Sunspots Reach 1000-Year Peak 695
rlp writes "Researchers at the Institute for Astronomy in Zurich are reporting that solar sunspot activity is at a 1000-year peak. Records of sunspots have been kept since 1610. The period between 1645 and 1715 (known as the Maunder Minimum) was a period of very few sunspots. Researchers extended the record by measuring isotopes of beryllium (created by cosmic rays) in Greenland ice cores. Based on both observations and ice core records, we are now at a sunspot peak exceeding solar activity for any time in the past thousand years."
That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:4, Insightful)
the answer is absolutely undeniably: Yes
it's never been stated that we're the only cause.
Re:What do you know (Score:0, Insightful)
While I myself believe the planet is changing its climate, well, people like that just bug the hell outta me!
1000 peak? (Score:4, Insightful)
How can we know we're at the peak if we're also at the highest level we've been? Won't we have to wait until we dip for a while?
Climate (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the last thing most
Just a thought.
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:2, Insightful)
No, the controversy centers on political posturing and other random social BS.
The issue centers on "are humans contributing at a level that makes any difference at all", and I'm still unconvinced. A single volcano can have higher carbon dioxide (among other pollutants) output than all of human society on a yearly basis. Do you know how many active volcanoes there are in the world? Thousands. Humans are simply overestimating their own importance. Yet again. Shock. Amazement. Meh.
Keep in mind (Score:3, Insightful)
Right now we can't say much more than that. Correlating this data with global warming is very spurious. We know much more about earth's climate than the sun and would be making a large leap given the limited amount of data.
We can't really make much of this until we get more data. That will be a long time in coming. Assuming we don't kill each other before then.
Re:Is this possible? (Score:2, Insightful)
If word ever got out that we are not a major contributor then I think public perception will re-appropiate funds to issues they consider are more worthy.
It is possible to read into some evidance that even if all consumption and contributions were halted to zero from human activity then the phenomena that is 'global warming' would still continue.
Maybe this is more about politics and the peak fossil fuel problem, all governments need to bring in legilation and taxation to control the masses over their fossil fuel usage ahead of any fossil fuel global crisis, now seems like an ideal time to get started.
Personally I am more concern about non-organic toxins being distributed around the plant for which there is no organic cleaning system than of trying to label a problem with a natually occuring organic gas.
Redundant and old (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
I haven't seen anyone state that, let alone any scientist. Can you post some links?
Re:Global warming on Mars, also? (Score:4, Insightful)
And that informs us about our planet's sensitivity to GHG forcing how?
It's funny that climate change skeptics used to try to pick apart the global surface temperature record, which involves data collected from hundreds of locations for over 100 years, but are so quick to grab onto a 6 year regional trend on Mars as proof of something.
Can you show me the climatic feedback that minimizes the impact of the well-understood thermal forcing of CO2 (and methane, etc.) and the well-understood increase in atmospheric CO2 (and methane, etc.)?
Then we can talk.
Re:Before the smarmy comments start (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What do you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks,
Mike
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
(By the way, I'm a proud Libertarian.)
Re:More flawed science (Score:1, Insightful)
You, random slashdot poster, have just debunked it! Those flawed scientists with their flawed science totally forgot to account for melting! And then all their flawed scientist buddies missed that critical error in their peer reviewed flawed science journals. Thank GOD you read this article and caught this gigantic omission, or we might have been burdened by this flawed science for all eternity.
Or maybe you're a dumbass internet weenie who lacks imagination. Verifying the results of an ice core is pretty easy if you actually think about it. Take multiple samples from numerous locations, and cross-check the results.
Tip for the future: If you can come up with a simple "but it seems logical" hypothesis to debunk an entire peer reviewed scientific study in a few minutes, you're probably wrong.
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:To all you people (Score:2, Insightful)
I realize that US bashing is currently in fashion, but whoever modded the parent insightful should be ashamed...
Re:What do you know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, no, that isn't really what the controversy centers on. The controversy centers on to what degree humans are contributing, and of that contribution (due to the fervor of the global warming enthusiasts) what part of that contribution is caused by CO2. If only a part of global warming is caused by human activity, and only part of that is caused by CO2 emissions, then a reduction in these emissions will have a negligible, or even no effect on global warming.
