Antarctic Ice Is Growing, Not Melting Away, At Davis Station 633
schwit1 writes "A report from The Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research says that Antarctic ice is growing, not melting away. Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m. A paper to be published soon by the British Antarctic Survey in the journal Geophysical Research Letters is expected to confirm that over the past 30 years, the area of sea ice around the continent has expanded."
Re:Welp, (Score:5, Insightful)
The audacity of hope.
Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax. Never let a crisis go to waste.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:5, Insightful)
"It is time for science to be market-driven rather than socialist in nature."
Since IS market driven. There is a BIG BIG market for global warming and that's where the money is so climate scientists focus on global warming and not other topics or (God forbid) the heresy that is global warming denial.
Number juggling. (Score:4, Insightful)
last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
So?
Re:Temperature (Score:0, Insightful)
YEah, wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions which haven't been approved by the government!
Re:Number juggling. (Score:4, Insightful)
Shhhh! Don't let frivolous things like logic and facts get in the way of bashing the environmentalism movement. Protecting the environment is bad for business and in a truly free market there shouldn't be any restrictions on my megacorporation's right to pollute the atmosphere. After all, people are smart, rational, and think ahead so if my company pollutes they'll just take their business elsewhere and I'll go out of business. Can't you see how beautiful libertarianism and the free market is? It solves climate change better than those silly scientists and regulations ever could.
Whoop de doo! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Temperature (Score:2, Insightful)
The fact that it's been cooling the last few years points to Global Warming. The fact that the ice sheet is getting larger points to Global Warming. The fact that there are Solar Cycles points to Global Warming.
In fact, there are NO observations that could possibly disprove Global Warming.
Geez. It is a religion, not a science.
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.
Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't mean to discredit what you say, but could you possibly give a better explanation of what's occurring and how it's related to global warming.
It seems that some times every event is a sure sign that X is occurring, whether or not there's actually any scientific proof behind it or not. It reminds me of whenever something happened it would be attributed to God, the gods, or some other deity supposedly controlling the fate of mankind depending on the time period.
I just don't want things to devolve to that point. I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, but could you provide some links that explain the science behind your comments or provide a more thorough explanation yourself. I don't mean to call you out as my own knowledge of climate science is largely non-existent, but I still tend to take statements without further explanation with a grain of salt.
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
Ranting about Kyoto would make a lot more sense if the United States Congress had ratified it.
I really don't think that the current Congress is a whole lot more likely to ratify it than any past Congress, but who knows.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:5, Insightful)
> he general public apparently has no idea how incredibly dogmatic, religious, > and un-scientific much of modern science has become.
and
> I think the real issue here is that scientists have become another authority.
Or put more simply:
"Scientists don't change their minds, they just die." - Max Planck
And he said that before the politics and money factors entered into science.
I think Carl Sagan neatly addressed that:
In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address
Especially when he said it doesn't happen as often as it should because change is sometimes painful. I will add one observation to that: what really makes change so painful is when your ego is invested in a particular outcome. When that ego need is replaced by a sense of awe derived from the mystery (and sometimes the absurdity) of the universe, which unfortunately seems rare these days, change can be something you welcome.
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
> Besides, the idea of it being too cold to snow is a myth:
The article you quoted says --
Once it drops below -20F, your chances of snow are virtually nil (but still possible).
I will take that "virtually nil (but still possible)" and say that effectively it does get to cold to snow.
Re:Temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.
Sure, but many climate change alarmists, including Al Gore, have been hyping the threat of rising sea levels due to melting ice. So if global warming is going to cause ice to grow in some areas and shrink in others, as it will, then that still weakens their argument.
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
I haven't been involved in any climate research, but what matters is WHY this is hapening.
Is it, as suggested above, because water falling there as snow instead of in Australia and Texas as rain is increasing volumes? Other explanations include:
- Thermal expansion of the ice
- Ice melting lubricates glacial movement
- Ice sheets detatching allows faster glacial movement
- Lower temperatures resulting in greater freezing of seawater.
