Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed? 928
sycodon writes "Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to Richard Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. From the article: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"
Global Flamebait Stories Increase Slash Revenue? (Score:5, Funny)
Anyone notice somthing (Score:3, Insightful)
Hint: Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it right. This is why people dislike nerds.
Re:Anyone notice somthing (Score:5, Insightful)
-Kurt
Re:Anyone notice somthing (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who say "it has been happening since the last ice age" this is demonstrably false. We know that the climate changed for the *colder* in places like Greenland over the last thousand years or so.
The real issue is this: In any contentious or important subject (like global warming or heart disease), the minority viewpoints are often supressed. What? you mean that feeding
Re:Anyone notice somthing (Score:3, Insightful)
The Slashdot 'community' contains many story submitters with differing opinions. Those stories are judged by multiple editors who also have differing opinions. Furthermore, the topic of global warming has a multitude of fac
Y'know... (Score:3, Funny)
Then it occurred to me that we do have such a thing. Thank heavens for science fiction -- otherwise all the energy channeled into arguing about whether Kirk is better than Piccard would be pouring into real science, as well.
Freedom and Liberty (Score:4, Insightful)
Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?
The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.
The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.
Re:Freedom and Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom and Liberty (Score:3, Insightful)
It will also incur a great deal of political unpopularity to actually *do* something. I suspect the incumbents, who are on a knife's edge for re-election, would be best pleased if this hot potato could be defered for a few more years.
More generally of course there is always a reluctance to do something which is painful in the short term and only provides rewards in the long term.
Re:Freedom and Liberty (Score:3, Funny)
You're new here, aren't you?
Re:Freedom and Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Wha? You can't see any political reason to get people all riled up and in an irrational panic?
It's possible to overdo the cynicism, but you need to bulk up.
In actuality, "the state" is too broad a classification. There are many forces in play here. There are people who genuinely believe the worst-case scenarios, and are just trying to help. There are people who see the worst-case scenarios as an opportunity to increase their power; you'll find some of these people in the EPA, or driving anything where "environmentalism" and "money" collide. There are people who may or may not care about global warming per se, but see it as the perfect tool to block industry, because they believe industrialization is instrinsically evil. (These people can be identified by asking them whether they'd support the use of a perfectly clean power source that enables us all to use ten times the power; there are people who will say "no" to this, because they really do think we should all go back to living as "noble savages".)
Also, for every accusation leveled at a global warming skeptic impugning the person, there is a corresponding motive on the global warming side. For instance, "you're in the pocket of the oil companies" corresponds to the anti-industrialists above, who will fight industry in any form.
And that's not even a complete list.
The issue has become extremely politicized, and I personally am not at all confident the science has survived the process. Science may be impersonal and rational, but the actual scientists are all political animals themselves and not immune to any of this, or even especially resistant.
Re:Freedom and Liberty (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially in Washington these days, every issue is a seen not as an opportunity to find the truth or fix a problem but as a club with which to attack the opposition. So if some research looks more likely to be compatible with one's views than others, guess which is more likely to be funded?
It's not just global warming - it's any issue. The science is simply another weapon in the political arsenal, to be discarded when it's inconvenient.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Freedom and Liberty (Score:5, Informative)
Did you know that the Bush administration has barred climate researchers working for the government from speaking directly to the press? And that press releases, statements, or publicly released research on any climate matter must pass through the White House first, where they are essentially rewritten?
Maybe you should tune into 60 minutes more often [cbsnews.com].
---Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet." Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.
Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality." Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney." Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.
Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes "may be undergoing change." "Uncertainty" becomes "significant remaining uncertainty." One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.
"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout." ----
Re:Uh, right. (Score:3)
We permit all parties from conducting research today, don't we? There's nothing preventing pro-green, pro-oil and neutral parties from performing these studies.
Nobody is stopping these non-governmental organizations from doing this research, and federal funding doesn't prevent private money from funding this research. At least not directly [1].
