Beta
×

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

Thank you!

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

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

Don't Worry About Global Warming, Say 16 Scientists in the WSJ

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the no-true-scotsman dept.

Earth 1367

An anonymous reader writes "According to an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal, there's 'no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy'. From the article: 'The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2. The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.'"

cancel ×

1367 comments

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

Global warming has been offset recently (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851933)

BY FROSTY POSTS

keep the earth cool, get a frosty

FROST POST FOR JESUS

I am not worried about it (5, Funny)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851941)

its rather nice having 62 degree days in the last weeks of January when it should be -3, let our children's children figure it out, they need to have something to do anyway as we keep doing it all for them as it is

Re:I am not worried about it (4, Funny)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851977)

While we're playing anecdotal games, it was well below zero Fahrenheit last night when it should be around 10. Global cooling!!!!!!!

Re:I am not worried about it (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852087)

It was 55F early this morning when it should have been 28F. Seems we got the warm you were supposed to have.

Re:I am not worried about it (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852143)

It was 55F early this morning when it should have been 28F. Seems we got the warm you were supposed to have.

GIVE IT BACK RIGHT NOW!

Re:I am not worried about it (4, Insightful)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852145)

To add my single data point.... I lived in my area my whole life.... the whole winter it was unseasonably warm except for maybe 7 or so days. We're talking late April/October temperatures. One of the days it was cold, it snowed on Halloween, and we never used to get snow before New Years/Christmas. Freakish.

It used to be a mild area with no significant weather of any type. And the last 5 years was so much the opposite. Previous two winters we got so much more snow dumped on us than usual (this year almost nothing), every week more and more of it. High winds at certain times of the year. Blistering summers where the grass is parched now.

I know I'm a single data point in a short amount of time, but compared to what it was like growing up, it feels like a real change has been taking place.

Re:I am not worried about it (5, Funny)

danbeck (5706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852147)

This morning it was very cold and I needed a jacket, but by the end of the day I had to take it off because it was so hot. It's getting real people. We are seeing massive swings in only a day's time. Our poor children will have to suffer because of our inaction and folly!

This isn't news... (5, Informative)

Esteanil (710082) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852195)

It's a biased op-ed from a right-wing newspaper. To quote Forbes:

But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down. The National Academy of Sciences is the nation’s pre-eminent independent scientific organizations. Its members are among the most respected in the world in their fields. Yet the Journal wouldn’t publish this letter, from more than 15 times as many top scientists. Instead they chose to publish an error-filled and misleading piece on climate because some so-called experts aligned with their bias signed it. This may be good politics for them, but it is bad science and it is bad for the nation.

Re:I am not worried about it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852007)

What do you mean with "when it should be"?

(This is when you ponder over variance and time scales, and no, personally anecdotes aren't data)

Re:I am not worried about it (4, Funny)

Thangodin (177516) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852119)

Thank you, Mr. Murdoch. We can always count on you for honest journalism. (/sarcasm)

Re:I am not worried about it (1)

Gideon Wells (1412675) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852211)

I hate to play this game, but local anomalies can occur.

Over the last two decades my central Pennsylvania home has seen it go from rarely snowing in October (Halloween), definite by Thanksgiving, and certain by Christmas to rarely by Christmas. Consistency is the key.

Last year it was -20 F nights around this time of year, 18-22 F days. I know this figure because I was out writing articles about the insane people who the media like to do stories on for going out in -20 F paper. Same for photos of frozen cups of coffee. This year? One night broke -8F, but we've been having 50F days as recently as last week. It has only snowed once deep enough all year to merit breaking out the shovels.

Scenario 2? Could be a fluke. That is why a global average is done. Scenario 1 does show a warming trend for my immediate area. Scenario 2 is no different than Warming Deniers claiming it can't be true because of a Blizzard coincidentally happening on the same day as a global warming conference.

Re:I am not worried about it (5, Insightful)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852281)

but local anomalies can occur

Basically: weather != climate

Fun science experiment you can do at home (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852245)

1. Fill an ordinary pot with ice water.
2. Set the pot on a hot stove eye to boil.
3. Monitor the temperature of the pot's contents as the ice melts.

Amazingly, the temperature of the water will not begin to rise until the ice has melted. All the heat applied to the pot goes into melting the ice, not heating the water.

