I pulled the comments section from this slashdot article. It contains a great debate and a lot of good ideas.
I pulled the comments section from this slashdot article. It contains a great debate and a lot of good ideas.
Climate_Change_Discussion_on_Slashdot (last edited 2010-04-24 09:29:30 by localhost)
Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Informative)(http://www.intelliadmin.com/blog)
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science"
Strangely enough this is from a website that is sporting anti-bush t-shirts, buttons, and bumper stickers
Windows Admin Tools [intelliadmin.com]
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Funny)(http://prube.com/)
Wait a minute, are you telling me someone can be for truth and against Bush?! We'll see what Bill O'reilly has to say about that!
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Funny)(http://www.drivesentinel.co.uk/)
As opposed to world science?
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Insightful)From the parent:
I'm always skeptical of claims that hundreds or thousands of supposedly respectable scientists hold a non-mainstream view but can't express it because some shadowy cabal is forcing them to stay quiet.
From me: There's a lot of difference between publishing (which is what very many scientists do) in reputable journals, and stating things publicly. There shouldn't be. But even people with open access to journals can pick and choose about which evidence to support. Just because one faction is outspoken and has flashy "evidence" to support a view, and another faction has supposedly solid evidence to support a contrary view but stays relatively quiet does not mean, unfortunately, that the better evidence will win. It means that people will hear the loud, flashy stuff, and (for the people who have a sense of curiosity, but perhaps not a driving need to delve into the literature on their own) just wonder why the other side hasn't said much: Gosh, perhaps the flashy, outspoken side IS right. Why haven't I heard much from the contrary viewpoints?
Getting published isn't that difficult
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://userfriendly.org | Last Journal: Tuesday January 24, @01:30PM)
So why not publish the dissenting findings in a reputable, peer-reviewed journal? If there are sufficient grounds to question the research that has been published thus far, I would expect that it would not be difficult to promote a dissenting work.
Heck, Phillipe Rushton [wikipedia.org] still gets published from time-to-time, and his research has been widely discredited. This suggests that the relative popularity and/or merit of your findings does not appear to have much influence on whether (or not) you get published,
So, if the case for global warming is as weak as some of these folks claim, why have they not published rebuttals or counter-claims?
This article is not challenging peer-reviewed
(Score:4, Insightful)I am a scientist, though not climatologist. I feel that the data is all but certain that the atmosphere has warmed about 1C in the last one hundred years. I think virtually all of my colleagues agree with this. As for the cause of global warming, things are far murkier. Since we don't have hundreds of earths where we can run nice reproducible tests in order to study what variables matter and what do not, we can NEVER provide conclusive evidence for cause. That being said, the data is still fairly solid that we are most of the problem. The current consensus from the ICC implies something like "there is a 90% chance that human activity is the primary cause of the observed global warming". I think this is fair, given the data. Certainly, a 90% chance of a problem is enough to justify the consideration of preventative action.
Some GW skeptics claim that since the earth's temperature has been all over the place in the past, some "natural" phenomena could have caused the warming. While this is possible, they should be able to point out what this "natural phenomena" is. So far, none of the logical possibilities have panned out. For example, there is slight evidence that solar radiation may have increased, but nowhere near enough to explain the observed warming. Changes in orbit, which have largely driven the ice ages, have not occured. If it is NOT CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it must be some other cause. If it is, we should be able to measure it. What is it? The skeptics fail to point out plausible alternatives. If the alternatives are not plausible, it is logical to conclude that it is the greenhouse effect. Hence the ICC's 90% odds.
The left, however, vastly exaggerates any data supporting the existence of GW or its dangers. Any talk of "tipping points" or blaming Katrina on GW, for example, are either entirely unsupported by the data or extremely premature. At worst, without GW Katrina would have been a weak Cat 4 instead of a strong one. GW did not "create" Katrina, though it is possible that it made her slightly worse.
