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!

Last Bastion For Climate Dissenters Crumbling

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the somehow-i-think-they-would-disagree dept.

Earth 963

Layzej writes "The New York Times reports: 'For decades, a small group of scientific dissenters has been trying to shoot holes in the prevailing science of climate change, offering one reason after another why the outlook simply must be wrong.' Initially they claimed that weather stations exaggerated the warming trend. This was disproven by satellite data which shows a similar warming trend. Next, solar activity was blamed for much of the warming. This looked like a promising theory until the '80s, when solar output started to diverge from global temperatures. Now, climate contrarians are convinced that changes in cloud cover will largely mitigate the warming caused by increased CO2. The New York Times examines how even this last bastion for dissenters is crumbling. Over the past few years, Several papers have shown that rather than being a mitigating factor, changes in cloud cover due to warming may actually enhance further warming."

cancel ×

963 comments

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

When I make Taco breathe hard... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866439)

It contributes to global warming.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (0, Troll)

gottspeed (2060872) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866513)

The planet has been heating up since the ice age. Other planets in the system are heating up too. If you want to think the sky is falling to play into some global scarcity tactic that's cool, but I'm going to keep driving my truck to work.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (1, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866555)

Truck. The vehicle of a redneck. It all fits.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (2, Funny)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866601)

Truck. The vehicle of a redneck. It all fits.

Prius. The vehicle of mass ignorance. It all fits.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (-1, Offtopic)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866689)

That was a stupid tit-for-tat. How does "it all fit" given that I don't drive a Prius? Dumbo.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (4, Funny)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866723)

Truck. The vehicle of a redneck. It all fits.

Prius. The vehicle of mass ignorance. It all fits.

Nothing fits in a Prius.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866627)

You know, some of us buy carbon free electricity, collect rain water, recycle, live within 5 miles of our place of business and still drive a truck so that we can work on specific hobbies like building furniture and landscaping. Maybe not everyone fits your redneck mold.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (-1, Offtopic)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866737)

Yes, that's fine and all, but I bet those who *don't* fit that redneck mould wouldn't post this:

The planet has been heating up since the ice age. Other planets in the system are heating up too. If you want to think the sky is falling to play into some global scarcity tactic that's cool, but I'm going to keep driving my truck to work.

Which reads like he took it off the back of a "what the scary libruls want U to beleeeve" flyer handed out at a teabagger rally.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (2, Insightful)

ClintJCL (264898) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866807)

Are you disputing that other planets are warming up? All you've said is "this argument is stupid" without any explanation why. Does that make you any better than OP?

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (5, Insightful)

rockout (1039072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866619)

"If you wanna believe the earth revolves around the sun that's cool, but I'm gonna keep planting my crops based on my assumption that the bible is right."

Sure, that discovery didn't affect that guy either. But it didn't make him any less wrong.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (4, Informative)

grumling (94709) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866701)

The "Other Planets are Heating up too" hypothesis has been debunked:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2007/04/29/is-global-warming-solar-induced/ [discovermagazine.com]

But, until the engineers get involved on a real fix I wouldn't bother changing your lifestyle, other than maybe switching to LED lights and turning down the thermostat. Politicians never fix anything.

Re:When I make Taco breathe hard... (0)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866777)

The planet has been heating up since the ice age.

...and yet another head-in-the-sand fuckwit misses the pertinent facts entirely.

Last bastion (5, Insightful)

mseeger (40923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866443)

What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.

Re:Last bastion (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866539)

There is significant evidence that the earth's climate changed dramatically in the past, without any human intervention. So there is all kinds of historic evidence for climate change. The issue is how significant human activities are for climate change.

Re:Last bastion (5, Insightful)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866683)

That's why SCIENTISTS MEASURE the things that could affect global climate instead of just flapping their arms and lips.

Re:Last bastion (5, Insightful)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866829)

There is significant evidence that the earth's climate changed dramatically in the past, without any human intervention.

Yes, but some of the findings associated with such changes have never graphed anywhere near like they do now. For example, going back at least several hundred thousand years, the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide has never come anywhere near what we are seeing now, but yeah, you're right. That simply must be "natural phenomena". The burning of millions of years worth of carbon deposits in a few decades couldn't have anything at all to do with that. And unicorns are real.

Re:Last bastion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866541)

I know right?

Next they will probably pull the ice age one out again.
That thing won't happen for centuries, all that ice can't melt that quickly to supply the fresh water required to shut off ocean currents. It needs to be insanely hotter for that to happen, mid-extinction levels of hotter. (as opposed to mass-extinction)

We MIGHT get tiny ice ages again throughout the next century, but not full-on ice-age that lasts for thousands of years. That is a while before that happens. Even at basic estimates using some core samples that go all the way back through time.

