Baked Alaska 632
mithras the prophet writes "Global warming stories usually focus on the hotbutton politics, scientific debate, or latest disturbing anecdote of receding ice. A very interesting New York Times story takes a different tack, highlighting the reality of climate change for small-town Alaskans. Whatever the cause, temperatures in Alaska have risen by seven degrees in the last 30 years. This has very real consequences for ordinary citizens; the rest of us would do well to consider their stories. Lucy Eningowuk and her 600 fellow citizens of Shishmaref will vote next week whether to move their town to the mainland. Despite community efforts, thawing of permafrost and wave action from melting ice has eroded away most of the land the village is built on. Residents of Barrow (warning: MIDI-enabled page), on the North Shore, are swatting mosquitos for the first time in their lives. In an ironic twist, managers of the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline are putting in supports to keep the pipeline from breaking as permafrost thaws."
Well then... (Score:3, Funny)
~Philly
I think the connection is clear... (Score:5, Funny)
It cannot be denied. Wherever Cray computers go, high heat production follows. It's only a matter of time before Cray raises the sea levels and seizes control of a panicked world. I wouldn't put it past them... they have developed a superior computational advantage over the rest of known civilization.
Be on guard!
Cause? (Score:4, Insightful)
What isn't uncertain is that this change is real; one look at my driveway is proof enough for me.
Re:Cause? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Cause? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mediaeval Warm Period was generally hotter than today and extended for some centuries up until the 14th or 15th century. Between then and the end of the 19th century the Earth went through the Little Ice Age when temperatures were cooler. Since these were natural phenomena, it seems quite likely that we may be entering another warm period.
There is indeed evidence that human activity has affected the climate; the real question is "by how much?" and "what are the likely effects, over and above what will occur naturally anyway?" If we conclude that human factors are significant in both cases, then we should ask ourselves how best to tackle the problem, not just act on folk wisdom along the lines of "fossil fuels are bad, we must stop using fossil fuels as soon as possible."
For instance, the global cost of implementing the Kyoto Protocol is staggering. The cost incurred for just one year would pay for the delivery of quality drinking water and sanitation to every human on the planet. The mind boggles to think what we could do with that money each year over the next century. The reason why Kyoto is not very convincing as a save-the-Earth policy is that it will only offset the expected climate change at the end of the century by about five years. Big deal. A far better way to use the money would be to (a) quickly advance the developing world to the point where they can use cleaner, more efficient technologies already deployed in the developed world and (b) invest in research into more efficient (renewable) resources.
Read "The Skeptical Environmentalist." It's a fantastic book.
Re:Cause? (Score:2)
Cop 2: Okay, then the wisest course of action is to arrest everyone in the town before they can kill again.
Re:Cause? (Score:2)
Well, yeah, it is caused by global warming, because, well, the globe IS warming a bit at the moment. It just so happens that colder regions warm up more than average. What people are arguing about though is how much is a result of natural cycles, and how much is caused by 6.3 billion pesky humans' technology. I'd wager that us humans have a small but increasing effect due to greenhouse gases.
If you look longterm you can see that the temperature has fluctuated a lot more than 1 degree per century, and that it's been much hotter & colder in the past.
If you had a choice between global warming, cooling, or the status quo, which would it be? Personally, I'd choose a slow warming... we could even grow more food further north/south... until the polar ice melts, and the earthquakes start, and volcanos erupt, and plagues spread! ahhhh! noooooooooo! save us! (that's your cue to give me FUD money)
--
"Baked Alaska"? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"Baked Alaska"? (Score:2)
Baked Alaska (Score:4, Funny)
1 quart coffee ice cream
Sponge cake, recipe follows
1 pint strawberries, tops removed and sliced
Meringue, recipe follows
Warm glossy chocolate sauce, recipe follows
Sponge:
10 eggs
2 cups vegetable oil
4 cups sugar
Vanilla extract, to taste
6 cups flour
2 tablespoons baking powder
2 cups milk
Meringue:
1 cup egg whites, room temperature
1 cup sugar
Warm Glossy Chocolate Sauce:
3 ounces unsweetened chocolate
7 ounces semisweet chocolate
3/8 cup light corn syrup
1/2 cup hot water
Sponge: Preheat oven to 325 degrees. In the bowl of an electric mixer, beat together the eggs, vegetable oil and sugar until light. Add the vanilla. Sift together the flour and baking powder. In 3 additions, alternately add the flour and baking powder with the milk. Pour the batter into a greased, parchment-lined jellyroll pan. Bake 25 to 30 minutes or until it springs back to the touch. When the cake is cool, invert from the pan onto a piece of parchment paper. Halve the cake lengthwise. Place a 2 quart bowl on top of 1/2 the cake and cut around the bottom of the bowl. Reserve the rest of the cake. Set the cake round on a parchment lined sheet pan.
Remove ice cream from freezer. Using a large spoon mound the chocolate ice cream on top of the cake round. Layer the strawberries on top of the chocolate ice cream. Top and continue to mound the coffee ice cream. You can make as many layers as you like. If the ice cream begins to soften too much, return to the freezer until firm and continue. Cut the remaining cake into triangles and cover the mound of ice cream with cake. Return cake to the freezer for at least 2 hours or up to 2 days.
Meringue: Whip the egg whites until soft peaks form. Add the sugar and beat until stiff and glossy. As soon as the meringue is ready, remove the ice cream cake from the freezer. Spread the meringue evenly over the dessert in a swirling motion or pipe decoratively. Return to the freezer for at least 3 hours or up to 2 days.
Warm Glossy Chocolate Sauce: In the top half of a double boiler, combine the 2 chocolates over simmering water. Stir constantly until melted, then whisk in the corn syrup and water. Whisk until smooth and shiny.
When ready to serve, heat the oven to 500 degrees. Remove the dessert from the freezer and place it in the oven. Bake 3 to 4 minutes or until browned. You can also use a blow torch to brown the meringue. After it is browned it's possible to freeze dessert again overnight before serving. Serve in slices with warm glossy chocolate sauce.
Prep Time: 10 minutes
Cook Time: 6 hours 35 minutes
Bring it on! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Bring it on! (Score:2)
Days of denial are over. (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course both groups have lots of 'scientific' evidence that mostly amounts a few anecdotes in comparison to the huge reams of evidence that the supporters have, but are yelled very loudly.
Also, both groups demand from their adversaries 'irrefutable proof' that evolution/global warming is true, even though a 'logical proof' of an empirical phenomena is impossible. You can't prove evolution and global warming the same way you can prove that 1+1=2. You can't even prove gravity to that extent.
Finally, if this report is true, and these weather changes are happening all over Alaska, it really should be enough evidence that something is happening. Alaska is pretty big, and the effect can't really be called 'local'. It's at least regional.
