Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

'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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'No Doubt Left' About Scientific Consensus on Global Warming, Say Experts

Comments Filter:
  • Why not (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    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.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      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)

      by astrofurter ( 5464356 ) on Friday July 26, 2019 @01:31AM (#58989274)

      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.

      • 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.

      • The problem is belief in AGW is conflated with belief in inevitable near-future apocalyptic scenarios. As with other areas of politics right now, the polarizing hype is fucking up everything.

        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
  • by js290 ( 697670 )
    Nature don't give AF about quackass "scientifc consensus" nor "global warming"

    Observation vs Concept... off base concepts... make mgmt decisions in wrong direction http://bit.ly/1lM3PFS [bit.ly]

    2) In other words, if reality continously delivers something that doesnt "make sense" to you, it is *you* that you need to worry about.

    — Nassim Nicholas Taleb (@nntaleb) January 6, 2018 [twitter.com]

  • by wolfie_cr ( 779921 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @04:38PM (#58987018) Homepage
    "wel may be you are right but why do we (EU/USA) need to foot the bill for this !"
    • by divide overflow ( 599608 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @04:45PM (#58987052)

      "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.

    • by mysidia ( 191772 )

      "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,

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, 2019 @05:36PM (#58987408)

      "wel may be you are right but why do we (EU/USA) need to foot the bill for this !"

      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)

    by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

    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.

    • It isn't "global warming" it is "climate change". It is no wonder you think most software sucks.

      • Just like "Comcast" is now "Xfinity" and for much the same reason. The brand is damaged and now we need a new one.
    • 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.

      • Combining this logic makes it clear that Global Warning is responsible for the latest Twitter desktop redesign.

        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 25, 2019 @04:55PM (#58987116)

    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)

      by epine ( 68316 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @05:27PM (#58987340)

      Couple this with the incredible hypocrisy on the part of the AGW alarmists.

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward

        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

    • 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.

      • by Uberbah ( 647458 )

        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.

    • 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)

        by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Friday July 26, 2019 @01:04AM (#58989204)

        Also: Immediate dismissal of any amelioration effort other than "End All Fossil Fuel Use" as "techno-fix"

        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)

      by drago177 ( 150148 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @07:54PM (#58988108)

      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.

    • So much dipshittery. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Friday July 26, 2019 @01:16AM (#58989226)

      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.

      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.

      Gore flies private jets

      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".

      How many AGW hippies do you know who drive cars and take airplanes to travel?

      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.

      Blatant refusal to even consider building nuclear power plants

      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.

    • by rastos1 ( 601318 )
      Would you be so kind and explain the term "AGW alarmists" ?
  • World population has grown by 6 billion in the past century. Each human requires certain level of energy to survive so earth is warming up. Fighting "global warming" will hurt as many people as doing nothing (unless Thanos interferes)
    • by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @05:07PM (#58987184)
      not humans generating too much heat from daily activities. Thanos can do whatever the hell he wants. Cut the population in half and we'll still burn just as much coal and gas. The percentage using it is relatively small.

      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 /. that work for a living and also don't seem to want better wages. The arguments usually boil down to supply side economics (you'd have to tax the rich to pay for the GND and they'd invest less and raise prices).

      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)

        by blindseer ( 891256 )

        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

        • by Uberbah ( 647458 ) on Friday July 26, 2019 @01:24AM (#58989254)

          Is this the same Green New Deal that said we can't have any more hydroelectric dams? If so then go to hell.

          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

          This deal also denies us access to nuclear fission power. If that's what you want then 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.

      • by quenda ( 644621 )

        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.

    • by mysidia ( 191772 )

      Hi, I'm Thanos, and I approve of this message.

    • by quenda ( 644621 )

      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.

    • Cap and trade will work. There is no reason to start entertaining Thanos-based solutions to AGW.
  • Is it just me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @05:11PM (#58987210)
    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.
    • 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.

    • Re:Is it just me (Score:5, Interesting)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @05:19PM (#58987274)

      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)

        by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @05:21PM (#58987292) Homepage Journal

        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.

        • by Anonymous Coward

          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)

            by Trogre ( 513942 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @09:11PM (#58988446) Homepage

            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)

          by Anonymous Coward

          No, of course not. They're not being paid to post on Slashdot, as such.

          It's just another forum to them.

      • 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?

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          /. 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.

      • I have notices an influx of paid shills a few years back, when the systemd "discussions" first started:

        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.

        • by gweihir ( 88907 )

          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.

    • 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.

    • 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"?

      • 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.

        • 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

          • 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)

      by argStyopa ( 232550 )

      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

    • by Jack9 ( 11421 )

      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.

    • by jemmyw ( 624065 )
      Yes. You'd think it'd be a community of science minded folk. Skeptism and questioning on individual results is one thing, but downright denial of a consensus built on data and models collected over decades is another. I'd only argue with the word "lately".
    • 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

  • Even people who understand the science are not likely to push to decrease our collective standard of living. That's really what it's going to take to slow down this process, but most people are just too selfish and lazy to make any changes. Hell, when Jimmy Carter asked Americans to "put on a sweater" during the energy crisis, Americans lost their collective minds and voted him out of office. The stop this runaway climate change, it's going to take a hell of a lot more than everybody putting on a sweater
  • 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

    • 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.

    • 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, unf
      • by hawkfish ( 8978 )

        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.

        Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.
        -- H.L. Mencken

  • by GuB-42 ( 2483988 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @06:29PM (#58987682)

    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.

  • by mark_reh ( 2015546 ) on Thursday July 25, 2019 @09:03PM (#58988422) Journal

    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!

  • in this thread right here

  • 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.

  • Ya, well, everybody thought the Earth was flat once too. That 1% does not remove all doubt!

The bomb will never go off. I speak as an expert in explosives. -- Admiral William Leahy, U.S. Atomic Bomb Project

Working...