Formerly Classified Global Warming Spy Photos Released 791
An anonymous reader writes "The Obama administration has released more than a thousand intelligence images of Arctic ice, following a declassification request by the National Academy of Sciences. The images feature a 1m resolution, and scientists who have had to base climate models on 15m- or 30m-resolution photos are rejoicing. The photos, kept classified by the Bush administration, show the impact of global warming in the Arctic and the retreat of glaciers in Washington and Alaska."
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Neither are humans, particularly when they have no fresh water.
That's right, sheep! Surrender your rights... (Score:0, Insightful)
to your wealthy masters, Lord Messiah Obongo and Emperor ManBearPig...
Hey, wasn't a vast expanse of North America covered by a glacier at one point? Damn you cave men and your SUVs!
BTW, for those of you who didn't get the memo, the cover-your-ass term is now "climate change."
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Neither are planets.
How long has this been going on? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is this basic /. bush-bashing, or is it legit? (Score:1, Insightful)
Did the Bush administration actually deny requests to review these images, or did the request simply not get made until recently?
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
How long as it been accelerating?
Oh, right, only since the Industrial Revolution.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, right, only since we have Slashdot.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour"
that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science.
Perhaps if you stopped attacking straw men, you might realize that there is ample science [realclimate.org] to back up this point.
Re:Name one reason this was classified (Score:3, Insightful)
I guess the usual, it gives away too much about their capabilities, orbits and nobody had made sure there wasn't anything sensitive on that ice. Military intelligence is also a game of economics, even if other nations could find things out for themselves there's no reason giving them free information of any kind.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
Earth's survival was never in jeopardy. It's Human survival we worry about.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:4, Insightful)
The great irony of the glacier retreat being the harbinger of doom for humanity is that on most continents the glacial retreat is uncovering substantial quantities of archaeological evidence. I wonder what the people whose archaeological evidence we are finding thought about the glaciers when they encroached on their lives thousands of years ago. It is an interesting juxtaposition.
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:5, Insightful)
Man -- I was about to mod you up till you hit on the racist BS. Overbreeding is rampant everywhere.
The fact is, the single most polluting thing a person can do is have kids. I'm intentionally child free so in the balance of things, I could drive a hummer, alone, with extra lead weights in the back, 100 miles per day. I could leave my lights on 24/7, run AC to frigid temps in the summer, blast the heat in the winter, keep a propane flare burning ten feet tall day and night in the back yard, and still not come close to the devastation caused by parenthood.
I don't actually live my life that way, because I'm a bit frugal. What mystifies me is why words such as "conservation" and "conservative" have such differing application when both imply frugality to me -- frugality in how we use environmental resources, and frugality in how we use financial resources. I want to see the birth of the frugal party. Pun intended.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
"it's happening much faster than ever before thanks to human behaviour" that's the leap that you aren't being very convincing about. there seems to be this movement of "omgz everything humanz do is wrong!" which isn't science. global warming advocates can't remove the emotion from their arguments, which makes me suspicous.
The great thing about science is that the OP doesn't need to be convincing. Anyone can look at the data and reach a conclusion.
In case you don't want to become an expert in the field, however, and are willing to accept an overwhelming majority of existing experts, you would find that "97.4% believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures." (from the OP's link).
Perhaps if you didn't accept that poll, you might find that "Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.". And so on.
Personally I don't get it. Why is it so hard to accept? Reliance on academic authories has its pitfalls of course, but a certain point you need the humility to accept that there is no debate over this particular point among experts.
It reminds me of the "debate" over whether or not 0.999... = 1. Non-mathematicians will swear up and down that it can't be. They'll pull out everything they've got, but at the end of the day, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it so. Read with a careful eye, but c'mon, the cause of the current change in global mean temperatures is no longer a debate.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
And there you have it folks- a classical false argument by claiming that the other party said something they did not.
No one's saying the industrial revolution was a sin. Sin doesn't come into anything; this isn't religion.
The industrial revolution was the beginning of an upward swing in our carbon emissions. The emissions have had a warming effect. We can subsequently choose what we'd like to do about this, especially in light of technology available now which wasn't available at the beginning of the industrial revolution.
Earth doesn't particularly care if it gets warmer. We (and a number of other species) probably do. If we don't like the consequences of warming, we have the option to decide that they're bad enough for us to take action to change them.
But that's a little too logical, apparently, so you go on perverting arguments so that you can claim to "win" without actually standing on any remotely logical basis.
Re:1m resolution = One Meter Per Pixel (Score:3, Insightful)
Worse yet, the DPI setting on your OS doesn't effect the actual "DPI" of your screen.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:1, Insightful)
*I say average because there is no one model that is right. All of the models are wrong and hugely variant, but we just take the middle and pretend the Earth's climate will do what we say. It's absurd to be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on this garbage.
Re:Is this basic /. bush-bashing, or is it legit? (Score:3, Insightful)
Since when is bush-bashing not legit?
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is why I try not to get into the specifics. Climate change is a complex, interdependant subject and you can cherry-pick any result you like, but that doesn't mean you understand what's actually happening.
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
Look carefully (Score:3, Insightful)
You're told secret data has been wrestled from the grasp of the corporates and you're given a link. The page presents a pair of images right at the top, unavoidable; seen before anything is even read. Two images; one of vast quantities of ice, the second utterly free of ice. Global Warming has been implicated before you've read word number one.
If you look carefully you might notice one end of a landing strip just inland in both photos. These photos cover very small areas; only a few miles. The caption reads:
Sea ice forms along the coast in the winter, and generally melts or breaks away by mid July. Observations of sea ice position reveal considerable year-to-year variability. Changes in the timing of coastal sea ice breakup and in the location of offshore sea ice have significant local impacts: ecological, biological, and human. This image series portrays changes in the timing of coastal sea ice breakup, and gives information on smaller scale properties of ice. This information recorded over long periods, is required to understand and model the dynamics of sea ice and how changes or trends develop and influence other systems.