That is unless a catastrophe level event happens and causes another huge shift in global climate.
Whether it is a volcano or a large-scale tsunami, or even an asteroid...

Re:Last bastion (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866547)

What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.

Belief for the hoi polloi who vote and put pressure on politicians and politicians use the Global Climate Change or Global Warming as a distraction issue to be not like the other guy. With other distraction issues like how GW will "increase taxes" or "eliminate US sovereignty" or "kill jobs" or what have you.

The real reason why there's so much resistance to the data and the conclusions drawn from that data is that there are some very powerful entities whose business will be adversely affected by any policies implemented as a result of stemming the effects of GW. In other words, there are folks who believe that they will lose big if GW is accepted as fact for policy sake - like the big oil and auto corporations.

Re:Last bastion (1)

zero.kalvin (1231372) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866553)

I agree, people who don't want to believe ( for whatever the reason might be ) will always find a new one. But nevertheless this is a good news. But I have a question here, there is limits to how far people would go right ? I mean there is still people who believes that earth is flat but it's a minority and a minority that can't influence politics. Could it be we are approaching a time where climate-change would be in the same situation ? ( I am pretty sure evolution is far from this ). Ps, I am referring to the USA. Because as far as I can see, people here in Europe seem to be more accepting of climate-change, but less enthusiastic about it.

Re:Last bastion (5, Interesting)

buchner.johannes (1139593) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866587)

I find it quite interesting to compare this to other historic debates such as

  - whether the universe has always existed or came into existence (steady-state vs big bang)
  - whether the milky way is the only galaxy
  - whether earth is the center / only place with life
  - whether humans are different in any distinctive way compared to (other) animals

The common theme is "can something come from nothing" and "is this place special". Some resistance in the debates comes from "it has always been like this". There seems to be some attractive simplicity to the idea that things never change and that there is only one of something.

The world seems to be consistently contradict our intuition on that principle.

Re:Last bastion (5, Insightful)

DrXym (126579) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866599)

What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.

You only have to look at creationists, 9/11 truthers, moon landing hoaxers, anti-vaccinationists to know that you could lock such people in a warehouse full of evidence contradictory to their worldviews and they'd still deny it. I really don't see climate change deniers being any different.

Re:Last bastion (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866603)

These aren't deniers, these are scientific dissenters. There is nothing wrong with that. Without scientific dissenters we wouldn't have as much confidence as we have today on theories such as evolution, quantum mechanics (with Einstein being a major dissenter), and Big Bang cosmology. Often, the dissent strengthens the theory, leads to new branches of study, or points out actual flaws that need to be adjusted.

Re:Last bastion (4, Interesting)

Shavano (2541114) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866735)

No they're not honest scientific dissenters. The evidence is that they shift from one unsupported hypothesis to another as their ideas are disproven by data and careful analysis.

Re:Last bastion (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866795)

Einstein did the same damn thing. This is how science works.

I understand that it is disconcerting that people don't agree on this topic since it will have a major impact on the world. But that is why politics and science are separate. The politicians need to be wise enough to know that scientists will probably be debating global warming for the next 50 years, but that their time to act is very short.

Don't bash the scientists, bash to politicians who don't have the guts to do what they should.

Re:Last bastion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866731)

Bastions are like nested dolls. There is an even number of bastions under the bastion, making the whole number of bastions odd. This symbolizes fruitfulness and the continual of life. Where there an even number of bastions, that would symbolize the end of life. In other words, it's bastions all the way down.

Re:Last bastion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866743)

Heinlein defined a religious belief as something you believe without evidence. Not sure what you call a belief in the face of contrary evidence.

Re:Last bastion (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866791)

All you have to do is read the literature on global warming to know its a SCAM to charge you for carbon credits and such, in other words to get you to pay for the air you breath.

GLOBAL WARMING is the new religion, you all make fun of religion on here, this is no different. You call yourself nerds on the site, your no different from a creationist, believing in this Global warming fake science.

Again, if you truly BELIEVE in global warming stop posting, because then we will know your doing something about it since your NOT using evil electricity and evil technology that causes warming in your crazy minds.

Re:Last bastion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866805)

What is the basis for the assumption that this is the "last" bastion? I am pretty sure, they will find another reason to hold out within days.... This is an issue of belief (at least for them), so arguments ain't gonna change a thing.

