Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Study Says Cosmic Rays Do Not Explain Global Warming

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the but-millions-of-illuminaria-do dept.

Earth 656

flock2000 writes "A new study conducted by Norweigan researchers finds (again) that changes in cosmic rays most likely do not contribute to climate change. Previously, other researchers have claimed to have found a link between cosmic rays and surface temperatures."

cancel ×

656 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Common Sense (5, Funny)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163669)

Everyone knows global warming is caused by His Noodliness hugging the earth even closer.

Re:Common Sense (4, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163705)

But there has recently been a rise in piracy.

Re:Common Sense (4, Funny)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164239)

And it's felt pretty cold this week

Re:Common Sense (4, Funny)

C0vardeAn0nim0 (232451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164271)

and this year was the coldest on over a decade, or so i heard.

coincidence ?

Re:Common Sense (1)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163731)

Avast Matey, it might be that he is warming us up for another act of Intelligent Design!

Re:Common Sense (4, Funny)

wclacy (870064) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164259)

I wish Global warming was more than just a fairy tale. I am sick and tired of shoveling snow. Last winter was the coldest winter in a long time. This winter is looking about the same. We have had about 2 feet of snow in the last 3 days.

Re:Common Sense (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164369)

There will still be cold winters and warm summers no matter whether the mean global temperature is rising or falling. The variation from year to year swamps the slow, gradual rise in temperatures.

Think of the stock market. After one or two days of going up, we don't suddenly say the bear market is over. Once again, it's long-term change we're looking for, and you're noticing short-term change.

More propaganda (4, Funny)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163677)

Nothing but lies from the people making money off cosmic rays.

Say it with me... (1, Funny)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163707)

Correlation is not explanation.

Re:Say it with me... (5, Insightful)

philspear (1142299) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163815)

Correlation is not causa... wait... huh?

Anyway I think the fortune cookie logic here is, as usual, misapplied.

FTA

This result is in line with most other research in the field. As far as Kristjansson knows, no studies have proved a correlation between reduced cosmic rays and reduced cloud formation.

They're not saying "A happens with B, therefore A causes B." They're saying "A does not happen with B."

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se. Didn't read if there was a possibility of a non-correlating causation, or maybe if I did, I don't have enough of a background in atmospheric science to realize it.

Re:Say it with me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26163973)

They're not saying "A happens with B, therefore A causes B." They're saying "A does not happen with B."

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se. Didn't read if there was a possibility of a non-correlating causation, or maybe if I did, I don't have enough of a background in atmospheric science to realize it.

Nope. The norwegian study didn't concentrate on correlation but on busting the hypothesis about cloud formation, cosmic rays and global warming... And then they added a mention of no correlation having been found earlier.

So they are saying "We found out that B isn't caused by A in the ways that have been suggested. Also note that studies haven't shown correlation between those either."

So the cosmic ray thing doesn't really have anything to back it up.

Re:Say it with me... (1, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164033)

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se.

Well, yes, actually, absence of correlation implies the absence of causation. At least via the method you are examining for correlation. Correlation is not causation, but it is a prerequisite of causation. If you did a study where people smoked a cigarette and then were screened for lung cancer, you would find no correlation and thus correctly conclude that smoking a cigarette does not cause lung cancer. But there's still a relationship between them, as you could perform a study and find a strong correlation between a long term history of cigarette smoking and lung cancer, which when combined with further biological evidence would cause one to conclude that long-term smoking habits cause cancer.

Similarly, this absence-of-correlation would strongly imply that cosmic rays do not directly impact cloud formation. There might be some other round-about way in which it impacts them, I dunno sea bass absorb the rays which gives them gas which drifts up into the atmosphere and seeds clouds. But you'd have to find a correlation between that mechanism and clouds formation.

Re:Say it with me... (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164199)

I don't like the word "prerequisite" in that post, so let me rephrase it like this:

Causation implies correlation.

Therefore, no correlation implies no causation.

Re:Say it with me... (1)

Frequency Domain (601421) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164499)

Causation implies correlation.