In other words these photos are 'evidence' of nothing. Minor, small scale year-to-year variation in ice flow patterns. The use of these photos in this manner is equivalent to claiming that because there was snow on my walk on January 10, 2008, but none on January 10, 2009, my environment has been ruined by Global Warming.
Yet there it is, fed to the reader at the very start of the story; no disclaimer provided. The pair of photos will now be repeated ad nauseam for years on end around the planet. Biden will have a blown up poster of these photos in his town hall kit by Wednesday. Fresh new memes the huckster elite will use goad "The West" into self inflicted poverty; "See? The planet is in peril! Man must be stopped!"
Here is a recent and well researched report [scienceand...policy.org] on the $79 billion that has been spent by the US government (only) on climate research over the last 20 years. 19 pages and 52 citations. I dare you to read it. Global Warming advocates are not the underdogs. They rule vast quantities of public money.
In almost all other matters you can take it as a given that around Slashdot you will find if not cynics then certainly skeptics. On the other hand if it has a Bush taint, a little anti-business flavor and it's wrapped up in a Global Warming ribbon you people suck it up like hicks at a Benny Hinn sermon.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
although I'm no expert on the matter
That's exactly the issue. I'm not either - but I give a lot more weight to the people who are.
Facts are indeed facts, and I would bet a lot of money that you haven't looked at nearly as many of them as a climatologist. What is it about being partially-informed that makes people so willing to declare fully-informed people flat-out wrong?
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be making a case that the earth is overpopulated. And, by extension, we are poisoning ourselves with our waste products. If so, I'll have to point out that this is indeed a natural process. Check out any laboratory with cultures of bacteria.
Meanwhile - I have to point out that the GP's post seems to have gone over your head, or at least you dismiss his reasoning. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. In fact, the earth has warmed and cooled within recent prehistory. That heating and cooling has taken place despite man's presence, and there is limited and tainted evidence to support the idea that man is causing global warming.
There are multiple places where man has left artifacts that are now being uncovered by melting glaciers. One story in South America shows that previously cultivated land is being exposed. (Sorry, it's late, I'm lazy, google it yourself if you're really interested)
The fact that there are more people today than at any time in history or prehistory may or may not have an impact on global warming. Fossil fuels probably have an impact, but it probably isn't as great an impact as the alarmists would like us to believe.
Face it: global warming and global cooling is a proven recurring fact. Politics isn't going to change that. Nor will any consensus change it. Given time, the world will cool again. The only question is, whether man will be here to witness it.
Let's start some moon colonies, some Mars colonies, and start out to the other planets. That would improve our chances of seeing the earth covered in ice again.....
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Insightful)
*citation needed
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
At least we're winning the battle against something!
Of course climate change is happening. It always has. The question are WHAT is happening, and HOW the information is treated. If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away. That sounds more like the status quo is trying to hide something to me. When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream. But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut. And now we all these new fangled ways to make money from climate change. And I guarantee you, the poor & middle class will be the ones paying. The rich just buy their way out with carbon credits.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's absurd to be basing multi-trillion dollar policy decisions on this garbage.
But you have to base them on something, and the policy-makers are right to base them on the overwhelming consensus of climatologists. What else do they have to go by? Even if those 97% somehow turned out to be wrong, isn't it better at this stage to mould the policies so that our impact on the climate is as small as possible, just in case?
Re:Did we not already know this? (Score:3, Insightful)
You seem to be making a case that the earth is overpopulated. And, by extension, we are poisoning ourselves with our waste products. If so, I'll have to point out that this is indeed a natural process. Check out any laboratory with cultures of bacteria.
IF the worst case climate change scenarios are true, then yes that is how I would describe it. And yes, it is a common natural phenomenon. It is still not in our best interest for that to happen. HOWEVER I am not convinced that the worst case scenarios are true--I'm not convinced they aren't true either--I'm fully skeptical on the matter, I just don't know (and no, I don't reflexively trust simplistic surveys of experts--and I unfortunately don't have time to review the extensive literature on the subject, so I will remain skeptical either way).
Meanwhile - I have to point out that the GP's post seems to have gone over your head, or at least you dismiss his reasoning. The earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past. In fact, the earth has warmed and cooled within recent prehistory. That heating and cooling has taken place despite man's presence, and there is limited and tainted evidence to support the idea that man is causing global warming.
I'm not dismissing it at all. I think it is a valid point (I'm also not certain he was addressing it that seriously). But I think it is a mistake to generalize past history where the human population was less than 1 part in 1 thousand, and more importantly division of labour was minimal, to the present.
10,000 years ago nearly every living human was engaged in procuring the necessities of life for themselves.
5,000 years ago we invented civilization--some people grow food, others build houses, others sell used cars. Civilization inherently rests on the presumption that a subset of the population can provide enough food for the entire population.
I'm NOT saying that climate change will make that impossible, but I am saying that the threat is that it MIGHT do so, and that the mere fact that mankind survived climate change in the past doesn't mean that we can support nearly 7 billion people in the future if the climate changes in ways that damage agricultural yields.
Please understand, I'm very (philosophically) skeptical on the matter. I'm not committing to one conclusion or the other (because, frankly, there is not enough data in my hands (key phrase that, in my hands) to prove anything). I am simply explaining the possibilities, the reason (that I think) one should be concerned about them, and cautioning AGAINST jumping to either conclusion without doing the proper, scientific (epistemologically speaking) due diligence.
There are multiple places where man has left artifacts that are now being uncovered by melting glaciers. One story in South America shows that previously cultivated land is being exposed. (Sorry, it's late, I'm lazy, google it yourself if you're really interested)
The fact that there are more people today than at any time in history or prehistory may or may not have an impact on global warming. Fossil fuels probably have an impact, but it probably isn't as great an impact as the alarmists would like us to believe.