Jerry Pournelle had the thought that one should usually give a small bit of funding (less than 10%) to people claiming the opposite of any scientific orthodoxy. He billed it as a kind of "insurance" against group think and keeping folks honest with regards to truely being open about exploring new avenues of inquiry.

I'd also add that a lot of discoveries (penicillin) and advances (artificial dyes) where accomplished when accidents happens. So if everyone is going in the same direction, using the similar methods, it's less likely that the unexpected will occur compared to someone wading into uncharted waters.

In this particular instance, I find the climate deniers annoying as most other folk, but they do force the consensus to be more precise, and "forced" the use of more data points in some way, which isn't all bad.

This is science (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866447)

People should dissent, people should disagree. Climate change isn't understood well enough for there to be a unanimous consensus.

Re:This is science (2)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866529)

I agree that 84% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveys_of_scientists%27_views_on_climate_change) is not unanimous, but it's getting closer every year.
Unless, ofcourse, you count the opinion of people who don't understand the science involved and blame other people for their own lack of understanding.

Re:This is science (4, Interesting)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866703)

People should dissent, people should disagree.

That is how science works: people testing other people's ideas and results. I don't know about your use of the word ''dissent'', since that implies ideological views, these are the very antithesis of the scientific method.

Climate change isn't understood well enough for there to be a unanimous consensus.

''Unanimous'' is a very high bar, one lone odd ball stops uninamity. What we should be looking for is what proportion experts in the field agree on the main points. We now have many more climate scientists who agree that there is a climate warming problem than the number of experts who agreed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. However: great political action and spending was put to bashing Iraq, much more than has been put to addressing climate change -- which is something of far greater danger than Iraq ever was. But that is politics for you.

This Is Slashdot's Forte (4, Interesting)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866449)

Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.

Despite this large consensus in the peer reviewed scientific community, it doesn't take much searching to find comments like this one [slashdot.org] modded up as high as it can go that say crap like:

Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.

Frankly, I avoid these discussions now. There is no reason to try to inform people of what you read like this NY Times article. Ignorance backed by corporations has won. It has won in the mind of the general public, it has even won on the "elite tech site" of Slashdot, even in the minds of those here who hold the moderator points.

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866485)

"Elite tech site"??!!? What a joke. Most people I know view slashdot as a bunch of kids talking smack all day. A total waste because it used to be a good site.

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (1)

6031769 (829845) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866733)

"Elite tech site"??!!? What a joke.

I think he's referring to SlashBI.

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866501)

The corporations are behind global warming as the carbon credit scam is the massive engine propelling the boat of fraud.

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866509)

There's no need to be dramatic.

In fact, it seems to me that slashdot users are (sometimes frighteningly) uniform on most everything, including acceptance of AGW.

It only takes +two people to mod that one comment up to +4 Insightful, and I'm sure there were a hundred counter-examples in the same thread.

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866571)

Oh noes, you can't be calling it Global Warming anymore (won't anyone think of the gorgeous cuddly polar bears standing on melting icebergs in the Arctic summers).

Climate change is a fact. The dear old thing has been changing for ... oooh quite a little while now. Man-induced change is also a fact, we're beginning to see that whatever we touch induces a change by some degree or another, local or eventually global. What staggers me is the sheer arrogance of the entire CC/GW lobby that honestly believes that they can make a difference by howling from the hilltops. It also will not make a difference even if we believe those blatant lies called "inconvenient truths" told by those with their own vested interests. Nothing is going to change, except the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and more of.

The world model that has persisted for the past 100 years is unsustainable and impotent in the face of this particular issue.

So what are we to do then, if everything really is futile? Douglas Adams has the sage advice at the beginning of his book, "Don't panic".

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (1)

greg.sanders (2473330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866597)

Ignorance is bliss.

Re:This Is Slashdot's Forte (2, Interesting)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866685)

Ignorance is bliss.

Since ecomentalism is indoctrinated in schools now, there can't be many people still ignorant of the issue.

Perhaps you're conflating ignorant denial with informed apathy?

In other words, maybe We, the People have decided that we'd rather rise to the challenge of dealing with climate change as it happens than beggar ourselves in a futile and risible effort to preserve the planet in an eternal 1950s best-of-all-possible-worlds ideal state.

tl;dr version: Climate Change? FUCK YEAH!

NYT Bias (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866453)

Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing. Bias is everywhere.

Ha! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866517)

Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing.

Oh really? From the article:

Over time, nearly every one of their arguments has been knocked down by accumulating evidence, and polls say 97 percent of working climate scientists now see global warming as a serious risk.

Now you just have to assassinate the character of 97 percent of working climate scientists. Slashdot: News for Nerds, Ad Hominems that Matter.

