×

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!

Gov't Proposes "National Climate Service" For the US

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the overcast-with-a-chance-of-death dept.

Earth 599

Standing Bear writes "NPR reports that 140 years after the creation of the National Weather Service, the US government is proposing the creation of a similar service that will provide long-term projections of how climate will change. 'We are actually getting millions of requests a year already about: How should coastal cities plan for sea-level rise? How should various other agencies in the federal government or in state governments make plans for everything from roads to managing water supplies?' says NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco. 'And a lot of that is going to be changing as the climate changes.' Under the plan, the new NOAA Climate Service would incorporate some of the agency's existing laboratories and research programs, including the National Climatic Data Center, the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory and the National Weather Service's Historical Climate Network. Meanwhile, as plans for the new climate service shape up, NOAA launched a new Web site, climate.gov, designed to provide access to a wide range of climate information."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

599 comments

When... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131092)

When will these people learn that their gig is up? It's time to come up with another get-rich-quick scheme!

Re:When... (4, Insightful)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131144)

It's all about cap-and-trade. First alarmists were preaching global cooling, then global warming, and now that global warming is proving to be a farce and the numbers are skewed, it's "global climate change." Last time I checked, global climate has been changing since before hominids walked upright.

Re:When... (2, Insightful)

aurispector (530273) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131236)

I'd say it's all about creating another bureaucracy for democratic party patronage and to act as a mouthpiece for liberal/democrat ideas about climate change. Think of it as kind of like giving Al Gore his own personal branch of government so he can spew his nonsense on the taxpayer's dime.

Re:When... (3, Funny)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131312)

I'd say it's all about creating another bureaucracy for democratic party patronage and to act as a mouthpiece for liberal/democrat ideas about climate change. Think of it as kind of like giving Al Gore his own personal branch of government so he can spew his nonsense on the taxpayer's dime.

Good point. Say, where has Al Gore been hiding lately, anyway? He's been mighty quiet since Climategate broke. If you have any free money laying around, you might want to buy stock in tar and feathers. Something tells me those are two commodities that are going to be in big demand real soon now.

Re:When... (1, Insightful)

dwillden (521345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131526)

What happened to Obama's Spending freeze? Now they want to create a new bureaucratic government agency with all sorts of high paid administrators?

Re:When... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131618)

I think that it is just another of Obama's "job creation" programs. After all, the only job increases in the last year were government jobs.

Re:When... (2, Informative)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131252)

now that global warming is proving to be a farce and the numbers are skewed,

Citation needed.

If you're talking about Climategate, sorry, I know it sounds like a cop-out, but that was an isolated incident. Thousands of other studies have confirmed that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible.

Re:When... (4, Informative)

Afforess (1310263) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131322)

Citation: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020126/climategate-goes-serial-now-the-russians-confirm-that-uk-climate-scientists-manipulated-data-to-exaggerate-global-warming/ [telegraph.co.uk]

It wasn't an isolated incident. The Russians are now complaining that their data was misused as well.

Re:When... (0)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131490)

It wasn't an isolated incident. The Russians are now complaining that their data was misused as well.

Is there any particular reason you've decided to suddenly trust a random Russian think tank?

Re:When... (3, Informative)

dwillden (521345) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131574)

Okay, then how about complaints from the folks up in Canada? http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Scientists+using+selective+temperature+data+skeptics/2468634/story.html [vancouversun.com]

This is not an isolated incident, Climategate just opened the door and started the revelations.

Re:When... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131600)

Not to mention that so much of the climate studies are based off each other. Climategate wasn't just one unique thing, it's 'data' was nested and twisted in with so much of the other studies that it makes a house of cards look sturdy.

Re:When... (4, Informative)

beakerMeep (716990) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131514)

This is your citation?

James Delingpole is a writer, journalist and broadcaster who is right about everything. He is the author of numerous fantastically entertaining books including Welcome To Obamaland: I've Seen Your Future And It Doesn't Work, How To Be Right, and the Coward series of WWII adventure novels. His website is www.jamesdelingpole.com.