This is called a "phase change [zonalandeducation.com] " (a reference to the phases of matter), and is a possible explanation for the Earth's not having burst into flames despite humans' venting unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

I suspect once the ice caps melt, the real fireworks will begin.

Re:Fun science experiment you can do at home (5, Funny)

cvtan (752695) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852271)

Place one hand in the ice bath and the other in the boiling water. On the average, you are comfortable!

Oh no, not again. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851945)

I thought this global warming denial nonsense was long sense refuted [skepticalscience.com] for anyone willing to look at the facts in an objective manner.

Re:Oh no, not again. (3, Informative)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851997)

RTFA. The scientists agree that there's been warming. The main thing they say is that the climate benefits of massive curbing of CO2 emissions aren't worth the substantial costs.

Re:Oh no, not again. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852169)

Well other costs are that Global Warming fundamentalists take such an extreme stance it becomes politicized, propagandized, and a is a new Religion. They have just as much cognitive dissonance as any jihadi or crusader.

Re:Oh no, not again. (4, Informative)

kermyt (99494) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852191)

RTFA this article is trying to suggest that there has not been the well documented +2c rise in global temps in the last decade. From the Article: "Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2."

Re:Oh no, not again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852157)

skepticalscience is maintained by a Christian and we must not trust any views held by Christians, jks! Interesting website.

Re:Oh no, not again. (0)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852181)

Well, neoclassical economics in its entirity has been refuted many times over, but that hasn't stopped the WSJ from papering their publication with it cover to cover.

What gets paid for, gets published.

Even if global warming was an issue (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851947)

No action will be taken anyway.

An outbreak of sanity? (1, Insightful)

wasabu (1502975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851957)

Or another false flag?

Re:An outbreak of sanity? (3, Insightful)

Xanny (2500844) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851999)

Average global temperatures are up 4c in the last century, 2c in the last decade, and it is more severe near the poles. Coastal water levels have risen by a few inches in the last decade.

Not doing anything possible to stop the planet from heating up until we get a runaway greenhouse effect is what is insane, especially when all we have to do is not even "that" hard - just stop burning fossil fuels that are just large amounts of carbon locked up in a solid as opposed to being in the atmosphere.

That's unusual? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852053)

Average global temperatures are up 4c in the last century, 2c in the last decade, and it is more severe near the poles. Coastal water levels have risen by a few inches in the last decade.

Average temperatures were quite a bit warmer and changed more dramatically in the middle ages. Greenland was not named sarcastically. Britain once produced wine. Find the connection between politics, power tax and lies.

Re:That's unusual? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852129)

Global temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period were actually lower than they are today. The warming you are describing was a local phenomenon experienced in the Northern Atlantic region.

Re:That's unusual? (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852285)

Greenland was not named sarcastically, it was named so people would want to go there.

Re:An outbreak of sanity? (1)

wasabu (1502975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852089)

Average global temperatures are up 4c in the last century, 2c in the last decade, and it is more severe near the poles. Coastal water levels have risen by a few inches in the last decade.

Average temperatures have fallen marginally in the last decade, so you're misinformed there (see the actual satellite data at Cryosphere Today, not CNN) .Average temperatures were quite a bit warmer and changed more dramatically in the middle ages. Greenland was not named sarcastically. Britain once produced wine. Find the connection between politics, power tax and lies. In short: get your brain out of your arse :]

Re:An outbreak of sanity? (1, Interesting)

ichthus (72442) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852213)

not even "that" hard - just stop burning fossil fuels that are just large amounts of carbon locked up in a solid as opposed to being in the atmosphere.

In other words

  • - Stop heating our homes with anything other than wood (other avenue of pollution)
  • - Stop generating electricity with anything other than wind and solar (inadequate with current technology)
  • - Stop commuting to our places of work. (Of course, as a software engineer, I wouldn't have a place of work without adequate electricity)
  • - Stop producing plastics (stop recycling them too)
  • - Stop mining or refining metals (stop recycling them too)
  • - Stop large-scale farming (or, at least mechanical planting/harvesting)

Wow, you're right. Sounds pretty easy. Of course, nuclear power would nullify many of these arguments, so maybe it would be somewhat practical.

Some already use the global warming effect (5, Informative)

G3ckoG33k (647276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852091)

False flag.

"The lack of warming for more than a decade" is contradicted by e.g.