Usually, but not always. Correlation measures the degree of linear relationship. If the relationship (causal or not) is non-linear, correlation can be zero.

You can confirm this with the following small example. If X is uniformly distributed between -1 and 1, and Y = X**2, then Cov(X,Y) is zero even though you can predict Y perfectly if I tell you the value of X. In fact, it works for Y equal to any even power of X.

Re:Say it with me... (2, Informative)

enharmonix (988983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164465)

I guess the converse is possibly true, that lack of correlation does not indicate lack of causation per se.

Actually lack of correlation is logically stronger than actual correlation. I'm going to simplify this a little bit, but it should stand. Let H = "Fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds." That's our hypothesis. Let O = "In periods where fewer cosmic rays are present, we would expect to observe fewer clouds." That's our expected observation. The statement H->O (H implies O) is TRUE: it literally states if fewer cosmic rays causes fewer clouds, then when we have a decline in cosmic rays we expect to see fewer clouds. Obviously true.

Now, H->O can be translated to ~H OR O (using ~ for not). They tested and found ~O (there was no reduction in cloud cover), so we get ~H OR FALSE. It should be trivial to see that the only way this statement is TRUE is if H is also FALSE.

(As an aside, notice that when O is true, the value of H doesn't matter. This is why correlation does not equal causation. H might cause O, or something else might cause O. )

Point being H is FALSE: fewer cosmic rays does not result in less cloud cover. The study didn't actually address the global warming aspect of it; they merely disproved the notion that fewer cosmic rays result in fewer clouds.

Oh yeah? (2, Funny)

dk90406 (797452) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163685)

What about the Human Torch from Fantastic Four. He is causing it all, you know...

Mooo (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26163747)

I blame the cows. Farting around the country side doing nuttin' but to make us sweaty and fat.

So? (4, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163775)

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated with cloud formation, however it's clear that cooling is strongly correlated with low sunspot activity.

So, even if this is not the mechanism, it changes very little. We're still in solar minimum, instead of a peak that was originally predicted for 2006. Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Re:So? (1, Redundant)

samkass (174571) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163831)

Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

And piracy is up...

Re:So? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164017)

You're right, there is no causal link between the giant ball of fire and the temperature on earth.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26163903)

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated with cloud formation, however it's clear that cooling is strongly correlated with low sunspot activity.

So, even if this is not the mechanism, it changes very little. We're still in solar minimum, instead of a peak that was originally predicted for 2006. Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Everybody knows that there is solar variability.
Take a look in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=590UFfrUG2w

Re:So? (2, Insightful)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163949)

"Everybody knows that there is solar variability."

. Everyone, apparently, but the authors of the various global climate models, none of which currently include it.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164099)

Yeah, it's hard for climatologist to include something in a model, when they don't know how it effects that model.

We don't have any real proof of a causal relationship between sunspot activity and our environment. Science isn't making shit up so that you can pretend your model is more accurate, when all you are doing is adding noise to it.

Re:So? (1)

ericferris (1087061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164141)


"Everybody knows that there is solar variability."

. Everyone, apparently, but the authors of the various global climate models, none of which currently include it.

Not true. There are models which include variation in the radiated solar input (that's sunshire for us laymen). Some even achieve a measure of success in reproducing the observed climate changes over the last few centuries. But as every other model, they don't explain everything and they cannot reproduce all the observed changes.

Moreover, to account for the most striking recent climate change episodes, these model presuppose a solar variation that is not backed by independent evidence. For example, the Medieval warming could be explained with solar activity increase, but we lack independent proof of it.

On the other hand, the climate change (cooling) that led to the demise of the Mayan empire can entirely be explained by solar forcing (that is, solar activity changes were the main cause), and this has been amply documented. [google.com]

Re:So? (4, Informative)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164257)

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/ [nasa.gov]

To quote from the linked article:
"The model accounts for both the seasonal and diurnal solar cycles in its temperature calculations."

But hey, why let facts get in the way of a complete fabrication?

Re:So? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164411)

If you could read, you would notice the words they use are "seasonal and diurnal," which have nothing to do with longer term variations in sunspot activity, like what the parent is referring to.

