Consensus on Global Warming 1200
FredFnord writes "Well, here's an interesting one: the fine folks at Science Magazine have done an analysis of the last ten years' published scientific articles (articles from crank or non-peer-reviewed publications were not counted) on the subject of global climate change. The results themselves are interesting, but the most remarkable part was that, of the 928 papers they found, 75% accepted that global warming was caused by human activities, either explicitly or implicitly. 25% made no mention either way. And not a single paper asserted otherwise." JamesBell submits this article by a geologist which suggests that the Earth is in serious, imminent, unavoidable danger.
Predications (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Predications (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
All scientists agree that the Earth is round.
All scientists agree that the sun is made up of Hydrogen.
All scientists agree that gravity pulls things down.
All scientists agree that smoking is bad for you.
All scientists agree that splitting the atom will produce energy.
Why is it that when all scientists agree that human activity is having an effect on Global Climate, all of a sudden your hear all these people begin to doubt them. Claiming that all that these scientists care about is their funding is ludicrous, because many of them will get funding either way. Of course, those that are really into money, like Bjorn Lomborg, will actually argue against the mounting evidence. In exchange they'll get huge grants from industries whose profits might be diminished by scientific enquiry. And those who doubt only when scientists challenge their love for their SUVs, like ostriches, will be happy to put their heads back in the sand and say: see, there's a couple of scientists who say that Global Climate change isn't happening. They must be right!
Personally, I'd rather not take the chance. If Global Warming has only a 10% chance of being true, then the odds are still way too high, because the consequences are catastrophic.
So, in response to you, I say that if every scientist agrees (or at least no scientist disagrees) that Global Climate Change threatens us, then we should be very concerned. We should fund their studies, and if we find out that they misused the funds or overstated the threat in order to get more money, we can always cut that funding. In other words, unlike the most catastrophic scenarios linked to Global Warming, it's a reversible mistake.
Better safe than sorry, especially when the future of humanity is at stake.
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
I knew that was coming when I posted it. That's why my original post was written "Any time you see every scientist agree on a very controversial topic, be very suspicious." The issues
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
- Scientists think about funding, but pushing an agenda to acheive funding is ultimately a career-limiting move when the political pendulum shifts, as it has in recent years. And as with most things, the scientific ego supercedes the need to seek acceptance through funding - scientists will push theories they believe in, and try to swing funding their way, not vice versa.
- Have you actually read any of the literature regarding climate change? It doesn't sound like it - you don't see much politicizing in peer-reviewed journals. Certainly the exacting of personal/institutional spats occurs, but the literature certainly doesn't read the way you imply it does.
- I don't think stating that no scientific paper reviewed discounts anthropomorphic climate change will have a chilling effect on climate research: scientists are well aware that correlation is not the same as causation, after all. When reliable evidence that supports the theory that climate change occurs independent of human activity surfaces, it will be published. When reliable evidence that supports the theory that climate change occurs because of human activity, it will also be published. Until then, we'll continue to study the mechanisms behind climate change and look for links. It's just that simple.
- The Science article merely states that the bulk of peer-reviewed literature allows for the possibility of anthropogenic climate change, nothing more. Anything you read into it sounds more like your agenda than anything else.
Anyways, take it as you will - I doubt seriously you're prepared to think critically about this topic. But making blanket statements accusing scientists of massive malfeasance to further a political agenda that counters your own smacks more of conspiracy theory than a reasoned argument, and it certainly doesn't impress the average scientific Slashdot reader.Re:In other news... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not surprising at all. Very few human beings bite the hands that feed them and scientists are human--those in academia are especially human and especially political. They're not going to be out there proving that global warming isn't happening or that it is a natural phenomenon when
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
Not really. But even if you found some funding (probably from a corp) to do some research in a 'forbidden' direction, try getting your conclusions published in a peer reviewed journal. Won't happen.
It won't get published for reasons such as poor methodology, maths etc. Not because you view is 'forbidden' or not politically correct. You are simply suffering under a conspiracy theory view of Science if you believe otherwise. In fact, while perhaps not in Science, oil-industry funded research, and some not funded by the oil industry, which argues against the consensus of climate change, has been published. It's rare, true, but this rarity is because the bulk of the evidence points in the opposite direction, not because of some grand conspiracy aimed at ensuring funding for climatic research.
> What's controversial about this issue? By asking that question it is clear no rational discourse is possible with you, you too are a religious zealot.
I'm neither religious, not a zealot, and it's called a rhetorical question. I'm asking (as should be clear from the rest of the passage), "where does the controversy here come from?" My point is that there is little scientifc controversy. The controversy is largely injected at the political level.
