Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Education Science

Humans are Causing Global Warming 1342

Posted by Zonk
from the we-know dept.
Big_Al_B writes "A Times Online article discusses a new study comparing 7 million real world datapoints with several computer models of global warming. Each model had a possible cause associated with it." From the article: "It found that natural variation in the Earth's climate, or changes in solar activity or volcanic eruptions, which have been suggested as alternative explanations for rising temperatures, could not explain the data collected in the real world. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Humans are Causing Global Warming

Comments Filter:
  • Flame Away! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stinerman (812158) <nathan.stine@gmai[ ]om ['l.c' in gap]> on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:02PM (#11713241) Homepage
    Both sides of the debate are too set in their thoughts that no amount of data will change their opinions.
    • Re:Flame Away! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by A beautiful mind (821714) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:07PM (#11713319)
      Well, depends what kind of side are you talking about. If about scientists, i think the majority of scientists claim global warming is happening and it's likely to be caused by humans.

      If you're talking about common people, well, it's mostly the fault of the media which covers the issue as if there would be two equal sides in the story.

      Personally, i'm always willing to see facts, if they are facts for real, from both sides. It doesn't mean i'm going to accept those facts without challenging them.
      • Re:Flame Away! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Kainaw (676073) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:26PM (#11713605) Homepage Journal
        If about scientists, i think the majority of scientists claim global warming is happening and it's likely to be caused by humans.

        The phrase "caused by humans" is dangerous to use in this topic. It implies that global warming is directly caused by humans. However, many scientists believe that global warming is indirectly caused by humans. For instance, we eat a lof beef, so we raise a lot of cows. The cows fart and burp a lot - creating greenhouse gasses. Then we get global warming.
        • Re:Flame Away! (Score:3, Informative)

          Yeah. I generally ment it as caused by humanity taking part in activities which is not observed in any other biologically formed communities which directly or indirectly causes environmental problems. Or something :)
        • The cows fart and burp a lot - creating greenhouse gasses. Then we get global warming.

          Well I fart and burp alot too. Certainly they can't be thinking about getting rid of..skjd+++NO CARRIER
        • by Phronesis (175966) on Friday February 18, 2005 @05:40PM (#11717089)
          The phrase "caused by humans" is dangerous to use in this topic. It implies that global warming is directly caused by humans.

          This is silly. A significant majority of anthropogenic climate forcing is due to CO2 produced directly by burning fossil fuels.

          Indirect contributions to CO2, such as deforestation is very small in comparison. This can be seen by observing that during the 18th and 19th centuries, deforesting large areas of North America caused a measurable, but very small increase in atmospheric CO2. Burning fossil fuels in the 20th century caused a large increase in CO2 levels. There are several ways to tell where the carbon is coming from: isotope analysis shows that most of the additional carbon is old on the scale of the carbon 13 lifetime, so it has not come from organic material formed in the last couple of hundred thousand years. Second, the timing and magnitude of the increase coincides directly with the growth of fossil fuel use and not with any other anthropogenic or natural phenomenon.

          Methane gets a lot of press, but it only lives for a decade in the atmosphere before it's oxidized, whereas carbon dioxide has a much longer lifetime (around a century) so it poses a much greater threat.

          Even if we consider methane, cow farts are only a small fraction of total anthropogenic methane emissions.

        • by idlake (850372) on Friday February 18, 2005 @07:22PM (#11718142)
          These analyses are based on detailed models of the atmosphere, and those most certainly take into account the different contributions of CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gases. So, scientists can very much distinguish which gases are primarily responsible for causing global warming.

          If cow farts were responsible for global warming, Kyoto would be a treaty on cow farts. Furthermore, methane has a short half life in the atmosphere, that would be really swell. Likewise, if deforestation were responsible for global warming, all the more reason to stop deforestation.

          Unfortunatly for everybody concerned, it's easy to tell that cow farts are not the primary cause of global warming, CO2 is. CO2 has a long atmospheric half life, which means that we will have to live with the consequences of our stupidity for centuries.

          In fact, what climate models really show is that other human activity (e.g., particulate emissions) has so far probably masked the full extent of global warming, so that things may actually already be further advanced than they appear based on our actual climate measurements. (And, in case you are wondering, we can't continue activities contributing to this masking effect because it has been killing huge numbers of people already.)
    • by savagedome (742194) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:07PM (#11713324)
      Both sides are missing the point that George Carlin bought up and I have mentioned it previously. The Earth is warming itself up because it needs to get rid of us. We were here to deliver plastic and that need is satisfied already.

