'No Doubt Left' About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, Say Experts (theguardian.com) 453
The scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming is likely to have passed 99% https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/jul/24/scientific-consensus-on-humans-causing-global-warming-passes-99, according to the lead author of the most authoritative study on the subject, and could rise further after separate research that clears up some of the remaining doubts. From a report: Three studies published in Nature and Nature Geoscience use extensive historical data to show there has never been a period in the last 2,000 years when temperature changes have been as fast and extensive as in recent decades.
It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.
It had previously been thought that similarly dramatic peaks and troughs might have occurred in the past, including in periods dubbed the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Climate Anomaly. But the three studies use reconstructions based on 700 proxy records of temperature change, such as trees, ice and sediment, from all continents that indicate none of these shifts took place in more than half the globe at any one time.
Why not (Score:2, Insightful)
If we are making up numbers and doctoring statistics, why not just say it is 110%. That is no more or less likely to convince people who distrust the academic establishment and its push into politics.
Re: (Score:3)
It seems wrong to be even posting headlines like this. What next?
"No Doubt Left' About Scientific Consensus that moon landing was real." ??
Faith (Score:4, Insightful)
Fewer than 1% of the Anthropogenic Global Warming faithful have ever read an actual scientific paper on AGW. Their belief is founded on notoriously unreliable "science journalism".
Supporting anecdote:
I know a fellow who is a ranting, screaming, arm-waving extremist who believes Global Warming is going to unleash mass chaos and death within our lifetimes. He asserts that his ideas are "very well researched", that the Mad Max doom scenario is "scientific fact" based on "peer reviewed scientific papers".
So I asked him to recommend a good peer reviewed scientific paper on the subject. I'm open minded - let's see the evidence that persuaded him to be an extremist. He couldn't recommend a single science paper. Obviously because he's never read any. Instead he pointed me to a website containing... wait for it... "authoritative" AGW propaganda. No actual science.
Clarificatory Note:
I am not here making an argument that AGW is false. Rather I'm arguing that the "but muh SCIENCE(tm)!!!!!1!!" bros who rant incessantly about it, are a bunch of authority-followers with little real interest in the scientific method. A popular cult, so to speak.
I don't know if anthropogenic climate change is real. It might well be. The max-doom scenarios strike me as implausible. But I _am_ very certain that pollution is bad, gratuitous waste of energy is foolish, and resource depletion is a real concern. These are all uncontroversial assertions.
What we need are small-c conservative small-g green policies to protect the environment. What the religious folks call stewardship. "Hey man, let's not dump toxic waste into the river!" What we don't need are more AGW wingnuts waving their arms and screaming. They are giving real environmentalism a bad name.
Re: (Score:3)
You know, it has always surprised me that people who claim to be so science literate seem so skeptical about run away climate scenarios. Considering there is such good evidence surrounding the massive [wikipedia.org], world altering [wikipedia.org] effects that atmospheric composition changes have made to this planet in the past, especially given the evidence that brief events [wikipedia.org] can cause such havoc.
Passing off personal ignorance of science as some higher standard of scientific purism has never been very compelling to me.
Re: (Score:3)
As I've said elsewhere in this story: Burning hydrocarbons releases greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gases trap solar heat. By what mechanism are you alleging that releasing greenhouse gases would *not* warm the Earth?
If you have some clever arguments about the complexity of climate system, present them. With ballpar
Re: (Score:2)
So you believe global anthropogenic climate change is real, but this is just an inefficient method of dealing with it?
Re: (Score:2)
When you say you live "near seattle", do you mean the Okanogan valley or east where they actually get sunshine?
Re: (Score:3)
Republicans and democrats are nuts.
More precisely, I think, most politicians have private agendas that lead them to say things that turn out not to be true. It is certainly foolish to fall for the politicians' very first simple trick: the transparent illusion that some of them have the right ideas and are "good", while others have the wrong ideas and are "bad".
Good and bad don't come into it. Follow the money, and you will be on the right track. Ignore anyone who starts babbling foolishly about Democrats versus Republicans, or the wickedness
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're way past the point of having the dog for dinner.
Re: Why not (Score:2)
no one is paying for the truth these days.
agw. probably all bs
http://forumslide.theborgmatri... [theborgmatrix.com]
since they got rid of most of the polution that was blocking out the sun and keeping us cool, not sure why anyone is surprised. better than an ice age.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe if white people would own up to all the death and destruction they've heaped upon this world instead of making excuses for how it's not their fault, maybe this wouldn't be an issue. But I guess taking personal responsibility isn't big with you, is it?
