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!

Followup: Anti-Global Warming Story Itself Flawed

Soulskill posted about 3 years ago | from the science-plus-politics-equals-news dept.

Earth 536

The Bad Astronomer writes "As posted earlier on Slashdot, a Forbes Op/Ed claims there is a 'gaping hole in global warming' theories, based on a recent paper. However, both the Forbes article and the paper on which it's based are themselves seriously flawed. The paper has been excoriated by climate scientists, saying the model used is 'unrealistic' and 'incorrect,' and the author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions."

cancel ×


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

And many of the "climate" scientists... (0, Troll)

Svartalf (2997) | about 3 years ago | (#36925956)

...have much of a better track record? You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? Sorry, not buying it any better than you're buying this guy's statements.

This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet. To say they do have a picture is being dishonest at best- they don't have enough of a sample set for starters...

Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (2, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36926042)

You have fudged data from the last century or so and think you've got a model that shows anything whatsoever? This is not to say AGW proponents are right or wrong- just that they haven't the foggiest as they've not honestly done any science with the subject yet.

Sigh... citation needed.

A real citation too. Not just speculation, potential for bias, alleged scientific misconduct. Show me the proof that the entire field is "fudging the data". And when I say proof, I do not mean other researchers trash talking, I mean actual data of fudged data. Because I suspect you are fudging it more than they are.

Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (4, Interesting)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926186) []

Now, perhaps this fudging of the data wasn't malicious (in fact, I'll argue that it was done with the best of intentions), and perhaps some of the fudges actually have a reasonable rationale that we can agree upon - but let's not pretend that there is a magical thermometer we can stick in the air, and get the current Global Average Temperature (much less a magical thermometer we can read from 1000 years ago to do the same thing). At best, this is a field over-reliant on proxy data, and *everyone* should be skeptical of that sort of weak science.

Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926378)

You know I was just thinking... Necco Wafers would be the perfect candy, if only they'd get rid of the nasty-ass black licorice flavored pieces.

Eating a roll of the Wafers and enjoying each one, only to pop the next into your mouth and bite down into nasty fucking black licorice is like meeting a beautiful woman at a bar, enjoying great conversation, having a few drinks, really connecting with her, taking her home, and finding out she has a great big penis.

Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (2, Insightful)

Nick Ives (317) | about 3 years ago | (#36926686)

All I see there is a giant train of thought log from a scientist trying to get a dataset and a program to play nice.

This happens in science. I have a friend who's just completed a Phd in Psychology. She found it necessary to learn how to code in Perl in order to get the datasets she was working with in a useful form. Now, bear in mind this is someone who, whilst very clever, has no prior experience writing code beyond the odd Excel macro. Can you imagine how much of a hack those Perl scripts must be?

Unfortunately, most scientists aren't software engineers. This actually presents a more profound problem in general for any science that relies in large datasets because it introduces a source of random error.

Thankfully AGW models from lots of different sources match up with each other and historical data to a large degree, so overall AGW is good science.

As my Grandma says: (4, Insightful)

DarthVain (724186) | about 3 years ago | (#36926100)

Two Wrongs don't make a Right...

Power and Money (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 years ago | (#36926358)

That's all the whole damned thing is about.

Re:Power and Money (1)

DarthVain (724186) | about 3 years ago | (#36926430)

can. no. parse.

head 'splosion!

Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (0, Troll)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926324)

Wow. The Church of Global Warming must've saved up their mod points :)

Disagree != Troll

Re:And many of the "climate" scientists... (2)

JamesP (688957) | about 3 years ago | (#36926604)

No, you see...

When it's a new article against Global Warming, it's ok to use fallacies like "the author has a track record of using bad models"

Either facts stand for themselves or they don't.

It worries me how many legitimate articles on climate change may be hiding because they are against current predictions and models, and researchers are fearing public lynching . It's truly worrying.

Of course by that I don't mean every loony financed by oil companies (such as this case seems to be).

How about we wait for the NASA data, I guess I can trust that.

Of course! (0, Troll)

_newwave_ (265061) | about 3 years ago | (#36925972)

Because anything that doesn't fall lock step into the religion that says we are on a path to human extinction within this century unless we start taxing corporations heavily, is obviously seriously flawed. If only environmental science had the same rigorous processes as the rest of the sciences...

Re:Of course! (0)

exabrial (818005) | about 3 years ago | (#36926056)

Blasphemy. Please see the science report from the climatologists.

Re:Of course! (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 3 years ago | (#36926142)

The only people saying "We have to tax anyone heavily to fight global warming" are people who are opposed to doing anything about global warming. If you're opposed to legislative action, an effective tactic is to paint it in the most extreme terms possible, but doing so is pretty scummy and shameless. "You want to reform patent law? Well you're just going to do away with all patents and all products and we're going to be living in CAVES!!!"

Carbon taxes are necessarily going to be a part of the solution, yes, but the effect could and would be offset by tax breaks elsewhere. Hell, for some reason tax breaks are a part of the debt reduction plans, to think that businesses would fail miserably under a mountain of taxes because we're trying to reduce pollution is nonsense and not backed up by history.

Nice of you to speak up for those poor widdle corporations though against those big, mean treehuggers, by the way.

Also, if you read the article -really closely- (IE, with your eyes) you'll notice that the reasons they give have nothing to do with dogmatic beliefs.

Re:Of course! (3, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926374)

I disagree with your premises. Why would we need any carbon tax if global warming is beneficial to the biosphere and humanity as a whole (see: Medieval Warm Period).

Put another way, how would you feel if I demanded that all governments around the world provide massive carbon *subsidies* (on the level of what they put, per MW, to say, solar and wind), because I believe that a warm world is a good world, and that CO2 helps warm the planet?

Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens).

