×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

471 comments

So, where is the google cache link? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847582)

Did Slashdot become Fox News? Deniers on my Slashdot?

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (4, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | about 3 years ago | (#35847674)

Did Slashdot become Fox News?
Deniers on my Slashdot?

Are facts that you don't like suddenly "Fox News"?

Let me see if I got the formula right:
Facts I don't like = Fox News
Fox News = Fake
Facts I don't like = Fake

Nice!

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847738)

Someone didn't read his sig.

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (0)

The Grim Reefer2 (1195989) | about 3 years ago | (#35847764)

Someone didn't read his sig.

There seem to be too many people that haven't these days.

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (1, Funny)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#35847970)

No, but I read the title of the summary. "What happened to the climate refugees?" And, I can answer that. They've all taken refuge, hiding in all the alrmist's cavernous asses. I suspect that Al Gore is hosting an entire clan in his fat ass! And, if it weren't filled with vacuum (HA! "filled" and "vacuum" in the same sentence!) they could host another clan, or even an entire tribe in his fat head.

Anthony Watts is a known shill (4, Informative)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35847768)

The author of that propaganda piece is a known shill of whatever industry pays him.

Here's a video [youtube.com] that he tried to take down unsuccessfully.

Re:Anthony Watts is a known shill (3, Insightful)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 3 years ago | (#35847932)

Ad hominem is not useful in evaluating the article, and does nothing to address the veracity of it.

Re:Anthony Watts is a known shill (0, Troll)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 3 years ago | (#35848070)

Known shill? Possibly - I don't know him. But, in this instance, I have to agree with him, shill or not. I remember Al Gore promising apocolytipic events would happen by now. How 'bout that hockey stick?

Believe me, I take mankind's continued survival pretty seriously, but you'll have to admit that the global warming activists have employed to many of thier own shills. Not to mention, they demand to much faith. Here, on slashdot, I expect people to resist any kind of faith-based bullshit. How many insults have been hurled at theists, because they can't prove a damned thing they believe in? Come on people - stop being faithful to people who claim to be scientists, but haven't proven a damned thing.

Re:Anthony Watts is a known shill (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848224)

hi5

ok. But we are talking about the UN's bogus claim. (0, Troll)

electrosoccertux (874415) | about 3 years ago | (#35848022)

The author of that propaganda piece is a known shill of whatever industry pays him.

Here's a video [youtube.com] that he tried to take down unsuccessfully.

that's nice but I don't care about that I would like to know why the UN said this in the first place if they knew that there weren't going to be climate refugees. I mean seriously, if it were coming true real estate would have fallen apart in those areas, which is wasn't. So it seems clear the UN had an agenda which they are now failing to hide and cover up.

Re:ok. But we are talking about the UN's bogus cla (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | about 3 years ago | (#35848158)

the UN had an agenda

To its initial goals of safeguarding peace, protecting human rights, establishing the framework for international justice and promoting economic and social progress, in the six and a half decades since its creation the United Nations has added on new challenges, such as climate change, international terrorism and AIDS. While conflict resolution and peacekeeping continue to be among its most visible efforts, the UN, along with its specialized agencies, is also engaged in a wide array of activities to improve peopleâ(TM)s lives around the world â" from disaster relief [un.org], through education and advancement of women, to peaceful uses of atomic energy.

They would like to know in advance where they will be needed.

P.S. seriously, /., another site redesign and you still can't parse apostrophes and hyphens? Encode everything in UTF-8 already, jeez!

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (2)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 years ago | (#35847816)

Hmm... So the facts go contrary to what you want and you declare them invalid. Great thinking. We've got this problem on both ends of the political spectrum so you're in good company. Party away.

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (3, Funny)

tripleevenfall (1990004) | about 3 years ago | (#35847972)

The facts aren't contrary. This was a completely valid prediction. The election of Barack Obama prevented this.

"This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." -- Barack Obama, 3 June 2008, upon winning his party nomination.

Re:So, where is the google cache link? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848008)

exactly... we've had three whole years of lovin' Obama healin'. The planet is not dead yet, it's going for a walk.

That map is from 2007 (1)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35848096)

If you take a look at the map in your link, you'll find it signed "Emanuelle Bournay - Oktober 2007".

The allegation is that UN predicted in 2005 that there would be 50 million climate refugees. Nowhere in that map one sees mention of how many refugees there would be, it just shows the regions more likely to be affected by global warming.

Re:That map is from 2007 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848274)

The original cached page shows the article and the graphic packaged together, although the graphic was moved breaking the link, it was still up.

United Nations University, Not the UN (5, Informative)

ideonexus (1257332) | about 3 years ago | (#35847588)

This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting. If the UN had released a report claiming 50 million global warming refugees by 2010, there would be dozens of news articles on it. The supposed incriminating evidence is a Google Cache page with this map [grida.no] that doesn't itself say anything about refugees, but does highlight areas most susceptible to sea level rise. The "50 million climate refugees by 2010 [googleusercontent.com]" statement is not referenced anywhere in any UN report, it's a six words on one defunct graphic that was part of a larger report on world agriculture [grida.no] by the UN University. This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.