First thing: The physics of the greenhouse effect are not disputable (not accusing you of not knowing this, I'm simply placing it into the record of our discussion). If you increase the portion of carbon dioxide in a mixture of oxygen, nitrogen and carbon dioxide the mixture's opacity in the infra-red rises. This is experimentally, and theoretically (from quantum mechanics) verifiable.
Rising atmospheric opacity makes it harder for the incoming heat from the sun to escape out into space. ONE WAY to restore the energy input/output balance is to raise the surface temperature of the atmosphere. It is however, NOT the only way, and that is where there is ample room for discussion, debate and
Re:Look carefully (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is a recent and well researched report [scienceand...policy.org] on the $79 billion that has been spent by the US government (only) on climate research over the last 20 years.
Interesting. It mentions that ~$4 billion per year that goes into producing scientific papers that indicate that global warming is happening, but it doesn't mention anything about the trillions of dollars involved in the fossil fuel industry. The institute that put out that paper - where does it get its funding?
Re:Look carefully (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, some people take it as a religion. But to argue that this is so for everyone.... sigh. You do cherry pick just as much as the ones you accuse of cherry picking.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
9/11 called, they want their planes in the air. You're not seriously discounting that humans impact temperature are you? I live in Phoenix and even the weatherman goes on tv and comfortably states the blatantly obvious that all this concrete pavement does indeed increase temperatures. This is why the city is so much warmer than the rest of the desert. Man kind has an serious impact on it's environment no matter how much you wish to believe that we don't.
You need to understand that the Earth doesn't care if we live or die, it will go on spawning more life as it always has. The Earth heats up on its own and cools down on its own. The difference is that humans are now messing with the Earth to a large enough extend that it will probably swing more wildly from one extreme to the other as far as temperatures go. We're on our way up, we can either act to slow it down, or ride the wave and let millions die when storms get stronger and stronger and droughts force more and more to starve to death. Humans will survive, our way of life however will be greatly impacted.
No one can state when the massive changes will occur so there's no need to panic and destroy economies but we need to act to preserve our way of life.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Either you choose to believe that nearly all climatologists are incompetent and that non-scientist bloggers know way more about the field of climatology than people who've studied it for years, or you pull your head out of the sand and start listening to the people who've seen all the data and are actually qualified to have an opinion.
I wouldn't go as far as to say they're incompetent. I do think they're jumping to conclusions, and I do think it is just opinion repeated enough to become "fact". And I'm sure a lot of them have the same feeling, but don't want to mess up their careers by speaking against the current zeitgeist. A few _have_ tried. Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
I've said this before: It doesn't matter. The proposed remedies (reduce emissions) are all good regardless. But the knee jerking hysterics-mongers are going about it all wrong. We're not solving a damn thing by politicians yapping about us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it. And the majority of "solutions" are of that sort, and only for political gain by playing on the armageddon fears of the population. Only now it's the elected officials spouting it, as opposed to the church or just the loon on the street corner.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
If anyone, including noted scientists, say anything remotely the opposite of the climate change cabal, they are run out of town, belitted by their peers. They have their jobs & credentials taken away.
Just to prove that denalists don't suffer from paranoid delusions ...
Meanwhile in the real world there is no such thing as "the climate change cabal," what there is are thousands of mainstream scientists who basically agree, and a handful who are either skeptical (not a bad thing in itself), or outright denialist. The scientist of greatest "note" who falls outside the mainstream view, (and even he seems to have conceeded on AGW now), has not lost his job or credentials but retains his professorship at MIT. Even the kind of "scientists" who "publish" in phish-journals like Energy and Environment, are not thrown out of the academy --though they damage they do to poor unsuspecting individuals like yourself would be minimised if they were.
When I was growing up, I was always taught to question the mainstream.
Which has left you automatically assuming that if 3000+ expert scientists say black is black, and 50 scientist (of which maybe a handful qualify as experts) say black is white, that black simply must be white. Given the epistemological rigor of western Science, "questioning" mainstream science (not merely in regard to climate change) is no guarantee of good mental health. Of course, it's a different story in regard to belief systems which are held as mainstream without such strong foundations.
But if you do that when it comes to climate change, you are labeled a nut.
Putting to one side the more finessed skepticism of a Lindzen or a Piekle, chances are that people with a predisposition to reject science on the basis of how well established that science is are nuts. As you confess, your denialism doesn't result from any appreciation of the science, but from the psychological effects of what you were taught "when you were growing up," or rather, from your tendency to overgeneralise what you were taught to fields of human knowledge where it is simply inappropriate
Perhaps you should balance a skepticism of the mainstream with a skepticism of the contrarian? You might not be so easily duped by AGW-denialists if you did.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
So... the vast majority (if not all) climatologists are actually lying about their conclusions because they want to get certain candidates elected, thus helping to perpetuate a political climate which is favourable to them being given grants to pursue further studies in the field that they've been lying about.
Or, they're just telling the truth. Which one was the simplest explanation [wikipedia.org] again?
Re:Look carefully (Score:3, Insightful)
Interesting report, though the spin is strong with this one. I was a bit surprised at that $79 billion number. Looking at the source material, though, it's not that shocking. The figure includes all expenditure related to climate change, which casts a pretty wide net: DOE, NASA, NSF, USAID, Commerce, EPA, Agriculture, HHS, Treasury, DoD, Interior, Transportation, State, Smithsonian, HUD, Trade.
I find it more interesting that despite all the obvious signs that the Bush administration was anti-science, the climate-change research budget increased while he was in office.
But man, this paper... "Lots of one-sided honest research does not make for fair debate". "Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite." This is just wrong on so many levels, and betrays a faulty understanding of both the scientific method and statistical analysis.
There's a lot more awful stuff, but eh, enough already.