And this is why we need to teach history in school. You can't possibly believe that and claim to have even a passing knowledge of world history. Lots of peoples over the centuries have caused lots of death and destruction. Trying to force all that through your keyhole of a political ideology doesn't make it true. Its not a binary fact either. Its a shade of gray with others doing more or less destruction too. Also, there is no group of people called 'white people'. That's a weird US-centric way to gr
Re: (Score:3)
As a white person, I do not have more "personal" responsibility as anyone in the world for the damage that people, many of them white, have done to the world. Of course, others would have done the same if they would have had the chance and had dominated the world. You don't really believe that goodness or evilness is a function of your race do you?!?
As a leftist, progressive, liberal, you name it: I do not believe in hereditary guilt.
The suggestion alone makes me and many others mad, and it is not helpful f
Re: Why not (Score:2, Flamebait)
Anti science people are the worst.
Is that your complaint? Your smoking gun? That they used "2000" instead of another number?
Idiotic
They could pick any other number and you'd still make the same complaint "booo they picked 2 million instead of 2.388 billion"
It's not an argument, and read the goddamn paper
Nature don't give AF... (Score:2, Insightful)
Observation vs Concept... off base concepts... make mgmt decisions in wrong direction http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS [bit.ly]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The "science reporters" are the worst. The whole 99% thing in the article is even more flawed than the original 97% claim.
Here's the Guardian:
Re: (Score:2)
numerous.... humerous... what's a small straight line to turn an n into an h among friends?
Re: (Score:2)
Too late now for the silly shite. It is all going to happen, it is too late to stop it. They are not talking about what might happen if we do not take action to stop it, that time has past. Now they are talking about what will happen and emergency steps needing to be taken to minimise societal collapse.
When coastal mansion start going under, those people will be screaming for fossil fuellers and their backers to be 'HUNG' and their assets confiscated for crimes against humanity, good luck.
Re: (Score:3)
someone who can see perfectly clearly exactly what a dumbfuck you are.
Re: Nature don't give AF... (Score:2)
"what kind of person makes such a reply?!"
A paid troll pretending to be a Progressive Nazi.
and the new line of the deniers is..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:and the new line of the deniers is..... (Score:5, Informative)
"wel may be you are right but why do we (EU/USA) need to foot the bill for this !"
1. We won't be the only ones footing the bill.
2. EU/USA increased the total atmospheric CO2 concentration for decades before most of the developing countries started increasing their total CO2 output.
Re: (Score:3)
"wel may be you are right but why do we (EU/USA) need to foot the bill for this !"
We need to be ones to find and pay for solutions (such as CO2 sequestration, Etc), because we (EU/USA) will be blamed for causing this, and we also have the most to lose at the moment, and if others start to follow our example, we stand currently to suffer the most, more than other countries, economically from the damages it caused --- simply because the others have much less in economic value at risk of being damaged,
I'd welcome that new line (Score:5, Insightful)
Who says we need to foot any bills? It's ok to have a nihilistic, fuck- the-future policy. That's still way better than having a fuck-truth policy. I would respect Republicans if they stopped lying and admitted that the bills are just too damn high, so let the people-of-the-future try to solve it with their fusion-powered, AI-piloted flying cars or let Jesus and the Loch Ness Monster fix it or whatever.
We're not supposed to all agree on policies! That's ok! It's the disagreement about reality which is so offensive and convinces me that they're lying sack-of-shit children. How-to-live without externalizing entropy should be and is a really hard (probably impossible) problem that nobody on the right or left really knows how to solve, anyway. But we aren't debating that yet, because half the people are still living in a paranoid fantasy where someone is going around, sabotaging all the thermometers to make them fraudulently over-report the temperature.
And here we go... (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot comments on any story that mentions global warming is always a delight. They are also a good explanation of why most software sucks. If you guys are any example of who's writing and testing code, it's no wonder Linux still sucks for general desktop productivity.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't "global warming" it is "climate change". It is no wonder you think most software sucks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot comments on any story that mentions global warming is always a delight.
They are also a good explanation of why most software sucks.
Combining this logic makes it clear that Global Warning is responsible for the latest Twitter desktop redesign.
Re: (Score:2)
More likely it's a bunch of nerds who are busy watching YouTube videos about the "climate hoax" instead of paying attention to their Twitter redesign code.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
The only question there has ever really been is whether or not we should bankrupt the nations on virtue signalling and harebrained schemes to try and prevent the sky from falling.
The answer is always a matter of tradeoffs.
What's the likelihood of success of solution X?
What are the alternatives to solution X?
Is solution X worth it?
Is solution Y or Z more efficient or effective than solution X?