The problem with this prediction being made by any scientist is that keeping track of how many refugees there are is difficult (current estimate by the UN is 1 million a year [unep.org], a figure that the Red Cross lends support to with the statement that environmental disasters are displacing more people than war now) and the causes are debatable. The epic flooding in Pakistan created 10 million refugees [reuters.com], Hurricane Katrina added a quarter of a million refugees [www.cbc.ca], and desertification in Africa is displacing millions. Can we blame these events on Global Warming? Hurricanes and floods happen without a warming world, but a warming world increases the chances of such disasters happening.

Then there are the refugees that no one realizes. In the small coastal town where I live in North Carolina, houses have been falling into the swamp one by one for decades, but the residents blame it on people building their homes in flood zones, not realizing that sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast [sciencedaily.com]. People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia [wikipedia.org].

You can read all about the various estimates concerning environmental refugees on Wikipedia [wikipedia.org]. It took the author of this untruth less than an hour to post their nonsense and the deniers flooded the Internet with it quickly. It took me two hours to research and write this response, because I wanted to know what I was talking about, and I will only reach a very small audience in comparison. This is why I despair when considering how science could possibly stand a chance against the overwhelming confidence ignorance brings the unscientific masses.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847636)

"sea levels in their state have risen three times the rate of rise on the rest of the Atlantic coast [sciencedaily.com]."

What the quoted article actually says:

ScienceDaily (Oct. 29, 2009) — An international team of environmental scientists led by the University of Pennsylvania has shown that sea-level rise, at least in North Carolina, is accelerating. Researchers found 20th-century sea-level rise to be three times higher than the rate of sea-level rise during the last 500 years. In addition, this jump appears to occur between 1879 and 1915, a time of industrial change that may provide a direct link to human-induced climate change.

It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others. And the primary sea level rise occurred well before the evil auto culture. But then I'm just an ignoramus according to the above post.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (4, Informative)

Pete Venkman (1659965) | about 3 years ago | (#35847696)

Looks like you didn't read either.

"Furthermore, the acceleration appears consistent with other studies from the Atlantic coast, though the magnitude of the acceleration in North Carolina is larger than at sites farther north along the U.S. and Canadian Atlantic coast and may be indicative of a latitudinal trend related to the melting of the Greenland ice sheet."

The article does state that NC's coast is creeping more quickly than at other points along the Atlantic coast.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847938)

Perhaps the issue is that the ground is sinking (as in Louisiana)? That's the only way sea levels could rise more in one place than another.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (4, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | about 3 years ago | (#35847724)

"It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others."

Nothing illogical. 'Sea level' is an averaged value, which depends on currents and winds.

"And the primary sea level rise occurred well before the evil auto culture."

Coal was used in large quantities even before automobiles.

"But then I'm just an ignoramus according to the above post."

And here we both agree.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Insightful)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 years ago | (#35847920)

Also not in the news is the fact that the sea level used to be a LOT higher than it is now and it used to be a LOT lower than it is now. Things change. That's life. None of it had anything to do with humans.

The planet has also been warmer and cooler in the past. When the planet was warmer there was more diversity of life, large swaths of land that are currently too cold for much bio-diversity were more useable by nature and man. When it got colder it was hell. Things change. Given my druthers I would take warmer, please.

With all of this angst over "Global Warming" people are missing the real issue: cut pollution.

The shape of the sea surface changes (1)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35847964)

It seems more than a little illogical to state that sea levels rise higher in one Atlantic coast state than the others

Not illogical, only it takes some analysis to understand.

What happens is that the global warming is causing the ocean water to become less dense, both by dilution by melted ice and by thermal expansion from the increased temperature.

The surface of the ocean is approximately an ellipsoid whose exact shape depend on a number of factors. When the surface rises due to the increase in water volume this rise is slightly different from place to place. At the latitude of North Carolina this increase happens to be more than in other places.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847650)

This 50 million by 2010 figure comes from Dr. Bogardi at the UN University in Bonn [guardian.co.uk], NOT the United Nations.

from Wikipedia:
"The United Nations University (UNU) is an academic arm of the United Nations"

It took me two hours to research and write this response

You are either a terrible researcher or a liar.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847680)

You tell'em AC!

Why whenever I need to research something, I just type in what I want and BINGO! there's the answer. And if I google "Intelligent, well thought out, compelling article for [fill in topic here], again BINGO! there it is!

And I find that when I google for it, V1@gr4 is the solution for all problems!

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Funny)

webdog314 (960286) | about 3 years ago | (#35847746)

from Wikipedia:
"The United Nations University (UNU) is an academic arm of the United Nations"

You are either a terrible researcher or a liar.

Right, just like California State University is an academic arm of the California state government, which should be held accountable for everything they put out...

