Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming

ArthurDent writes "For quite a while global warming has been presented in the public forum as a universally accepted scientific reality. However, in the light of Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it."

The debate will never end

[Solder Fumes]

As long as certain groups stand to profit, and as long as certain people might look like idiots if proven wrong, the debate on this topic will never end. I'm talking about people on either side of the issue. The tough part is that global warming is difficult to prove either positively or negatively, so it's a prime vehicle for unrelated agendas.

We'll know in a thousand years.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[eln]

This really makes no sense: a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science

What? If they are scientists, and they "know" something, then surely they must have some very solid scientific evidence for their assertion, and thus should feel comfortable publishing it in a scientific journal. 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.

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.

Demonstrably Factually Incorrect

[JohnWilliams]

From the story: "For quite a while global warming has been presented in the public forum as a universally accepted scientific reality." This is plainly not true. For as long as the global warming issue has been in the public consciousness, it has been referred to as "the global warming debate". There has always been strong opinion and evidence on both sides of this issue. Where have you been, Arthur Dent?

Amazed!

[jmorris42]

This sort of dissent has existed for years, ignored by 'all right thinking people', but out there. Looks like Gore's movie has goaded a few of the dissenters to go on the record and risk destroying their careers. Gotta salute the poor brave but doomed bastards.

But what I'm amazed at is Slashdot actually accepting a dissenting opinion as an actual article submission instead of this being posted as a reply to a glowing review of the film.

For another whack at Gore's credibility try this one:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDE3ZTkyOWYxY TEzYmUwZmQ0ZjNmOTViM2Q1ZWM5ODA= [nationalreview.com]

What Gore Said Was...

[ThinkFr33ly]

... that of a huge sample of 900+ *peer reviewed* papers about climate change, 0 contested that it was occuring or that it was a result of humans.

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.

Faith ...

[fish_in_the_c]

yes but al gore like so many people on both sides of the isle from the materialistic atheist to the born again Christian is a man of faith.

He has faith that WE are the cause of global warming far beyond what the science can support. Just as a Christian has faith in a God that cannon be proved and the materialistic atheist has faith that God does not exist beyond what can be proved.

My point is much of the action we take is based on faith not science.
Politics is about emotion not science. Anyone who tells you otherwise is ... er.. playing politics ;)

I sometimes thing the environmental issue is as much a religious war as so many other issues from copy write to abortion seem to really be.

The interesting thing is that Gore as a born again Christian is bond by his ethics to seek what is real and true. An atheist has no such moral obligation.

The essence of proof

[99luftballon]

There's no conclusive proof that smoking causes cancer either, but there is strong evidence.

Re:20 years ago, it was Global Cooling!

[eln]

If Al Gore wants to run for President in today's political climate, I don't think making a documentary about global warming that leaves him vulnerable to being called a far-left enviro-hippy is really the best strategy. Despite Bush's falling popularity, this country is still too far to the right to elect someone like that.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[gardyloo]

From the grandparent: This really makes no sense: a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science

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?

Qualified response

[azav]

I'm a computer programmer but a formally trained Marine Biology major. In that, I took a season of Oceanography. What is IMPORTANT for the layman to understand here is that we have these cycles that one must understand FIRST. Every 10 years or so, there is a drying pattern in California that leads to drought. There are 10, 20, 50 and 100 year overlapping cycles of temperature, moisture, etc... cycling that happen everywhere in the world. Some areas have droughts every 10 years, some every 20. And sometimes, areas that have 100 year cycles and 10 year cycles overlap to be particularly worse. These time-scales are so large that 1 or three bad years do not definitely mean "OMG! Global warming is here!" It is very important for people to know that, especially when it is June and and already 100 degrees every day in Texas. There are also years where there are more hurricanes and hurricanes of greater severity as well as years with less.

It would do everyone well to look up a book on Oceanography and read how the ocean affects climate. It's just one chapter. Hit your local library.

Now, with that understanding under your belt, animal populations in the aquatic world (read: schools of fish) are fed by the ocean conveyor belt bring nutrient depleted hot water down to the bottom and causing the nutrient rich cold water to flow up. This feeds the krill and shrimp and plankton and they are eaten by bigger fish and so on. If this conveyor is stopped, all fisheries dependent upon it in the world are screwed and we don't know what will happen but it's most likely not good.

Climate (hotness, moisture, rainfall) affects food growers the world over. If the climate patterns change, it will mostly be destabilizing to farmers and that is bad. Less food, rising prices.

Everything we are doing to influence climate change builds up momentum towards that change. It may be slow but once it is started, it is hard to slow down and reverse. 1 degree difference in the entire ocean is a huge difference. Also, unlike us, water temperature in many parts of the ocean is constant to a few degrees. If it changes faster then the critters can handle, they die.

Once you know the rules upon which the ocean works and how it creates climate, running fast and lose with stuff that might change it is hugely dangerous and irresponsible to take a chance on. More moist warm air in places it wasn't before means more tornados and hurricanes in places they haven't been before. More extreme weather in general. This means more insurance claims and that means higher insurance costs factored into the economy.

Most of the times in America, we wait for disasters to happen before we spend enormous amounts off money and time to fix them. I don't want to be a betting man with our affect on the entire climate of the Earth. Calving icebergs the entire size of Rhode Island is not something normal. If we want Florida, New Orleans, Manhattan, Holland or those small islands in the pacific to be around in 50 years and have enough food to eat, I would not expect it to be if we (the US) and China (the largest emerging polluting market)do not take radical steps to curb global warming pollutants. It's that simple.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Lord Kano]

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.

There are some topic that are just off limits for political reasons. Look at the debate over the Bell Curve or Holocaust revisionism. It doesn't matter that the proponents are ultimately wrong, what's important is that they aren't even allowed to publicly state their positions.

Climatology is a field in which you will get less money if you say that everything's ok. No one gives a damn if the world is fine. People donate huge sums of money to save the world.

LK

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Fulcrum of Evil]

He created it, this much is true. Maybe you could go look up the actual thing he said?

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Fulcrum of Evil]

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

[DragonWriter]

That's not how the scientific process works. You can't prove a negative.

Science is all about proving negatives. Indeed, the only thing ever proven in science is that a model is wrong. A scientific theory, even one that has been granted the vaunted title of a "law", is simply a hypothesis which explains the available evidence better than alternatives and which could conceivably be shown to be wrong, has been vigorously attempted to be proven wrong, and failed to be proven wrong.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[BTWR]

It's easy to be bold when you're paid by Exxon Mobile to be that way.

1) Wow. I had no idea Exxon was a cellphone provider now.

2) Are they really paid by Exxon/Mobil, or are you just assuming that all different POVs than the typical green *must* be paid off?

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Salsaman]

The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is showing a rapid upward trend. The polar ice caps are melting due to temperature rises. The sea level is rising due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion of the oceans. The evidence for this is readily available.

There, I just proved global warming.

Now it's up to you to disprove it.

Re:The debate will never end

[Chosen Reject]

Too true. I don't know what all the fuss is about anyway. If there is global warming then it won't affect any of us alive today. But pollution affects our lives right now. Personally, I'm skeptical that humans can cause that much damage to the world with anything short of nuclear warfare. I haven't read much up on it, though. However, when my brother-in-law suffers from asthma because of the pollution in Philadelphia, I know that is caused by humans and was preventable for the most part.

I don't know why we can't just clean up our acts just for the sake of the health of those living today. Why can't we stop polluting for the sake of beautiful landscapes? Why can't we clean up our rivers so that we have clean water? Why can't we push for cleaner energy so that when we step outside for a breath of fresh air, we can actually get a breath of fresh air?

All this talk about global warming this, global cooling that, ice caps melting here, severe winters there, and no one is taking the side of the current generation's health.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

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?

Conclusive Evidence

[twifosp]

Why do we have to wait for 100% certainty before we act? While it is true that the theory of global warming is uncertain, that is a scientifically unfair statement to make. In order to scientifically validate the theory of global warming one hundred percent, it would have to be observed.

There isn't any conclusive evidence for theories on how gravity propagates. We have theories; special relativity space-time warping, string/m-theory transmitting gravitons. However no one can explain with 100% certainty why gravity works. So the theory of gravity lacks certainty. But last I checked, if I were to jump, gravity from the Earth would cancel out my force and return me to the ground. So yup, Gravity still works despite not having certainty behind theory.

According to the scientific process, we'll have to observe global warming in a biosphere before the theory will gain certainty. Last I checked we did not have a spare biosphere hanging around, or millions of years to test, or a spare Earth somewhere in orbit where we can conduct long term testing in order to satisfy the scientific method.

I am all for the scientific process and honestly wish it were used in more cases in every day life. However, in some cases, especially in those studies that overlap the lifespan of scientists, I feel it is ok to act without certainty in cases where the speculative evidence supports the theory. Say it with me now: Supporting evidence in the case where no alternative evidence exists wins everytime. In other words, just like the theory of gravity, lack of 100% certainity does not make the opposite true.

Despite whether or not global warming is a real phenomenon, not acting now would be like driving without auto or medical insurance. Sure, you might make it home safe, but you might also get hit by a drunk driver in a 4 ton truck with no insurance. Our laws require insurance for that reason. Why don't we start insuring the Earth with pre-emptive care?

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?

[Danse]

With all due respect, that's simply an ad hominem attack. What are the criticisms of the content of his findings? It seems to me he clearly cites named sources, instead of "climate experts". I don't know where the truth lies with global warming. I suspect it lies somewhere in the middle of the crusaders on both sides.

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?

Re:What Gore Said Was...