What stopped you from digging up the dirt on Andrew E. Dessler and Richard S. Lindzen, the two researchers quoted in the article?

Bias is everywhere.

Yeah, it's even in my comment ... and YOUR comment! Oh my god, since it's everywhere you can't believe anything!

Re:NYT Bias (4, Insightful)

slim (1652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866591)

Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing. Bias is everywhere.

Hmm, so you've observed a correlation between rationality in the face of evidence, and having left wing views.

Useful. I'll take it.

Re:NYT Bias (-1, Flamebait)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866625)

Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing.

In a way that's true. Just as evolution "supporters" are more left wing.

1) Reality has a well know liberal bias.
2) On average liberals are more intelligent than right-wingers.

Re:NYT Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866827)

Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing.

In a way that's true. Just as evolution "supporters" are more left wing.

1) Reality has a well know liberal bias. 2) On average liberals are more intelligent than right-wingers.

Believing the opposing view is not as intelligent (as tangentially related to a cliche viewpoint a comedian made) is the height of foolishness and arrogance by all accounts, whether you are correct or not. You sir, are drinking your own kool-aid.

Re:NYT Bias (3, Informative)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866771)

Do remember the NYT is a very left-wing paper and that climate change supporters are majority left-wing. Bias is everywhere.

Yes, but if you read the article you find that much of the Slashdot story was created by the /. submitter. A correction should be made to identify just what the NYT said.

Re:NYT Bias (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866801)

"climate change supporters are majority left-wing"

Why do you think that is?

A dissenter is a dissenter... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866455)

...is a dissenter. Nothing will change the opinions of people who like to keep their eyes closed.

Re:A dissenter is a dissenter... (5, Insightful)

million_monkeys (2480792) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866745)

Perhaps. But raising objections in the form of plausible counter theories is valid science. Even if those counter theories are later disproved, that's all part of the scientific process. You can't just ignore an argument that may have merit simply because you don't trust the motives of the people making the argument. If someone has a reasonable alternate interpretation of the evidence, that needs to be considered (and I suspect a lot of things have been learned in the process of refuting alternate ideas). You can't just claim that your right because everyone agrees with you and they are wrong because the are stupid. ... Well you can, but that's not science.

On the other hand though (-1, Flamebait)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866457)

The fringe of the Warming collective also asserts that it's already too late we're all gonna die so what's the point. Ok let's say you're right. Let's burn it all down and have fun.

Re:On the other hand though (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866483)

The fringe of the Warming collective also asserts that it's already too late we're all gonna die so what's the point. Ok let's say you're right. Let's burn it all down and have fun.

Why would you want to make choices on the basis of whatever "the fringe" are saying? This makes no sense.

Sometimes those on the fringe are correct. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866505)

I will leave it up to you to explore whatever historical knowledge you possess to find examples.

Umm (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866465)

The last Ice Age was several thousands of years ago. In the history there have been many Ice Ages. Were those caused by people too?

Does that count as a 'bastion'?

So (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866471)

OMG it's the end for the dissenters!

How many weeks is it since we had an article about how the evidence for climate change hadn't panned out at all?

I'm not a dissenter or a denier or even particuarly a doubter but the endless stream of sensational stories, in either direction, is getting a bit wearing.

How about we (Slashdot) take a break from this subject. There must be more relevant stuff to talk about. Even bitcoin is better than this.

Re:So (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866647)

Even bitcoin is better than this.

Bitcoin-related weekly article is scheduled on Thursday, not Wednesday

it's easy : Monday: Apple slashvertisment, Tuesday: "linux for desktop" troll-starter article, Wednesday: "Climate change", Thursday: "Bitcoins", Friday: "M$ is evil but less than App£€", Saturday: "Patent system is broken", Sunday: "Ask slashdot: my PC is broken what should I do ?"

oh for fuck's sake (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866473)

really? This is what passes for a Slashdot article now?

Re:oh for fuck's sake (-1, Offtopic)

Isaac-1 (233099) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866489)

I wish I had mod points for this one

this story is a lie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866491)

I was listening to NPR last week and early global warming advocates admitted that they were exaggerating, and that the real warming is much slower than they predicted. I thought slashdot was hear to help teach, not to misinform. Shamed on you slashdot.

Is this a joke? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866495)

1. Climate research is a hugely technical field that requires subjective judgement in choice and application of models

2. Climate "scientists" have through extreme and political conduct made it clear they are extremely emotionally and politically involved

3. As a result, you cannot trust their work, whatever the outcome of it may be.

It's unfortunate, but we have nothing trustworthy at the moment.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

Igarden2 (916096) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866611)

When I saw "The New York Times examines" I knew we had a very reputable source.