Another problem with the left is that they ignore economics. When the economists crunch the numbers, they often find that even assuming GW is real, adaption is simply the cheaper option as compared to prevention. To put it simply, doing anything about GW that would actually make a difference could be far more expensive than it is worth. It may be easier to build some flood walls than buy a zillion solar panels, for example. I rarely find that the left is even willing to engage in this debate, probably because they are on very weak footing there.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Interesting)(Last Journal: Tuesday March 11, @01:37PM)
If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming, then they should publish it. If they don't, then as scientists they should know better than to spout off without any proof of their claims.
Absolutely. I attended a lecture at the Tyndall centre, Manchester a few weeks ago. In a room full of climate change experts, in the UK centre for climate change research, nobody was even remotely sceptical about the realism of Global Warming.
In fact, the point that shocked me most was that some of them were quite content that it was already too late to mitagate the effects, by a token reduction in our emissions. Argueing that the global strategy should be to prepare for the change that will happen rather than waste money trying to stop it!
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:4, Insightful)Without going into my opinion on this matter at all... have you listened to yourself?
You went to a room filled with "climate change experts." By this very definition, you're talking about people who believe in global warming ("climate change"). And then it's supposed to mean something that none of them is skeptical about global warming?
So, I went to church last week and was in a room with a bunch of experts on religion. None were remotely skeptical about God. Therefore, he must be real.
Right?
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://ungeni.us/)
there's a little something missing in your analogy. the experts you mention must be insanely knowledgable about their fields such that they know not just the base fact, but also the cause, the methodologies, and the cures. i could go a paragraph for each, but let's just look at the radiologist...
His job is not just to say "your leg is broken." it's to figure out where, why, and how badly, and to advise your Attending Physician on reasonable cures. Is this a break that can easily be set, requiring little more than a cast and some aspirin? Or are you in need of more invasive surgery, a few screws, and a lifetime of setting off metal detectors? The radiologist doesn't necessarily decide this, but his report detail is crucial to your attending.
From the perspective of watching you hobble into the hospital, five radiologists will all decide that you have a broken leg. From their own anecdotal experience, all five will have differing opinions of the severity and of the treatment. One will tell you that since you can still walk (however poorly), it's not bad and you just need some anti-inflammatories and bed rest, and that the hairline fracture will heal itself. Another will decide your distinctive gait betrays a severe fracture with nerve damage, and you are at risk of losing your leg if not rushed into surgery immediately. With all likelihood, however, these experts will probably agree on all counts after looking at the X-Ray.
When it comes to climate change, Climate Change Experts in 2006 are a lot like these radiologists before the X-Ray. None of the doctors disagreed about whether your leg was broken - they differed on the severity and treatment. CCEs don't doubt the existance of climate change or global warming, but there is a tremendous amount of discourse about the causes and cures. We have at least three possible causes, all of which have mounds of evidence to support them.
The movie points this out
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://www.bigbrother.net/)
This is the long standing problem in the media of false equivalency. They take any issue and assume that there are two sides and that both sides have similar standing. So if 932 peer reviewed scientific papers say that global warming is happening and humans are causing it, and there's 932 articles written by crackpots and industry lobbyists saying the opposite, the media treat this as being two equivlanet sides of an issue. It makes good copy, but it's incredibly desceptive.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Insightful)Those opposed to the idea of global warming have to responsiblity to do anything here.
Yes they do. They have to point to flaws and holes in the current theory, otherwise they're just gasbagging.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:4, Funny)(http://www.dausha.net/)
And if they're gasbagging, then they are just spewing hot air, which contributes to global warming. Therefore, if those opposed to the global warming theory (that man is responsible) aren't pointing to flaws and holes, then they are contributing to the problem they oppose by increasing global warmth. A bit circular, but fun to write nonetheless.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Insightful)Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:4, Interesting)(http://www.walford.ca/)
I am not going to disagree with anything you say here because I would say it is all entirely correct. However, from what I remember of my history of science, nothing gets the label of "law" anymore, only "Theory". Law was the original name used to signify scientific "laws" in the 1700s-1800s IIRC.
It was changed to "Theory" in the 1900's as some "laws" had been disproven. So, in fact, the term "Law" is depricated, and has been replaced by theory.
This of course, causes consternation for scientists when creationists decry evolution as a "theory" and not a "law".