Finally, it comes to the question of cyclical vs. artificial warming. Is the earth getting warmer just because it is, or is it getting warmer because of something we're doing? Certainly, humanity is producing lots of CO2, but the amount isn't really that much compared the naturally occurring water vapor. Honestly I'm not sure if science really has the answer. But I do really think we need to be cautious about it. The effects of global warming could be pretty dire.
A while ago I read a slashdot post about global warming, and the poster said he opposed any kind of change in regulation unless we could be 100% sure. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid. It's like driving towards a cliff and being opposed to a change in direction unless you were 100% sure there was a cliff there, the argument being the trip would be longer assuming there was no cliff (or something equally stupid).
Perhaps there would be some economic constraints caused by greenhouse gas controls, but they would probably be a lot better then the economic problems caused by global warming.
You are in denial (Score:3, Interesting)
Since there is zero evidence of human activity having an effect, there is no point in being "cautious" in regards to global warming.
"It seems to me that anti-global warming advocates are made up of the same kind of people who are anti-evolution."
True, only if by "anti global warming advocate" you mean the whackos who fight against "global warming".... which is like fighting against a mountain with a wet noodle: human activity does not effect it.
"A while ago I read a slashdot post about global warming, and the poster said he opposed any kind of change in regulation unless we could be 100% sure. If you ask me, that's pretty stupid"
No, what is stupid is changing regulation while having NO evidence at all that regulation will change anything. That is real stupid: the un-informed change of public policy based on nonscience.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:2, Insightful)
Lets rephrase:
Is my eyesight getting worse because I masturbate? Certainly I don't masturbate that often, the amount really isn't much compared to the times I have actual sex. Honestly, I'm not sure if science really has the answer. I do think I should be really cautious about it, the effects could be pretty dire.
---
The point is, there is no evidence linking human activity and global warming. There is a weak correlation between it and human emissions, but that is as strong an argument as the masturbation/eyesight link.
Just because a lot of people say something, doesn't make it worth paying attention to. As the AC said, no one has produced any evidence at all that we are having an effect. "No evidence" is a lot different from "wanting to be 100% sure".
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:2)
This is bullshit. There might not be enough evidence to convince everybody (or even most people), but some is certainly there. You can't deny that during the last century, both the production of various waste gases and global temperature have risen.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:3, Insightful)
Commonality
Does Not
Equal
Causality.
Please stop being retarded, thanks.
Cost of failure. (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a difference between the two. The cost of the correlation between masturbation/eyesight is a pair of glasses. The cost of global warming is conceivably a lot higher, and so deserves more attention and effort.
I think a better example would be the Challenger disaster, which killed the crew, and stopped NASA in its tracks for years. All because they asked the engineers to "Put their management hats on".
At the end of the day, we have three things to decide:
Now, we can argue about what the causes of global warming are, but that shouldn't stop us from finding a solution. There are only a few variables that we can conceivably control to bring the warming back down. One of those is CO2 emissions. It doesn't matter if the warming is a result of human activity, all that does matter is that it is happening and that we need to do something about it.
Jason PollockRe:Cost of failure. (Score:3, Insightful)
The cost of taking measures to prevent global warming are pretty high in some cases.
I'm not against intelligent ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions when they don't cost too much, but that is the key. Creating huge economic inefficiencies for something that may or may not have an effect on something that may or may not be caused by the emissions in the first place is what is bad.
Higher cost of items in stores, possible inflation, reduced GDP, companies driven out of business... I'd say the cost is high.
Re:Cost of failure. (Score:3, Insightful)
The issue has to be what is the potential cost of not doing anything. It doesn't matter if you caused the problem with car exhaust, or if it's the Earth's core turning up the heat. If the sea levels go up by as little 5', most of the people on the coast will have to move. Can you imagine the $$ involved in protecting New Orleans alone?
As with anything, we shouldn't have a panic response. However, doing nothing because we believe (rightly or wrongly - who cares) that warming is natural isn't a solution.
This is why we build flood control systems. It may be a natural event, but we still act to mitigate the damage caused. We need to do the same on a global scale to handle global warming.
Sure, companies will go under, others will flourish, and new millions will be made. Is that a problem? Probably not, look what happened to the .coms. No lasting damage was done. I would say that the displacement of coastal populations is going to be worse, but that's just a guess... :)
Jason PollockRe:Cost of failure. (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, there isn't, and never has been, any evidence that masturbation leads to blindness (or poor vision at all).
There is a mountain of evidence, piling ever higher, that our industrial wastes are changing the albedo of the planet, that the planet is thus radiating less heat away than previously, and as a result the climate is growing warmer.
Is it absolute proof? As you point out, no, it isn't, and absolute proof wouldn't be possible even after the entire process runs its course and Earth comes to resemble Venus (assuming it were ever allowed to go so far), as one could still argue that it might have been a natural phenomenon.
It is like arguing that an oily beach is a natural phenomenon. It is possible that an oil reserve is exposed to the sea through natural causes (like an undersea earthquake opening a rift), but the hulking remains of the Exxon Valdeze would, for example, make the argument that the cause could have been natural pretty weak, even without 100% irrefutable proof.
So to with the ever warming planet. It could possibly be natural, but a mountain of strong evidence suggests it isn't, and to proceed on the very unlikely assumption that it is natural is folly to the nth degree, and an action only someone living in complete denial because they simply don't want it to be so could ever advocate.
BTW, you can't even 'prove' 2+2=4
Re:Cost of failure. (Score:3)
It is like arguing that an oily beach is a natural phenomenon. It is possible that an oil reserve is exposed to the sea through natural causes (like an undersea earthquake opening a rift), but the hulking remains of the Exxon Valdeze would, for example, make the argument that the cause could have been natural pretty weak, even without 100% irrefutable proof.
Well, natural oil slicks [nasa.gov] occur all the time, so I suppose what we need to see here is the Exxon Valdeze which links human CO2 production to global warming. At one point in the past, the Gulf of Mexico reached the base of the rocky mountains with help from high global temperatures (see Discover Magazine/May 2002) and without the help of human CO2 production. The Green party folks were certain that human pollution was sending us into another ice age [homestead.com] back in the 1970s, and now they're just as certain that the Sky is Falling yet again. Those of use who urge caution are signaled out as ignorant duffs who do not pay attention; e.g. "You're with us or you're against us". Personally, I'd rather see some rational discussion happen over this. I want to see all the side-effects of atmospheric CO2 found. I want to see good reconciliation with satellite data [nasa.gov]. Most importantly, I want scientists, and not politicians, to draft specific reccomendations after the research has become sufficient.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why is it wrong?
Is there flaws in the data gathering?
Do the theories not match the data?
If so, what is a better theory?
There are two major parts to science. Observation/experiment and theory as to why. The research is usually done right. Why? Because science strives to ensure all experiments/observations are Reproducible and most are reproduced. Researchers caught fudging data fall from grace and have a very hard time being taken seriously again. The theory on the other hand is rarely right, at least 100% right. But it is usually close.