What if, instead of spending tons of money for solution X or Y or Z that won't actually be successful anyway we simply prepare for the new environment?
And so on.
Couple this with the incredible hypocrisy on the part of the AGW alarmists:
1. Gore flies private jets all over the place
2. How many AGW hippies do you know who drive cars and take airplanes to travel?
3. How many AGW alarmists do you know who use air conditioners? How many of them have iPhones?
4. How many AGW alarmists do you know who use _only_ solar/wind/hydro electricity?
5. Huge concern for the environment... except that large solar plants would destroy huge areas of habitats, wind generators slaughter birds by the millions and so on
6. Silicon valley elites endlessly virtue signalling yet living the most consumerist lives on the planet and using up huge amounts of electricity for what? So that gossiping imbeciles can tweet back and forth and tag each other in facebook posts and that sort of thing?
Couple this with the obvious politicking:
1. Indulgences in the form of "carbon credits"
2. Blatant refusal to even consider building nuclear power plants
3. Totalitarian treaties and regulations that have zero effect on the CO2 being produced and serve only to increase and centralize power at the expense of citizen liberty-- again, in ways that have nothing to do with saving the world from AGW.
It makes me think that it's not about preventing or ameliorating or reducing or saving the world from AGW.
AGW, though real, seems more like just an excuse to virtue signal and grab power and nothing more.
AGW, though real, seems like it's actually not going to be that big a deal.
Let me ask you:
What changes have you made to reduce your carbon footprint?
Are those changes that everyone can make? Can everyone afford to?
What's the cost of doing so? Would this kind of radical societal shift do more harm than good?
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
The hypocrisy here is all your own. Celibate nuns don't shear their breasts off. To pretend otherwise is hypocrisy flamebait.
To make your argument legitimate, you'd have to demonstrate that Gore travelling by private jet has a negative ROI as viewed by the objectives of the Gore camp.
Speakers who are in high demand can rake in major donor contributions, so long as their stamina holds up on the grueling travel schedule. Not much changes in this world with money and influence behind it. Sure, saffron robes are worry beads are low carbon, but the R for "return" part does not impress on decade time frames (though perhaps in another thousand years, all that saffron kindling might finally catch fire).
It's not hypocrisy until the I greatly outweighs the R.
Good lord, a clever ten-year-old can do the math here well enough to see through your watch-studded trenchcoat inner lining.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Great, because I make a personal determination on ROI whenever I turn my AC down, drive our truck rather than my car, turn my heat up, and I don't know how many other things that expand my carbon footprint. Go capitalism!
Mr. Gore on the other hand, claims that there is only a decade or so for us to save the earth. Somehow, I think an individual so concerned about CO2 emissions would just fly first class and prevent more CO2 emissions in a day then I emit in an entire year. You think he could have cut down
Re: (Score:2)
The only solution anyone has come up with for AGW (which is real) is a series of taxes. Meanwhile emissions continue to rise year over year. There is no will to change, just a lot of bleating and people trying to grab money. People like to talk, but changing lifestyles isn't going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Changing lifestyles is a complete red herring. The only losers in a Green New Deal would be the military industrial complex and the shareholders of fossil fuel companies. Everyone else would see an enormous jobs boom.
Re: (Score:2)
I waffled between adding another "Insightful" point, or replying.
Also: Immediate dismissal of any amelioration effort other than "End All Fossil Fuel Use" as "techno-fix", and with that devil-word spoken, the subject is supposedly completely closed. See the resistance to even considering a small-scale test of iron fertilization of the ocean, iron being the limiting nutrient for phytoplankton in most places.
Any fix will be technological in nature. The people flying the AGW banner, for the most part, don't
Re:So what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Because that's the same sort of dipshittery that pushes poor people to eat bugs so rich people don't have to pay any more taxes. That shames the people of California into taking one gallon showers when 85% of the states water supply is used by agriculture & industry.
You're arguing for extravagant, impractical solutions just to avoid reigning in the excesses of capitalism, which in this instance only benefit the shareholders of fossil fuel companies.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Informative)
The only question is whether or not we should bankrupt the nations on virtue signalling and harebrained schemes to try and prevent the sky from falling.
The sky ain't fallin, but it's a changin. 99% of scientific research agrees man is causing the climate to change, and that will bankrupt nations, and cost almost all countries in money, lives, or both.
The answer is always a matter of tradeoffs. What if, instead of spending tons of money for solution X or Y or Z we simply prepare for the new environment?
We need to do that too. But let's recognize the history here.
1997: scientists come to agreement, predicting increased rainfall, droughts, and more powerful storms. 3% of GDP will prevent it.