Hopefully others reading this thread are less invested in the theory to reject all discussion out of hand on the issue.
Again, I'm not going to reject out of hand any discussion based on evidence and a scientific understanding of that evidence out of hand. Quite the opposite, I genuinely hope that we are all wrong! I hope to wake up tomorrow and that it was all a bad dream, a mass delusions of the world scientific community caused by some faulty maths somewhere down the line. And you know why I hope this? It's because, at our current state of knowledge, the conclusion that we are headed for a very nasty time climatically is ineluctable and because I have children. But I'm not going to stick my head in the sand on this one.
[I]f one is politically aware, one notices that the loudest voices in the Global Warming crowd also want to dismantle Western Civilivation
I consider myself fairly politically aware, but I'm quite unable to see how shifting from oil to uranium amounts to a dismantling of Western Civilization. Perhaps you can clear that one up for me? Again the opposite is true, it's through technological advance alone that we are going to beat this one. We have to move away from this C19th energy source.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Informative)
Since I don't feel like finding another post to attach this to, here's a response to a couple of other points:
1) Forget the whole theory that global warming is simply an artifact of urban heat islands. We fixed that particular problem with the data in the early 1990s. The urban heat island effect is without a doubt the best-understood phenomenon in climatology, and even with the effects removed climate is still warming.
2) Sunspot activity doesn't explain most of the climate change story either. It's part of the story, but definitely not all of it. If you want to check out a paper on the subject, I suggest the following (I know its a few years old, but the findings haven't changed subsantially since this paper):
Cedric Bertrand, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Potential Role of Solar Variability as an Agent for Climate Change, Climatic Change, Volume 43, Issue 2, October 1999, Pages 387 - 411
note: I'm not telling you to believe the paper. Just to read it. If you understand enough about what's going on to do so, please feel free to poke holes in it. That's part of science.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you utterly clueless? Have you seen the Los Angeles skyline, or worse Mexico City? Decreasing emissions is beneficial whether or not they cause global warming. The first thing the government should be thinking about is the health of the people, not the economy.
Re:In other news... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, but all too many 'scientists' are Gaians or worse.
Some scientists in the environmental areas do subscribe to the Gaia Hypothesis, but even that has many levels. At it's most basic it means treating the whole ecosystem as a macro-organism. It doesn't mean you think the Earth is one living creature, or you are some tree-hugging hippy, just because some of those people believe in the more extreme end of the hypothesis.
Of course they are the only voices you will hear in the mainstream press.
You must have missed that whole Slashdot thread based on a Wired article, about how media's desire to show both sides of the argument in cases like global warming meant they had to hunt around for people on the "humans have no effect side". The mainstream press was out there looking for these guys, but all they could find was people in the pay of companies. The whole thing was about how they got a disproportionately large amount of media coverage in the name of balanced reporting.
Or the scientific papers, because dissenting voices can't make it past peer review and scientists being generally above average in intelligence know this so would tend to not bother attempting to publish a career ending paper.
Proving the rest of the scientific community wrong is about the best career move you can make. Scientific history is full of examples, indeed, the whole scientific process relies on it. Science establishes a consensus, until there is sufficient evidence against it,
If nobody brought up anything against the current scientific consensus, science would never move anywhere. Your tinfoil hat ideas about how science work just undermine your whole credibility.
If a proven danger to thee, me and everyone exists, then yes our government then has a duty to act in the common defence as provided for in the Constitution.
It would be nice if life always gave us all the information we need before making a decision. Sometimes though, it doesn't. You have to try and assess the risks, and potential consequences, if you wait too long for proof, it will be too late.
Unless you happen to be one of the ones who loses their livelihood in the economic chaos that signing Kyoto would bring.
Because all those other countries that signed up are head straight for economic chaos, right? Kyoto has flaws, but those aren't an excuse for doing nothing because you don't want to upset big business. It looks to the rest of the world like the US Government isn't just showing some scepticism, which would be no bad thing, but sticking its fingers in its ears and going 'la la la' to the topic. As irrationally opposed to the concept as these fiendish "worse than Gaian" types whose danger you highlight for us.
Like it matters ... (Score:3, Insightful)
(BTW, that 'fine fellow' at Science Magazine happens to be a woman :-))
It does matter (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It does matter (Score:5, Informative)
Lies (Score:5, Informative)
The US is a Kyoto signatory [wikipedia.org], but "On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification."
All of this happened under Clinton.
So, sorry, but your bullshit post is just that.