      "The earth doesn't share our prejudice towards plastic...plastic came out of the earth, the earth probably sees plastic as just another one of its children...could be the only reason the earth allowed us to be spawned from it in the first place: it wanted plastic for itself, didn't know how to make it, needed us. Could be the answer to our age-old philosophical question...why are we here? plastic, assholes"
    • Re:Flame Away! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by schtum (166052)
      QOTD:
      "The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over,
      at least for rational people." (emphasis added)
      Why do I get the feeling I'm going to be modded flamebait even though that's a direct quote from the article?
    • Not really. (Score:3, Insightful)

      Both sides of the debate are too set in their thoughts that no amount of data will change their opinions.

      Not really.

      I, for instance, have been a major skeptic on the "humans caused it all" claims. In part this has been because of claims that the global warming models don't match the data, while other explanations fit much better.

      For instance: It's well known that we're on our way out of an ice age and haven't yet gotten to the between-ice-ages temperature. Solar variations have been measured that cor
  • Wow (Score:3, Funny)

    by RonUSMC (823230) <RonUSMC@ g m a i l . com> on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:02PM (#11713251)
    and I thought it was the crab people that was the cause of it all.
  • And... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gustgr (695173) <rondina@gmail.cFREEBSDom minus bsd> on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#11713281) Homepage
    Despite that the US the has not signed the Kyoto treaty [yet].
    • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by scmason (574559) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:15PM (#11713444) Homepage
      And that is really disgusting considering the fact that we are the worlds #1 producer of CO2. The response I heard to this yesterday was that we can't because it would cost us jobs if we had to slow down on energy consumption. Isn't it funny how the conservatives can selectively decide when they care about jobs? I mean, so what if IT jobs are being outsourced over seas, according to Bush during the debates, he will enact some programs to help us get retrained at 'community colleges'. !
    • Re:And... (Score:5, Informative)

      by 3waygeek (58990) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:16PM (#11713467)
      Actually, President Clinton signed the Kyoto treaty in 1998 [bard.edu]. However, under the US Constitution, all treaties must be ratified by a two-thirds vote of the Senate [senate.gov] -- no such vote has ever been scheduled, because there's not enough Senate support for the treaty.

      In 2001, President Bush "withdrew" the US signature on the Kyoto treaty -- I have no idea if such a withdrawal is legitimate, not that it matters much.
    • Re:And... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by RobotRunAmok (595286) * on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:19PM (#11713518)
      Because global warming can only be stemmed through the wacky anti-US industry restrictions of the Kyoto Treaty?

      Dude, being anti-Kyoto treaty doesn't necessarily make one anti-environment, although the media would have one believe so (It's in their best interests to dumb down complex issues into a 22-minute Captain Planet cartoon). Pull that Matrix-plug-thingie out of the base of your neck and do your own thinking on this one.
    • It is not worth the paper it is written on. If a treaty's goal is to reduce greenhouse emissions and other pollution then why does it create system to buy or sell the right to pollute? That one part alone makes this treaty trash.

      Worse two of the bigger economies, economies driven by industries that pollute heavyily, of China and India essentially immune to it?

      Also, by 2012 when the treaty comes up for renewal what happens when no one meets their goals? Both Canada and Japan don't have real plans to mee
  • by chia_monkey (593501) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#11713286) Journal
    Humans cause global warming? Get out! Next they'll say "humans cause polution" and other cockamany "problems".
  • Wha?!? (Score:5, Funny)

    by SmokeHalo (783772) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#11713287)
    No way!!! And all this time I was blaming the sun...

    Sorry Sol.
  • Old news (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pi_0's don't shower (741216) <[ude.nretsewhtron.psi] [ta] [nahte]> on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#11713289) Homepage Journal
    Even the Bush White House has said over six months ago that humans are responsible for global warming [newscientist.com]. Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...
    • Re:Old news (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:23PM (#11713563)
      Unfortunately, there are many people who will refuse to let your overwhelming evidence influence their dogma...

      You are right on. This is true on both sides of this issue, and many others. Much of the problem, I believe, has to do with the manner in which we discuss these issues. Looking over the previous posts on this page, you will see a number of posts that are knee-jerk reactions from both camps. THESE DO NOT HELP ANYBODY.