Re:Is this a joke? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866781)

As a former media hack, I can only advise that you never, ever take a news report at face value, from the NYT, right down to your local rag. It's rare to find writing that is complete and unbiased.

Re:Is this a joke? (1)

belthize (990217) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866629)

The bigger problem was when some stupid ass thought uploading 'grass eating hippie' personality code into the satellites was a good idea. Now all of them only transmit observationally biased data.

Tell you what we could do. You go through the each satellite's data and point out which of it's wrong and from there I'll figure out how to change it's personality.

BTW, I'd suggest hugely technical fields require objectivity not subjectivity (your point 1).

Re:Is this a joke? (4, Insightful)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866697)

What nonsense.

We have plenty of trustworthy science, but a huge and well funded propaganda machine telling people that those scientists are untrustworthy and "politically motivated". You've bought into the propaganda machine hook, line and sinker.

Now, there will certainly be cases of scientists and professionals that are crooked and politically/financially motivated (see, for example, Andrew Wakefield and vaccines - a whole, damaging scare because he wanted to make money off his competing vaccine for MMR), or the "cold fusion" science researchers, but they are very swiftly exposed by peer review.

That intelligent people can still be claiming that "nothing a climate scientist puts out" is trustworthy at all is just a demonstration of how powerful people like like Koch brothers are and how effective extremely large dumptrucks full of money are at running propaganda campaigns.

It doesn't help that very few people are able to interpret the data for themselves and must rely on an actual scientist, and somehow when this is related to climate science that's seen as a bad thing? Ask yourself why that is; why it has become ingrained to look at only climate science and say "I don't understand this data so it's clearly a trick!". This doesn't happen in other fields with equally difficult and impenetrable data, like cancer research or quantum mechanics - there's been no pervasive, relentless smear campaign that results in anything those scientists say being dismissed out of hand because they're "politically motivated and untrustworthy".

A sad day. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866507)

When a site with the reputation of slashdot surrenders to the crap that is "man made global warming" and quotes a rag like the New York Times (as biased and unreliable as all the MSM is), as evidence.

Re:A sad day. (3, Informative)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866609)

So where's your peer-reviewed research that backs up your claim?

Right wing shouty heads on Fox News don't count, I'm afraid.

Well (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866515)

The last bastion is the recomforting fact that "climate science" isn't science, but a misapplication of chaos theory. Just like Economy tries to be (and even calls itself a) science without it being one. A Science needs to be falsifiable and have predictive power, and both "pro" and "con" sciencists have utterly failed at their predictions and yet they've found ways to make both "warming" and "cooling" trends be proofs that their theory is correct by changing their initial statements and relabeling "global warming" (which has been proven wrong) to "climate change" (which is entirely meaningless).

Also, the summary of the Op reads like the novel he has fabricated on his head and is pretty unscientific. Science needs attempts to falsify a theory far, far more than it needs "supporters", the way that "climate sciencists" dismisses those people as "dissenters" and "sellouts" makes it a religion (an animist one) that disguises as Science to protect itself from criticism.

The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Plan (4, Insightful)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866519)

1) There's no such thing as global warming.
2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.
3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.
4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.
5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.
6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it.
7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier?
8) ????
9) Profit.

Re:The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Pla (1, Troll)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866631)

1) There's no such thing as global warming. 2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant. 3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it. 4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative. 5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it. 6) We need to tackle global warming, so make the poor pay for it. 7) Global warming is bad for business. Why did the Democrats not tackle it earlier? 8) ???? 9) Profit.

When you finally realize that step #9 is the only one that matters here, you'll quickly realize that any and all steps taken before that is nothing more than FUD for a money grab, regardless of who is doing it or their political affiliation.

And if you wish to see a master in action, look up "Al Gore". After all, he's the one who created this "market".

Re:The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Pla (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866637)

I think you've got "Profit" listed about 8 steps late on that list. Everyone knows that profit comes first in the Republican world order.

Re:The Republican 9 Step Global Warming Denial Pla (4, Insightful)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866767)

1) There's no such thing as global warming.

This has been proven true. We have enough temperature data to confidently say that temperatures have been steadily increasing since about 1850.

2) There's global warming, but the scientists are exaggerating. It's not significant.

This has been proven false. The 6 degree increase we should be experiencing now according to alarmists simply doesn't exist.

3) There's significant global warming, but man doesn't cause it.