And I would argue, the oil bu
Oh, now there's an unbiased opinion. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Oh, now there's an unbiased opinion. (Score:3, Informative)
Compeltely ignoring what he has to say and dismissing his claims as false based on your reason is, by definition, ad hominem [wikipedia.org], and maybe even worse, guilt-by-association. It has no place in a rational discussion. It's a useful tool to question the credibility before investing intellectual energy in learning about an
Political science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Political science (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Political science (Score:5, Interesting)
The science opposing global warming is "suppressed" by peer review in prestigious journals.
You can easily figure out from that one where the scientific community stands on the issue.
(Note that his complaint isn't even that these people can't publish their work at all, it's that it's hard to publish these results in the most prestigious journals. That's kind of like saying that your human rights are being violated because Britney Spears refuses to date you.)
There are very few dissenters... (Score:3, Interesting)
Greenhouse Denial Industry (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Greenhouse Denial Industry (Score:5, Interesting)
Here's the way it works:
1. You say "hey, this thing is more complex than we thought, let's try to understand it"
2. Your are labeled an "enemy of the planet" by those who review grant money
3. You get no further funding
4. You go to the sources that WILL fund your research
5. Because you are now backed by evil corporations your are branded a stooge
6. Your peers ignore your data and input
Isn't it great how we're not surpressing anyone's research?
PS: "enemy of the planet" is a direct quote from those reviewing funding for a friend of mine who was in solar astrophysics at the time. His lab had dared to propose a model by which the sun could power observed warming.
Re:Greenhouse Denial Industry (Score:3, Insightful)
Logical Fallacy # 1: Poisoning the Well
linky:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/poisonin g -the-well.html [nizkor.org]
Logical Fallacy # 2: Guilt By Association
linky:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/guilt-by- association.html [nizkor.org]
Both are particularly amusing due to your choice of link to "prove" your point.
Make the requirements to vote the same as to own a gun.
Simply go to the polling place, fill out a Form 4473 [atf.gov], show your ID [aclu.org], and the poll worker will check with the FBI database [fbi.gov] t
So government funding is the only truth allowed? (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering the track record of some of the Global Warming advocates and their actions I have
Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing funding (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing fund (Score:3, Insightful)
Instead of rebutting the facts of their science, climatogogists that don't hold global warming alarmist views are critisized for their funding. Where else is a climatologist supposed to get funding if they don't stand with the majority on this?
Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack ag
Re:Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing fund (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent post said, this information is not accurate; these supposed pariah scientists are quite well-compensated for their research.
This post says parent post does not rebut the science, but engages in ad hominem attacks. Then it says, "Real believers in global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refute those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded."
Of course, all of this was a discussion on funding, and discussing the science is (strangely) an attempt to distract from the issue actually at hand. Real opponents of global warming should welcome contrary views and science as an opportunity to refuse those views and strengthen their own. Instead it's an attack against how they are funded. (In this case, against their government funding.)
Re:Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing fund (Score:3, Insightful)
This cycle perpetuates itself, and we only end up hearing half of the story.
Re:Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing fund (Score:4, Insightful)
So, I'm afraid that I'm not receiving adequate government research dollars for my proposal on demonstrating that babies are delivered by storks.
As far as I can tell, any of the arguments used to defend anti-Global-Warming scientists can apply equally well to my babies-come-from-storks argument. Saying that the discussion isn't "balanced" and that we need to "teach the debate" or "show both sides" is what you say when you don't have arguments that are strong enough to convince your opponents in debate.
I'd like to keep an open mind on the issue of climate change, but the proponents of no-climate-crisis have failed to convince me, or pretty much anyone else. I'm not sure why we should continue to fund them. Saying that they're not getting their fair say isn't much of an argument.
Re:Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing fund (Score:3, Insightful)
Therefore, the poster you are attempting to discredit is quite right. The issue is not necessarily the funding of Lindzen, but the issues he raises
Re:Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing fund (Score:5, Interesting)
EdGCM [columbia.edu] is a NASA GCM that has been ported to run on Mac and Windows, and given a GUI interface. Want to turn the sun down by 2% or add some CO2? Just point and click and drag. Then, hit play, wait a day or two, and you'll have your own GCM outputs, complete with a visualization utility to view them with.