      When a story like this comes a long, the first thing we should all be thinking is how the computer model works, what data it uses, how accurate/inaccurate the data is, etc... That is where the discussion should start. Then tell people WHY you think what you think WITHOUT INSULTING THEM if possible.

      On an encouraging note, there are already quite a few posts that do argue ideas without hurling politically loaded accusations. To the authors of those posts: I salute you.
  • An idea (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gowen (141411) <gwowen@gmail.com> on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:05PM (#11713291) Homepage Journal
    Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is a myth perpertrated by scientists after funding money, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things :

    i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves
    ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic
    iii) How a western boundary current is formed
    iv) What Meddies are.
    v) What a pycnocline is.

    If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion.
    • Re:An idea (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kenja (541830) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:12PM (#11713401)
      "If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics, and you're not smart, you're just recycling someone else's opinion."

      No, it just shows that you know how to use Google.

      i) The propagation mechanism for Rossby Waves [soton.ac.uk]
      ii) The primary sources of deep water formation in the Atlantic [usc.edu]
      iii) How a western boundary current is formed [iugg.org]
      iv) What Meddies are. [xs4all.nl]
      v) What a pycnocline is. [noaa.gov]

      • Re:An idea (Score:3, Insightful)

        by jbridge21 (90597)
        If you can't, you don't know anything about climate dynamics

        No, it just shows that you know how to use Google.

        First poster did not claim that positively answering those questions makes one an expert... merely that not answering them makes one definitely not an expert. Get yer logic straight.
    • Re:An idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sjwaste (780063) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:28PM (#11713632)
      I don't see people disputing global warming here, they're disputing the validity of the model. That's a completely different thing. Maybe you'd like to tell me (or google) how one goes about detecting seasonal effects, correcting for them, and the final effects on statistical significance? That's the real argument here, not whether or not global warming is happening and who's causing it. I might very well believe humans are the direct cause, and I'm not saying I do or dont because its irrelevant here. What I and others are suggesting is that the model falls into a statistical "grey area" as far as methods go, mostly due to lack of proper data.
    • Re:An idea (Score:3, Insightful)

      Before stating how you believe that Global Warming is a myth perpertrated by scientists after funding money, demonstrate your knowledge of the area by describing, briefly, the three of the following five things:

      -sigh- the question isn't what we know about climate, the question is what we DON'T know about climate, which exceeds by a wide margin what we do know.

      The problem isn't what I know or don't know, it's the fact that climate scientists are arrogant and, frankly, foolish enough to try and claim that

  • by Sanity (1431) * on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:06PM (#11713304) Homepage Journal
    ...understand that most people outside the US view the refusal to accept that human activity causes global warming in much the same way that many within the US view the creationist argument against the teaching of the theory of evolution?

    I mean, it isn't even a topic of debate outside the US, people accept it as fact.

    • by Badgerman (19207) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:14PM (#11713430)
      As an Ameircan, I feel our culture has gotten more anti-intellectual and anti-scientific as of late (or pseudo-scientific). Intellectual analysis and science often come to unpleasant conclusions, especially those butting heads with cherished beliefs.

      Also, frankly, people will throw money at a problem before dealing with the discoveries surrounding it. Thus many people don't take care of themselves, and end up paying higher medical bills, for instance.

    • "Do people in the US...understand that most people..."

      It has nothing to do with what the people believe; it's what the government does.

      If the current administration refuses to change their position on the matter; there's almost nothing the people can do about it for another 4 years.

      I've accepted it as fact, and I doubt I'm alone on that...

      I think the question I have is: "Do people outside the US realize that the US Gov't is not necessarily representative of the consensus of its people?"
    • Outside of the US, global warming is a religion.

      http://www.gravito.com/globalwarming [gravito.com]

      The above website is my own.
  • by cmpalmer (234347) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:08PM (#11713340) Homepage
    http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches _quote04.html/ [crichton-official.com]

    Interesting speech by Michael Crichton on whether global warming is science or politics and what the difference is. Highly recommended no matter what side you are on.

    Of course, who wants to be on the side of ignoring or supporting the widespread destruction of the planet by humans? Therein likes the rub...
    • by IvyMike (178408) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:33PM (#11713731)
      The scientists at RealClimate.org [realclimate.org] have posted several articles examining the science in Cricton's new book, and also posted an detailed examinination of Crichton's speech [realclimate.org] mentioned above. I highly recommend the article, but if you're too lazy to click through, here's their conclusion:
      We find it disappointing that a prominent individual such as Crichton did not take greater care in acquainting himself with all of the facts before making such rather inflammatory public pronouncements as those detailed above.