Re:Lies (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Lies (Score:3, Informative)
Perhaps, but he did radically change the direction the country was moving in with respect to Kyoto. Had Bush wanted to get Kyoto ratified, he surely could have done so.
He also gutted the Clean Air Act with his dishonestly named "Clear Skies" initiative. Clear Skies weakens the emissions controls of the Clean Air Act, and nearly eliminates New Source Review.
Don' t try to paint this like Bush is a friend of the environment. You can't make that case.
Re:Lies (Score:4, Insightful)
From my understanding of it, the US did pretty much disengage from the process, so although they didn't technically pull out of the treaty, they certainly have withdrawn from the process of dealing with global carbon emissions. And there's no denying that Bush welched on his campaign promise [nwsource.com] to do something about it.
And I think there's an important difference with Clinton's actions: the main post points out, we're six years further along with the science of it. The room for reasonable doubt has greadly shrunk, and we've got six more years of excess CO2 emissions to clean up now.
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:5, Interesting)
I agree with you that Kyoto will probably not do all that much; however, it is a start. The point of Kyoto is that it is intended to lead to a stricter treaty after Kyoto's goals have been met in 2010 (fat chance, but anything is better than nothing).
Of course, if the US wants to propose a much stricter treaty that will cut back their output to something more in line with what the rest of the world does per capita so that actually might be significant, the rest of the world would welcome that!
That said, I guess I mostly agree with the second FA, which explains that we're mostly fucked, probably within our lifetime.
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Nothin'. Nothin' at all.
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:3)
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, a major objection to Kyoto was that it does not require emissions reductions from third-world countries. However, the major third-world producer of CO2-- China-- has been steadily reducing it's emissions anyway. So that argument isn't so compelling anymore. (Then again, they're at 1/8 the US level per capita anyway...)
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:3, Informative)
Well, the Bush administration is pushing hard for renewed development of nuclear power, which is the third recommendation urged by the panel of scientists in the linked article.
"Nucular" and "Nuclear", if you're interested. (Score:3, Interesting)
I think he always pronounces it "nucular" in public addresses. "Nucular" is an incorrect but very common pronounciation of "nuclear"; as this dictionary entry [reference.com] explains, it's common because so many other terms (circular, spectacular, molecular, ocular, vascular) end with a "-ular" sound, whereas "-lear" is comparatively unfamiliar.
An analogous word would be "minuscule", very commonly misspelled as "miniscule", because so many familiar words begin with
The rest of the story (Score:4, Interesting)
"...and produce 31% of the worlds output." Conveniently, you forgot this part. Seems a common oversight.
Re:The rest of the story (Score:5, Insightful)
Seems a far more common and far more damaging oversight, eh? In fact, it's so common that one would almost think that this oversight is a deliberate untruth propogated for rhetorical purpose.
Re:The rest of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The rest of the story (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Supporting the Environment & China (Score:4, Insightful)
In Switzerland, where I live, they developed recycling, public transportation and also motivated people to make more sport, use their bikes whenever possible... walk instead of taking their big greasy trucks to the mall, the result is a better environment aware society.
Re:Supporting the Environment & China (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Supporting the Environment & China (Score:3)
I hate GWB as much as the next person, but I think his record speaks for itself, I don't need to compare him to Saddam.
Re:Like it matters ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to your statement, the author suggested that the economical value of wind farms is debateable. But so is the economical value of pyramids. But on that matter, I refer you to Lord Keynes [wikipedia.org].
Great (Score:5, Insightful)
So... Then what?
And uh, is this news? Does anyone credible seriously disagree that emissions from human activity are at least in part contributing factors? Or is this another jab at boogiemen that don't exist? There's nothing "remarkable" about these so-called findings.
Also, the "Earth" isn't in danger. Yes, I know this distinction is splitting hairs, but what's in danger is Earth's inhabitants. Our actions are not going to alter a several billion year old rock.
[1] Don't feed me the per capita shit. China will be a far, far greater polluter in this realm, per capita or no. Further, the economic empowerment of the Chinese people will eventually drive them to a level of concern about the well-being of the environment, so, in a way, their accelerated economic development is a good thing, politically and environmentally. Incidentally, China has proven they can reduce greenhouse emissions, even while growing economically (1 [commondreams.org], 2 [nrdc.org])...but the point is, they're still on an upward trend. And they've got a lot more people who will begin to thirst for energy-hungry luxuries.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
True. But even if Bush were all over Kyoto, Congress would never ratify it. It's a non-starter. If you can sell it to Congress, then maybe you can finger-point at Bush.
As one of the world's most advanced nations, it's our responsibility to do everything within our power to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, starting in our own country.