Intelligent Design all over again (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, it's not professional to call peers "alarmists", especially if you want respect from them. Scientists are usually if anything very reserved about stating an opinion, so I'm highly skeptical of scientists willing to immediately and simply label a broad class of their peers as "alarmists". It might explain why these guys are getting their funding yanked and such. Second, just like "Darwinism" isn't a theory but proven fact- global warming, the fact that humans are causing it, and that we had better do something very quickly or we'll be fucked- is all widely accepted. We have decades of research and evidence, like glacial "records" going back more than long enough to show the planet has never seen anything like us humans, climate-wise. Or evidence that on September 11th, when the FAA grounded planes across the country, the weather patterns changed dramatically.
It's widely accepted that pretending we're not having a massive effect on our planet's climate is the exact opposite of "alarmism"- it's sticking your head in the sand and hoping the lion's gone away.
We have an administration which forbids government scientists from speaking with press, and requires all climate-related press releases to be routed directly through the whitehouse, where they are absolutely gutted? (really. 60 minutes got photocopies of the press releases and reports, after they'd been scribbled all over by white house staff.)
So in one corner, we have a bunch of disgruntled scientists claiming they're being marginalized for taking an unpopular view. And on the other hand, we have scientists being gagged and censored by the Bush administration for presenting valid evidence that the climate is seriously fucked up.
Yeah, I'm really going to loose sleep over the head-in-the-sand people getting to be "unpopular"...
Bad Article (Score:3, Insightful)
Who Cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't lose sleep knowing corporate advocates are being suppressed. I wish every corporate advocate would drown in a lake of their own vomit actually.
As far as legitimate scientists being falsely labelled as corporate stooges, there's really no justification for claiming that global warming isn't a sound theory. Flatly dismissing the impact of human polutants on global warming is like driving the Titanic into icebergs because some tool labelled her 'unsinkable'.
I don't understand what the fuzz is about. (Score:3, Insightful)
He actually agrees with all of them.
The only thing he disagrees with is whether this is caused by civilization.
Now, in the last IPCC report (THE source for the scientific consensus, at least of the one attacked by Lindzen in this article), it is said that human activities are "likely" the cause of global warming. Not "certainly", but "likely". Even on an earth that is getting hot, I can't see how this is suppressing the view that humans may not be the cause of global warming.
In fact, the only thing he is attacking with any substance are the casual, frequently overheard claims that the recent increase in storms, tornados etc. is caused by global warming. Well, that's a straw-man as far as I am concerned. I have never heard this a scientific claim, just as an informal "could well be" answer e.g. by meteorologist in reply to question by journalists.
Re:I don't understand what the fuzz is about. (Score:3, Insightful)
scientific arrogance (Score:3, Insightful)
I applaud Nature and Science in "suppressing" people like Lindzen--they simply don't have anything to say that I care about anymore, and I suspect that's true for the majority of readers of those journals. As far as I'm concerned, reducing CO2 emissions has so many other economic, political, and environmental benefits that this is simply not an interesting debate anymore; arguments like Lindzen's should be relegated to obscure journals.
Whatever boat you happen to be in... (Score:5, Interesting)
There is something that he points out (in a roundabout way) that needs to be said: There is a lot of bad science going on in this debate. Both sides.
Now, granted, I'm a lowly Ph.D. student in Atmospheric Sciences studying hurricanes... what would I know about this, right? (Yes, that's slightly sarcastic.)
"Science" and "Nature" are hack journals nowadays. The only reason that one publishes in those is for publicity. Pure and simple. I haven't seen an article pertaining to atmospheric science come through there that I haven't been able to poke significant holes in for years now. (I speak mainly for atmospheric science articles in those journals. Other articles may be fine... I don't know.)
The real science happens in the less-public journals. And, believe it or not, the actual science always leads to more questions than answers. There are details that aren't covered in science news coverage that are vital to making valid conclusions in these issues. But, the nature of the "publish-or-perish" funding makes careful science difficult to do.
So, we're left with more questions than answers. Look at Dr. Denning's carbon cycle findings ( http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/globalcarbonc
I'm not claiming that the scientists in this debate are bad scientists... I'm claiming that they're getting caught up in a problem that is so incredibly complex that we're far from having a more-than-cursory handle on. A lot of this is pioneering work... and even pioneers in sciences can get things wrong or not understand everything (how many refinements of Einstein's relativity theory have there been in the last couple decades, for example?).