[slashdotnickname]

a huge sample of 900+ *peer reviewed* papers about climate change, 0 contested that it was occuring or that it was a result of humans

Is this a "huge sample" of all the meteorological studies out there, or just the ones about climate changes with relation to human activity?

Any clown can wave around X amount of papers, but without an overall context it's statistically meaningless...and, at most, it proves that at least X papers were written to support your premise.

The scientific method

[ChaosDiscord]

That's not how the scientific process works. You can't prove a negative. The onus is on the supporters of the global warming theory to come up with extremely strong evidence for their claims, they just haven't done so.

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.

The movie points this out

[sterno]

A telling statistic about this is in Gore's movie. They did a random sample of scientific peer reviewed papers on global warming. Of 932 samples, ZERO disagreed with the conclusion that global warming was happening and was man made. On the other hand 56% of the articles on the subject they randomly surveyed said the jury was still out.

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.

Getting published isn't that difficult

[why-is-it]

From me: There's a lot of difference between publishing (which is what very many scientists do) in reputable journals, and stating things publicly.

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?

Re:What Gore Said Was...

[merreborn]

It's important to point out that

"climate change is occuring or that it was a result of humans"

is a *long* way off from

"Carbon dioxide emissions are causing a 'greenhouse effect' which is going to melt the icecaps and flood the globe"

'human-initiated climate change' and 'global warming' are really two different things. Personally, I'm of the opinion that, yes, the average global temperature is up about 0.4 celcius, but that alone doesn't mean that the upward trend will continue.

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?

[Maxo-Texas]

To be honest,
I don't trust either of them.

A lot of environmentalists have an anti-human or anti-western civilization agenda.

Just about everyone who has come out strongly against global warming turns out to be funded by a vested interest.

We live in a world where the news articles we see are created by corporations.

It is very hard to know the truth any more.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[A beautiful mind]

"That's not how the scientific process works. You can't prove a negative. The onus is on the supporters of the global warming theory to come up with extremely strong evidence for their claims, they just haven't done so. Those opposed to the idea of global warming have to responsiblity to do anything here."

You can't prove a negative, if you're logically strict that is true. BUT YOU CAN prove a statement that is contrary to what you want to disprove, therefor invalidating it.

This is the difference between:
a.) Global warming doesn't exist, because...
b.) The temperature is decreasing, because [insert proof here], so we can conclude that the temperature is not increasing, so no global warming is happening.

Your understanding of the scientific process is weak at the best, it's play on words. One of the requirements of science is falsifyability, which means that the theory can be proven WRONG, and it is the continous process of trying to disprove the theory (and not succeeding) what makes a theory a scientific theory!

I'd also like to add that the scientific evidence for global warming, especially man induced global warming is overwhelming and noone brought up an argument against it in any serious scientific journal. We should focus on what to do about it, not whether it exist finally, until it is not too late.

Re:Prove a negative

[RackinFrackin]

Sure you can measure it and determine any change, but that doesn't tell you what caused that change. The unfortunate thing about climatology is that we can't do any simple experiments to test the individual factors to determine which are really important.

Re:The worst thing about the global warming debate

[iamlucky13]

I don't think it was that bad. It was just typical Crichton formula science fiction, which is something he's very good at. I find most of his books very engaging despite that fact that having read one, I've essentially read all of them. Same plots, different "bad guys."

The key value of the book is not any sort of rebuttal against global warming, since that is not what it tries to do (read the endnotes if you didn't). It's the argument that most of global warming fuss is FUD founded on really heavy rhetoric like "our children won't have Florida because it will be underwater" as opposed to the actual science (which in general is supportive of the theory) looking at the increase in CO2 and methane concentrations, computer modeling, long term temperature trends (both on modern and geological time-scales), solar activity, ocean level changes, etc.

I think the book is really quite amusing in how he attempts to bring all these little elements of the debate into play: lawyers, eco-terrorists, movie star run-ins with cannibals, and that crazy professor with his idea that we always we need some big thing to be afraid of and global warming was a good substitute for communism after the end of the cold war.

Re:That boat has sailed

[jwiegley]

See the point is this... Yes, global warming is probably occurring. (If by "global warming" you mean the average measured temperature at certain locations on the globe measured over a significant period of time, say thirty years, has increased.) Then yep, I wouldn't bet against you that you could find such a location.

The news here is:

1. Is it caused by something mankind is doing or is it something that would have happened anyways even if the dinosaurs weren't wiped out? (and didn't become intelligent and drive to air-conditioned offices in their own fuel inefficient cars and cause the same sort of problems due to similar activity.)
2. Is it going to make significant global changes in a timespan so short that it makes sense to waste the amount of resources that we are currently spending on this problem?
3. Three can it even be corrected with reasonable resources if it needs to be?

What the climatologists are saying is: No, no and no.

1. There is not enough accurate evidence [yet] to indicate that it is our fault. It's equally plausible at this time that global climate change is the result of other natural factors such as magnetic field fluctuation, out-gassing from volcanoes or fluctuations in the Sun's activity. It's stupid to act as though it was our fault for two reasons. The first is that it most probably results in an ineffective and wasteful solution. Second it focuses on an invalid conclusion which distracts us from identifying the real cause. 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.
2. No, It's not a global problem. As the article points out areas that have seen changes that one would think could be the result of global warming actually haven't seen permanent change and that such changes have not occurred world wide. Thus global warming does not seem to be affecting a long term, permanent climate change. Thus it doesn't make sense to spend vast resources in a reactionary manner to "fix" a problem that may not even be there. Other areas that are classic fear tools (such as the polar ice caps) are seeing a net increase in that surface feature which is contrary to public desire/opinion/fear. Again, don't spend rediculous sums of resources on something that you aren't convinced is happening. And while you (pq) 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.
3. And lastly, even if it is occurring, you, me, them... we'll all be dead before it's a real problem. Yes, yes... the great good, future of mankind... even if I bought into all that propaganda crap. The resources that you encourage me to spend now to make life better for non-existent people two hundred years in the future are resources that I could spend better right now to improve somebody's life who actually needs it right now.

I am so sick of listening to how mankind is the cause of everything. How our actions are so important. Here's the deal people... We as a race of beings are totally insignificant. period. We possibly could change the climate of the world in a rapid fashion if that was the sole goal of all humanity. But one random belch of unusual solar activity or a volcanic eruption could undo all our efforts, or do the job far better, in half the amount of time. Frankly the ball of rock that we cling to, and the universe in general, does not care or notice that we exist regardless of anything that we do.

So, my point is: NO. it is not too late for this argument.

(But I really like the boat cliche, the absolute assertion and the citation of a known heavily biased publication to make for what you thought was a conclusive argument.)

Re:As a rule of thumb

[marvinglenn]

I don't consider any site that has over 50% of the page content taken by ads as an authority in the matter.

Anti-global-warming scientists have to make their living in someway. There's no federal grant money for those who don't say that the sky is falling. If the sky's not falling, then there's no need to spend tax money on it.

Re:The debate will never end

[Moofie]

Proof by assertion! Film at 11. Sure am glad we've got you around to tell us how it is!

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[johansalk]

You're completely missing the point. It's not about you feeling 2 or 3 degree difference in temperature and wearing a lighter t-shirt or a thicker sweater, not at all, it's what those 2 or 3 degrees do to climate phenomena such as hurricanes, polar ice, oceans, plankton and so on. What to you could mean a warmer day could mean mass extinction to tens of thousands of species.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[afaik_ianal]

To be fair, the scientists this article is talking about are not actually claiming that the Earth is warming. They are just pointing out that there is no more evidence for the hypothesis that it has been caused by rising CO2 levels, than there is for the hypothesis that it is caused by normal cycles in the sun, or that it is caused by the falling number of pirates.

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

[kimvette]

Your post has not been modded up but your incorrect parent has been modded up as insightful. The thing is, both of you are half-right.

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. ;)) but within the context he's right, in sponsoring certain bills (I don't recall them now) and so forth. However he hypes up his puny contributions which really, in the face of Tim Berners-Lee's contributions, compared to Gopher, Marc Andreessen and Jamie Zawinski's browser (Mosaic), and the first commercial ISPs, are far, far overblown.

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.

Re:right. credibility

[Tim C]

He doesn't publish?

One of the conditions of getting a Phd in the group I was in was that you had to have at least two articles published during your studies - if you didn't, you weren't likely to make the grade.

How can a scientist not publish? With the exception of secret, corporate/government only stuff, there's no other reason to be a scientist but to let other people know what you discover!

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[MassacrE]

You've just hypothesized a scientific theory on the existance of god, but do you have any findings or statistical measurements to justify your hypothesis?

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[suitepotato]

Earth has been warm, Earth has been cold. It was doing this long before we arrived. It will keep doing it long after we are gone.

First, Earth's construction contains a large amount of radioactive materials which during Earth's formation became largely concentrated at the Earth's core where they provide a good amount of energy to keep the core warm. So we generate our own heat.

Second, Earth has a moon which orbits and causes tidal forces to stretch and squash the Earth and provide more energy input.

Third, the construction of the Earth is rocky crust on gooey molten lava over a solid core. It moves this way and that, the crust carried along in directions ruled by convection currents, gravitation, and inertia just to name three. In some places crust goes back down and melts and others new crust pops up. Some of it is above the sea...

Fourth, Earth is covered in oceans. These take warmth from the Earth and even more so warmth from the sun, and convey it this way and that, flowing around the crust that sticks up above the waters. Once, Antarctica received warm waters from up north at the equator, but finally broke free from its connection and once encircled by the ocean on all sides, was cut off from the warmth and is now indefinitely cold.

