Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Still More on Global Warming 718

Posted by michael from the fair-and-balanced-just-like-Fox dept.
hype7 writes "The Daily Telegraph is running a piece on the world's temperature. Apparently, it was a lot hotter in the middle ages: "A review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Still More on Global Warming More

Still More on Global Warming

Comments Filter:

  • Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alwsn ( 593349 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:40PM (#5674542)
    " . . . Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one--even the staunchest supporters of science and technology--had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years..."


    George Reisman, Ph.D, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

    • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by JebusIsLord ( 566856 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:51PM (#5674608)
      The problem with this argument is that science is a useful but imperfect tool. As a scientist, you SHOULD be distrustful of its application when a failure could be catastrophic. Predicting future climatic changes is a good thing, even if sometimes flawed. building nuclear power plants are NOT a good thing when done wrong.

      I am a huge proponent of science. I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded. I support the development of alternative fuel sources (even nuclear) but I DON'T support the blind application of all things "scientific" when the consequences could be catastrophic.

      • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06, 2003 @05:16PM (#5675050)

        I think the outrage over genetically modified foods is reactionary and ungrounded

        Not everyone that opposes genetically engineered foods is a technofobic hippie. I see another problem with these things: Large companies like Monsanto sell genetically engineered seeds to farmers that produce plants whose seeds are unusable, so the farmers *have* to buy Monsanto's seeds every year. Sooner or later, every farmer is dependent on Monsanto. That is not a good thing, imho.

    • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by giminy ( 94188 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:00PM (#5674650) Homepage Journal
      While it's true that environmentalists distrust technological creations' effects on the environment and on health, this doesn't discount environmentalists trusting the scientific method for observation.

      Besides, science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant (Chernobyl, Three Mile Island are fine counterexamples). Pesticides do have negatives effects on the environment (remember DDT?). Chemical preservatives cause cancer (More potassium benzoate in your maple syrup?).

      Sorry if I don't trust things that have proven themselves untrustworthy.

      Observation is something completely different. In fact it is this very same scientific observation that causes environmentalists to realize that this technology is untrustworthy.

      George Reisman should go back to commenting on economics and stop pretending to be an scientist.

      • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by IIRCAFAIKIANAL ( 572786 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:17PM (#5674738) Journal
        Three mile island is the result of operator incompetence, not bad science.

        • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Raffaello ( 230287 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:28PM (#5674811)
          Since the design of TMI required human operators, the possiblity of operator incompetence was a built in part of the design of TMI. However, the designers failed to implement a system that made it impossible for operator incompetence to cause a catastrophic failure. That's bad engineering. There were insufficient fail-safe mechanisms, which guaranteed that, given sufficient time, there would eventually be a catastophic failure .

          BTW, "bad science" should read "bad engineering," because no one disputes the basic science of nuclear plants - there's no disagreement as to whether fission reactors can produce electricity via steam turbines. There is very legitimate disagreement as to whether it is possible to engineer such a plant so that no operator incompetence can possibly have catastrophic effects.

      • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by meta-monkey ( 321000 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:32PM (#5674835) Journal
        DDT is a perfect example of why you need to be very careful of your sources, and to avoid politically demagoguery when it comes to science. Rachel Carson was a poor scientist, she did not conduct her own research, and she mis-represented other scientists' legitamate work to alarm people over DDT with her book, "Silent Sprint."

        The fact of the matter is, DDT is not significantly harmful to people. Certainly, it's less harmful than malaria. Carson's use of DDT to further her environmentalist goals through politics led to the deaths of millions in tropic, third-world regions due to mosquito-borne malaria, and the death tolls continue to rise today. For more information, check http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.htm

        That's why we have to be very careful with the highly politcally charged issue of global warming. Within the global warming camp, are those who a) understand the issues and believe, at the advice of scientists who have conducted legitamate research, that the earth is warming and it's our fault, and b) those who are opposed to capitalism and the United States, and wish to wield global warming as a weapon against their political enemies, facts and science be damned. There are also considerable reasons to doubt the methods of scientists who conclude the earth is warming and that it's our fault, and there are also other studies which show just the opposite. So, in effect, the jury is still out. We need to be sure of the facts before we take radical actions with unforeseen and unintended consequences.

        • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)

          by giminy ( 94188 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @05:56PM (#5675224) Homepage Journal
          The fact of the matter is, DDT is not significantly harmful to people.

          You mean not directly significantly harmful to people. Let's not forget what it does to birds, fish, and other wild critters. Disrupting the food chain could have very serious future consequences for people, which is the sort of thing that environmentals wish to avoid.

          If we're all starving in 50 years because all the critters die due to some widely used chemical "not significantly harmful to people," killing everything else, you'll change your mind. But then it will be too late.

      • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rob Simpson ( 533360 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @05:26PM (#5675098)
        Chernobyl was the a disaster because of a deeply flawed design and extreme incompetence on the part of the operators. Three Mile Island was the result of operator incompetence - but even then, no actual harm was caused.

        What about the effects of breathing tons of coal smoke? Science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe fossil fuel power plant. Or any entirely safe power plant (or anything) for that matter. What about wind farms killing birds, or hydro plants ruining salmon spawning grounds? In many cases, nuclear isn't the best option, but why is it the only one that needs to prove itself 100% safe and environmentally friendly?

      • Trust? Truth? Perspective, please. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by fygment ( 444210 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @06:37PM (#5675390)
        Nuclear Power: You cite two examples of operator failure.

        DDT: saved immensely more people from pest borne disease than were remotely affected by environmental impact

        Preservatives: when was our last famine?

        Observation: Environmentalists, like most of us, focus on "evidence" that supports their point of view i.e. observation is wildly subjective even when gathered by the finest technology available simply because data must be interpreted.

        Fact is, from based on "observation" we should intensely distrust other people. Mind you, my computer is a close second. Now there's an untrustworthy piece of technology :-)
      • " this doesn't discount environmentalists trusting the scientific method for observation."

        Huh?

        Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC."

        He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.

        He doesn't want to trust modern tree ring me

    • That's hardly a convincing arguement in that paragraph. Mr. Reisman is relies on a classic tool of rhetoric: Attributing every opinion held by ANY member of the group to ALL members of the group. Since "environmental movement" is an incredibly broad label (industrial ecologist and tree-sitter both qualify), mushing all the opinions of all the people under that banner into one giant amalgam is of course going to result in a lot of contradiction.
      Now, if he can pick ONE highly respected climate scientist or

      • Oh, and by the way, we can forecast the weather in the long-term and globally, much better than in the short-term and locally. Why, I'll bet you it's gonna be on average warmer this summer than it will be next winter!

        Um... that's not forecasting -- thats statistics. Same same as saying: "I'll bet you men are going to be on average TALLER than women in the state of Mississippi". Forecasting is quite a different animal. Forecasting would say something like: "It's going to be warmer next year at this ti

    • Scientist are *never* sure... Otherwise they wouldn't be scientists and wouldn't be practicing science..(ok, well they could be quite sure about something but wouldn't/are not allowed to bet their lives on it). So they use terms as maybe/could be/all else being equal etc... It's their job to be unsure about things, doubt an question.

      Politicians on the other hand are a different specie. They must convince other people that they know what they are doing (even if they don't have a clue and are in dark mddy wa

    • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by alkali ( 28338 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:18PM (#5674750)
      The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years...

      Reisman, an economist, knows that he's trying to pull a fast one here here. The difference between weather and climate is the more or less the difference between trying to predict whether one particular lottery ticket will be the winner -- who the hell knows? it's a lottery! -- and predicting whether a lottery with prize X, odds Y, and Z tickets sold will turn a profit for its sponsor, which is the sort of thing that undergraduate economics students do every day. That he is willing to engage in this kind of rhetorical flimflammery strongly suggests that whatever the merits of what he might say, the fact that he has a "Ph.D" (uh oh, book larnin'!) should not particularly impress you.

      ("That's Dr. Reisman. I didn't go to Evil Economics Grad School for six years to be called mister.")

      • The difference between weather and climate is ...

        Very valid. However, the modeling technology for both is pretty much the same, and the global warming argument requires strong belief in models in particular.

        The difficulty of forecasting climate far in advance is quite similar to the difficulty in forcasting weather far into the future (but at a different scale).