To illustrate: the theory of relativity has never been "proven" 100%. It has seen lots of minor changes and some major competing ideas. But the science behind it have made some pretty impressive bombs, yes? Should we ever have some form of unified theory, I would guess major parts of the theory of relativity will be part of it, some will be fine tuned, some will be found completely wrong.
The usual "global warming is wrong because I say so" is NOT an argument. "global warming is just a left wing plot" is NOT an argument.
If you don't think global warming is real, great, PROVE IT!
Your assertion that there is no evidence of global warming is total BS. There are many, many studies full of evidence that something is happening and well thought out reasons for linking them to the idea of global warming. They could be wrong. That is possible, but to say so without a good argument or referring to a good argument is nothing more than ideological posturing and should not be taken seriously.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:5, Interesting)
anyway... to respond to the previous poster..
You ask why it [the theory of global warming] is wrong. First of all, there is the issue of why it has to be wrong, as opposed to not proven. But let me at least throw some doubt on the science:
1) Much of the data is indeed flawed. It is riddled with assumptions and inconsistencies. It depends on long chains of assumptions. For example, sea temperature data has been inferred from characteristics of coral growth. And yet just in the last month a paper was published (Science) showing that the coral growth is significantly affected by other factors, blowing away that assumption. Tree rings are used as a substitute for temperature or precipitation data, but have been shown to be unreliable in many cases. Other data is significantly contaminated - I am using one such data set right now.
Refusal to accept that mankind CO2 is responsible for all or most of the warming we see is not the same as evolution denial, because the weight of evidence for evolution is enormous and rapidly growing. OTOH, the evidence of the effects of the human produced increase in CO2 is poor. It is based on poor data; good data is over too short a time period to be meaningful in a climate discussion; data may be contaminated by a number of factors (surface station urban heat island effect, for example), and even when known these contaminations are "adjusted" as best as possible.
2) Which "theory" are you referring to when you talk about global warming? As far as I know, the only theories are:
1) CO2 increases cause warming (trivial physics, but not a real hypothesis to test man-made global warming in this complex system).
2) Computer simulations show warming, and with enough tuning can sort-of match the past since temperature records were kept.
The latter is not a theory so much as a numerical computing based on known and unknown physics. However, if the predictions are accurate, who cares if it is a true theory or not? But one needs to understand the nature of climate models to understand the uncertainties. Let me list a few:
As far as competing theories, how about changes in solar irradiance? Evidence that this is a significant climate forcer has become undeniable recently. This doesn't mean that the global warming hypothesis is wrong, but it certainly means that it *was* wrong in its mechanisms.
On another vein, modeling relies upon estimates of atmospheric CO2 dynamics and yet we still can't account for about 30% of the CO2 disappearance from the atmosphere. This is a huge uncertainty.
The burden of proof of a theory is on the proposer. Science works by constant refinement of theories, and outright refutation of some.
3)It is not necessary to propose a better theory to disprove, or more importantly, cast doubt upon an existing theory. Science does not require that! One could have refuted Newtonian physics by detecting gravitational lensing, without having any idea what caused the gravitational lensing!
4) Casting doubt on anthropogenic global warming does not make one a nut. True, there are nuts who cast doubt on it. And there are prople who tend to doubt it based on their political leanings, just as there are people who tend to support it based on their own political leanings.
To gather from the hysterical reporting (each event of something warmer is reported as "casting more evidence for global warming" or something stronger), I would suspect there are more of the latter than the former.
A truly scientific viewpoint is that the earth has warmed about a degree in the last 100 or so years, but that the links between that warming and human activity are insufficient to establish a strong cause-and-effect relationship. Thus one should suspect that anthropogenic CO2 may contribute to warming, but not conclude that it does.
Finally, to move on a little bit. Even if we accept that global warming is caused by humans, and that the (ever changing) climate models are providing an accurate forecast, there is a complete lack of critical thinking about what to do about it! For example, recently on here we had a debate about the Kyoto treaty. Few of the debaters realized that the best climate models (that are accepted by the IPCC and the treaty community) show that Kyoto would only retard warming by 6 years in 100 years (or in any year make a difference of a tiny fraction of a degree). And yet most advocates of doing something about global warming jump on the Kyoto bandwagon. Without the (hidden from most of the public) agenda that Kyoto is only the start of significantly more onerous and costly measures, this is completely illogical.
Equally illogical is the resistance of the global warmists (if I can coin a term) to measures that might be taken to ameliorate the negative effects and maximize benefits from the positive effects of the putative warming. This trend illustrates a strong ideological agenda - a strong bias towards forcing solutions upon unwilling mankind without a real cost-benefit analysis.
Finally, what is really illogical is the idea that we, as the people currently on earth, can do much about global warming. We have already seen that the US will not sign onto a basically symbolic (if expensive) measure: Kyoto. We must know that more significant measures will face much stronger resistance. We excuse China and India from Kyoto and yet somehow in the next 100 years imagine that they will not make up for the CO2 emissions reduced by Kyoto.
We have the arrogance (or some do) to believe that we can change the behavior of mankind, against the near and medium term benefit of most, and maintain that change for 100 years. I have seen no evidence that humans are better behaved now than they were 100 years ago, when people were then postulating utopian ideas (before WW-I, WW-II, Soviet Communism, Einstein's theories and the consequences, etc).
Even worse, we have the arrogance to assume that we should punish people today in the blind assumption that those in the future will not come up with technologies that will make the whole issue moot! Amazingly, this is even strong here on this board where most of the participants have been involved in remarkable technological transformation over short periods of time.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:3, Informative)
Sea temperature is measured by satellite [wisc.edu], not by inferring from coral growth. A correllation may be seen between coral growth and sea surface temperature, but the temperature is not measured by looking at the growth. See this NOAA site [noaa.gov]
2) Which "theory" are you referring to when you talk about global warming? As far as I know, the only theories are:
1) CO2 increases cause warming (trivial physics, but not a real hypothesis to test man-made global warming in this complex system).
2) Computer simulations show warming, and with enough tuning can sort-of match the past since temperature records were kept.
Number 2 (computer simulations) Isnt a hypothesis, or a theory, it is an attempt to verify the global warming hypothisis that you state in 1. A computer simulation is not a hypothesis in any case.
So really were only arguing about 1. Does an increase in Co2 decrease the rate of heat radiated by the planet. Thats the question. Does CO2 trap heat? Your alternative hypothesies, solar irradiation etc, may or may not be true. If solar variability is true, then that will contribute to an overall warming effect. Regardless we know one simple fact that cannot be disputed: CO2 traps heat. If it werent for some CO2 wed be living in an icebox. CO2 allows for liquid water, which then takes over as the dominant greenhouse gas. An increase in CO2 can therefore be assumed to increase the amount of heat trapped by the earths atmosphere, since CO2 has been doing that since the beginning of time. Regardless of any other causes to global warming, increasing CO2=Increasing trapped heat. So you may be right and solar variability may be a factor, granted, but this does not negate the effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. In fact it makes controlling CO2 even more vital, since we have to compensate for solar variations as well as human caused effects.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:3, Informative)
The debate isn't IF global warming is occuring, It's the cause of the warming. The burden of proof lays on those who claim that humans are responsible.