Fifth, the Earth teeters this way and that with varying eccentricity of orbit, inclincation, and even magnetic field. Sometimes one hemisphere is at maximum summer exposure when the planet hits closest approach to the sun. Sometimes it is winter at farthest reach.

Sixth, the construction of Earth allows for all sorts of chemicals to be tossed about by the natural forces of the world, such as methane, water vapor, carbon dioxide, and so on. Rocks absorb some compounds, oceans others, other times things are released. Some are greenhouse gases, some aren't.

Sometimes it gets cold, the oceans lower as water locks up and former sea beds become swamp become grasslands become forests become grasslands become swamp become sea beds again as the warmth comes back.

Sometimes it gets very warm to the point that much life dies off.

It's been doing this since long before us and will do it long after. It is the height of anthrocentrism to assume that Earth inherently is at our mercy. More the other way really. Sooner or later volcanos will explode wiping out whole continents, continents will shift and Japan will go squish between North America and East Asia as the Pacific narrows, other places will open up rifts and flood by ocean. The *still ongoing* ice age will bound out of the interglacial into a glacial period, then an interglacial, and some day when the continents are aligned just right the ice age will end altogether and Earth will be warm.

Earth is going to do whatever Earth is going to do. There's been pasts of violent weather enough to make right now look like a calm spring afternoon and other quiescent times of endless calm spring afternoons.

But that doesn't sell books and movie tickets does it? Doesn't get people elected. Stupid does though. Stupid gets books and movies sold and gets politicians elected. Thank goodness for them it is the second most common element after hydrogen. Pity for us that Earth was cursed with so damn much of it.

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?

[Anonymous Coward]

Question for you ...

Why when a scientist or author is funded by an oil company is their research automatically considered flawed but when the same research is funded by an environmental lobby group it is considered valid?

The fact is that Environmental lobby groups have as much of a vested interest in causing massive panic about environmental concerns in order to boost their funding as the Oil Companies have in preventing a massive panic that would cause taxes/restrictions which would hurt their bottom line. There are few netural third parties that have the wealth to fund scientific studies.

Honestly, as a Mathematician, I refuse to accept anything as a scientific study until it has undergone several challenges. The fact is that no study that claims that Human Caused global warming is occuring has been able to answer even the simplest of questions:

If Human Caused global warming is occuring how would you be able to distinguish it from the noise that is built into the system? Remembering the middle age warm period was a period (that lasted for centuries) of average world temperatures that were much higher than our current temperature, the ascent to these temperatures was quite rapid, and there was (almost) no human produced greenhouse gasses?

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[fandog]

Wow, on a 4 billion year old planet you've got a 30 year trend. And you're going to argue that that trend is *caused* by something outside of normal patterns... uh yeah.

"I've gotten less rain at my house today than I did yesterday. Therefore I must be doing something to cause it to rain less!! Nevermind that my house has been here for 47 years".

I think I'll make a transparent presidential campaign out of it, and enlist the help of dim-witted Hollywood residents with more money than brains. Seems like a good idea....

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[doce]

(i'm the AC above - forgot to log in. dork.)

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.

Re:That boat has sailed

[pq]

Wow. I don't have an argument for you, just a few quick notes:

• 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.
  Thank you for your attempt at global armchair psychology. Please look at this graph from the NOAA. [140.172.192.211]
• 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.
  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.
• even if it is occurring, you, me, them... we'll all be dead before it's a real problem.
  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.

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?

(I really don't have the time or energy to personally argue this with you - I apologize in advance.)

Suppose you're uncertain

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Suppose you believe we can't tell what effect we'll see from running up CO2 levels (which we're doing: direct measurement says they're going up, isotope ratios show that the increase is fossil carbon).

If you don't know the effects, isn't a conservative approach appropriate?

If you see someone who doesn't know what they're doing making changes to your starship's life support system, would you let him continue just because he paid some of the engineers to say "we can't be sure there will be a catastrophe"?

Experimenting on a planet while you're living on it is just plain dumb.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[WilburCobb]

> As you can see, I really don't care whether it is human caused or not. The only
> thing that matters is that we have a comfortable climate to live in for a while.
> And the last thing I want is for us to be thinking in 300-400 years "Wow. This
> Ice Age is cold. Too bad we can't think of a way to warm up.".

You see, "comfortable climate" is not the only matter. There are othe species in this planet that deserve to live and can be affected and even get extinct by a sudden warming or cooling (by sudden I mean hundreds of years). If "comfort" is the only thing you can think about, think that we may need some of those species for surviving.

> To me it seems more likely that humans would be hurt by global cooling than
> global warming. I understand that global warming can cause some areas to be
> colder (like Europe), but on the whole it seems like it would promote more life.

Are you thinking also on the population of the rest of the world, like Africa? Did you also consider othe effects that can come along warming or cooling, like desertification?

It is funny how those who deny global warming (which can be done in various ways, as saying that if it would occour, it could not be bad) dismiss the global warming hipothesis by ridiculing sensationalist defenders, and after that can come up with arguments as fallatious as those they where criticizing.

Re:Want to see easy?

[jstultz]

Perhaps my sarcasm meter is broken, but I think you'd be pretty hard pressed to prove that even the complete absence of plankton would result in a massive global extinction of all species. Adaptation, and all that.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Anonymous Coward]

"I just thought that I'd point out that if the ice melts at the north pole, the sea level won't rise. It's already displacing its equivalent mass in seawater. Obviously there are other implications, though."

And I just thought I'd point out that the massive ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are sitting on top of continental crust, i.e. not displacing their equivalent mass in seawater. If those ice sheets melt, sea level will rise.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[markandrew]

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.

So, we stand to lose billions, or trillians, of dollars. On the other hand, if the theories are correct but we don't take them seriously, we stand to lose... life on earth (as we know it).
Dollars/Life on earth. Life on earth/Dollars. Hmmm. Tough one.

Re:And Who Happens to Fund the Article's Author?

[CleverNickName]

For a website that spends so much time and energy combating FUD from Microsoft, and the MPAA and RIAA, it is baffling that FUD that was paid for and is pushed by the oil industry would make the front page here.

Come on, Slashdot. You can do better.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[werewolf1031]

There, I just proved global warming.

You proved nothing, you simply made entirely subjective statements and presented no facts nor citations.

The sea level is rising due to melting polar ice and thermal expansion of the oceans. [emph. mine]

Ok, am I missing something here? Last I heard, water expands when it freezes, not when it warms -- unless it warms to the point of boiling, which is clearly not (yet) the case.

The evidence for this is readily available.

Please cite your evidence, as well as who collected it, and why. Note: To those on the other side of the debate, the same goes for you, too.


From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]*:

The average global temperature rose 0.6 ± 0.2 Celsius (1.1 ± 0.4 Fahrenheit) over the 20th century, and the scientific opinion on climate change is that it is likely that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"

Let's give the benefit of the doubt with that +/-0.2 degree margin of error and say it's at the top end, so we have an increase of 0.8 deg. over roughly a century. Let's even go a step further and say that it's mostly over the last 50 years, as stated in the article.
You: The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans is showing a rapid upward trend. [emph. mine]
Me: Um, less than 1 deg. in less than a century? Not so "rapid" there, IMO.

Now keep in mind, I'm not saying global warming is not happening. I'm just pointing out that:

1. The sky is most likely not indeed falling as some claim -- there is no real, hard, unbiased evidence that the vast majority of life on Earth is going to be wiped out in the next century or so due to this climate change.
2. We have no idea what the causes are, there is a great deal we do not know about how and why the Earth's climate shifts over long periods of time, nor how long this current increase in temperature will progress, nor to what extent, nor what, if anything, we could possibly do about it.

Also keep in mind that studies indicating "evidence" both for AND against global warming are frequently politically rooted, on both sides of the global warming debate [wikipedia.org]. Nevertheless, the absolute worst thing any of us can do is politicize this debate. Science is, or at least is supposed to be, ignorant of politics or any other arbitrary (read: artificial) human belief system. It's supposed to be about finding the cold, hard truth regardless of what one wants to find. And it's impossible to find out what's really going when one allows one's personal views to color the results one "expects" to find, regardless of the actual methodologies used to discover those results. I shouldn't have to say any of this, but it often becomes necessary especially in this particular debate.


Disclaimer: I'm obviously a skeptic on this particular issue, though I am open to having my mind changed when presented with appropriate, unbiased data from non-partisan sources.


*Yes, I know Wikipedia is to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt, but appropriate sources are cited in the article.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Anonymous Coward]

explains the available evidence better than alternatives

could conceivably be shown to be wrong

Those are two counts on which it fails to be a theory, particularly the second. I, personally, feel that the world makes much more sense without a god. One argument there is the "omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god wouldn't let evil occur". There are arguments and counterarguments to this, but I find the "shit happens" theory explains what we see a hell of a lot better than some sort of sentient entity.

Also, the "theory" fails on this count:

is ... a hypothesis

Because you have defined neither "God" nor "exists", it's not actually saying anything. Both of them are ill-defined in common usage, and the exact definition is important to many discussions. A better way of phrasing it would be "there is a powerful sentient being that had a direct and deliberate influence on the history of life and mankind on Earth". Already, there's lots of room for people to argue with this interpretation of the original (meaning the original was ill-defined), and try to find evidence for or against it (such as by running models of early Earth and trying to produce life). It's a much more scientific theory already.