The answer is absolutely undeniably "Maybe, depends on what you are talking about".
The problem with the global warming enthusiasts is their monomanic focus on western "life-style" issues is that they are concentrating on areas that, even if implemented, will have little or no effect on the issue at hand, namely warming. This focus seems to come from the standard left-leaning political camp where all problems are caused by western consumers, and all solutions are centered around decreasing our standards of living.
The problem with the discussion is the bizarre focus that the global warming enthusiasts have for who they target for emissions reduction. Let me use illustration with made up numbers on natural vs human-caused warming, but just the same...:
Let's assume that 70% of the global warming is human caused. We know that CO2 contributes somewhere between 10 and 25% of the warming, so let's assume high and say 20%. This means that of the total global warming, somewhere around 15%, is caused by human emitted CO2 (please, I am no mathematician, if my numbers are way off, correct me politely, but the exact numbers are not that relevant). Now, interestingly, 1/3 or more of the total CO2 emissions are caused by China and other countries that are not part of the Kyoto agreement. So, for the Kyoto countries (and the US), the only ones that matter in this discussion, CO2 emissions account for about 10% of the total problem, that is all CO2 emissions put together. Just for fun, I'll ignore this fact. This means I am giving the global warming lobby more rope than they deserve.
Now, this is an interesting starting point. CO2, in the countries that are urged by the IPCC to change their behavior, is only 15% of the total warming picture. Round numbers of course. Of that 15%, less than half, but let's be generous, is caused by the burning of Petroleum. So, we are down to 7.5%. Cool. 7.5% is still a significant number. So, what is one of the pet topics of the global warming lobby? The airline industry. We have to fly less. Al Gore was booed at a meeting for flying. The airline industry, if we are generous, uses somewhere around 10% of the petroleum products in the world. So, one of the pet targets of the global warming lobby causes 0.8% or so of the global warming. Even if we ground all flights, the impact on global warming will be very close to 0. Please note that this doesn't change materially even if 100% of the global warming is caused by human activity.
I am aware that airplanes also contribute a good amount of water vapor, but that isn't my point. My point is that the targets of the global warming lobby are silly and childish. They are not asking us to make meaningful changes to our lifestyle, they are asking us to make token changes that will have little or no effect on global warming, but they'll make us all feel a lot better.
The problem with this approach is two-fold. The first one is blatantly obvious, we are not solving any problems, just making us feel better. Then second is far more problematic, and the reason I focused a little on the airline industry.
The internationalization of the world economy has had an enormous impact on the lives of the worlds population. With minor, and rather insignificant, exceptions these changes have been positive. Th
Re:Global warming on Mars, also? (Score:3, Insightful)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Iris/ [nasa.gov]
Whether you agree with Lindzen or his skeptics, one thing you must conclude from the article is that global climate is still not understood well enough for anyone to make accurate predictions of what will happen in 1 year, 10 years, 100 years. It is clear from the article that the role of clouds (which is only one component of many in climate change) is still being seriously debated, for instance.
And those predictions are always based on models which includes assumptions about how different components of climate change interact.
It's much easier to believe information about Mars because the readings are extremely accurate and only come from modern instruments, and we know there is no human influence on temperature. There are no politics in looking at 6 years of temperature data and saying "Yep, it's warmer!". Most people agree the Earth is warmer now as well. The Earth temperature record has problems because when and where and with what instrument you take the measurement are all important and have changed over the years. This is a legitimate debate.
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
That is classic ad-hominem, you are attacking the messanger rather than discussing the issue. This is especially irrelevant since we are discussing a scientific issue, you are talking about war and conflict areas.
Can anyone list a single doomsday environmental prediction that has come true? Just one. That's all I ask.
If by doomsday, you mean end of the earth, then.... *looks around* nope. Seems not. On the other hand, if you mean heavy human impact on the environment, then yes, there are plenty of examples. The Newfoundland cod stock collapse [bbc.co.uk] for instance. Plenty of environmentalists were warning for years that a collapse was happening. Warnings were ignored, then it happened.