        If we had thousands of years of accurate data we might be able to at least test climate models. But we don't - we have partial data, with noise

    • Re:Will it be cold tomorrow? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Telex4 ( 265980 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:20PM (#5674759) Homepage
      he environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives.

      I'm sorry, but that's nonsense. It's a healthy belief in scientific method and rigour that leads many to be wary of certain technologies that have been developed closed environments by companies that have a vested interest in making sure the product gets out, and that haven't undergone sufficient testing and peer review to be deemed entirely safe. It's also common for environmentalists to hold the view that developing expensive and potentially dangerous technologies that are unecessary is a bad thing.

      At least do some research before posting that pap.

    • The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years..."

      No-one is claiming to forecast weather over this period, the studies are forecasting climate. To have confused the two shows that the writer lacks even the most basic grip on his subject material. Although it is a fair criticism of the environmental movement, he should stay away from making claims
    • When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology,

      erm um, NO.

      The environmental movement is applying the 'precautionary principle'. It's a process not unlike what actuarials go thru when deciding what to charge you for insurance. There are basically two questions to ask:

      1. What's the cost of being wrong?
      2. What's the probability of being wrong?

      Nuclear pow

    • Conversely... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Goonie ( 8651 )
      I think that argument can be turned around on, say, the current administration. They're quite happy to trust scientists and engineers who say they can, for instance, build a working defence system (despite the fact that there's plenty of scientists and engineers who say they can't), but they're not prepared to listen to scientists who tell them that global warming is real -- or even, from a risk management perspective, take action on the basis that even if it's not certain it's better to be safe than sorr
    • Will it be cold tomorrow?

      Yes. They're predicting 6-12 inches of snow tonight.

      It's fucking April. It shouldn't be snowing in New Jersy in April.

      Something ain't right...
      =Smidge=

  • Re: Environmentalists (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ghazgkull ( 83434 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:40PM (#5674543)
    "...in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists."

    That sould read: "In start contrast to the scientists." (most, anyway)
    • And most doctors will tell you that second-hand smoke is a killer even though it has only VERY minor effects on people.

      The fact of the matter is that there are mob mentalities in every profession and most scientists are just as likely to be caught in the whirlwind of rumor as Joe Sixpack.

      Most Doctors and scientists are average people who believe what they hear on the news. We've all been raised to believe that second-hand smoke, or cholesterol, or sodium, or fat, or sunlight, or carbon dioxide will put y
  • Yes climates fluctuate naturally, but come on people - quit ignoring the overwhelming evidence for global warming just because you don't like what it predicts. To suggest that the massive ecological and atmospheric changes we have made over the past century is ignoring the obvious. OF COURSE it will have an effect.

  • Everyone has a study (Score:2, Interesting)

    by aagha ( 130742 )
    _MY_ studies show that other people's studies are not reliable.

    Everyone seems to have a study which supports their claim. For every study that comes out showing that weather was warmer in the middle-ages, "the environmentalists" will come out with a study showing that either the former studies aren't reliable, or that the current warm temperature changes are more severe.

  • article credibility (Score:5, Informative)

    by cronian ( 322433 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:47PM (#5674579)

    The telegraph article is a pretty lousy article, and gives few details. A bettle article is available at Space Flight Now [spaceflightnow.com]. Apparently, the study was partially funded by the American Petroleum Institute so I would be especially wary of bias.

    There isn't enough evidence in the articles to understand what the study actually found. They published some of their findings in the Climate Research [int-res.com] journal, which only gives an abstract without a subscription. However, they haven't even published their full findings which are supposed to be published in Energy and Environment which appears to be more of a policy journal than a scientific journal.

    I think it is very hard to evaluate the credibility of these claims without seeing the actual journal article that explains them. Another thing is that according to Space Flight Now [spaceflightnow.com] article, is that the study is actually "A review of more than 200 climate studies," and we need to look at the authenticity of these studies. However, maybe it will help us look at global warming from a new perspective.

    • Re:article credibility (Score:2, Interesting)

      by alkali ( 28338 )
      Five years ago, the same authors argued that the sun was getting brighter [harvard.edu], and that that was the cause of global warning. Whoops.