Note to Slashdot Editors

[npsimons]

Please change the title of this article from "Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming" to "Industry Shills Respond to Gore on Global Warming". Not that journalistic integrity has ever stopped you from running obviously wrong headlines before; I'm just trying to advise on how to maintain what little dignity you have left.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[boldtbanan]

Not quite. Wasting trillions of dollars (which is only the estimated effect of the Kyoto Protocol, which no country is meeting anyway) and billions of man hours chasing down a red herring (if that's what the CO2 theory turns out to be) is also equivalent to sacrificing life (yes, economic prosperity results in a higher quality of life and lower mortality rates). That money could be better spent preserving life.

On the other hand, it's extremely doubtful that global warming (speaking in reasonable terms, not the 'holy crap we're all going to melt overnight' kind that some people claim is coming) will wipe out life on earth.

Either way it's a gamble, but the gamble is still along the lines of risking life one way or the other (if you want to compare apples to apples.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference is that in science, you think "what does this mean in the case of X" then you do X and see what happens. If God exists, what does that mean?

For instance, if we take the statement "Gravity Exists" then we can say "If I let this ball go, it will fall." Then I can let the ball go, and if it does not fall, I was wrong. Maybe I was wrong about gravity. Maybe I was just doing the experiment wrong. If the outcome of the experiment surprises me enough, I write about it and tell my peers what happened, then they try it, and either tell me I screwed up or I did not screw up.

At its basest, science is faith. But at its best, it is the process by which we wake up every morning and try to break that faith.

We need new clean energy sources regardless of GW

[Marrow]

1. We need to have an energy source that is not based on localized supplies in the middle east (or elsewhere)
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.

Infuriating

[pukegreen]

After years as a lurker, this write-up has finally compelled me to register at slashdot (well, that and the death of Plastic).

It is a fact that an overwhelming marjority of scientists in the world agree that climate change is real, it is happening now, and it is being caused mainly by humans. Only in the United States does there remain a "debate" and it remains only because a certain number of scientists have been paid off by large corporations to lobby the US government on their behalf. The expressed aim of these lobbyists is to muddy otherwise very clear science to make sure the general public at large is confused and doubtful about the existence of climate change. This effort is clearly working, and it is to the detriment of all of us.

Al Gore's film, and many other well-respected books (including the highly recommended "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery) outline in great detail the overwhelming evidence from peer-reviewed journals that is accepted by the world scientific community at large.

The short list of accepted facts, which have been derived by scientific observation and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals:

- The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is rising, and has spiked sharply in recent years, far beyond any of the "normal natural trends" that take place over thousands or millions of years, not mere decades.

- The average temperatures of the oceans are also rising.

- Historical photo evidence clearly shows the polar ice caps have melted dramatically in recent years. This is decreasing the amount of white snow that reflects sunlight and replacing it with dark water that absorbs sunlight, creating an ever-accelerating negative feedback loop. For the first time there are observations of polar bears are drowning in the north pole because they cannot swim between icebergs. Entire towns and cities in the north that were built on permafrost (so called because it was always considered permanent) are now sinking as the permafrost melts for the first time ever in human record.

- Historical photo evidence clearly shows that many glaciers around the world that are known to have have existed for millenia have suddenly and dramatically melted in recent decades.

- Scientific evidence shows that the number of species becoming extinct because they cannot survive in warmer climates and cannot migrate to cooler places due to human development is rising sharply.

- The number and intensity of hurricanes and severe storms have increased sharply over recent years, in direct parallel to the measured rise in air and ocean temperatures during that same time.

When I see a clear counter-argument for climate change that addresses the data behind all the above observations, perhaps I'll listen. So far, the arguments I've seen against climate change seem to consist of either 1) nitpicks at tiny holes in a vast complicated body of data, 2) the mistaking of small annual or geographical variations in an overall warming trend as "proof" that the trend is false, 3) insane unsubstantiated accusations that the vast majority of the world's scientists are involved in some sort of conspiracy, or are so inept at what they do that they must engineer a vast lie just to "get funding".

The rest of the world is on board. Only in the US (and since our last election, to some extent Canada) has climate change become caught up in pathetic left vs right politics, with conservatives adamently denying climate change by default as an invention of whiney liberals. It's a damn shame, because this is a serious issue, and the future of all humans depends on us waking up and doing something about this NOW.

How many droughts, heat waves, hurricanes, floods, rising oceans, missing ice caps, and extinct animals will we need to have shoved in our faces before we admit that we've made a huge mistake, and that we need to stop bickering and get on with solutions?

The views in this original post exhibit wishful thinking, not reality. Accusations of "junk science" by climate change doubters is extremely ironic, to say the least.

Pascal's Wager Anyone?

[mabu]

Christians, most of which are "convenient Christians" subscribe to the notion that they might as well believe in god, just in case he's really there. Pascal's wager as it's called, is based on the notion that erring on the side of caution when there doesn't seem to be any serious repurcussions is a wise choice, but it seems these same people bury their head in the sand when it comes to the subject of global warming. Wouldn't it seem like a wise idea to assume it might be happening and act to reduce the effects, as opposed to arguing about it?

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:Monthly Carbon Dioxide Measurements

[neddy1]

Not surprisingly, one of the main backers of co2science is Exxon. As well as both main authers on the site were at one tim e members of the Western Fuels Association (coal and oil). You cant make a valid argument when you are a shill.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[alnjmshntr]

You theory is not falsifiable and therefore is not scientific.

Any argument that I could come up with (evolution/the problem of evil/etc..) can be countered with the standard reply: "that's the way god meant it to be/designed it/etc..".

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[brianosaurus]

True to a point, but after a while listening to the dissenting case just to hear the dissenting case again serves no purpose.

I've heard the holocaust revisionist stories. I've heard that Global Warming is a lie. I've heard about the Easter Bunny. I've heard that security is Microsoft's #1 priority.

No matter how many times I hear them, they're still wrong. Taking further time to listen to lies is a waste. We're much better off working on a solution (either how to reverse global warming, or how to adapt to it) than listening to "the other side".

Its not that they aren't allowed to speak their views, its just that no one wants to hear it anymore.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[h4x0r-3l337]

Survival of the fittest does not apply to humans in the same way that it applies to animals. People that would have been considered "unfit" in previous centuries lead normal productive lives because of technological advances. We've learned to adapt the environment to our needs, rather than adapting to our environment.
"survival of the fittest" doesn't mean that humanity should die out while some other species that can stand the heat steps up, it means that humanity should use that ability to manipulate the environment and reduce global warming.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[kfg]

. . .the only thing ever proven in science is that a model is wrong.

Disproving a positive is not the same thing as proving a negative.

Scientific theory is not based on proven negatives, it is based on positives which it has been impossible to refute.

You are mixing up your logical concepts. Mind your pees and ques.

KFG

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[trewornan]

Your post is simplistic in the extreme. Trillions of dollars don't just represent bits of paper, we're talking about major parts of the world GDP. That much money represents significant quality of life issues: jobs, social welfare, health care, even the capacity to provide food and shelter to very large numbers of people. Losing those trillions of dollars will impact a huge number of lives (and not just human lives either) and to spend that money uselessly against an imaginary threat would be criminal.

Now, I don't know if anthropogenic global warming is real or not (and I don't believe you do either) or if it is real, what threat level it represents. However I'm prepared to accept that some expenditure on risk management basis may be reasonable depending on cost/benefit. What I don't want is a bunch of hysterical environmentalists railroading major goverments into unconsidered and hugely expensive measures on little more than computer models which have been proven unreliable.

These "experts" can't tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow afternoon and I'm supposed to just accept a shortened (average) lifespan because of what they say will happen in 50 years? You've got to be kidding!

Re:I'm not disputing global warming...

[SmurfButcher Bob]

Actually, a key part of the debate is if WE are causing the climate change, AT ALL. Read it again, worded different... if we didn't exist, the climate change would STILL occur. Right NOW, exactly as it is ocurring.

There are two flavors of the extreme "global warming is BS" camp. The first states that we have no impact on "global warming". Half the camp believes it is, in fact, a precursor to an "Ice Age" and is NOT "warming". The other half believes that it is the tail end of an "Ice Age". There is nothing we can do to stop it, any more than there is something we could do to cause it. The second flavor, which typically has political vestings, denies that any climate change is happening no matter what.

The moderate "it's BS" camp believes that we have little impact on "global warming". You'll find varying opinions on if it is, in fact, a precursor to (or end stage of) an "Ice Age". Most will state that, if anything at all, our impact was to increase the change rate by a fraction of a fraction of a percent. They reference beetle studies from the English coast, and use phrases like "Atlantic Conveyor".

The moderate "dunno" camp doesn't know what to think. They've got morons on all sides who have strong financial interests, telling them that the other side is the problem. Moderate "dunno" people all have one thing in common - they all agree that there is an assload of money to be made by the (politically) extreme group that wins.

The moderate "it's real" camp believes that we have significant impact on "global warming". Some believe that it will LEAD to an "Ice Age" (as opposed to an upcoming/terminating ice-age CAUSING it); most think that Earth will end up like Venus.

The extreme "it's real" camp believes that we are the absolute cause of "global warming". The melting of the polar ice is a direct result of CO2 emissions etc, and has nothing to do with the Atlantic Conveyor / freshwater / IceAge cycle. Most of the extreme "It's real" camp has never heard of the Atlantic Conveyor, anyway, and some (right here on Slashdot, where else?) have attributed an increased Solar Flare activity to SUV emissions. The exception to this is extremists who are politically vested. The extremists who are vested... have economic interests. And exactly like the "No Climate change has happened" extremists, they will invent whatever data is required to win.

Operative word with both political extremists - "Invent". Take a look at the origins of the "hockey stick" for further detail, the data gathering reads like a Microsoft funded study of TCO. Also understand that both extremist camps have all the money.