Honestly though, conceptually this isn't amazingly complex. If we see temperatures rising, as measured by reliable equipment, thats called warming. If the ice thickens as the termperatures rise, that means something interesting is happening; It doesn't mean things aren't getting warmer.
When presented with scientific data, vested interests say "Oh yeah!? Prove it!". Instead of simply suggesting that they read the science reports and papers, many have tried to find anecdotes (permafrost, ice sheet collapse, etc etc) but these things don't 'prove' global warming any more than an ice thickening disproves it.
If only the population at large had an education sufficient to allow public discussion of the data found through research, there would be a great deal more consensus on this and other issues.
Science is not subjective.
Re:Whoop de doo! (Score:5, Insightful)
>Sure things might get hairy for a while
Look at where the coastline was during warmer spochs. "Hairy" is a polite word.
We also weren't trying to feed six billion humans last time it was seriously warm.
Re:Number juggling. (Score:4, Insightful)
But any place in the US, Europe, etc can become a dominate energy player by inventing new means to generate energy. The green movement, silly or not, creates jobs rather than takes jobs away.
Re:Temperature (Score:2, Insightful)
The antarctic is supposed to be a desert because it is too cold to snow.
False. It is never too cold to snow.
The fact the central area is now accumulating snow points to warming and accompanying increased precipitation.
Right, so if ice thickness is declining that is evidence that the climate is warming because the only possible cause is increased melting due to higher temperatures, but if the ice thickness is increasing that is evidence that the climate is warming because the only possible cause is increased snow accumulation due to more precipitation that results from warmer temperatures.
One has to be very careful what one looks at for indicators of global warming/cooling.
Since apparently any change whatsoever can be used as evidence for global warming it would seem that the only care required is that you never let your contradictory positions get juxtaposed too closely, as that might allow someone to notice they are contradictory.
"Environmentalists" sometimes argue that the decrease in a species' local population is evidence that humans are killing them all, and an increase in a species' local population is evidence that habitat destruction has forced it into human-inhabited areas. Anyone who makes this kind of argument is rightfully suspect.
The one signal that should be unambiguous with regard to increased global heat content is ocean heat content, which seems to be increasing and is free of most of the issues that make nonsense of so many of the climate signals that people get up in arms over. I really don't know why ocean heat content is so little discussed: anyone who actually cares about the science of global climate change will be led inevitably to it, and will be repulsed by the wild assumptions and poor science that goes into most claims about atmospheric heat content (or worse still, the thermodynamically meaningless "global average temperature".)
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:5, Insightful)
I bet a climate scientist could have gotten plenty of money from the Bush Administration for arguing that manmade CO2 wasn't causing climate change. Exxon Mobil has plenty of money for anyone who can sow doubt about the anthropogenic climate change hypothesis.
Why not more scientific criticism of the hypothesis, then?
Because scientists went into science instead of law school because they care about reality.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:2, Insightful)
It has been estimated that the amount of resources it would take to reduce CO2 emissions significantly over 100 years, is enough to completely solve the world hunger problem, in the same amount of time, even taking into account predicted population growth.
So... which do you think is better? Sweating a little from about 1 degree extra warmth, or millions of starving children? THAT is what we are discussing here.
Re:Temperature (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words: If it gets warmer, that's because of global warming. If it gets colder, that's because of global warming. If it gets wetter, that's because of global warming. If it gets drier, that's because of global warming. If the ice is melting, that's because of global warming. It the ice is getting thicker, that's because of global warming. If the bees are dying, that's because of cell phones, err, global warming.
Also: Global warming is caused by man, especially by those driving SUV's. The only way to save us is to reduce our energy use to zero (Algore and friends excluded, they can each use more than what 50 normal households combined are allowed without criticism).
Did I miss any important rules about global warming?
