems (e.g. the Gulf Stream) which help transport heat poleward. That makes northern hemisphere temperatures in their study too sensitive to changes in the Atlantic meridional overturning ocean circulation,” the scientific name for the ocean circulation in the Atlantic that, the study suggests, could shut down.
However, another Penn State researcher, glaciologist Richard Alley, said by email that “though this is one paper, it usefully reminds us that large and rapid changes are possible, and it raises important research questions as to what those changes might mean if they were to occur. But, the paper does not include enough ice-sheet physics to tell us how much how rapidly is how likely.
I am waiting for media outlets to give real probabilities, for science.
It isn't like we are not use to it. In terms of pulling we see that 5% error rate and understand statistical ties.
Just tell us the actual science results and predictions with its error percentages and standard deviations.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Seriously, yes, the proper response is to hope that the scientists are wrong... Wow... No further comment.
The great majority of religionists today, especially in the United States, aren't at any threat of dying if they fail to continue to follow their religion. Try again.
So to you "may be gone" somehow equals "will be gone"?
When you cant win, ad hominem.
Like Al Gore?
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/08/home/la-hm-hotprop-20100508
Seriously. If Slashdot, of all places, can't have a reasonable conversation about the science behind this topic without the deniers dominating the discussion then there really is no hope. We should just defund any climate research and put all that money into coal and oil discovery and extraction research. Game over. Why delay the end point? It's not like there's any political will to do anything serious about it anyway.
Alex, I'll take keybindings not used by Emacs for $400....
Wait, this article is from a scientist, who's been studying atmospheres for years.
The video is from Al Gore.
And you equate them? And then try to pretend *I* can't think critically?
Dude, you better pick a day to stop sniffing glue.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Keep wearing that tin foil hat Zippy...
As for Hansen's paper referred to in this article, it tries to make a case for the dangers of climate change by looking for analogues for current climate change in the past. But he clearly starts out with the goal of showing that climate change is very dangerous and then tries to concoct scenarios and fit observations to reach that conclusion. Hansen is not objective anymore, and his papers and conclusions are not credible anymore.
Good thing is: none of this really matters. Politically, it is impossible for Western leaders to have much influence over fossil fuel use, and deployment of renewable energy progresses at its own pace and as it makes economic sense, no matter what nutcases like Hansen say or want.
lol. AGW is about as welcome on Slashdot as Evolution in a Kansas school board. And the "thinking" is all but identical.
James Hansen has long been revealed as a leftist activist and charlatan. He is predicting historic levels of heat. Brace yourself for a cool summer.
Well, lead the way. Nothing like leading by example.
James Hansen, a former NASA scientist, says his new study suggests the impact of global warming will be quicker and more catastrophic than generally envisioned. "
Does his study use real data or the fuzzy logic data which NOAA, NASA and AMOS have been manipulating or out right altering????
This is why AGW pseudo-skeptics are like Creationists. No matter how many times you demonstrate some meme they brainlessly repeat was never true, they just turn around and make the same claim again. You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Maryland House and Senate just updated the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act to cut emissions by 40% by 2030.
You're a god damn fool. If all of this is poppycock but we still act, there isn't much of a problem. If it isn't poppycock and we don't act then the results could be catastrophic. I'd rather we err in the side of caution only a fool would choose to do otherwise.
On the Oregon Cost born and raised, On the beach is where I spent most of my days
Science means discussing things with people who disagree who actually have the vaguest fucking idea what it is that is being discussed. Science isn't about scientists debating with morons on the Internet, and pretending that their pseudo-skepticism is even in the tiniest way a real critique of the theory.
Or perhaps you imagine that advocates of the Electric Universe or Young Earth Creationism somehow just automatically deserve a pedestal because they have enough neural wiring to make any old claim against established science.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Cultural Marxism certainly doesn't exist. Climate change is another matter.
You just noticed them?
Since methodological naturalism didn't really exist until the end of the Middle AGes, there were no scientists in 400BC.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Rich people buy oceanfront property. Once enough rich people have soggy feet, I have the feeling that they are going to demand that something be done with other people's money to fix the problem (even if it's just bailing out FEMA's flood insurance account after it gets drained buying out all their now-worthless million dollar homes).
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
You simply cannot debate someone who is so divorced from reality that they think some slogan they picked up off a Heartland-funded website somehow falsifies an entire scientific discipline.
Now that's funny!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
"No." Would have sufficed. ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Mister Anonymous Coward, I would like to quote Bowerick Wowbagger, however you have most likely already be visited by him. Therefore, I skip it. Do you even know what "cultural marxism" means or is it something you just call people, like a two year old who has learned the word bitch.
http://www.wowbagger.com/insul...
For your shame word, here is a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Well, seeing as the case is now a genuine emergency, I know what we can do. Let's give the radical Left everything it's been asking for for decades, right now, without any debate or voting or any of that old-fashioned crap that only randomly results in positive outcomes. Let's make the decision now and get rid of capitalism once and for all, in the West anyway, and implement a fair system by which we'll be ruled by highly intelligent elites that will put all of society's resources in a basket and then share them out fairly for all.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Imagine if a scientist would publish a paper that basically said: It's all good, no worries, we've got everything under control. Nobody would talk about that, and the funding would be cut. So there always has to be some kind of catastrophe lurking just around the corner, so these people will stay employed.
say that china gets a pass. In addition, the far left will continue to fight against the use of nuclear power, even though it could replace coal quickly.
I applaud Dr. Hansen and his work, but hate his followers are just as unscientific as the far right.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Said no one ever...
Grammar 101 -> Don't place words in quotes unless they are quotes otherwise you just may be a crackpot.
Uh, Pythagoras said it was round in 500BC. And proved it.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I think his is lead and he's been chewing on it for far too long.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
The general public does not make a distinction, and their votes will be needed for any serious effort to address climate change. Shrill alarmism forecasting global catastrophe is counter productive, because when it is later debunked, it reduces the credibility of all climate scientists. The 2007 IPCC report did immeasurable harm to climate change efforts, and this report appears to be making similar exaggerations.
You're right. When an uneducated radio preacher starts sermonizing about the end of the world and for evidence holds up a book written by a bunch of ignorant stone age goat herders, we Atheists go off our rocker because it's an amoral shitshow. Especially when the key question gets asked which is "Okay, so what should we do?" and the answer is to mumble to ourselves... I see that person as an idiot charlatan and treat them accordingly.
However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels, the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in ocean level, ambient ocean temperature and acidification of the oceans. Moreover when other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings. I generally take these person seriously, giant boulder hurling hyperbole aside.
I presume your reference to the preacher is to Harold Camping... Note is apology is laughable at best.
Scientists speak without certainty because they work in a world where new evidence can change their world view. The religious nuts speak with certainty because no evidence, however good can change their beliefs.
As for magical government regulations, you lost me on that. I'm yet to see scientists come out and say "Phew, good thing we passed that carbon tax or we'd all be screwed by now!"
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Maybe Deepak can explain the global warming problem better: The nexus is beaming with transmissions. Nothing is impossible. We can no longer afford to live with bondage. Where there is turbulence, growth cannot thrive. You must take a stand against discontinuity. Yes, it is possible to confront the things that can shatter us, but not without rebirth on our side. The complexity of the present time seems to demand an awakening of our hopes if we are going to survive. Power is a constant.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
A variation on Pascal's Wager?