The true argument, here, and the reason most "in the know" have avoided it... is that "global warming" has *nothing* to do with science. No fact in the world (regardless of which "side" it's on) can stand against an onslaught of political, completely unaccountable BS that is spread with an unlimited budget. It'd be suicide to speak in such an environment. If you need proof, consider that there are "sides" to this issue in the first place. The last time I checked, the only thing that mattered was "the truth"... and it doesn't have "sides". THAT is why you won't find a good scientific argument, either way... its buried in noise, with the author ducking for cover. Kind of like why you picked "I'm not disputing global warming" as a subject, then asked for facts to demonstrate it was real. You knew your question could easily devolve into a flame fest.

For what it's worth, the real reason we're still running on Oil is because noone owns the sun. Yet.

Have a good one,

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[electroniceric]

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.

No, in fact there really isn't that much disagreement among the climate science community about causes - anthropogenic emissions are nearly universally acknowledged as a very important contribution to the current warming trend. There is, however, an active effort by people opposed to any common-sense measures to mitigate the risks to make distinctly minority viewpoints appear common. This is abetted by our media's desire to play up any controversy. As in "Is global warming real? Tonight at 11 we find out ask our viewers. We report, you decide."

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Jeremi]

Which is exactly the point. Society has decided not to hear them. I have personally known holocaust survivors/avoiders so I have firsthand knowledge that it happened, but I believe that we should allow deniers to state their cases so that we can pick them apart.

We have, they have, and their cases have been picked apart, over and over again. There is only a finite amount of time and manpower available for discussing issues, and so inevitably one has to prioritize. Issues that have already been beaten to death are naturally going to be deprioritized so that more productive topics can be attended to instead.

Or to put it another way, the Holocaust deniers have the right to spout their nonsense as much as they like (in the US, anyway) to anyone who wants to listen, but they don't have the right to perpetually DOS everybody else's brain cycles with their spam.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Snowmit]

This makes no sense when it comes to the global warming debate.

It's not like there aren't a tonne of very powerful and wealthy individuals and organizations that would LOVE to promote and flashy-up the "there is no global warming" side's arguments. Surely the portion of the scientific community that is being repressed and just can't figure out a way to put a good PR spin on their highly excellent and solid evidence could find a few friends with some PR experience who might help them out.

Am I in a mirror world? This is probably the first time I've seen the idea presented that the there is a concerted conspiracy keeping the potential supporters of the oil industry down. Normally, the conspiracy story is that someone invented super efficient cars or cold fusion or something and the dastardly big oil crushed them.

Re:Getting published isn't that difficult

[Uttles]

Simple.

You don't get paid to say "The world isn't going to end."

There's no profit in it.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Chuck Chunder]

So he writes a long sentence explaining one of the ways science advances (by disproving scientific theories that are wrong) and from that you take away that if you make any statement we don't have a negative for then you've done something "scientific"?

I suppose you've proved you are a fucktard at least!

"God exists" is not a scientific theory in that it has no expositive value.

"Global warming exists" is a scientific theory in that "global warming" is generally understood to mean (by a layman like me at least) that "the Earth is heating up because of an increase in atmospheric gases which absorb energy from the sun". Even in laymans terms there is clear expositive value and clear avenues of scientific enquiry (Is the Earth warming? Is there an increase in atmospheric cases that absorb energy from the sun?) which could disprove global warming or lead to further refinement.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[fandog]

Alright, so to include your argument, my metaphor would continue; "I can decide to burn down my house today and that's a change in an instant. So, my initial analysis holds! Since it didn't rain today, it must be something I did during the last very short day."

Do you see the problem here? The missing link that would hold the argument together is the link from [people's activity] -> [some (MASSIVE) environmental change]. Given the number of variables involved and the overall size of the system, it's irresponsible (and egocentric) from a scientific point of view to claim that humans must be the only possible cause of a perturbation (maybe) in a 168+variable equation.

As someone else pointed out, the trend also correlates to the declining number of ninjas, the rising number of american idol winners, etc. Two numbers both climbing does not indicate correlation. What we have here is a man-robot desperately trying to avoid being marginalized politically, and this is his new pet project.

Unfortunately for the rest of us, his politicization of the topic will prevent any real science from being conducted, because no one will take it seriously. People will/(do?)think it's just another thing for politicians to get soundbytes and money.

Re:Infuriating (but only because of the FUD)

[Anonymous Coward]

The short list of accepted facts, which have been derived by scientific observation and published in peer-reviewed scientific journals ... The average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere is rising, and has spiked sharply in recent years, far beyond any of the "normal natural trends" that take place over thousands or millions of years, not mere decades.

This is typical FUD, if not please tell me who measured the temperature of the atmosphere and the ocean 1000 years ago (let alone millions of years ago). Also, what instruments did they use and were are the certificates of their accuracy?

Please provide *details*, not more FUD.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Swift2001]

Yes, but we should close our minds to the nonsense: the paid propaganda from the oil lobby, that made that ridiculous spot that says, "Carbon dioxide? It's not pollution! You breathe it out, the trees breathe it in! We need it for life!" Which is true, but a complete crock in this context.

In an era when otherwise serious minds can talk about "Intelligent Design," and a leading scientist with denialist theories of AIDS was allowed to distort the policy of South Africa for nearly a decade, these questions of science are vital, and impact life and death issues.

It's not the people who suggest that maybe the Greenland thaw will not be that bad, according to this or that theory, that are the problem. The problem is politicians and business interests who are desperately trying to deny the basic truth.

This article is not challenging peer-reviewed

[Ogemaniac]

articles. Rather, it is challenging Gore's (and the political left's in general) interpretations.

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:Getting published isn't that difficult

[mellon]

So maybe this is a stupid question, but isn't Bush against talking about Global Warming? Hasn't he, in fact, had reports that mention global warming suppressed or altered? Isn't the government in fact entirely run by people who are actively hostile to the idea that there is such a thing as global warming?

If so, then where the hell is all this funding you're talking about *coming* from? Doing research that backs up the theory of Global Warming is a great way to avoid getting your research funded next year, not a great way to ensure that you keep your job for a long time.

The thing that astounds me about this discussion is that back when Clinton was in office, people talked about a huge liberal conspiracy. But the Republicans own the country at this point, top to bottom. When you hear a liberal position expressed in a mainstream environment, it's *despite* the best efforts of the government, not *because* of those efforts. The big conspiracy that I see going on right now is the one that's giving U.S. oilmen record profits, at the cost of relatively few American lives and a lot of non-American lives.

I don't know whether the idea of global warming is true - I haven't watched the movie, and honestly don't have a lot of faith that a movie intended to sway the American public is going to tell me anything I haven't already heard. But what I do know is that this theory that global warming is some kind of conspiracy of control is just a stupid invention of Michael Crichton, not a real thing that's actually happening.

Re:Getting published isn't that difficult

[Zeinfeld]

You don't get paid to say "The world isn't going to end." There's no profit in it.

On the contrary, the Competative Enterprise Institute is paid handsomely by Exxon to shill for them.

Not that they employ actual scientists for this work, they employ people with degrees in economics and classics and political 'science' to scour the academic litterature and cherry pick passages that concur with their masters views.

Its called prostitution.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[demachina]

First off I'm of the opinion that anyone claims they know beyond a doubt global warming is really here to stay, and that is caused man vaa CO2 is full of shit. Likewise anyone that denies it is equally full of shit. At this point it is all speculation and probably will be until its too late to stop it it turned out it is happening, it will destroy life as we know it and it was our fault. One thing for sure though is most of the people denying the possibility are people making money off fossil fuels or are friends of the same, this guy included.

"then we're going to spend some incomprehensible number of dollars reducing our CO2 output over the next 100 years for no gain"

In the process of reducing CO2 output you would get some HUGE gains that we really need anyway.

First off we need to either stop burning coal or seriously clean it up. It is abundant but it spews lots of crap in to the air that we don't want there, especially nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, and the worst, traces of mercury, arsenic and uranium. There is Clean Coal power plant called FutureGen [wikipedia.org] being touted by the Coal industry and the Bush administration to cure all this but its 10 years down the road and may or may not work. In some respects it is a propaganda tool, constantly being advertised on TV these days to make coal sound clean while the U.S. builds a bunch of new Unclean coal power plants. The huge dependence on coal fired power plants in the U.S. and China are an undisputed ecological disaster already, CO2 or not. If CO2 is a global warming factor then coal fired power plants are the worst culprit. Not to mention that in many places the process of mining coal means taking the tops off whole mountains, and maybe planting some nice grass when you are done.

Second, we need to stop being completely dependent on oil and natural gas. They are in finite supply, unless maybe you resort to oil shale which is not an ideal solution. Persistent short supply is why prices are so high now, and its likely to just get more expensive as India and China increase their use of them. Someday they are going to run out anyway. Most of the supplies are in countries with regimes that you really don't want to be sending all your money to, and by sending all your money there you are contributing to huge and unsupportable trade deficits in the U.S. China is working really hard to lock up the dwindling oil supplies in long term contracts so they don't run out while the U.S. does.

Places like Brazil and Iceland are already far along on eliminating their dependence on fossil fuels and it has proved nothing but beneficial to them and their economies. Really the only people who are trying to con you about the staggering costs of abandoning our dependence on fossil fuels are people who are SELLING fossil fuels, Exxon/Mobile being the propaganda leader. At current oil and natural gas prices just about every alternative is cheaper. It should be noted that oil doesn't cost anything close to $70 a barrel to produce. More than 50% of the current price is going in to pockets of oil producing countries, oil companies and oil market speculators.