Re:So? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164057)

What's inconvenient is that despite a global cooling it's still one of the hottest years on record. It's only cool relative to 2000.

Re:So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164193)

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated with cloud formation, however it's clear that cooling is strongly correlated with low sunspot activity.

So, even if this is not the mechanism, it changes very little. We're still in solar minimum, instead of a peak that was originally predicted for 2006. Not surprisingly, the global climate is also in a cooling trend.

Talk about inconvenient...

Is it really? This is becoming one of the warmest winters in Europe's history. This year's temperature has already been 0.4 degrees higher than the average between 1960-1990 despite the summer not having been overly hot.

Is this just one of those "I've decided this is about sunspots and as they are weak, the temperature must be going down. I'll use the correlation as evidence without first checking if the temperature actually is going down..." situations?

Re:Cosmic Particals (1)

JamJam (785046) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164311)

It's fine that cosmic rays aren't correlated

To clarify cosmic "rays" [wikipedia.org] are really energized particles. These particles arrive individually and not in the form of a "ray" or beam.

Re:So? (1)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164423)

Isn't that a bit like trying to prove that ocean levels aren't rising by showing a strong correlation between water level and lunar orbit?

Yes, global temperature and solar activity are linked, but when you average out the highs and lows, it's still an increasing function.

Re:So? (2, Funny)

mhall119 (1035984) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164467)

Or, to use a car analogy, it's like saying that GM doesn't have a financial problem because their stock was up yesterday.

Global Warming Heretics (3, Informative)

bizitch (546406) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163787)

Snowing today in Malibu, New Orleans and Vegas

Then of course there are these heretics

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6 [senate.gov]

"I am a skeptic Global warming has become a new religion." - Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

"Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly..As a scientist I remain skeptical." - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years."

Warming fears are the "worst scientific scandal in the history.When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists." - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

"The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

"The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity." - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

"Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.". Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

"After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet." - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

"For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.

"Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp.Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact." - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

"Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined." - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

"Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense.The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning." - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another..Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so.Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver's seat and developing nations walking barefoot." - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.

"The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds." - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata. # #

Re:Global Warming Heretics (-1, Flamebait)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164047)

"It is the test of a good religion whether you can joke about it." G. K. Chesterton quotes (English born Gabonese Critic, Essayist, Novelist and Poet, 1874-1936)

"Suppose the world were only one of God's jokes, would you work any the less to make it a good joke instead of a bad one?" George Bernard Shaw quotes (Irish literary Critic, Playwright and Essayist. 1925 Nobel Prize for Literature, 1856-1950)

"With Congress, every time they make a joke it's a law; and every time they make a law it's a joke."

"The Irish gave the bagpipes to the Scotts as a joke, but the Scotts haven't seen the joke yet." Oliver Herford quotes (American Writer, 1863-1935)

"Men reach their sexual peak at eighteen. Women reach theirs at thirty-five. Do you get the feeling that God is playing a practical joke?" Rita Rudner quotes (American Writer and Comedian, b.1955 Miami, Florida, USA)

"When in doubt, go for the dick joke." Robin Williams quotes (American actor)

Isn't copying and pasting quotes fun?

Re:Global Warming Heretics (2, Insightful)

FauxPasIII (75900) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164063)

Perhaps you can help me with something I genuinely don't understand. Why is it that there is such a passionate movement for wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil? Even if you don't agree with the science that shows global warming is manmade, why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

Great question. (0, Troll)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164097)

It's something I wonder about too. I think it mostly stems from people who just hate Al Gore, so they just ignore the science.

Re:Great question. (2, Funny)

santiagoanders (1357681) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164335)

Al Gore, is that you?

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164105)

I'm not against cleaning up the environment. I'm against religion being passed off as science.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164169)

What are you rambling about? Religion?

Re:Global Warming Heretics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164187)

I thought that religion was on the other side...