You are either an idiot, or... no, you're just an idiot.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 years ago | (#35847770)

So any statement made by any researcher involved with the UN is essentially the same as an official statement by the UN? Furthermore, if I can show that any of these statements by any researchers turns out the be wrong, the entire field of study and research institution they're involved with is called into question? Using that logic, I can call into question any aspect of anything that's studied and any research institution.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847686)

The Earth's climate has always and will always change and there's nothing we can do about it.

People have always built houses, towns and even cities in areas where environmental changes have destroyed them or forced them to adapt or move.

Deal with it.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (5, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 years ago | (#35847796)

Avalanches have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, trigger avalanches so they happen when people aren't around so people don't get hurt. Diseases have always and will always happen, and there's nothing we can do about it. We can, however, develop vaccines and treatments to minimize human suffering. Just because we can't fully control nature doesn't mean we can't influence it.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (-1, Flamebait)

xenobyte (446878) | about 3 years ago | (#35848040)

Please don't be stupid... The essense is not whether we can affect the climate (we can) but whether there is a climate change beyond the normal caused by humans. Currently we're seeing an unparalled scare campaign by the UN and some environmental organizations based on the same data that three decades ago showed an iceage approaching... And we've just had the two coldest winters in decades/centuries here in Europe (and Northern America)... So much for global warming. IMHO of course.

If we are to replace fossile fuels it must in favor of something truly long-lasting. Forget solar power and wind as they're both unreliable and requires so many windmills and solar farms just to cover our current needs that every square mile of the Earth will be filled with them. Only fusion (water into power) and geothermal works in the long run and both still needs a lot of development to be practical or usable at all. Both will use 'plants' to manufacture the energy so the current transmission infrastructure can be used. But they're not ready yet so there's no need to rush things.

What about rising water levels? Well, if they don't rise like a flood there's no need to panic. Just move away from the affected areas and things will be fine.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (5, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 years ago | (#35848134)

The data have always showed warming due to burning fossil fuels, ever since Arrhenius predicted it over 100 years ago [wikipedia.org]. The impending ice age approaching was hypothesized by researchers doing exactly what you're doing -- instead of looking at the global temperature trend looking at small geographical areas [skepticalscience.com]. Clearly global temperatures are rising [noaa.gov]. There isn't a "scare campaign" that I can see, just predictions based on a scientific hypothesis, and observations that match those predictions. The problem with rising sea levels is that hundreds of millions of people will have to relocate, abandoning trillions of dollars of infrastructure. Solar power can be used with energy storage systems. Try reading some research on the areas you're discussing instead of spreading misinformation like your post does.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847698)

If the ocean is rising - it's NOT going to do so at different rates along the coast. If your city has a water problem - it's generally due to fresh water pumping, and the land subsiding... just like it did in oh, New Orleans and Venice off the top of my head.

Man influenced 'climate change' is crap, and an excuse for self-deluded idiots to demand power and money. See "Al Gore" and his primary residence for a prime example of this.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (5, Insightful)

FrootLoops (1817694) | about 3 years ago | (#35847742)

Maybe I missed it, but why do you say "This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting"? The author of TFA, Gavin Atkins, appears to be Australian [asiancorrespondent.com]. The hosting site, Asian Correspondent [wikipedia.org], doesn't appear to be related to American news. I agree with the general statement that science reporting is more often than not just terrible, but I don't see how America's science reporting enters in here. In any case, thanks for the thoughtful post!

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847748)

Your response clearly demonstrates what's wrong with your countries science reporting. You go blasting one writer only to make mistakes yourself. Just for a start,

People didn't build their homes in the water, the water rose 1.5 meters over the 50 years since they were built, but nobody realizes this because of landscape amnesia [wikipedia.org].

Wrong. Nowhere in the article does it say the water rose 1.5 meters over 50 years. What it does say is:

The rate of relative sea-level rise, or RSLR, during the 20th century was 3 to 3.3 millimeters per year, higher than the usual rate of one per year.

Averaging to a 16.5cm rise for 50 years. Far from the 1.5 meters you claim.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Insightful)

angel'o'sphere (80593) | about 3 years ago | (#35848212)

If yo would read what he posted and compare it what you post, you would see: you are wrong.
Average all over the world as you calculate, might be 16.5cm but at that particular place it is 1.5m

Do you get it? At that particular place that was very clearly written in the orignal post.

angel'o'sphere

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847762)

The map is also getting misinterpreted. This isn't the clearest thing ever on the web page, but the map was made to indicate a general set of places where people were at list from climate change, not a specific list of everyone who would be misplaced in the next five years. As if I wrote an article predicting a rise in shark attacks, and attached a map of where there were sharks - the map isn't intended to be a predictor, just a guide.

There's no strict definition of a climate refugee (and a lot of argument over what the definition should be.) Am I a refugee if, like Katrina victims, I evacuate to someplace inside my own country? What if I evacuate but have enough money for that not to be a huge problem for me? There are certainly counts right now that are in line with the 50 million figure.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 3 years ago | (#35847868)

The population of New Orleans dropped 30% from 2000 to 2010. The population of the listed refugee sites has increased. Ok, maybe they moved from one end of the island to the other, but the same population increase occurred for specific cities that were listed.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Insightful)

FooAtWFU (699187) | about 3 years ago | (#35847806)

This article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with America's science reporting.