There are facts that contradict the "humans cause global warming" assertion of the neo-ludites.
The average Global tempature is lower than it was 700 years ago. At that time wine was produced in areas of England where grape cultivation is impossible today. The Vikings had a thriving colony in Greenland. Some crops were grown in higher elevations in Europe than are possible today.
This warm period was ended by the little Ice Age which saw a period of global cooling. There is also evidance for a similar period of cooling near the end of the Roman Empire though it isn't as well documented that preceded the Medeval warming period.
The historic periods of warming and cooling preceded the industrial era and are certainly natural. The present warming may be no more than a natural end to the natural cooling period that started about 650 years ago, and the fact that tempatures are still lower than they were between 1000 and around 1350 points seems to show that we still haven't recovered from the global cooling.
The biggest falicy of the neo-ludite views on global warming is that the tempature at the start of the Industrial period was "normal" rather than just another period in the long cycle of natural warming and cooling eras.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:2)
Because if you're making an assertion, the burden of proving your assertion is on you. Just because your assertion happens to be a negative doesn't mean that you suddenly don't have to back up your argument.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:2, Insightful)
That was a joke, sort of...
The volcano has not deforested 50% of the original forests of the earth. Man did that. I mention this because plants turn CO2 into O2 and allow us to breathe. If we kill all the plants, who will produce oxygen for us?
Cows that produce methane gas are not a natural occurance, they are man-made. That you aruge cow CH4 emissions are a natural source of greenhouse gases is utterly ignorant.
Our planet's environment is akin to the buffered acid solutions we learned about in chemistry class. It maintains the status quo, even as it gets pushed towards one direction of the other, say by mass release of CO2 or O2 or something else. The question before us is: How far can we push the system? What are the effects of man-made gaseous emissions (CO2, CH4, etc.) and what are the effects of man-destroyed "sinks" for CO2 (rainforest, plankton, etc.) These aren't easy questions to answer.
In fact we will probably never have enough of an understanding of climatic change to "know" just how our production of CO2 and destruction of CO2 converters has affected the environment. The data is massive and the time scale could be on the order of 10,000+ years. We will never know if what we're seeing is "the beginning of the end" or just a 50-year hiccup.
My reason for wanting to reduce CO2 emissions and to preserve natural habitat is because I like nature. I don't agree that the land is not being put to "good use" by remaining wild. I think an excellent example of our lack of human progress in dealing responsibly with our world is that we still mine for gold. Except now we do it by running entire mountains through a rock crusher and washing the chunks in cyanide to leech out the gold. How this possibly adds value to the world is beyond me (and no, that's not the queue for your libertairan/economic Darwinist explanation of free markets, I've read enough of that on this thread already.)
Tell me, why can't we live somewhat more in harmony with nature than we currently do? Why are we so attached to the "man vs. nature" paradigm going back to Genesis, man having dominion over the earth. What a load of hooey; ultimately the land has dominion over us as those folks in Melting Village, Alaska have discovered. The city I live in, Seattle, is beautiful not because of the buildings but because of the snow-capped mountains and deep blue waters surrounding her, and the greenways running through. Yet I look at Mt. Rainier in the distance and there's a big nasty layer of smog there. I would like to see that go away. I know that we could do it, too. Driving more fuel efficient cars would be a start, in particular Seattle could use a working mass transit system. What's wrong with legislating these things? As I see it, we could all be riding Segway HTs to work, except that the death of Ford and GM would be Bad For The Economy, and we can't have that! Fsck auto makers, all they've done is enabled suburban sprawl while they got rich because we all need cars to get anywhere now. I say open up the roads, or just one lane, to Segways and watch Detroit become Beirut. (Or is that too Free Market for you Libertarians?)
Is the globe warming? More than likely. Are we causing it? We might be, maybe not. Are our activities pushing the balance in favor of CO2 and away from O2? Yes.
Your move.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:3, Insightful)
Mostly I agree with you, but there is no good reason to believe that there is just one equilibrium point. To oversimplify, the weather/climate is basically what we observe of a heat engine that adsorbs heat at the equator and radiates it out into space at the poles. We've got a kinda-sorta handle on land and air, extremely poor handle on water and no handle on where the edges are from one equilibrium to another.
Increased CO2 would lead to increased average global temperature, other factors being equal. With a big and complicated heat engine that builds its engine walls out of air and water, I just don't believe in "other factors being equal". This thing will tend to push back harder than you push it. It's not all that farfetched for the effect of global warming to be another ice age. The key is probably what triggers the ocean currents.
Talking metaphores here.. (Score:3, Insightful)
A few years ago, some doctors noticed that there was a certain kind of bacteria that lived in stomach ulcers, a high correlation just like the rise in temperature and greenhouse gasses. Anyway, some people suggested that perhaps the bacteria caused the ulcers, but people were skeptical. Perhaps it was just an opportunistic infection, you know, it was easy for them to live there due to the damage cells.
So, either the bacteria caused the ulcers or the ulcers caused the bacteria. Which one was it? Medical researches didn't believe the bacteria caused the ulcers, and traditional remedies were continued (you know, lots of bland food, stress free lives, etc). I would say that there was some evidence, you would say there was none. Apparently a correlation isn't evidence in your eyes, right?
Eventually, one of the people who believed the bacteria caused the ulcer simply ate a large quantity of it, and came down with all kinds of gastro-intestinal problems. Including ulcers. Now we know that ulcers are caused by the bacteria, and that they can for the most part be cured by antibiotics.
If you had ulcers, would you have waited until the final study, the one where the scientist infected himself before trying antibiotics to cure an ulcer?
By the way, those same researchers have discovered a bacteria that is often found in people with heart disease. I don't think there are going to be many scientists willing to inject themselves with this. Should we change treatments now? Or should we go on and say it's just a bunch of BS?
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:4, Funny)
Funny observation #2: You have two thoughts that start with "Finally," neither of which is the last.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:4, Insightful)
While I agree that we have to be careful, but even if human influence was the only cause, and kyoto was completely ratified by all countries, it would only be a drop in the bucket. This along with the fact that the treaty is quite unfair to certain countries, namely the US, Austrailia and Canada makes me quite happy that the US is so unwilling to sign it.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:2)
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:2)
>instead let's just do nothing.
Well you seem to be missing the point. There are consquences to kyoto, so there is a trades off. The cost of compliance may be very high, the results are not very good, from a cost benifit point of view it is a bad investment.
>Have you considered that you might have fallen to
>the government's and industry's propaganda? If
>Kyoto seems to be harder on one country than on
>another, maybe that one country is actually doing
>a lot more damage?