It's not just about politics or philosophy or science or anything like that. It's seeing the maturation of a whole discipline of science. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that alarmists may be taking things too far. Lindzen is completely right in claiming that there are politics involved here. He may be off-base in a number of points, but cooler heads will prevail eventually. This is an exciting time to watch all this... it's like our generation's relativity (20's and 30's) or nuclear chemistry (late-40's to 60's).
Those who are getting up in arms about all this... settle down. Seriously. Your hyperventilations are only speeding up the global warming process!
-Jellisky
Re:Whatever boat you happen to be in... (Score:4, Insightful)
If YOU have significant holes to poke, publish them! Don't worry about an academic journal, get a blog. If you are worried about it affecting your own chances for funding and positions, then create an anonymous blog. Get the word out, make them responsible for their holes. If you don't, you are just as culpable as they in letting incorrect findings stand for future generations of research to assume and thus come to incorrect or irreconcilable findings.
You might think that's someone else's job because you are "just" a Ph.D. student, but because of your specialist knowledge, there probably isn't hardly anyone else. The number of people with your knowledge of climatology is probably a few thousand worldwide or less. If you don't do it, no one will, and the rest of us will just be taken for fools because we don't have the knowledge to rebut.
Re:Whatever boat you happen to be in... (Score:4, Insightful)
The thing about global warming is that the theory is sound, even if unprovable. The consequences are huge. And there are other consequences to the large amount of CO2 production like the death of all molluscs which we might consider (see ocean acidification http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification [wikipedia.org])
People get all caught up in defending their lifestyle, by poking holes in another's argument. They're so caught up in defending themselves that they forget they're just dead wrong. I call these people apologists.
Sorta like the guy who slept with my wife back before she and I split up. I of course didn't know about it (gettin' played is no fun at all). But what irked me is that he kept telling me to my face how great he thought my relationship was and then when it fell apart said it was doomed to failure from the start. He was one of the reasons it failed, but denied it. Sorta like all the people driving SUV's sitting in gridlock traffic on the highway. In 20 years they'll say it was all inevitable. People are so funny I could cry.
Re:Whatever boat you happen to be in... (Score:5, Interesting)
There IS some quality data out there, but a lot of it just is not that great. And much of the really great data hasn't been accumulated long enough to really show long-term trends, since it has only been collected in the last 10-20 years. A lot of the issues in the field of climate are just being brought up and handled. That's why I said that it's an exciting time to be watching this field closely. Climatologists are just beginning to get some clout and truly innovative and solid ideas in the last couple decades. It's a field that is maturing literally in front of our eyes. In about a decade or two, we should have a lot more understanding as to how the climate system is working. And a lot of that will just come from the better data that will have some time to accumulate. And from some incredible ideas and great minds.
Read up on many science history books... you'll see the parallel sort of issues between the growth of current climate change science and other sciences as they began to mature. This is a rough, rough period with a lot of conflicting ideas, philosophies, and beliefs. But, it's exciting to watch and be a part of! Eventually, we'll understand what's happening better. Until then, enjoy the ride! I know I am.
-Jellisky
Global warming based on statistical ridiculousness (Score:5, Interesting)
Let's face it, religious zealots have been calling for the End of the World since the beginning of time and now Scientific zealots are getting into the act.
What's really funny is that when I was a kid the real weather scare was the coming Ice Age. What happen to those Ice Age zealots anyway? Probably driven underground by the latest "Sky is Falling" group known as the Global Warming evangelists.
I'm so sick of the press reporting on predictions of idiots from idiot scientists to idiot psychics as if they were fact and then never following up when most of these nutballs are wrong.
I guess the press doesn't want to report on the failings of these wackjobs since the press was the ones who gave them credence in the first damn place.
We had Y2K in our industry and look how many billions were spent on something that we all knew was a bunch of BS. Many people post rationalized that the reason nothing bad happened was because something was done. But these people were part of the problem and don't want to admit to their bosses that huge amounts of money didn't need to be spent. And if you don't believe me, just look at the countries that didn't spend the money we did. No doomsday for them even though very little was done.