Re:Of course! (2, Funny)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#36926668)

I'd gladly leave you libertarians alone - somewhere where you only can fuck up your own life without dragging down everyone else. But for some reason, you won't move to Somalia. Besides, enjoy the heat and dust in the southwest. It's a sign of more to come, consistent with all models. Fun with the warmer climate.

Re:Of course! (2)

brit74 (831798) | about 3 years ago | (#36926698)

Frankly, the libertarian position of "leave me alone" works either way - the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens).

Wait - why does the libertarian position work either way? Also: one complaint I've had about libertarians in the past is their unwillingness to allow for government regulation of anything ("the market will sort it all out"). When I mention things like pollution, libertarians say that air is a common resource, therefore, the government has to be allowed to regulate it. Then, other times, libertarians want to play the "government never knows best" card and deny government regulation (in this case, of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere). So, if your argument is correct (" the government intervention position has to be *completely correct* in order for it to be beneficial (and let's take a wild guess about how often that happens)"), then how would the government regulate *anything* under a libertarian system? I'm thinking specifically of the regulation of pollution (both air pollusion, sulfur emissions in the air, heavy metals into water, regulation of fishing and hunting to prevent over-fishing and over-hunting, regulation of cancer-causing agents like asbestos, etc)?

Should I read the libertarian position as "the government should be allowed to regulate our common resources, but when you're not looking, we're going to complain that the government never does anything right, so they shouldn't be allowed to regulate anything, have fun playing in our industrial pollution!"?

Re:Of course! (2)

iceaxe (18903) | about 3 years ago | (#36926482)

If you do harm to others, even without intent, you should pick up the tab for the damages. Anything less is a handout to *you* from everyone you've harmed, or from those on whom the costs fall. (Usually taxpayers.)

I'm not yet certain of the amount of harm done, nor of how the costs should be apportioned. I do, however, see a great many people trying to avoid responsibility for their own actions, and hoping that if the axe does fall, it will fall on someone else.

I've been driving gasoline and diesel burning vehicles for >25 years, and consuming products and services that require the emission of pollution to produce for longer than that, and having few options will continue to do so for now. When the axe falls, I will pay my share, because I have contributed to this mess. I would like to see more choices available to me to reduce the damage I will cause, and thereby the damages I should pay.

I would also like to see accurate measurements of the damages, with reliable data and unbiased analysis. I do not think I will get that from anyone with ties to corporations, which are motivated solely by profit, and will benefit by shifting the costs to someone else. Nor do I think I will get that from anyone trying to sell popular bestselling books or films, with a different sort of profit motive.

I do think that over time, the science will improve and become more reliable. In the meantime I do what I can to reduce my liabilities, not by blame-shifting, but by riding a bicycle to work when I can, choosing local products when I can (to reduce transportation pollution), using more efficient appliances, recycling and reusing things, and generally doing the best I can and accepting that I will have to pay for the rest.

Re:Of course! (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | about 3 years ago | (#36926680)

How about we start taxing oil companies heavily so we can start preserving precious complex long-chain hydrocarbons for agricultural and industrial processes, instead of almost literally putting them in our pipes and smoking them.

Have you thought of how expensive all those veggies and all those consumer items and pharmaceuticals that use oil derivative products will get when a barrel of crude is $600 or $700?

AGW, in some respects, may be the least of the industrialized world's problems in fifty or sixty years.

Well, duh (2, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | about 3 years ago | (#36925996)

What else did you expect them to say?

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926036)

Who? The global warming people or the anti-global warming people?

Re:Well, duh (4, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36926144)


Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926348)

Was trying to figure out what to mod you. Not sure if it was just intended as snark, but there was an actual undertone there that struck a chord. It's why I went with insightful instead of funny. Thought you should know.

Pretty much. (2)

_0xd0ad (1974778) | about 3 years ago | (#36926446)

the model used is 'unrealistic' and 'incorrect,' and the author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions

...yeah, just about everybody on either side of the Global Warming debate says that about just about everybody they disagree with.

(And very rarely does anyone say why a model is unrealistic or incorrect.)

Re:Pretty much. (1)

Hutz (900771) | about 3 years ago | (#36926550)

What I like is a blogpost citing other blog posts all saying - "this is crap, I can't believe it got published." Uh, since when are blog posts peer-reviewed?

Re:Well, duh (1)

boeroboy (1501771) | about 3 years ago | (#36926552)

Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked, have been sacked.

Re:Well, duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926710)

GWOOOOON! ManBearPig is going to kill us all.

Let's get half the posts out of the way right now (5, Insightful)

Aquitaine (102097) | about 3 years ago | (#36926014)

You know, whether or not the original article is BS, why is the very first point that the rebuttal piece linked above makes the fact that the original article uses the word 'alarmist' umpteen times? This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.

If you really believe that humans are not responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around talking about mass extinction and migration, then you'd probably call them alarmists.

If you really believe that humans are responsible for climate change in a significant capacity, and you see people running around dismissing climate change as nothing more than politics or researchers looking for more grants to keep their jobs in spite of the massive threat to, well, everything we know, love, and take for granted, then 'denier' is probably not even the meanest term you could come up with for them.

But talking about either one hasn't got anything to do with science, just like most schoolyard name-calling hasn't got anything to do with the science. There are industrial interests on both sides and not that many people who both care about solving the problem rather than calling a halt to civilization while also demonstrating the capacity and civility to talk about the issue without resorting to this kind of thing. Consequently, I can't help but wonder how many interested, semi-educated, but very-far-from-climate-experts like me there are out there who look at all this stuff and just scratch their heads.

Don't Use Labels Like 'Alarmist' and 'Denialist' (4, Informative)

eldavojohn (898314) | about 3 years ago | (#36926106)

This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.