"An increasing amount of seaborne traffic is moving along a new Siberian coastal route, cutting journey time and boosting trade prospects"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/05/arctic-shipping-trade-routes [guardian.co.uk]

The sea north of Siberia is opening up, for the benefit of transport! So, some in the industry are already using the global warming. Russia is planning expanding some of these harbors for summer traffic.

So, even if those WSJ jerks are wrong, there are some beneficial outcomes. Not all parts in the world suffer from droughts or desertification.

Still, the poor people in Nevada, California, Spain, Italy and elsewhere will suffer from an even drier climate.

The winners are the already affluent people in high latitudes, with an already booming industry.

Re:Some already use the global warming effect (2)

wasabu (1502975) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852199)

The planet has been changing like this for billions of years. Sometimes far more dramatically.

They found 16? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851959)

I see your 16, and raise you 16,000.

Sorry, you lose (0, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852161)

37k against [kickthemallout.com]

And I very much doubt you have 16k, as most scientists were simply quiet as the main ring-leaders of the global warming movement would be able to stop you from being published in scientific journals if you spoke against them.

Sorry, the global warming leaders you cultists follow were never actually engaged in science, but in an international attempt at re-shaping the sociological makeup of the world - driven wholly by politicians, not science.

RE: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851971)

they just dont want us to see the pyramids on Antarctica

Notice this wasn't published in a science journal (5, Insightful)

mozumder (178398) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851985)

But instead, was published in a right-wing newspaper.

The global-warming deniers obviously have no evidence, because if they did, they'd publish it in a science journal.

What exactly are these right-wingers trying to hide? Their corporate oil-industry donors?

Re:Notice this wasn't published in a science journ (5, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852083)

Which is the more credible source for scientific analysis: reports written in terms of physics, and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal; or an opinion piece written in terms of politics and economics, and published in the house organ of the financial-commodities-trading industry?

Re:Notice this wasn't published in a science journ (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852137)

RTFA. Someone actually tried that, then they got fired. Hell, I wouldn't do it if it meant not having a job when there's not an equally good one waiting for me in some other place, and that's in spite of the fact that I don't buy into this global warming stuff.

I don't recall anyone getting fired for conducting an experiment that seemed to show that neutrinos can travel faster than light(which is not something I believe most scientists would have considered possible). But when it comes to global warming, advocate it or lose your job. Firing someone because they disagree with you isn't scientific. There's a human element to this.

Re:Notice this wasn't published in a science journ (2)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852243)

Notice this wasn't published in a science journal

Polls and opinions of scientists have no place in any science journal. If you read the article, there is nothing in there (that I can find) that contradicts what's well known and has been published in scientific journals.

No one has any doubt about what has happened. The entire question is what will happen in the future. These scientists (and most skeptics who are also scientists) have extrapolated from what we have seen in the past, and feel that it indicates we will not see problematic warming in the future as a result of CO2.

The scientists, like James Hansen, who believes there will be a crisis, extrapolate on the basis of possible problems and feedbacks that so far haven't happened yet (but are predicted by computer models).

If we had a dozen earths we could experiment with, and test the effects of increasing CO2, there would be no disagreement among scientists. Obviously we can't do that, so there is disagreement about the unknowns.

This is what I would choose as the thesis (4, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851987)

Here is the sentence I would choose as the thesis of their article:

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

Actually that's two sentences. The first is the one I would choose as the thesis, and the second one to back it up. I don't know if there is much evidence they are wrong on that point.

Re:This is what I would choose as the thesis (5, Insightful)

cr_nucleus (518205) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852247)

...aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.

The key word here is "economically".

Of course it makes no economical sense to do that.
That's because we're not trying to solve an economical problem.

You could also add that there's no economical reason to have children and you would certainly be right while totally missing the point.

Don't worry about taking care of yourself (4, Insightful)

microcars (708223) | more than 2 years ago | (#38851989)

say 16 Doctors*,
"you're just going to die anyways."

*not necessarily medical doctors"

Wrong take (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852069)

What they are saying is that you will probably live if you don't buy the $3,000 gym membership and eat and exercise sensibly.

The thing that always annoyed be about the global warming fear mongering is that it puts focus on something that, as the article noted, is not ACTUALLY a pollutant. We are far better off if we simply continue efforts at pollution control and reducing other sources of real harm to the environment.

Hey Look! It's bonch/OverlyCriticalGuy/etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852251)

Trolling karma from right wing nuts to mod up his other shill accounts.

the 16 scientists were earlier overhead saying (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38851993)

"But global warming is a scam! What if we reduce emissions and make the world a better place for nothing?"