Well it is certaintly possible that these countries are doing more damage, but all three countries mentioned have large land areas with large amounts of vegitation which reduces much of the CO2 produced. They are also larger and have infrastructure more dependent petroleum, and are major producers. Finally the timeframe gives a huge advantage to former eastern block countries who had to modernize after the fall of the soviet union.
This assumes that there is damage being done in the first place, and that if it was happening that kyoto would help.
Its sad to see you saying that I am falling for the industry propaganda, when you seem to just be reiterating the environmentalist propaganda.
Re:Days of denial are over. (Score:4, Insightful)
As opposed to pro-global warming advocates, whose main reason for belief is that it agrees with their biases? Come now, if you expect that the majority of people are going to hold well-reasoned out beliefs about issues that are very complex, you should sell whatever it is that you are smoking.
There are two issues with global warming: (1) what regulations, if any, should be enacted to minimize the effect of people on our environment and (2) what is really going on?
They are two completely unrelated questions, but both important. Now, people who are against the idea of being careful of what we spew into the atmosphere are the sort who seem very short-sighted, as the belief that economic progress is more important than caution is just plain dumb. Of course, people who favor instant gratification over long-term good planning are just dumb, but there's nothing particular about global warming for these people.
The other issue, what is really going on, is a completely different matter, as you point out. The world came out of an ice age fairly quickly without the help of SUVs. The world that the dinosaurs lived in appears to be warmer than the one that we currently live in. It certainly seems plausible that no matter what we do the world is going to get warmer.
Thus it is worthwile not to paint everyone with the same brush, since some of the positions are quite reasonable ones.
deny the lie? of course (Score:4, Interesting)
A Henry Lamb article [wnd.com] pointed me to an interesting link you may like. Over 17,000 scientists have signed [oism.org] a petition to reject Kyoto. The petition in part states the following.
The earth's climate is variable and cyclical. The variation we're seeing is within normal bounds. Some places in the world are actually cooler, and the places that are warmer (like Sibera and Alaska) could probably use it. I feel for the people that have to move off their erosion-prone island, just like I feel for the people that continue to build houses in flood plains. I feel that where they want to live is up to them. Don't take advantage of their distress to give control of my life to the government. Thank you.
Not so fast... (Score:5, Interesting)
I smell a poorly researched article written by a reactionary reporter with an agenda.
Mod parent post UP (Score:2)
My cousin spent summers in Alaska visiting his dad and a few Christmas vacations too. He had some interesting tales to tell about the hot and sometimes muggy weather that didn't match stereotypical Alaska weather. My brother in law spent a year in the region doing cleanup work for the huge oil spill and a friend spent three full years in the area with a fishing outfit. The info that Primenerd posted matches what each has said about weather and summer conditions. Winter was also described as a big, dark, endless freezer.
Re:Not so fast... (Score:3, Informative)
The article is not citing these anecdotes in order to convince you of the reality of Alaskan warming. Alaskan warming is a broadly accepted fact - no one disputes the increase in average temperatures. The article cites the examples from daily life in order to bring personal meaning to the numbers. Nonetheless I will address your particular points:
1. Barrow. Examine this graph [noaa.gov]. Do you agree or disagree that averages temperatures in Barrow have risen over time?2. Shishmaref (and the numerous other towns cited in the article). I agree that some rate of erosion and forced relocation should be expected over time. But permafrost warming is an accepted fact [nrcan.gc.ca]. (I cite a Geological Survey of Canada report)
3. Trans-Alaska Pipeling. I quote from the article:
Do you agree or disagree that he is in a position to explain the nature of the thawing, and the likely causes of it?
Re:Not so fast... (Score:2)
Re:Not so fast... (Score:2)
Eric the viking anyone? (Score:2)
One part that is apt:
As the island was sinking the 'king' and his followers are happily singing ignoring the sinking fact, They are urged to leave (or die) and they happily say no, its not sinking.... sing song sing song....
We don't know for SURE about temp rise etc or if it is caused by industrial activity, but it seems wise to assume that we should be cautious to ensure future liberties.
It is difficault thou', as it seems that many events are taken advantage of to press too far for power grabs rather than actually helping the situation (eg terrorism) and thus destroying current hard won liberties.
Re:That is very unwise (Score:2)
The magnitue of the possible effects are what makes it wise to be cautious.
For example you may be willing to play a blindfold game in your own living room (because you would assume that the worst you can do is stub your toe) but you would be unlikley to play the same game on the highway (because you would assume that the worst that could happen is that you can be squished by a car) note that we don't KNOW that either bad event will occur but the magnitude of 'badness' in the second case (playing blindfold on the road) means that you probably wouldn't do it.
Obvious! (Score:2, Flamebait)
Why, isn't it obvious?
Don't you idiots pay attention to those well-informed Slashdot posters? They have all the answers as to why I don't need to worry about changing my lifestyle. Hey, a badly-reasoned ill-informed load of Ayn Rand bullshit posted on Slashdot by a complete nobody in Butt-Phuck, Nebraska, is good enough to get moderated up to +5, Informative -- so it must be true!!
Or I could pay attention to real scientists who, like, know what they're talking about. But that would just be falling into the trap prepared by ${evil_people}!
Could the Sun Be the Culprit? (Score:2)
"Whatever the cause..." (Score:2)
I think that quote says exactly why this is an interesting story that has little implication for the larger debate about our environment. I am the first to declare that all the industrial toxins and whatnot we're pumping into our atmosphere are having negative effects. However, one of the main arguments that's always made in global warming discussions is that climate change has been a constant over the history of the Earth. We simply don't know how much human actions are responsible for what we're experiencing now. So while I'm sure increased rates in asthma, cancers, and birth defects in some places are probably industry related, I'm not convinced about a bunch of wackos who live on an ice shelf losing their "land".
Re:"Whatever the cause..." (Score:2)
I dont know the data for alaska but similar data for the world says thats not true.
Pork-priming? (Score:3, Informative)
Good ol' Sen. Stevens...priming the pork-pump, count on it.
I have searched this entire thread... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I have searched this entire thread... (Score:2)
Interesting quote (Score:5, Interesting)
(dates may be off)
Re:Interesting quote (Score:3, Informative)
Wait'll the salmon come out poached (Score:2)
Or when Mr. Cheney tells me, whichever comes first.
NEWSFLASH!!!! (Score:5, Interesting)
and in the 1970s they said we were heading for another ice age...
the scientists say "we cant look at localized warming or cooling, we must look at the whole picture" yet here they are pumping localized warming... why dodnt they come to OKLAHOMA? its cooler than it has been for a while AND there are LESS tornadoes...
to the deniers of global warming... (Score:4, Insightful)
We have excellent records of CO2 concentrations over thousands of years from inclusions of gas in ice cores, as well as other sources. CO2 concentrations have unquestionably increased significantly since the 1800's. And increased CO2 concentrations invariably will lead to higher temperatures. The only scientific debate is whether the temperature increase from our current levels of CO2 will be modest or dramatic.