This may be true, we have proof that there were much bigger climate changes even before man.

4) Man does cause it, but it's not a net negative.

This is a tricky one, I would say that too rapid change is never good for the environment, at least not in the short term. But if you only care about the effets on agriculture, it may very well be possible to breed/engineer crops that thrive in the new climate.

5) It is a net negative, but it's not economically possible to tackle it.

That's most certainly false, but the real question is whether its negative effects cost more than to stop it.

There is still much more research needed on the topic, and bringing politics into the debate is exactly what's halting progress.

No no no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866525)

I MUST drive my Hummer to work! Or else I'll feel like government is taking away my freedoms!

Need Moar Dissenters! (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866537)

Not because of anyone's ideology. Because good science demands people check other people's work, look for errors, ask hard questions, and the like. If we all agree, pat ourselves on our collective back, and stare away people who would dare question what we've decided must be the truth, we've transitioned from science to religion, and are doing everyone a disservice.

Trust mainstream media to not understand this. *sigh*

Re:Need Moar Dissenters! (1)

ArAgost (853804) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866675)

I wish I had mod points. This. Exactly because this an issue of scientific method, dissenters should be (almost) welcome.

Devil's advocacy (0)

macraig (621737) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866543)

I'm not eager to feed delusional behaviors, but "may actually enhance further warming" doesn't read like much proof of anything. It sounds like conjecture. Wake me up when I can substitute the word will in that sentence without being wrong.

Re:Devil's advocacy (0)

Sarten-X (1102295) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866653)

And that's why I hold the position I do: Climate change may or may not happen, and it may or may not be human-caused, and it may or may not be as severe as predictions claim. Unfortunately, the whole debate has become an issue of religion more than science, and everybody's tainting data to make their point. I don't trust any of it anymore.

A simple outcome analysis:

  • Climate is changing, and we don't do anything: we die.
  • Climate is changing, and we change our environmental policy to reduce it: we survive a little longer.
  • Climate is not changing, and we don't do anything: we survive a little longer, until something else gets us.
  • Climate is not changing, and we change our environmental policy anyway: we survive a little longer, until something else gets us.

So one choice (not changing our ways) may or may not kill us, and the other (cleaning up) lets us survive a little longer, regardless of what the climate does. For once, let's just ignore those silly scientists and just do what won't get us killed.

Re:Devil's advocacy (2)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866705)

So one choice (not changing our ways) may or may not kill us, and the other (cleaning up) lets us survive a little longer, regardless of what the climate does. For once, let's just ignore those silly scientists and just do what won't get us killed.

Interesting that you assume that any change to our environmental policy will be for the better, by definition.

There's not really a lot of evidence that any proposed solution to climate change will do anything meaningful that'll improve our chances of suvival.

Certainly, the existing and proposed Treaties won't do jack....

Alternatives (-1, Troll)

salparadyse (723684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866563)

Get yourselves over to www.weatheraction.com and learn.

They have an 80% accuracy record for long term forecasts. They understand what drives the climate on earth and it ain't CO2.

Re:Alternatives (5, Insightful)

JabrTheHut (640719) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866681)

Get yourself over to www.dictionary.com and learn.

They have a 100% accuracy record for distinguishing between "weather" and "climate."

Re:Alternatives (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866765)

Weather is climate like me pissing on the ground is rain.

Nice try though.

Nothing Is Crumbling (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866577)

This is just wishful thinking, because Conservatives will never stop denying global warming. If Conservatives had any sense, they would say "Global warming is real, but the predicted catastrophe is a grotesque exaggeration," but they won't say that either. As long as liberals make up facts, like how the conservative arguments are crumbling, conservatives will make up rebuttals. Both sides have their heads where the sun doesn't shine.

Next up: supernovas! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866579)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/24/svensmarks-cosmic-jackpot-evidence-of-nearby-supernovae-affecting-life-on-earth/

"An amusing point is that Svensmark stands the currently popular carbon dioxide story on its head. Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around."

So there you have it!

The Issue with Climate Change Science (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866623)

Is that the sample size is too small to determine if any warming we are seeing is manmade or a natural (even localized) fluctuation. The earliest base year for comparison I have seen is 1750 (most cite 1950). At best the sample size of 262 years:

For intelligent design (human occupation 7,000 years) the largest sample size is 3.7% of human history.
For evolutionary time scales (human occupation 250,000) the largest sample size is 0.1% of human history.
For evolutionary time scales (approx 4,000,000,000 years) the largest sample size is 0.0000066% of earth's history.

the closer base years are even worse.