I think we've moved past the emails. (2, Interesting)

symbolset (646467) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131324)

The dendro-proxies are kaput too. We're onto making fun of himalayan glaciers and the Day After Tomorrow warnings now. Next up: satellite thermal measurement calibration to .01 degree C at a range of 2,000 kilometers, and the incredible disappearing Midieval Warm Period [wikipedia.org].

If the 1800's continue to cool at the current rate, it will not be long before we're thankful of the role of AGW in staving off the impending ice age of 1940.

Re:When... (2)

feepness (543479) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131340)

Thousands of other studies have confirmed that the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible.

Using which datasets? Climategate is regarding the creation of datasets which many thousands of studies are based on. Of course we can't verify whether this is the case because the raw data is now "lost".

Re:When... (2, Insightful)

Kythe (4779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131380)

Interesting revisionism. I'm pretty sure "climate change" was a term invented by denialists, not scientists.

As for global cooling, well, either you have a really good memory or you've been listening to people really intent on spreading the crap. "Global cooling" was an early conjecture by a minority of scientists back in the 70's. Scientists haven't found that theory supportable for a long time. In fact, scientists at the time didn't really back it then, either.

Even if they had, though, why scientists first getting things wrong should be grounds for doubting everything now is beyond me. As I recall, we didn't nail the germ theory of disease right off the bat, too--yet I'll bet you take your antibiotics.

History will not be kind to the memory of folks like you. Of course, you won't be around to care. Your kids will, though.

Re:When... (-1, Flamebait)

Kythe (4779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131482)

So, let's see...here you teabaggin' yahoos are complaining, on the basis of Glenn-Beck-interpreted email hacks, about how climate scientists are supposedly manipulating data and suppressing stuff that agrees with you, and in lieu of actually responding to what I wrote, you try to hide it with troll ratings. Speaks volumes, really.

Re:When... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131630)

Boy, it sure is fun to act self-righteous. You've got it all figured out!

Premature (2, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131098)

Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.

Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service. They would probably both give equally good advice.

Re:Premature (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131128)

Do you know where you're going?

No.

Well go faster.

Re:Premature (1, Insightful)

amightywind (691887) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131154)

Climate science is in its infancy. But climate politics are highly evolved. Ever wonder were all the commies went after 1990? Today's green is yesterday's red. It is hard to see programs like this going anywhere when a GOP congress comes to power in November.

Re:Premature (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131228)

You were doing do well until you mouthed off the GOP line. A pitiful sight, son.

Re:Premature (3, Insightful)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131156)

Whoa, you think that climate science is like astrology? That's nothing but fucked-up denialism. Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.

we should *require* them (3, Insightful)

ChipMonk (711367) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131310)

climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.

I take it you haven't read the emails from East Anglia? Obfuscation, "hide the decline," discussion of how to destroy the careers of those who disagree with them, and subvert legal FOIA requests. Hardly the behavior of people who want to go on public record.

When scientific research is used as the basis of public policy decisions, that research should automatically be made available for public scrutiny, along with any associated monetary interests of the researchers. Then taxpayers can find out how badly they got screwed.

Re:we should *require* them (5, Insightful)

Kythe (4779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131338)

I've read them. Your characterization is literally full of crap. The propaganda win coming out of that computer crime sure has revved you guys up, though.

Re:we should *require* them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131556)

Kythe doesn't quote or cite any other source explaining how the statements alluded to by ChipMonk are "full of crap."

Re:we should *require* them (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131632)

literally full of crap

Do I have to say anything more?

Re:Premature (2, Insightful)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131318)

Luckily, climate scientists disagree with you and (unlike astrologers) actually want to put their predictions on record because they have confidence in them. I say we let them.

Sure, why not - let them put their predictions on record. After all, Nostradamus did the same.

But acting on those predictions by ruining the civilization - well, that's something I'd like to think for a moment or two. Perhaps I will even go as far as to ask for a second opinion.

Re:Premature (2, Insightful)

avtchillsboro (986655) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131350)

We are already paying for a National Weather Service / NOAA.