Questioning the Mainstream (Score:4, Insightful)
If you're simply "Questioning the Mainstream", you're missing the point somewhat. The point is not to question something specific; the point is to question everything. Not only should you be sceptic of people who believe that global warming is real and man-made, but also of those who deny this. In fact, what you should do in all cases is not trust anyone, but look at the studies and data yourself, and judge it on sound scientific reasons.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
here is a prominent scientist that has been crapped on by his peers for not following the status quo- http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/29/magazine/29Dyson-t.html [nytimes.com]
With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist. The very article you link notes that he is a "subversive" who feels it's important to be in opposition. While I find that a commendable trait, it should be noted when considering his "anti-establishment" views. IMO, he's right when he says that global warming is not adequately established. But my metaphor is, "the majority of runs made by fire departments turn out not to be fires; we could save a lot of money by requiring an independent confirmation of a fire before the trucks go out." Maybe it's true, but the potential consequences are too horrible to contemplate.
"When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong." Arthur C. Clarke said that. Dyson, to his credit, does not say climate change is impossible. He merely says he does not believe it to be bad.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
there are so many external benefits to going green beyond global warming it's not even funny.
Living in a valley it's always disturbing to see a nice haze of brown over the town i live in during the dusky hours.
Air quality, cars that run on obscenely small amounts of fuel, etc. It's absurd to dig in and drag ass on something so important.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Physical Fact #1: CO2 is a GHG, it's properties are well known.
Physical Fact #2: CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by ~30% since the start of the industrial revolution.
Physical Fact #3: Areosols (sulphur,etc) have a cooling effect.
Physical Fact #4: The warming effect of increased CO2 outweighs the cooling effect of increased areosols in the 20th century.
Emprical fact #1: We can reconstruct the 20th century global climate very accurately with computer models that use nothing but physical facts and laws, it's done in exactly the same manner used to create accurate virtual windtunnels in software.
Mathematical Fact #5: Ignoring the previous 4 physical facts means the 20th century temprature record cannot be explained with known forcings [wikipedia.org].
Can you now give me some physical facts that might sway you to a different conclusion?
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
liberals
And this is the problem with people like you. You assume everything must be poitical. Well, not everything is. Especially not facts. What other scientific ideas are you willing to ascribe to politics? Gravity? Electromagnetism? Thermodynamics (that's even worse than climate change: it says we're really screwed). Evolution? ...logical that we're still warming up from it.
You don't think the climate scientists might have noticed that too? Perhaps if you actually took a look at the work that they do rather than simply spouting off you might rrealise that.
I'm aware that liberals with mod points will probably mod me troll for daring to disagree with them
You're not being daring. You're being an idiot.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pointing out fallacies in the man made global warming theories is akin to walking around cursing people back in the middle ages. It only gets you burned at the stake, so why do it. When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science. That alone should make us all very suspicious.
Scientists spend their lives poking holes in other people's theories, for their own personal academic gain. Pull your head out of your ass and read the comments section of a journal. Of course, they are more along the lines of poking holes in the specific theory of T. Cobbley et. al., because few scientists are arrogent enough to believe they can single handedly poke holes in every single theory out there in one go.
And yes, anyone who says "aaaaa it's all wrong!!1!one" is going to be ignored since they bring nothing new to the debate.
There are too many instances of "we can't think of any other reason, so this must be man-made global warming", or "we have never seen this before, and we don't know what's causing it, but we're certain it's human emissions". I'm sorry, but you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause.
Are you talking about science or the popular press. If the former, then [citation needed]. For some reason many non scientists seem to confuse the two.
There are just too many variables. We can barely predict tomorrow's weather with any degree of accuracy (in some areas even that's stretching it), but we are supposed to believe any scientist that claims to have GLOBAL weather licked? I can't help but think those guys got an overdose of arrogance. Yes, they're very different things, but that's still faith, not science.
OK, this is a clear indication that you're a fool and have never bothered to verse yourself in even the basics of the field. Climate is not weather. Read that sentance. Think about it. Can I predict the weather this time next year in London? NO. Can I predict things about the climate (eg it won't be snowing)? Yes I can. That is the difference.
And here you are, blindly dismissing the work of thousands of people and caliming that they, not you are suffering from arrogance. I am frankly suprised that your ego is not so inflated that it has caused you to float off in to the sky.
electric
It will work in reducing emissions provided there is a switch to renewables (USA, Austrailia can manage) and/or nuclear (more densely populated countries). Otherwise, not so much. But see, you are at it again. Vastly over-simplifying EVERY SINGLE POINT.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yup. Same thing that happens to all the poor innocent teachers who try to teach Intelligent Design! I mean, Ben Stein said it was true, so it must be, right?!? I'd love it if you could point out a few examples of these scientists who lost their jobs, and who didn't almost immediately get new jobs at petroleum industry funded think-tanks at several times their original salaries.
I'd also believe you guys more if you could come up with a rational explanation for the massive hoax being perpetrated on the innocent public by the 90% or so of scientist who claim that Global Warming is happening and is caused by man. I've yet to hear anyone come up with a reasonable theory as to why these evil scientists would be doing such a thing. I hear can think of plenty of simple, logical reasons why the oil & coal companies would deny it, though...
There is nothing wrong with questioning the mainstream, but there is a difference between questioning something and having a knee-jerk reaction against it. You seem to be doing the latter. Before you can question something, you need to understand it, and it sounds like you fail pretty badly on that front.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not really what I'd call a "debate". Only one side is reading and countering the other side's claims with rational arguments; the other side is simply parroting long-discredited talking points ad nauseam.
The funny thing? Both sides will agree with the above statement, but will disagree on its interpretation.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:4, Insightful)
When it's not "allowed" to point out issues with a theory, any theory, it has become religion, not science.