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:3, Insightful)
s/ego/reputation/g
The good reputation should go towards those who are willing to go wherever the facts lead them. A scientist who can say "I have discovered that I was mistaken and here is why" is the real article. Any of them who won't let facts get in the way of their pet beliefs/theories are not scientists at all; they are priests who wear a different sort of robe.
So when did you stop beating your wife? (Score:4, Insightful)
So why in the hell would anyone support polluting this planet?
Because we are the purest form of evil! Anyone who thinks slightly differently from you, must be the spawn of Satan.
You see, no-one wants to "pollute the planet". None of us like it because of the reasons you list. But in the real world it's a complex relationship between people living and the impact they have. Your edict to "reduce pollution" is all well and good, but in what ways? If the way you choose means a 10% increase in job loss, is that really OK? Disallowing all car travel in a state forever and ever would be a great way to reduce pollution - and to really screw over a lot of people.
There are ways to reduce pollution and/or save the environment that are less impactful on people's lives. So rather than claiming everyone really wants to pollute, help people to understand how they can pollute less without losing much in return.
Re:Temperature (Score:1, Insightful)
More like the biggest con game since organized religion. Oh wait! It is an organized religion. My bad.
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
So from global warming we can actually expect colder winters at the poles.
Truly this is a theory that cannot be disproven.
When we thought the poles were melting, the infamous pictures of a wet polar bear on a little ice shelf were everywhere and we were told that this was the direct result of warming.
So now it seems the global warming theory can have its ice and melt it too.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:2, Insightful)
Last time I did the numbers for installing solar panels, it in fact cost a lot more money over the lifetime of the solar panels than just buying the electricity from a power company. Granted, it's been several years, but I doubt it's changed much. There's also the fact that buying your power from the company spreads the cost out over a long period, while solar panels have a ridiculously high initial investment. Then there's the matter of storing energy for when it's dark outside...
If you want cheap and green energy, build nuclear reactors. Lots of them.
Water butts? I hope you don't mean for any water that's going to come in contact with my body in any way. Yech. I'd rather not base my water system off of a third-world model.
Or we'll use a designated driver. Or we'll call a cab. Or we'll drink at my house. Either way, we can come and go on OUR schedule, not the schedule of some transportation union.
The public transportation in San Jose was useful when I visited... Except when we left the bar, the trains were no longer in service. Go figure. Walking 20 blocks in the rain to our hotel really taught us the value of public transportation.
You really should try convincing people like Al Gore of this. Maybe they'd stop flying in private jets, driving SUVs, and building 20,000 sq ft houses...
Not the changes the tree huggers want me to make. They'll inconvenience me more than anything else.
Re:Welp, (Score:5, Insightful)
Where's the logic in this? We can't complain about problems in a treaty unless we ratify it? The problems are the reason not to ratify it.
Re:People don't seem to understand (Score:3, Insightful)
You are taking things out of context. The specific contexts you are ignoring right now are:
Local vs Global
Summer vs Winter
Annual Maximum vs Annual Minimum
Stop being an idiot and learn the nuances of what you are talking about. Maybe then you can productively attack the topic without sounding like an idiot.
Re:So (Score:4, Insightful)
What makes you think they're wrong? The Earth is not a constant temperature throughout. I can easily imagine an ice cap melting somewhere in the antarctic, raising the humidity, and a good portion of that water vapor attaching and freezing again somewhere else where it's cooler. That doesn't mean that the warm currents aren't having a devastating effect overall.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, this happens often in religion, once you reach a certain level, just like it happens in science once you reach a certain level. Like science, which has those to claim to follow it yet know little, and defend that knowledge incorrectly, you also get people raised with a religion who claim to follow it, defend it illogically because it's all they know, yet fail to understand what real religion is all about.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:4, Insightful)
The climate in Antarctica is shifting all over the place.
It's probably a good idea to keep an eye on these things, and try to figure out what's causing it, and determine if it has any ramifications for the rest of us "up north"
Given that temperatures, weather patterns, and sea levels are extremely important to human activity, we need to get a bearing on what's going on, given that we're observing phenomena that have never been recorded.