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164143)

why not work to clean up the environment anyway? I don't understand what motivates you.

aggregation of personal wealth and power at the expense of and detriment to everyone else.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (4, Insightful)

Strep (956749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164223)

Name this passionate movement. No one said that making "things more shitty" is good. All that's being said is that increased CO2 is not necessarily a bad thing and that CO2 is not a pollutant.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (4, Insightful)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164273)

Plants (and therefore most life by weight) don't seem to view C02 as a "shitty pollution". Actual, precisely the opposite.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164503)

Shit, in and of itself, is often beneficial to plants, and hence "shitty" might be appropriate in this case.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1)

homotron (950715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164401)

The same progress that allows us to live 100+ years now vs the 30 of just a few hundred years ago is what pollutes and destroys and eventually cleans up and recovers. You can't pick and choose as no one has that foresight. So you either slow progress in the name of protection or you progress and deal with the side effects as they come. For me, i'll take progress and a little pollution that we will no doubt be able to handle. The world hasn't come close yet to ending because of us.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164403)

I was trying to figure this out as well. I think one aspect of it, is that if we can destroy our planet, it threatens the religious ideology of some people (not saying that as an indictment of anyone's personal beliefs.) Or maybe other just like their big fat lazy lives (definitely saying this as an indictment) Changing the way you live is introducing something different and different is hard (er than doing nothing)

Re:Global Warming Heretics (5, Insightful)

leereyno (32197) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164441)

I really don't understand what motivates you to lie and construct straw man arguments. Is intellectual honesty and integrity so difficult?

A disbelief in anthropogenic planetary warming is not an implied argument for the destruction of the environment.

"Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?"

Re:Global Warming Heretics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164445)

You don't understand because you are misstating the reality. Nobody wants more crappy air, watter and more pollution. Logically, that's what's known as a "straw man" argument.

Either that or ... you're just retarded.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (3, Interesting)

FooGoo (98336) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164473)

It's not a passionate movement for more pollution... It's a passionate movement against government social experimentation/intervention under the guise of science. You'll find that most people who support the manmade global warming assumption use it to justify a whole host of government intrusion into our lives from punitive taxation to telling you what kind of car you should drive (hybrid), to what kind of coffee you should drink (organic, fair trade). These are personal social issues and not areas for government mandates.

If I where a scientist I would be very upset that the credibility of my profession was being undermined by people with political agendas. Pretty soon scientists will have the same level of credibility as the 4 out of 5 dentists or recommend Crest.

I believe that there are 3 great professionals that can truly benefit humanity. The statesman, the religious leader, and the scientist. We've already witnessed the decline of the first two so I guess it the scientists turn.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1)

thejeffer (864748) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164485)

Easy answer: Cost. You're not understanding the other side if you think their goal is wanting more pollution, more shitty water, more shitty air, more shitty soil. There's a cost associated with being greener. If you offer me the choice between two products, one that's polluting, one that's green as grass, and the cost is the roughly the same, absolutely I'll choose the greener one. However, if I have to pay a 50% premium to save the environment, then I'm sorry, but given the economic state we're in, I'm probably going to choose the cheaper one. So here's your assignment: find ways to produce things, do things, etc, that are both greener AND cheaper. You do that, and the whole discussion becomes moot, because everyone will be on your side.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164073)

Very well done, gimme some more please.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (4, Insightful)

fracai (796392) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164091)

Some real nice attempts at "Argument from Authority" there.

So far it seems that the scientific consensus is that warming is real and likely to be contributed towards by human activity.

My favorite of your quotes is, "Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined."
No real scientist needs to figure out how to do that. They would just say, "Ya know? I looked at the data again, existing and new, and I've changed my evaluation because of the following points: ...". And that's that. Anyone who's afraid to say "I was wrong" isn't a good scientist, or a scientist at all.

All I see in those quotes are buzzwords and alarmist phrasing targeted at grabbing headlines. There may be just as much of that on the other side as well, but you'll need to do better than a list of quotes to convince anyone, or me anyway.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (2, Insightful)

arizwebfoot (1228544) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164201)

Okay, if you have 1000 scientists and the bottom 80 percent think global warming is the warm and fuzzy trend and the top 20 percent thinks it's a hoax, you could say there was a scientific consensus of sorts, but it would still be wrong.