A fair point, but I've seen more cases [ucsusa.org] of pressure to suppress pro-climate-change evidence, rather than the other way around. It's ironic that TFA is also about the release of relevant data that was withheld [guardian.co.uk] apparently for political reasons.
you're just ruining your credibility as a scientist when stating you don't understand it, then in the same sentence claim to be an authority able to state the cause
Just because a scientist doesn't fully understand something doesn't mean he/she can't draw useful conclusions. We don't know why gravity works the way it does, but we can predict its effects pretty well. In this case, the climatologists seem quite convinced, despite what they don't know. Are you more knowledgeable about the data and its uncertainties than they are?
...us all switching to electric cars. That's moving pollution, not reducing it.
Oh, true enough. But it does largely centralise that pollution, which makes it a lot more manageable (through carbon capture, or alternative energy sources like nuclear, wind, solar etc).
The mere fact he was attacked speaks volumes (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaks volumes about how much "climate scientists" believe in their own evidence : Not. At. All. Clearly they believe repression is necessary to sustain the global warming theory (never mind anthropogenic global warming).
It also proves that the grandparent posts were correct in asserting that anyone, no matter how reputable, finding anti-global-warming evidence is attacked. I mean, this guy is right up there with Fermi, Hawking, Feynman and other legends.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
admit it would suck to blow all the billions and trillions of dollars only to find out there ain't a damned thing you can do
There are many reasons to migrate from fossil fuels, the most compelling being that they're going to run out very soon. The changing climate is also a worry (which we wouldn't want to encourage to change faster than it already is), but it's not the only reason, and the money spent on migrating to alternative energy sources certainly wouldn't be wasted.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
And the reason that water pipe seems to be leaking is almost certainly just natural wear and tear, the building has had water leaks in the past, I mean we shouldn't even stop hitting it with that hammer, it's not like we're making any kind of differ-FWOOOOSH!
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Earth's survival was never in jeopardy. It's Human survival we worry about.
Humans will survive too. Maybe in smaller numbers, but is that really all that bad ? Exponential growth is not sustainable anyway.
It would be great if those "smaller numbers" could come about through enlightened voluntary birth control. This is - regrettably - highly unlikely, and most people think that the more likely way in which it will happen - Pestilence, War, Famine, and Death - should be generally avoided to minimize human suffering.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Insightful)
With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist.
But Dyson's argument in fact questions the methods and claims of the science of climatology. If his argument is valid, then it does not matter that he is not a climatologist - it makes Dyson's criticisms more urgent, not less.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:1, Insightful)
While we are making a terrible impact on this world, keep in mind that behind every good intention - there's greedy hands looking to get more. Carbon taxes are going to be a very real thing soon, slipped under our noses. Except this time we can't have a modern day Boston Teaparty to fight what we believe in..
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Insightful)
Why not? It's not like he wouldn't believe stock trading doesn't happen.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
So that is an interesting analogy, but like most deniers you deliberately twist it. The reality is that you are essentially one of those old-guard fools arguing well after the fact that Snow was wrong.. and desperately clinging to a miasma theory that flatly contradicts rationality and reality.
Uzbekistan (Score:4, Insightful)
Not necessarily so. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are many reasons to migrate from fossil fuels, the most compelling being that they're going to run out very soon. The changing climate is also a worry (which we wouldn't want to encourage to change faster than it already is), but it's not the only reason, and the money spent on migrating to alternative energy sources certainly wouldn't be wasted.
Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself? The thing is, the more efficient you are, the more complex you are. The more complex you are, the more you cost. This relationship between efficiency and cost is exponential due to increased complexity efficiency demands. I put together a simple JavaScript model of this at http://www.treatyist.com/issue1/savetheearth.aspx [treatyist.com] . Basically, by jiggering the predicted cost of fuel (using gasoline as a baseline), versus, the exponent of increased energy efficiency costs, you can arrive at a number of scenarios where reducing greenhouse gasses actually doesn't pay for itself. If it pays anyone, it also pays the Chinese and the Europeans..
In any case, most models show that even a rather dramatic altering of CO2 emissions will not alter the course of climate change for a minimum of 200 years. Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt. The CO2 is already in the air.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:5, Insightful)
And as computers have increased in complexity from the models in the 50's, 60's, and 70's, so too have they increased in cost and size, right?
New technology is expensive, and it's difficult to find a cost effectiveness sweet spot. As new technology matures it becomes old technology, and old technology becomes increasingly inexpensive as time goes on. We find new, better, more efficient ways to manufacture the same device, and as it matures its cost efficacy also increases.
This is why radical shifts in technology are rare; it's unusual for dramatically new tech to be obviously superior to the old tech when it's still in its infancy. And so from this perspective when the required shift is not dictated by financial forces but some other force, financial reasons are not going to be one of the early motivating factors for the change.
Re:The republic of science (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:2, Insightful)
Are there any religions you believe should be endorsed by the government because they bring about the right result?
My comment is to point out the flaw in "wrong reason, right result" thought process; not to debate the validity of global warming.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's what automotive engineers would have said in 1950 if you slapped a plain-old, gas-burning 2009 Honda Civic in front of them - and they may have been right. It would have been much too expensive, is far more complex than the car of that day and the tremendous increase in fuel efficiency may not have offset the 27 cents per gallon cost of gasoline. However, I don't think anybody would argue that the 2009 Civic isn't a much better car in almost every way over anything offered in 1950. Your statement seems to imply there is no point in going any further with advancing efficiency because of costs right now.
You know, properly disposing of waste and building sewers is going to be expensive. Even if we stopped now millions are going to die. The plague rats are already out there.
When it comes down to it, the problems with conservatives is that the only thing they ever want to see change is the value of their bank accounts and investments. Their minds can think no further than the short-term future. Anything new, even if it will lead to a betterment of society and the saving of lives, is a perceived potential threat to their precious short-term revenue streams. As if worldwide economic models won't be upended by global crop-failures, coastline flooding and increased hurricane strength and frequency. Conservatives always pooh-pooh the potential profits to be made by converting to green energy (wind turbine manufacturers like to be paid too.)