If the climate really is changing, we need to know as far in advance as possible so that we can start planning for it, even if we're not causing it.
I've been in research groups who have (successfully) justified funding for research that they knew was a likely dead-end. I don't believe for an instant that climate science is one of those areas.
Re:Welp, (Score:2, Insightful)
> Don't worry, they are still going to implement the carbon tax.
Of course. Because it has never been about global warming or CO2. Otherwise CO2 emitted by India and China would have been as bad as emissions in the 1st world. But Kyoto exempted them. It is about a once in a lifetime opportunity for the 'enlightened good progressives' to get almost total control over all aspects of life in the West and thus finally stamp out everything they don't like by taxing it out of practicality. And the things they don't like include pretty much all of western civilization.
So what you're saying is that our elected representatives oppose policies that they don't like? Sounds like the system is running exactly like it's intended to. If you don't like it, I strongly suggest voting for the other guy (and finding some more compelling reasons to do so)
Re:Read the AC post below (Score:3, Insightful)
The post you mention proves nothing. We know the earth is getting warmer. The question is whether people have been causing any of it.
And the charts at that link are all about surface temperature. The temperature measurements I mentioned were for the upper atmosphere. Two completely different things.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
You must take into account water/air circulation in the whole system at the very least too. Or choose to take the the butterfly or shit happens explanations.
What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.
The truth of the matter is that we don't really know what's going on. But that doesn't stop many people from boldly claiming that "X causes Y" with undeserved confidence.
What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)
Re:Welp, (Score:5, Insightful)
Honestly if we don't stop the up and coming countries from repeating our mistakes then what do we gain? A big fat nothing. A so hate this excuse of its not fair to them, well tough shit. We know better now and they can't claim to not know better either. If we get them off on the right foot it is going to be a lot easier for all of us. If we excuse them then we just push the problem off to the next generation. Of course that seems to be the aim of almost all politicians these days, push off to another generation what we are not willing to do today.
I have a more apt analogy than your pizza one.... just because Jack murders a dozen people doesn't excuse John from killing one.
Nothing unexpected (Score:4, Insightful)
The climate changes, because that is what climates do. Not only that, climates do not change in an orderly and expected fashion! The politicians and media pretend that all change is uniform. That if the climate is changing then it will change uniformly warmer and warmer until we all roast to death. Or that it will get cooler and cooler until glaciers roll over the continents. Neither view is correct, yet that is what we are told to believe. It is inconceivable to the politico-media complex that some places my get cooler and others warmer. Inconceivable that the climate has a balancing mechanism that prevents runaway change. Inconceivable that human beings are a part of nature and not an external contagion.
This constant cry that we are "destroying the planet" must stop. It is an absurd claim. Certainly we human beings should be good caretakers of our planet. We should seek to reduce pollution and other environmental externalities. But the fear mongering is not helping, and must stop.
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
What's also unscientific about this process is the way that the GW movement latches onto emotionally appealing icons to make their case (e.g. Polar bears, Katrina)
So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?
Talk about appealing to false causality. Was Katrina caused by GW? Who knows. One point of data trend does not make. Is the Arctic Melting caused by the fact that it's getting warmer, along with the rest of the planet on average? That's a pretty hard thing to disprove with millions of points of data all pointing to the same thing "The earth is warming."
Re:Temperature (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, you missed that it is called climate change, and not global warming. The earth is a very complicated heat engine. There are feed backs, inverse feedbacks, flows and currents moving heat around all over the place. If you dramatically change the climate then you may dramatically the way the heat engine works. This may mean that some places get colder even if on average the earth is getting warmer.
So yes, if it is colder in places that are supposed to be warmer, then it may be climate change. If it is warmer where it is supposed to be colder then it may be climate change.
Note also it is climate change. Climate means weather over a long period of time. So if it is freakishly warm one day, or strangely cold another day (or week or even season) then it may not be climate change. You need to look at trends over a long period of time before you can say anything about the climate.