On long range predictions, the AGW alarmists are doing just fine now voluntarily--OTOH, it might be worth it to pay them to STFU...

..."I say we let them."

Agreed--let them do it on their own nickel.

Re:Premature (3, Insightful)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131462)

If I predict the saints will win the superbowl but I also predict the colts will win the superbowl, where's the confidence? Last year the climatologists were touting their predictions that washington DC would never see snow again. This year they dug up their predictions that winters will be more severe.

Re:Premature (4, Insightful)

Beezlebub33 (1220368) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131182)

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences [nas.edu] disagrees with you. The American Association for the Advancement of Science [aaas.org] disagrees with you. The American Geophysical Union [agu.org] disagrees with you. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [noaa.gov] disagrees with you. There are many more, but the point is that the scientists actually studying it are generally convinced. Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?

At this point, I think that climate deniers are very close to creationists. In both cases, there are people and organizations that disagree with the science. They can talk a good talk, but fail in the actual doing of the science. They can ask more questions than can be answered currently, can take quotes (and emails) out of context, they can use the human failures of people involved in the science against them, and any screw ups (and they certainly exist in both cases) are taken as evidence that the entire science is incorrect. But, they are ignoring the basic science as a whole, discarding what we do understand, and blowing the uncertainties way out of proportion, in order to promote an unscientific point of view.

Re:Premature (5, Funny)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131270)

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences disagrees with you. The American Association for the Advancement of Science disagrees with you. The American Geophysical Union disagrees with you. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration disagrees with you

Typical liberal scum. You think your out-of-touch ivory tower "experts" can beat the common sense my mother and Glenn Beck taught me? You're just scary numbers, charts, and other things Real Americans like me don't understand to trick us. What you really want is to the destroy the America that our founding fathers knew and loved. Benjamin Franklin wouldn't have believed this climate change nonsense. He would have said it's our God-given right to release as much dioxin and carbon dioxide as we want. We've been doing it for 100 years and the world is the same as when our Lord created it.

Anyone who wants to destroy jobs by moving to new technology is a sinner and a tyrant, and wants to turn this great God-loving country of ours into a socialist fascist slavery hell. Thank God for Fox News to tell me the truth.

Re:Premature (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131336)

I wholly agree with you! It's a liberal fraud designed to rid us of our guns, too. Just because bullets give off carbon dioxide, the Marxist Socialist commie pinkos think they can steal our god-granted right to bear arms! Well I say, they can have my guns when they tear them from my cold, dead hands! Global climate change is a myth! I was going to protest this in a letter to my local newspaper, but there's 6 feet of snow outside my door and I can't get outside. Makes me so mad I'm firing my gun at the ceiling in frustration. Toyota! Dinosaurs! Mayan Calendar! PROOF!!!!! Where's your god now, Al Gore?

Re:Premature (1)

Alcoholist (160427) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131406)

/. really needs to grow a sense of humour. This is a joke comment. It should be scored "5, Funny". Even if it was serious, it should still be scored "5, Funny".

Re:Premature (1)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131408)

Oh who marked that parent Article a Troll? It's not a troll it's entertainment.

That was funny. Nice work.

Re:Premature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131500)

What we really need is a National Political Climate Service, to track the dangers of global left-lurching. Since you socialists changing the political environment is obviously destroying us before any temperature changes might. Forget worrying about your carbon footprint, worry about your commie footprint, people. Drive your SUV's if you like but if you keep up this madness of voting for liberal Democrats or liberal Republicans you're just killing us all.

Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the bus (0, Troll)

jvillain (546827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131346)

Well Phil Jones just threw most of the man made climate warming story under the bus [bbc.co.uk].

Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131410)

Read the article for yourselves. Do not take my or jvillain's word for it.

There is no bus involved, and Phil Jones says that yes, warming since 1950 is probably anthropogenic.

Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the (1)

QuoteMstr (55051) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131432)

CO2 takes thousands of years to leave the atmosphere, so we can consider it cumulative. Every bit of fossil fuel CO2 we've used since Watt built his steam engine has contributed to the progression of global warming: it's just that the increase in emissions substantially accelerated in the 20th century, and since the 1950s, our cumulative history has begin to catch up with us.

Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131544)

"Every bit of fossil fuel CO2 we've used since Watt built his steam engine has contributed to the progression of global warming" is likely true, but probably only in a pedantic sense (because emissions have gone up so fast, the impact of the decades prior to 1950 is tiny compared to those since).

Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the (0)

jvillain (546827) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131616)

You better read that again. He admits that warming trends like this have happened in the past, that the earth is not currently warming, that the Medieval Warm Period did happen and so the hockey stick is dead, their data is suspect and the CO2 thing is a guess. He also basically cops to not really being climatologist.

Re:Phil Jones threw CO2 climate warming under the (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131678)

Your characterization of what he says won't stand up to people reading the interview, so i would suggest that they go ahead and do that.

Re:Premature (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131578)

Actually, you have it backwards - the global warming advocates are the creationists.

Yes, we all agree that evolution is a true representation of history...we can verify this through the fossil record. And we can also all agree on paleoclimatology for the most part, and see the past variations of global warming and cooling at various points in time. Where AGW proponents fall of the track is by making unfalsifiable predictions.

To fit the evolution analogy, AGW proponents are telling us that ever since CO2 started pumping into the atmosphere, there has been a marked increase in albinism, and that future evolution for all species around the planet will eventually lead to catastrophic albinism, where no animals will have any skin or scale pigment at all. Someone who "denies" this prediction of how evolution will proceed in the future cannot reasonably be compared to a creationist.

The scientific point of view is to have a falsifiable hypothesis. When AGW advocates claim that both snow and the lack of snow fit their model, they've essentially admitted that their model has no scientific basis.

Tell me, what evidence would convince you that the theory of AGW, or catastrophic AGW is wrong?

Re:Premature (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131586)

How free are those scientists to disagree when they know that 1) this will make many other scientists want to break their bones and crush their face with a baseball bat in a dark alley (quoting the UK climatologists' wet dreams) and 2) yet more scientists will say that this desire for face-crushing is actually very understandable and normal and nothing anyone should be upset by?

Would you want to say anything that would want your colleagues slobber at the thought of crushing your skull?

Re:Premature (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131674)

Are you for real? Have you seen the biceps on your typical neighbourhood scientist? Even holding the baseball bat is touch-and-go for them, let alone "smashing" bones with it... do you watch TV a lot?

If that's the full extent of your "insight", I have recently inherited a bridge, but due to a coup in my country, it turns out I have to sell it real fast. It's a bargain!

Re:Premature (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131622)

Well, let's think in terms of what the climate deniers want. They don't care a fig about the scientific fight, what they want is a public policy that is favorable to fossil energy use.

It seems to me that the denialist position does its policy aims a disservice. You can make policy arguments for unfettered fossil energy use without having to engage in a debate about science you don't understand or really care about. It all comes down to different kinds of costs and risks. If you don't do anything about AGW, you risk costs due to more rapid climate change. If you do do something, you can't be sure of eliminating those costs, but you definitely take on the cost of not using the cheapest energy sources available.

I think you could make a credible argument on those terms. Not unassailable of course, but not nutty either.

Re:Premature (3, Insightful)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131626)

You're right that no major scientific organization is openly skeptical of climate change now. But the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Association of State Climatologists, American Geological Institute, American Institute of Professional Geologists, and Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences have all issued statements that are non-committal. If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?

I'm not saying that climate change isn't real, isn't caused by us, or isn't a net bad thing for humanity. I don't know those things. But I do have experience dealing with academics. And when they fudge data, distort peer review to suppress dissent, and don't release the code they use in their all-important computer models, it's hardly unreasonable for someone to conclude that they're less than perfectly confident.

Re:Premature (3, Insightful)

Paua Fritter (448250) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131682)

If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?

Gosh I really can't imagine why Petroleum Geologists might feel reluctant to accept that CO2 emissions are the cause of dangerous climate change.