(Sorry for the lack of exact date ranges, I don't remember the specifics from history of science, and of course, I have none of the material at hand at the moment.)
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://lives.sourceforge.net/)
There, I just proved global warming.
Now it's up to you to disprove it.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Insightful)They accept that temperatures are increasing. They don't deny that it is a problem. They are questioning the way politicians are launching on a popular mission to tackle a problem we do not yet understand (although the article fails to make that point clear).
If we ignore all other hypothesis and we turn out to be wrong with the whole CO2 thing, then we're going to spend some incomprehensible number of dollars reducing our CO2 output over the next 100 years for no gain. If these alternate theories turn out to be right, then that money would be better spent either helping us adapt to a phenomenon we have no control over, or hiring more pirates.
Yes - let's curb our CO2 production for now, but let's not just assume we have the problem under control and put all our eggs in the one basket.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:4, Insightful)I have two responses to this:
1) The notion that there's no gain from reducing carbon emissions - even in the unlikely event that there turns out to be no effect on long-term global temperatures - is patently absurd. Offhand I can name benefits: improved air quality with attendant lower of non-carbon aerosols like mercury and uranium (which would lead to lower incidence of many diseases), less acidification of lakes and other bodies of water, reduction of ecosystem damage in bodies of water like the Gulf of Mexico (large stretches of which are now hypoxic to anoxic), an extraordinary leap in energy efficiency as a generation of industrial machines are upgraded to modern versions, and finally a reduction in global economic instability as energy sources are made more distributed. And that's just off the top of my head. So it's hard to argue that this money is a vast waste.
2) There is a very simple and very reliable way to approach situations where the outcomes are not well known: risk analysis. Every day, all over the world, people assess the severity of risks and the likelihood of that contingency occurring. By basically multiplying (convolving, whatever you like) the risk by the severity of the outcome, you get a good metric for whether to try to mitigate a particular risk. In this case, the risks (as Gore's movie well illustrates) are extraordinary, so even those with less likelihood merit active mitigation strategies. And given that the conversion from emitting to non-emitting energy sources does not require science particularly beyond our grasp to accomplish, it's impossible to argue that we can't take active steps to mitigate the risk. So why do the same people who employ risk mitigation all over the place (e.g. insurance, tort "reform") argue so furiously against anything like this on a large scale?
Finally, it bears mentioning that the scientists in this article (only two of who are named) are an extraordinary minority - the vast bulk of climate scientists (and I know many personally, thanks to a degree in ocean physics) are in agreement that human activities are contributing to global warming. So while these folks are entitled to their opinions, scientific or otherwise, it's pretty misleading of this here Canada Free Press to present them as a mainstream view.
Want to see easy?
(Score:4, Informative)(http://abrij.org/)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460
2) CO2 dissolves in water
3) The oceans are water
4) CO2 dissolves in the oceans
5) When CO2 dissolves in water the PH of the water goes down
6) When the PH of the water goes down, Calcium Carbonate concentrations go down
7) When calcium carbonate levels go down the plankton dies
8) When the plankton dies, so does everything else by starvation
9) Ergo, people who think disproving global warming will let them drive their hummers without killing their own species, and a lot of others with it, are total asswipes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265241_coral0
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Informative)(http://www.shellbrooklab.com/)
Also, the average temperature of the planet has increased by 1 degree C since the late 1800s. The grounded Antarctic ice cap grew between 1992 and 2003, lessening any sea level increase by about 0.12mm per year . Thermal expansion represents roughly 120mm of MSL for a 1 degree temperature increase. The evidence for this is readily available - I just Googled it.
See the problem? The Wise Statesman was right.
-h-
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:4, Informative)If you need a little experiment to try at home, let me know.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Interesting)The pro-global warming camp never seems to explain this. Indeed the record setting 1969 Atlantic hurricane season happened during this "cool" period. If positive increase in global temperature are associated with more powerful storms, what happened here?
Keep in mind that the onus is on those pushing the new theory to fit these facts into their model. Behind all the media glitz, there are some serious questions being asked with very poor answers being offered. Is this warming bad? How much is natural variation vs. human made? The data really looks like it's a bit of both, but there simply isn't enough data to speak conclusively.