But I didn't see the word 'denier' in the rebuttal. All I saw was the footnote:

* Mind you, of course, I use the word "denier" quite a bit when discussing this topic, but in this case the shoe fits. When you deny overwhelming evidence, you’re a denier. Scientists trying to tell people what the science is telling them aren’t alarmists. They’re scientists. And as you can see from what other climate scientists are saying, what the Forbes article is based on apparently isn’t good science.

This two labels are equally dangerous in addressing global warming. This isn't a problem that half the world can solve without the help of the other half. By using either of these two terms, you're invoking a with-us-or-against-us mentality that is dangerous. Since these two labels are diametrically opposed, it does nobody any good to use them. Dismissing studies on global warming as 'alarmist' doesn't allow any information to be garnered from these reports which is really sad. Dismissing opponents as 'denialist' doesn't allow you to differentiate between people who acknowledge climate change but don't think it's man made and people who deny any climate change at all. Which is also very sad, there's people that want to do something about climate change but aren't sold that we're the cause of it. Why shut them out?

Like most things in life, this isn't black and white. By polarizing everyone involved, you halt the flow of information and push back the date where we can work together to solve this problem. There is a whole spectrum of solutions that lie in front of us, using the terms 'denialist' or 'alarmist' prevents us from selecting one of them as a cohesive group looking to move forward.

I applaud The Bad Astronomer from refraining from using the label 'denialist' as often as the original article used 'alarmist' (easily once per paragraph). I don't know why he included that footnote ... I thought he had made an effective point without resorting to name-calling.

Re:Don't Use Labels Like 'Alarmist' and 'Denialist (3, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | about 3 years ago | (#36926170)

I've done a meta-analysis and found that since the number of people using the word "denier" outnumbers the number of people using the word "alarmist" by a significant factor (p<0.05), the deniers must be touching a nerve, and therefore are right (p<pi/e).

Re:Don't Use Labels Like 'Alarmist' and 'Denialist (0)

Obfuscant (592200) | about 3 years ago | (#36926476)

This is exactly the kind of malarky analysis that takes place in "climate science" these days.

"I admit I call them deniers, but it's ok for me to be insulting because I'm right and they are wrong, nyah nyah so there."

I just looked at the article. It seems to be saying that the earth system is much larger than any laboratory experiment and perhaps there is a difference between the earth and a beaker of water in the lab. I think that's a pretty fair statement. Whether the feedback issues that are raised are significant, well, I'll let the deniers argue with the alarmists over that issue.

As for the term "deniers", sorry. That's untrue. The evidence isn't being denied. It's the INTERPRETATION of that evidence that is debated. Or at least trying to be debated. Most pro AGW "alarmists" refuse to debate anything because they claim the issue is decided and there is no need for any further debate. Sorta like there was no need to debate the geocentric/heliocentric evidence.

Re:Don't Use Labels Like 'Alarmist' and 'Denialist (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926484)

Firstly a meta analysis is an analysis of other peoples research, if you are just checking scientific papers please list them, along with your search methodology. if you looked at forum text, then you are not looking at proper studies so you are doing an analysis not a meta analysis, it certainly does not reflect my experience, so where did you get the text for your analysis? A list of websites (or your search methodology as an algorithm) and the scripts that or search algorithm you used you used to count would be good, remember to compare to the text volume, or number of posters, we want the proportion of hysterics on either side as the total number without a comparison would not be a fair comparison.

Oh sorry did you just look? You know that you are probably wrong. It is a known flaw in human psychology that you notice, and remember, people who disagree with you or insult you more than people who are nice, so any hand count by anyone who cares is at best inaccurate and more so the more strongly they feel.

Also what method did you use to calculate you probability?

Re:Don't Use Labels Like 'Alarmist' and 'Denialist (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926384)

Yea, that footnote was pretty atrocious. First off, the guy who wrote the paper that the Forbes OpEd was based on was a scientist. And in general, the footnote is pretty much saying "I'm right because I'm right and you're wrong because you disagree with me, so therefore my pejorative term for you is fine but your pejorative term for me is not".

Re:Let's get half the posts out of the way right n (2)

Hatta (162192) | about 3 years ago | (#36926308)

You know, whether or not the original article is BS, why is the very first point that the rebuttal piece linked above makes the fact that the original article uses the word 'alarmist' umpteen times? This is like counting the number of times the word 'denier' appears in the rebuttal. Both sides call each other names.

Because a journalist isn't supposed to take sides. The journalists job is to take the science and communicate what it actually says to the general public. It is not their job to spin science or make it conform to talking points.

The repeated use of the phrase "alarmist computer models" shows that this is not a work of journalism, but one of propaganda.

Re:Let's get half the posts out of the way right n (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926426)

You make an excellent point about The Bad Astronomer.

Why is it that we're reading duelling propaganda on instead of reasoned discussion?

Re:Let's get half the posts out of the way right n (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926362)

I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the millions of people that think that mankind can spew millions of toxic substances into the environment and possibly think that the earth has the mechanisms to deal with it on a time frame conducive to human life.

It's like a person needed proof that lighting books on fire and flinging them about the house is going to eventually burn it down. Sure, we could spend millions studying it and testing it, but rationality dictates that some things you have to accept. Dumping tons of plastic in our oceans, for instance, even if we can't prove it's directly harmful, even if we can't produce proof of the scientific results of years of doing so because the time frames are just too large, one would think that we are intelligent enough as a species to recognize that even if we can't prove it's a bad thing, there is absolutely no way it could possibly be a good thing.

I feel the same way about the climate change deniers. Maybe we can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that mass burning of fossil fuels is having a deleterious effect on the environment, I would think that enough people have the IQ to recognize that there is no way it could possibly be a good thing at all. As the dinosaurs weren't cruising around in billions of vehicles powered by fossil fuels we don't have direct evidence that it would have been bad for them to do it...but do we honestly need evidence to accept something so fundamental?

Re:Let's get half the posts out of the way right n (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926678)

Given the size of your head, I doubt it can be wrapped around anything.