If they're still uncertain, why is is it so irrational for anyone else to be?

Is it so rational to ignore the views of the vast majority of climatologists on climate change?

Re:Premature (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131628)

Do you have any scientific organizations that agree with you that the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still up in the air?

Well, if the greenhouse gas aspect is not up in the air, problem solved, right?

Re:Premature (1)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131222)

Just because climate science is in its infancy doesn't mean that there's anything fundamentally wrong about consolidating what information we do have about it. It's certainly possible that it could turn out to be an astrology-like tea-leaf-reading exercise, but it's also quite possible to responsibly give information about fields where there is large uncertainty. It's not as if dealing with phenomena about which we have incomplete information and large uncertainty is something new to science.

Re:Premature is premature (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131386)

Perhaps they will provide an impartial assessment of the current state of climate science, rather than a pronouncement on global warming.

Re:Premature (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131434)

"Setting up a Climate Service today would be akin to setting up an Astrology Service. They would probably both give equally good advice."

Both ideas are brilliant!

What's your sign?

Re:Premature (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131522)

Climate science is in its infancy, as anyone who has been really following the "Global Warming" debate knows. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.

Assuming for the sake of argument that you're right about the "greenhouse gas" aspect of climate change being up in the air (even though you're completely and utterly wrong), what you said still makes no sense. You yourself admit that the globe is warming. The article talks about an agency set up to monitor/project global warming. You then mention one single variable that some climate studies chart--greenhouse gases--as preventing ANY sort of projection of long-term climate.

Re:Premature (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131560)

. Certainly we know the globe is warming, but the greenhouse gas aspect of it is still very much up in the air.

Unless we go for carbon sequestration.

Anyhow, I've been following the "Global Warming" debate since the early 80s, before it was a political debate. It's simply ignorant to compare climate science to astrology. The debate has been scholarly and fiercely contested every inch of the way. Also at times ugly but if you've ever seen peer review comments you'll know that's par for the course. Science doesn't work because scientists are nice or wise or noble. But the process is a lot more honest than political debate.

The problem is that a lot of things we'd *like* to know cannot be known with very much certainty. For example, most would say humans contribute to climate change, but nobody really say whether we can do anything to stop it. Politics doesn't deal very well with that kind of thing. Politicians want a scapegoat that can be thrown in jail or invaded, not the message that (a) we are contributing to a problem but (b) we don't know whether stopping that will make any difference.

What we really need is some serious, deep *policy* thinking, one that takes into account uncertainty but doesn't think that the best course of action is to *assume* that everything will work out. It might be best to *act* that way, but only after a thorough examination of all the costs and benefits of acting and the best ways to hedge our bets if we are not going to take action.

In any case, be careful of rhetorical excess. If you compare climate science to astrology, you can't cite *anything* climate scientist say, even when it is favorable to your position.

Non-quantitative (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131652)

I've just been having the same discussion with Andy Revkin who seems to be just as confused as you. Here is where the science is at: It is very likely that most of the recent warming is owing to greenhouse gas forcing as a result of our emissions. Look carefully at that statement. It does not mean that we hardly know if some of the warming comes as a result of our emissions. No, if we can say that it is very likely that most of the warming is owing to us, then it is doubtless that some of the warming comes from us. Nothing up in the air about that at all. Non-quantitative people like you or Revkin don't seem to grasp this. There is some small uncertainty about attributing more than half of the warming to us, but that is not the same as not knowing anything at all.

A climate service would be a very good thing since we can finally start to set some policies concerning tidal regions that will be affected by sea level rise. New nuclear power plants, in particular owing to their long planning horizon, need siting guidance that the NRC does not seem able to provide.

Long predictions (1, Interesting)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131102)

I can give one long term prediction. The government will not be able to use "climate change" as an excuse for a orgy of tax rises.

Re:Long predictions (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131162)

Maybe, we can use it as an excuse for a consumption tax.

Tax consumption, consumption goes, less is made, less pollution, less climate change.