The scientific method
(Score:5, Insightful)(http://www.highprogrammer.com/alan/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 29, @05:33PM)
That's also not how the scientific process works. This isn't about "proving a negative", it's about "invalidating an existing hypothesis" which is the basis of scientific progress. Scientists spend lots of time running experiments trying to prove than an opponents theory is wrong. Part of becoming a generally accepted "theory" is having lots of people try to invalidate your hypothesis and failing to do so. Indeed, the thing that's impossible to prove is that the hypothesis is valid. "Oh, sure, it looks like solar radiation can cause skin cancer, but can you prove that some as-yet unfound and undetected external force isn't responsible?"
Yes, if you're going to advance a hypothesis you need to find some evidence to support it, but if you're waiting for "extremely strong evidence" you're in for a long, long wait in just about any scientific endeavor.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Informative)http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=185179271
Probably the best hour I've spent recently. The last speaker actually published an article in Nature specifically talking about the media's miscoverage of this issue. To sum up; there is no debate on global warming. The debate is on the details.
From the description in on google:
Renowned science scholar Naomi Oreskes and science producer Gene Rosow discuss how Hollywood and the news media portray global warming and
We pulled this story off of Technocrat.net
(Score:5, Informative)(http://perens.com/ | Last Journal: Tuesday February 07, @09:49PM)
I've my own doubts about global warming, but it does seem that the "con" side are often folks who are paid to have those opinions.
Bruce
Drudge Report Propaganda
(Score:5, Informative)(http://slashdot.org/~cryptochrome/journal/ | Last Journal: Friday June 09, @12:41PM)
There is only one other article [canadafreepress.com] by Tom Harris at CFP, but I found another at National Post [canada.com], both attacking climate change. Canada Free Press [wikipedia.org] and National Post [wikipedia.org] are both conservative newspapers, particularly the latter. According to the byline, Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group. And what is the High Park Group [highparkgroup.com], seeing as how their web page say absolutely nothing of substance? Why it's an industry shill [stikeman.com].
Dig a little deeper and you'll find this [sierraclub.ca] from way back in 2002. It has quite a bit more to say.
If you know more say so.
Of course, articles about "scientists" refuting global warming are a dime a dozen, and go against the plain fact that the vast majority of climate scientists are firmly convinced of its existence.
And for the record when I looked at the article before it was running an ad pushing Condaleeza Rice for president... in a Canadian newspaper no less.
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:5, Informative)The man never claimed invention of the internet.
http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp [snopes.com]
Re:Some bold statements from this article
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://kim.biyn.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 03, @08:06PM)
The fact is he did make the claim, but not in reference to actually creating the technology but in popularizing its use within Congress. Taken out of context it's easy to say that Gore is a boob (and he very well may be but he's been on Futurama so he's cool in my book! I admit I'm biased by Futurama.
Either way, making fun of Al Gore's statement is funny and it always will be. It really is the web browser and businesses' embracing the web which popularized the Internet and led to what we have today, aside from the infrastructure itself.
Gore already covered this on SNL
(Score:5, Funny)And now, a message from the President of the United States.
President Al Gore:
Good evening, my fellow Americans.
In 2000 when you overwhelmingly made the decision to elect me as your 43rd president, I knew the road ahead would be difficult. We have accomplished so much yet challenges lie ahead.
In the last 6 years we have been able to stop global warming. No one could have predicted the negative results of this. Glaciers that once were melting are now on the attack.
As you know, these renegade glaciers have already captured parts of upper Michigan and northern Maine, but I assure you: we will not let the glaciers win.
Right now, in the 2nd week of May 2006, we are facing perhaps the worst gas crisis in history.
We have way too much gasoline. Gas is down to $0.19 a gallon and the oil companies are hurting.
I know that I am partly to blame by insisting that cars run on trash.
I am therefore proposing a federal bailout to our oil companies because - hey if it were the other way around, you know the oil companies would help us.
On a positive note, we worked hard to save Welfare, fix Social Security and of course provide the free universal health care we all enjoy today.