      (Note that the Telegraph article refers to "a team from Harvard University." As everyone should know, Harvard as an institution does not designate a couple faculty members to check out this whole global warming thing and give the definitive answer; these researchers -- astrophysicists by training -- decided to investigate this subject of their own accord. It is not atypical for

      • The article makes NO claims about the causes of global warming. So they are not contradicting what they said earlier. All the article says is that current warming is not as dramatic has seen at other times.
        • Actually, a "sun getting brighter" article and a "global temperature time series" article from the same source does damage credibility quite a bit. Astrophysics and paleoclimatology are not closely related disciplines.

          These conclusions, if sound, would ordinarily be reached by dramatically different scientific methods, and therefore by members of different communities. I am therefore inclined to conclude that 1) the authors are not serious participants in the relevant field in at least one of the papers a

      • Whoops? (Score:4, Informative)

        by barakn ( 641218 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @07:23PM (#5675666)
        The sun is getting brighter [slashdot.org]. Also, there is a remarkable correlation between solar activity and climate, like the Maunder minimum (cessation of sunspot cycle) coinciding with the Little Ice Age in Europe. If the sun does have an influence on climate, then the problem is not outside the area of expertise of astrophysicists. This current study doesn't rule out the role of solar variability, and actually makes it a stronger argument.
  • Ok, there is more than one factor at play here. It's not as if anyone really expected climate to depend only on human CO2 emissions, right?

    But I don't think anyone should take this as an excuse to say "see? SUV culture is not bad for the planet".

    Were affecting the equilibrium of a really complex system and we don't really know where that will bring us.
    • See though, the problem is that the even though you start out with something reasonable, you draw a conclusion yourself with the SUV comment! From your writting, one would interpret this as the SUV culture is still killing the planet.

      That's right up there with "What would Jesus drive."

      Excuse me while I go on a camping trip in my 10mpg F250!

  • Just for the record (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:47PM (#5674588)
    The idea isn't that temperatures have been low and high and now they're REALLY HIGH. The current temps aren't really much higher than they have been in previous peaks. It's that they've been rising and falling in a fairly gradual and random manner since the earliest point we have records of, and now, since about 1800, they're rising REALLY REALLY FAST, about twice as fast as any other temperature rise or drop we have records of, and seem to be continuing to rise really really fast.

    Moreover, before when the rising temperatures were more or less random and due to many factors, it was just a matter of waiting until the factors causing the high temperatures went away and stuff started falling again. Now, when there is significant reason to believe that the temp. rise is being caused by human activity, it seems reasonable to expect that if the human activity causing it continues unabated-- as it seems to be-- well, they just aren't going to stop.

    By the way, you shouldn't bother debating global warming. Especially on slashdot. Most studies on the subject you'll be able to link are biased one way or the other (note: who funded this current study?) and most people who have something to say on the subject will base what they say on that they want one answer to be true or not.

    The ability of the human mind to begin with a conclusion and then look around until sufficient evidence is found to "prove" it is limitless.

    --super ugly ultraman

  • environment (Score:2, Insightful)

    by tq_at_sju ( 218880 )
    the other problem that people don't realize is that a lot of fossil fuel burns in the environment naturally too and is released naturally. In the gulf of mexico for instance, oil seeps through the earth's crust creating natural oil slicks which harm animal life in that area, oil that if drilled would not slick as much. This proves that in some cases, action or inaction by us hurts the environment not just oil drilling, but perhaps not drilling sometimes hurts the environment. I think we have to weigh the
  • there was vegitation in the artic circle, there are frozen remains of Mammoths up there with undigested vcegetation in their bellys (and there was enough of it to sustain a creature of that size as well).

    Secondly, where did all the ice from the ice age go? surly mans discovery of fire didnt promote the end of that period in time...
    • Secondly, where did all the ice from the ice age go? surly mans discovery of fire didnt promote the end of that period in time...

      Of course not - as everyone knows, the vast quantities of ice covering the planet disappeared shortly after the dicovery of whisky

      hic ... 'scuse me.

  • Of course Global Warming isn't true... (Score:5, Funny)

    by VitrosChemistryAnaly ( 616952 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:52PM (#5674615) Journal
    ...just ask any brain-dead hick here in the Midwest (I live in Indiana with a lot of them and this winter was particularly cold and snowy).