Great! Let's start building the nuclear power plants now. And let's fund development of hydrogen as an infrastructu
"Blame Bush" fails again (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit.
14 Nations to Participate in Plan to Reduce Methane [washingtonpost.com]
This is largely driven by the US and it includes India and China. It'll have the same greenhouse effect as removing 7% of US fleet of cars from the road and it costs next to nothing.
Just because Bush doesn't sign up to a program with name recognition, doesn't mean the US government isn't doing anything.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Please help in getting the hardcore greens and the NIMBYs to stop filing lawsuits blocking construction of nuclear reactors. That will go a long way towards reducing the CO2 output of the US. The combustion of coal, oil, and methane in electricity production in the US in 2002 released 2,249 million tons of CO2, not to mention the various other things that are released (particularly by coal) like sulfur dioxides, NOx gases, and of course thorium and uranium. I know the filter technology does a pretty decent job of things, but some of this stuff still gets out. Total US CO2 output in 2002 was 5796 million tons -- meaning 39% of our output is from the electrical sector alone.
Imagine what the world reaction would be if in, say, 20 years, we managed to cut our output by 25% or more just by switching off of combustibles. We might even be able to do a lot more if we could get natural gas heating to be more expensive than electrical heating (it's quite the reverse at the moment, though with natural gas becoming so popular, it might change soon on its own). I'm still undecided on global warming, as the evidence may be there but the most reliable evidence is still relatively short-term and weather systems have patterns of their own that can really screw with observations. But I figure that there are other issues -- like pollution of rivers and streams, as well as various political nightmares -- that might be solved by switching so much of our infrastructure over to fuels we can find domestically.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:5, Informative)
The "pollution credit" system is a way to encourage companies that are in a position to modernize now to do so, and a way to encourage companies that are not in such a position to get in that position as early as possible. Maybe Kyoto implemented it poorly, but the idea is still sound as far as a method of reducing overall emissions without unduly hurting the economy, and in fact improving the economy over the long run.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Me? Well, I'd give up my Bush tax-cut. But I guess you don't mean that as an option. Aren't we going to lose those jobs anyway, when the oceans rise and eat Florida's coastline?
You act like it's either-or. "either we damage our economy OR we damage the environment". That's a false-choice.
Here's another way of looking at it. Perhaps we could find a way to create an "alternative
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
> (or Europe).[1]
The US isn't being unfairly singled out in any of the articles posted.
> There's nothing "remarkable" about these so-called findings.
> what's in danger is Earth's inhabitants.
What is unremarkable about that?
The idea that China and India (and other major greenhouse contributors) should be brought to task is fine. As a US citizen, however, I am primarily concerned with what my country can do to help, not in deflecting blame. Surely, we would be in a better position to apply pressure to other countries in this regard, were we at the forefront of C02 emmissions reduction?
Re:Great (Score:3, Interesting)
No, but it will be in most of the replies to this article.
What is unremarkable about that?
You just took two unrelated things I said and strung them together.
What's not remarkable is the idea that experts consider human activity related to global warming. The article insinuates that there is serious, credible opposition to this idea. There isn't. There may be disagreements on degrees of impact, but everyone agrees human activity is
Official EPA Global Warming Site (Score:5, Informative)
Global Warming on Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
By SPACE.com
posted: 03:00 pm ET
08 December 2003
Scientists have suspected in recent years that Mars might be undergoing some sort of global warming. New data points to the possibility it is emerging from an ice age.
full story at http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_ice-ag
Re:Global Warming on Mars (Score:4, Funny)
See, that's what happens when we start putting vehicles on Mars [cnn.com], too. That thing isn't aerosol powered, is it?
Re:Global Warming on Mars (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Global Warming on Mars (Score:4, Insightful)
(wait for it)
Because that's what the consensus tells him.
Re:Global Warming on Mars (Score:4, Interesting)
Many other people have done Einstein's equations and arrived at the same result. Many other people have measured the distance to the sun and arrived at the same conclusion.
People were dismissing pellagra as being related to malnutrition, yet they were not using the scientific method to dispute Goldberger, just their guess that it must be a germ. Not only that but even worse, they were prejudiced that it must be a germ because they didn't want to have to make social changes for some medical epidemic.
Same as today where the scientists are saying "It must be the humans!" because humans are Bad for the Earth(tm) when there is not near enough evidence to in any way conclusively state that.
"Because that's what the consensus tells him."
And what has the consensus told you?
Re:Global Warming on Mars (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate to feed the trolls, but...
It's well known, and not controversial, that CO2 traps heat.