Or take the deforestation of Easter Island [wikipedia.org], or this list of disasters [wikipedia.org]. It happened on a local scale, yes, but with the population and technology we have today, we MIGHT affect ecology on a larger, perhaps even global scale.
And now for some environmentalist quotes
More ad-hominmens. Random quotes by fringe nutters does not a coherent argument make.
Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Using a biased source to purport another source to be biased is pretty hypocritical.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
I could quote areas where UN has suceeded (as I said, the UN works with more than peacekeeping issues), but it would just divert the issue and attract anti-UN trolls. Let me come up with a counter example: the UN is not the only player who has failed in the countries you mentioned. So has NATO, the US, the African Union, the EU... Should we discredit everything these agencies say? No, because they work with many other things too. The people working on the peacekeeping missions [un.org] are NOT the same people working with The Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change [www.ipcc.ch]. So again, what you are doing is ad-hominem.
Still, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that if I keep chopping down trees that deforestation would occur.
Or that if we burn things that emit greenhouse gasses, the planet gets warmer...
Still, good examples, but nothing compared to the Global Warming scare tactics of today or the Ozone depletion
Oh, the Ozone "hole" is still there, it is just not mentioned often in the media these days. Ozone depletion didn't turn out quite as bad as some people warmed, BECAUSE WE DID SOMETHING ABOUT IT. Even some politicans, like Margaret Thatcher (who has a Chemistry degree from Oxford University), realised the dangers and helped drive through the Montrol agreement which caused a gradual reduction of manmade ozone destroying gases [wikipedia.org]. The thinning is still there, but it is finally stabilizing and may slowly heal over decades. If you think the ozone whole was a myth, ask people in Australia about increased rates of skin cancer the last decades.
, global cooling
Myth [realclimate.org], it was the popular press talking about it for a while, you did not have anything near the scientific conscencus we have on global warming today.
Fact is that the climate changes all the time. We have global cooling and enter ice ages and then we have global warming to get us out. Sometimes we cool form within an ice age and warm we are not in one. It's 100% natural.
No, it is not.
Besides, RTFA is about the possibility that the main source of heat in our solar system may be responsible for all this heat. Why is that such a far fetched idea?
Why is it such a far fetched idea that gases that trap heat locally (a process known to science since the 19th centruy), if released in sufficient quantities globally might have the same effect globally?
Those are examples from former leading environmentalists to show how wrong they've been in the past
Irrelevant. Totally irrelevant. They are not the people presenting the data, it is scientists.
and to show their true agenda (the end of capitalism)
Also irrelevant. If someone has a political agenda, we might suspect that they slant or distort the data, then we check the data through a peer-review process.
Re:What do you know (Score:4, Insightful)
Make up your mind, is it Gore or his "faction"? Do you have an example of such vitriol performed by Al Gore himself? I Googled for a while after it, and gave up after paging through hundreds of hits of Lindzen talking about Gore....
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, we affect ecology simply by existing. Fishing changes fish population patterns, man's spread to every corner of the Earth has caused a decline in certain species and a (relative) increase in others (check out the pigeon population of NYC, for instance). In that sense, environmentalists who say the only way to 'reverse the damage' is to 'remove man' are right, and in fact intellectually honest -- although their PR skills are questionable.
However, most environmentalists grandly over-estimate our ability to cause global-scale disasters. Re your local disasters, disaster size does not scale linearly with technological growth, and ecosystems have a way of correcting themselves -- deforestation in England was a 'hot topic' in 16th and 17th centuries, with people complaining as England's forests were denuded for wood for stoves and ships. In time, the ecosystem bounced back (helped by the shift to steel for ships and gas for stoves) -- there are fewer trees in England now than c.10th century, but more than the 16th and 17th!
One of the best known debunked examples was Sagan's rapid-cooling scenarios [wikipedia.org] ("nuclear winter"). The other problem is environmentalists refusal to see Earth's ecosystem as a evolving system, instead harking back to the past as a ideal that the future should aspire to. Ecosystems don't work that way! Millenia ago, most of Europe was an icy wasteland and the Sahara was an oasis. An observer then might decry the loss of the Sahara, but would they have predicted the advantages a temperate Europe would have brought?