But that question doesn't really get to the core of things. CO2 emissions aren't standing still, they are growing exponentially. If we don't curb CO2 emissions, atmospheric CO2 won't just double, it will double over and over again. At some point, even the most conservative climate models predict catastrophic consequences, whether that be 2x, 4x, 8x, or 16x current levels.
Sooner or later, we have to put a limit on the growth of CO2 emissions because, while we may debate how much CO2 is too much, there exists some level that is going to be too much. So, we might as well impose the limits now, since there is no economic reason to keep belching out CO2 at current rates. Besides, with a reduction in CO2 come a lot of other benefits, like reduction in particulate emissions, sulfur, and other pollutants.
Back off guys.. this is serious (Score:3, Insightful)
Back off, seriously.
Correlation does not refute causation (Score:3, Insightful)
Correlation is not causation, but there's a mechanism, a prediction, a verification of the prediction, and a complete lack of any alternative plausible hypotheses at this point.
Just because we understand the physiology of hangovers, and you drank like a fish last night, and you have a terrible headache just like the last six times you overdid it doesn't mean that your headache is a hangover. After all, correlation is not causation. Still, it might be a good idea to ease up on your drinking anyway.
Anyone who claims the evidence is weak at this point is willfully ignoring the evidence, or selecting *very* carefully from it, or listening to someone else who is doing so.
Things are pretty much on track with the earliest greenhouse predictions from 15 years ago. (Biggest and earliest changes were expected at high northern latitudes. What do you know...)
And it gets dramatically worse from here on. Fossil fuels, in addition to being responsible for a lot of otherwise dangerous global entanglements, are doing damage to the world not only increasingly but acceleratingly. Nothing but ideology and special interests prevent us from escaping our headlong dive toward widespread environmental disruption combined with getting messed up in medieval throwback geopolitics. Losing fossil fuel dependency fast is a big double win, but it's a little inconvenient to some corporations. Hmm.
It's really time people with any brain cells started to look at the evidence [www.ipcc.ch].
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:3, Interesting)
<humor>Unless you experienced a vastly different winter than I did, I'd say getting warming is a good thing. Sucks for Alaska tho =)</humor>
As for actual scientific support for the assertion that our society's fossil fuel use is "warming the planet", I'd sure like to see some. If I'm expected to take it all on faith, I won't. I didn't ignore the bits in science class where they talk about climatic change cycles, so I'm not convinced. I don't see these effects you refer to, every day or any day, and unless you have a Ph.D. or three in whatever it takes to be an expert in global climatic change, it is intellectually dishonest to claim that you see alleged effects due to global warming.
Of course, you could argue that it is in our best interests to find an alternative for a non-renewable resource. I would probably agree with that, because it is a logical idea, and therefore has merit. There are facts to support the assertion that these resources are non-renewable. If you want to push the idea that we should change our habits "just in case the global warming theory is correct", I would say thats akin to agnosticism... "better sorta believe in a god just in case he/she/it is real... wouldn't want to go to hell"... go read Life, the Universe, and Everything: An Interview with Douglas Adams [americanatheist.org].
However, I suspect your views are merely formulated to support an anti-free market political stance, in which case you might have more luck in Eastern Canada or in BC. I don't see Alberta embracing socialism any time soon.
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:2)
Considering the mass effects global warming (if true) will have vs. the very localized effect of believing, the major economic damage (think the insurance companies had it bad in 9/11?), the loss of life and arable land, the spread of disease, and the long term damage to environmental systems that work to support us, I would say the possible effects are a little more dire than you make them out to be.
Now, we can continue to drive our economy forward at 100 mph through the environmental fog and hope that we don't go over a cliff, or we can choose to slow down the economy and see if we can't turn on some headlights.
Those who argue for no change are essentially saying "There is no cliff", but they don't have any better a view through the fog than those who are screaming "For goodness sakes stop!"
I personally know who I've chosen to listen to.
you have got to be kidding me (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:you have got to be kidding me (Score:2, Informative)
At this time, in the United State there is NOT a government mandated fuel consumption, and vehicles are increasing thier fuel efficentcy, not because of government mandates, but because the marketplace demands it.
Re:you have got to be kidding me (Score:2, Informative)
Yes, it does. It's called CAFE (corporate average fuel economy). It states that each manufacturer has to meet the standards CAFE sets, which is currently 27.5 miles per gallon (MPG) average for passenger cars, and 20.7 MPG for light-trucks (SUVs included). This means that for a certain model year, that manufacturer's fleet must average out to meet the CAFE standards. If they don't meet these standards they are liable for a civil penalty of 5.00 USD for each 0.1 MPG its fleet is below the standard, multiplied by the number of vehicles it produces.
Your sig (Score:2)
Big Business is policing itself and the quality of our environment is improving constantly.
I want what it is you're smoking. Perhaps you've been sniffing car exhaust a bit too much. Hey, come to think of it, is that what it takes to get into mensa?
You have achieved the holy grail... (Score:4, Insightful)
...of /. posting: +5 (Troll). Enjoy it while you got it.
I think it was the "card-carrying Mensa" sig, coupled with the misspelling of "tolerance." Or maybe the juxtaposition of the comment on stupidity with the parroting of the latest Rush Limbaugh lies being used to dupe the really stupid who want to believe so badly.
Since others have pointed out the obvious flaw in the "Big Business is policing itself" lie, I will concentrate on the "Kyoto is a restrictive and impractical way to cut pollution" lie. The Kyoto Treaty is nothing of the kind. It is an agreement among nations as to who has what responsibility for cleaning up how much. It says nothing about the way in which the emission of greenhouse gases might be accomplished (well, it says some things, but only to preclude bogus schemes by the unscrupulous).
Government-mandated pollution reduction is not required. Each country is left to its own devices: economic incentives, tax breaks, or legislated restrictions. The fact that this lie is being promulgated is an excellent measure of the desperation of the anti-Kyoto forces. All their other arguments are falling one by one, so they are reduced to pathetic trolling such as this:
Most Democrats, of course, believe that the "the Capitalist system works." Part of the reason it works so well in the United States is that James Madison realized the key to its success would be government regulation (particularly enforcement of contracts). Since that time, we have found a number ways in which it works better with regulation.
An excellent example of this is pollution control. Imagine, if you will, a community of manufacturers who compete with each other. Imagine further that they are moral people all of whom want to do the right thing. (This is not as surprising as Ralph Nader seems to think. Businessmen are people, too, and they don't want to poison their kids any more than they want to poison yours.)
Sooner or later, one of these companies will find itself at a competitive disadvantage. They cannot produce their product at a price which will allow them to make money selling it for what they can get. If they are paying money to reduce their pollution, they will be in a position where they can stay competitive by cutting controls or they can lose everything by going out of business. They may start polluting with full intention to clean it up later, when they get competitive again.