But all this came at a high cost. As I speak, the gigantic national budget surplus is down to a perilously low $11 trillion dollars.
And don't get any ideas. That money is staying in the very successful lockbox. We're not touching it.
Of course, we could give economic aid to China, or lend money to the Saudis... again.
But right now we're already so loved by everyone in the world that American tourists can't even go over to Europe anymore... without getting hugged.
There are some of you that want to spend our money on some made-up war. To you I say: what part of "lockbox" don't you understand?
What if there's a hurricane or a tornado? Unlikely I know because of the Anti-Hurricane and Tornado Machine I was instrumental in helping to develop.
But... what if? What if the scientists are right and one of those giant glaciers hits Boston? That's why we have the lockbox!
As for immigration, solving that came at a heavy cost, and I personally regret the loss of California. However, the new Mexifornian economy is strong and el Presidente Schwarznegger is doing a great job.
There have been some setbacks. Unfortunately, the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice Michael Moore was bitter and devisive. However, I could not be more proud of how the House and Senate pulled together to confirm the nomination of Chief Justice George Clooney.
Baseball, our national passtime, still lies under the shadow of steroid accusations. But I have faith in baseball commissioner George W. Bush when he says, "We will find the steroid users if we have to tap every phone in America!"
In 2001 when I came into office, our national security was the most important issue. The threat of terrorism was real.
Who knew that six years later, Afghanistan would be the most popular Spring Break destination? Or that Six Flags Tehran is the fastest growing amusement park in the Middle East?
And the scariest thing we Americans have to fear is
The worst thing about the global warming debate...
(Score:4, Funny)Yup, check some of the authors they hilight
(Score:4, Informative)(http://www.bigbrother.net/)
I saw a similar article making similar claims yesterday and the "experts" they sited weren't even in the field of climatology, and had gone so far as to fake a letter from the National Academy of Sciences to give their position a supposed credence.
Show me one peer reviewed scientific paper that says anything other than global warming is happening and it's caused by human emissions of CO2. To my knowledge, this does not exist. I recognize that peer review is somewhat prone to group think, and in that you might expect a leaning one direction or another. But to have ZERO? That seems rather dramatic to just be a group think issue.
A lot of the "scientists" that I've seen taking a position on this are clearly hucksters working for the likes of Exxon Mobile, etc. I have little doubt that there are some scientists who are legitimate who don't buy into the common thinking, but that doesn't mean the common thinking is wrong. They need to back up their beliefs with sound evidence and method. But they don't.
The debate will never end
(Score:5, Insightful)We'll know in a thousand years.
I _hope_ Gore is right...
(Score:5, Funny)(http://www.rangat.org/rthille)
Just so we can get rid of Florida. Serve them right for 2000...
Demonstrably Factually Incorrect
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://johnfrombluff.googlepages.com/ | Last Journal: Thursday January 05, @11:19PM)
And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?
(Score:5, Informative)http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
The website he writes for also did a great piece on how McDonalds was good for you, after they took a bunch of cash from McDonalds.
Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?
(Score:5, Informative)"Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company."
How this made the front page of
right. credibility
(Score:5, Informative)a quick google for the researcher the article focuses on [google.com] shows that he doesn't publish. his main credits are online opinion pieces, and the closes thing to a publication i found (the second page of the google) is a .doc file on his labratory's webspace
if anyone can find anything peer-reviewed by this guy, i'd be keen to see it
Re:right. credibility
(Score:4, Informative)Actually, sounds like he does publish pretty much on the subject
in peer reviewed journals, including Science.
Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?
(Score:5, Informative)http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/57
Some people would consider Prof. Carter to be an organ of said corporations.
Of course it's entirely possible that Prof. Carter is correct, as the Science article points out. But in light of the evidence, I'm inclined to think that this is a FUD campaign rather than a sound argument from a trusted authority.
Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?