Bottom line: there's nothing more arrogant than the assumption that a given region has the right to enjoy a static, unchanging climate for all of time.
I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources.
Re:1000 years ago (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hypocrisy (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, so lets skip the bias question then since we are all biased one way or another, and lets focus on the facts instead. Did you have any specific complaints about Real Climates rebuttal to the GGWS program?
Re:Climate (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, a lot of climate scientists do tackle the questions of solar and orbital cycles effecting, and temperature causing CO2 emissions at the start of historical warming cycles rather than the other way around [realclimate.org].
With regards to the lady in question from the original poster, I agree with the AC. Could we have a name to verify the claim? Does she still claim this more than 10 years later? If so, resubmit. There is an enormous amount of scientific research being done in this area, and there are organizations willing to fund research debunking global warming (mainly in the petrolium industry)... I don't mean this as a smear, honestly, I am serious. No matter where the funding is coming from, if the research is sound and stands up to scrutiny it would make her world famous. It would also be a big relief for me actually, it would remove a great cause of worry for me.
Re:Labeling (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm far from a libertarian, and I'll probably will never be, and to be honest I seriously doubt your statement that most on slashdot are libertarians.
The problem is (Score:5, Insightful)
That's the problem. Many people act like they are all about science, and are open to questioning, but then when it happens, the reaction is vicious. Sorry, but you don't get to say "Any questioning of our position proves you are an idiot and thus we don't have to respond." I don't care if you don't like the questions posed, if they are legit then they deserve a legit answer.
From what I've seen, the skeptics do their best to present very well reasoned criticisms and questions of the accepted knowledge. The defenders are the ones that act unscientific and just shout the other side down.
The Intelligent Design thing is often brought up, as an attempt to shut down skeptics. They say "This is just like Intelligent Design and thus shouldn't be listened to!" Only it isn't. Intelligent Design makes a positive claim (that god created creatures as they are now) but the real problem is it makes an untestable one. Might be they are right, but you'll never prove it. Since according to them god is outside of nature that makes god untestable. Well if it's not testable, it's not science, pure and simple. However GW skeptics are just questioning a theory. Also, they aren't saying "No, your theory is wrong because god says so," they say "Your theory is wrong because of these reasons." That's science right there. Doesn't mean that the skeptics are right, but it does mean they are doing science as it is meant to be done.
Real science isn't about making a claim and then trying to shout down anyone who says you are wrong. Real science is about trying to prove yourself wrong. It is about trying to think up every way you can that your theory might be wrong and then testing those. Any alternative you can think of. Only when all those tests fail to prove it wrong, do you believe it is true. It's not a matter of trying to run one test and saying "There, I've proven it true!" and getting mad when people don't agree, it is trying to run as many tests as you can and then saying "There, I've tried every way I can to prove it false, and I just can't." Then if someone has a way you didn't think of, you try that too. You just keep on trying too, you keep working on the theory. No theory should ever be considered proven beyond the need for reinvestigation. All the time new areas of science open up that reveal that a long accepted theory was, in fact, an oversimplification. Doesn't mean it was a bad theory or didn't do a good job describing the facts, just that not everything was understood and now we have a better one.
So to me, it seems like it is the GW proponents putting their fingers in their ears. They don't want to hear any arguments and so any time someone makes one, they pretend like that person didn't and just shout them down.
Re:What do you know (Score:1, Insightful)
Kool-aid is now being served in aisle 5.
Does it hurt to have a brain so soft that you can't think for yourself? Can your parents get a refund from the college they sent you to, because clearly, you learned nothing except trying to silence other viewpoints.
Re:That doesn't debunk global warming (Score:3, Insightful)
"What most of the 'global warming' controversy is centers on "are humans contributing?""
Depends on who you are talking to. Climatologists will certainly agree with that statement, as that is exactly what they have been researching. But that is not the discussion that is taking place in politics and in the media (and on a typical day, here on /.). There, a statement from climatologists that they are 90% certain that humans have a role in climate change suddenly becomes "Climatologists are certain man is the cause of global warming", and that anyone who disputes that are (as one former vice president put it) the same as Holocaust deniers.