But they may never get the chance. Because now another business is in the least-competitive position, their existence threatened if they don't cut pollution controls. Eventually you can see an entire industry polluting at a maximum, EVEN THOUGH NONE OF THEM WANT TO. Regulations prohibiting pollution can be seen as a contract (sort of like a treaty) between them with the government as a guarantor. And it also protects them against a competitor who actually is nefarious and really doesn't care what is right.
The Kyoto Treaty can be viewed as just such a contract between nations. Any industrial nation could achieve an unfair competitive advantage over the others by ignoring global warming. If one country is losing out in the global marketplace because its business is overtaxed, the government could allow greenhouse gas emissions as a way to become competitive again without giving up its beloved taxes. (We saw this in Eastern Europe and Russia and China during the Cold War.)
Mensa-morons can whine and moan all they want, but the Kyoto Treaty will WORK. Just like the pollution and fuel-efficiency regulations they probably opposed during the '70s (and now celebrate the results of).
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:2, Interesting)
Exactly. And how many years of good data do we have on the earth's climate? 150? 200? So who can say for sure the reasons for Global Warming.
The temperature is increasing...but does that mean we're heading for disaster, or is this the earth working as it always has?
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:2)
Why do you assume the two are mutually exclusive?
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:2)
Water is at its densest at about 4 degrees celsius.
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:2)
Water is one of the two exceptional substances I know of that is actually densest slightly above the temperature at which it freezes (at normal atmospheric pressure, etc.) The other one if elemental gallium.
Re:I live in Alberta (Score:2)
Re:Local Warming != Global Warming (Score:2, Interesting)
BZZT, thanks for playing.
When Erik the Red discovered this odd country, he named it "Greenland" in an attempt to attract more settlers to it.
Re:Local Warming != Global Warming (Score:2)
Re:Local Warming != Global Warming (Score:2)
What we do know for sure is that the climate was once such that Greenland could support a number of Viking settlers. However, the climate worsened, and they all starved a few centuries back.
So, BZZZT y'all, bitches.
Re:No - !(Re:Local Warming != Global Warming) (Score:2)
Your next three are you agreeing with me, so we can skip those.
Your next two, which make reference to a pattern are malarky. To say something follows a pattern is to say that there is some model out there, that if we were only smart enough to know what it is, would predict the weather for us. I think you misunderstand chaotic systems. In a chaotic system, seemingly insignificant changes can have large indeterminatable effects. Chaotic systems can resemble patterns, but they do not follow patterns.
The patterns are simply not present. To use the hoary old example: The mechanics of atmospheric physics are such that if we imagine two parallel universes that split as you drink your tea, one where you put sugar in your tea this morning, and another where you don't, are such that the two universes could have wildly different weather. One universe could have massive flooding this year, and the other could have drought.
The 5, 10, 100, year flood patterns are statistical patterns. Take a period of 1000 years. The top ten magnitude floods are 100 year floods. The top 100 are 10 year floods. The top 200 are 20 years floods. A twenty year flood doesn't come every 20 years, it simply has a 1/20 probability of occuring in a given year. In fact, you could go a century without a twenty year flood (though it would be more unlikely than 1/20 per year figure suggests, they aren't completely random).
I responded to the comments about Greenland in a post. The others are just quoting a common piece of misinformation. Climate change in Greenland is a fact. Eric the Red's saga has a number of tall tales.
I'm not saying that we can write off all unusual weather events. But they can only be taken in context. You have to have a statistically valid sample. Any individual local climate change is useless. You can't say what it could have been caused by. In fact, there are so many dependant variables, that talk of cause is almost silly. However, if you sample a thousand different local climate changes, then you have something to go on.
Let me sum up. A 30 degree increase in one area is not evidence of global warming. We've had 30 degree fluctuations of temperature since time began. However, 5 degree increases past average across 10,000 locations, now that means something.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2, Redundant)
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
Wonder if any of them tried that in court? "I couldn't possibly have stolen that car, as cars were being stolen before I was born..."
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:5, Insightful)
Extreme left-wingers? What??
What I don't understand is why most right-wingers in the USA like to classify issues such as global warming as a left-wing political issue. Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
Simple. To left-wingers, the issue is Global Warming. To right-wingers, the issue is the left wanting control.
Let me explain some right-wing views. Only after you understand these views, can you understand the answer to your question.
Also, please note, I am not bringing these up for debate (we can do *that* in a journal) I am merely mentioning what is believed, for better or for worse.
1) Resources are made to be used. If they'll run out, then so be it.
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
Now, Global Warming has never been proven. It is merely a theory. It sounds good, but so does the Theory of Evolution. So the right-wing sees the left-wings jumping on the global warming bandwagon as premature.
Now to match the three points above.
1) Even is it was true, resources are made to be used. We'll deal with the consequences later, we always have. As they say, "Necessity is the mother of invention." In fact, if we don't cause Global Warming, we're probably holding off such amazing invention!
2) Even if Global Warming was happening, and then, even if this was a "Bad Thing", who cares? We can a one sort of world, and future generations get a different one. They don't "deserve" anything.
3) (And the most important). Right-wingers don't have an issue with the left-wingers living out their fantasies. It's just when they force those fantasies on others, and tell them what they *can't* do, it gets frustrating.
For example, instead of legislating clean emmisions, some left-wingers should figure out a way to make it more attractive than the current fuels. Then people will *want* to switch! Instead, they force legilation, and that just makes everyone angry.
Is it not possible to be right wing and concerned about the environment?
It is possible, that they are, but they are more worried about living life freely. Instead of prediciting doomsdays and heralding death, why not actively make the world better by *promoting* a better place.
In short, don't be so pushy, and maybe people will listen.
If you'd like a really well spelled out refutation of Global Warming, and a clear deliniation of many right-wing values, check out Rush Limbaugh's, "The Way Things Ought to Be". I believe it is in that book. Some shudder at the thought of reading his books, but until one reads them, you can't complain. I believe that I read most of the first book, and found him to be clear and concise.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
2) There is no logical reason that future generations "deserve" a "better" Earth.
This remark is probably an example of why liberals complain there is no such thing as a "compassionate conservative." You may need to be reminded that once a new generation is born, the previous one does not suddenly disappear into the mists. They stick around for a while. You may also need to be reminded that old people have more strict requirements in their environment (e.g. air purity, temperature, etc). I'm not sure about you, but when I'm old, I don't really want to be worrying about these things as I'll likely be stuck on a fixed income and will have plenty of other things to worry about. Besides that, advances in technology make it possible to improve conditions in the world. Do you have a logical reason to deny people of the improvements technology can provide?
3) (Very important) Noone should be told what to do. You can advocate, but you shouldn't legislate.
So does this mean Republicans are anarchists or preachers? Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree . This is why the government made things like laws, so that instead of saying, "You shouldn't rob that man. It's impolite," the government instead says, "You shouldn't rob that man. The reward isn't worth the punishment you'll face in the future."