America has no science reporting. It has sciency reporting, in the Steven-Colbert "truthiness" sense. Now consider that the media is the main way that "climate change" gets communicated to the people of America. The media... and politicians. Is there any surprise that lots of people are insanely skeptical of it? I'd even say that with those inputs, calling it all a load of nonsense is a very rational response.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Informative)

Deep Esophagus (686515) | about 3 years ago | (#35847822)

The UN Environment Programme specifically cites those figures in their report, and a 2008 report on un.org's own news site [un.org] repeats those claims:

Citing a report from the UN University, UNEP said that there were now more than 19 million people officially recognized as “persons of concern” – people who are likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. UNEP said that figure is expected to grow to about 50 million by the end of 2010.

That article clearly demonstrates what's wrong with the UN's science reporting. You can't have it both ways -- expect us to believe what the UN says about climate when we can't prove them wrong, and expect us to ignore their claims when they have been proven wrong. Making outrageous predictions like the above is political grandstanding at its worst, and has no place in science.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | about 3 years ago | (#35848214)

Perhaps it escaped your attention, but the bit you're quoting says nothing about the amount of refugees, it is rather an assesment on the areas that are at risk of producing refugees for whatever reason, including rising sea levels

Which was exactly wat the OP was pointing out.

Another data point for the hypothesis that climate denialism correlates with stupidity, I guess.

Mart

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (3, Interesting)

pubwvj (1045960) | about 3 years ago | (#35847872)

This is like the livestock's long shadow mess they did a while back. They claimed that raising meat is responsible for more global warming than transportation (e.g., cars). This became widely quoted and used as an excuse by the vegan crowd for trying to force every to stop eating meat. The problem was the report was full of errors and in general a fraud. It didn't include the full costs of transportation yet it over included the costs for livestock resulting in totally distorted numbers. More importantly it didn't differentiate between the grain fed confinement animal feeding operations vs the pastured farming of livestock which are two entirely different things. All animal farming got painted with the same broad brush. Additionally, they completely failed to mention that the growing of vegetable and grain crops for humans has the exact same problem and that it takes several pounds of veggies/cereals to equal one pound of nutrients of meat. Finally the FAO did retract their report but they didn't make a big deal about the retraction like they had when they published it and the vegan crowd continues to use the flawed original report as justification for their eco/political terrorism. The UN, FAO, etc are very irresponsible with their reports and press releases.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847906)

"Can we blame these events on Global Warming? Hurricanes and floods happen without a warming world, but a warming world increases the chances of such disasters happening."

The short answer is "no", we can't confidently blame these events on global warming, but that's due to a fundamental problem: events like these have always happened in the Earth's history and had sometimes dire human effects. To understand whether there is a long term change requires a long sample time, and we haven't really had that yet. We won't know for a long time whether this collection of events reflects an increasing trend, or just the vagaries of normal climatic variation year-to-year. It's more than a little frustrating, especially when we DO know that dramatic changes have occurred over long timeframes. For example, there are wide areas of Nebraska that consist of desert sand dunes that are grassed over -- a little drier climate, and it will go back to an arid, unfarmable landscape.

Also, you've left out another big recent example: the severe drought that is occurring in parts of China currently, apparently the worst in ~60 years [nytimes.com], and which has had a dramatic effect on global food prices. There was also the heat wave in Russia and the droughts in Australia in the last year.

Normal variation? Part of a trend? Let's hope it's the former. But I think we can agree that most of the media presentation of the issue is awful, and that's a big problem.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1)

worx101 (1799560) | about 3 years ago | (#35848068)

And to add on, the Maldives is seriously suffering from rising oceans. The whole populace is in negotiations to purchase land from Australia for it's citizens to move to.... And it's not at risk? Population growth or not, it doesn't dismissed the problem. People will return to there Homes o matter what for the most part.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (1)

slasho81 (455509) | about 3 years ago | (#35848168)

Your +5 Informative post is why I still have faith in humanity (and Slashdot). Thanks for researching and posting it.

Re:United Nations University, Not the UN (4, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#35848190)

You make a valiant attempt to explain away the article, but the actual explanation is much simpler. The UN University indeed is the one who issued the report, but they are merely a UN think tank [wikipedia.org]. Furthermore, UNEP also cited the report [unep.org], and UNEP started the IPCC, so it is not unreasonable to say that the UN was claiming this. The UNEP is as much a part of the UN as the IPCC.

To really understand this, you have to look at the claim. Let's look at what the UN actually said:

there are now about 19.2 million people officially recognized as "persons of concern"-that is, people likely to be displaced because of environmental disasters. This figure is predicted to grow to about 50 million by the end of the year 2010.

Note that the number is not environmental refugees, but actually persons of concern. There is a huge difference between the two, and the second is probably not inaccurate.