Umm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926026)

...wasn't something released just the other day that says scientific readings from the ISS or some satellite or something, stating that there's not as much global warming really happening as their models say is happening?

Funny how that works.

Nooooo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926028)

We need that paper so we can dismiss AGW as a socialist plot. And you can pry my V8 SUV from my cold dead hands! Besides, it's anti-american to not drive a gas-guzzler.

The usual smear campaign (1)

Quila (201335) | about 3 years ago | (#36926666)

No nobody could actually have problems with the theory or the huge political movement pushing it. They must be purely selfish!

I have problems with them. I've never owned a V8. I've never even considered buying a V8. I was looking to buy a sports car, and was disgusted that Chevy only gave the real sports package with the V8, nothing smaller, on what I was looking at. I went with another manufacuter with an engine less than half the size.

I've driven vehicles with V8s before and even a 14-liter straight 6, but they had to haul heavy stuff, thus the reason for the big diesels. Or maybe you think I should have been pulling a 30 kW diesel generator with a Prius?

The paper disclaims its own results (5, Interesting)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 3 years ago | (#36926034)

If you actually read the paper [] and not the incredibly hyped press releases, the paper basically disclaims the validity of its own results. Note the following paragraph, immediately before the conclusions:

Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. We conclude that the fundamental obstacle to feedback diagnosis remains the same, no matter what time lag is addressed: without knowledge of time-varying radiative forcing components in the satellite radiative flux measurements, feedback cannot be accurately diagnosed from the co-variations between radiative flux and temperature.

The entire paper is about to trying to analyze the feedback from the co-variation between radiative flux and temperature-- this sentence basically says that, in their analysis, the analysis cannot be done accurately.

Basically, the paper does not "blow holes in global warming"-- what it does is say that this particular technique is not able to accurately discriminate the feedback function.

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (1, Interesting)

berashith (222128) | about 3 years ago | (#36926150)

and by saying that it is not possible to track this function, this blows a hole in the previous theories.

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926218)

If the previous theories only have one method of proof they deserve to be held suspect.

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926286)

The method in question is not actually used by the scientific mainstream so no hole is blown.

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 3 years ago | (#36926368)

and by saying that it is not possible to track this function, this blows a hole in the previous theories.

No, it doesn't blow any holes in previous theories because none of the previous theories use correlation coefficient of the random variations as a means to calculate the feedback parameters. It's a new technique.

It's actually a kind of clever way to try to back out the feedback parameters out of the random noise in the data set. It's rather a pity that they say it doesn't work, but that's the way it goes-- not everything you try works. Basically, they're saying that the radiative feedback should be instantaneous, while the non-radiative feedback will lag the forcing function, so if you look for the lag part, this will tell you about the non-radiative feedback. But, unfortunately, they don't have a good physics-based model of how much the non-radiative feedback will lag by-- in essence, they have to have the problem solved already in order to solve it.

In any case, though, the paper conceded the basic premises of anthropogenic global warming right from the start: what it's trying to analyze is how strong the effect is, not whether it is there. Even if their technique worked, it would tweak the model, not "blow holes" in it.

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (2)

berashith (222128) | about 3 years ago | (#36926614)

very cool . I wish you had written the summary.

The only holes it appears that could have been created are a matter of degrees, which is basically what the entire argument boils down to anyhow. If the strength of the effect is negligible then that could have proven one side correct, if the strength is severe then that could bolster the other. The answer being " this cant be measured" only allows both sides to keep calling names and cherry pick their arguments from the same source ( if they feel like doing that ) .

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (2)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926252)

I'd take it a step further - I think that they're making the claim that there is *no* particular technique that can accurately discriminate the feedback function. And even though that's actually a fairly trivial assertion to make, and one that isn't particularly disagreeable to any scientists (since models are only models, and models of particularly complex systems are so chock full of guesses that one can hardly use them to make any useful predictions), it is one that laypeople and CAGW activists tend to gloss over.

So sure, "blow holes in global warming" might be a bit over the top, but it certainly exposes the holes nobody really pays much attention to.

Out of context! (3, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36926280)

Jeez, dude, do you think we're idiots?

Here is the beginning of that paragraph, which you so conveniently left out:

"Determination of whether regression coefficients at various non-zero time lags might provide a more accurate estimate of feedback has been recently explored by [14], but is beyond the scope of this paper. Our preliminary work on this issue suggests no simple answer to the question. ..."

There, fixed that for ya. The first sentence you quoted is clearly referring to the immediately preceding sentence, not to the conclusions that follow.

Further, what the entire paper is about, is how well the climate models being shoved at us reflect reality. Their conclusions are that the climate models cannot predict this phenomenon, as they claim to. These are not the authors' own climate models, they are models taken from the IPCC reports. So there is no contradiction there.

So their conclusion is perfectly valid: if there is no way to "accurately diagnose" the effects of feedback, then the models we are told to believe in are deeply flawed. And that is what this paper shows.

Re:The paper disclaims its own results (2)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#36926420)

I can't really assess the accuracy of the paper, but, apart from the fact you rightly point out, the paper is about the analysis of short term circumannual effects, which may, or may not, have any relevance for climate modelling. Spurious at best.

Do not care (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926038)

You know what? I DO NOT CARE! Seriously, fuck it. If it's that much of a problem, just nuke every god-damn city and be done with it. Otherwise, STFU and live your life. I'm tired of being strung around by a bunch of politics and their nanny-state legislation. Either kill, remove democracy, or shut-up. But I for one will be damned if you boil me like a frog. Give me liberty, or give me death!

Re:Do not care (1)

bwintx (813768) | about 3 years ago | (#36926222)

See, this is why they can't pass the debt ceiling change. The Tea Partiers are too busy fooling around on /. I keed, I keed.