Any idiot can follow, but it takes real guts to lead. My favorite quote was:

"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming." - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

And in the scientific community, you cannot one day be for something and then the next day be against it without being labeled either wishy-washy or someone who doesn't fact check first (which leads to a serious credibility problem).

Re:Global Warming Heretics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164245)

"No real scientist needs to figure out how to do that. They would just say, "Ya know? I looked at the data again, existing and new, and I've changed my evaluation because of the following points: ...". And that's that. Anyone who's afraid to say "I was wrong" isn't a good scientist, or a scientist at all."

That's the point. None of the scientists promoting global warming ARE good scientists because of the money they're getting to promote global warming.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1)

Captain Splendid (673276) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164483)

That's the point. None of the scientists promoting global warming ARE good scientists because of the money they're getting to promote global warming.

Wow. I've heard some fucked up arguments against global warming and climate change, but that one takes the cake. If there's one thing the "alarmists" do not have on their side, it's freaking money.

From the office of Senator Enhofe.. Say no more. (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164131)

This guy never met a polluter he didn't love.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1)

abigor (540274) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164175)

What inspires this sort of passion, as opposed to other scientific things - for example, the Higgs Boson, or dark matter/energy? I've always wondered why GW deniers, practically all of whom lack any sort of real science education, picked up on this one issue in particular.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164205)

That's simple. Politics. Look at the trend here. All the global climate change deniers make sure to insult Al Gore at least once in every post. The one guy that does try to provide "evidence" to support his idea links to Senator Inhofe (R), who has a long track record of being a climate change denier.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (0, Flamebait)

homotron (950715) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164489)

Because no one is trying to tell me what light bulbs to use or car to drive based on the debate of dark matter/energy. Global Warming has become the socialists latest grab for power, but the tide is slowly turning.

Re:Global Warming Heretics (3, Insightful)

BlackSabbath (118110) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164367)

So what?

Half these quotes are nonsense themselves that merely display the non-science related biases of the person speaking (e.g. Delgado Domingos).

What I don't get is what skeptics hope to prove by making quotes like that. Where are the peer-reviewed papers by all these guys? Oh, you mean they are just blowing hot air instead of doing the science? Perhaps they're too lazy, or maybe they are so brilliant that they can see through it all. However this brilliant minority seems to produce very little in the way of concrete science related to THIS subject (climatology) as opposed to the overwhelming, prodigious amount of science produced by the vast majority of climatologists of which a very large proportion has similar conclusions.

Forget the soundbites, show me the science!

Of course. (0)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163789)

Something that is not cause by humans, cannot be a factor for any problems in the universe. I bet if an Killer asteroid hit us. They would say it was all the space probes that we sent out that changed the gravity distribution of the universe just off enough to cause our doom.

I think if the media shows threats to the world not caused by humans a little more they would be more likly fix the problems they do cause. Because in general feels like whatever we do it will cause the end of the world so why bother.

In other news (1)

djupedal (584558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163807)

Cosmic rays have been found as a likely contributing source related to repeatedly confused Norweigan researchers...

Video at 11.

Every time it snows in Vegas.. (1)

skgrey (1412883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163809)

Every time it snows in Vegas, Al Gore sheds a single tear. He must be some sort of whacky indian.

Every time it snows in Vegas (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163911)

People who are saying the global climate is changing are given more ammo for their argument, not less.... The fact that you use now yearly snow in Nevada as a jab against Al Gore shows your ignorance, and your bias. The fact that Vegas now sees snow every year actually strengthens the argument about global climate change, not weaken it...

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26163995)

People who are saying the global climate is changing are given more ammo for their argument, not less....

The fact that you use now yearly snow in Nevada as a jab against Al Gore shows your ignorance, and your bias.

The fact that Vegas now sees snow every year actually strengthens the argument about global climate change, not weaken it...