We really should put some big taxes on oil to make it so expensive that every alternative would be cheaper and to make oil cost what it really costs the U.S. In particular in the last century the U.S. has spent vast sums on military adventures that were, whether you like it or not, to protect and control oil supplies. The U.S. toppled the government of Iran with T.K. Ultra and installed the Shah to gain control of Iranian oil. This was all well and good except the Iranian people hated the shah and by the time they overthrew him they hated the U.S. too so they took a bunch of Americans hostage for 444 days because of what T.K. Ultra wrought. There is an extremist regime in Iran today, and there is a perpetual crisis between the U.S. and Iran, as a direct result of U.S. meddling there to control oil. Of course Gulf War I and II were both

Re:Drudge Report Propaganda

[Anonymous Coward]

So you counter a right wing news source with a left wing group (Sierra Club). Come on! You could at least try not to be hypocritical.

Global warming is not a popularity contest. It doesn't matter if it is reported by right wing or left wing news. Like gravity, you can debate it all you want, but if you are dropping a rock, the same thing is going to happen.

What these scientists have brought up is that Al Gore is not being honest by the scientific debate about the severity of global warming and its effects. Al Gore assumes it is going to be cataclysmic. These scientists, and many others, don't yet have the data to support that claim.

Big money in research

[HangingChad]

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.

If you're dissenting opinion was financed by Exxon and the oil lobby, I can guarantee it will get published. Not only that but it will get picked up by the popular press because Exxon's PR firm will be working their press contacts for ink.

You can buy any kind of research results you want if you have enough money. I used to see tobacco companies do it all the time when I was in contract research. You'll be able to buy some really big name scientists and get the conclusions you want. They'll justify the intellectual prostitution by telling themselves that the research they do with the money they get will out-weigh the evil of promoting a position paid for by oil money, or tobacco money or Monsanto or whoever is funding your research center.

Big corporate money is corrupting our government, our research institutions, and our media. Half the fluff pieces you see on the news were produced by some industry group. Probably 90% of the articles you read in trade rags are influenced by an advertiser or their PR firm, it's really getting to the point you can't believe anything you read.

Re:This article is not challenging peer-reviewed

[Zeinfeld]

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.

That depends on what you mean by 'adapting'.

I don't think that there would be any net costs to the US if GM and Ford were forced to stop making gas guzzlers like the Hummer that have single digit MPG. Or the nabobs on Natucket were told they are going to have to live with Cape Wind.

If the national security interest requires opening up the ANWR to oil drilling then it certainly requires the imposition of fuel economy requirements that Europe already has that would save several times the annual production from ANWR.

The US is a big country, large parts of it will probably be unaffected by climate change. The problem for the US is that the parts of the country where most people live are also the parts that are already under significant environmental stress. The entire West of the US has a major water shortage problem that climate change is almost certain to make worse. Much of Florida is low lying and sinking in any case because the swamps have been drained. Give it another hundred years and there will be quite a few cities like New Orleans where most of the place is under sea level even without climate change. Climate change accelerates the process.

Re:The movie points this out

[ChiChiCuervo]

... and does this not trigger some skepticism from you? ZERO disagreement in scientific circles throws a red flag for me. When have 932 people (give or take a few due to multiple authorship) universally agreed on anything that isn't as axiomatic as 2 + 2 = 4?

And lets factor into that probability that the issue is EXTREMELY poltically charged on all sides.

And when, please oh please, in the course of human history, has a socially impacting position ever survived contact with a reactionary force without becoming dogmatic in and of itself?

I'll save you the trouble here.. and here's an axiom we all can live by.... politics ALWAYS destroys objectivity. Nothing is immune. Hegemony will repress and contrarians will coalesce and radicalize.

It could be said that universal agreement is in fact universal agreement, but without legitimate debate, even 10 to 1 disagreeing, on a subject so massive in scope, that simply succumbing to one side (or reacting in opposition) due to such an appearance of universialty does nothing to the position except increase it's dogmatic power!

Has it occured to you that the academic scientists might just be as controlled by the peer reviewers who control their purse strings as the industry scientists? Lack of dissention doesn't pass my smell test, in light of the heavy politics.

In short.... the jury is still out... and that's the most objective position to take.

"Easier To Build Some Flood Walls"

[cmholm]

It may be easier to build some flood walls than buy a zillion solar panels, for example.

Boy, now there's a statement begging to get ripped apart by a 20 to 50 year cost of money analysis. Unless the contractor, municipality, state, or national government makes sure the flood walls cost less by building to what they want it to cost, rather than what's needed to work, even a few hundred miles of dikes can get rather pricey. The Netherlands is densely populated enough that it's cost effective to do them right. Given the geography and political culture in the US, it would be a political necessity to - in future hindsight - fuck it up.

What it boils down to is that it's the oil and coal extractors and the coal fired power companies that will really have their nuts in a vice over the expense of prevention. They would prefer to continue offloading the effect of their current business practice by spreading the cost of adjustment over the entire economy.

If you'll excuse the broad brush, fuck 'em.

Re:Prove a negative

[Total_Wimp]

The unfortunate thing about climatology is that we can't do any simple experiments to test the individual factors to determine which are really important

This is true with the word "simple," which you used, but is not true once you factor in that bright scientists are more than capable of doing complicated experiments that give real insight.

Evolution suffers from the same problem of inescapable complexity. That's one of the reasons why people who value simplicity (feel free to substitute "simpleminded" ) have a hard time understanding it. Thankfully, the world community of scientists tends to value observation and experimentation over simplicity, even if it is less convienient.

TW

Re:The movie points this out

[sterno]

My answer is simple. What reason does he have to make this shit up? What reason does he have to distory the reality of this. Has being interested in this subject bought him anything in his political career? On the other hand, the people who argue the opposite point stand to gain a hell of a lot from making this all seem like BS.

Re:He just took the lead in it's creation you jack

[DavidTC]

Here is, incidentally, the actual quote: During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.

And you're the idiot. Eisenhower, for example, while president, took the initative in creating the interstate highway system, but he didn't invent roads. Gore, while Senator, took the initative in creating ARPAnet and expanding it from a government project to the real world.(1) Hillary, while first lady, took the initative in creating a national health care system, and she isn't a doctor and didn't invent medicine.

Creation doesn't mean invention, and what's more, 'taking the initative in creation' doesn't even mean 'creation', so you're like two steps away from truthfulness. I can take the initiative to do something by standing up and getting others to do it. Senators, obviously, cannot do everything, so they tell others what to do. That is why he said he 'took initative' instead of saying he actually did it. It was, instead, done in a lab, at his direction. (Granted, his rather indirect direction. He said 'Hey, you got a bunch of computers talking to each other? Here's some more money, keep spending it on that.'.)

No one in the universe parses 'When I was in a political office, I took the the initiative in creating X' as saying 'I invented X' unless they're delibrately trying to misparse it. Politicians take initiative by championing bills.

What's more, they use that exact terminology all the time. That is, in fact, what the damn word 'initiative' means in politics. Witness Bush's 'American Competitiveness Initiative' and 'Helping America's Youth Initiative'. How is he going to help American's youth? Why, via legislation. I quote the GOP [gop.com]: Hughes has served as an adviser to President Bush on many foreignpolicy fronts and took a special interest in the status of women in Afghanistan, leading the President's initiative to free Afghan women from the Taliban. Holy shit. The president is wandering around freeing women in Afghanistan?

Or is Gore 'taking' the initiative somehow different from Bush possessing the initiative? What grammar silliness are you going to try to weasel through there?

The Republicans had a theme in the 2000 election that Gore lied all the time, and this is just one of their most absurd twists of his statements. (This theme is really ironic in the face of who we got instead, Mr. let's-pretend-they-have-WMD.)

1) And, in what continues to baffle me, everyone knows he was a damn champion of this. The entire fucking first term of Clinton was filled with Hillary yammering about national health care, and Gore yammering about, wait for it, The Information Superhighway. Granted, he was talking about earlier, when he was in the Senate, but if there's any politican anyone alive during the early 90s should link to the internet, it's Gore.

Carbon Dioxide

[Tablizer]

It is just about a fact that humans have increased the CO2 in the atmosphere. Very few dispute this. What is disputed is the impact of such a change. Maybe recent warming weather is a cooincidence, but a warming trend along with more CO2 is pretty good evidence that we are causing it. If we ignore it until there is 100% proof, it may be too late. And if we were wrong, there are many *other* benefits of cleaner air. Thus, it is best to error on the side of cleaner air and less petroleum-dependence.

Why is this garbage on Slashdot ?

[Anonymous Coward]

If there is not solid proof for or against global warming being casued by pollution yet there is a documented warming trend wouldn't the responsible thing be to try to post article with a more unbaised view.

In the interest of science you shouldn't be posting article summaries that make such wild claims that basically assert global warming isn't real. It could just be bad luck but since the time of the industrial revolution and basically the advent of pollution temperatures especially on th poles have increased in a rather constant trend. There are even museums dedicated to the very concept of creating global warming awareness.

Saying global warming isn't real because our understanding of the effects of pollution on global weather conditions or even our understand of weather in general are incomplete doesn't change the facts that the earth is warming and that pollution is bad for the health of the planet.

This is the same type of arguement that kept tobacco companies out of court for so many years. Aww you can't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that tobacco causes cancer, but there are higher cancer statistics and tobacco does seem to increase the chances of health problems. We know pollution hurts the environment in a local scale (you can see the visible effects of smog, we know co2 can cause warming).

The assertion that Al Gore is stupid is ignorance itself. The guy is quite likely smarter than the vast majority of journalists who critisize him. He might not have a PR edge like some public figures, but he's made proof of his intelligence in his personal accomplishments all throughout his life. Al Gore is not just some dumb rich kid (unlike Bush), he has been active all through his life in science including the environment and computers. Anyone doubting he is smarter than the vast majority of Americans and quite likely smarter than most of the people writting these research papers is just talking out their ass. Really what qualifications does it really take to get a research paper published this days.