Now, on the website in question, UNEP said this

Fifty million climate refugees by 2010

This is obviously not what the original researchers were claiming. Who knows why UNEP put that on their website, but it is most likely an error of their PR agency, not of their science. In short, the scientists were probably right, but the propagandaists were wrong.

What happened to them? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 3 years ago | (#35847594)

Well, obviously they fled through time to 2020. :-)

Re:What happened to them? (1, Troll)

lxs (131946) | about 3 years ago | (#35847820)

What happened to them was that they were rebranded as "economic refugees" or "fortune seekers" and left to starve. The lucky ones are called "illegal aliens" (wouldn't want to make them sound human now would we) and work shitty jobs for slave wages.
World wide food prices have doubled. Changing climate is one factor contributing to that. Revolutions are always economic in nature, and North Africa is all revolutions these days. It is happening right now but if you refuse to look then you won't see anything. Or you can blame facebook or Charlie Sheen or whatever.

Should we be happy that it didn't happen? (2)

js3 (319268) | about 3 years ago | (#35847600)

Shouldn't we be happy that it didn't happen.. instead of gloating about it?

Re:Should we be happy that it didn't happen? (0, Troll)

geek (5680) | about 3 years ago | (#35847632)

100 million people will die in 5 years if you don't give me 10 billion dollars right now to fix it. If they don't die, don't complain that you gave me 10 billion I squandered on hookers and cocaine, be happy they didn't die. 5 years from now I'll need another 10 billion.................

Re:Should we be happy that it didn't happen? (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 years ago | (#35847834)

That's an interesting analogy, but it fails on many different levels. There's not a single entity asking for money to fix the problem. We do observe the warming predicted by climate researchers. If you can show that the predicted warming is not happening, you might have something.

Re:Should we be happy that it didn't happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847948)

"If you can show that the predicted warming is not happening"..

How about this:
NOAA Making Stuff Up And Contradicting Themselves

http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/17/noaa-making-stuff-up-and-contradicting-themselves/ [wordpress.com]

or this:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/11/steig-on-antarctic-warming-rossby-wave-trains/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

The data being used to support the theory is pure bullshit. But instead of objectively looking at the criticisms, you blindly roll along repeating the mantra.

no. we gloat and marginalize them. (2, Insightful)

dlt074 (548126) | about 3 years ago | (#35847652)

these people are dangerous. we must be pointing this out at every opportunity and never forget that this whole Global Warming er i mean Climate Change is nothing more then a political movement. it seeks to control, regulate and enslave everyone... all under the premise that the world needs saving and their way is the only true way. convert or die.

what should be scaring the hell out of everyone is the very 1984, Winston Smith way they went about trying to edit their propaganda. what happens when they learn from this and the collective memory forgets their false prophecies?

Re:Should we be happy that it didn't happen? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847670)

Sure, lets all take a moment of silence to be happy about it.

Done?

Okay, now, can we start holding people responsible for made up science? Lots of time and money is spent on this nonsense, including my tax dollars, so instead of pretending like fake global warming science isn't harmful in any way, lets hold corrupt (or just plain bad) scientist accountable.

If I told my boss some critical system failure was imminent -- in my opinion as an expert -- and he spent years of time and money trying to prevent it and it turned out that it was an inaccurate prediction, he would not say "well, we can be happy it didn't really happen." And rightfully so.

Hmmmm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847602)

Couldn't be that this was all political BS to get more and more money lining the pockets of one political party and their cronies in deference to the other?

Nahhhhhh, people wouldn't be that THAT stupid.

Don't worry, it's ok. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847606)

As long as they keep pushing this date out by 10 years we'll be able to solve the problem with cold fusion.

Rush Limbaugh ate them. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847608)

It's the only logical explanation.

Interglacial Period (3, Insightful)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 years ago | (#35847640)

Sure, we're in an Ice Age [wikipedia.org], and in an interglacial period where we'd expect ice sheets to be retreating and temperatures warming, but give me money and power and I'll put a stop to it!

Someone needs to read his links (2)

mangu (126918) | about 3 years ago | (#35847826)

If you had taken a quick look at the link you provided, you'd have seen this graph [wikipedia.org] that shows how temperatures rise very quickly after an ice age and then slowly creep down over millennia.

If we are in an interglacial period, climate should be cooling, not warming.

Re:Someone needs to read his links (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 3 years ago | (#35848156)

Look at the right side of the graph. That's us, time 0, still in the upward swing. For whatever reason, this interglacial period looks most like one that's 61,000 years long, not the usual 12,000 year one.

Re:Someone needs to read his links (1)

blueg3 (192743) | about 3 years ago | (#35848202)

Both your and GP's comment have the serious problem that you don't quantify the rate of temperature change in the glacial cycle. Any temperature change can look "very quick" if you scale the time axis appropriately.

News from this 'Anthony Watts' denier... (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847646)

Are brought to you by the coal and oil industry. Read about climate at http://www.skepticalscience.com/ [skepticalscience.com]

Re:News from this 'Anthony Watts' denier... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848184)

Ha ha ha.

Skeptical science.