Consumption taxes: saves the environment, pays for Government, helps poor people save (they won't be wasting their money on TVs, cable and other junk), and it'll help future generations.

And if anyone is still against it because "it hurts the poor" (bullshit), then give the extra money you have to them.

But that's not the real reason you folks out there are against it. The real reason is that YOU don't want to give up your piddly home mortgage interest deduction and you just use the excuse that it will hurt poor people instead of admitting your own motives.

Re:Long predictions (1, Troll)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131204)

Tax consumption, consumption goes, less is made, less pollution, less climate change.

So if we tax government corruption and waste, we'll get rid of it forever? Can I add a surtax on the macarena and line-dancing, too? What about light beer or the designated hitter rule? Can we get rid of those as well?

Re:Long predictions (1)

Herkum01 (592704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131476)

It we are looking at taxing things that get rid of stuff, I would like to tax stupidity directly. The lottery is just not cutting it anymore.

Re:Long predictions (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131610)

So if we tax government corruption and waste, we'll get rid of it forever?

You "tax" government corruption and waste by firing people and slashing budgets.
Of course, to do any of that you have to have the people to audit and investigate.
But... considering that even the IRS can't get the funding to go after billions in unpaid taxes,
it's highly unlikely that auditors will get hired to deal with run of the mill government waste.

Re:Long predictions (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131314)

Tax consumption, consumption goes, less is made, less pollution, less climate change.

...and Al Gore ends up bankrupt.

Future predictions (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131116)

so, let's see the predictions from the national climate service.

(in a democratic administration)
Plan for warmer temperatures. higher sea levels, some deserts getting a lot of rain, some areas getting a lot less rain.
and we can change the climate to make things better

(in a republican adminstartion)
climate will be about the same, it will be hot during the summer, cold during the winter, floods will occur, droughts will occur.
and no-one can do much about it.

Re:Future predictions (2, Insightful)

ProfM (91314) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131438)

... we can change the climate to make things better

No, this should read: we need your money to dump into a hole, so climate guessers can pull Punxsutawney AlGore out every August and tell us it's getting warmer out.

Manbearpig? (3, Funny)

kimvette (919543) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131130)

So the hunt for manbearpig continues?

Re:Manbearpig? (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131284)

"Don't ask what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" - Democrats listen to your idol!

Interesting sig, but I'd rather they didn't listen. Essentially, what he meant was "Don't ask what I can do for you, ask what you can do for me".

Re:Manbearpig? (-1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131344)

If you want to find a manbearpig, your best bet is in the lame, cheesy animation of Trey Parker and Matt Stone.

Recursion (2, Insightful)

pifactorial (1000403) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131132)

Based on the mercurial history of climate science over the past few decades, we might also need a National Climate Service Service to help us track changes in the climate of climate science research...?

I actually think this is a good idea (2, Interesting)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131134)

Since climate science really is a science, it's going to have to make predictions. It's good to put consensus predictions on record and then see how good they are. I have enough faith in climate science to think that they will be quite good. Of course they will have big error bars, but that's unavoidable. Also, it's not uninformative. I think it will be important in 5 years to say: We've got a climate model that's made correct predictions for the last five years, so you should trust that model as a good guide to the future. It's not a perfect argument, but I think it will be more persuasive than what we can say now.

Re:I actually think this is a good idea (1)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131444)

Of course, the climate model from the 5 years ago wouldn't predict the past 5 years, climate models can't resolve that small amount of time. The fundamental issue of the predictive properties is that by the time we know if the model is right it will be too late to fix the problem, and the models constantly get better as more powerful computers become available and climate science becomes more sophisticated. There's no good way to test the validity of the models, since theres not alot of good data, similar to the problems of doing macroeconomic modelling. The real issue is how much money and time to invest as a result of the conclusions of the models.

Re:I actually think this is a good idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131548)

We had climate models that made good predictions over 30 years ago [wordpress.com]. Before that, increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was predicted to cause warming in the 1800s [wikipedia.org]. There's enough evidence to confirm these predictions that nearly all climatologists agree that AGW is happening. Isn't it time to actually do something about it? If not, what additional evidence do you think we still need before we start trusting the models?