Global warmin? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866633)

They outta know not to put stuff like that near my house. *fires a double barrelled shotgun*

Sound like a band album combo (1)

techsimian (2555762) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866645)

One night only...Last Bastion, a Bananarama tribute band! Last Bastion:For Climate Dissenters Crumbling Tour

What? (0, Flamebait)

Charliemopps (1157495) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866649)

The nonsensical arguments the new york times refers to I've rarely heard. When I did it was usually from the uneducated and foolish. It seems the NYT has it's own view on the subject and are trying to spin the story in such a way that if anyone disagrees with them they are stupid.

Very few people disagree with the premise that the climate is warming. Where the disagreement is, is if that warming is a natural part of earths long term weather patterns and how much effect CO2 is having on speeding up the process. Also, they question the results of the warming... predicted increased hurricane strength and frequency have not come about as we'd expected.

Before anyone attributes those views to me, my position is this: We will never stop using fossil fuels. Human nature will win, and we will burn them all. It's too late. Whatever global warming is going to do, we'd better prepare for it. The only optimism I have is in that the one thing scientists have a proven track record of if being absolutely lousy at predicting the weather.

Re:What? (5, Informative)

tgd (2822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866749)

Very few people disagree with the premise that the climate is warming.

Untrue -- that's a VERY recent (in the last year or two) change because the made up science people were using against warming was becoming unsupportable *even to the political base they were trying to influence*. To the tactics were changed from "its not warming" to "its not us doing it".

Where the disagreement is, is if that warming is a natural part of earths long term weather patterns and how much effect CO2 is having on speeding up the process.

No, among working climatologists, there's no disagreement. In fact, among anyone who has even a cursory understanding of thermodynamics, there's no disagreement. The tiny percentage of "climatologists" you see who publish papers suggesting otherwise are doing it because controversy will get you published, and its a publish-or-perish industry. And there's a LOT of money being paid to people who aren't otherwise being successful in the field to continue publishing bad science.

Also, they question the results of the warming... predicted increased hurricane strength and frequency have not come about as we'd expected.

Don't use the word "we" if you're not someone who holds a degree in climatology.

The only optimism I have is in that the one thing scientists have a proven track record of if being absolutely lousy at predicting the weather.

So, no degree in climatology. Climatologists don't have anything to do with predicting the weather -- those are meteorologists. People in either field know that. (And people in either field also know the current global climate models predict an increase in energy in the weather systems which produces strong, not greater numbers, of storms -- on average. Someone trained in climatology knows what "on average" means relative to the work a meteorologist does, too.)

A dangerous situation (4, Insightful)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866655)

First I will not say which "side" I am on as that is unimportant as my total climate knowledge is based on grumbling about weather. But this whole discussion has gone off the rails in that regardless of what scientists think or know the public is turning against man made climate change. Want to lose an election in North America then propose a carbon tax or something similar. Al Gore got people cheering one side of this issue but being Al Gore managed to alienate and effectively create an opposing side. While healthy discussion in science is what science is all about people on both sides have begun to turn this into a religion with people calling for firing of scientists who they disagree with and another person calling for burning others houses down.

A much better example of good science was the recent discovery that neutrinos were going faster than light. Turned out to be wrong but most people were sort of excited as this would potentially be a huge change in physics. Another good example of the separation of science and policy would be nuclear weapons. Nuclear reactions are cool; nuclear weapons are not. But very few people criticized the work Niels Bohr for bringing the world to the brink of total destruction. It would have been a crap argument to say his work was the beginning of a science killed a whole lot of Japanese and thus was invalid. His models of how atoms and whatnot worked have changed significantly enough that they could almost be just called all wrong. But as will all good science people expanded and improved his work.

Where I am going with this is that the hysteria of dragging the scientists out for trials in the court of public opinion not only doesn't help the climate people get on with their research but it opens up other areas to the concept that somehow public opinion can shape science. Opinion does not change a fact. Opinion is to be used to decide what to do about those facts. Both sides on this issue are getting into the realm of those fools who try legislating that =3.

Re:A dangerous situation (1)

EmperorOfCanada (1332175) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866667)

Pi=3

Last Bastion (0)

rlp122 (1204980) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866663)

Al Gore will be around shortly to sell the believers some carbon credits.

Blankets and Beds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866677)

Blankets cannot heat beds. Bed temperature has historically cycled in different time frames. Blankets are made of the same material the beds are, so they can't add heat.

Unless they're electric blankets, but the temperature difference just means emission increases and heat loss quickly removes any effect otherwise noticeable.