I do hate cold weather... (1)

TribeDoktor (629092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852005)

... but the tornado season here in Alabama being expanded into January is rather worrisome...

Whatever helps you sleep at night (0)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852009)

Apparently living in symbiosis with plants constantly exchanging atmospheric gases is exactly the same as the one-way releasing of gas on a massive scale coupled while reducing the number of plants that live in symbiosis with it.

Nothing to worry about. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852013)

There is nothing to worry about.

If you want this planet to look like Venus.

CO2 in excess is very bad. The system can't reach equilibrium fast enough. Result: humankind will die out, or be greatly diminished.

Makes you wonder why some people want Earth terraformed to be inhabitable by humans.

And next we'll hear... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852015)

The fact that water is not a pollutant. It's a colorless and odorless liquid, consumed and expelled in high volumes by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's lifecycle.

And therefore we should disable all flood and tsunami advanced warning systems.

Re:And next we'll hear... (5, Funny)

TarMil (1623915) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852043)

The fact that water is not a pollutant.

Beware of dihydrogen monoxyde though.

Re:And next we'll hear... (1)

danbeck (5706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852205)

For your point to be equivalent, all floods and tsunamis would need to be created by man kind. Earthquakes would need to be discounted as they obviously could not cause tsunamis, instead serious, quality science would easily prove that our vehicles are the primary cause of tsunamis. All that driving around causes vibration pollution, generating enough seismic activity to create tsunamis. If only people, especially poor people had to pay more taxes to their bloated governments, the problem would just go away.

Oxygen is also colorless and odorless. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852019)

You will die without it. You will also suffer greatly if you have too much of it. Urine is natural. Do you want to swim in it? Poop is natural. Do you want to live in it?

Lots of things are natural, the concentrations are what matter. I don't need to read the flaming article if the summary is going to quote such moronic and specious reasoning.

It's like the wags who try to get people worked up with some flippant story about Dihydrogen Monoxide being a toxin, only to reveal it's water. Well, la-de-dah, but I happen to live somewhere we spent quite a few millions to stop flooding, so you know what? I'm going to regulate the stuff and be happy with interrupting that part of the natural process.

Re:Oxygen is also colorless and odorless. (1)

nzac (1822298) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852229)

Please don't give the opinion piece credibility by arguing with it. Its well written for its purpose but dissolves into FUD (targeted at the intelligent without scientific knowledge) by halfway though the summary.

the 16 scientists are not climatologists (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852023)

Think about how much a can of fuel weighs. Think how many of those you put into your car in a year. Think how many cars are out there. How many trucks delivering food. All that weight, all that fuel goes into the air and converts oxygen into CO2 as it goes. That is a lot of mass of CO2 that is being added to the air that was not 100 years.

We know stuff we dump in the environment comes back to us. Lead, Ozone, Mercury, these are chemicals we have dumped into the air in the past and found they were affecting us. So we know our outputs can affect the global condition.

And this is why alarmists come off as flakes (-1, Flamebait)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852105)

All that weight, all that fuel goes into the air

You are SERIOUSLY saying that a gallon of fuel goes right into the air? Incredible!

You may want to do more research before going off half-baked with your claims. BTW, one of the outputs is also water - better ban that too! You might even have some in your house RIGHT NOW! [howstuffworks.com]

It's a shamed that so many people alarmed something do not take the time to learn even the most basic chemistry to decide what is fact is really alarming...

Re:And this is why alarmists come off as flakes (1)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852177)

> You are SERIOUSLY saying that a gallon of fuel goes right into the air? Incredible!

Where else does it go then ? It does not stick to the car in any way.
The amount of energy extracted in the engine is minuscule compared to the mass. E=MC^2. Calculate the energy in 1lb of matter.

1gram of matter has enough energy to power a light bulb for 300 years.

Re:the 16 scientists are not climatologists (3, Insightful)

diamondmagic (877411) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852139)

But it does not logically follow that we must do something about it.