    Disolve to snowy Indiana January

    Brain-Dead Hick: Global warming, my ass. It's durn cold out here.
    Me: You know, you can't just decide whether Global Warming it true or not based on such a short sampling period like this winter compared to last winter.
    BDH: You're one of those fancy college boys aren't ya. You calling me a liar?
    Me: No, I was just saying that you can't base such a statement on how cold it is right now.
    BDH: Listen here. It's durn cold, that's proof enough to me that Global Warming is a crock of bull. And if you pull more of that college crap on my I'm gonna beat your ass.
    Me: Durn it's cold out here. Global warming, my ass.

    • Re:Of course Global Warming isn't true... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Carbonite ( 183181 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:20PM (#5674763)
      There's also the flip side to this. Last summer, the Northeast had some brutal heatwaves, it was over 90 degrees F for at least a week. The newspapers had numerous letters to the editor snidely asking "Still don't believe in global warming?". These people have been strangely silent this winter, one of the coldest on record. The point is that people on both sides of the argument make judgments based on anecdotal evidence. It's not just the "brain-dead hicks", it's also the "highly-educated liberals".
  • I'm no expert, but try to follow he discussions on global warming.
    What I find is that questioning the global warming theories seems to be "not done". It would not be the first time a scientist get in trouble because he/she comes up with different models.
    I don't say we can throw whatever we like into the atmosphere, moderation is alwais good. This still should not stop different scientists trying different ways of looking at the climate. To me this is what science is about, otherwise the world would still be

  • 25 years ago, it was Global Cooling (Score:3, Interesting)

    by sirshannon ( 616247 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:57PM (#5674631) Homepage Journal
    in the 70's, many of today's Global Warming researchers were claiming that the Earth was falling into an Ice Age.

  • Finally! (Score:3)

    by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @03:59PM (#5674645) Homepage Journal
    I've been complaining for a while now that the problem with "global warming" is that we don't have enough long term weather data to accuratly state that this isn't a natural cycle. I'm really glad that the scientific community has taken notice of this little loophole. It might actually get a few environmentalists to do serious research instead of hugging trees. *snicker*

  • This is depressing (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    /. readers tend to be pretty smart - or so I thought. I find it completely depressing that even here politics override common sense. The preponderence of evidence shows that we really are having a significant impact on world climate. No one really knows what that impact will eventually be, but when screwing around with immense things that you really don't understand and that happen to keep you alive unknown == dangerous.

    It hasn't been proven that global warming is true - far from it, in fact - but research

  • Alright then... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Morthaur ( 108553 ) <slashdot at morthaur dot net> on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:02PM (#5674657) Homepage
    So even if this proves that global warming is not man-made.. which it doesn't until more researchers find the same answers.. we still should have signed Kyoto.

    There's a lot more to pollution than global warming. How's about respiratory ailments? Know what the instances of asthma are like now, as opposed to 50 years ago? How about all of the other diseases being caused by contamination of ground water by toxic chemicals. Look especially to heavily-industrialised but unregulated states like Texas for examples of these kind of health problems.

    Also, this does not challenge the damage to the ozone layer, and the probability that it is our doing. What about the tears that have been appearing in it at random, such as the one above Chile that doused a village in direct UV?

    Kyoto is also about hedging our bets. As there are methods of accomplishing all of the same industrial goals with less pollution, why do we want to take the chance that it's caused by us, when we can ditch the pollutants and then sleep knowing that if the world bakes, at least it isn't our fault? How will all of you conservative fucks feel in 50 years if you were wrong? "Oops?" This is not something we can go back, say "sorry" and fix. If we are causing permanent damage to the planets ecology, our descendents will pay the price. As long as there is any doubt whatsoever, I'd rather err on the side of caution. I think any rational person would.
  • They didn't call it the "Medievil Warm Period" for no reason...