It is well known, and not controversial, that atmospheric CO2 concentrations are increasing, thanks to us.
Arrhenius [nasa.gov] knew these things; he was the first to examine the impact of CO2 on global climate over 100 years ago.
Of co
insightful? (Score:4, Insightful)
does that dismiss human affect on climate change? absolutely not, but there are people who believe that questioning an absolute certainty of it does dismiss it. they're wrong, they're arrogant, and they're not learning from history.
Interesting article... (Score:4, Insightful)
Regardless, the final paragraph of the article begs a very interesting question:The begged question is Will it be bad or will it be good? Wouldn't warmer climates provide more arable land? What I get out of this is "We dont know what it means, but it looks like at least SOME climate changes are caused by man".
Re:Interesting article... (Score:5, Insightful)
and SOME studies suggest that cigarettes cause health problems.
some.
Re:Interesting article... (Score:3, Insightful)
By asking this question you raise doubt about the quality of the work without actually presenting evidence that only a minority of the scientists do serious work on this. But if you are driving an SUV a statement like that might seem insightful even though it's completely void of information.
that's pretty. (Score:3, Interesting)
what wonderfully circular logic. don't question an article for its lack of information, as doing so is devoid of information. wow.
Re:Interesting article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe you just mixed up meters and feet? Your point is valid, however -- even 20 ft would be bad.
But would that happen? Global warming doesn't necessarily mean the polar ice cap will melt. The really interesting questions arise when we see the change in ocean salinity...
Danger danger! (Score:3, Insightful)
Global warming will cause the earth to explode? Oh wait, you mean people (and possibly much of the life on earth) could be in danger. I doubt global warming will make much of a difference to the planet itself, except possibly to allow it to make more room for heat resistant lifeforms :-)
I found the truth! (Score:5, Funny)
From the article:
The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).The American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysica Union? What a bunch of communists. They are just trying to destroy our way of life. They don't want me to live my life the way I want. Now, where did I park my Ford Explorer? I gotta run and buy a pack of smokes...
Re:I found the truth! (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh really? Please feel free to link to the debunking. You're not going to find any, because whether your worldview likes it or not, CFCs _are_ greenhouse gases and _do_ destroy ozone. I'm sure you'll argue that it is pure coincidence that the ozone was thinnest at the poles and over Australia during the time of greatest
Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not saying that human industrial pollution is not a contributor towards global warming,
Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. (Score:3, Informative)
On average, volcanos emit 200 million tons of CO2 per year. Human activity averages 26 BILLION tons per year.
See here [fs.fed.us], here [csiro.au] or here [nodak.edu], taken from an earlier Slashdot thread [slashdot.org].
Re:Bah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because they're professional geologists, so that goes without saying? These are peer-reviewed scientific journals, not introductory textbooks. If a physician writes an article claiming some chemical causes cancer, is he going to also mention everything else causes cancer? Is he going to mention the sun also causes cancer? Of course not, because he most likely is not a complete and utter moron, and he assumes his readers aren't either.
Find me a single geologist anywhere who has ever publicly stated that anthropogenic sources are the only things that cause global climate change.
Re:Sadly, this isn't going to change anything. (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the reason this is news is because the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that this is not proven science...
I think we should take a look at exactly what is proven science...
"In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities." Of course Earth's climate is being affected by human activities. No one, including the Bush administration, denies that.
"Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point." But even if you say that everyone in those selected papers believes that climate change is due to man, it still doesn't get to the heart of the matter: what is the effect of global warming, is there anything we can do to stop it? And of course, the most important, and non-scientific, but political question, is it worth it?
Serious, imminent, unavoidable danger? (Score:3, Funny)
We can just hide in our SUVs. They have heated seats.
Tobacco (Score:3, Insightful)
What about rejects? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most US science funding in climate and solar research comes from the federal govt (in geological and oceanic research sizable amounts can come from private groups). When politicians don't want to look like they're anti-environment they screen funding to make sure it's not going to go to "enemies of the planet" (I kid you not, that's the phrase).
How can a survey of peer reviewed journals be a valid source of data when people are afraid to publish "the wrong results"?
Perhaps global warming is caused by adult white male toenail clippings, but I'm pretty sure we have no reasonable way of finding that out right now.