Global warming is going to follow the same stupid path. Tomorrow there will be a new threat and billions will be spent on that problem, meanwhile we'll be paying $10.00 / gallon for gas and no one will be solving the real problems.
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA
Re:Right (Score:3, Insightful)
OR work go to business school and make 250,000 your first year out of college.
I'm sure the world's climate scientists are all just in it for the money.
Re:Right (Score:5, Insightful)
I dunno. How many global-warming ignorers are on the right?
Re:Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh wait...what's that link in your sig? What pathetic irony.
Re:Right (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Right (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps if we stopped wasting our energy we could help change it ?
Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Funny)
I am 100% on the side of the global warming crowd. The way I see it, if global warming does happen, I will be able to score points by telling everyone "I told you so." If it doesn't happen, I can claim that I saved the planet.
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Insightful)
There really isn't any doubt that the Earth has warmed up over the last 25 years. There is also no doubt that some of the basic parameters of our climatological system have changed.
We need to find out how much of the global warming that we have seen is due to our activities. It might be 10%. It might be 90%. We just don't know. It might even be 100% natural.
We need to determine how far the warming will go. At what point will it slow down or even reverse itself? It really doesn't matter at all whether or not we are the cause.
We need to find out whether or not we can slow it down or even stop it as well as how to do that.
Finally, we need to determine, based on the other factors, whether or not we should even try to slow it down or stop it. The benefits of global warming, up to a reasonable point, may outweigh the downside.
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Informative)
Many scientists are saying just that, on many grant applications. And probably not because they enjoy working on the ice in Greenland.
Zealots are the ones who make the headlines. The headlines don't have room for the grad student testing ways to correct for the urban heat island effect or for the PhD measuring prehistoric shellfish.
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Informative)
You should explain that you're counting water vapor, which I assume is the reason for that 0.5% figure when the postindustrial rise in CO2 is 30% (280 ppm -> 364 ppm).
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wouldn't you count water vapor? If you're talking about "greenhouse gasses," why would there be an assumption that water vapor "doesn't count?"
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:4, Informative)
Why pick 1998?
Because it was the year of a record-for-the-century El Nino and was above the trend line. Pick an exceptionally hot year as a baseline and next few years will have trouble keeping up. It's like starting with 1999 and concluding that the Internet industry is dying.
Here's the temperature data year by year and as a 5-year moving average [nasa.gov].
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Interesting)
Paleoclimate research is about the past, and 'past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results', especially when you've got people mucking around with the variables.
Is Prof. Carter even qualified to discuss what may or may not happen in the future? His specialty is the deep past....
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Informative)
Michael Crichton is a novelist.
Re:copied from his official bio (Score:4, Insightful)
and his publications in peer reviewed journals are where exactly?
Do they have to do with climate?
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Interesting)
Great, at least one moderator doesn't know what "noise" on a curve is.
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Insightful)
Infact the mini ice age was the result of this and the gulf stream died down for several centuries during the late middle ages.
The gulf stream has slowed down by as much as %30 which would certainly explain the temperature decrease in western europe and that is quite serious
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Insightful)
Our current understanding is that greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide (whether they come from natural events or from industrial activity) are the driving force behind the warming. Lately (since the Industrial Revolution) we've been pumping ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Trying to argue that we shouldn't be concerned about industrial greenhouse gasses because carbon dioxide variations o
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Te mperature_Record.png [wikipedia.org]
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhsh gl.gif [uea.ac.uk]
Its kind of like my dog who hides his eyes and thinks you don't see him.
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, that position is not without its critics. There is evidence to suggest that the way the data was collected was not adjusted for changes in the technology they used to gather it, and when it was collected -- specifically, how the heat-shielding to rule out the effects of sunlight warming has been improved over time without that being factored into the analysis.
This blog [blogspot.com] gives a nice summary of what happened, as well as a bunch of relevant links. (The author [utoronto.ca] is an astrophysicist, so he's not without some ability to read science papers and follow the math.)
From this article [economist.com]:
In short, since the heat shielding on the measuring devices became more effective, the daytime measurements were skewed downward, while the nighttime readings showed a warming trend.