Of course the fact that the earth is extremely complicated doesn't stop some people from using some FUD from oil companies along with a couple of hours of watching the Discovery channel to think that they know everything about an entire field of physics.
Re:Let's forget the environment for a momnet... (Score:3, Insightful)
And what happens when those millions of starving children can no longer grow crops because of climate change?
The amount of "money" you have doesn't mean jack squat if the price of food were to rise for some reaso--oh wait. That's already happening.
Re:Temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
The last few years have been warmer than any year in the 20th centry except 1998.
Antartic sea ice was PREDITED to expand using climate models.
The last one is just mindless.
As for religion, I'm afraid you are the one who's dogma is impervious to science. OTOH it's a free country and you have the right to make a fool of yourself.
Re:Nothing unexpected (Score:2, Insightful)
1."Climate change will result in more extreme temperatures" is a classic one. Every time there is freak weather the reports say "it's the coldest it's been since 18XX" and so on. What the hell? Our carbon footprint must have been massive before the industrial revolution then. It was all those windmills I reckon... Hold on a minute...
2."The gulf stream being diluted with fresh water from melting ice" being used as an excuse why the summers aren't as hot in the UK. Umm, see number 1?
With all due respect to the scientific community, if it's as good at predicting the weather (which it isn't) as the financial community is at predicting the economy, then how the hell do we even know reducing CO2 emissions is a good thing? It could be causing more problems.
We need more data. Too bad there's too much money in renewable energy sources and forcing Asia to seek expensive energy alternatives via Kyoto for people to change their minds now.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:3, Insightful)
That would essentially amount to enslaving all scientists to the desires of big corporations. No research would take place unless it led to an immediate big buck.
Science is not about making money or inventing ways to make money. Science is about the pursuit of knowledge, even when it gets you no tangible gain.
If you think that's a pointless goal, you should think how much of today's technology would have been possible if we hadn't researched "pointless science" decades or centuries ago. Would the "free market" be willing to invest in that science by then, when no one could see the potential applications?
But honestly, I for one don't think the pursuit of knowledge (with no strings attached) is a pointless goal. I think it is a rather worthwhile one.
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
That was back when pollution meant stuff like raw sewage. Nowadays, pollution means one of the inevitable results of complete burning of carbon-containing materials. Which, since there ain't no replacement for burning of carbon-containing materials (nukes ain't happening and the rest ain't sufficient), means pollution equals energy use. So in the guise of "stopping pollution", the EPA can ration energy. Cool, eh?
Re:Temperature (Score:5, Insightful)
So your counter argument that an observed weather phenomenon on the opposite side of the planet casts into doubt the mountain of data that the north pole is losing its sea ice (to the detriment of Polar Bears) is scientific?
Did the GGGP of this post not just say that global warming causes COLDER poles?
How can I possibly debate this issue with you or anyone else when the climate change camp gets to count both warmer and colder temperatures at the poles as favorable for their position?
It's an impossible position you've put your opponents in; none of the evidence counts against you.
Re:Temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
What is clear to me is that our understanding of atmospheric dynamics is so awful (and rightfully so, it's complicated), that an explanation can be cobbled together using pesudo atmospheric lingo to explain any set of data as a result of man made influence.
No, what is clear is that your understanding of atmospheric dynamics is awful. So is mine, and the average slashdotter's as well.
That's why I don't post blather about the new climate article du jour until I see what real climatologists, e.g. the folks at RealClimate, have to say. (Especially because 75% of the reaction to any new discovery will be spin by the deniers, who are always looking for that magic bullet.)
What you're doing is like reading few YouTube comments and concluding that the process of making a video is poorly understood.
Re:Temperature (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
You really shouldn't confuse religious dogma with out and out greed. So the non global warming sponsors are not impervious to science, they simply don't care, the lies they spread are all about them sustaining and increasing their profits, they are completely and utterly indifferent to damage they knowingly do, don't think for a second that they don't employ their own scientists to analyse the data coming out so that they, ever so perversely, more effectively target their lies at it to obscure and taint the truth.