Re:What about rejects? (Score:4, Informative)
For starters, how many papers were rejected from the peer review process is almost entirely irrelevant. The peer review process is in place for a reason, and the reason is to ensure that bad science (not politically unpleasant conclusions) are not published in major journals. Unless you have a strong reason to believe that most peer reviewers have a strong personal stake in suppressing legitimate research because they don't like the conclusions, then this objection is bunk. We aren't talking about a 60-40 split on a controversial subject -- no papers that contradicted human involvement in global warming made it through the process. What possible benefit would it be to any of those reviewers to suppress opposing opinions? They have no personal stake one way or the other, except arguably their reputations, and that presupposes that there is not a single scientist that has done enough legitimate research to be a peer reviewer and yet still thinks global warming isn't a human issue (or at most, no more than a handful) -- a strong argument for thinking global warming is a significant issue, as far as I'm concerned.
You also rant about how these papers are only published because people don't want to lose funding by being perceived as anti-environment. It seems fairly evident that the current government establishment would be most served by producing strong evidence that global warming is not a serious issue -- so why would it be more politically safe to contradict the notion that things are okay, and question the status quo? If people wanted "safe" conclusions to ensure their funding, they would be saying that global warming is no big deal. Furthermore, you seem to be implying that no funding exists for the production of honest results. Again, this isn't a 60-40 split -- if anyone, even a single person, has ever received funding to do legitimate research on this subject, and has come up with findings against human involvement, it has not been able to make it through a peer review, which probably means that it used questionable methods or was otherwise flawed. Peer reviewers are not as politically motivated as you seem to suppose.
How can a survey of peer reviewed journals be a valid source of data when people are afraid to publish "the wrong results"?
A valid question, but one that is entirely irrelevant until you have shown that this fear actually exists.
Another danger of Global Warming... (Score:5, Insightful)
climate change is a better phrase (Score:5, Informative)
The world-averaged temperature could remain unchanged by cooling some regions and warming others, and both things could be difficult in terms of crop adjustment, etc. And there is a lot of concern about water as well as heat; think drought.
The expanded phrase also includes the "climate of weather", i.e. the slowly varying statistics of the quickly varying fields. For example, we ask whether the weather would be more stormy in the future.
I've never heard it said that climate change is a euphemism ... to folks like me who work in this field, it's a more encompassing phrase.
Inexpensive land? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now the key is to figure out where the least expensive land is that is currently about 202 meters above sea level so I can have beachfront property to retire on. I wonder if I can get a good deal on a submerged English castle to ship over to move onto said property?
Finally a solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, there's a solution I can get behind (no, I'm not joking). Nuclear energy, pursued with a strong eye towards safety and security, would be a step forward in terms of our efficiency and use of energy.
Bankrupting the industrialized nations of the world for an unproven solution isn't.
Science is not a democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
At the risk of being labeled a troll. There are only a few ways that can convincingly prove a scientific theory: 1) carefully done experiments where all the extra parameters are kept constant, which is impossible in this case, or 2) either analytical derivation or computational simulation from "first principles" (also can't be achieved despite all the progress in HPC).
Studies that I'm aware of either show that there is a historical correlation between CO2 levels and temperature (no control for other sources that change climate) or ad-hoc models that are made to fit past data and then used to extrapolate into the future (approach has been tried before for stock market prediction without much success).
It's just very hard to prove human influence on climate.
Having said this, I think it's a very good idea to try find a better source of energy than oil and gas.
The Earth is fine, it's we who have to worry (Score:3, Insightful)
Global climate change is increasingly recognised as the key threat to the continued development - and even survival - of humanity.
Exactly. The Earth will go on spinning and evolving new land masses and creatures as it has done for billions of years, no matter what we do to it, short of actually blowing it to pieces. Even massive global nuclear contamination would fade away eventually, becoming a mere hiccup on a geological time scale. Our activities might destroy a lot of species in addition to ourselves, but in planetary history mass extinctions are routine non-events.
What motivates my concern is not that we need to preserve this or that for its own sake, but that we want to maintain a pleasant world to live in. For some people that might include spotted owls and obscure mud lizards, for others not. I think the environmental movement might get more attention from the people who make the decisions if they give up on the sacred earth-spirit thing and focus on the fact that nobody wants to think of their great grandchildren living in shelters and subsisting on hydroponic fungi.
help! This means you... (Score:5, Interesting)
After the most recent Slashdot story I actually steeled myself to do something about it. I re-read the whole story at Threshold 2 to gather UIDs of people who might help. The idea is to build a list of myths and authoritative answers to them. For example, the old line that the sun's getting hotter, and that this explains global warming, comes up over & over again. Many, very patient! and knowledgable people posted to that story with excellent refutations of such nonsense.
I'm going to put my plaintext mail address in this comment, that's how serious I am about this! You can even help if you believe that Climate Change is hippie nonsense trotted out by pseudo scientists who just want more funding!!