So if the improved technology skews the data, you need to look a little harder at the way the data was generated.
This issue is by no means settled, but what you cite is one possible interpretation which may not fully fit the inherent issues in the way the data was collected.
Cheers.
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Blowing Hot Air (Score:5, Informative)
RC is one resource for forming an opinion- but they seem a bit like using the Catholic Church as reference for deciding if Christ existed or not.
Facts are... Mars and other objects in the solar system are warming up too, there is correlation between the arms of the galaxy and past climate fluctuation, the climate -has- been hotter and colder than it is now without our doing anything and
Re:None conformist (Score:3, Informative)
Re:None conformist (Score:3, Funny)
Indeed. Several bushes near the Altamont Pass wind farm turned into ice cream sundaes, and some of the rocks became chocolate chip cookies.
Re:None conformist (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, that was completely out of the blue (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Other way round, surely (Score:3, Funny)
Global warming went back in time and convinced the founders of New Orleans to build on a coastal swamp below sea level and not to reinforce their levees?
No wonder people are afraid. That's powerful!
Re:Other way round, surely (Score:5, Insightful)
What a cesspool of nonsense. The first city lost to global warming? I'm pretty sure it was lost to a hurricane. Do you have proof that global warming causes hurricanes? Did you read the article where he goes on to describe the HUGE debate in the science community about whether global warming would produce STRONGER or WEAKER hurricanes? There is no consensus that hurricanes are getting stronger because of global warming. You are literally making that up.
Next you go ont to say "Sounds to me like people who don't believe in it are still winning". Guess what, genius... he states.. repeatedly... the earth is WARMING. He "believes" in global warming as much as I believe in your ability to read (and your ability to choose not to). What he argues is the effect it will have on the climate, and it's actual cause.
Real scientists don't make dumb statements implying that global warming caused Katrina. That's idiot-babble. No real scientists that I know of declare that global warming doesn't exist. For the 927th time in the history of this topic on slashdot, I have to correct some ignoramus who is modded up to +5 because he doesn't understand the scientific debate between the existence and the cause of global warming. And lets not even pretend that science can hope to predict the effect of global warming in the long-term future.
It is people precisely like you that make it so easy for right-wing to keep parrading out the same strawman and striking them down. You are arguing with people who haven't existed in 20 years. Get your facts straight, read the articles, and then think for at least 45 seconds about what you want to say before parroting this same tired old tripe that is easily refuted. It's ridiculous.
Jesus Tapdancing Christ.
Re:New Orleans is sinking (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but exactly whose rectum did you retrieve those numbers from? I've never seen any such study,
Re:New Orleans is sinking (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry, but if I take a cup and heat it up with ten times the energy I used before to cause a few bubbles, I'm not going to be surprised when it bubbles like roiling boil this time.
Yes, but I'd be very surprised if it spawned a little hurricane.
- AJ
Re:Possibly (Score:3, Interesting)
Ocean surface temperature under a hurricane determines it's maximum possible strength - it's also a generial indicator of it's probable strength. As ocean surface temperatures rise that creates larger areas with higher levels of potential energy, and temperatures above the minimum to hold enough potential energy to spawn hurricanes (about 80F) last for more in the year.
So as t
Re:Possibly (Score:3, Informative)
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.h
Re:Possibly (Score:4, Funny)
And it coincides with man's activities on Mars! Aha, more proof!
Re:Suppression does happen. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is hardly the position of MIT as an institution. It is a single MIT professor's opinion.
Are you suggesting that it is disgraceful for MIT to employ professors who don't blindly parrot the majority opinion on scientific and political issues?
Do they even talk about the same thing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Moreover, there are three separate questions:
I don't have answers, and serious scientists are very cautious too. Good data is too scarse, and too much money is involved for rational debate.
Most debates on the subject don't even acknowledge the existence of these separate questions, so how can they even be constructive? Both sides end up yelling at each other, but they aren't talking about the same thing.
They're not heretics, they're ignoring the science (Score:3, Funny)
I mean think about it, we don't even look like a plate of spaghetti, our heads don't look like meatballs, obviously we weren't created in His image.