  • Screw global warming! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eggstasy ( 458692 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:04PM (#5674668) Journal
    I couldnt care less if it's about global warming or the ozone layer or saving pink river dolphins from extinction. Environmental-friendly living is a worthy pursuit in and of itself!
    Do you shit on the floor? Do you piss in the kitchen sink? Earth is where we live for crying out loud, we should try to keep out planetary home as clean as possible even if there ISN'T a single dangerous side effect of pollution. Where are your manners? Can we call ourselves truly civilized?
    I'm sick of this stupid polluted town with dirty floors and smoggy air. I'm sick of waking up every day around 6AM when the first round of buses start zooming past my windows, which btw, keep getting black with soot.I find it terribly bothersome that, as an amateur astronomer, I have to travel hundreds of miles in order to do any half-decent observation and I really can't understand how the simple logic of keeping our own damn "house" half-clean seems to be beyond the feeble minds of its inhabitants. *shrugs*

    • Re:Screw global warming! (Score:5, Funny)

      by alkali ( 28338 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:24PM (#5674791)
      Do you shit on the floor? Do you piss in the kitchen sink?

      You should think about where you are posting before you assume those questions will be taken as rhetorical.

    • Re:Screw global warming! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by YoJ ( 20860 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @05:05PM (#5674997) Journal
      Firstly, buses are very efficient for transporting people and so are a much saner choice for a cleaner environment than miles of commuter cars with one occupant each.

      Secondly, combatting pollution is not a choice for everyone in the world between cleanliness and convenience. It can be a choice between cleanliness and starvation, or pollution and food. Developed countries have the luxury of choosing cleanliness; other parts of the world don't have this luxury.

  • At least for those of us who works inside a damn fridge!
  • From their "mission" statement: "A major aim of Energy and Environment is to act as a forum for constructive and professional debate between scientists and technologists, social scientists and economists from academia, government and the energy industries on energy and environment issues in both a national and international context. It is also the aim to include the informed and environmentally concerned public and their organisations in the debate. Particular attention is given to ways of resolving conflic
  • ...a study funded by the Larsen Ice Shelf [slashdot.org] and Alaska [slashdot.org] suggests that, if global warming continues unabated, we'd all better evolve gills.

  • It seems some of you have never taken High School chemistry. If you have, you'd know that any stress applied to an equilibrium system will be counteracted by an opposite process. For instance, if you heat up ice, it will melt, a cooling process. If you freeze water, it will give off heat, warming itself up.

    It just so happens that the Earth's equilibrium lies at about 50 (give or take, it's different for different parts of the world.) Now, whatever we do, be it release CO2 or keep matches lit, the Eart

  • So let me get this straight... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @04:43PM (#5674888) Homepage Journal
    240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather - in stark contrast to the claims of the environmentalists.""


    1) These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.


    2) Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far


    3) The studies show that warmer temperatures lead to more extreme weather.


    4) if warmer temperatures in the past have led to more extreme weather, warmer temperatures caused by humans can do the same.


    5) even if there are OTHER factors (solar variability etc) leading to warmer temperatures, CO2 is a well known greenhouse gas, without it, the earth would have an average temperature below freezing, solar variability or not.


    6)Other natural factors leading to warming would suggest that we do even more to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and increase sequestration of gasses, to counteract the very changes in weather that these studies suggest warmer temperatures bring.

    yup, those environmentalists sure got slammed by that study.

    • These studies do not contradict the fact that human induced warming is occuring.

      Excuse you, but what "fact"? I have never seen any evidence that humans are causing global warming. I have seen Leftists and environmentalists finding a new excuse to hate American industry and hate the fact that Americans drive cars when and where they want to.

      Potentially, human induced warming can be much much greater than what weve seen so far

      Show me the evidence. Don't just say, "Well the majority of the scientific

  • Environmentalists or environmentalists (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DaoudaW ( 533025 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @05:31PM (#5675129)
    en-vi-ron-men-ta-list n. 1. A political activist whose main area of concern is the environment. 2. A scientist whose area of research is the environment.

    The Telegraph seems to be attempting to discredit those scientists by painting them with the brush of political activism.