Always the short-term thinking (it's about MY bank account not my grandson's.)
Why did Bush classify these photographs? Because they know the truth - they just don't care. Money for me now is more important than a better society and fewer deaths or even profit in the future. The very things that are causing global warming are some of the largest established revenue streams (re: oil) ever known and changing how we do things to reduce the effect we're having on the climate will cost money now and that's what it boils down to.
It's this stupid, short-sighted, short-term, money-for-me-now thinking that got us into our current economic situation too.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, which is it, are fossil fuels going to run out soon, and therefore aren't actually present in sufficient quantities to present much of a threat, or is there way too much carbon locked in fossil fuels for our continued health, and we should get off them before we exhaust the supply?
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course global warming is a political issue. Any issue which calls for governments to do something is a political issue. Claiming that global warming is not a political issue is about as disingenuous as claiming that intelligent design is not about religion.
Name one global warming activist whom does not think that the solution to the problem is to enact strict world wide government control on first world economies. Name on global warming activist that thinks that the best way to reduce CO2 emissions would be to encourage China, India, and other developing nations to adopt freedom and capitalism, so that their economies can progress as quickly as possible into the green tech era.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Insightful)
All of this is to say that we shouldn't bother doing anything at all. Here's the kickers though, 1) as the GP stated, if we don't find another portable fuel source from oil especially, we're in big trouble. The reason is that demand of oil has outstripped production, which is why we had $147/barrel oil a few summers ago. The only reason oil isn't that way now is because the economy collapsed. The second the economy recovers, oil is going right back up. The reason that production can't continue to be increased is because there isn't a lot of easy to find oil left in the ground. Oil production in the U.S. peaked in the 1970s and no matter what the republicans chant about more drilling, or how many ANWRs they open up, it's not going to change that. Mexico's oil production is in the process of collapsing, and Saudi Arabia is struggling to maintain its production levels. Iraq is a big mystery so far, but the rumor from the oil patch guys is that there's about half the oil they hoped would be there because Hussein damaged a lot of the reservoirs which interferes with the ability to recover oil from them.
2) As for CO2 levels, if we don't reduce our CO2 emissions, it's safe to say that the damage will be worse. So, before Bush was elected we had the chance with the Kyoto accord to choose between minimal damage and damage, now we have the choice to choose between some damage and more damage. I agree that not everything we are doing will help, e.g. hydrogen fuel cells and ethanol from corn are just a waste of energy. Cellulosic ethanol has a bit better chance, nuclear is a good option, solar is iffy, but wind could possibly be a big help. The Great Lakes alone have enough wind to power the entire country.
The bottom line is, yes we've already put a lot of CO2 in the air, but unless we find something else that works, all those magnificent highways may become to expensive to use and in any case the economy and our entire way of life could be struggling because of the geopolitical shifts that climate change causes, e.g., some land that was good for crops is no longer so, but other land that has the right climate for crops in the new age doesn't have good soil, millions of people forced to become refugees due to rising sea levels, most of those are going to be poor (rich people just buy a new house elsewhere), increased hurricane activity in the gulf, also wrecking tremendous amounts of infrastructure and killing lots of people, permafrost melting (turning the extreme poles turning unlivable goo in the summer --there's already one siberian town that is sinking into the mud), the list just goes on and on of the potential problems with continuing to increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Conservative Science 101 (Score:2, Insightful)
1) The earth is six thousand years old.
2) Pi equals three.
3) Global warming is not real.
4) Evolution never happened.
5) Cells are people too.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. Take that you dirty Chinese and Europeans! By god, we are going to keep our money. We may kill the planet and everything on it, but we will have our money! (o.k. snarkyness aside) I don't see how this argument helps anything. Are you saying that there are better ways to cut down on greenhouse emissions and still keep prices low?
So it's better we don't do anything and just let the poor SOB's 200 years from now deal with it? Something needs to be done, and that something needs to start now. If that means we need to take baby steps to get all of the conservitive groups in on it, then so be it, but at least we are doing something!
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself?
Actually, no, that's not the question at all. The question is what are you going to do when oil is permanently above 100USD a barrel and climbing, or worse, constantly volatile? What are you going to do in 50 years when the supply of oil is tightly constrained and wars are being fought over supplies? We've had an easy ride so far due to fossil fuels just lying around with a lot of stored energy which is easy to release, but that's not going to last forever, and even if it were we'd be creating massive pollution problems (see China and India currently) if we stuck to things like coal power plants long term, quite apart from climate impacts.
The thing is, the more efficient you are, the more complex you are. The more complex you are, the more you cost.
I'm afraid you've just made this connection up. What examples make you feel this three-way relation is universally true as you assert?
Many things are complex and yet inefficient, and vice versa. To pick an example from power generation - photovoltaic cells are at present complex, and yet inefficient, whereas solar water heating is very simple (tube with water/salt mixture in it), and very efficient. Modern computers are more complex and efficient than the space shuttle ones, and yet cost less. etc. etc.
Just because new tech tends to be complex and costly does not mean it will always be so, and there is no overall 'law' which states that efficiency == complexity == cost, and your statistics are meaningless as they are predicated on this assumption.
Even if we stopped now, the glaciers are still going to melt.
We don't actually know with any certainty what's going to happen, save that it probably won't be pretty. We also know the different of a few degrees rise in temperature could mean metres in sea levels, and we have an awful lot of useful coastal land that would put underwater. As I have pointed out, there are many other reasons to stop using dirty fuels like coal anyway, quite apart from greenhouse gases and climate change. It might cost a little more in the short term, but in the long term it makes a lot of sense to diversify sources of energy and use ones with the least environmental impact.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny. You think some scientists go for the oil and gas money, but the others don't go for government money to fund research?
You need to recognize that BOTH sides do EVERYTHING they do for money.