On another note: yes, the liberals spread FUD about global warming, and maybe global warming is all part of a long-term cycle, but we can't really figure that out until we've tested this empirically. The obvious way to do this would be to stop (cut down, restrict, etc) the emissions of "greenhouse gases" and see what happens. If nothing significant happens, then we can be confident that "greenhouse gases" aren't harming the environment, and thus the people that live in said environment.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
Of course people should be told what to do, to a degree
Here's a better way to put it: People shouldn't be made to live for the sake of others.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
For instance, "solutions" often include massive wealth "redistribution," controls imposed on first-world economies only, a call for elimination or nationalization of whole industries, etc.
"Global warming!" these days has the same ring to it as "Won't someone please think of the children?!?!"
it's totally a politcal issue. If "the left" were not actually intent on riding the coattails of disaster (real or imagined) into power, then people might take them more seriously. Being told that you're ruining the planet, your country and ideals are evil, and that you need "enlightened rule" by a bunch of arrogant fucks kind of rubs the wrong way. If you'll notice, most of the crusaders for global warming are not scientists, they're members of "Non-Governmental Organizations," who want power and money real bad. The actual scientific community is much less hysterical, much less unified, non-political, and much less sure of global warming and its causes.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
It might have something to do with the neo-ludite faction of the left using "harm the enviroment" as a mantra to oppose any progress. 50 years ago it was "harm the workers" now it's "harm the Furbish Lousewort"
When the nut cases espouse your cause you become identified with nut cases. This is equally true if it's right wing or left wing nut cases that espouse your cause. The Enviromental cause is not helped by a pack of Hippies that refuse to accept that it's not 1968 running around every Earthday mouthing pop eco Bullshit. If the Neo Nazis had decided Global warming was a "Jewish Plot" to destroy the "Aryans from the Northern areas" and made more noise than the Hippy tree huggers then it would be viewed as a far right political cause.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
Disclaimer: I am an American.
What many non-Americans, and particularly Europeans, may not understand is just how conservative (and in the post 9/11 era, downright ugly) American politics have become. What you consider pretty far to the right is likely left of the current Democratic party. The US political spectrum overlaps that of Europe only to the right of the European Center, while what we call 'centrist' politics would, in Germany, probably be somewhere between the CDU (conservative) and Republikaner (ultra-nationalists).
In this country one set of conservatives believe global warming could be a problem. Most, but not all, of these conservatives are Democrats. Another set is in complete denial, and will remain so even after the seas have risen and they've been forced to relocate their factories inland several hundred miles. Most, but not all, of these tend to be Republican (or even farther to the right: Libertarian).
Both sides use the issue as a political football, which is reprehensible IMHO, but it is the Reagan-Bush Republicans who are truly adept at humiliating this country in just about every international ecological summit or meeting. The scientific evidence that human industrial activity is aggrivating, perhaps fundamentally causing, the warming of the planet is mounting geometricly, and psuedo-scientific demands for 100% proof are reminiscent of Creationists and their arguments (another source of humiliation for America).
It has, indeed, become quite emberrassing to be an American, and I fear it will only become more so before things get any better.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
Uhhh... no. Libertarians would please have you refrain from confusing them with right-wing republicans and other authoritarian nutjobs.
It has, indeed, become quite emberrassing to be an American
Pshaw. Why? because the US isn't running with the herd? Ask those uppity Euros about their little anti-semitic problem sometime, see if they have a good answer. Or ask why, if they're so hot on human rights, that they don't seem to actually care about humans in countries other than their own? Etc.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
Well I'm not visiting America then. Half of you are freaks, apparently.
Re:oh no... more global warming (...not...??) (Score:2)
What, no potshot against evolution? (Score:2)
We are having an effect on the climate, but its not quite as bad as you freak extreme-left alarmists would have us believe. (If you voted for Al Gore, you are a freak, end of story)
Leaving aside where you're getting your inside information on climate change, this is a pretty broad definition of "freak"- it includes the majority of the U.S. voting population.
Re:Argh! (Score:4, Insightful)
Your leader. Your leader doesn't get it.
Re:Argh! (Score:2)
RTFF [slashdot.org]
Re:Our leader gets it. (Score:2)
Pretty impressive realization, for a guy who can't speak in complete sentences. [dubyaspeak.com] Maybe the brain cells in his head that normally help with grammar and keep singular/plural and past/present/future tense consistent are busy performing climate simulations instead.
Re:The extremes always change first (Score:5, Interesting)
More forested areas are always a good thing, but there are non-negligible consequences that we shouldn't overlook.
Take the caribou situation in northern Quebec, Canada. One million caribous reside in the vast artic-tundra northern regions of that province. Every year, thanks to a warming climate, virginia deers living in the forests of southern Quebec adventure a little more to the north, carrying with them a worm called the Parelaphostrongylus tenuis. The problem is that this worm, benign to the deer, is instantly fatal (a few days at most) to the caribou. At their current rate of progression, the deer and caribou population will meet in less than a decade.
What happens then to the million caribous is left as an excercise to the reader.
Re:The extremes always change first (Score:3, Interesting)
They'll evolve to be resistant to the worm after all the ones who aren't die out?
Or perhaps they'll go extinct like the millions of other species before them who were in the wrong place at the wrong time (i.e. unfit for their environment)?
They'll move farther north to where it's colder?
I'm not trying to claim anything, and I certainly support emissions regulations and other reasonable laws designed to minimize our unforseen
Re:what is wrong with you people (Score:2)
Re:what is wrong with you people (Score:2)
The issue isn't that ice is melting during warmer months. The issue is that ice that hasn't melted for centuries/millenia -- ice that isn't supposed to be melting in that part of the world -- is melting. It sucks, really it does.
Re:Kyoto, Global Warming, and Alaska (Score:2)
Re:Kenai Peninsula Changes (Score:2, Insightful)
FYI: Republican, NRA member, EFF supporter, lifelong Alaskan.
Re:Baked in alaska (Score:2)
These indoor grow-ops are quite a problem locally as they generaly pick a rental house, gut the interior, install their gear, and hot-wire the electricity to avoid detection (and high electricty bills). This last modification often increases the chance of a fire a great deal.
Re:In Search of the Ice Age (Score:2)
Re:So who whill be first? (Score:2)
There are a lot of different cars on the market. For a given level of safety and other features that we were looking for, the two cars we as a family have purchased over the last 8 years were selected for their high fuel economy. Unfortunately, our most recent purchase (last fall) had significantly LOWER economy than any car we had purchased before - why? Because, with Congress wimping out on CAFE standards, cars sold today have WORSE mpg ratings than they have had for years. Look at any model you like, and compare fuel economy for the 2001 or 2002 model year with 2000 or earlier and you'll see what I'm talking about! Fortunately at least the Japanese makes are coming out with some hybrids that look pretty good.
All the slug-like do-nothings typical of
Oh well, time to move back to Canada... Toronto will be real nice when it's as warm as NYC.
Re:Ozone Depletion not Global Warming (Score:2, Informative)