Deniers: "no way. we have so many bad arguments and don't believe you"
2005: All kinds of records broken for multiple hurricanes. Hundreds of $billions.
2008: Ike, $38bn.
2012: Sandy broke physical records, $70bn.
2013: We verify: Number months record-high rainfall increased in central/Eastern US by > 25% between 1980 and 2013. Record dry months in southern Africa increased by 50%.
2016: we notice CA's Wildfires are 500% bigger.
2017: All kinds of records broken for multiple hurricanes, again, over the previous stellar '05. Hundreds of $billions. Harvey dumped 26tril gallons of water on TX/LA, beating previous record, 16tril. You don't just hurdle past previous records like that unless something is different.
2018: we realize climate change will cost U.S. 10% of GDP per year I think (maybe I'm reading that wrong), by the end of the century
https://www.sciencenews.org/ar... [sciencenews.org]
Let's look back and compare how much it would have cost us in late 90's to prevent the problem - 3%. Maybe - see below.
2019: we have confirmed the problem has not only started, but it's worse than what scientists predicted in the 90's. It's already costing us 0.x% of GDP, and we need to spend a lot more than 3% to fix the problem now.
Also, we have confirmed that entities that spent the 3%, actually made more than 3% back on savings and selling the new technology. So that 3% number we thought we had to spend was more of an investment, and it paid off for the people that made it. On average.
Also, we predict anything we can do towards prevention will at least reduce how bad things will get.
So what could deniers' arguments possibly be now?
Couple this with the incredible hypocrisy on the part of the AGW alarmists:
1. Gore flies private jets all over the place
Gore knows government and industry working together are the only solution. If taking a jet helps his effort, then it's 1 million times worth it. It's been proven his effort was not enough, because national policy still hasn't made much progress. So I wish he took more jet rides.
2. How many AGW hippies do you know who drive cars and take airplanes to travel?
I drive a gas efficient car, live close to work, and mostly gave up beef. So what? I'm doing way better than average, but I know the most important change we need to make is to change the laws.
In fact, this idea directly refutes all the rest of your "points":
Changing the law is the only way for humans to address climate change. Yes if every person minimized their emissions, then yes, that would solve it, but it's near impossible to get everyone in a park to even pick up their own trash, so no, you can't count on it. Plus, the more action taken on scale, the less inconvenience to individuals.
But we've seen almost exactly this problem before. Industry created CFC-releasing products. Goverments came together to ban it, and the Ozone hole mostly recovered.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
There are no rational arguments left against addressing climate change. I know your post was a troll, but I just had too much fun typing stuff out today.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the solution that would have prevented all that extra rain?
Idk, the government shouldn't necessarily concern itself with the solution, only the incentives. A good carbon tax will incentivize the market to come up with solutions. "Tax" is such a bad word though, that seemed to work against the idea pretty hard. People love to complain. Life is hard, and if you want to be negative, you can find problems and get mad about anything. And that gets amplified when water sources get threatened. But back to the present. Maybe "dividend" is a better word than "tax":
ht [citizensclimatelobby.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You say the warning was in late 9-s yet give a rain fall increase baselined to 1980.
I said the scientists came to agreement in '97. Maybe I was slightly off or else I can't find the thing now, but this generally agrees with my statement - look for table 1 'Estimates of consensus':
https://iopscience.iop.org/art... [iop.org]
The increased rainfall is from this:
https://www.researchgate.net/p... [researchgate.net]
So much dipshittery. (Score:5, Interesting)
Climate change is already costing the United States hundreds of billions of dollars a year, never mind the rest of the world, you dumb denialist doosh. The costs of mitigating climate change - which would see a huge jobs boom from constructing wind and solar - are insignificant next to the costs of ignoring it.
Al Gore is a conservative pushing a conservative, market based approach to mitigating climate change. There isn't a plan that is more right wing than cap & trade other than sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la la la".
Dipshit talking point. Coal and oil have more than a century's head start on modern wind and solar grids, so of course if you live in society you'll be using fossil fuels whether you like it or not. That's why people want the government to change society by replacing coal with renewables.
Because nuclear power is utter insanity. It is many many many times more costly than any other power source, and that's before you get to storing the waste for a hundred thousand years.
Re: (Score:2)
So? (Score:2)
Most of the models say Fossil Fuels are trouble (Score:4, Insightful)
What's needed is a Green New Deal in America (and China too). e.g. a large scale public works project focused on clean renewables and energy conservation. Right now the ruling class in America is fighting tooth and nail against this because it would mean millions of good, middle class jobs which in turn means upward pressure on wages and, well, they don't want to have to pay better wages.