      Also worth reading is their original article examining the science in State of Fear [realclimate.org].
      • by Loundry (4143) on Friday February 18, 2005 @04:36PM (#11716360) Journal
        I think the reason that your post was modded so highly is because you posted the conclusion that so many people want to hear, which is, essentially, "Chrichton is sloppy at best, mendacious at worst for daring question the Truth about global warming." But, as with so many things, the devil's in the details.

        You labeled RealClimate.org's critique as a "detailed examination." But was it really that detailed? I read it, and it seems to me that they are only able to raise three objections, which I will detail here (easy, since there are only three):

        1. Chricton claims, "No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality."

        - RealClimate.org responds with, "Crichton should know that this assertion is false. He cites in the 'bibliography' at the end of his book, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But he appears unaware, for example..." and then gives examples of models which, in their opinion, do, in fact, model data from the real world.

        * Even if what they write is true, it's not enough to disprove Chrichton's claim. Read what he wrote: "increasingly, models provide the data." In order for them to show falsehood, they would have to show that the phenomenon he bemoans is actually decreasing in frequency or, at best, happening at the same rate. Merely providing examples in the way they did is not sufficient to make Chrichton's claim false. Strike one.

        2. Chricton claims, "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?"

        - RealClimate.org droops to mockery and replies, "Crichton then goes on to make the classic error of confusing 'weather' and 'climate' ... As we in this line of research are fond of pointing out to students in our introductory classes, 'Climate is what you expect; Weather is what you get'. Crichton would have been well served if he had read this tutorial on the distinction between the two...."

        * RealClimate.org's analysis is as stupid as it is condescending. Again, read what Chrichton wrote! "Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead." If "climate," by RealClimate.org's own admission is "what you expect," then that definition is functionally equivalent to a weather prediction. If there be any confusion here, it appears to be coming from RealClimate.org. Strike two.

        3. Chrichton claims, "Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them."

        - RealClimate.org looks down their nose again and claims, "Again, if Crichton has read the IPCC report, he should be aware of the fact that largely (though admittedly, not completely) independent communities of scientists are involved with..."

        * hold on just a minute! If, by RealClimate.org's admission, the communities of science are not completely independent, then how is RealClimate.org so sure that such a phenomenon is not precisely the complaint that Chrichton has? The counterexamples RealClimate.org provides fall outside of that complaint and are, by nature, irrelevent. Strike three.

        Is this the best that the "scientists" at RealClimate.org can come up with? Should I expect their writings on the Truth(TM) of Global Warming to be of the same caliber? Anyone who fails to communicate their thoughts without resorting to snotty invective loses huge amounts of credibility with me.
  • by Sgs-Cruz (526085) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:08PM (#11713341) Homepage Journal
    The Kyoto protocol (Which I'm sure you've all read too much about over the last couple days) in my opinion is only a start. It'll reduce human-caused temperature forcing by something like 5% if fully implemented. Which of course is taken as an argument by many (read: a lot of the USA, and a lot of conservative/business types here in Canada) as a reason to not do anything.

    It's funny when you read the articles arguing against Kyoto, though: they always end with "Kyoto is fatally flawed, and it'll cost too much to cut CO2, so we should wait to do it." Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?

    The funny thing about all of this is that Canada stands to make out really well. Our four-month growing season will probably become more like the American midwest's 6 -8 months, and our boreal forest ecosystem will shift to a St.Lawrence-Deciduous style forest, which is much more habitable for humans. Also we have a ton of oil here.

    Of course, there's the problem of Prince Edward Island probably being under water by then. And oh yes, countries like Bangladesh or the Maldives which will be entirely under water if Antartica (i.e. Ross Ice Shelf) starts to melt. My view is that the best thing to do as an individual is a) bike to work (which I intend to do for the first time this summer), b) keep your house colder than you normally would, and c) evangelize energy efficiency. I don't really see that I can do anymore (aside from reading everything I can) as an just one person with no government connections.

    • by TomorrowPlusX (571956) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:24PM (#11713581)
      When you get used to biking to work, you'll wonder how you ever lived without doing so. It helps mentally separate your work from your *life*, it's good for your body, and it's a lot of fun.

