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).
but the Earth had warning and cooling periods before men had any influence.
I never understood why people think this is an argument for anything. We're talking about subject matters like paleoclimatology and the experts in the field who work on climate change. They know this shit.
That's why AGW is so dangerous - they know that there has never been climate change this *fast* before. *All* the other times it took hundreds of thousand of years to do the same thing that is now happening in a few hundred.
A Lancet review of epidemiological studies concluded that that DDT causes cancers of the liver, and pancreas, that there is mixed evidence that it causes cancers of the testes, and that it probably does not contribute to cancers of the rectum, prostate, endometrium, lung, or stomach.
(Rogan WJ, Chen A (2005). "Health risks and benefits of bis(4-chlorophenyl)-1,1,1-trichloroethane (DDT)". Lancet 366 (9487): 763–73.)
DDT is linked with a lot of development problems - especially at the levels needed for malaria eradication.
I think it's healthy that we're debating whether or not a chemical, that has both beneficial and harmful effects, should be used - but risk assessment isn't cut and dry.
"...the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study (BEST) finds that urban heating has an influence on global temperature trends that is “nearly negligible” and that what effect has been observed is even slightly negative, which is to say that temperature trends in urban areas are actually cooler than the trends measured at rural sites, and that the Earth's land surface has warmed approximately 1C on average since 1950."
beyond just that scientists want to science.
The problem with we shouldn't fund "X-ers or X-ists for doing X" is that for X = science you get something totally different in return from anything else. You get new and demonstrable knowledge.
In fact I'm pretty tired of going over to talk to a (male) colleague and they either can't or won't answer the question but instead will ramble on about something slightly related but nothing to with my question; or they'll be so passive-aggressive about any question that you have to know the answer beforehand to be able to ask the question in the precisely right way that they are willing to answer (think about talking to Dick Cheney about torture).
Of course, I'm ignoring that Russian girl who didn't know how to formulate an if-statement. And then there are those brilliant guys I've worked with which I still can't figure out their code - but it works just fine.
Furthermore, we don't even know how the regular, massive swings in global temperature happen.
And this is what pisses me off with the climate "skeptics". If you don't know how the system will react when you're increasing the concentration of CO2 then why not err on the side of mitigating the CO2 concentrations instead of "business as usual".