It is unwise to ascribe motive
This always hurts my head, when people point out the change from "Global Warming" to "climate change". Do you know WHY it was changed? Because virtually no one understands the term "Global Warming". Everyone assumes it means everywhere is getting hotter, so *any* weather event short of a drought is used to refute the problem.
"Global Warming" is still an apt term, if one understands that it implies that more energy is being put into the system ( or perhaps being retained ). I far prefer that phrase to "Climate Change" for no other reason than it's more accurate.
Pedantics aside, it'd be helpful if these folks would stop running around claiming the sky is falling unless/until it actually IS falling. I distinctly remember seeing videos in school about how new york would be under water by 2015. What struck me was the imagery of the torch on the Statue of Liberty peeking out from the ocean. All these predictions about how horrible the world would be by this point, yet here we are; no flying cars, no coastal apocalypses ( Katrina...maybe ), and yet another presidential election where the choices are a Douchebag or Turd Sandwich.
Just once I'd like for climate scientists to hold a press conference to admit they don't really know what they're doing yet. That climate science is *hard*. But here's a list of things that are never the less good ideas ( reducing/removing air pollution sources, keeping our water ways clean, ect... ).
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Morgan Freeman has to be in this movie.
Let me know once you've got a photograph of the six-winged beasts of Revelations.
My guess is that you'll live long enough to see the ravages of climate change (whether or not they include megaboulders... that part has not been collaborated by other researchers). It won't exactly be an end-of-the-world type thing (sorry to disappoint), but maybe at that point in your adult life you'll be able to reconsider the value of trusting indirect revelation over empirical/rational/mathematical analysis.
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
that is all
Looks like St. ALGORE is a denier then: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
[wipes away tear] St. Gore's sacrifices for the cause are just so inspiring!
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
Republicans??? THE EU HAS BEEN INCREASING THEIR CO2 OUTPUT EVERY YEAR! Should I repeat that? Go check it yourself. It isn't a REPUBLICAN problem. This is why this climate change is political bullshit. It has nothing to do with Republicans. If people believed in it, they would change their CO2 output. Yet they don't.
The sky is always falling for the doom-and-gloom crowd.
"If we leave these caves we're all going to die! Lions will eat us all!" "Fire is dangerous! It'll kill us all!" "Cooking meat releases chemicals that will kill us!" "Growing plants ourselves? That's certain death!" "If we stay in one place we'll all die!" "Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
Geez, so many straw men in such a short post! I didn't even think that was possible.
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Ever heard the phrase "There is no hope!" ?
Seriously - have you made ever a count, how many time your hope was working out or it failed...
Hoping creates contemplacy, delays action and hinders rationality - just look at the actual odds of winning Powerball. Doing it consoles, gives hope despite the fact that the odds are something like 1 : 11 Million. That's how human mind functions and gets fooled.
Our planet is not a powerball lottery to use hope for future human and environmental decent existence.
Would you consider the EU to be "climate denialists"? After all, the EU is increasing their output of CO2 EVERY YEAR. Why aren't they cutting back on it? Do they "deny" climate change?
This means what exactly? That climatologists are going to die if they don't stop researching the climate and making prediction?
We are second only to TURKEY as science deniers. Looking at these comments makes my head hurt. Cataclysmic event in the US might not be a bad thing.. stop the stupidity.
We need nuclear power. We, as Americans need to be building a new nuclear power plant (with about 1GW capacity) every week. We, as humans, need to be building a nuclear power plant every day. We need to do this from now until we replace all coal and natural gas power plants, and then keep going to replace the nuclear power plants that we'd retire in 40 years. At some point we'd likely have to build them at an even faster pace to account for an increasing population and/or an improved standard of living.
To those of you that think we could never build such complex machines at such a pace I say look at the numbers of commercial jet aircraft or oil tankers built in a year, they are comparable to a nuclear power plant in size, cost, and complexity and we mass produce them. To those that think we'd create some sort of radiation hazard, well we can address the comparatively small problem of disposing of radioactive waste or we can deal with the problem of oceans rising, super storms, and so on. I'd also maintain that the problem of nuclear waste has been solved already, we'd just need to build reactors that can both produce power and consume the waste we have now.
To those that believe we can solve this problem with wind and solar I say these technologies produce less than 5% of grid power now after decades of government subsidized research and development. Nuclear power now produces 20% of our grid power and we've not built a new nuclear power plant in 40 years. Even if we built those same 50 year old designs today then we'd still be a century ahead of what wind and solar can do. If we build truly modern nuclear power plants, and mass assemble them, then we'd be able to bring costs down below that of any other power source based on economies of scale alone.
To those that think nuclear power is the path to nuclear annihilation I say there is no better way to make nuclear weapons worthless than to make them more valuable as fuel than as a weapon of war. A large problem of dismantling these nuclear warheads is that we'd have to find a way to make the nuclear fuel inert. We can make it inert by neutron bombardment in a reactor, and we'd get effectively free energy from it. The cost of mining and refining this uranium and plutonium is a sunk cost, we can power the world for a very long time on these warheads alone and in the mean time go out and dig up some more fuel in the form of uranium and thorium. With breeder reactors we'd have an effectively limitless supply of fuel.
Don't build the reactors on fault lines, or places known to have tsunamis, but put them on solid bedrock in the middle of a desert and use high temperature air cooled reactors so the lack of water is not only not a problem but makes containment in the case of a spill or leak much easier. In a dry place the radioactive material is much less likely to wash away, contaminate drinking water, or irradiate crops.
If this doomsday scenario is true, and I DO NOT believe that it is, then we need to do something about it now and quickly. We can hope these scientists are wrong and keep burning coal and oil, we can continue to maintain our standard of living free of global warming with nuclear power, or we can revert to a life of subsistence farming and beasts of burden where life is poor, brutal, and short.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
the WORLD'S scientific community agree on this.. it's not a US left wing political issue. Please oil the wheels of your home, sir.. they squeak.
Let's see how many conspiracy theories we can put into a 30 word post? I count 2... but I might have missed one.
So um powerful storms can move boulders? What is the point of even mentioning that? Power storms can do many bad things. Histrionics.
Unfortunately the consequences don't stop compounding. Certainly we have committed ourselves to further warming at this point even if we stopped all fossil fuel use today. The system will take time to reach its new warmer equilibrium. That means we may already have committed to exceed the 2 Celsius limit that we are trying to avoid. This is especially likely considering last month's global mean temperature anomaly was already 1.5 degree Celsius above pre-industrial levels. - http://www.slate.com/blogs/fut...
Why is he marked a 0? He's right, Pascal's Wager has nothing to do with erring on the side of caution. If anything, it's saying erring on the side of caution means you are already fucked in the eyes of god anyway. In this case, erring on the side of caution actually BREEDS technology and cleans up the environment. When that's your worst case, it's ok to err on it...
Pedantics aside, it'd be helpful if these folks would stop running around claiming the sky is falling unless/until it actually IS falling.
The problem is once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it. There are no instant fixes to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
I just wish the EU would reduce their CO2 output. But they don't. They INCREASE IT every year. Why? They must be "deniers"!
"all of the doom and gloom nut job scientists".. you mean, the world's foremost scientific and published community??? Someone they have it wrong because they didn't use google? DO YOU PEOPLE HEAR YOURSELVES SPEAK??????
You could move to another country but you'd already HAVE to do those things...