What I don't get is all the folks on
You know, companies don't hire and pay better because they're flush with cash. They do those things to meet demand. And inflation is constrained by what people can and will pay. We did just fine in the 50s and 60s with a 90% top tax bracket.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's needed is a Green New Deal in America (and China too). e.g. a large scale public works project focused on clean renewables and energy conservation.
Is this the same Green New Deal that said we can't have any more hydroelectric dams? If so then go to hell.
This deal also denies us access to nuclear fission power. If that's what you want then go to hell.
Hydro and nuclear are very low CO2 emitting power sources, and they provide 25% of our electricity. About 65% comes from coal and natural gas, which is certainly denied to us by the Green New Deal. That's 90% of our electricity. Do these people think we can grow our wind, solar, and biomass energy fro
Re:Most of the models say Fossil Fuels are trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
1) The US spent decades constructing dams all over the country so the expansion of hydro power is limited
2) Dams play hell on local ecosystems so you can go to hell
I see you're still going crosseyed pushing your fundamentalist cult on anyone who might listen. When you have a nuclear plant that is built, insured and decommissioned without one cent in taxpayer support, then you can talk. Oh, and when the cost of storing your waste for the next hundred thousand years is rolled into the rates charged by the plant, and the board of directors is forced to live on plant grounds. And stay there for any emergencies. Until then, do stfu.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut the population in half and we'll still burn just as much coal and gas. The percentage using it is relatively small.
50 years ago you'd be right. Now half the world's emissions are from Asia.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi, I'm Thanos, and I approve of this message.
Re: (Score:2)
Each human requires certain level of energy to survive so earth is warming up.
No, the heat generated directly by human activity, including burning fossil fuels, is utterly insignificant compared to heat from sunlight (visible and infrared).
Around 5 TW humans use, vs 170,000 TW solar energy hitting the earth. (pi r squared x 1,368 W/m2)
So a small change is the amount of heat reflected or radiated matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Definitely. I am paid by both the Russians and Exxon to spread misinformation. Have you noticed there are more and more strident climate change articles on Slashdot lately? It makes it wonder who is paying for them.
Nobody's paying for them (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Glad to know you aren't sincerely stupid or proudly ignorant, but just paid to fake it.
"Mommy, we broke the planet!"
Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Interesting)
I have notices an influx of paid shills a few years back, when the systemd "discussions" first started: Emotional appeal instead of arguments, AdHominem, "you are a minority", all from the same playbook in the same style done by a lot of users. Since then, I am convinced that you can pay for this kind of manipulation even on /.
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
You guys are weird. Do you think someone is paying people to post on Slashdot? This site has about 500 regular readers, none of whom are influential. You would be better off buying a billboard in Milwaukee.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are weird. Do you think someone is paying people to post on Slashdot? This site has about 500 regular readers, none of whom are influential. You would be better off buying a billboard in Milwaukee.
500? I would argue less than 100 in earnest.
It's easy to list off the regular readers from memory.
We have rsilver, gweihir, and one of the binary twins all in a row. PopeRatzo is here. Nothing about women so AmiMojo and BarbaraHudson haven't posted yet.
WillAfflec, Astral, ShanghaiBill, Kyoskue and Joe the actual asians. That new german guy Freidsoemthing posting like mad on anything US politics related. Garbz not far behind in rabidity and relevance. BIND the russian. Viol8, Joce640k, Jason Levine. MightyMa
Re:Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)
Posters. Regular posters. You have no clue how many regular readers there are. The vast, vast, VAST majority are extremely unlikely to even bother logging in.
This site, while no longer filling the void for a social network, is still bigger than you think it is.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, of course not. They're not being paid to post on Slashdot, as such.
It's just another forum to them.
Re: (Score:3)
And, in true /. pedantic fashion, I must point out that 25 years ago was 1994, three years before /. existed.
(I agree with your point, BTW)
Re: (Score:2)
I have notices an influx of paid shills a few years back, when the systemd "discussions" first started: Emotional appeal instead of arguments, AdHominem, "you are a minority", all from the same playbook in the same style done by a lot of users. Since then, I am convinced that you can pay for this kind of manipulation even on /.
Are you sure it wasn't actually just a big dumb crowd? I question the judgment of anybody that finances astroturfing/sockpuppets on Slashdot--especially over an issue like climate change. There is almost nothing to be gained by influencing a slashdotter, what other outlets care what the Slashdot consensus is?
Re: (Score:2)
/. discussions get cited frequently and are obviously read by a lot of people. Also, for every paid shill, there are usually 10 useful idiots. But the thing starts with the shills.