Yes, scientists (including respected global warming researchers) have recently been disputing some of the more wild claims of scientist-wannabe politicians. Unfortunately for too long they have let the debate go on like this in Washington and in Hollywood, and now most of the public considers the debate whether or not humans are the sole source of climate change.
Re:What do you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Just take a deep breath and try to have a conversation ABOUT THE SUN for once.
PS: The Daily Show is on my must-watch list. I don't watch it because it's news (I have Google News for that), I watch it for the same reason I watch Slashdot: to know what my peers find interesting these days, and get the occasional laugh.
Fitness (Score:3, Insightful)
--
Adapt to 11 billion people before they are here: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-user
Re:What do you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed, the most ecological action would be to stop breathing. Major problem in the relative decrease/increase issue is the vanishing biodiversity. Organisms that are usually increasing are typically invading alien species, and the decreasing ones are local ones which can't compete. So the "increase" is not necessarily a good thing.
One of the best known debunked examples was Sagan's rapid-cooling scenarios ("nuclear winter"). The other problem is environmentalists refusal to see Earth's ecosystem as a evolving system, instead harking back to the past as a ideal that the future should aspire to. Ecosystems don't work that way! Millenia ago, most of Europe was an icy wasteland and the Sahara was an oasis. An observer then might decry the loss of the Sahara, but would they have predicted the advantages a temperate Europe would have brought?
Very much so. Earth's climate is extremely dynamic system. However, climate changes are normally slow and organisms have enough time to adapt. The situation is now different, however. Several ecosystems are already been pushed in a critical state due to human activity. Global warming may push them over the edge. In addition, there are over six billion people on the Earth. Hundreds of millions of people are in risks if the land where they live can no longer support them. In many parts of the world there is already an acute shortage of drinking water, and melting mountain glaciers will (not "may") make the situation much worse.
I should probably add that this does not mean that polluters are let off the hook. On health grounds alone, we already regulate most pollutants. As for CO2 emissions (which is what most global warming campaigners campaign for), I would suggest that the "the end is nigh" scenarios many campaigners paint is both scientifically inaccurate as well as damaging to their cause. Rather, they should encourage (through various methods like research grants and tax breaks) use of a basket of energy sources, including solar, wind and nuclear. Nuclear is crucial -- solar and wind are nice but large markets need reliable electricity sources.
Nuclear energy has its own problems, most notably the potential risks of radioactivity (which fortunately are often exaggerated) and the shortage of fuel. In my opinion, combining several renewable sources and developing more energy efficient tenchology is the answer. Nuclear may help in the short term.
Re:The problem is (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry your friends are getting shouted down, maybe if they had some data to prove their criticisms, they'd be more likely to be heard?
They question the methods used, such as using computer models to "prove" things (a model doesn't prove anything), the data gathered, the understanding of the system and so on.We use data models for all sorts of shit, for example, 'proving' that the design of the aircraft you're flying in won't crash and burn on takeoff, or like better understanding the conditions that form tornados and any number of things. Apparently you'll trust your life with data models, but when it comes to global warming, they're suddenly useless. Granted, it's completely valid to examine a particular model and critcise the flaws that is has, but that's not what you're doing, you're implying that categorically, they're not useful in understanding climate data, and that's plain wrong
All the time new areas of science open up that reveal that a long accepted theory was, in fact, an oversimplification. Doesn't mean it was a bad theory or didn't do a good job describing the facts, just that not everything was understood and now we have a better one.So how close to 100% of all possible knowledge and accuracy of the chemical mechanism of black powder and projectile physics do you need the scientific community to have before you'll duck when someone fires a gun at you?
Re:What do you know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
The real battle is between Authoritarians (left and right), versus Minarchists (Libertarians, Anarchists, etc.). Chirac's ideology is consistant with the totalitarian ideology of the "Leftist" European political elite, even if he is "Right Wing".