A year ago or so didn't someone make a program that could produce science speak bullshit of a reasonable enough level to get published in science journals. Face it, with no proof and a bunch of fancy talk you too can get a esearch paper published. Lots of colleges are looking for what they think might be quality material to release. In many cases this publishing process closely follows the schools bias, so when looking for the truth averaging a large quantity of research papers is not going to do anything but talley up popular opinion.

It is only a handful of those papers that will truly have valid oversight. The premise that if half of the papers agree then your right it just stupid. The facts remain that in recorded history we've never seen the recessions in glaciers that we've seen in the years following globalized industrialization. The question may remain how all the pollutions interact with the solar properties of the planet and with the ecosystem, but lets face it. It's going to be a negative.

Even if we are wrong and co2 pollution doesn't warm the planet it will still have been worth all our effort to reduce co2 pollution because disturbing the ecosystem is just not a smart thing to do. Until we know the effects of mass pollution on the envrionment the obvious conclusion has to be that it's not good. Attacking Al Gore for basically be concerened about climate change and the rising levels of pollution based on averages of a random assortment of research papers is both pointless and a wreckless excuse for science.

Even if 90% of the scientific world disagreed with global warming it wouldn't be the first time they were all wrong. The respsonsible thing to do is to keep researching the warming trend with any and all assumptions scientists wish to make while also admiting the polluting the planet is a bad thing. No matter how you spin the idea and regardless of if pollution can be proven to cause global warming it just makes good sense to reduce pollution as much as

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[binary paladin]

So, we stand to lose billions, or trillians, of dollars. On the other hand, if the theories are correct but we don't take them seriously, we stand to lose... life on earth (as we know it).

Dollars/Life on earth. Life on earth/Dollars. Hmmm. Tough one.

Ding, ding, ding! You have just won the "Thanks for proving their point by spewing useless doomsday propaganda." award.

Want to know to spot a political hack? Find a jackass who gives you two choices as if they were the only ones to a subject that is significantly more complicated. I do this with my friends a lot, "Are you going to hang with us tonight or are you going to be gay?" Bush does this too, "You're either with us or you support terrorists." Then there's the ever popular, "If you don't support this bill you believe in hurting/killing/molesting/exploiting children."

The only reason you got modded "insightful" is because there are a ton of mods out there that are complete shills who buy into global warming with the level of blind faith that would make any brainless Christian Fundamentalist feel unworthy. You talk about millions and billions and trillions of dollars like they're disposable fizz that have no affect on life in this world at all. How much hunger could that stop? How many other scientific advances could it be put toward? Think of the children!

It's not just, "Well, if it's an incorrect theory, no harm, no foul. If it's not, we've saved all life on earth (as we know it)." And if global warming is actually not just a natural cycle we're in right now and it's not CO2 and is something else, what then? What if the money should have been spent doing something else to combat global warming?

Once again, it's clear that global warming is far from a conclusive problem and that "all scientists" don't agree. It's also clear that we should still try to be as efficient as possible and that alternatives to things like fossil fuels should be found because smog sucks even when the world isn't burning. If global warming is a problem and the scientists in that camp are correct then I can promise you governments and corporations aren't going to do anything until it gets uncomfortable enough for them to do so.

In the meantime, let me ask you personally, since you believe all life on earth is at state: What do you do personally to combat global warming? Do you drive a hybrid, or better yet, avoid a car altogether? Do you power your home using alternative energy, or are you connected to the grid? Do you only do business with companies with a history of environmental kindness? Or are you just another leftist whiner that thinks it's up to someone else to solve the problem? (A problem that might not even be anything more than a natural cycle.) And if you haven't done those things, why? Too expensive? Not enough time? What about all life on earth (as we know it)?

Every time I see a global warming topic on this site, I see a lot of people who say "Something must be done!" when they are neither scientists in the field nor are they doing anything actively to solve the problem with what little they do have control over. Fundamentalists have armageddon and leftist shills have global warming and the masses of both sides generally fail in doing anything. Christians ignore Christ and the leftists drive their cars and buy from the corporations. Brilliant.

Disclaimer: I am pro alternative energy. I don't think dumping nasty chemicals into the ocean or sky is a good idea. I don't think we should waste natural resources. I believe in intelligent and efficient energy use. I loathe George W. Bush. I am not and never have been a Republican. I am not a Christian Fundamentalist. I add this because, like the person I am replying to, there are many out there that see an opponent to the validity of global warming a certain way and that way is generally very wrong and very prejudiced. Nothing new. The fact that I have to include this is annoying in and of itself.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[radtea]

such as the temperatures recorded at sites that used to be in rural areas, but are now in suburban or urban areas, due to the growth of cities.

The heat-island effect has been well-handled since the mid-90's. There was a period of about five years where satelite measurements and ground measurements were inconsistent, but now multiple methods, including ice core data, are consistent.

One of the cardinal diagnostics of a crank is that they bring up past disputes and problems as if they had never been resolved, and refuse to look at the details of how they were resolved.

Re:Hey dumbass...

[DavidTC]

No, that's not what scientists do.

After they get all this data, scientists take it, and then go, 'My theory is that carbon dioxide levels were X% 300 years ago. This makes me predict that if we measure certain things, they will fit this theory.'

And they keep measuring.

However, the GP is wrong in what he's implying, and you are correct. We pretty much have determined temperatures and CO2 levels for, I think, a few thousand years back, because various independent data all shows the same stuff. Anyone arguing we don't have 'the facts' about those things should be slotted into the same place that people who argue we don't have any evidence that the earth is really billions of years old.

What we don't know is why any of these changes happen at all, except for some very obvious exceptions like the Year Without A Summer in 1816, which we're almost certain was due to a few volcanic erruptions.

We also know that temperature changes by itself by huge amounts if you look at time on a span of hundreds of thousands of years. We don't know why that happens, and, what's more, we don't know how fast that happens.

However, what's not in question is: Ice is melting. As ice melts, the sea level must go up. If that keeps happening, we're going to be in serious trouble 'shortly'. Not just flooding, but ocean currents shifting. Ocean currents that make very inhabited places inhabitable. Randomly changing weather patterns on the earth is a good way to kill 10% of the population directly and starve another 30%. Good thing, too, because we'll lose like 20% of our living space to the ocean.

Whether this is our fault or not, whether we can stop it regardless if it is or isn't, whether it will change by itself, and whether shortly means 'two decades' or 'two hundred years' are all unknown.

It's entirely possible we're about to tip into some huge climate change completely independent of anything we've done. It's entirely possibly we're nearing one end of a 100-year yoyo and we'll soon turn around and head the other way.

It's also entirely possible the human-caused global warming people are correct. And even if they aren't correct in that we are the actual 'cause', they probably are correct in that we are speeding it up, and can slow it down if we choose.

Conservatives and Liberals

[Bilbo]

One of the interesting things about this pattern is that it only really works on conservatives. A good definition of Conservative/Liberal would be that Conservatives tend to cling to what they "Know" is right, Liberals however tend to be more ready to challenge their preconceived ideals, so aren't as open to fluff pieces aimed at allowing someone to retain a "Faith" in the face of significant evidence against it.

Spoken like a True Liberal! Actually, Conservatives are people who believe in what has been shown to work in the past. Liberals are people who want to say, "Everything YOU think is true is actually wrong -- MY ideas are better."

Suffice it to say that using labels like "Conservative" and "Liberal" to equate to "Stoooopid" and "Smart" is just silly and counterproductive. Both camps are full of "fluff pieces" and people only willing to look at the world through their own particular filters. You just happen to like your filters better than those of the Conservatives.

Re:Getting published isn't that difficult

[rho]

But what I do know is that this theory that global warming is some kind of conspiracy of control is just a stupid invention of Michael Crichton, not a real thing that's actually happening.

You may notice that every solution offered for global warming involves greater government regulation or some other central authority. It's never "you should buy more fuel efficient cars", it's "there should be a law to require more fuel efficient cars".

What annoys me is that more than a few of these same global warming people will denounce George W. Bush for overselling the terrorist threat for political purposes.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[chunkylimey]

Proving conclusively that you have no idea about religion OR science. As a Theologian I can tell you you're getting THAT wrong as well. I suggest logic classes, basic philosophy and maybe learning about the philosophy of science before you dive into this kind of debate with old hat failed arguments about science and faith. Religion deals in absolutes (which we place our faith in), Science deals in assumptions that may be changed. Once you've grasped that then you'll know that your argument was incredibly silly from the start.

Let me come at this from the other side

[snowwrestler]

From the side of economics and policy. When economists and policymakers talk about the "cost" of fighting global warming, what they are actually calculating and referring to are the burdens placed on existing industries, as they exist today. They have a much harder time with two other aspects of the economy, though: very long-term costs (such as environmentally-driven health factors), and innovation that creates or radically transforms new industries. The former is just too difficult to estimate with any reliability, and the latter represents a "wall" of future change through which current knowledge and analysis cannot penetrate.

As such it is important to remain skeptical of the claims of the burdens related to fighting global warming. Regulatory and environmental constraints can harm existing industries, but they can also spur the development of new technologies and new industries, and thereby spur overall economic growth.

The real economic question is one of the pace of change. Large public companies concerned with quarterly earnings and stock price have a deep interest in managing the pace and nature of change, and they spend a lot of money in Washington and the states and the media in an attempt to do so. It is very difficult for large companies to change their business model; often impossible. They will expend huge capital to prevent or delay change that would require them to do so. Whereas disruptive, smaller companies--the great American entrepreneurs--prefer to move quickly in the market, innovating and growing as fast as they can.