Re: (Score:3)
I have long suspected that there have been armies of paid shills here at /. since much earlier than the genesis of systemd: I suspect that Microsoft was paying for shills here to promote Microsoft products and trash Linux. I don't see the same level of Microsoft promotion any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that Microsoft was paying for shills here to promote Microsoft products and trash Linux.
Quite possible. The systemd thing was only what made it obvious for me, because of the uniform and inane type of "arguments" used.
Re: (Score:2)
or are there a lot of climate change deniers on /. lately? They're mostly of the "just asking questions" variety rather than outright loons too. It makes me wonder if they're paid shills.
What I have found is that whenever a story about climate change is posted on slashdot, the deniers show up first to comment and moderate. Those who accept and defend the science of climate change tend to show up later.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I'm one of those people who asks questions and is slow to convince on any issue. I only *wish* the Russians were paying me for it.
Lately though, I'm asking not how to prove AGW, but what can actually be done. Like, out of the 7 billion people on Earth, how can the only 1 billion or so of them that are well-off enough to spend time thinking about climate issues convince the other 6 billion to stop cooking with fire? Go to war? Literal "climate crusades"?
Re: (Score:2)
The people "cooking with fire" are not the problem. They are not running cars, running A/C units, flying, etc..
There is a huge disparity in CO2 emissions. It's the 1B well off that need to change.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but they really want to do all those things, and they will be doing them, and like us, they will enjoy it for decades before they are content enough to think about the environment. So if only 1 billion of us can cause the current crisis...
I don't see how we can fight or buy our way out of this situation.
Forcing them to comply is unethical and would lead to even greater destruction. And I can't imagine how the 1 billion can buy their way out of it either. It seems that we must find ways to adapt to
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong.
Just like communities in Africa are bypassing land lines and other technologies that are outmoded, the other 6B are likely to bypass technologies that produce lots of CO2.
Coal is an expensive energy source. Wind and solar are already cheaper.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Is the climate changing? Sure - it *always* is.
But yeah, I probably fall into your category of "denier" so....what'll it be? Want to just throw some ad hominems at me? Maybe tell me 97% of climate scientists agree about this (completely debunked number, bee tee dubs).
Let's look at that TFO, which reliably brings that number up: "...A 2013 study in Environmental Research Letters found 97% of climate scientists agreed with this link in 12,000 academic papers that contained the words âoeglobal warming
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone think that someone posting on /. would be paid to say things? Slashdot comments are so unimportant today, as to be ignored by every media outlet and every other political discussion (across the entire internet). Anyone saying there are "paid shills" on /. is, quite literally, a paranoid idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot posters are general 'anti-establishment' and 'actually think!' people - this can be positive and negative. I generally associate us with intelligence though.
The cult of social justice tries to bray and maw around here about really inane stuff which is either outright untrue or highly biased and often, rightfully gets pulled to bits.
That being said, when I see contrarians, such as myself, go all contrary on stuff like climate change, which is really pretty well documented, standard stuff now, it d
People are lazy (Score:2)
Maybe we should get serious about a solution then (Score:2)
As much as we see politicians get all concerned about global warming I don't see them being terribly concerned about actually addressing the problem. You'd expect them to solicit answers from scientists, technicians, and engineers, on how to reduce CO2 output. Then have a plan on the level of the Manhattan or Apollo programs to implement these solutions.
It's not like the federal government hasn't taken the lead on large engineering projects before. The Tennessee Valley Authority is probably the most popu
Re: (Score:2)
What solution is anyone proposing? Switching everything to renewables isn't really going to happen. It isn't practical. Sure, a lot of whiners will get mad at me, but really base loads need to be provided by nuclear, natgas, etc. Solar and windpower work when there is sun and wind. But of course the solution is "batteries" and "storage" for when the wind and sun aren't working.
The US uses 98,000,000,000,000,000 Btu of energy per year. Do you have a way of producing that with renewables? Let me know.
Government is the people (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The Government IS the people. People, by and large, don't want to have to get off of their fat asses to inconvenience themselves in any possible way. Most people don't want to have fewer kids. Most people don't want to drive smaller, or electric vehicles. Most people don't want to curb their use of plastics. Most people don't want to use less energy. Most people don't want to pay for the true cost of the resources they use. Governments around the world are just responding to what the people want, unfortunately.
Who cares about consensus (Score:3)
Science is not a democracy. No one gets to vote on the laws of physics.
Human involvement in global warming is real or not, no matter what scientists have to say about it.
The truth is that our climate models are more accurate when we take human activity into account, that 99% number means nothing.