And just as obviously, Global Warming is all a result of the severe lack of Pirates [venganza.org] today.
Now, wake up and smell the lack of Pirates. Get crackin, matey!
Re:Honestly (Score:3, Insightful)
It is NOT being accepting to give all viewpoints equal weight. If you told me that gravity was created by invisible gnomes pouring out anti-wedgies that held me down to earth by the seat of my pants, I'd have no problem telling you that you're an idiot for believing it.
"Creationism is a completely valid viewpoint, and so is evolution. They're both *possible*."
One is way more possible than the other. I'll take the one that has a mountain of verifiable scientific
Is this a joke?! (Score:3, Insightful)
Too fucking bad! Tired of gravity being 9.8m/s2 too or the Earth revolving around the Sun? There's scientific knowledge, which adheres to a specific set of criteria and not-scientific knowledge, which is what doesn't adhere to that criteria. Either adhere to the criteria or hit the highway, that's how science works. Change that and it's not science.
Hating on conservatives because of your prejudice against all of them being
Re:What a bunch of carp (Score:5, Informative)
"...And for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/newsroom/20050920a.h
Re:What a bunch of carp (Score:3)
That would probably be increased solar output. However, increased solar activity can only possibly account for a tiny fraction of observed global warming on the earth.
Selective Rigor (Score:4, Insightful)
But three years of poorly uunderstood changes in ice cap size on mars is definitive evidence of solar-system wide warming, which disproves anthropogenic warming on earth..
Sheesh, people. Think!!!!
Re:What a bunch of carp (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, here you go [realclimate.org].
A few cut and pasted highlights:
In short - you can't use Mars as proof/disproof of global warming on Earth.
Re:The politics of science (Score:4, Informative)
While the cheapest way to increase MPG is to use less metal, you're discounting the research into more efficient engines and lighter but stronger construction materials and techniques, plus technology that helps reduce the risk of collision in the first place.
let each individual focus on what they believe in.
For the past several millenia (at least), people have tried as hard as they can to believe in as little as possible. Part of the problem is education, part is apathy, and part are just assholes who believe it's their god-given right to use other people's property as their trash dump.
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Informative)
It's hard to think of more obvious logical fallacies, but hey. For the first point (ignoring the ad hominim), my Jetta is safe [iihs.org] in a collision... and I get 42-45 mpg on the
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Insightful)
We' not talking about lifespan, but quality of life. Driving around in a car and working in a factory is not what has allowed the lifespan to creep up to near 80. It is, first and foremost, antibiotics and immunizations. Secondly, it is *regulation* -- in the form of clean municipal water that doesn't have cholera in it, fire codes that prevent people dying in exitless factories and fires that run rampant across cities, people fal
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Insightful)
Could this possibly be because there are neither "anti-global warming facts" nor "pro-global warming facts"? There are only facts (and data, but the two are rarely the same). Everything else is interpretation - but the vast majority of scientists who are actively working on interpreting the facts say that rap
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Insightful)
Only if your definition of "more fuel efficient" is "replace every Lincoln Navigator with a Daewoo Lanos". Score: -1, appeal to ridicule.
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps this is true about the public's perception of global warming, but there is a lot of data behind global warming. It's fair to argue that people's models are wrong, or that the data points to a different set of conclusions than global warming (or more accurately global climate change), but there is a fair bit of real science to this stuff.
Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations
Methinks someone's be swallowing too much propoganda. G
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Informative)
You've got the good old tyme free market religion my friend. How about getting some facts?
According to the Statistical Abstract of the United States [census.gov], total R&D spending by the U.S. government was $85.2 billion of the total $283.8 billion spent - 30% of the total in 2003. Compare that figure to 1970 (57%), 1980 (47%), 1990 (40%), and 2000 (25%). As you can see, "With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars" can only reasonably be applied from the period 2000-2003 and it does not
Re:The politics of science (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The politics of science (Score:3, Insightful)
That makes no sense. Preventing people from harming each other is a well-established reason for government intervention. If I start a chemical factory in my back yard, and it leaks and poisons my neighbors, people will probably say, "Gee, the government should have done somethi