(Score:4, Insightful)No it's not. He cites a few sources, and uses phrases such as, "Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change" to puff up the claims. Claims coming from a source who doesn't seem to even publish his own research for peer review. How is he even remotely considered a credible source? This is what the industries who pollute the most want everyone to believe. They have all sorts of "scientists" making statements to the press about how their research doesn't support global warming theories, yadda yadda. But since they aren't allowing their research to be peer reviewed (assuming they've even done any research) why should we believe them over the ones that are peer reviewed?
Paid Off
(Score:5, Informative)http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.
What RealClimate.org thought about it
(Score:5, Informative)There's lots more in the actual article.
And this is the guy who wrote the above entry:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/200
What Gore Said Was...
(Score:5, Insightful)It would be almost impossible to say that no scientist disagreed with these claims. There will always be somebody. There are still some "scientists" who claim that the Sun revolves around the earth because of their positions in whatever religious institutions they belong to.
If they want to contest the points in his movie, that's obviously fine... but also let them publish their claims in a peer reviewed journal so that people smarter than most of us can judge them.
That boat has sailed
(Score:5, Interesting)(http://slashdot.org/)
I'm sure I'll hear that the plural of anecdote is not data, that it is too expensive to fix, that we should throw up our hands and accept things. Global warming is not happening; and even if it is, we didn't do it; and so what if we did, so what - we should write off Bangladesh [sepiamutiny.com], forget the polar bears, and be happy to grow wheat in Canada instead. Sure. But please, read some of these stories [salon.com].
Re:That boat has sailed
(Score:4, Insightful)(http://slashdot.org/)
- Mankind's desire to blame itself for this occurrance is, I think, I misplaced attempt to delude ourselves into thinking we are more powerful than we really are.
- While you personally may be convinced, I and a host of climatologists are not and I would thank you to stop spending my money on your fantasies.
- even if it is occurring, you, me, them... we'll all be dead before it's a real problem.
Somehow, this is all about fear and foot dragging - how can you not see the staggering advances in clean technology that are possible if we put our minds to it? Why such a defeatist, can't do attitude?Thank you for your attempt at global armchair psychology. Please look at this graph from the NOAA. [140.172.192.211]
Fantasies? Strong words! Would you care to identify this "host" of climatologists for the rest of slashdot? I wonder why they have no peer-reviewed publications in the last 3 years? Must be the bias of their peers. Yeah, that's it.
Yes, like I said above, "Global warming is not happening; and even if it is, we didn't do it; and so what if we did, so what - we should write off Bangladesh, forget the polar bears, and be happy to grow wheat in Canada instead." Sure.
(I really don't have the time or energy to personally argue this with you - I apologize in advance.)
The essence of proof
(Score:4, Interesting)This guy is an oil company shill.
(Score:5, Informative)It's funny how I get a hopeful feeling when I see that there may still be some credible debate on this topic. Sadly the truth really is inconvenient, and depressing.
Monthly Carbon Dioxide Measurements
(Score:5, Interesting)(http://www.mathpuzzle.com/)
ftp://140.172.192.211/ccg/figures/co2_mm_obs.png [140.172.192.211]
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html [noaa.gov]
I consider myself a scientific conservative -- I don't want to find out what happens when CO2 hits the 430 ppm mark. Some people say that nothing bad will happen. They could be cataclysmically wrong.
CFP Bias
(Score:5, Informative)(Last Journal: Sunday April 16, @01:23AM)
Questionable Source?
(Score:5, Informative)(http://ndansmith.net/)
Read, but read with caution. The author is paid to have his opinion.
Science Magazine
(Score:4, Interesting)(http://www.corporate-sellout.com/)
Truly independant assestment of Global Warming?
(Score:4, Informative)100 Scientists Against Al Gore
(Score:5, Insightful)Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.
What a weaselly way of putting it. Here's what 30 seconds of Googling says about Professor Robert Carter: He's a member of the Institute for Public Affairs, a corporate-funded think tank.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Ca
You see, he isn't working for the coal industry per se. He's working for a think tank that is funded by corporate donors that may or may not include the coal industry. See the difference?
In piling up scientist after scientist while failing to refute Gore's arguments, this article is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda pamphlet "100 Scientists Against Einstein." Einstein's response still applies: "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
Watch your sources Slashdot !!