Ah, yes. The Earth is in a cooling trend which obviously means it's warming.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164021)

Do you always debate by inserting words into people's mouth first? Not once did I say the entire planet was warming. The term Global Climate Change means just that. Hot areas will cool down (Vegas), and cold areas will warm up (Antarctica). We aren't in a cooling trend, otherwise ice shelves that are tens of thousands of years old wouldn't be melting and dropping into the ocean.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (1)

Strep (956749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164289)

Vegas' summer was just as hot as ever despite seeing that there was actual snowfall/collection in winter. Explain that with your useless models.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (1)

CorporateSuit (1319461) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164347)

We aren't in a cooling trend, otherwise ice shelves that are tens of thousands of years old wouldn't be melting and dropping into the ocean.

Apparently they would be.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164517)

They're [blogspot.com] not [m4gw.com] . They're [canada.com] growing [wattsupwiththat.com] again [mcclatchydc.com] . All websites stating that a) glaciers are growing and b) ice caps were larger than they were last year at this time.

Of course, you'll probably just say that this is because you're driving a hybrid and it fits your convienent model of "climate change" perfectly. Climate change? It's been changing forever. Hello, "Ice Age" anyone? Trust me, there were no moto-cars back when the mammoth wandered the frozen tundra. Funny how Global Warming enthusiasts are trying to call it "climate change" now. What? You worried you might be wrong or something? Sounds like a PR stunt to cover your ass. "No, no, no. It's climate change! That includes cooling! See, it's what we're always saying!". yeah right!

Enjoy that kool-aid do you?

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (1)

skgrey (1412883) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164117)

Seriously? Look at the snowfall trends for Vegas, it does this every ten years or so. My bias and ignorance against Al Gore? I was trying to make a joke, but I have a feeling you're trolling anyway since you are taking such a strong stand. I'd love to debate some of Gore's theories, his behaviors, and how much money he is making with his "green" movement with a well-informed person, but this isn't the forum and you aren't the person. Whoever marked this troll informative is wrong.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164137)

The fact that Vegas now sees snow every year actually strengthens the argument about global climate change, not weaken it...

But nobody in their right mind doesn't think that the global climate isn't in a state of constant flux. The thing that AlGore and his minions don't want us to know is that right now, it's getting cooler, not warmer.

Is that why ice shelves are melting? (1)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164159)

Is that why it's getting warming in Antarctica and the North Pole? Because it's getting cooler?

Not Falsifiable (1)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164173)

You can fit any weather into "change". It goes up or down. That's change! Cooler, warmer: change!

How about making a prediction that actually comes true.

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (1)

Strep (956749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164255)

Just wait a frickin' moment here. Didn't we all just vote for Change?

Re:Every time it snows in Vegas (1)

leereyno (32197) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164361)

Please have the honesty to be consistent about the lies you repeat.

"Global Warming" does not mean climate change of any kind. It especially does not mean Global cooling.

If "Climate Change" is the new canard then it sounds to me like the crypto-marxist pseudo-environmentalists have modified their scam.

Unable to defeat freedom and capitalism through economic arguments, they switched to pseudo-environmentalism. The screamed to all who would listen that the earth was dying and that it was all our fault and the only solution was policies that would prevent the retard the spread of free markets into 3rd world nations, thereby preventing them from developing into healthy, thriving democracies with strong economies. All in the hope that their true religion, communism, would make a comeback before freedom and democracy became undefeatable around the world.

Now that their disingenuous bullshit is failing to correspond with reality, they're moving the goal posts yet again and working to cook up a new fraud to perpetrate.

The useful idiots will always be fooled, and some people will be fooled temporarily, but the left will never be able to fool everyone.

Cosmic Rays = Solar Radiation, Right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26163907)

It's a great tactic. A says total solar radiation contributes to global warming, B says cosmic rays do not.

Give that duche Al Gore another prize! (4, Funny)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163909)

Solar flares DO effect temperatures, and that has been consistently downplayed by the humanity-loathing environazis in their ongoing duchbaggery crusade for world luddism. But hey, lets not start any religious debates on /.

Re:Give that duche Al Gore another prize! (1)

Strep (956749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164305)

It's not going to work. It's not about saving anybody's anything. It's about power. Even if it's proven that we're not responsible for the changes, there will be some sort of legislation to regulate solar activity. Naturally, that will require increased taxes and regulation.

