Link to Original Source
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
Link to Original Source
We know that here on Earth, all the necessary building blocks were in place and that conditons were right for basic proteins to form, and from there we just mix it all together in the pot for a few million years and *bazinga*... life!
I get really frustrated whenever I read (fairy) stories about life originating on some extra-terrestrial body (comet, asteroid, planet) because even if (against the massively implausible odds) it originated elsewhere, it must have started there by the exact same mechanisms as postulated for life beginning on Earth. Occams razor says enough for me. Eveyone else is just looking for grant funding.
If you want to suggest that life originated somewhere else, you need to convince me that it couldn't have equally plausibly started here too.
Your climate psience champions are unwilling/unable to release their figures, stonewall any attempts to reproduce their work or check their calculations, and are generally obstructive to any kind of scruitiny yet we are expected to dramatically change the economy of the entire world on just their say-so.
It's even highly questionable whether there actually has been any warming that isn't simply down to mis-reading the temperature proxies used to construct a historical climate record. And even if we are faced with a dramatic warming of the climate (which I simply don't believe) the human race as a whole can simply move to higher lattitudes and inland from the coast over the next 50-100 years. It's not like we're not extremely adaptable as a species. It would be way more cost effective than crippling billions of people with increased energy costs today.
Here's something for this observation too - http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-global-snowstorms-scientists.html
As a counterpoint for anecdotal evidence, you may want to read the news stories about record heatwaves through the US over the past month...
Yeah this is nice. If the weather is warmer, it's because of global warming. If it gets colder it's also global warming. You guys are hilarious. Any kind of evidence, either warmer or cooler somehow manages to support your hypothesis. You can't really expect me to take you seriously if this is your line of argument.
There's no point in me wasting my time arguing with an idiot who can't follow a reasoned line of thinking, so I won't bother.
Of course not, but as many people have observed, a statistical correlation is often Ma Nature's way of saying "Hey, look over here; there's something going on that may be important to you."
Yeah, and just as often, it isn't. All you have is correlation. Maybe sunspots are driving both variables up and neither one causes the other. Maybe it's pixies dancing. This isn't science and after recent revelations in the wake of Climate-gate, neither is "Climate Science". It's Climate Shamanism or Climate Theology. Take your pick. You can no longer take at face value any proclamations coming from "climate scientists". I've had more reliable predictions from horoscopes so forgive me if I file this latest piece of alarmism in same category..
The ability to trust any reports from the IPCC or CRU is gone, and scientists are going to need years to rebuild that trust.
We have more than a mere correlation between carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere and temperature rise.
No actually that is all you have. There's plenty of historical evidence to indicate that temperature rise leads the atmospheric CO2 increase. The mechanism by which CO2 is theorised to retain heat is poorly understood and far from proven. Water vapour has a far higher heat capacity to act as a greenhouse gas and yet isn't accounted for in most of the models,
The consequences on the global economy of attempting to remove carbon from our daily lives will dramatically impact the livelyhood of billions of people who will face hardship, poverty and hunger because of the increased costs of energy. You have the bare faced gall to quote economic impact about removing carbon dioxide just so a few beach-front properties avoid a miniscule risk of higher sea levels.
Finally, I'm sitting here looking out the window watching it snow for the first time in ~70 years and have to seriously question your assumptions that the planet is even warming at all.
Let's cripple the economies of all nations on the planet, resulting in increased poverty, hunger and hardship for billions of people just to keep some potential problems with sea-front property in the western world, at bay.
As far as arctic ice goes, maybe you should investigate why Greenland is called "Greenland". Hint" We weren't all driving SUVs when the Vikings went exploring so it wasn't caused by humans.
When the dinosaurs ruled the planet, temperatures were quite significantly higher than they are now, and the ecosphere supported an abundance of highly successful flora and fauna.
How about on your world, we reduce the amount of atmospheric CO2 to less than 100ppm?
We have no real idea what the consequences of geoengineering on a planetary scale are, and they could equally well be detrimental to the survival of life on Earth.
Does slashdot even have editors anymore?
Yes, but they seem to think global warming is fiction.
Ah good. The editors are right. CAGW is fiction.
if an approval by NASA isn't good enough, I don't know what will be.
This is known as an "appeal to authority". The case for science will stand on its own irrespective of who is stating it. NASA has no more authority to spout the "truth" than Joe Sixpack.
Here's a clue: Would you trust NASA to land a probe on Mars 100% of the time, or return a Shuttle crew to earth 100% of the time simply because "shucks, they're NASA. They know their shit."
Guess what. NASA makes mistakes. Their scientists are human and are driven by the same failings and weaknesses as the rest of us. If you want an alernative perspective, try googling "Judith Curry" for an example of a real scientist who holds a different view.