(Score:4, Informative)I wouldn't be surprised if Gore did go to far - few things are as certain as they are presented to us by either side. However, the article goes way too far and ignores the fact that the general concensus of the scientific community is in line with what Gore is saying.
So, it makes me wonder what this strange website is? It is run out of my city (Toronto) and yet I've never heard of it. I don't see a bio of the author on the website, but I note that the two main authors involved in this website are from the Toronto Sun and Fox News. I don't need to say anthing about FOX, but you might not have heard of the Toronto Sun. It is a right wing tabloid, featuring girly pictures on page 2. You probably have one in your city, so you know what I mean.
Quotes from the rest of the site
(Score:5, Interesting)"The images are slowly coalescing out of the smoke of the progressive anti-war campfires, the bonfires in New Jersey, where our Constitution and Ann Coulter's latest book are being consumed by the current purveyors of charitable lock-step liberalism, and from the super heated mind of Howard Dean, the showman extraordinaire and carpet gnawing Democratic spokesman deluxe."
"Once again, the gay marriage issue has come before the Senate. And with no surprise, Senators motioned to strike down a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. What a sad state the Senate has become! It should have been a no-brainer to stand up in the defense of marriage! "
'As the price of gasoline and the myriad products that utilize petroleum in their manufacture rises, Americans are going to ask why the Congress has resisted accessing the billions of barrels' worth of oil and natural gas in our offshore continental shelf. "
"It's so darned funny and I am such a naïf. I thought it would take a day or two for the left to begin to down play the death of Zarqawi, one of the premier death dealers on the planet today, and a guy responsible for a litany of murder and mayhem among our troops--OUR TROOPS. You know, the guys everybody pledges to support even though the liberal cognoscenti and the progressive Nomenklatura all hate the war."
"Great rivers of destiny are churning just below the Electoral dam.
It looks like the stage is being set for the next round of heartbreak for the Democrats, their quest for 15 seats in the House and their need to overthrow the Republicans in that charnel house of the Senate, should this, their greatest of all electoral endeavors, not pan out."
We need new clean energy sources regardless of GW
(Score:4, Insightful)2. The air around our population centers is polluted by fossil fuel consumption with serious health consequences
3. Fossil fuels cannot be used for deep space travel or colonization which is necessary for survival of our species (eventually)
4. Fossil fuels are poisonous to mine and refine and harm the workers in those industries and towns.
5. Centralized control of energy sources leads to higher prices and a permanent "tax" on economic development and expansion
6. Fossil fuels are poisonous to transport and have caused enormous damage to the marine ecology during spills
7. Systems used to convert fossil fuels to energy are complicated and wear out quickly. They are expensive to produce and maintain
8. Systems used to convert fossil fuels to energy create noise which causes problems in urban environments
9. Fossil fuel "control" implies a loss of personal and national liberty
Note that I am not saying that existing alternatives solve any of these problems.
I am saying that there are significant costs/problems to the current energy systems.
We have lived with these costs and written them off, but they are still there and still important.
Its worth significant effort to solve these problems. The research to solve
these problems will also likely benefit us in other areas.
It would be far better to solve the problems than to continue to live in an
unstable,poisonous,noisy world.
Pascal's Wager Anyone?
(Score:4, Insightful)Regardless of whether global warming is a reality, the solution will involve finding cleaner, cheaper, alternative sources of energy. How can that be a bad thing? Don't start with the bullshit about jobs being lost. We can create just as many job opportunities in the pursuit of alternative energy as are working in the oil industry, paid shill degreed academics, or lobbyists in Washington to pay crooks to write misleading legislation like the "Clear Skies Initiative."
People are fucking stupid sometimes.
Re:What do you expect?
(Score:5, Informative)Re:What do you expect?
(Score:4, Informative)The Clinton administration did not ratify the Kyoto protocol. It never intended to. Gore signed it "symbolically", whatever the heck that means, but they never actually submitted the protocol to the Senate. More here [wikipedia.org]. Gore might have been a big fan of Kyoto, but his administration never was.
Seems to me you've got three outright lies, and one complete irrelevancy
Seems to me you've got one piece of non-truth there.