If you want to find out how much CO2 a car releases, you ask an engineer. If you want to find out how much the CO2 will impact weather patterns as a whole, you ask a climatologist. But if you want to find out how to balance the two, you can't ask either, you have to ask an economist: http://www.ted.com/talks/bjorn_lomborg_sets_global_priorities.html [ted.com]

Re:the 16 scientists are not climatologists (2)

thestudio_bob (894258) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852163)

Think about how much a can of fuel weighs. Think how many of those you put into your car in a year. Think how many cars are out there. How many trucks delivering food. All that weight, all that fuel goes into the air and converts oxygen into CO2 as it goes. That is a lot of mass of CO2 that is being added to the air that was not 100 years.

Now let's think about people walking and riding their bikes instead. These people in theory, are breathing harding, hence making more CO2... only one solution...

Stop breathing. Save the planet.

Re:the 16 scientists are not climatologists (4, Insightful)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852259)

> These people in theory, are breathing harding, hence making more CO2... only one solution...

You are correct. The cows we factory farm have a measurable impact on methane emissions. Methane is much worse than CO2.
Population crash due to self pollution and death or exhaustion of resources is an often observed trait. If we don't take control, it will just happen.

Termite mounds can die from self heating if they are not properly ventilated. To much population is bad.

No kids, live in Maine (4, Funny)

Hnice (60994) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852025)

That's how I removed myself from this jackassery.

Personally, I think that the preponderance of the scientific evidence suggests that we ought to be worried about climate change. However, there are people who seem to have a chip on their shoulder about this, and they seem to be centralized in the very states that are going to have it worst if they're wrong. Frankly, I hope they're right and that their already-sun-belt homes don't wind up in the middle of a new desert, and that their kids don't end up with some kind of mutant skin cancer.

But if they do? I don't care. Maine could use an extra degree or two, and it'll be funny to watch all the Red States run around begging the federal government for disaster relief like they do when a river floods or there's a hurricane in the gulf. "Oh, noes! Hotness! Who could have guessed! Please help us, evil socialist elitists. Our kids can't play outside and we're all so THIRSTY!!!! Waaaaaah!"

I'm smiling just thinking about it.

Re:No kids, live in Maine (0)

Required Snark (1702878) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852201)

Moron. Even the CIA has a unit to study the impact of climate change.

http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/11/15/the-cia-has-a-climate-change-program%E2%80%94and-it-shouldnt-be-secret/ [time.com]

The national security implications of climate change are very real. As temperatures rise, water and food supplies will likely be affected, destabilizing poor countries in the tropics—and potentially seeding the ground for civil wars and other conflicts. Melting polar ice caps will change global transport and open up new energy resources, setting off a far northern race for influence. On the whole, a warmer world is likely to be a more dangerous one—for the U.S. and other nations. That’s why in the battle over warming, it’s time for our spies to come in from the cold.

As climate change in the Americas intensifies, those most effected will migrate north, into the US. Given the choice between staying where they are and dieing, they will move. The numbers will be so large, and the desperation so high, no border will stop them. If your life was at risk you would do exactly the same thing. So if you think that your geographical position makes you immune, you are mentally deficient. And an asshat.

Obligatory cartoon (4, Funny)

Albanach (527650) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852027)

Obligatory cartoon [usatoday.net]

Re:Obligatory cartoon (1)

russotto (537200) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852065)

The idea that the things prescribed by the "climate consensus" to do something about global warming would be an unmitigated boon in and of themselves, even without global warming, is rather more controversial than global warming itself.

Re:Obligatory cartoon (4, Interesting)

jmichaelg (148257) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852127)

What if it's a hoax and we incur societal costs we can't afford?

California is levying carbon taxes on business and as you might expect, businesses are leaving California. That means more unemployment in a state that already leads the country unemployment figures.

There are very real costs to carbon reduction.

Re:Obligatory cartoon (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852189)

The question in the cartoon got it wrong.

A lot of people in the 3rd world will die because of higher food and energy prices, for nothing.

is there a more scientific version of this? (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852029)

This reads, unfortunately, like a WSJ op-ed, with lots of polemic, and relatively little science. Have the 16 scientists in question written up a more sober whitepaper that I could read? I'd actually be interested in reading their analysis, if there were a version with more data and less rhetoric about "those promoting alarm", drumbeats, and CO2 being colorless.

Re:is there a more scientific version of this? (-1, Flamebait)

sonicmerlin (1505111) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852173)

God gone it. Why is writing an op-ed full of lies even legal in this country? Those "scientists" should be stripped of their degrees for being willing to throw humanity under a bus for personal financial gain.