What I am looking for:
If you have violent objections to the idea that global warming is a bad thing, please email me at the address below describing why you think this. As you will see if you hit 'see the rest of this comment', the existing list - which were collected from a single Slashdot story - is already pretty long, so this isn't so vital.
If you can help knock down such gibberish- if you have posted with a calm, well-argued and ideally knowledgable or carefully referenced refutation of a wild claim - please email me and make yourself known; I will get in touch in the next few days.
If you want to subscribe me to lots of spam lists, don't bother; Gmail are very good at spam filtering, you'll get yourself blacklisted when I hit 'report spam' and you won't be helping your cause one little bit.
If you can help, mail me at:
username: imipak; domain (at): gmail.com
Here's the list I collected from the last Slashdot climate change story, only a few days ago, about "why anthropogenic climate change is a myth". Read it and weep.
Re:help! This means you... (Score:3, Interesting)
Let me explain.
Circa 900 AD or so, Eric the Red was tossed out of Iceland (he and his bunch were a tad too rowdy for the Norse already there) and began settling what was known as Greenland in the last century. At one time I used to think that Eric and his son Lief ran not only the first but a
The Earth is NOT in "in serious ... danger". (Score:3, Insightful)
The Earth will be just fine. It will go on evolving as it has for billions of years. We humans, however, may not be so fortunate if we don't change our habits. As George Carlin once said, "the Earth will shake us off like a bad cold".
Don't blame the messengers for the bad news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that scientists are any different than most human beings. Individual scientists can succumb to greed, lust for fame, etc and, occasionally, will get away with publishing intentionally erroneous data. Usually when this happens, especially in an area where so many scientists are working (like climate change), their lies will be uncovered and they will be ruined (ex: cold fusion, etc).
The article being discussed here states that the vast majority of hundreds of studies on the subject have all come to the same conclusions: global warming is both real and anthropogenic. I suggest that the groundswell of /. opinion that all these researchers are wrong/lying is due to the rather unfortunate consequences of the truth. We will have to face the facts that our climate may change. Maybe for Canadians, this will be a good thing. For ocean algae and those in the lower lattitudes it will most certainly be bad.
Society invests a huge amount of money in scientific research each year, and does so in a way that ensures maximum objectivity and honesty on the part of the researchers. Averaged over time and sufficient numbers of studies, science usually hits pretty close to the mark. Therefore, to all those doubting, suck it up and deal with the damage we've done. Don't blame the messenger if you dont like the message.
I imagine someone has picked this up before, but.. (Score:4, Insightful)
(2)Consensus has nothing to do with truth... unless you subscribe to the WOD view of the universe, in which case we could fix all our problems by believing at them really hard.
Good to know that human foolishness is once again aligned in a predictable direction, though.
WOOHOO! Unavoidable! (Score:3, Funny)
Can we get an exact date on the doom? I want to start the bacchanalia about a week before, so as to optimize my avoidance of consequences.
Re: I'll be dead... (Score:3, Interesting)
> I'll be dead by the time any of this happens.
Given the sudden onset and continued acceleration of the Arctic meltdown, I'm not so sure about that anymore.
Re:I'll be dead... (Score:4, Funny)
GWB
What a swell guy... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:A general question about global warming... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Lovely (Score:3, Insightful)
Glad you're not a scientist (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, groupthinking like 2+2=4 and the earth is round, is just sooo bad.
How are mathematical statements and established facts groupthink? Groupthink is belief in an opinion or hypothesis because it is the most popular one. There is consensus based on scientific observation of climate data that global temperatures are rising along with atomspheric CO2 levels. There is actual evidence of this.
The evidence pointing to the CAUSE of global warming isn't so solid. All we know for sure is that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are heating up the planet. The impact of human activity on CO2 levels may be negligable for all we konw. One major volcanic eruption, for example, can pump out more climate-altering emissions in days than all of humanity could do for years. The observations in this article do not present any evidence at all, they just demonstrate that scientists who write papers happen to have come to a consensus that human CO2 emissions have an impact on global warming. Being there is not SOLID, DIRECT proof of that one might say it is "group think"...scientists have succumbed to "group think " before...
The article itself makes a good statement:
The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.
Science isn't always right. One thing is for sure though, reducing CO2 emissions due to the burning of fossil fuels might not stop global warming for sure, but it certainly can't make the problem worse. And besides that, it is probalby wise to conserve the worlds biggest NON-renewable resource, much of which happens to be unfortunately located in politically unstable countries where mentally unstable terrorists like to hide.