Just like with dark matter. Models with dark matter are better at explaining what we are observing than models without dark matter, so for now, we considers that it exists. No one talks about "consensus". The model with dark matter is better, period. That's until someone comes up with a better model.
They didn't have a global warming problem (Score:3)
when we were burning coal for everything. The problem started when we substituted "clean" fuels like natural gas and gasoline for coal.
We obviously have to go back to burning coal. The smoke will block the sun and let the earth cool again.
I think I'm going to ditch my Prius and get a Hummer and convert it to burn the highest sulfur coal I can get. I want to leave a trail of smoke and soot behind me that you can see from space.
#MAGA!
Clearly, they've never looked (Score:2)
in this thread right here
2,000 years? (Score:2)
2,000 years may seem like a long time, but it's a drop in the bucket compared to the age of the earth. Even if we limit it to the timespan while mammels have populated the earth 2,000 years barely scratches the surface. It seemsblike such a small and arbitrary number that it makes me suspicious.
More data forever (Score:2)
Um... Yeah, it kind of is (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Um... Yeah, it kind of is (Score:5, Insightful)
you're leaving out the fact that science is peer reviewed.
"Peer review/validation" and consensus are not the science part... that's a way of filtering/editing content of articles to conform to social norms and help journals avoid being embarrassed
Performing valid experiments and making careful observations is Science. Your own experiments, as well as duplicating others' experiments and noting whether or not the results were the same.
Peer validation generally does NOT involve repeating others' experiments, but results that are not reproducible should not be believed, and yet many non-reproducible results are relied upon here and published and repeated, etc.
Re:Um... Yeah, it kind of is (Score:5, Insightful)
Peer review is not intended to guarantee accuracy, nor does it have anything to do with "social norms". It is intended to filter out obvious crap by looking for poor methodology. If the paper is not rigorous in its methods, or has failed to take into account factors that are well known to experts in the field, or has obvious errors in its workings, then it will be rejected.
Peer review isn't perfect but it's far better than no review, and is essential for maintaining high standards of published work. The only people who complain about peer review are those whose work fails to meet those standards.
Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)
The entire point of science, the scientific method, is to question assumptions. No man is an island. Newton got a ton wrong. So did Einstein. Debatably because of their own biases ("God does not play dice"). The role of peer review in science for correcting mistakes cannot be overstated. It's a central pillar of science.
Yes, by all means, do your own experiments, but without peer review you're doing the intellectual equivalent of jacking off. And remember, it's _peer_ review. People forget what the word peer means here. It doesn't mean random yahoos on
And yes, there are problems with peer review. But that doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. Not all experiments need to be repeated. Yes, it's the optimal method, but I can tell you your software's broken by using it. I don't need to re-write it from scratch and/or decompile it.
Go watch some Aron Ra on Youtube. Also Genetic Skeptic. Both do an excellent job of covering the scientific method.
One more thing (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Einstein didn't get anything wrong when he said "God doesn't play dice" or whatever he actually said.
He worked out the math of his objections, made a bunch of predictions that were untestable at the time but which he didn't think would be true. And now that they're testable, it turns out his predictions were correct.
I'm sure there are other things he was wrong about, but in your example he was wrong in his bloviations, but totally correct about the related science.
The main thrust of your points are correct,
Why don't we see the mechanism arguments? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true the scientific, statistical measurement arguments are very convincing (...provided you understand the statistics involved, which unfortunately many people don't.) But if possible, I'd really like to see more people talking about the mechanisms and raw emissions measurements. I don't understand why we need to confine ourselves to appealing to historical data. I think there might be more convincing arguments for laymen.
My overarching point: Aren't there models out there showing the warming of the Earth as a function of greenhouse gas emissions? By what mechanism are the deniers alleging that the Earth would NOT heat up, given that these emissions exist and are easily measurable? That's the question that it seems like literally no one is asking, but to me it seems like it could be the most probing and damning one. You can do the experiment on a small scale on Youtube, FFS--pump greenhouse gases in an airtight container and watch the temperature rise. Show the numbers for the small container and the gasses present. Now show the numbers for the Earth and our emissions and direct measurements greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Is this not going to be a convincing argument? Doesn't it put the onus on the denier to explain the mechanism by which the Earth would *not* warm? (The Earth being as complicated as it is, I'm sure they'll be able to come back with some halfassed objection, but it'll probably be pretty weak sounding in light of the multiple acceleration mechanisms we already know do exist--released methane, reduced albedo, etc.)
Right now, deniers are able to sit smugly in their echo chambers, hand waving away the measurements and statistical models as invented hogwash. I don't understand why we let them get away with this. All I ever see are the same appeals to arcane statistics and consensus, mixed with a generous helping of doom and gloom stories (which half the time are appear to be cringingly exaggerated, further reinforcing the denier conspiracy theories.)