Relax. Although the submitter's write-up uses the binding "will", the actual paper is about as firm as the (in)famous Geico commercial. The one about 15 minutes, that could save you 15%. Or more...
It is safer that way — when the time comes and the mongered fear does not materialize, the "researchers" can shrug and offer you some new and improved fears to worry about without having to explain their past mistakes. "We never said it will happen, only that it could."
Pedantically speaking, such statements are not falsifiable and thus non-scientific. Consequently, any "scientists" using them in a supposedly "scientific" article is a con-artist...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
He's the one that's happy, so why kill himself? He's actually worth something.
If you want people dead, start with *you*.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I said it in another post, but enough data has been provided. If non-scientists/engineers/skeptics/ideologues don't agree with the data or the context that it is placed in, then the discussion is over and completely useless. Nobody believes the data because they don't trust the source of the data, the people drawing the conclusions and they need to *visually* see the conclusions drawn in action. Merely showing models is not enough.
Back when scientists were saying that the world was a globe and not flat... there was a TON of data to support that theory. The ideologues and skeptics at the time simply would not believe it. It took countries sponsoring suicide ship voyages across the ocean to prove it. It wasn't until these ships didn't fall off the edge of the earth that the skeptics and doubters believed the earth was spherical.
So I had a thought. Perhaps the quickest way to addressing climate change is to do the same thing. Sponsor a "suicide mission to the end of the ocean". Scientists should push hard to lift all regulations on fossil fuels and carbon emissions. The world needs to be *shown* catastrophe. Don't slow down the progress. Speed it up so that we can deal with it, already.
So stop funding all of this climate change research. Support the deregulation of fossil fuels and carbon emissions. Put the funds into disaster relief and global catastrophe planning. I think that actually may bear more fruit.
Granted.
However, this Chicken Little PR campaign is only working against their interests. You want to know the origins of Climate Change Deniers? It's not political; the GOP is only capitalizing on public sentiment. It comes from, and is fueled by, failed prediction after failed prediction to the point where we could have iron clad, easy to understand proof that the world will end tomorrow and no one would believe it. It's gone on long enough, in fact, that we could have LA and SF under 100 ft of water, and people would still doubt it was climate change. That's the legacy of this DoomsDay campaign.
I'll admit the media played a large role in this. They never could do science reporting right. However, having scientists publicly reinforce these perceptions is a huge issue.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
I remember the kids who went into "climate science" in college
Really? Because most places don't offer it as an undergraduate course, it's something that people generally move into as a PhD specialism, or often later after a PhD, typically in physics (or, often, computer science, because building models of complex systems involves a lot of algorithmic knowledge).
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
*somehow
That has nothing to go with global warming, but the destruction of the marshlands which mitigate the effects of the tide. This is a MUCH bigger problem than AGW.
I'm sorry, are you suggesting that there is an infinite amount of oil, or that the production (biogenesis) of oil is greater than or equal to demand? Because otherwise, isn't "peak oil" a mathematical certainty? Or am I missing something?
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
There are no instant fixes to the anthropogenic global warming problem.
If the problem is anthropogenic, then there are instant fixes to it. Humans have such an extremely small effect on the planet's atmosphere and surface that we've BARELY made noticeable scratches or blemishes. Acid rain sucks. Inversions suck. Smog sucks. O-zone holes suck. Those can all be dealt with within a single year. ONE. SINGLE. YEAR.
Oh ho ho!!! But this magic CO2 levels that has less than 1% of the effects of Methane IS THE WORSTEST THING EVAR!!! It's not like we're anywhere near the planet's organic capacity to digest CO2 in healthy, sustainable ways. We've got about 5x more CO2 to dump into the atmosphere until we're at a historically "Healthy Level" for our planet when species survived for millions of years at a time instead of hundreds of thousands. Wasps and Alligators ate that shit up, now we all act like they're fucking canaries in the coal mine! "The Bees will all go first!" and shit. It's ridiculous. Is "Actively ignoring everything but some bullshit correlation data" sound scientific to you? It doesn't sound that way to me.
Every claim that "scientists" make about the destabilization of our ecology has been shown or can be shown to be complete bullshit. If animals can survive in zoos and aquariums, then they can survive in a hastily scrubbed/developed ecosystem. It's a matter of truth. If the science disagrees, then it's bad science, no matter how many fucktards subscribe to it.
Err... I am in Florida for the winter. Right on the beach, too. 'Snot that I deny climate change. It is that I can do math. I'll be dead and gone before it is - unless a hurricane gets it. It's insured.
At the same time, I don't go burning tires and and taking a semi on my foliage viewing trips. ;-) I'm not a monster, after all.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Keep in mind that Matt Ridley's family owns coal mines so he has a vested interest in the subject.
It's what you do with it.
That's why he's obviously not a scientist. Once he was, but he vacated that ground long ago.
A real scientist is willing to agree a theory needs work if data disproves it; not altering data to fit a theory or claiming the theory is right and all argument is closed on the matter. Science is never closed, so when someone tells you a conclusion has been reached absolutely, back away nodding and smiling and be thankful it's not you who have lost faculties for reason....
Unless of course the same thing has happened to you also...
bBacks away nodding and smiling
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Because this is a global problem? And only our stupid country (of first world countries) are denying it. What good is money if you have nothing to spend it on?
This paper is far from established science. It is contrary to the IPCC's and other accepted climate models, without providing the physics to back it up. The strong opinionation, right or wrong, do not belong in a research paper: "There is a possibility, a real danger, that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control. We conclude that the message our climate science delivers to society, policymakers, and the public alike is this: we have a global emergency. Fossil fuel CO2 emissions should be reduced as rapidly as practical."
> Merely showing models is not enough.
Especially when the models prove to be totally innacurate, and rather than MODIFYING the models, they massage the data for the umpteenth time to FIT the model and bump doomsday 10 years into the future.
Matt Ridley is certainly optimistic, but I'm not entirely sure it's rational. His optimism allowed him to ignore the impending financial disaster that lead to the failure of his bank. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/fin... . Is it possible his pollyannaism (and possibly his own coal interests) are making him blind to the costs of global warming?
As you say, it is a complicated subject. If you trust one just one source you would need to know that they were providing a complete picture.
I saw that video, too! It's called, The Day After Tomorrow. If you give equal weight to actual scientific research as you do to some dumbass video, then you really shouldn't be posting on SlashDot.
I knew that I came to SlashDot for a reason.
15 Years ago Al Gore was saying by 2050 oceans would have risen significantly. That is well on track to being an accurate statement.
Seriously, look at a topographical map of Louisiana over the last 15 years and you'll see quite a stark contrast. Much of the state is now under water.
Maybe, but this particular variant has a heck of a lot of nice tangential benefits even on the wrong side (assuming all those lefty fascist NWO fantasy conspiracies don't pan out). Efficiency good, strip mining bad, etc.
I love vegans, they are great BBQ'd!
We've heard it before. And it was wrong before. Why is this time any different?
"A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
IF it is man made, we may have an opportunity to fix it and we should start now because this is literally the only planet we have to support our life. The other case doesn't really matter, we're boned no matter what we do
Just to play devil's advocate (because that's more fun) if it isn't man made then the models are wrong and there is nothing to worry about.
Data and sources do not matter. Only belief. Get with the program.