Re:is there a more scientific version of this? (1)

danbeck (5706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852253)

YEAH, you hit the nail on the head. We'll set you up as our supreme leader and anytime disagrees with you about any topic, we'll send jack-booted thugs into their homes to drag them out and strip them of all dignity, wealth and for good measure, we'll take their freedom too.

HAIL TO OUR OMNISCIENT SUPREME LEADER SONICMERLIN
THROUGH HIS AWESOMENESS WE WILL BE VICTORIOUS OVER THOSE WHO DON'T TOE THE GROUPTHINK LINE

Re:is there a more scientific version of this? (3)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852227)

But the idiots the Murdoch-owned WSJ sets out to manipulate wouldn't read or be capable of understanding a research whitepaper.

Now, emotional button-pressing and pushing them damned scientists as the evil out group? That they understand.

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852031)

I never did in the first place. Its all propaganda for having more taxes on everything we do.

Hmmm... (1)

Fjodor42 (181415) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852033)

I don't have the time, but given how few of them are from fields that are directly relevant to the climate issue, it would be interesting to actually look at how much the remaining few have published on the issue...

Re:Hmmm... (1)

idbedead (2196008) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852133)

They are all old (former heads of whatever) engineers or weathermen. Not a single one is a climate scientist.

CO2 not a pollutant? (1)

Moblaster (521614) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852035)

The "fact" that CO2 is not a pollutant is actually at best an opinion, at worst a scientific falsehood.

Our bodies expel it precisely because it is a waste product. Whether by a mechanical process of a factory, or a biological process of an organism, aren't waste products the very essence of "pollution?" Sure, the plants don't seem to mind it. Every single, solitary air-breathing member of the animal kingdom, however, does.

Re:CO2 not a pollutant? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852085)

Ok Jackwagon... On Oxygen:

Plant bodies expel it precisely because it is a waste product. Whether by a mechanical process of a factory, or a biological process of an organism, aren't waste products the very essence of "pollution?" Sure, the humans and animals don't seem to mind it. Every single, solitary CO2-consuming plant, however, does.

So Oxygen must be pollution since plants emit it as a waste product of photosynthesis...
Moron.

Re:CO2 not a pollutant? (0)

danbeck (5706) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852117)

Wait, plants don't seem to mind it? That's like saying people don't seem to mind oxygen.

Here you go folks; just more evidence that our public education system is creating a generation of morons without even a tiny shred of critical thinking skills.

Don't worry about racial equality... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852039)

...say 16 neo-Nazis in Today's Colonial.

According to an opinion piece in Today's Colonial, there's 'no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'deracialise' the world's politic'. From the article: 'The lack of significant advance in Africa for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted advance over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Special Panel on Racial Equality (ISPoRE) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much progress additional education can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting equality have shifted their drumbeat from advance to aid, to enable anything primitive that happens in the dark continent to be ascribed to Western meddling. The fact is that blacks are not equal. Blacks are a slow and violent people, tolerable at low concentrations by each of us, and an unnecessary component of the biosphere's life cycle.'"

And Forbes shot back (5, Interesting)

RichMan (8097) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852045)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/petergleick/2012/01/27/remarkable-editorial-bias-on-climate-science-at-the-wall-street-journal/

Quote --
The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board has long been understood to be not only antagonistic to the facts of climate science, but hostile. But in a remarkable example of their unabashed bias, on Friday they published an opinion piece that not only repeats many of the flawed and misleading arguments about climate science, but purports to be of special significance because it was signed by 16 “scientists.”
--

Re:And Forbes shot back (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852171)

All of which is a refreshing change from the overwhelming liberal bias of the rest of the media promoting global warming alarm-ism.

Re:And Forbes shot back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852187)

There's no denying the editorial bias, but there's also no denying their degrees in science. Putting "scientists" in quotes is supposed to make us question that validity, as if they are pseudo-scientists. In reality, there are legitimate scientists with differing interpretation of the data and differing opinions on the appropriate response to climate change.

16 vs. 2500 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852217)

I'd like to mention that the IPCC report that won the Nobel Peace Prize had contributions from 2500 scientists [msn.com] . This article had the OPINION of 16 scientists (not data, opinion). This bit of the newspapers giving equal time to both sides of the story is getting ridiculous. If the liberals started a campaign that the earth was round, the next thing you know the WSJ would post an article with the opinion of someone who thought it was flat and call it, "Opinions differ on shape of planet."