The most tragic thing that is going on at the moment is these same people are now using global warming and CO2 as a misdirecting focus so they can continue to pollute our environment with a whole range of other toxic substances. They are basically using the more complex science of global warming as a means by which to obfuscate the whole issue of all the pollutants created by burning various fossil fuels as well as biofuels.
While global warming is definitely an issue it is still in reality second to other the other toxic results of the 'infernal' combustion engine and the carcinogens that result which are currently basically being sequestered in our bodies.
About the same time (Score:2, Insightful)
The same time as Stallman becomes Microsoft's leading evangelist.
Al Gore will NEVER be wrong. Does a Christian think Christ could have been wrong? You don't question the prophet of your religion. Remember that cult psychological phenomenon where when the prediction of the cult is proven wrong people just redouble their belief? The same will happen here because GW/GC/CC is being followed as a religion, not as a science.
Blasphemer! (Score:3, Insightful)
Heretic!
Earth killer!
LIES!
Re:You are confused. (Score:3, Insightful)
"Seriously, there are some rational Libertarians, but they are few and far-between."
Really? Considering that Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution (their two primary principles), what do you find irrational about that? Because that is what you are saying.
Re:Temperature (Score:2, Insightful)
Let's see, we have a couple of hundred years of people measuring climate scientifically. Next we have thousands of years of human history in which we can infer the climate even if it wasn't measured scientifically. Next we have things like tree rings that can map out how well a tree grew year after year for thousands of years which can tell us about rain fall and seasonal temperature. After that we have geological evidence left by the ways in which climate can alter the earth itself. Finally we have arctic ice. The thickness of a layer of ice can tell use much about average global temeperature year after year for millions of years. Not only that but the ice tends to dissolve things like co2 and aerosols that were in the atmosphere at the time the ice froze.
Oh and by the way the ice sheet shows pretty clearly that when co2 levels increases then so does the temperature (http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/icecore.html for those that have never heard of google -- but there are many other references besides Al Gore.)
But yeah except for the ice sheets, evidence left in trees and other geological evidence, as well as measurements made by humans either scientifically or not, we don't really have a freaking clue when it comes to what our climate is and what is normal and what isn't. After all, if it is from the oil company, or if you saw it on the discovery channel then that must make you an expert and everything you think must be true!
Note, I am not trying to slam the discovery channel. They make some good programs. But tv doesn't make you an expert!
Re:Temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
You failed to understand the first sentence in your link: "1998 no longer the hottest year on record in USA". If you'll check [wikimedia.org], 1938 was not close to the recent global temperatures.
And you wonder why we have no respect for those like you who ignore the science.
Re:Temperature (Score:3, Insightful)
expected (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure what people are trying to prove here. Global warming leads to increased evaporation and so you expect some areas of the Antarctic to accumulate more snow and ice for a while. Furthermore, at the current levels of warming, you wouldn't expect anything to melt in the interior of Antarctica yet. None of that tells us anything about whether global warming is a threat or not. By the time the ice sheets in the interior of Antarctica would start to melt, we'd already have much bigger problems on our hands elsewhere.
Re:Welp, (Score:4, Insightful)
How can we possibly say to countries that are in the early stages of industrialization "Oh, you can't do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, or it will be a disaster!"
Of course we can say that, because if they will do exactly what we've been doing for the last couple of centuries, it will be a disaster. No amount of political correctness bullshit can change that.
Ever since then there has been this myth that India and China are somehow completely and forever off the hook.
There's no myth, because there's no hook. If, as you say, Western countries impose those limits for themselves just to set a righteous example for everyone else to follow, then the most likely reaction you'll get from comrade General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party is, "gee, these guys are even more stupid than we thought". Since there's no obligation for China to follow suit, according to Kyoto, then why would they?