From a guy making up conspiracy theories about coal and oil. NEXT.

Refugees don't come labeled (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 3 years ago | (#35847688)

There are many refugees in the world. Some of them have moved because of economic conditions (which may be caused by climate change) or civil wars (which may be also influenced by weather - remember that one of the causes of the French revolution was the bad weather caused by an Icelandic volcano eruption (the year without a summer.

And nobody knows how many illegals there are in the USA...

Scientific American throws in the towel (5, Insightful)

jollyreaper (513215) | about 3 years ago | (#35847690)

Scientific American (irony not intended)

Okay, We Give Up
We feel so ashamed
By The Editors | Friday, April 1, 2005 | 55

There's no easy way to admit this. For years, helpful letter writers told us to stick to science. They pointed out that science and politics don't mix. They said we should be more balanced in our presentation of such issues as creationism, missile defense and global warming. We resisted their advice and pretended not to be stung by the accusations that the magazine should be renamed Unscientific American, or Scientific Unamerican, or even Unscientific Unamerican. But spring is in the air, and all of nature is turning over a new leaf, so there's no better time to say: you were right, and we were wrong.
In retrospect, this magazine's coverage of so-called evolution has been hideously one-sided. For decades, we published articles in every issue that endorsed the ideas of Charles Darwin and his cronies. True, the theory of common descent through natural selection has been called the unifying concept for all of biology and one of the greatest scientific ideas of all time, but that was no excuse to be fanatics about it. Where were the answering articles presenting the powerful case for scientific creationism? Why were we so unwilling to suggest that dinosaurs lived 6,000 years ago or that a cataclysmic flood carved the Grand Canyon? Blame the scientists. They dazzled us with their fancy fossils, their radiocarbon dating and their tens of thousands of peer-reviewed journal articles. As editors, we had no business being persuaded by mountains of evidence.

Moreover, we shamefully mistreated the Intelligent Design (ID) theorists by lumping them in with creationists. Creationists believe that God designed all life, and that's a somewhat religious idea. But ID theorists think that at unspecified times some unnamed superpowerful entity designed life, or maybe just some species, or maybe just some of the stuff in cells. That's what makes ID a superior scientific theory: it doesn't get bogged down in details.

Good journalism values balance above all else. We owe it to our readers to present everybody's ideas equally and not to ignore or discredit theories simply because they lack scientifically credible arguments or facts. Nor should we succumb to the easy mistake of thinking that scientists understand their fields better than, say, U.S. senators or best-selling novelists do. Indeed, if politicians or special-interest groups say things that seem untrue or misleading, our duty as journalists is to quote them without comment or contradiction. To do otherwise would be elitist and therefore wrong. In that spirit, we will end the practice of expressing our own views in this space: an editorial page is no place for opinions.

Get ready for a new Scientific American. No more discussions of how science should inform policy. If the government commits blindly to building an anti-ICBM defense system that can't work as promised, that will waste tens of billions of taxpayers' dollars and imperil national security, you won't hear about it from us. If studies suggest that the administration's antipollution measures would actually increase the dangerous particulates that people breathe during the next two decades, that's not our concern. No more discussions of how policies affect science either-so what if the budget for the National Science Foundation is slashed? This magazine will be dedicated purely to science, fair and balanced science, and not just the science that scientists say is science. And it will start on April Fools' Day.

Scientific American is a trademark of Scientific American, Inc., used with permission

© 2011 Scientific American, a Division of Nature America, Inc.
All Rights Reserved.

Re:Scientific American throws in the towel (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848012)

Why is this modded insightful ? Did nobody look at the date ( April 1 )?

Re:Scientific American throws in the towel (4, Insightful)

jmac_the_man (1612215) | about 3 years ago | (#35848014)

So wait. As I understand it, the problem with Intelligent Design is that it's not falsifiable, right? There's no way to set up an experiment with observable results to disprove the statement, "A supernatural Creator created mankind." That's the problem, right?

By contrast, a subset of modern evolutionary theory states that "Dinosaurs became extinct roughly 65 million years before the first humans." This is falsifiable. Lets say an archeological team discovered a fossilized brontosaurus near a pyramid site in Egypt. Let's also say the brontosaurus had a block shaped like it was used in constructing the pyramids strapped to its head. Let's further say that the brontosaurus was found in the same soil layer that you'd expect other ancient Egyptian artifacts to be found in. And then lets say they found another brontosaurus near the Mayan pyramids. And one near the Great Wall of China. Eventually, science would come to the conclusion that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. (The fact that no one has been able to do this points to the strength of the original theory.)

The statements "Man is causing Global Warming" and "Man is not causing Global Warming," by contrast, are both falsifiable. A lot of the "Man is causing Global Warming" science is hard to falsify, but that's because the people doing that research are hiding their original numbers and only using massaged data to "hide the decline" in the amount of Global Warming taking place. For once, a scientist put out an easily falsified Global Warming theory, that is "By 2010, there would be 50 million climate refugees, and they'd come from these specific places." 2010 has come and gone, and there aren't 50 million climate refugees. Therefore, his falsifiable statement has been proven false.