    Few scientists, regardless of their political views, doubt the reality of global warming. The evidence is increasingly difficult to refute _and_ there is a strong theoretical basis to the observations being made. Whether or not there were isolated areas which have actually been warmer in the last 1000 or so years is of little consequence. This is not mathematics. It will take a whole lot more than one counter-example to disprove the theory.
    • Few scientists, regardless of their political views, doubt the reality of global warming. The evidence is increasingly difficult to refute _and_ there is a strong theoretical basis to the observations being made. Whether or not there were isolated areas which have actually been warmer in the last 1000 or so years is of little consequence. This is not mathematics. It will take a whole lot more than one counter-example to disprove the theory.

      umm, there are many, just that, "hey, we're not melting" doesn't

  • missing the point (Score:3, Insightful)

    by opaqueice ( 602509 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @06:26PM (#5675349)
    I think most people are missing the point when discussing global warming. The fact is, global temperatures are rising rapidly. Whether or not they are rising more rapidly than they did at some other period in history is irrelevant. It doesn't even matter so much what fraction of this effect is due to pollution. The point is, the ice caps are melting and the sea is rising, weather patterns are changing, etc. And if this process keeps going, we are screwed. Think of how many major cities in the world are on the ocean. What will happen to them if the sea level rises by 20 or 30 feet? What will happen to millions and billions of poor farmers in most of the world if the weather patterns change drastically?

    So whether this change is natural or man-made, we need to figure out how, or if, we can stop it, or at least slow it down. That's where our energy should be going. Obviously, studying past patterns of weather is important for this, but let's face the fact that we have a problem and stop taking the attitude that well, if it's natural, if it happened before, it's ok. Sorry - but we're just as wet and hungry if it's natural as if it's not!

  • The most important quote from the article. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by furry_wookie ( 8361 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @07:35PM (#5675707)
    Here is the MOST important quote that anyone should get from this article:

    The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today.


    They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.


    The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise.

  • Get a clue... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CSieber ( 548526 ) on Sunday April 06, 2003 @07:52PM (#5675776) Homepage

    While a healthy skepticism about all things is generally good, the vast majority of people, especially on this site, will simply accuse anyone they disagree with of bias. This kind of smear makes it impossible to have a rational discussion of any sort. You have all got to realize that sometimes research won't support your position. Just because someone has data you don't agree with doesn't mean they are evil tools of the government/corporations/Orwellian evil/the Zerg. There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money, beliefs, or a particular ideology.

    That's important. Let me repeat that.

    There are quite a few scientists who are not motivated by money or a particular ideology.

    I should know, after all. I am one. I also know others!

    I have realized that if, in science, you attempt to defend any particular position because you like it or believe in it, you *will* end up skewing the data to support you. This is bad, I think. Many other scientists think the same way and try to pursue the data to where it leads, regardless of politics or personal views. This can be unpopular, but it is VERY frustrating when people accuse valid data and research of bias...because they don't agree with it. Again, people on this site and elsewhere have the extremely bad habit of picking a side an defending it, and looking at the data later. "Bad beats."

    The continuous, general anti-science rhetoric by deliberately ignorant people on this site is also tiring and silly. It acts as a red flag of illiteracy to the rest of the world as well. If anyone on this site wants to be noticed, they should restrain their criticism of science to legitimate questions, not accusations of bias with little grounding in fact.

    The main theses of this particular article have been ignored by basically everyone on this site. The main point is that if we are coming out of an *ICE AGE*, then reports that the world is warming quickly probably exaggerate the effect purely by accident--of course we're warming up if we were cold earlier! Evidence that the world's climate undergoes natural shifts of much magnitude casts doubt on the severity of the current warming trend and gives rise to the possibility that it is entirely (or at least mostly) natural. While theory obviously dictates that humans are having an effect, this article is pointing out that the current warming trend may not be all due to humans.

    Now, I'd have to see the article itself (and it's Sunday so I ain't going to the office or library) to make a full judgment, but people on here spewing against it without that same research are simply spewing political rhetoric--not valid conclusions.

    The best piece of advice I ever took was discarding political ideology in favor of the facts.

    Now, let me get back to my frickin' research. Thanks.

    --
    Christian Sieber
    "And yet, it moves." -- Galileo Galilei

    • Excellent post. As usual, I never have moderator points when I find an article (like yours) that deserves their application.

      While I still read this site daily, I do so mostly as a social exercise; rational discourse is difficult in an environment (such as this) where people react without knowledge, study, or rationality.

      The poor quality of conversation is, I think, linked to two factors:

      1. Anonymity allows people to act in ways counter to civil discussion. I doubt many of these reactionaries would st

  • Burn them! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Quila ( 201335 ) on Monday April 07, 2003 @03:11AM (#5677446)
    They are blasphemers who dare challenge the doctrine of Global Warming!

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close