"I have here this pile of wood soaked in gasoline. I'm going to touch a lit match to it in a moment. By what chemical mechanism are you alleging that it would *not* burst into flame?" Metaphorically, that's the question we need to be forging and then asking. Repeatedly. Bluntly.
Scientists don't care (Score:2)
We aren't. Us scientists are studying it just the same. There will always be idiots saying stupid things. You can get a lot more done by simply ignoring them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Why don't we see the mechanism arguments? (Score:4, Interesting)
By what mechanism are the deniers alleging that the Earth would NOT heat up, given that these emissions exist and are easily measurable?
The onus of proof is always on the accuser, no matter if it is murder or climate science, and no matter how hard you scream.
As it happens though, the proof is quite easy. You see, we already have an excellent mechanism to combat CO2 emissions: nuclear fission (either thorium or uranium). Build a few of those plants, close a coal or gas plant every time you do, and in a few years time CO2 emissions will drop dramatically. Build some spare capacity in the right places and you can begin desalination on a very large scale, and turn some deserts into carbon sinks. It's works day and night, and doesn't even require defacing our landscape with windmills and solar farms.
And what do we hear whenever the option is mentioned? Let's examine those amazing arguments:
"The price is not competitive" -> geez, right, no, that's an absolutely EXCELLENT reason! The price is not competitive! It's MUCH better to let our planet heat up to Venus-like temperatures, or to lower our standard of life to medieval times, then paying a paltry sum for a few reactors! Why didn't I think of that, I thought we could get rid of CO2 emissions totally for free! "But... but... but... 20 billion for a nuclear reactor..." No. Just no. If we build them at scale, and don't let "activists" derail the process with unending legal challenge, you could build them for a few billion a piece.
"Accidents!" -> Ah yes, another great argument. Much better that we kill the entire ecosystem, rather than run a small risk of a tiny portion thereof becoming unsuitable to humans. Nature around Chernobyl is actually doing great; it turns out humans are far worse to nature than a bit of radioactivity.
"Waste for millions of years!" -> BS. Highly radioactive waste is only radioactive for a short period. Lowly radioactive waste is hardly a problem. And if your goal is to provide energy, rather than material for nuclear bombs, you can use reactions that produce far less waste to begin with.
"But wind and solar are much cheaper and cleaner" They are also not capable of providing base load. I recently saw arguments that "base load" does not in fact exist. If you plan to make that argument, please don't, it just reveals utter ignorance.
Oh Lord, and then there was the genius who threw in my face that "nuclear plants will do nothing to eliminate the CO2 already in the atmosphere." Because wind and solar TOTALLY extract CO2 from the atmosphere and stick it safely in the ground, I guess? Or is the tactic here to just shout nonsense until people give up?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Peer review is just one stage of the process. Few scientists take a peer reviewed paper as being truth. Instead the peer review meant that other people had a chance to comment, make sure experimental data is provided, see if the conclusions are logical. It's a chance for someone else to double-check the work. What makes it become something trustworthy is what comes after: other people to replicate the experiments, and devise other experiments that might help support or diminish the claims. So for examp
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Scientific consensus is not a democratic process either. Stop lying about things.
Re:Um... Yeah, it kind of is (Score:5, Insightful)
You've been corrected before about that, and yet you say it again.
Are you full of shit, or stupid, or what?
Science is not merely empirical, or intended to be.
Experiments are generally empirical, but what about theories? Are those empirical? No, they're rational.
Math for example is almost entirely rational, not empirical. If you have to count to infinity to know it exists, you won't be doing very much advanced math.
Empiricism can't get you to a theory. It can't get you to a hypothesis. It can't even get you to a brainstorming session where you consider rough ideas to explore! A pure empiricist isn't a scientist, they're a laboratory technician.
Re: Consensus isn't science (Score:4, Insightful)
That's science. The theory of relativity wasn't anything but a theory until 1919 when it showed skill at predicting the bending of light by gravity, and still wasn't fully believed until 1954 when the observational precision of relativity's various effects was finally high enough.
AGW isn't that kind of science. The predictions aren't veracious enough, but still accepted to the point where it is pretty much unfalsifiable.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is actually a big flaw in the paper. The last 10,000 years are an unprecedented period of climate stability, but if you go back before 10,000 years the climate changes radically on a near constant basis. Seriously if you look at temperature graphs for the last 200k years it looks like the wave form of a rock song. How do they explain that? Limiting the study to only the last 2000 years almost comes off as cherry picking.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
you're