It amuses the piss out of me how you can point at the other guys and say they are doing it for money but can't think for a second that maybe your team is doing the exact same thing. Ignorance is bliss isn't it?
Re:Godwin (Score:4, Insightful)
So the flat-worlders are round-world skeptics, huh? When the evidence is overwhelming, that's when a skeptic becomes a denier (or just a nut).
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Insightful)
With all due respect to an eminent and brilliant physicist, Freeman Dyson is not a climatologist.
God I get tired of this. I am a computational physicist. The people working on GCMs are climatologists. I guess their work is entirely worthless then, right? Because only a computational physicist is qualified to do computational physics. It's all in the NAME see, which carries with it a mysterious and eldrich power.
On the other hand, someone like Dyson has decades of experience in the strange dialectic between imperfect data and imperfect theory that is the basis of science at the individual level. Anyone who is so ignorant as to blithely dismiss him because some abstract label doesn't conform to their prejudices is contributing a whole lot of noise to this debate, but no signal whatsoever.
When you have something substantive to say about climate physics or GCMs (like their lack of energy conservation and artificial boundary conditions, particularly at the ocean surface) please feel free to contribute to the debate.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:1, Insightful)
"Well, the question is, does the increased fuel efficiency actually pay for itself?"
Effeciencies enabled by technology aren't the only factor. Presumably as supply decreases prices will change such that yes, it will pay for itself. Given the geologic processes required to produce them natural fossil fuel supplies are essentially finite (and arguably half or more has been used up). So it seems a good bet that eventually the increased effeciency if not the outright disappearance of fossil fuels, will make the tradeoff economically feasible.
Really the cost of switching energy sources is a cost which we have no choice but to pay over time -- no matter what the source. The big questions are when will the current source(s) run out (fossil fuels being finite, insolation rates being finite, etc), what energy source(s) should we switch to, and whether we still have enough energy to do so when we need to. Keeping in mind of course that not too long ago "640K [was] enough" and that people thought the ocean had "virtually unlimited" supplies of fish...
Sure, the system is screwed up to the point that we may not live to see all the benefits of our actions. That's hardly a justification for apathy.
Incidentally, the treatyist appears to be a place for bat-shit crazy lesser right-wing nut jobs to blame all their personal problems on liberals. I wouldn't trust their numbers on temperatures if they read a thermometer.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Insightful)
So it's OK to spend trillions on a sham because it promotes environmentalism. That's the problem with this whole thing, it's not about a problem, it's about an agenda.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
As a practicing scientist, I share your sentiments of confusion about the negative reactions in ths string. I have occasionally come across trained scientists who know better, but it never ceases to amaze me at how unproductive conversations like this one can become.
Western science is built on the concept of adopting the best-known explanation of a phenomena until something better comes along.
If you have somehow come across a better explanation for climate change by googling and reading wikipedia, then out with it. Otherwise, I will stick with the explanations proposed by a large group of trained people collectively spending their lives working on the problem.
They might be wrong. Off the top of my head, I cannot think of a single case where the scientific community is not wrong to some measureable degree. Stupid Newton somehow thought that F=ma was a useful description of bodies in motion, that doesn't work at high energy or near the speed of light, it's just a crappy approximation for large, slow objects. What an idiot.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:1, Insightful)
What to do about global warming is obviously a political issue. The very existence, the causes for, and the effects of global warming are (likewise) obviously not a political issue. You're confusing the two separate subjects, it seems.
Re:How long has this been going on? (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember the vast majority of scientists who didn't believe in bacteria? Or that the world was round? Or that the sun was the center of the solar system?
The majority CAN be wrong you know. You're just too scared to be accused of being wrong that you blindly go along with whatever the majority thinks, even if you know it's incredibly stupid.
Very few people in the world actually care enough about principles to stick by them when someone waves a lot of money in their face to ignore them. Scientists are no different. I highly doubt you would stick by whatever you believe in if the government was offering you more money than you could ever dream of making to deny it.
Are you thinking of Acid Rain and the Ozone Layer? (Score:3, Insightful)
So far as I know we cleaned up emissions from cars and factories to combat acid rain, and it's been very effective. I'm not sure why anyone would've thought that scrubbing pollutants out of the air would affect global warming though. CO2 was never getting scrubbed out.
The air conditioner thing you're referring to had to do with CFCs, iirc. CFCs were the primary agent wrecking the ozone layer, punching holes in it over the Arctic and Australia, as well as other places (to lesser degrees).
Acid rain and ozone layer depletion were issues with proximate, easily identifiable and fixable causes. Rain pH, pollutant content and ozone layer thickness are all very easy to measure and demonstrate, compared to global warming. It's difficult to pretend that these are the result of natural oscillations in the climate.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Insightful)
IMHO, it pays for itself with every US soldier not killed by an oil-money purchased bullet or IED. Without a dependence on oil the Middle East is just a backwards, theocratic sandbox that no one cares about.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm having a hard time seeing why you think that ecologically positive tech will not reduce in price as it matures and as its adoption rate increases
It may, but mandating that expenditure removes capital from society for other goals. What's going to happen is that you'll have say, maybe 90% of the population able to afford the premium of going green, but then the other 10% are going to be even more screwed than they are now.
This is the sort of thing which needs to be kick started because the gain is sufficiently far out that no corporations would be able to justify it to their stock holders because as you point out yourself, the cost effectiveness is not yet there.
For me, the answer is that we need more energy, not conservation. So... I'm about, dumping loads of federal money into free electron laser research (nuclear fusion), building nuclear fission power plants for now, and doing wind where honestly it can be done. Figure that fission buys us roughly 50 years to figure out how to do fusion.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Money spent on environmental research isn't just evaporated. It doesn't remove any capital at all, it merely changes the channels through which it flows. This by itself is a good thing since the channels this capital has historically flowed down has gotten a bit too wide (thus the sociopolitical benefits of reduction of fossil fuel).