Well, duh! (0)

Ngarrang (1023425) | about 3 years ago | (#36926058)

And on tonight's news, climate scientists all over the globe are decrying a report that claims the research and models of the climate scientists are wrong. Alarmist all over the world have shaken their fists in anger and retorted with angry words while trying to avoid having to explain how their current climate models don't match up with reality.

Back to you, Wendy.

lawlz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926070)

So, the guys making the anthropogenic climate change claims are wrong, and the guy who is anti acc is also wrong. Why can't we just admit that the Earth has been warming since the last ice age? Before the last ice age there was also a tropical age in which the sea levels were a good 26 feet higher than they are now. You know what that makes me think? It makes me think that climate patterns are always ... changing. OH NOES!

Not surprised... (5, Interesting)

Entropius (188861) | about 3 years ago | (#36926072)

This guy is a professor at the (not very rigorous*) institution I did my undergraduate work at. (This is the "University of Alabama in Huntsville", not the larger and better-known University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa.) I don't remember him specifically, but I know there was a cadre of anti-global-warming "climate scientists" there with a politico-religious axe to grind and who were pretty clearly not doing science for knowledge's sake.

It's notable that if you google this guy's (Spencer's) name, the first couple hits are to "".

Nobody that I know who is actually a prominent scientist tries to pimp their public persona to this degree, or (tellingly) makes a big deal about the title "Dr."

*They really do have shitty academic standards. I graduated summa cum laude with a BS in physics, yet had never written $\vec x$ (we never did formal vector algebra), and wound up having to take four "remedial" undergrad classes at the Univ of Arizona where I am finishing up grad school.

Re:Not surprised... (4, Funny)

SmurfButcher Bob (313810) | about 3 years ago | (#36926220)

So basically, you're saying that anyone from that school is an inept moron who is unqualified to judge anything?

Re:Not surprised... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926468)

by that logic, consider this proposition:
[1] Entropius (188861)
[3] "University of Alabama in Huntsville"

[1] says everyone associated with [3] is an inept moron unqualified to judge anything.
[1] is associated with [3].
[2] is associated with [3].

[1] judges [2] to be an inept moron unqualified to judge anything.

which is more likely:
[2] is an inept moron unqualified to judge anything.
[1] is an inept moron, unqualified to judge that [2] is an inept moron.

Re:Not surprised... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926620)

But if he's an inept moron, how is he qualified to judge that everyone who went to his school was an inept moron?

Re:Not surprised... (1)

berashith (222128) | about 3 years ago | (#36926644)

i see what you did there

Re:Not surprised... (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | about 3 years ago | (#36926694)

So basically, you're saying that anyone from that school is an inept moron who is unqualified to judge anything?

Well, they did go to school in Alabama. So, yes! I do think that their judgment is questionable!

Re:Not surprised... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926250)

Univ of Arizona

the best party school in Arizona....been there, done that.....BS '71

Re:Not surprised... (4, Interesting)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#36926356)

Well, in addition to that, Spencer has a history of publishing spurious analyses which have been debunked over and over again. It's not only global warming he is railing on about, he obviously is an expert in evolution, too, and therefor, naturally, a proponent of intelligent design. Signing an "evangelical" statement which basically says "God provides, therefor global warming cannot be real" is just the icing on the cake. Do I need to mention the Heartland Institute or his self-proclaimed title of "Glenn Beck's climate expert"?

Definition (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926118)

Please define who is correct. watch your bias

Natural Climate Change Denial is... (0)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926138)

...not just a river in Egypt :)

If the CAGW believers want to play the science game, let's hear their falsifiable hypothesis, and a concise list of observations of CO2 and temperature, or outgoing radiation from earth (as in this study), that would lead them to give up their belief.

For every hole they try to poke in Spencer's model, they're overlooking a dozen more in their own flawed models :)

Re:Natural Climate Change Denial is... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926458)

You act like it's a complex issue, when it's actually rather simple.

"Is it the sun?"
Sometimes but definently not for the past 40 years or so.

"Are we certain that less and less infrared radiation is exiting out into space, almost entirely in the wavelength we'd expect CO2 and CH4 to block?"
Yes []

Is the rate of warming significant?
Yeah, I'd say 100x faster than you'd expect from changes in earth's orbit alone is significant. [] [] []

"Do we know that the CO2 is from fossil fuels. i.e. "Manmade CO2"
Yes [] []

DONE. That's all you need to know.

With absolute certainty, we can say that "manmade CO2" is the main cause the recent increase in heat on earth.


Any other questions that aren't on this list of common strawman arguments? []

Re:Natural Climate Change Denial is... (2)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926600)

Still no statement of a falsifiable hypothesis, although it seems like you're asserting a lesser form of AGW, rather than CAGW (the difference being, AGW could very well be benign, and something we should *encourage*).

Even if we cannot discern any other single factor that would "explain" observed warming does *not* mean that the default explanation *must* be CO2, nor does it prove that the results of warming (any warming) would be catastrophic. Tell me what observations would possibly shake your "absolute certainty" (either about AGW or CAGW) - don't just make four assertions and demand that the simple existence of those four assertions means that you're guaranteed to be right.

Re:Natural Climate Change Denial is... (2)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 years ago | (#36926636)

Here ya go: []

Evidence? (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36926146)

I read this article. But it seems to me, this is Slashdot. We should demand some actual evidence of "wrongness" rather than just taking the words of people whose careers depend on it being wrong.

The Bad Astronomer himself does not exactly have a reputation of being unbiased on this subject.

Re:Evidence? (2)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 3 years ago | (#36926306)

Siding with the evidence is not the same as being biased. Developing an intelligent opinion does not make one biased. Even believing GW doesn't exist isn't biased in and of itself. Getting paid by ExxonMobil introduces a conflict of interest and thereby bias, however.

Re:Evidence? (0)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36926554)

No more so than being paid by one of the corporations Al Gore owns part of introduces a conflict of interest.