Just asking ... what is James Hansen's track record for accuracy with climate predictions? If it's egregiously off, *why* are we paying any attention?
Of course this is modded down. Pointing out the emperor has now clothes is forbidden.
It is scary to think that a portion of the population believes that higher education belongs to the left. I suspect that most others on the right also cringe at these remarks.
However, when a scientist says "We're fucked and here's why..." and then plops down 50 years worth of climate data showing there's a direct correlation between our use of fossil fuels, the rise in CO2 levels and the rise in ocean level, ambient ocean temperature and acidification of the oceans. Moreover when other scientists look at different data sets and corroborate those findings. I generally take these person seriously, giant boulder hurling hyperbole aside.
Getting the sign right isn't good enough. 50 years of climate data is not good enough. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is so hard to understand about that?
It still looks like a case of Pascal's wager to me.
I wish that I had read a few of these and had kept my points going. U should be marked down to a troll. Dr Hansen suffers the same issue that Obama does: far right wingers like you call them polarizing for doing their jobs. Neither Obama nor Hansen have been polarizing. It is you far right wing nut jobs that turn it into such because you refuse to simply look at the data and then you claim that they are the problem.
Did your parents have any kids that lived?
Well, not really http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
The cause doesn't necessarily define the conclusion. Why climate change is happening is far less important than the end result and the opportunity to at least TRY to do something about it.
Nuclear??? Um... of all the possible things we could switch to, why that?
Solar or wind, sure. Their prices have been plummeting. Wind is already less expensive than coal, and solar is expected to cross that line within the next few years. As a result, use of them is growing exponentially. Together, they accounted for about 2/3 of all new capacity in the U.S. last year, and they're expected to be even higher this year.
But nuclear isn't even close to cost competitive anymore. It's not politics that's keeping it back. If "the far left" actually had the ability to determine what energy sources got used, we would have completely phased out coal years ago. If building nuclear power plants made economic sense, companies would be doing it. But they aren't, because the prices of wind and solar and natural gas have gone down so dramatically that it just can't compete.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Really? Global warming disproved? In a blog post? Wow.
Citation needed. Could you please point me to the "failed prediction after failed prediction" you're talking about?
Last I saw, global temperatures were doing an excellent job tracking predictions made over the last 40 years. Ditto for sea level rise, which is actually happening a bit faster than most scientists had predicted.
Let me hazard a guess: you don't really pay much attention to scientists to find out what they're saying. If you did, you'd find that most of their predictions are cautious and very carefully qualified. Instead, you listen pundits who like to rant about the "Doomsday Predictions!!!! of the Scientists!!! who say we're all about to die!!! Who do they think we are???? We know better than to believe that."
Am I right?
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Clearly this study is complete biased nonsense. Look at the institutions at which these supposed scientists work.
Columbia University, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, NASA Goddard, Institut Pierre Simon Laplace, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of California Irvine, Western Carolina University, University of Toulon.
Each one is some garbage degree factory with no scientific rigor whatsoever.
hehe
"Towns are evil and will destroy civilization as we know it!"
Technically, this one came true.
Your assumption is that acting will be zero cost. The reason nothing happens is that even the biggest believers in the Doom of global Warming unless we repent of our eco sins now, is that they want everyone else to pay for it, and be inconvenienced by it. Just like the priests of old.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
It is what happens when scientists try and peddle their politics. Also the claims are at best intellectually dishonest. No models give any kind of real support to specific predictions. Even the IPCC report overstates the case if you follow the citations. That is the citations don't always support the claims. Also correlations between things is often ignored and even the outside chance events are claimed as "will occur". Sorry but the field has lot a lot of credibility, and unfortunately the real damage done is that no one in their right mind wants to let scientists get in on policy making. And i can't blame them.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
Trainspotting. Just after the "I hate the English" bit. Do I win five pounds?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Pascal's Wager?
I was reminded of that when I found a video called "The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See" on YouTube some years back.
You want the taste of dried leaves boiled in water?
And you are the problem. Oh my god the sky is falling.. So you over there lead the way. Lead by example! Me? no no i need a SUV for safety and my dirt bikes i like to ride in the weekend and my jetski when i go to the lake. But you over start with leading by example....
If you really believe in these doom and gloom stories then you would act. But you don't. I don't buy this sky is falling bullshit, so why the fuck should i be forced to behave in line with your belief.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
I hope. We all hope. But are we hoping hard enough?
At the bottom of the
Sure there were... they just weren't called that back then. Usually, they were called philosophers, astronomers, or mathematicians.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There are always costs of action and inaction. Sometimes you can't see them up front.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
and take your own future into your own hands, and stop expecting everyone else to fix things for you
Moving away from what we do wrong is far more complicated than 1 person. Government regulations have worked in the past to solve "DOOMSDAY" issues such as the depleting ozone layer. The refrigerants damaging the ozone were reduced and eventually removed due to government regulations. That was a very liberal thing to do and you can thank them for it. There are plenty of other examples.
The current governments appear more dedicated than they've ever been with regards to global warming. This tells me change is going to start happening much quicker than most would imagine. Getting countries like China to comply is critical and considering how heavily it affects them I believe they will comply.
Friend, I've said the same thing myself more than once in the past here on Slashdot, and been shouted down for it, and I've said the same thing in public before, too, and likewise been shouted down for it. Yes, it makes sense. Yes, it's logical. Yes, it's a reasonable course of action. But in spite of all that 'Yes', the answer still ends up being 'Hell, NO!' from too many people, because humans are dumb as a group, as evidenced by behaviors like gas prices going up, people dump SUVs and get small efficient cars, then when they happen to go down again for a little while, they dump the small cars and start buying gas-guzzling SUVs again, regardless of how many times gas prices have yo-yo'd in the past. Humans, as a group, are also lazy, and don't want to be bothered to conserve, or do anything that inconveniences them, and taking measures to correct global warming is very inconvenient. Humans, as a group, also tend to be greedy, and corporations see how much global warming measures will cost them in profits, so of course they'll shout the whole thing down, pay for their own 'studies' showing climate science to be wrong, and outright buy off/buy out climate scientists, to shut them up. Frankly the whole thing is very depressing to me and I don't even want to discuss it anymore right now. The only remotely saving grace for me in this is that I'll be long dead before the Earth becomes uninhabitable due to human damage to the environment, so I try to find what enjoyment I can in what years I have left to me and try not to let myself get too down on how stupid, overall, humans are being about so many more things than this -- and I'll keep telling people how things really are anyway, even if they won't listen.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Either you believe the sky is falling and immediate drastic changes must be made or you are a climate denier? There are many more likely outcomes then those two, I've found that stupid tends to live on the extremes.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
I used to feel sorry for most people, but not really anymore as they seem to be part of their own problems and more content whining than doing anything about it.
Granted, complaining about editing is a waste of time (I've got some time here you go), but I'm surprised I don't see anyone posting about the ridiculous clickbait headline. As I scroll through the /. homepage, I see a bunch of headlines that tell what the story is, and then this one, which is effectively "ZOMG! YOU WON'T BELIEVE WHAT THIS SCIENTIST SAID!" You may as well subcaption it with "The discovery mainstream media REFUSES to print!"
If you're going to post ridiculous, anticlimactic, obvious stories, at least make their titles informative as to what it's about.
Oblig. car analogy: "Scientist discovers steering wheel turns car" vs "CONTROL VIRTUALLY ANY AUTOMOBILE WITH THIS ONE WEIRD TRICK!"