Do you think that by reducing the amount of oil we consume (demand), prices will go up? If there are people who are not able to afford the change-over (I don't disagree that this is possible), the price of oil is going to go down for them, not up. Besides, you can't fail to advance society except when only 100% of the population is going to benefit; there are always going to be people who are late adopters either because it takes that long for it to enter their price range, or simply because they resist change.
The point of alternative energy research is 1) to increase the efficiency of the energy sources we already have (for the most part non-renewable), and 2) to shift away from non-renewable sources of energy. There is no guarantee that in 50 years, cold fusion is going to be a viable source of energy, we need a sustainable model sooner than that. Nuclear fission is certainly one of the cleaner modern energy sources, but it has environmental impacts like anything else (storage of waste material, heating of surrounding air and streams, etc). So does wind power (it can decimate local bird and bat populations). Nuclear fission also depends on non-renewable energy sources; the current supplies would last us about 80 years at present rates of consumption, and although with additional exploration we'd find more ore, there is a limit to how much ore there is available, just as there is with how much fossil fuel there is available.
Importantly our energy needs are not purely expressible in terms of electricity, which is the only energy channel you're willing to devote money to. Alternate energy storage and energy transportation are required to supply energy where wires can't do it. Hydrogen fuel cells are an example of a different way to do this, but supercapacitors, batteries and the like also show promise. More research is needed in this area to find ways to transport and store energy which result in minimal loss of it and adequate convenience (lack of convenience triggers that economic factor; if I have to pay my delivery guy for 30 minutes to refuel instead of 3 minutes, this has cost to me beyond the price of the fuel, thus reducing its economic viability).
Ultimately the answer is likely to be energy diversification, not an energy monoculture. We can mitigate the total environmental impact by using solar, biodiesel, wind, ethanol, nuclear, etc, and getting a portion of our total energy consumption from each source.
Re:The glaciers are retreating! (Score:3, Insightful)
It always amuses me when people make this argument. You obviously think academic scientists make a lot more money than they actually do.
But even ignoring the bad pay these guys who are only in it for the money are getting, here's another problem with your theory... You are arguing that something like 90% of scientists worldwide are only in it for the money, but the 10% who are quite often paid directly or indirectly by the oil companies are all the innocents? Are you really that naieve? Your theory just doesn't pass the laugh test.
Certainly there is money to be made off of the so called 'green' movement. Oddly, the majority of that money seems to be being made by the same corporations who would be making the money if there was no green movement. Global warming might be shifting a tiny sliver of the worlds wealth around, but certainly not enough to justify it's overwhelming support in the scientific community on the basis of greed alone.
Finally, you ignore the fact of the data. There is tons of data supporting man made global warming, and more is found everyday. Occasionally, evidence that support MMGW is found to be flawed, in which case that evidence is dropped and replaced with the new evidence. If that new evidence contradicts the theory, the theory is revised to take the new information into account. This is the scientific method at it's most basic.
The other side doesn't work that way. Instead of relying on the scientific method, they rely on doubt. They pick up on all those bits of evidence that on the surface seem to contradict MMGW and make press releases about them. They do this even if the discrepancy is already explained by a revision to the theory or even if there is no real discrepancy at all, only a perceived one. If they are ever faced with any evidence that truly does support the theory of MMGW, they just conveniently ignore it. These are exactly the same techniques that the ID crowd use when arguing against evolution, but either way it amounts to the same thing: a load of unscientific crap.
Re:Not necessarily so. (Score:3, Insightful)
Even CANADA's emissions rose more than the U.S.' IMO I'm glad we didn't agree to something we didn't have any plans to actually complete.
Re:I have a problem with human global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the ice cap isn't growing (covering more area), its getting thicker, because more moisture is transported to Antarctica as a consequence of warming.
Its, at the same time, also shrinking (covering less area), and recently its also been containing less total ice despite thickening. (Because less of the area is cold enough to have an ice cap, but there is still more moisture transported to the areas that do support an ice cap.)
So?
Short-term variation and long-term trends are two different things. The year to year variation isn't what is important, its the long-term trend that matters. The year-to-year changes are much greater in magnitude. (There have, in fact, been sharp year-to-year increases -- and drops -- in the last few years, but no evidence of a reversal or halt in the long-term trend.)
Temperature measures are also often done lots of places that are not inner cities, including Antarctica. So what?
What?
Okay, so where is your evidence for absolutely no more than 20% of global warming being anthropogenic? And, even if we granted that, wouldn't the effects of global warming still warrant human action to address it even if none of it was anthropogenic?
Re:Please use the correct terminology (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it doesn't, which is why there is a term specifically for global warming with man-made causes, "anthropogenic global warming".
Well, no; the entire ~200,000 years during which H. sapiens has walked the earth has been within the most recent 10% of the (present) Quaternary ice age, including several glacial periods; the last glacial period during the present ice age ended about 10,000 years ago. There were at least four other ice ages in Earth's history, though.
But the current rapid-and-accelerating global warming is not something consistent with the evidence we have of what has occurred in the past, and we have a pretty good understanding that man is causing it and how.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:The republic of science (Score:3, Insightful)
What frustrates me is that the right seems to have ceded any form of argument about "so what should we do about it?" to the 'environmentalist' left, and instead attacked the very concept beyond the point of reason.
Ok, so if we assume global warming is happening:
1) Is it on the whole bad thing? you hear all of the likely problems, but no one in the mainstream is talking about the advantages of longer growing seasons in greenland.
2) How much of it can and do we actually control?
3) What are the best ways to combat it? Are there ways to do so without massive government intervention? (or in a way that requires government to have less regulatory power, such as a flat carbon "tax" to add a market pressure for innovation).
Because the liberals are the only ones with a proposed solution, if things finally get to the point where most people agree a solution is needed, theirs is the one we'll be stuck with.