Global Warming (1, Troll)

XPeter (1429763) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163983)

Is complete nonsense to begin with. People like Al Gore fill your minds with this propaganda so that you'll go out and buy their *green* light bulbs (which emit mercury). I believe this for two reasons.

1. Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race.
2. The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part. If we were going into an ice age, I'm sure Al Gore would be saying "Save the dingos from the ice" instead of "Save the polar bears from the heat".

Just my two cents.

Re:Global Warming (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164035)

"Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race."

Don't bother to repeat things that trivial Google searches can discredit.

"The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part."

If only some sort of research and statistical modeling technique could be applied to data to analyze situations with greater accuracy than "warming up" and "cooling down", enabling us to compare expected behavior with measured behavior and determine the factors that cause observed phenomena!

Re:Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164069)

If those are your two cents worth I want change back. Either that or you should cut your prices.

Re:Global Warming (1)

konohitowa (220547) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164079)

*green* light bulbs (which emit mercury)

I guess that explains why the Dilbert syndrome is so prevalent. All of that emitted mercury in their cubicles causes them to slowly go mad.

Re:Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164103)

Saying that fluorescent light bulbs emit mercury is misinformed. They contain a small amount of mercury, which is released when they're broken. They do not operate by nuclear fusion or fission, so a small amount of electricity would not create new mercury molecules. The only time the amount of mercury is enough to be significant is if a large number of bulbs break in one place, and then not properly cleaned. Reducing energy use is an admirable goal; it saves everyone money. I just wish states weren't mandating alternative bulbs because of climate change, since fluorescents suck in cold weather.

Re:Global Warming (1)

roc97007 (608802) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164203)

> 2. The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part. If we were going into an ice age, I'm sure Al Gore would be saying "Save the dingos from the ice" instead of "Save the polar bears from the heat".

In the seventies, that's pretty much what they were saying.

Re:Global Warming (0, Troll)

Frymaster (171343) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164321)

People like Al Gore fill your minds with this propaganda so that you'll go out and buy their *green* light bulbs

so you prefer the propaganda from people like exon who want you to go out and buy their gasoline?

1. Volcano's and things alike emit more C02 gas then the entire human race.

sure do. and for a long time, before the advent of industrialization, the climate has experienced only moderate fluctuations even with all that volcanic co2. then along came escalades and coal plants and massive human-engineer deforestation projects that when added to all that volcanic co2, it tipped the balance to a general warming trend.

2. The Earth heats up on a cycle. It just so happens that in this point in time were on the warming part.

of course the earth heats and cools on a cycle. no one is claiming otherwise. the concern currently is the amplitude of the cycle and the speed at which the general warming trend is expected to occur... not the existence of the cycle itself.

If we were going into an ice age, I'm sure Al Gore would be saying "Save the dingos from the ice" instead of "Save the polar bears from the heat".

uh, yes, of course he would. people who are opposed to climate change, which so many here seem to call "global warming", are not by extension in favour of global cooling. they're in favour of a global climate that is stable within the normal and natural rates of fluctuations.

Just my two cents.

and fair value at that price.

Re:Global Warming (1)

Plekto (1018050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164381)

Except that we ARE heading into an ice age. But before that happens, the ice caps have to melt.(ice age being triggered by excessive heat).

How it works is that when the planet gets too hot, all of the ice melts and dilutes the oceans. This causes them to get much colder and stop flowing. Basically they just sit and get cold. Very quickly. The last ice age was triggered by this sort of event.

According to scientific data(look it up if you want to), the Earth would have entered a natural ice age cycle in 400-500 years. All humanity has managed to do is accelerate the process down to another 50-60 years. Once the ice in Antarctica melts, the planet will act to cool itself down.

http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/list.php [nasa.gov]
It's apparently melting very quickly now.

The ostrich brigade is out in full force today. (2, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 5 years ago | (#26163997)

Hey if we ignore the problem, maybe it will go away! After all, humans can never be blamed for ANYTHING, right!