I really find it amusing when people use this argument, because it holds just as true for "the other side".

Re:Evidence? (5, Informative)

uncadonna (85026) | about 3 years ago | (#36926366)

We should demand some actual evidence of "wrongness".


Fair enough. Here you go. []

taking the words of people whose careers depend on it

Phil is an astronomer. And methinks you are a troll.

Re:Evidence? (4, Insightful)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#36926382)

Obviously someone on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, someone with a history of bullshit claims, someone who discredited himself a scientist by endorsing "intelligent design", however, has a reputation of being unbiased and can be believed. No, the bad astronomer has the burden of proof. Sure.

Re:Evidence? (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 years ago | (#36926646)

Phil's part of the "big science" conspiracy!

Re:Evidence? (1)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#36926700)

Of course. We all are. I only wonder why I never got a payout from Al Gore for my participation....

That's funny (3, Interesting)

Daetrin (576516) | about 3 years ago | (#36926148)

I noticed the same point being brought up in the recent feed page when the first story was submitted, yet the editors didn't seem to pay any attention to it. Then a day or two later a different story gets posted with the same information.

Uncharitable interpretation: The editors aren't doing their job.

Charitable interpretation #1: A large group of people voted for the first submission, while a different large group of people voted for the second submission. The editors are just being agnostic and giving us what we (collectively) ask for.

Charitable(?) interpretation #2: The editors know that climate stories get lots of discussion, so they figured two different stories on the subject means we get to have twice as much "fun" yelling at each other about it.

Re:That's funny (1)

rbrausse (1319883) | about 3 years ago | (#36926642)

A large group of people voted for the first submission, while a different large group of people voted for the second submission.

I for one voted for both as interesting. imo 'interesting' is value-free - and both POVs regarding the same paper are thrilling (as a substitute for interesting...) - I don't understand the /. modders attitude to misuse 'interesting' as 'I agree'.

Wrong discussion (3)

Fuzzums (250400) | about 3 years ago | (#36926164)

The point is that we're using way too much energy and food and pollute our own habitat and nobody cares.
Oh well. Evolution will find a way after we're gone :)

Re:Wrong discussion (2)

Unordained (262962) | about 3 years ago | (#36926486)

Thank you. I kept scrolling, hoping someone would already have brought this up. What happened to polluting the sea, smog, acid rain, cancer, asthma? What happened to sustainability, fairness? The shift to a debate over "global warming," which can be argued for decades, has co-opted what should have been plainly obvious discussion of environmental policy.

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926176)

Everything in my pants is flawed!

Release of Climate Data (1)

jasnw (1913892) | about 3 years ago | (#36926232)

This current hoorah is why the research communities are reluctant to release raw data to any and all comers. As one who works a lot with raw data (not climate related, but similar in nature), you really need to take care in how you process the data and interpret the results. There is no such thing as perfect data, it all has warts of one kind or another. A lot of data-related science is focused on how to get supportable results from imperfect data. Any fool with a statistics package can take a couple gigabytes of raw data and make plots. A craft fool can do this and cherry-pick both the data used and the processing used to get the answer they want. It takes someone who knows what they're doing and who DOES NOT HAVE AN AX TO GRIND to get it right. If that climate data release last week were mine, I'd not be happy about sending it off to the loonies.

Re:Release of Climate Data (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926488)

"It takes someone who knows what they're doing and who DOES NOT HAVE AN AX TO GRIND to get it right."

I agree 100 % ... unfortunately it seems that everyone who has come to any definitive conclusion has an axe to grind.
To my way of thinking we haven't been collecting met data long enough to have a meaningful data set for statistical analysis of climate (ie: all the models are inherently flawed by being based on too little data) yes the climate is changing and the planet is warming up ... but the planet came out of an ice age 10 millenia ago ... 65 million years ago the upper American Midwest was sub-tropical ... when we've collected a million years of meteorlogical data ... then the models we build will have a chance of being correct. in the meantime lets just do the right thing and try to impact the habitat as little as we can manage.

Caution (2)

qmaqdk (522323) | about 3 years ago | (#36926234)

Let's conveniently ignore the following:

The evidence for rapid climate change is compelling ( [] )
Most climate scientists agree the main cause of the current global warming trend is human expansion of the "greenhouse effect" ( [] )

Until it says "most scientists agree that we needn't worry about AGW" I'll keep worrying about AGW.

Re:Caution (2, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 3 years ago | (#36926432)

Appeal to authority. Very typical of religious movements - you've just replaced the Pope with

I'll start believing in CAGW when *any* alarmist makes a clear, concise list of observations that would falsify their hypothesis, and then we all try *really hard* to look for those observations, and are completely unable to find any. That's called science.

Re:Caution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926654)

What's wrong with appealing to authority in the field those authorities happen to be experts in? It's not that experts can't be wrong - they are human after all, but they are more likely to be right than a non-expert. And when there is a consensus of experts in a field, that likelihood goes way up.

It's really funny to hear non-experts claiming that things like global warming and evolution are bad science or the result of some conspiracy. What makes these people qualified to make such assessments? Reading the bible? Watching Faux News? Listening to El Rushbo?

You do realize that at least part of the climate skepticism is coming from the Oil Industry, right? The other part is coming from the free market advocates who don't want to give government an excuse to regulate.

Re:Caution (1)

Atzanteol (99067) | about 3 years ago | (#36926696)

You really just don't know what you're talking about do you? We can't all be experts in everything. So we have to at some level trust those who are. Or do you still not 'believe' in gravity because you don't understand the special theory of relativity?

Typical (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926236)

author has a track record of using bad models to make incorrect conclusions

Typical NASA....