Your Single Environmental... Prediction (Score:2, Insightful)
I am constantly surprised at people who claim others are insane for worrying about environmental damage until something actually happens. How many ever doomsayers and shrieking drama queens the environmental movement attracts, you have to concede that human damage to the environment can have severe - and as in the example above, lethal - consequences to humans. It is not unreasonable to look at the possible sources for catastrophic events and eliminate them before those events occur.
For that matter, we see it as perfectly reasonable to do this in regards to terrorism; we curtail rights, increase security, reduce freedom of movement and increase privacy-invading scrutiny of citizens. We do this because "otherwise people might die". Why should the environmental issue be *any* different?
Re:What do you know (Score:5, Insightful)
If you're a political commentary show, that's one thing. I wouldn't watch "The O'Reily Factor" or "Countdown with Keith Oberman" to get an unbiased reporting of the news, but really, your 9pm news broadcast shouldn't pander to a political agenda, even if the producers have mores based in that agenda.
It seems that nearly every news organization on the planet does so. Even the BBC is only telling you want they want you to hear [telegraph.co.uk].
So, is intelligent satire that lampoons BOTH sides, yet somehow manages to cover the news more clearly than most news outlets Kool-Aid? If it is, I'd rather be drinking that than the ditch-water folks like you seem to hold so highly. Face it, the news media has sold out to government and industry across the planet - and subscriptions are starting to feel it. Look at the viewer numbers for most national "news" programs! It's insanity, but with respect to news, the world culture has turned into the Jerry Springer show circa 1994.
Re:The problem is (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try, but no. You are utterly and completely wrong.
The data model is used to 'prove' that a model is worth creating. The model test data is used to 'prove' that the plane won't crash and burn. I may use a computer code to simulate a new design that I'm thinking about building, but anything I could ever consider building in my garage will be very close to models that are already flying. NASA would do several scale models in extensive wind tunnel testing if they were pushing the edge of the envelope. I'm building a very unusual configuration, and it was 'proved' by a half scale model mounted on top of a station wagon with a gimbal and remote controlled with a cable.
http://ernest.isa-geek.org/ [isa-geek.org]
There is not wind tunnel or small scale model for global warming. All the data models are just guesses and always will be until we have a planet that we can manipulate at will. That's not to say that the guesses from the data modelers aren't better than the ones I would come up with. It's just to say that their models aren't 'proof' of any kind.
Re:What do you know (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What do you know (Score:1, Insightful)
Dude, you woudn't be posting this if a doomsday prediction would have come true.
Don't mid me saying, but your argument is a little weak. The fact that something is unknown to have happened in the past doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future. There are new things happening all the time.
Re:What do you know (Score:3, Insightful)
It will be a cold day in July before I take that argument seriously.
The average temperature in July is much more reliably known than the small-scale noise of tomorrow's weather.
The climate in Saudi Arabia is a lot easier to predict than the weather.
The people who keep bringing weather forecasts into the discussion have known all their lives to plan for cold and snow in winter, rain in the spring, and sunlight in the summer. They're not actually confused about the difference between climate and weather.
>alarmist climatologists are batting at exactly 0%. Why should I believe them now?
Are you referring to the fact that the previous IPCC report was wrong about sea level increases? They *underestimated* them. Or are you pulling out the old line about a cooling scare in the 70s? Here's a bibliography of scientific literature on climate from the 1970s [wmconnolley.org.uk].
A reasoned discussion has to be based on facts, and it has to use reason.
Quick question to ask yourself: what new information, if it were to be discovered, would change your mind? If you can't think of any, you're not engaging in reason. A climatologist would say "well, if someone found a previously unknown negative feedback mechanism with a time constant such that it hasn't taken effect yet, then we'd all have to lower our temperature forecasts".
Other quick question: what do you think is the baseline temperature increase from a doubling of CO2? If you think it's less than 2 Celsius, on what facts do you base that assessment?
If you don't like proposed policy measures, the response of reason is to propose different ones (build fission plants? Roll with the punches?) instead of pretending the scientific data is a conspiracy by people you hate.
Quick question: have you ever known a working scientist? Political party members get promoted for going along. Scientists only get PhDs, promotions, and tenure from publishing _new_ information.
Re:What do you know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What happened 1000 years ago? (Score:3, Insightful)