Re:I call bullcrap... (Score:3, Funny)
Simple, really.
Oh yeah, plus sponges hadn't yet been invented.
Re:I call bullcrap... (Score:3, Insightful)
It is an undeniable fact, backed by a large volume of evidence, that the climate is changing worldwide. Whether or not we humans co-caused this, we will have to live with the consequences! And if we're sufficiently open minded about what is going on we may be able to mitigate some of the bad effects, or at least slow down these unwanted changes by pro-actively looking for "soluti
Re:Meaningless (Score:3, Insightful)
Science is science (Score:3, Insightful)
But, this is the scientific process. That community has come up with most of the innovations of the last few centuries, including the computer and networks you're reading this on. They can be and sometimes are wrong. But betting against them is not a smart bet. Especially with life as we know it on the line.
Books generally don't count since they are not filtered though peer review. The one you link to,
So what's the news here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because everybody is saying it, doesn't make it true.
But okay, I'm the last person to deny global warming is upon us. Other than some US folks still not convinced or thinking it's not that big a problem (or simply putting their head in the sand), global warming is observed, and the only question is about how much of it is the result of human activities, and how much by natural causes. Oh yeah, and what to do about it [earthday.net].
For the rest: nothing to see here.
Re:So what's the news here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Mod this way up. The "study" itself is pseudo-science. It basically says the majority of climate scientists believe something is true without questioning it or citing proof. There are at least two logical fallacies in this study, Appeal to Authority (they're climate scientists therefore their beliefs must be the truth) and Appeal to Majority (most believe it therefore it's true). Science magazine has taken flak for their silliness on global wa [globalwarming.org]
Re:So what's the news here? (Score:3, Insightful)
You've got the word of "appeal to authority" but not the spirit. It's a mistake to rely only on authority to justify something (because reasoning and evidence are the only things that justify), but in the case of climate scientists they supposedly determine the truth as best as anyone can on this subject, using reason and evidence. It's proxy reasoning;
Re:So what's the news here? (Score:5, Insightful)
so the solution is to deal with the symptoms rather than address the cause?
If we throw away our technology, as some would seem to prefer
slow down, there! it's a bit of a leap to conclude that those who advocate a meaningful reduction in greenhouse gasses are calling for us to "throw away our technology".
a hundred and twenty years ago, all the western world's major cities had a horse poop problem. lots of horses in the streets, lots of poop. how was this addressed? by "throwing away" the technology of horses? no. the solution was technological improvement rather than regression.
now we just have to deal with the car poop.
Re:Science is no democracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Has to be said... (Score:3, Funny)
That's not what was shown in the documentary 'Waterworld'...and hey, if melted polar ice caps means a world with Kevin Costner with gills, well then, bring it on! I loves me a good freak show.
Re:Cranks (Score:4, Insightful)
There is human influence on the climate. The harder question to answer is to what degree and how fast? Most of the global simulations have some pretty fatal flaws. Some do not account for the oceans ability to hold heat very well. Others do not take into account how changing currents in the deep levels of the oceans will affect upper currents. Heck, the GFS[NOAA's main forecast model] had a 30 degree miss on the weather in New England this past weekend three days out. Computer modeling is not the be all end all.
This is not to say that nothing needs to be done. I think there is a bit of Chicken Little in the research community. Especially the ones who know that fear brings them more funding.
Some have stated Kyoto was a "start." In international treaties, there are no such things as starts. Once you get a bad treaty, you tend to be stuck with the damn thign forever because the other countries feel like they did what they needed to do. That is politics. You can not accept a bad treaty like Kyoto. It had major flaws and would have been a band aide on a monster gash.
Is the administration doing enough, hell no? However, Kyoto flat out sucked as a treaty goes. It had been rendered as nothing but a way for third world countries to make money by selling their pollution rights. It was full BS.
Re:Cranks (Score:3, Insightful)
Simple point is, that science in the way we know it today is a thing developed during the 19th century. Before it there was knowledge, there was lots of speculation and there was no separation between hypothesis, theory and fact.
Even the great scientist of the late 17th and early 18th century, Isaac Newton, was more interested in alchemic experiments and metaphysical speculation than in the Physics and Ma
Re:Michael Crichton just said... (Score:3, Informative)
Not only that, but the "warnings" for global cooling and now global warming are coming from the same individuals. Can you say book sales? I know you can.
Re:I may be too young... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think 1) is correct, then you worship Kyoto as the God that will Save Mankind (nevermind the fact that if the predictions are correct, and they are not likely to be, that Kyoto is only intended to reduce the INCREASE IN CO2 emissions