Predicting the Weather (0)

tommy2tone (2357022) | about 3 years ago | (#36926260)

Weather predictions have been historically inaccurate. Why would anyone think that global warming or this new paper are any more accurate? We won't know that global warming is coming until it hits us, much like we won't know an ice age is coming until it hits us.

Re:Predicting the Weather (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926360)

If you think "the weather" and "climate change" are even remotely similar in terms of prediction, you need to learn a bit about scale and statistics.

If you sit still and continually flip a coin, and ask me to call random ones, I'll probably seem "inaccurate." At the same time, if you flip it a thousand times, I'd wager money I can come within 5% of the number of heads and tails you'll get. Climate change is about trends rather than fine details.

Re:Predicting the Weather (1)

YodasEvilTwin (2014446) | about 3 years ago | (#36926450)

You're right, massive temperature trends over decades are exactly the same as predicting whether it will rain or just be cloudy on Tuesday. We should definitely ignore the massive upward curve ( showing rising temperatures and sing "la la la la" with our fingers in our ears until global warming hits us in the nuts unawares.

But what about the damned data? (2, Insightful)

Marble68 (746305) | about 3 years ago | (#36926318)

I'm not defending the article in question, but this one is just a big a pile of crap as the other.

Granted, the original had a sensationalist headline and the article was distinctly written from a skeptic's perspective.

However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?

To Paraphrase this article: "You don't to need to see the data because people who stand the most to lose if this research is right are telling you it is bull. And you shouldn't ask any questions because the guy who did the research doesn't agree with the people this research doesn't support. Oh, and did we mention he thinks there's a creator? So it's only an *IF* he's right, and we've already explained that we don't need to verify this because, as you can see, he's just some crazy bastard who took funding from an energy company. We don't see any reason to go beyond the *if* and neither should you. Yeah, he's a corrupt, quack job for sure.. nothing to see here..."

I want to see the scientific proof, not the "he doesn't think like most of us so this article is flawed" bullshit.

Give me *real* scientific process.

Seriously - WTF happened to the scientific process? By this measuring stick, both articles are flawed. Can we get back to the real question now?

The goal is to scientifically understand our environment so we can make better predictions and protect it. Nobody I know wants dirty air or polluted water; climate change proponent or skeptic. So can we kindly STFU with that kind of crap and focus on finding the truth instead of trying to gain political points and power?

*sigh* - rant over-

Good luck with that. (1, Informative)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 3 years ago | (#36926480)

"However - shouldn't we be looking at the raw data and either confirming or debunking it?"

The "raw data" used was the very same data from CRU that the IPCC used in its infamous reports. It wasn't widely available until now... they just released the entirety of the data to the public, because their earlier failure to do so pissed off a lot of people.

But note that this data -- that is to say, the data that CRU used (and supplied, in part, to others) for the creation of those papers and reports is not really "raw data" at all. Rather, it has been highly manipulated to ''adjust" and "statistically fit" the data together.

This data -- or at least the end-result manipulated data -- has been debunked, and the methods used to manipulate it seriously called into question (see the Wegman Report). But the alarmists just keep going along as though that never happened and nothing is wrong.

Further, the climate models used in the paper were the same models used by the IPCC to form its reports on climate. For their set they chose the 3 models most sensitive to radiative forcings, and the 3 least sensitive to radiative forcings. That seems pretty fair to me.

What this report says, in essence, is that it is essentially impossible for the climate models tested to model actual climate, because there are significant variables that they do not -- cannot -- account for.

Whether that is true, we will know in time. But all these attacks on the man's character (not referring to parent here) add nothing to the discussion.

I downloaded the FOIA file and ... (0, Troll)

Jerry (6400) | about 3 years ago | (#36926390)

read the emails. Unlike Gore's contention to the CNN reporter that they were "10 years old and not relevant any more", the most recent was just days before the files were leaked. The emails exchanges between members of the CRC gang describe how they gained control of climate journals and stuffed the "peer review" committees with their own people, smeared highly acclaimed climatologists from MIT and other highly ranked institutions because they didn't genuflect to AGW, and attempted or did destroy careers of lesser known academics who dared publish or discuss ideas that disagreed with AGW. The tactics they described are exactly those used to attack this satellite study.

Also in the FOIA files were documents of contracts between the CRC and the UN IUPPC which set up milestones for delivery of "data" from "experiments" which would support AGW. As one who did anti-metabolite cancer research in grad school, I find it incredulous that a group of scientists could sign a contract and promise to deliver "proof" of AGW in exchange for cash (a.k.a. "grant money"). One could call it bribe money.

Despite all their claims to superior knowledge and skill I also read the HARRYREADME.TXT file. THAT was an eye opener. It explains how they could guarantee "deliverables" according to a preset time lines agreed to in their contracts with the IUPCC. A running dialog of how they manipulated, and then finally created imaginary data in order to product a "deliverable", as their contract with the UN IUPPC called them. They literally did try to "hide the decline" (the 0.7F decline in world temperature during the decade of 2000), and surpress the Maunder minimum in the middle ages. They fudged data from all over the globe and cherry picked a few data points while ignoring a vast mountain of contradictory data, always with a ready explanation as to why. They were also caught trying to changing the historical CO2 data collected at Hawaii.

Al Gore's motive for Carbon Credits had less to do with controlling the release of CO2 into the atmosphere and more to do with plain old simply greed.

All of this reminds me of the USSR trip into Bazzaro Land when Communist Party officially recognized the work of the Russian biologist Lysenko, whose theories dovetailed neatly with Marxist dogma. While Lysenko was spending government money to rig "experiments" and buy cronies willing to do the same, it set Soviet biology back more than 30 years. He was eventually discredited. Sooner or later the AGW theories will fall by the wayside as well, especially when their proponents realize that no one is going to be scared into giving up their personal freedoms and submit to Maxist/Socialist dogma, as the GreenPeace Activist and a CRC member discussed in one of their emails. The GreenPeace guy was the one whose article about Amazon deforestation was revealed to be totally bogus.