> This is why AGW pseudo-skeptics are...
You misspelled "idiots". Idiots are always the last person to realize they are wrong, and they rarely have a moment of clarity. They usually just move on to being idiots about some other topic.
No, it was wasn't global cooling, they were calling it the next ice age in second grade...hard to forget something like that, but then it was the ozone hole (See Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery). Technically we are still in an ice age in an interglaciation period. See Ice Age
You're a god damn fool. If all of this is poppycock but we still act, there isn't much of a problem. If it isn't poppycock and we don't act then the results could be catastrophic. I'd rather we err in the side of caution only a fool would choose to do otherwise.
I know man! We have got to fully implement the omni surveillance state right away! Maybe the terrorists aren't a real problem, but what if they ARE??? I'd rather err on the side... Wait? what are we talking about?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Yes, nuclear, because it is required for any realistic carbon-free economy. Sure, wind and solar have a role as well, but those are not sufficient on their own to displace coal and natural gas.
If climate change was as dire in reality as the activists have claimed, they would be protesting the construction of natural gas power plants and cheering for the nuclear ones. But obviously the reverse is true. Why do you think that is?
Nuclear power is expensive because of excessive regulation. NIMBY, LNT, and frivolous lawsuits are the reason for that, as opposed to any real risk or history of safety problems. All of that comes from the environmental activists. Ironic that if Dr. Hanson is correct, the people at fault for runaway AGW are the environmentalists themselves.
RIGHT: http://climate.nasa.gov/scient...
No, it's not possible to be thoughtful and a Creationist. It's at best a sign of extreme compartmentalization, and at worst, a sign of extraordinary ignorance and stupidity.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
It comes from, and is fueled by, failed prediction after failed prediction ...
Maybe the failure is yours in not understanding what the predictions were actually saying. From what I know and have seen most predictions are right on schedule or perhaps even a bit behind real world observations.
I'm not a delialist (I honestly don't care), but I would if land wasn't so expensive.
No. It is right, right, right. Miami will never admit it because they love the property taxes.
Until someone can explain it. So go ahead and explain it. But you can't. Why DOES the EU keep increasing their CO2 year over year? They must be denialists or Republicans?
No, the US actually REDUCED their CO2 output. But the EU increased it. You can go check it yourself. Please explain how that is the fault of the Democrats or Republicans.
Yes. Really.
once we reach the point where the sky is actually falling it's far too late to do much about it
But we've been told we're already past that point, unless you disagree with the scientists.
Bullshit, inbred: http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work... the world's scientific community has zero reason to care about your political views.. other countries don't have to care about your political views... as Neil deGrasse Tyson said last night, the US is one of the worst countries in the world in science deniers... and you and your high school diploma fighting against PUBLISHED scientists with doctorates are the reason.
When someone dares suggest we could make a few simple changes and massively reduce our emissions of CO2 , you should see the panic set in!
Just yesterday we had a guy here claim that to make what on paper is an expensive but by no means unaffordable switch the clean energy would cause our civilisation to collapse and send us back to the caves to live in. Talk about alarmism!
So climate data going back to 1966 isn't good enough? What would constitute good enough evidence?
With Pascal's wager though you're making a false equivalency.
Weighing the evidence of human cased climate change against the evidence of god(s) existing, I'll put my money on climate change.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Eratosthenes calculated it's circumference sometime around 240 BC. Citation: http://www.juliantrubin.com/bi... And look at the art; Atlas is not holding up a disk.
You're missing the point entirely. Regardless of how many people knew that the earth was roundish or flattish... it is irrelevant. You are obviously one of those people who actually believe these deniers can be convinced of reality.
Remember, people "knew" cigarettes caused cancer. Yet still denial abounded. People died. It took decades just for deniers to finally admit the truth... and even the wrongdoing. This is different, how? You may think my arguments flimsy. But you aren't saying anything by saying that.
But I'm not arguing anything at this point except for let nature take its course. The scientists have done all they can. Short of going to war and forcing nations to change... there is nothing else that cam be done.
While I wouldnt normally bother, because this information is SO easy to find..
here you are a couple of examples.
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/christy_dec8.jpg
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/73-climate-models_reality.gif
There are plenty more around..
As you can see, the climate 'models' are doing a pretty piss poor job of predicting anything.
Does that prove a negative for AGW? of course not, you cannot prove a negative.
But it *does* prove that there is currently no evidence for a positive in these models....
We're going to find out a lot sooner than that.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The same argument could be made for many courses of actions, including wiring $1000 directly to my bank account. Pleases do it, I warn that the universe will be destroyed if you don't, and can point you to scientific papers that prove it.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
What gives you the right to solar and electric car while they have t`o be subsistence farmers?
CO2 emissions are down in both the US and EU from 2005.
even though it could replace coal quickly.
With construction times of minimum 10 years I would not consider that quick. I believe if you even find a place suitable for a nuclear plant and propose it, the planning, certification, approvals and finally construction will be around 20 years.
In the meantime you can install 100 times of its output in wind and solar for a fraction of the cost.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You can discuss with me.
But I don't really know what there is to discuss.
I'm an Atheist.
I don't care about your religion.
However it is funny that you failed for the most brain dead religion on the planet, in a first world country, with a first class education.
Is there a name for that mental illness?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You can not check a false assertion :D
Because all the googeling will give: no hits.
How should it even be possible in a time of depression and increased warming to increase CO2 output for the EU? Even if you do nothing at all, the CO2 output would decrease. (*facepalm*)
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
So to you "may be gone" somehow equals "will be gone"?
Also "the northern polar sea ice in some month in the summer" with "both ice caps permanently". Also, of course, a popular talk with the scientific literature.
Stephan
Blasted General Grievance. Very uncivilized.
If you think so, your school must have been very bad or at least one sighted. ... the "invention" of the atom ... I could now write for days. But I stop here, because I'm bad with "arabic" and "persian" and "indian" names ...
Hint: Archimedes, Thales
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Because nuclear power is slower and more expensive than alternatives, investing in nuclear power leads to higher emissions. Nuclear power is always later, not now and represents inaction.
The one who calculated the earth circumference "the first time" was Eratosthenes, around 275 BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
No idea about Pythagoras.
The Phoenicians circumnavigated Africa around 600 BC. The reported to see the sun at noon in the north ... http://www.phoenicia.org.uk/ed...
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
I far prefer that phrase to "Climate Change" for no other reason than it's more accurate.
How can a phrase that does not even indicate if it is getting warmer or colder be more accurate than "global warming" that clearly indicates what is going on?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
From what I know and have seen most predictions are right on schedule or perhaps even a bit behind real world observations.
Predictions are far behind real world observations. Seal level rises are far out of the upper part of the "error margin".
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Here you go
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Someone above already listed a bunch of books that were failed predictions when the same "citation needed" challenge was made.
Irreversible? How? The world will find equilibrium no matter what we do to it. It will take a long time to find it, but it will find it. Humans have been on the planet for a speck of time compared to how long that the earth and life in general have been around... and have evolved. Another newsflash for you, AC. We aren't going to "destroy" the planet. We will destroy each other long before we are capable of destroying the entire planet.