Of course, this all is no excuse for doing some serious changes for the sakes of ourselves - like switching to mostly nuclear, investing heavily into thermonuclear, and using solar/wind/tidal wherever there's opportunity. But that's a whole different kettle of fish; and, I suspect, eventually, when time comes to bring China in line with regard to emissions, it will have to be done at a gunpoint, and no "gestures of goodwill" today will change that.
Re:Separation of Science and States (Score:3, Insightful)
I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.
I suppose he is not quite old enough to remember the Reformation.
Re:Welp, (Score:5, Insightful)
"Poverty is the biggest polluter."
I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.
The real fear for the environment is that India and China are coming out of poverty.
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
So you just repeat the same tired unimaginative copypasta jokes year after year unanonymously? ^^
Hey, you even rant like a troll. ^^
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
I love Gandhi, but BS, the US is one of the richest countries in the world, but at the same time for sure the biggest polluter, thanks to ACs, SUVs, etc. and the lack of sidewalks, staircases (you must have been in an office building where people take the elevator from the 8th to the 9th floor), to name a few.
Have you seen Mexico? How about China? China may be a bit far for you (if you live in the U.S.), but take a trip down to Mexico city if you dare and then come back and make that same statement. If you can go over to China and see their mfg plants and their towns that have been all but killed by taking the computer junk, you may also change your tune.
Why did a lot of the mfg go over to China? Low cost labor is one point, but little to no regulation is the other. So the "greens" sort of got what they wanted in the U.S.A., but at the cost of jobs. Go out to your local Target, Sears, Best Buy etc and try to find something produced in the U.S.A. If you have a child, go try to find a toy that isn't made in China.
Now the real question is "if" you believe China, Mexico and even Russia to a degree, is getting accurate reports of their pollution levels.
Now back on topic.
The ice is growing? Does this mean global cooling that everyone believed in the 60's?
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
Never took the chance to tour Eastern Europe or Russia at the end of the Soviet era, I see. Those areas were like the USA BEFORE the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act.
Re:Welp, (Score:3, Insightful)
That history is around 30 years of data. Really, 30 years. Let me say it again so you understand, "30 years". It's not outside of the bounds of natural climate variation, given that 80% of the Earth's history has gone by with no ice-caps whatsoever. I appreciate that in your strange value system having ice-caps is considered "good", but I would suggest you do some further reading at least to attempt to fight this intellectual virus you seem to have caught.
With respect to "peer reviewed papers", please read yourself the Wegman report. Peer review is no guarantee of correctness. At most, in Climate Science, it means you have lots of friends in the area and are towing the party line. Moreover, a source none othe than RealClimate, has explicitly made it clear that Antarctic sea ice extent would be expect to increase according to the AGW theory. Later, when data showed it was warming (Steig et al, which now turn out to have been more statistical shenanigans), RealClimate said that of course warming was expect in Antarctica according to the AGW theory. Do you not register the contradiction? Does the data not now falsify the theory? Anyone with a brain would have to say so.
We are all confused (Score:3, Insightful)
Libertarians believe in a free marketplace and goverment based solidly on our Constitution
Well that's good, because that's what we have.
Of course, "free" doesn't mean "unregulated." If you have a 500 foot man living next door, you've just got to set a few ground rules about where he steps and where he shits.
As for the Constitution, well some would say "the Constitution doesn't explicitly forbid dog fighting, so get off my back!" Gotta watch out for those folks who think it embodies the whole of the law. It may form the root principles, but the whole of the law is a living thing, constantly evolving through precedent and experience.
And there is nothing inherently laissez-faire Capitalist about the Constitution either, nor should it be. If Capitalism turns out to be yet another avenue for tyranny, the Constitution would suggest we cut it off, since its primary aim is to establish protection for the powerless from the powerful, the have-nots from the haves, the minority from the majority, and to keep any emerging power from monopolizing the government, which is by, for, and of the people.
If anything, the Constitution points towards anarchist syndicalism or some form of socialism. Unfortunately it's easier and more lucrative for the programmers of culture to harness our fears and vices than to motivate our hopes and virtues.