      I work in downtown Washington DC, and live in Arlington, the corner cut off of DC in the 19th century, so it's not as if my commute is very long -- only about 2.5 miles ( I walk when the weather's really nice and I'm not in a rush ) -- but I tell you it's a blast. I can avoid traffic completely, and the view in the mornings on Key Bridge overlooking the Potomac is breathtaking.

      Perhaps it's too cold right now for you to start biking to work, but start soon!

      P.S. If you're in or near a city, wear a helmet. I've been hit by cars three times in four years. None actually hurt me, but... well... I can't count on luck forever.

      P.P.S. Also, I agree 100% that if it's hard to cut emissions now, why would it be easier ten years from now? Criminy.
    • Do you think it's going to be any easier to cut GHG emissions even more drastically in 10 years, just as we're realizing oil is getting more expensive and having to switch back to coal?

      Oil is primarily used for plastic production and cars in the USA. Therefore, the end of oil will have nothing to do with Coal. Especially as hardly any oil is used in electricity generation. If we want to really cut CO2 emmisions in the USA, we should switch to nuclear as opposed to coal and start re-enrichment of the nu
  • by Ingolfke (515826) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:10PM (#11713366) Journal
    Here's a hypothesis.

    1. Global warming will result in colder temperatures in some currently heavily populated regions.
    2. People tend to stay inside when it is colder.
    3. Staying inside increases the likely hood of procreation.

    Therefore, global warming will cause humans.
  • by Badgerman (19207) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:10PM (#11713378)
    I'm sure once again we'll see more pointless deabate as opposed to thinking over the issues involved.

    Me? I look at it this way. There's a lot of good information out there and a lot of experienced people have made very sober arguments about the issues of global warming. So, I give them credit, and figure that the efforts to reduce global warming, even if they do nothing, are unlikely to have a significant negative impact.

    I'd say global warming appears to be one of those things like evolution . . . but I'd be right in more ways than one.

    I do find it amusing to see people argue that a large number of experienced, intelligent, educated people are somehow irrelevant because some pundit shoots off his mouth. I'd like to start a talk show, then begin discussing how only egghead crackpots believe seatbelts save lives and that eating fried lard is unhealthy. I wonder how many people I could decieve into terribly unhealthy habits just by shooting my mouth off long enough.
  • by Neff (859976) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:12PM (#11713389)
    I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.
    • by 0x461FAB0BD7D2 (812236) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:20PM (#11713522) Journal
      Weather is not climate. Climate is based on long-term trends. Weather is unpredictable.

      An analogy would be that if you flipped a coin once, you wouldn't be able to tell if it would end up heads or tails, but if you flipped it a thousand or a million times, you'd notice a general trend of 50-50.
    • Analogy: Get a pile of sand into your hand. Let the sand slip through your fingers.

      Question 1: Do you know how did the grains of sand collide with each other, whirl and which position they took up while falling? (Do meterologists know the weather up to a year?).

      Question 2: Do you know where will the sand end up on the floor with a few meters precision? (Can scientists predict global climate changes?).

      Now answer these questions and you'll find it easier to believe the computer modells.
    • I find it hard to believe that computer models can't tell me whether or not it will rain on Thursday, but can suddenly "absolutely nail" the predictions for temperature patterns of oceans.

      I can't tell you whether it will rain tomorrow in Boston, either, but I'd be willing to place a very large bet that it will be warmer in Boston on August 19th than on February 19th.
  • by geoffrobinson (109879) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:21PM (#11713542) Homepage
    I have an article from the April 14th, 2003 Philadelphia Inquirer. In that article, it tells me that, prior to that time, the amount of energy from the Sun wasn't been recorded.

    Excuse me for being skeptical, but I know output from any star can and does fluctuate. If, prior to 2003, this data wasn't being collected, and if as far as I know, this data isn't being used in studies...I will remain skeptical.

    I'm sorry. But little things like energy from the Sun are important variables I would like to have mapped against warming trends before I come to any conclusions.
  • by TheAwfulTruth (325623) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:29PM (#11713655) Homepage
    Not a single thing in the article other than "We proved it".

    Frankly, climate simulations should always be taken with a huge grain of salt. Such simulations when run into the future are virtually always wrong when checked with the facts later on. Second, any data points collected are from an insanely short periods of time and/or from an insanely small areas. The data is extremely two dimentional.

    This is nothing more than people setting out to prove something they wanted to prove based on statistical models that they came up with and, surprise, they go the numbers they wanted, yet again.