Re:I downloaded the FOIA file and ... (0)

Mindcontrolled (1388007) | about 3 years ago | (#36926462)

Did Al Gore touch you in a bad place when you were young or something? What is it with this Al Gore obsession? Besides, every project has milestones, were the one applying for the grant sets dates along the lines of "if this works out, by this time we should have shown this and that". But, as soon as it touches climate, it obviously is a CONSPIRACY.

Polar bears not drowning (0)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 3 years ago | (#36926396)

Just five years ago, Charles Monnett was one of the scientists whose observation that several polar bears had drowned in the Arctic Ocean helped galvanize the global warming movement. []

Now, the wildlife biologist is on administrative leave and facing accusations of scientific misconduct.

Come on. We're all adults here. We all are fully aware that global warming climate change activism is just misusing science to obtain good political results. What does it matter about the facts, so long as the narrative is correct? If climate change is "scientifically" true, then it follows that a lot of desirable political changes need to be made. Remember the Kyoto treaty? The entire idea was to destroy the evil capitalist economies of the West, while excluding the economies of Brazil, China, and India, all of whom are huge polluters. Why can't we get competent scientists who can make their results ironclad, so that we don't have this conflict between the truth and the narrative? I just don't get it. The changes they desire are good, there can be no question. Was climate change the appropriate vehicle to attach their political aspirations? After all, if a political point can be proven by science then anyone opposing it is not a noble dissenter, but a denialist. It brings to mind the old Soviet Union, when people were imprisoned for denying the scientific proof of Marxism. Why can't we imprison climate change denialists? What the fuck is wrong with these people who won't recognize scientific facts?

Re:Polar bears not drowning (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 3 years ago | (#36926574)

Power and money, that's all it's about.

A pox on all their houses (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926456)

Most climate science on both sides of the argument is on shaky ground. I totally agree with Freeman Dyson.

My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is grossly exaggerated. Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models. Of course, they say, I have no degree in meteorology and I am therefore not qualified to speak. But I have studied the climate models and I know what they can do. The models solve the equations of fluid dynamics, and they do a very good job of describing the fluid motions of the atmosphere and the oceans. They do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry and the biology of fields and farms and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in. The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing their own models. []

The true believers on both sides are way too confident in their beliefs. They (both sides) are closer to religion than they are to real science. There is way too much ad hominem and way too little real science.

If I had to pick a side in the debate, I would tend to side with Henrik_Svensmark. [] His theory about cosmic rays modulating cloud formation has, at least, the advantage of being falsifiable. That stands in stark contrast with Al Gore who takes absolutely anything as proof of anthropogenic global warming. ;-)

Why are we pussy-footing around this? (3, Interesting)

ivandavidoff (969036) | about 3 years ago | (#36926466)

Roy Spencer, the co-author of the "gaping hole" study, is on the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation [] .

These folk believe, among other things, that God will not allow the Earth to be harmed by Global Warming:

"The world is in the grip of an idea: that burning fossil fuels to provide affordable, abundant energy is causing global warming that will be so dangerous that we must stop it by reducing our use of fossil fuels, no matter the cost. Is that idea true? We believe not. We believe that idea – we'll call it "global warming alarmism" – fails the tests of theology, science, and economics."

This is not science.

Re:Why are we pussy-footing around this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926536)

As soon as I saw the article was published by Forbes I knew it was written by some demon cunt.

What climate model isn't flawed? (1)

boeroboy (1501771) | about 3 years ago | (#36926470)

If carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is such a good insulator, why don't they line my coffee mug with it? What do they use instead? Vacuum. Vacuum is the best insulator there is, and guess what surrounds the atmosphere? Vacuum, that's what. You won't see me worried about CO2 as much as the millions of BTUs put out by the power plant and the 500watt video card it powers so you use to play WoW. Damn the man.

Speaking of Forbes (2, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | about 3 years ago | (#36926546)

Ursus Bogus [] . Just sayin'...

People get so worked up over this shit. This isn't science - the "science" is pretty inconclusive otherwise there wouldn't be so much name calling. Nah, this is politics. And politics has absolutely nothing to do with science.

Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926622)

Regardless of you believe the study for or against Global Warming, the fact is that 90% of the data used in their models is proxy.. There is no way that the data can be accurately described for temperatures 200 years ago. (For example)...

If you cant see that the whole green push is mainly for the investors to finally get back some of the millions they've pumped into the process, then I feel sorry for you.

Which still leaves the question.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#36926690)

Which still leaves the question: How do we explain the climate changes we have witnessed/saw/felt in the past few years (Am not talking 100 years, am talking 10 or less)?

The are parts of the world that are getting more rain, 200% times more. Parts of the world where rain was normal, now they have it less and less. Parts of the world where ice was before, where a dessert was before, where animals roamed before. Everybody anywhere has noticed the increase heat, this is not country limited but world limited guys. What about some weird phenomenons of animals that are appearing in places that they normally would not appear (At least 20, 50 years ago and from there way back more.). What about the ridiculous amount of earthquakes, tsunamis, tornadoes, hurricanes, whatever other changes that get people with 2 eyes opened and instead trying to still, STILL, be talking about politics, who is right, who is wrong. Right now nobody cares who is correct, what the people of the whole world want is to know WHAT is going on, WHY is it going on, HOW is it going on and if we can in any way correct the problems then show THAT type of answer. Bickering over a paper is stupid and the money (which has no value once we are all dead anyway because of politics) spend on looking for the other guys wrong answer could have been better spend looking for the solution to the only problem that we have, at least the biggest of them all, that humanity faces, together.

If you concur with this point of view and feel the same way, vote this up so new readers can get to it quickly and ponder over it cause, at the end, we are not alone in this and we can not do it alone. The best of what we, us have done, has always been done together.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

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