Re:The ostrich brigade is out in full force today. (1)

Neon Aardvark (967388) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164389)

Evil time travelling humans must also be behind all cyclical warming events stretching back hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/images/vostok.jpg [worldviewo...arming.org]

The horror. The horror.

What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (2, Interesting)

leereyno (32197) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164001)

Now maybe it is just me, but doesn't it seem plausible that a huge ball of nuclear fire situated somewhere nearby might be causing changes to the earth's climate?

I don't know what you would call this object, and I don't think there is any evidence that it exists, but if it did exist then slight changes in its energy output would probably result in changes to earth's climate as well.

I know this sounds completely insane. I mean there aren't any such object out there right?

Excuse me why I go put on some sunscreen...

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164293)

Stars are not 'nuclear fire,' you 1960s-minded dolt, they're electrical phenomenon: http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (1)

dnwq (910646) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164345)

"Global warming is caused by solar changes" crackpot vs. "electric universe" crackpot?

Fight! Fight! Fight!

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (4, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164309)

You're a fucking genius. In the entire history of climatology, no scientist has ever considered the possibility that the sun impacts climate. I wonder why that is, but no matter, clearly you are their intellectual superior.

Oh, wait, they've considered that, and solar variation explains at most 30% of the observed temperature change. Guess you aren't a genius after all. Sorry about that!

Re:What about a big ball of fire in the sky? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164479)

Yes, solar output has been making the Earth warmer. But it doesn't seem to account for most of the warming over the past fifty years. There is a consensus that there's at least a 90% chance that most of the warming has been due to increased greenhouse gasses [norvig.com] in the atmosphere caused by humans burning fossil fuels and forests.

Keep it coming (1)

lessthanpi (1333061) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164089)

I have to say I love this global warming. In the Northern Rockies of the USA we had the most snow fall in 23 years. The best year of skiing I've ever had.

Dear Snowgod
Please make ppl drive S.U.V.s, burn coal, melt plastic idc just as long as this "global warming" continues

Amen

Total Solar Output (1)

TufelKinder (66342) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164119)

What about total solar energy output?

Re:Total Solar Output (1, Interesting)

geoffrobinson (109879) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164225)

I read a Philadelphia Inquirer (not a hot bed of global warming deniers) article from April of 2003 that reported that scientists weren't taking the Sun into account.

But I have been assured that's not the case. The whole global warming project has my b.s. detector on full alert. Way too many variables and "unknown unknowns" to be dogmatic that we know it is CO2.

Now that we've been in a slight cooling trend since 1998, it seems the global warming backers are getting a tad panicky.

But they do explain the Fantastic Four (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26164181)

after all what are they without them ?

Worldwide Warming (1)

hardihoot (1044510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164301)

How did this leak out? Lies, all lies! Global Warming is real and true and happening and people are the cause of it.

It is true because I need that Global Warming Grant Money so I can study climate change from a necessity-based laboratory in the Bahamas.

Guess my senator didn't get the word to keep fanning the flames on global warming. Maybe a bigger donation will help, donation size contingent upon the size of the grant money...

Does Not Clear Cosmic Ray (1)

ryanvm (247662) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164323)

Unfortunately, the culpability of Cosmic Ray [rayscamp.com] is still undetermined.

Realization (5, Interesting)

AstrumPreliator (708436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26164391)

You know I think if Global Warming is any indication, science is going to get even more politicized in the near future. People will use science, or rather manipulated and partial data and false pretenses which they will call science, to push agendas and line their pockets. Before anyone calls me a shill for whatever organization they hate most and mods me down let me make clear that I'm not pointing at the vast majority of scientists who are doing honest work using the scientific method. I am pointing at both parties who have politicized this issue for their own gain.

The thing that bugs me is that the public at large doesn't the read journals and papers on the latest scientific findings, instead they listen the political figure heads and corporations and news reporters, all of which have an agenda to push. I think what I'm beginning to realize is that science is ultimately going to suffer from this nonsense. I don't think it will matter if the results are peer-reviewed anymore, I think the public won't trust them anyway.

Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>