The correct scientific thing to do is to discard his prediction and move on. Moving on means making changes to similar predictions that are based on the same data, or directly on his prediction. It means giving up whatever money was set aside to deal with the climate refugees. It means maybe next time, listening to the people who say that there won't be 50 million climate refugees in the next five years.

It doesn't mean mocking the people who disagreed with the original prediction for something that has nothing to do with what they said or did. A challenge to a theory isn't "an attack on science," but refusing to let go of an idea that has clearly been proven false is.

Re:Scientific American throws in the towel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848086)

Anyone happen notice the date?

Re:Scientific American throws in the towel (0)

andycal (127447) | about 3 years ago | (#35848276)

That specific article and its tone was the final straw that convinced me to cancel may SA subscription. I resent the presumption that asking for alternative points of view puts you on the lunatic fringe.

Scary (1)

tthomas48 (180798) | about 3 years ago | (#35847750)

Not scary that the predictions are wrong, but that populations in those locations are increasing. We'd better hope these climate change predictions continue being very, very wrong.

Re:Scary (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847860)

There hasn't been a single correct one to date yet, why would they start telling the truth now?

There are ? (0)

unity100 (970058) | about 3 years ago | (#35847772)

What do you think the people classified in 'migrant worker' category in increasing numbers are ? famine, plague, drought, are causing people to relocate and seek work.

refugee definition (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35847778)

If people move to Siberia or North Dakota for that matter due to moderating winter weather are they considered refugees?

Accuracy Not Distance (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 3 years ago | (#35847790)

uhm...
            Well, yeah Miami and Phoenix fill up every Octember and empty every Mapril. No news there.
I unnerstand Palm Springs is nice if you like naked bacon.

Interesting map. (1)

taxman_10m (41083) | about 3 years ago | (#35847812)

Anyone know if the regions in China on the map that show droughts are the same places experiencing droughts now?

What it really comes down is... (0)

plazman30 (531348) | about 3 years ago | (#35847818)

The earth is insanely unpredictable. Any belief that what we do to the planet is the only thing that affects weather and climate is extremely naive. Has the Earth experieced warming in recent decades? Yes it has. Is Man the ONLY reason this is happening. I really really doubt that. This planet has gone from ice ball, to tropical over a number of periods in the 4 billion years the Earth has been around.

Sensationalizing things in the hopes of getting donations for your cause so you can keep getting a paycheck in not the answer.

When people ask me what to do about Global Warming I tell to plant to some trees, since they scrub a lot of CO2 and to pray the Yellowstone Super-volcano doesn't blow up any time soon.

I think the planet will take out our species out long before we can do it ourselves with global warming.

Re:What it really comes down is... (4, Insightful)

bunratty (545641) | about 3 years ago | (#35847854)

I've never heard anyone say "what we do to the planet is the only thing that affects weather and climate". That is not what the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming states. It states that in addition to all the natural effects on climate, humans can raise the temperature of the Earth several degrees above where they would naturally be if they hadn't burnt billions of tons of fossil fuels. Humans' impact of climate is dwarfed by natural effects, but that doesn't mean we can't affect the climate. You're employing a false dichotomy.

Didn't know about the UN prediction... (5, Interesting)

wisebabo (638845) | about 3 years ago | (#35847836)

... but here in Vietnam we DO hear quite a bit about the rapid encroachment (and salinization) by the ocean into the Mekong delta. It is clear that with the ocean coming in (I seem to remember an encroachment figure of 1.4km/yr.) and that hundreds of thousands have already been displaced because they can no longer farm there. (This has driven the growth of the big cities which is where I live). The government is constantly projecting that millions more will move in the next few decades (This is from their Thanh Nhien News which is a pretty widely read paper, there's an English website you can visit).

Of course matters will soon be made even worse as upstream countries start damming the Mekong. (They may be doing so because the freshwater source in the Himalayas is losing its snowpack cover. This may also be due to climate change.)

Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

Re:Didn't know about the UN prediction... (5, Interesting)

phantomfive (622387) | about 3 years ago | (#35848034)

Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

It is. National Geographic has a fascinating article [nationalgeographic.com] on how Bangladesh deals with things like rising oceans and other types of floods. Note that they also have one of the highest population densities in the world, which makes it even harder to deal with.

Re:Didn't know about the UN prediction... (1, Insightful)

electrosoccertux (874415) | about 3 years ago | (#35848076)

... but here in Vietnam we DO hear quite a bit about the rapid encroachment (and salinization) by the ocean into the Mekong delta. It is clear that with the ocean coming in (I seem to remember an encroachment figure of 1.4km/yr.) and that hundreds of thousands have already been displaced because they can no longer farm there. (This has driven the growth of the big cities which is where I live). The government is constantly projecting that millions more will move in the next few decades (This is from their Thanh Nhien News which is a pretty widely read paper, there's an English website you can visit).