    The scarey thing is how they claim that their simulation should "lay to rest any argument". What utter rubbish! Such things are said all the time and decades later are virtually always refuted. Making such a claim in itself is all the evidence needed to completely discount the research as they were certainly "absolutely convinced" about their model and it's outcome.

    Complete and utter BS.
  • by lobsterGun (415085) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:30PM (#11713663)
    This study has not been peer reviewed.

    There will be plenty of time to work one's self into a lather once the article has been reviewed.

  • The actual studies (Score:3, Informative)

    by Cally (10873) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:31PM (#11713687) Homepage
    I presume this is referring to the studies released at the current American Association for the Advancement of Science annual meeting, by researchers from the deeply respected Scripps' Institute and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute.

    BBC coverage here [bbc.co.uk], probably a bit more detail than the Times. No, I haven't RTFA, it's just a gut reaction based on 20 years' exposure to the rotting carcase of a once-great newspaper, rotten with the maggots of the parasitical MurdochWasp that impregnated it with it's eggs... (yep, I don't like Rupe, does it show? :)

  • Funny (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nnnneedles (216864) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:37PM (#11713786)
    I find it funny how many americans choose to believe the stances pursued by energy interest groups who have money to loose on tighter regulations concerning global warming, rather than the independant scientific community.

    This guy is from an oil company...let's believe him.
    This guy is an objective scientist...he must be lying!!

  • by T3kno (51315) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:38PM (#11713789) Homepage
    Zonk@www # crontab -l
    0 9 * * * /usr/bin/post --subject "Humans are Causing Global Warming"
    15 9 * * * /usr/bin/post --subject "Windows more secure than Linux story"
    30 9 * * * /usr/bin/post --subject "YRO story about MPAA/RIAA"
    Zonk@www #
  • by rokzy (687636) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:41PM (#11713847)
    humans cause global warming. this is as much fact as cigarettes cause cancer.

    we're at the stage when the public knows about cigarettes and the conspiracy to cover up the data. but for global warming, we're still in the "don't listen to those commie environmentalists, everyone else drives SUVs, don't YOU want to be cool too?" stage.

    the only problem is by the time global warming is a big problem we'll ALL be fucked.
  • by Doc Ruby (173196) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:45PM (#11713902) Homepage Journal
    We've had conclusive evidence for several years that human activity causes immediate direct changes in the weather [sciam.com]. People who continue to deny the cumulative effect, or its larger impact in longer timeframes, are desperate to deny our responsibility for our own destiny, our survival. And have to get out of our way as we work to do something about it, to save ourselves before it's too late.
  • by urlgrey (798089) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:52PM (#11714043) Homepage
    Many (most?) folks on both sides of this debate are missing the point IMHO. They're arguing in essence about whether or not data is valid. Who cares? This isn't an issue about being "right" really.

    Take a step back for a moment. Being right on this one SIMPLY DOES NOT MATTER.

    What does matter is this:

    As we reduce greenhouse gases--even if they're not a threat and/or causing global warming:
    our air gets dramatically cleaner (think about the coal smog in major cities at the turn of the century)
    our overall global environment get better.
    if global warming & greenhouse gases ARE a real threat, we haven't waited to long to act.
    Conversely, if we wait too long because no one can agree on data points to study then on data validity then on data modeling, etc., etc., at least we'll make great pets.

  • by peter303 (12292) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:55PM (#11714087)
    ...is looking more and more attractive.
    And that salesman thought he was ripping me off.

    (Nunavat is Canada's newest province on the Arctic Ocean.)
  • Man.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fizban (58094) <fizban@umich.edu> on Friday February 18, 2005 @02:29PM (#11714642) Homepage
    I'd hate to be a conservative these days. Either the world is only 6000 years old and there is definitely enough historical data to confirm that global warming is man-made, or it's millions of years old and there isn't enough evidence for us to be completely certain.

    Either way, they lose...

    As for me, whether global warming is man-made or not, I'm still going to work to make the earth cleaner and more hospitable, by trying to use less energy or use it more efficiently, find cleaner fuels, not dump junk into the air and water and basically try to be a good steward. Have conservatives just completely lost the desire to be good like that? Is the quest for money so overwhelming that it blocks out all those other desires? What's going on, and when did it become wrong to try to do good for Mother Earth?

"Mach was the greatest intellectual fraud in the last ten years." "What about X?" "I said `intellectual'." ;login, 9/1990

Working...