Claude Allègre (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852049)

I see Allègre in the list of scientists. He is a very competent *geologist*. He has no clue in climatology. That did not stop him from writing a book about the topic in which he *falsified* data to fit his own personal views that are not supported by science. Here is one of several examples http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/04/claude-allegre-the-climate-imposter/ . No need to say that the people who published the original data are horrified by his fraud. So in the end the WSJ publishes crap. Nothing unusual.

This sounds awfully familiar (4, Interesting)

v1x (528604) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852057)

I recall reading about these sort of opinions before with regard to both climate change and evolution, and the common thread seems to be the amount of attention given by the American news media. Differences of opinion, although common in every field, don't quite seem to get that kind of attention unless someone conveniently benefits from giving them press. Would be interesting to find out years later, if this latest opinion-piece was somehow published in response to the recent interest by the NCSE to start educating people about climate change [ncse.com] , also explained further here. [richarddawkins.net]

No global warming in the past decade? WTF? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852063)

Here are the hottest ten years on record, in the past 130 years, in order: 2005, 2010, 1998, 2003, 2002, 2006, 2009, 2007, 2004, 2001
Notice a pattern? How about the fact that they are all in the past decade.

I notice also that of the 16 scientists, only 2-3 have titles that directly related to the study of climate and atmospheric sciences. The rest are the usual mismash of experts in other subjects who (as "smart" people are won't to do) apparently claim equal expertise in global warming, who are simply doing the classic trick of "donning a labcoat" to look authoritative.

Re:No global warming in the past decade? WTF? (-1, Flamebait)

gbear711 (1321149) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852099)

The hottest by ignoring data that shows otherwise.

Re:No global warming in the past decade? WTF? (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852277)

1998

Slashdot started in September of 1997...

Slashdot started global warming.

Seriously though, it takes a lot of balls not to say something's up. Last year, around this time, NYC was covered in snow.

Now? I can walk outside with out a jacket. Something is seriously fucked here.

Relax (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852077)

Useful reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation

Yes, we're currently in an ice age. It's one of the relatively warm bits of an ice age (an interglacial period), but its still an ice age.

The earth's been warmer than this on average - if we're breaking out of the current ice age early, so what? Better than the alternative - the interglacial period ending and the earth slipping back into the main part of an ice age. Most countries can't cope as it is when a bit of snow falls - imagine what they'll be like in an ice age.

Money in Global Warming research (1, Troll)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852141)

One thing I've been trying to do is figure out how much money is spent on each side of the global warming debate. Of course, Exxon has billions in revenue, but they only spend a small portion of that on global warming. But how much is spent on each side?

The best sources I can come up with (things like this [wsj.com] and this [transworldnews.com] ) suggest that hundreds of millions are spent on one side, and billions on the other.

I'd really like to find better numbers, though. If anyone has any, please let me know.

Opinoin piece from a Wall Street propganda outfit. (3, Interesting)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852159)

Sorry, but I'll trust the climatologists, and not the opinion pages of the Wall Street Journal.

Just remember.... (5, Insightful)

SwedishChef (69313) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852165)

The same guy who owns the WSJ owns Fox News.

Let's put this in terms Slashdotters can grok (5, Funny)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852179)

"16 Marketing Managers,HR Directors, and First-Level Help Desk Technicians have decided that routinely testing backups is a waste of effort and not needed at all".

otoh (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852193)

While I agree that carbon dioxide isn't a problem and that climate change has likely been going on since Earth's formation, there are environmental impacts of human activity that should be kept in check for our own benefit (and for future generations), such as CO, SOx and NOx.

Unless environmental considerations are put into the corporate balance sheet somehow (tax, trading scheme, whatever) there will be little incentive for corporations to reduce their environmental impacts.

Things like EPA limits aren't an incentive because corporations will do what they have to to meet those requirements and nothing else. Perhaps more aggressive annual reductions in EPA limits would be a possibility though.

I'm sure there are plenty of ideas out there as to how companies can be more accountable for their environmental impact, and how to reduce the environmental effects of urbanization (prime concern being atmospheric inversion).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inversion_(meteorology)#Consequences_of_a_thermal_inversion [wikipedia.org]

In places where there are no limits or incentives, there is no limit to the damage (including to the health of local populations) that corporations will be quite happy to inflict in the name of profit.

Cribbed from the Conservative Manifesto (3, Insightful)

repetty (260322) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852197)

Quote: "The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle."