I definitely am positive that global warming is happening and I am also certain that a portion of this is man-made. However, nobody is certain of what the exact effects of that will be on life and humanity. It will certainly suck. There will be migrations. There will be bad weather. There will be extinctions. But we don't know what all of that means in any real context. All I know is that GW deniers cannot be convinced that GW is even an issue. So I personally have no issue with letting them drive the car into a brick wall as fast as they want.
We aren't dealing in science, anymore. We are dealing in policy, rhetoric, and ideology. When morons want to thin the herd in Darwinian fashion... I personally have no problem with it.
CO2 emissions per capita
1. The EU has not been "increasing their CO2 output every year".
2. The US has more than double the per capita emissions of the EU. Double the emissions of heavily industrialized nations like Germany and Japan.
3. Clean up your shit
4. Shut up in the future
Chickens little, all of you!
In the first place 'act'???
What the FUCK does that mean?
Using more ground water poisoning lightbulbs filled with Mercury?
Making ridiculous public policy decisions designed to make life more difficult for poor people while rich people make more money off of this climate change tempest in a teapot?
Right along all of the alarmist climate science that Slashdot posts there's also plenty of posting about the undeniable decrease in temperature is over the past several years
And when it comes to predictions about weather, the farmers almanac is the most successful weather predictor of all of them, over centuries. They say we are cooling⦠But thanks for playing!
I'm surprised no one has brought up Edward Snowden yet
He says he has documents proving it is all a designed to get people to ignore nuclear power, nuclear weapons, and nuclear waste, that is the real disaster
That the CIA has thrown millions and millions and billions of dollars at anyone who would make the argument that we are in a warming trend because of anthropomorphic causes
And all of you idiots waste your time yelling at each other about stupidity
Well, it takes one to know one
You're a god damn fool. If all of this is poppycock but we still act, there isn't much of a problem. If it isn't poppycock and we don't act then the results could be catastrophic. I'd rather we err in the side of caution only a fool would choose to do otherwise.
I imagine it depends on what one is proposing to do about it. If the danger is vague and ill-defined and questionably real, with a proposed 'fix' which will certainly cause massive economic and other hardships then it isn't as clear cut as you're making it out to be. If the danger was definite and the science truly settled, not this 'may' happen but 'if you don't do XYZ then ABC will definitely happen with a 95% probability' then taking drastic action would be warranted without question. However, with 'may' qualifiers up one way and down the other drastic action cannot reasonably be justified given the reasonably known costs of that action.
A much better line would be "make things more efficient and less polluting because clean air and water are good things and here's how we do it and not tank the economy and force fundamental over night changes". That's a message most people could get behind I'd imagine. Sadly, that isn't the message being put out there.
I was raised on the command line, bitch
"Nemo me impune lacesset"
Any numbers they assigned would be imaginary. The problem with climate science is you can't do meaningful experimentation, so you have no way to test your model. Without that feedback you could be dead on or you could be far, far off.
We would, but it 's too damn expensive because the wealthy people flying around the globe to AGW conferences are already living there.
Exxon looked at the data and came to the right conclusion. Gasoline produces a miniscule amount of the human contribution and stopping its use would be more catastrophic than stopping it. Might as well float that rumor of a car that runs on tap water while you are at it.
Ah, yes, the beach-side villa....three kilometres inland and 159 METRES above sealevel. Such a good argument you have there.
Your link resulted in this:
"Thing With Ad Blockers
We get it: Ads aren’t what you’re here for. But ads help us keep the lights on.
So, add us to your ad blocker’s whitelist or pay $1 per week for an ad-free version of WIRED. Either way, you are supporting our journalism. We’d really appreciate it."
Like WTF? I'm not blocking anything from Wired, I just block ads from sites that are from sites other than the site that I am viewing.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Lucky that we have climate evidence going back several million years in ice core samples, fossilized tree rings, and a few other places. It's a lot more than just 50 years for the CO2 measurements.
and yet, when the top scientists of the anti climate change group, dr. muller, got funding from the kock bros and looked into this, they changed their opinion. Basically, they showed that there can be little doubt that Climate change is occurring and that it is man-made. And yet, you far right wing nut jobs continue to ignore real scientists doing real work and showing it to be true.
So, fools like you can make wild claims, but the smart man says that if this is killing all of us, and if the current solutions are putting all the blame on the west (who all together is doing less than 1/3 of the emissions), should instead push to have ALL nations cutting their emissions TOGETHER.
Oddly, America is the ONLY nation that can force this. Why? Because we import more than all other nations.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Yes, but obviously, yours did not.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
solar and wind can not do the job by themselves. Even if we add geo-thermal (and we should), it will still not be enough. We need to add new nukes, but not the 1GW gen 3 reactors. Instead, we need to add gen IV reactors and burn up the vast majority of the 'waste' that we have. Most importantly, by adding new reactors, these can replace old ones, and go into replacing the majority of coal plants.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
no, you are looking at gen III reactors that are economic disasters. We need manufactured gen IV reactors that can be ramped up quickly and safely.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
skip the gen 3 1 GW reactors.
We need the gen 4 reactors that can be built in factories, do 100-200 MWe and can be installed in 1-2 years. In addition, they can use nuclear waste, which is the smart thing to do.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
He said he was miserable.
He didn't say he was miserable. He said "instead of trying to make us all miserable". He said nothing about the success of the attempt.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Your obtuse ignorance is not becoming. The answers you seek are not esoteric, and your failure to seek them out for yourself shines a cold, bright light on your motives.
you can only debate with facts but as your position as a creationist holds a position that has no facts, an attempted debate with you is a waste of an atheists time
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
The good news is that James Hansen has been consistently wrong about every prediction he has ever made. EVER. So it's safe to relax.
You didn't do very well at school, did you?
He didn't point out anything - he asked a loaded question as if it has any bearing on the subject at hand. As his question has not been answered you can't draw conclusions from it. You are not being rational at all.
The only truly renewable energy source is to mulch climate change skeptics and turn them into bio fuel. Just imagine the energy density!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
So climate data going back to 1966 isn't good enough? What would constitute good enough evidence?
30 years is roughly the minimum scale for climate. The second replier has the right idea with the millions of years of climate proxy data.
Weighing the evidence of human cased climate change against the evidence of god(s) existing, I'll put my money on climate change.
Which climate change? Before, you had very specific effects and consequences. Don't move the goalposts.
If all of this is poppycock but we still act, there isn't much of a problem
Yeah, as long as you don't consider the loss of hundreds of billions of dollars "much of a problem".
Just another day in Paradise
Yup, they could hardly wait to label your post as Flamebait. That was a chicken shit move.
Just another day in Paradise
The thing is, without forcing anyone to do anything (beyond the money being offered on things like Teslas and solar panels), the US has dropped its CO2 output dramatically. If you care so much about this issue, start yelling at Africa, India and China, or come up with some kind of carbon removal device to use on the atmosphere.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Why do you think that? Wind and solar are each individually capable of covering roughly 100x the world's total energy needs. Take a look at this map to see just how little land would be needed to go to 100% solar. Of course, we wouldn't do that. We'd certainly also include a lot of wind and hydro power, probably some geothermal and biomass as well (mostly municipal and agricultural waste, since that's effectively free energy). Maybe tidal energy too, but that's a less mature technology. Going to 100% renewable energy isn't just possible, it's actually pretty easy and much cheaper than nuclear.