Of course matters will soon be made even worse as upstream countries start damming the Mekong. (They may be doing so because the freshwater source in the Himalayas is losing its snowpack cover. This may also be due to climate change.)

Vietnam is supposedly one of the most susceptible countries to sea level rising but I can imagine things could be even worse in an even poorer (and closer to sea level) country like Bangladesh.

surely you can come up with some legitimate report of these 1.4km/year losses of property??? no???

you know I seem to recall hearing somewhere that the sky is actually orange

Many people don't know about Google Cache. (1)

bondiblueos9 (1599575) | about 3 years ago | (#35847852)

I think they would only care that many members of the public don't know about google cache.

Almost as good as the 'FBI confirms aliens' post (3, Insightful)

guanxi (216397) | about 3 years ago | (#35847884)

Slashdot now reposts Daily Caller propaganda? It's almost the quality of the 'FBI confirms aliens' post recently. I like this comment in the Daily Caller article; I'm glad /. helps drive their page views, and can follow instructions:

Be sure to leave comments on any website that makes this claim, and link to this and the Asian Correspondent website.

The article is a bit absurd. It looks for the 50 million refugees in the Bahamas, St. Lucia, Seychelles, and Solomon Islands. Safe to say, if you look for 50 million carbon-based humans there, you won't find them.

What is a 'climate refugee' and how many are there? Does this disprove AGW or point to some evil conspiracy? It's surprising to see /. wasting space and its reputation on this nonsense.

Maybe /. will become News of the World [wikimedia.org] for geeks: Sensation for nerds but stuff that doesn't matter.

Alberta (0)

SquirrelDeth (1972694) | about 3 years ago | (#35847904)

The planting season has already been delayed one month here. And we still have snow on the ground in April. Snowed yesterday matter of fact. And yet polar bears north of here are supposed to be drowning due to ice melting. Time to move to the north pole where its warm and the ice melts because it sure as hell is not melting south of the arctic circle.
The farthest north settlement in Canada has a terrific climate people are wearing bikini's there and winter coats several hundred miles further south weird. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFS_Alert [wikipedia.org]

Re:Alberta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848056)

The truth hurts your bullshit position so what part of the above post is untrue?

Please stop bashing the UN (0, Redundant)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 years ago | (#35848016)

We really don't need any UN-bashing here. Slashdot is usually very good about this, I don't know how this story got through the editing process. Look, it's an inconvenient truth, one which should be quietly ignored. All they were trying to do was alarm people and get them to stand up and take notice, so we could do something about global warming. The fact that the prediction didn't exactly turn out the exact way it was said is immaterial. What's important is that we make progress on climate change legislation. Let's all remember in 2005, Kyoto wasn't a dead deal and there was a lot of room to influence the process in a positive direction.

no (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848150)

it's a simple word. no

Re:Please stop bashing the UN (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848250)

The fact that the prediction didn't exactly turn out the exact way it was said is immaterial.

It isn't immaterial when politics are involved. This global warming stuff has everything to do with distribution of wealth and left agendas. Honesty is the best policy when trying to convince others of your ideas. No more lies. It's time to discuss things like mature adults in ways that are constructive, especially when it comes to science.

Re:Please stop bashing the UN (1, Troll)

karlwilson (1124799) | about 3 years ago | (#35848304)

We really don't need any UN-bashing here. Slashdot is usually very good about this, I don't know how this story got through the editing process. Look, it's an inconvenient truth, one which should be quietly ignored. All they were trying to do was alarm people and get them to stand up and take notice, so we could do something about global warming. The fact that the prediction didn't exactly turn out the exact way it was said is immaterial. What's important is that we make progress on climate change legislation. Let's all remember in 2005, Kyoto wasn't a dead deal and there was a lot of room to influence the process in a positive direction.

Didn't turn out the exact way it was said? It turned out to be completely opposite. I'm all for a more environmentally conscious population, but these climate scare tactics are being used purely by corporations and academics to generate profit. (Carbon credits anyone? What a scam...)

they died, &/or we killed them with the 'clima (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848110)

unproving their deaths should be simple as their lives were never proven to have even begun yet, except on the deleted colorrmap.

we're all (pardoning the chosen ones, eugenetics, wearons peddlers etc.) refugees, particularly now what's really becoming clear, is that we still have somewhere to be alive, until all the efficiently scheduled dying stops. if we get blown away with the 500million unproven climate charge carcasses, that shouldn't upset the apple cart, or us, as most of us were never chosen to be/stay alive, like our neogod leaders are, no matter what fauxking murderous madness they force us into, we still worship them almost as much as they worship themselves, & our resources, which we give freely onto them, as it was written, by them.

junglevians predicted to die in floods did? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848254)

babys, puppy dogs, oxen etc... god was nowhere in sight, & the survivors are sick & starving yet today. still unproven, therefore uncountdead. no wonder the map needed editing? what about the georgia stone? being moved (inland) to utah we hear. the freemormons?

it's all in the teepeeleaks etchings, as it's all happened before, & even before that. disarm? not yet?

Politics? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#35848270)

Why is this categorized as politics?

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...