Some corporations manage change very well. You can probably name some of them right off the top of your head--they're the ones who were advertising their "green" technologies on TV a year or two ago. Toyota, Honda, GE, BP, etc. There is proof around us, right now, that moving to a more energy-efficient society is economically beneficial. The companies leading the way are experiencing growth.

The left often gets caught up in the global social and scientific arguments--the "best" reasons for doing something. And, there is an underlying element of conservatism to much environmentalism--a desire for natural things to remain the way they are, or a desire for a return to the "good old days" of living in harmony with nature. Like most conservatism it is based as much on wishful thinking and emotion as it is on clear logic.

As a result they miss the tremendous economic argument FOR beginning a response to global warming. And they often miss the glaring precedents for government action. A great one is the mandated move to digital TV over the air. Here is a situation where the government identified a precious resource and regulated to enforce its conservation and more efficient use. Is anyone expecting this to cripple the TV industries? No of course not--everyone is going to have to buy new TV equipment (broadcast and consumer), and it represents an opportunity to design upsells--DVRs and HDTV. It's a classic example of government regulation spurring economic growth through innovation and transformation.

Re:Chicken or Egg?

[Bruce Perens]

The site costs about $500/month, between what I pay an editor and the cost of the dedicated server. I am not running any advertising at the moment, so that's all out of my pocket. I didn't "ban" this particular article, indeed the link to it is still on my front page, along with my message of deprecation.

Like any editor, I can "ban" whoever I want. Freedom of speech does not obligate anyone to give you a podium. And like any good editor, I exercise the obligation to filter for my readers.

When has sincerity become a barometer of fact? I'm not sure you're serious, but I'll answer as if you were. If the speaker is insincere, that is a really strong indication that you should question the message and look for what they have to hide. Sure, a sincere speaker can be wrong. But if only funded speakers are taking a particular position, that generally means that someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

Bruce

Re:Want to see easy?

[Ericzombie]

As far as large aquatic animals go, Yes, photosynthetic plankton are the absolute singular bottom of the food chain. Photosynthesis creates sugars for the plankton to thrive upon, and then fish fry feed upon them, etc, etc.... If you want to get very basic, then perhaps the chloroplasts in the plankton's cells could develop differently, perhaps someday evolve into a seperate species that isn't effected by the ocean's (rising) temperature, salinity, and H+ concentration. A large problem in believing that theory is that evolution may not be able to keep up with the rapid change that the ocean will face if the fossil fuel market doesn't change. Without plankton, which create a large percentage of the Earth's oxygen, we would see faster increases in CO2 production, with less conversion to O2 and sugars, the latter of which is the sustaining food for life in the ocean and out.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[DreamingReal]

To sum up; there is no debate on global warming. The debate is on the details.

Sounds very similar to the recent increase in media coverage regarding the "debate" over evolution. The media's inability to grasp the arguments has less to do with complex science and more to do with increasing circulation and viewers by propping up a fabricated debate by treating the motivations of the "two sides" as equal. As with evolution, this supposed debate is actually verified science vs. entrenched interests (fundamentalist theology in evolution, economic power in global warming). The only thing the media is not understanding (perhaps willfully) is that they should not be treating this as a discussion about the science behind the issues.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[DreamingReal]

The only thing O'Reilly seems to be a critic of is those who disagree with his opinion, particularly when it comes to respectful, reasoned, and informed discussion. The most unfair criticism of him is that he is a right-wing nut. Actually, he is a blowhard who undercuts any legitimate points he inadvertently might make with his bullying behavior and insulting dismissal of anyone who disagrees with him, no matter how correct they may be. The biggest criticism I could level at him is that he is partly responsible for the horrific decline in civilized disagreement in the US.

Re:This article is not challenging peer-reviewed

[Lars T.]

This article is not challenging peer-reviewed articles. Rather, it is challenging Gore's (and the political left's in general) interpretations.

Ohh? So why is the first part of the article about pointing out that only a very small fraction of [Gore's "majority of scientists"] actually work in the climate field?

Silly me, it's to discredit peer-reviewed articles based on who wrote them, not to challenge them on the content.

Funny is, the first guy he quotes as a "one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts" is actually "a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist." [cos.com] So his qualifacations as a climateologist (as opposed to the very large fraction" of "Gore's scientists") is basically that he agrees with him.

Re:Getting published isn't that difficult

[mellon]

It sounds like you're asserting that there's no tragedy of the commons. In fact, the whole point of having a government is that it can do things that individuals can't do individually. It provides a context for negotiations that cannot occur amongst individuals.

There is absolutely nothing I personally can do about global warming, because my actions, individually, make so little difference as to be immeasurable. People can't even agree that it's possible for humans to affect the environment. Why do you think that is? Because it's so hard to imagine something that *I* do affecting the global environment. It's just so much huger than I am that it's hard to comprehend.

There's a lesson there. It's collective action that does the damage, and only collective restraint can prevent it. So your laissez-faire critique is completely wrong-headed. If there is a problem, and we need to solve it, it's really _only_ through government regulation that it's going to get solved. And the way that governmental regulation will happen is by getting a preponderance of citizens to agree that it's something we need to do.

That is, it's not the case that there's some external force called a "government" that makes us do things we don't want to do for our own good. Rather, the government is a force that, perfectly or imperfectly, makes decisions in the aggregate, about things that are beyond the scope of individual action. The government is in a real sense "us," although not always in a particularly pleasant way.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[Anonymous Coward]

"No one who denies the reality of global warming can be "for" truth."

Idiot. The Inquisition has reconvened; it's time for you to go back in and condemn Galileo.

Re:Outing Greenhouse Deniers is Easy

[Doc Ruby]

If they were real "Conservatives" they would conserve the system, especially where it represents "values". They're radicals and corporatists like the rest of the fake "Conservatives" who exploit the name to fool voters. Like the "Progressive Conservative Party", the most obviously fake corporatist party ever.

Re:Outing Greenhouse Deniers is Easy

[Doc Ruby]

FTFA:
"Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts
[...]
Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field."

An adjunct professor (who doesn't even rate a page at the school, for publications, research areas, or anything else) is not "highly" qualified, even if he does actually "work in the climate field", which isn't even apparent from his infinitesimal resume.

A geologist doesn't actually "work in the climate field", unless you call lying to government panels for the petrofuel lobby that kind of work.

By the article's own lede, its "experts" are immaterial, if you just spend a minute checking their "bias and unqualifications. The article is absolutely obviously a mass media troll for the petrofuel polluters who would lie to their own grandmother if it would get her to liqueify for their SUV's gas tank.

Which is absolutely clear to anyone sane, even with any kind of bias. The bias for money, for lying, for destruction of our environment can convert that realization into Greenhouse denial lies. My argument is perfectly sound, though your obvious bias in begging for more Greenhouse pollution and the lies that cloud it is insane. Unless the denial industry is sending you a check. Do you work for Exxon?

My judgement hiring and firing people on qualifications hasn't only made many people rich, without regard to mere credentials like the crap that buys those Greenhouse deniers credibility in your propaganda post. All they have is that piece of paper, and probably not even that - with the number of people outed with fake mailorder diplomas in the Bush administration, there's no reason to believe they even graduated from night school, especially taking the faithbased position that the climate isn't changing, or that we can't do something to protect ourselves from it.

Hiring and firing real people has also helped me spot fakes like them, and like you.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[drakaan]

I call your straw-man comment and raise you an honesty check.

Nobody said (up to this point in the comments) that "There is no global warming", they've said that the science tying global warming directly, definitively, etc, to mankind is not necessarily correct, and that there is disagreement on how much impact mankind has on the current trend.

How about "No one who denies the reality of multiple conclusions as to the cause of global warming can be 'for' truth"?

Hrm...

[Sj0]

Bela Liptak, the Editor in Chief of the Process Control Handbook for Engineers, says that to control a process, we must first understand it. In this case, we don't really understand Global warming, even if we can show it exists. We don't know if it's part of the natural cycle the earth goes through, we don't know if it's caused by our own mismanagement (And don't discount that. The "Humans are too small to change the earth" arguement is verifably false -- Europe had to turn to burning coal because some irresponsible buffoon thought that humans would never cut down all the trees. Also, every piece of refined steel created during and after World War 2 is tainted with radioactivity that is in our atmosphere now because of nuclear weapons (So when we need a piece of steel without radioactivity, we take it from the sunken German battleships from WWI)). While limiting CO2 emissions is a prudent course of action until we learn more, it is by no means a sure-fire route to "Solving" the percieved problem.

Re:Prove a negative

[forlornhope]

Actually I would say that many scientists value simplicity. In my experience, the most simple solutions/answers are usually the right ones.

Oh, and another thing, a lot of science/liberalism suffers from one big problem, arrogance. That is why people tend to discount Evolution and Global Warming. Its never explained properly because people like you assume that the common person is to stupid(feel free to substitute "simpleminded") to understand it completely. Its really sad how embedded arrogance is into the scientific community.

By the way, I'm one of those "simpleminded" people who doesn't believe that Global Warming is as big a problem as people make it out to be. Though I do believe in efficiency and responsible use of resources. But the ends don't justify the means. Let the market take care of this issue. The main producers of "green house" gasses are non-renewable resources. So the market will reward those who use less as those resources become scarce and there for more expensive.

Re:Some bold statements from this article

[aevans]

A sure sign of someone being wrong is accusing anyone who points out flaws in their reasoning as a crank.