The only big problem is doing it fast enough. If we leave all the existing coal plants running for the rest of their intended lifespans, they'll keep dumping CO2 into the atmosphere for decades. We need to shut them down and replace them as quickly as possible. And there again, renewables are much better placed than nuclear.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
that we will hand young people and future generations a climate system that is practically out of their control.
When has the climate system ever been under hum control?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
not sure how letters got eaten there...human control.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Have you purchased your indulgences yet?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
If you want to show it's possible to be thoughtful and a creationist, you need another link.
That article was primarily wild speculation mixed in with a lack of understanding of some of its bases (such as automata theory). It also didn't seem to bring in creationism. The idea of God as the Ultimate Computer doesn't get you anywhere theologically, since religions have some idea of what God or gods or whatever do or are, and simply labeling something hypothetical "God" doesn't get you any indication of anything a Christian theologian would recognize.
There are articles like that one published on loads of topics, where assorted ideas are thrown into each other without bothering to see if they fit, including some guy who wrote a book no reader ever heard of before who is suddenly taken seriously.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Record melting doesn't occur every year, and no reputable source you find will claim that. The Arctic ice coverage varies from year to year, but it's down from what it used to be, and it continues to set records on the low side now and then.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Scientists: Hey! There's a problem here with the amount of CO2 emissions we are pumping into the atmosphere. Looks like we can solve it with technology and some simple changes though.
Denialist: If my power doesn't come from burnt coal that means the end of civilisation. Science is a Marxist plot! These guys suggesting that there be an agreed restriction on the amount of Co2 in the atmosphere are a secret cadre of communists trying to take over the wooooorld! Dooooooooom.
Seems kinda obvious now doesn't it.
It's a bit like you're in a driving test:
Instructor: Well, if you don't press the brake at some point, you'll plow into that line up of traffic up ahead and the damage will be extensive.
Denialist: Your models are false! You're a predictor of doom and gloom! Any attempt to instruct me on how to drive is an affront to my freeeedommms!
Seems like they made themselves miserable and the idea that the smart people made them miserable is as idiotic as their science and their predictions about the impacts of CO2 mitigation on the economy, and their interpretations of the way that science functions and it's motivations.
That's an exceptionally ignorant statement, one that would be disproven by the facts if you should choose to go and check on them.
Just incredible derpiness there. You should be ashamed to point at data without pointing at data. You're wrong... look it up before you argue! You know as well as I do that I've read the numbers, and you haven't.
You clearly don't even follow the story over time. The articles come up every year, and every year you wave your hands and pretend they say whatever you were told by your TEEVEE to believe. Maybe it is worth actually reading the stories and finding out what they really say?
Or at least accept that you didn't even check and have no idea what the state of sea ice is.
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
You said:
He said he was miserable.
I said:
He didn't say he was miserable.
You replied:
Seems like they made themselves miserable
Once again, he didn't say he was miserable! What's wrong? Too early in the morning? Not enough coffee? :-)
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I watched the video. This guy is so wrong its downright silly.
There is only one column. Its the column where the Earth's magnetic poles reverse, where super-calderas blow, and 2km wide asteroids intersect the orbit of our planet. The same column has catastrophic coronal mass ejections hit the Earth dead on, and the Earth again experiences some of the extremes of temperature that is has endured before mankind was even a possible factor. It's also where oceans once again rise (and fall) to previous levels known from the fossil record.
It's the column where extinction events occur, with inexorable certainty.
This is the only issue. Nothing else matters. Any other discussion of climate or AGW that doesn't take into consideration the vulnerability of humanity in the face of these unavoidable occurrences is totally irredeemable. It is so much pissing in the wind. In our current state of unpreparedness, any one of these events will certainly terminate our ascendency as a species, and would have a very great chance of exterminating us completely.
Our politicians and their supporters are talking about money changing as the solution. Fully 44% of our population lives in coastal areas near sea-level. Do you think any carbon-taxation will protect their lives in a tsunami? What idiocy! What a failure of leadership. What a self-made catastrophe.
My level of frustration with humanity on the issue of our survival as a species is overwhelming. The writing is on the wall. Our mother Earth bears the scars and tells all the tales of woe. These events were so intense they are indelibly written in the crust, still observable millions of years later. They prove we are living in a cradle-soft lull in the history of our planet. There are events that will annihilate us that have occurred on this planet many times before, that we know happened, and know will happen again. And you poor simple bastards are worried about a few degrees C? The worst of the worst dire predictions of the AGW proselytes, if proven to be true, would be a soft pitch warm up to an extinction event.
None of you are even acknowledging the real issue. At this point it doesn't matter what mankind does to the Earth, what matters is what the Earth will do to us. On a long enough timeline, without preparation, we will become extinct, guaranteed. The Earth will kill us just by doing what it has been doing for billions of years. You want to do something about it, or do you want to fight about how much money we should be sending to our governments representatives in the new carbon-based economy? Here's a hint, undercutting our industrial power and enriching and validating these power and money grabs by our politicians won't lead to our survival.
When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
I dunno how to explain it to you in simpler terms.
Denialists are miserable, that's clear from their doom and gloom predictions about the inevitable end of the age of coal. They might claim to not be miserable, but their claims are generally wrong anyway - so what weight would we give to that self-assessment?
DId he say he was miserable? He said:
I mean, can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable?
You interpret that trying to to mean he is not miserable. Under normal circumstances it could go either way. Except we already know he is miserable owing to his predictions of doom and despair arising from the end of the age of coal and his misery arising from the apparent ascendancy of the communist scientists. So a better interpretation of: can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable? Is
1. He is miserable
2. He is blaming that misery on someone else - as is the habit of people who lack the emotional strength to examine their own flaws.
In his mind, his misery is also someone else's fault, just like everything else.
So he is miserable, and mayhaps the best approach to ending that misery is for us to provide free chemicals and someone gentle to administer them, and thus give him escape into the next world, where, hopefully, an enterprising industry baron can give him a pick and an eternally long coal face for him to swing it against, thus he might live on forever in bliss in a world more suited to his temperament and view of the place of normal men in society.
Hope that helps.
Under normal circumstances it could go either way. Except we already know he is miserable owing to his predictions of doom and despair arising from the end of the age of coal and his misery arising from the apparent ascendancy of the communist scientists. So a better interpretation of: can't these people just kill themselves already instead of trying to make us all miserable? Is
1. He is miserable
I dunno, hey. He said "Stop trying to make me miserable" when he just as easily could have said "Stop making me miserable". The meaning is pretty clear and unambiguous to me.
When people say "Stop trying to annoy me" they generally do not mean "Stop annoying me".
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
I dunno, hey. He said "Stop trying to make me miserable" when he just as easily could have said "Stop making me miserable". The meaning is pretty clear and unambiguous to me.
That would imply he is miserable about climate change, and perceives that someone is trying to make him miserable about climate change, but he thinks those 2 things are happening independently. IE he is miserable about climate change, but when someone speaks about climate change, referencing the facts that make him feel miserable, hearing those facts repeated doesn't make him feel miserable for some obscure reason. How does that work? Do you think he thinks "I'm already miserable, so hearing the things that make me miserable being repeated by a scientist can't make me more miserable, so THEY FAIL"?
I think your interpretation is a bit of a stretch. I'll admit it's possible he is miserable and doesn't realise it. Self reflection may not be a strong point. It is more likely though (on balance) that hearing/reading facts about climate change makes him feel miserable, and he is blaming the messenger.