The relation between feeling warm and more blankets is specious, psychological. Everyone knows that people sick with colds and fever warm up and sweat a lot, and have a habit of covering themselves up. There is no real relation between blankets and bed temperature.

I hope that dispels the confusion regarding global warming. It's obviously a ploy by the blanket-tax financial cartel conspirators.

Re:Blankets and Beds (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866809)

I think you need to take some first grade level science classes before giving your "informed" opinion on how you think climate change, and how specifically the mechanisms of AGW work.

Fraud Deniers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866691)

I love the fascist try and equate the holocaust with understanding that chaos in climate is far beyond the scope of our current understanding. That a shyster that got a D (Al Gore) in his college science course runs the fraud just shows how desperate the religion of global warming is.
To sum up the climate fraud argument, it is Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Everyone knows Aliens caused global warming, thanks you Micheal Crichton for at least a little thought of this subject.

hmm (1)

buddyglass (925859) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866709)

Couldn't the dissenters just respond, "You've asserted that atmospheric carbon is causative with global temperature increases. The last ten years contradict that assertion. The increase of atmospheric carbon has continued unabated even while temperatures have remained more-or-less flat."?

But have the alarmists poisoned the well? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866725)

This is how science is supposed to work.

But when you go around screaming falsehoods like "Polar bears are going extinct because of global warming!!!!! OMFG!!!!" when in reality there are probably more polar bears alive today then there ever has been, you wind up turning a majority of people off.

The problem is pollution, not global warming (1)

ZekeSMZ (874386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866753)

The term "global warming" needs to go away, and the argument should be re-focused on Air Pollution as that is the real problem. People may not believe in global warming, but there's no denying bad air quality that comes from petroleum or coal based engines.

Global? (-1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866755)

How can we call it global when it is having no effect on the glaciers of Asia?

My hypothesis that it is actually increased levels of humidity causing the warming trend we have seen seems to find more and more factual support every day. Too bad everyone wants to think it either isn't happening at all, is totally natural, or that mankind is 100% the cause and we must repent from our evil startlingly efficient industrial society, rather than actually allowing new information to change their minds.

AGW/anti-AGW is a war, and ideas are soldiers. To deny an idiotic idea that supports your premise is seen as treason, and simply isn't done. This is why AGW people will likely never be able to understand that CO2 has a vanishingly small effect on the climate, water vapor has a gigantic effect on weather patterns. Similarly, anti-AGW people will never be able to see that continuous increases in water vapor emission will cause long term increases in atmospheric water vapor, which will eventually cause a change that is seen in "climate". Of course, when the worldwide economy starts to break down, the increase in water vapor emissions slows and stops as consumption drops, and the effect levels off rather neatly.

Unfortunately, human beings allow ideas to become cults, and they gravitate toward one side or the other rather than taking a rational view based on evidence, rather than refusing to take part in the false dichotomy set up by others.

Science does not need or want Bastions! (2, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866757)

Science is not politics or military action, both of whom require proponderences in numbers and quality. Science is about discovering underlying truth, quite irrespective of who believes what or how well they speak.

This is why the Climategate email scandal is an irrelevant distraction. It might mean something about the credibility of the individuals invovled, but science is supposed to be testable, so personalities are irrelevant. The climate does not care about emails much -- just from the slight additional power generation, somewhat less than for JanetJacksons nip-slip.

It is very odd (&revealing?) the NYT doesn't know better.

Cloudy days (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866761)

This is something I've known since I was a kid. In the high desert where I grew up, I knew cloudy days were warmer than clear days, and the nights even more so.

Climate change deniers annoy me not so much because they have their heads up their asses but more because they seem to want to keep stuffing it even deeper in. They're like the Disney version of an ostrich. Danger approaching! Stick head in ass and hope it goes away.

Blog spam (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39866779)

All three "papers" links are to thinkprogress.org? Why is Slashdot publishing obvious link bait?

Bill Nye the Science Guy Boo'd off stage in Waco (4, Insightful)

retroworks (652802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866783)

It wasn't all that long ago that we had a "bastion" of people in Waco who rejected the idea that the Moon is not a source of light, but reflects light from the Sun... So I have trouble believing the Global Warming debate will end with this NYT announcement. http://tinyurl.com/billnyemoon [tinyurl.com]

One more bastion (2)

Troyusrex (2446430) | more than 2 years ago | (#39866785)

Until temperatures start rising again there will always be a bastion for the deniers that temperature increases are far below IPCC predictions and, for now, continue to increasingly deviate from predictions. You can have all of the models and theories in the world but until you can show that your predictions are spot on your opposition will have lots of ammunition to shot at you with.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?