Looks like someone found George W. Bush's notes.

Scientists on both sides of this debate... (5, Insightful)

JabrTheHut (640719) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852219)

I'm willing to concede that the clear majority of scientists, who do believe in man-made global climate change, may be wrong. We just don't know yet. But I'm not going to believe that a geneticist or an engineer know more about climate change and climate change modelling than those who have been studying it for 30+ years now.

I wonder why they signed it? They aren't subject matter experts.

The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere are the highest for 450,000 years. There's been a steep rise since the 1950s, from 315ppm to 370ppm (parts per million). And, in case the WSJ has forgotten, we can't breathe CO2. Too little and too much oxygen will kill us. Too much CO2 would eventually lead to too little oxygen, among other things.

Oh well, maybe we'll start burning fossil fuels to create enough energy to split off oxygen from water and sell it in supermarkets, resulting in even less oxygen available. Oh, and we need oxygen to burn fossil fuels, so eventually we all lose...

This isn't about global warming kids (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852231)

Its about deindustrialization, dedevelopment and depopulation of the world. And they will achieve that through whatever means are necessary. If that means making it so expensive to produce anything, in the name of "saving the planet", that we all live in 3rd world conditions, then that's what they will do. Wake up people.

Slashidiots, get a clue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852233)

Look, the subhuman waste called Rupert Murdoch owns the Journal.

Since the day Murdoch took ownership the WSJ ceased to be a credible
source for any information.

Articles like this insult the intelligence of all who read Slashdot.

Seriously, quit this shit.

The real threat (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38852239)

Everyone will argue about the harm to climate of atmospheric carbon until we evolve into a new species. The one threat no one is debating is Ocean Acidification. We are facing a dramatic loss of ocean life and yes it's already happening and it's thought to be a large component of coral bleaching. Argue about natural climate cycles all you want but the oceans are still under severe stress from all the excess CO2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

They aren't the only ones. (-1, Troll)

scottbomb (1290580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852241)

There are far more scientists who say there is no such thing as man-made global warming than there are who say there is. The indisputable fact remains: Earth has warmed in the past, it has also cooled. It's natural. The Sahara desert was once teaming with wildlife and forests. Climates change. It's normal and there's nothing we can do one way or the other to affect it.

Not a climate scientist, just an engineer here (1, Insightful)

RightwingNutjob (1302813) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852267)

I haven't spent a career studying weather and climate and such, but I do know enough about thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and numerical analysis to be really suspicious of claims of causality for CO2. One cursory look at something like http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/04/19/radiative-physics-yes-co2-does-create-warming/ [wordpress.com] , Fig 4, tell me that water, ozone, N2O, etc add up to a hell of a lot more absorption of IR from the earth's surface when you consider that the planet is NOT a uniform sphere at 250 kelvin and when you remember that the concentrations of H2O and the like trump the concentrations of atmospheric CO2 by orders of magnitude.

That's one gut reaction, informed by pictures and not calculations.

The second gut reaction comes from experience trying to predict the future with uncertain models and noisy, incomplete data. Before I believe the global warming alarmists claims, I need to understand the uncertainty propagations in their predictions given the noise statistics of their data collection efforts to date. This is subtle and delicate math that most people don't know how to do, and the certitude with which the alarmists and their cheerleaders make their pronouncements lead me to suspect they don't know how to do it well either. Climategate's "Harry Readme" file furthers that suspicion.

The last and most subjective objection I have is that the people screaming loudest for decarbonization tend to do so in a way that makes it hard for me to distinguish what they are saying from
"blah blah blah Socialism Is Great blah blah blah I get to ride in private jets but you have to ride a bike to work and turn down your thermostat in the winter blah blah blah"

We know how much warming it can cause (1)

Chemisor (97276) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852273)

We already know how much warming it can cause because it had already happened before. 250My ago, before all that carbon became fossil fuels, global temperatures were 4-6C higher [wikipedia.org] than today. At least, wikipedia says so. On the other hand, 300My ago temperatures were 2C lower than today, even though there were no fossil fuels yet, so you can't blame CO2 for all of it. One look at that graph makes it pretty obvious where the climate change limits might be, and they are not nearly as catastrophic as the global warming doomsayers scream about.

Don't Worry (3, Insightful)

MarkvW (1037596) | more than 2 years ago | (#38852283)

Don't worry. The global warming deniers are slowly buying the high ground.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?