Great (1, Insightful)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131188)

Release the source code of your data models that tell us that "ZOMG!!!! Teh oceans are going to go to e1even!!!!!!" and then we'll talk. Until then, it's all smoke and mirrors.

Re:Great (4, Informative)

Trepidity (597) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131260)

The source code for quite a few models is publicly available. Here are three: one [ucar.edu], two [mpimet.mpg.de], three [jussieu.fr]. The last one even does development in a public repository (click "browse source" in the menu bar) and features quite detailed documentation.

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131264)

So true. They have been proclaiming that Global Warming is going to be the end of mankind unless we all make drastic changes now!! Everyone on the planet will be affected. The seas will rise, deserts expand, etc. CO2 output must be drastically reduced now! If we then accept that conclusion, then there should be not one shred of doubt that all data, all models, all information be open for the entire world to view.
It would be like a company having a cure for AIDS or cancer and keeping it withheld for profit. If something of that magnitude existed from whatever source, the moral imperative would require the company or individual to release all data, all models, and all information to the world and relentless peer review even if it meant the company would go broke. The same is true for AGW.

Re:Great (0, Redundant)

Kythe (4779) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131352)

Little quick on the draw there, trigger. Read the two posts above you. We'll await your mea culpa.

Re:Great (1, Informative)

tftp (111690) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131348)

Release the source code of your data models

This won't help much because the original data was destroyed by CMU years ago. All you have is the data that had been normalized and re-normalized, and you can't use that. And it will take a long time to re-gather the data and to repeat all the processing. But I guess if climate scientists want to get somewhere they'd better start on that.

Inevitable (1)

itomato (91092) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131256)

There are already several organizations measuring climate and environmental conditions. So many, there are open file formats to support data sharing.

Part of the recent US budget includes $433 million to support similar science.

Who are you looking to for validation that Cap & Trade works? How do you measure that and trust the results?

If climate science has progressed far enough to provide results, and so much depends on a safe climate - both for progress and survival, someone needs to keep an eye on things.

What if the National Climate Service predicted earthquakes, hurricanes, tornadoes, as well as space weather events, tidal flow, and provided the data for processing, taking the other open data from organizations studying extra-planetary events, animal vocalizations, and large-scale earth harmonics, and they all pointed to one, big thing?

I can say one thing - it would be fun to work on, and may hint at a return to the large, funded labs of the 1960's.

The Scientific Quandary (1, Insightful)

Chummy62 (1664845) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131288)

Science is repeatable, peer reviewable and changes as the truth becomes clearer. Science has never been about consensus, but has always been about pioneers seeking the truth. This leaves us with a quandary; Do we believe scientists who destroy data and refuse peer review, or do we attempt to gather our own data and find the truth. Currently the two barriers that will prevent us from finding the truth are those who believe that consensus is equivalent to scientific truth and the snow piled up so high in Washington D.C. that they are being forced to wait to open the office until after the blizzard of 2010 is cleared.

Fix it quick! (0, Troll)

digitalcowboy (142658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131358)

AGW/CC has always been a lie and always will be a lie.

Before you reply to me think, "We've always been at war with East Asia."

This is about government control and "socializing" to that end. You're all sheep if you buy this horseshit after all this time and after all that's been revealed.

You're also pretty damn arrogant - and ignorant - if you think your Prius - or my Suburban - makes a whit of difference to this "climate."

Re:Fix it quick! (3, Insightful)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131538)

"You're also pretty damn arrogant - and ignorant - if you think your Prius - or my Suburban - makes a whit of difference to this "climate." "

If we are talking of only 1 car vs 1 car in the context of a planet. Yep your right.
However we are talking billions of people. With a good portion of those driving cars now. Most of which are P.O.S. spewing god knows what. So Mr. I'm not arrogant or ignorant the facts are you as an individual are a piece of the puzzle. It's only the truly selfish that refuse contribute to others. You however have decided Take from others. Hybrids are in the millions of sales now and climbing fast. The save huge amounts of petrol. The two together account for a noticeable change in the emissions.