In the Christmas of 2013 an Australian climate change expedition came unstuck when their research ship was trapped in ice they had not been expecting because they believed so faithfully in “global warming”.
Who was it said, in the 1980s, that the polar ice caps would be gone by 2003?
It's 2016, they're still there.
In November last year NASA published a study - and as quickly took it down, but not before the world's press got a peek - that proved that the AGW scam is precisely that. It showed that the Antarctic ice sheet is not only not receding, it is GROWING. Those big chunks that are calving off? They're not calving off because they're melting, they're calving off because the only thing that's holding them up is seawater, and most of the Antarctic permafrost sits on top of a land mass. And we know it is accurate because it uses altimetry data from satellites to gauge changes in the size of the Antarctic land mass.
What this shows is that between 1992 and 2001 the ice sheet gained 112billion tons of ice per year. This rate slowed between 2003 and 2008 but still the ice sheet was gaining 82billion tons a year.
But hey, don't let facts get in the way of a good carbon tax con we have going here, right? Tell you what, we'll ignore all climate data prior to 1976 (because that's when we started getting reliable satellite data), we'll ignore all winter data (because we're not out to show the ice sheets growing when it gets cold because cold doesn't exist in a global warming - I mean, anthropological climate change - world) and we'll ignore what the Japanese are doing to the predatory whale populations which in turn is affecting the penguin population. That and overfishing. Yes, there are more penguins but they're looking a bit skinny.
Yep, back to the pre-satellite-data models drawn up on napkins which if true or accurate would mean that my house in the middle of England is now beachfront property.
I can't see the beach. It's 70 miles away. It was 70 miles away in 1980, it'll be 70 miles away in 2052.
Who are the real deniers here: those who look at the hard evidence or those who want to go on scaremongering regardless of what the data shows?
And now for the mike drop:
Drop an ice cube into a glass of water and note the meniscus height. Wait for the ice to melt and not the meniscus height again.
I guarantee you that the meniscus height will not change, because ice is less dense than water. By 12%, in fact. This is why the top eighth of an iceberg protrudes from the surface of the ocean. If the Arctic ice sheet melted completely, the sea level would not change. Other things are causing sea level rise, such as topsoil erosion, pyroclastic flows, earthquakes, and the continual change in datum caused by the fact that we don't measure sea level height form the centre of the Earth, we measure it from land masses which we INCORRECTLY assume to be static.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
He he, yeah, I did a double take as I read it as "hurling of boulders by giants", and was like this shit just got real!
A quick look at the Wikipedia entry will confirm what I said. If you want to confirm the Wikipedia article, follow the references as usual. Actual coverage information wasn't really available before about 1970, but counting from there the coverage is definitely down, and we've set four minimum-ice-coverage records this century.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
No, you liar, the words are still right up there. You're saying that the sea ice "continues to set records on the low side now and then."
That is complete intentional horseshit.
From the link you found, but didn't even read:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
The variation doesn't even bring it back to what was a record ten years ago; that is how far the changes have gone.
Don't be a fucking tool. You linked to something that totally refuted what you said, because you didn't even read it and check what it says.
We don't have the battery tech yet to handle our total nightly energy demand in solar energy. I doubt we even have the storage capacity to handle long periods of cloudy days. You need a base load.
We absolutely have the battery technology. We haven't yet built and installed the necessary number of batteries, but that's a different matter. All the needed technology is there.
Besides, the wind keeps blowing at night. And hydro, geothermal, biomass, and tidal power are all very stable and predictable. Batteries are just one of many sources that will together provide baseline capacity. Also, there are lots of places where long periods of cloudy days simply don't happen. Take a look at the map I linked to above. Notice how they're putting a huge solar install right in the middle of the Sahara. Guess why? Not only is it near the equator, cloud cover is close to nonexistent all year round.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
It must be a lot of fun to write off people. But beyond that, it's of little use.
Okay, how about Everlasting Man?
Specific to the thread, I'm speaking about ocean acidification, rising atmospheric CO2 levels, sea level and ocean temperature.
These are things that there is conclusive proof are being caused by human activity.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
You put up graphs that show Arctic sea ice going down after about 1970, so the current ranges are way below the 1970 values. Each of these graphs has a lot of variability, but has a clear general trend, and hits new lows now and then.
I completely fail to understand how this disagrees in the slightest with what I said.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It is right up above you, the part where you pretend that it isn't getting worse every year. Fucking duh. Don't pretend you don't know.
Were you attempting to misrepresent a minor quibble over the wording as a refutation of the thrust of the statement? Yeah, don't expect that to have value to anybody.
Do you have some kind of citation for that claim? The last I heard, our battery technology was woefully behind our capabilities to generate energy and the quantity we'd need to store. Molten salt was the closest potential method with hydrogen cell just not there yet. This isn't a problem you can just solve by hooking up a few additional car batteries to. They lack not only the energy density requirements, but also wear out over time.
http://www.pv-magazine.com/new...
http://www.aquionenergy.com/pr...
http://www.eosenergystorage.co...
http://www.treehugger.com/clea...
And those are just a handful of the top hits that came up when I did a search. Future technology development will certainly bring the cost down further, but we're completely capable of doing it even with current tech.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
These are things that there is conclusive proof are being caused by human activity
So how big are these things? Current research indicates that they are rather small to date.
Given the fact that the worst case scenario of climate change is the extinction of the human race, I tend to take that option extremely seriously! Even if this is a 2% or less possibility, virtually no amount of curtailing of human activity should be off the table. Coal miners losing their jobs? It sucks but, we set up a safety net for the workers so that they can get back on their feet or retire (depending on age and health) and eliminate the industry for the good of everyone. A "wait and see" approach to countering the possible threat of our self-made extinction is not an option... period. If we discover we were wrong about the extent of the threat later, yea it'll look bad but, we didn't take a chance on all of us dying whereas, if they're right and we do nothing until we can prove it beyond any doubt, it's too late as we may all be dead.
"Be particularly skeptical when presented with evidence confirming what you already believe." -
Have you purchased your indulgences yet?
Actually I've been thinking maybe the Russky girls are not as badly mind phucked as Russia doesn't appear to be run by a busload of retard closet case Nazi pedophile central banksters through a mafia strong arm.
I don't know about the rest of those insults, but Putin seems to follow Hitler's playbook pretty closely.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
I don't know about the rest of those insults, but Putin seems to follow Hitler's playbook pretty closely.
US is run by offshore interests for over 150 years now on what resembles a helter skelter/broken record, The Russky's still have a space program, we get to watch NASA play with RC toys and send our astronauts over their for transportation to ISS/Skylab 2.0. Our education, infrastructure, roads, medical, justice, politics and pretty much the entire system is broken because it is being run like a corporation with too much coming off the top and riddled with corruption. We run around making enemies and play world cop for banksters that you would think would be paying us but their not, they are screwing the entire country along with every other country that managed to sucker into the federal reserve. General Dunford now has plenty of dollars to spend but they don't spend in China anymore where our defense industry manufacturing has been sold off to by our politicians. I don't see Russia under those circumstances but I did see Putin kick Soros out of Russia and Soros it pretty much a dick, that doesn't make Putin a bad guy. In fact I have been thinking pretty seriously about continuing my family's program that was cancelled in December 1963 by my great uncle over what happened to my grandfather over there.
http://www.theweathernetwork.c...
This is a recent article backed with some scientific data.