Lets take you feeble brain back a few decades. To the days before emission standards. I suspect you are fresh out of diapers so you might not remember this. Do you recall standing anywhere in a big city. Choking on the fumes from the cars. Do you remember the soot that was over everything. Do you remember that god awful haze over the city 24/7. Well for the most part cities are escaping this. Why emission standards forcing cars to clean up. Guess what the job still isn't done. We managed to attack the stuff we can see. Now we have to go after rest of the crap coming out of cars.

So yes it does make a "whit" of difference if you drive one vehicle over another.

And now to cut off a line of retort
This style of argument that people so often use these days of well "why should I they don't." Is how kids in school argue. It's not how mature people argue. Ones that can understand the full consequences of their actions.

Re:Fix it quick! (1)

digitalcowboy (142658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131638)

So Mr. I'm not arrogant or ignorant the facts are you as an individual are a piece of the puzzle. It's only the truly selfish that refuse contribute to others. You however have decided Take from others.

Yes. I have. I "T"ake from others. I do it in voluntary transactions. What (TF) are you doing? And why didn't they teach grammar in your school? (I shouldn't have to re-read in order to decipher my critics.)

You're a moron spouting nonsense and everything you have is almost automatically mine unless you can elect others to appoint people that will take up guns and imprison those who don't agree with you.

Thanks for playing.

If you ever learn - or find someone who can teach you - how to live peacefully with me, I'll embrace you.

Seems like the trolls are out in force tonight (0, Offtopic)

GraZZ (9716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131362)

Do all reasonable people have Saturday evening plans this weekend?

Re:Seems like the trolls are out in force tonight (0, Offtopic)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131542)

Bitter people with lots of booze and no dates for tomorrow. ( I'm one of them :) )

that sucking sound (0, Troll)

Dolphinzilla (199489) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131388)

is my bank account paying for more useless, pointless, farcical government programs ! For heavens sake, the weatherman can't predict the weather a week in advance, why on earth would I believe they can predict it for a century from now...

Re:that sucking sound (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131424)

Confucius say "There is difference between weather and climate." And NASA say [nasa.gov], too.

Sounds like a bad idea (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131416)

So the lab facilities, and possibly the employees, would be competed for by two separate bureaucracies? I can't see how that would work smoothly.

Why can't they just throw some more money at the NOAA or NWS, telling them they need to take on some additional responsibilities?

gay ninjas (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131430)

are you a gay ninja?

The ONLY climate that NEVER changes.... (1)

digitalcowboy (142658) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131458)

... is government and it's arrogance. No matter how many times they are wrong, they never give up the idea that they are automatically right because they were either elected or appointed by someone who was.

They're almost always wrong and they should never be embraced. Every Federal employee should be looked upon with suspicion. Always.

Government - at least in this country - was never meant to be a trough.

Anyone employed by the state is either ignorant or evil.

Don't they realize? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131502)

Don't they realize that this is a slippery slope to actually admitting that global warming could be true?

Just look at the snow in Texas.

I'm a liberal and I don't believe in global warming.

Letter to Dr. Jane (3, Insightful)

Bodhammer (559311) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131510)

Dear Dr. Jane,

Would you please produce a record of the millions of requests you have gotten. As you may know, there is a LOT OF INFLATED CLAIMS in this area and I would like to independently verify your statements without having to hack your servers.

Thank you for your prompt reply,

The Public Taxpayers

Re:Letter to Dr. Jane (1)

upuv (1201447) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131662)

Sorry the carbon foot print from printing all those requests exceeds our departments annual carbon budget. Request denied.

Short term prediction (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#31131568)

scarcity of world butterflies if they plan to do long term weather predictions.

Re:Short term prediction (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31131676)

Climate predictions are altogether a different thing from weather predictions. Weather can be predicted only about ten days into the future. Climate can be accurately predicted decades into the future, as was done in the 1970s [wordpress.com].
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...