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!

How Weather Influences Global Warming Opinions

samzenpus posted about 10 months ago | from the cold-is-the-new-hot dept.

Earth 517

An anonymous reader writes in with this story about how people's belief in climate change shifts with the temperature. "Last week's polar vortex weather event wasn't only hard on fingers, toes and heating bills. It also overpowered the ability of most people to make sound judgments about climate change, in the same way that heat waves do, according to a new study published in the Jan. 11 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change. Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked. During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."

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

Egocentrism (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938267)

It's all the same

"There's no global warming because I'm cold."
"There's no poverty because I'm rich."
"There's no racism because I'm white."

Re:Egocentrism (0, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#45938283)

It's all the same

"There's no global warming because I'm cold." "There's no poverty because I'm rich." "There's no racism because I'm white."

Add to that "there's no Islamic terrorism because they haven't hit my town ... yet!

Re:Egocentrism (5, Insightful)

Kythe (4779) | about 10 months ago | (#45938355)

1) There is Islamic terrorism, and U.S. militia terrorism, and atheist terrorism, and Christian terrorism, and others. I know of no one worth listening to who seriously disputes any of these.
2) If you're really sitting around worried about Islamic terrorists hitting your town, you need to get a hobby.

Re:Egocentrism (-1, Flamebait)

Noxal (816780) | about 10 months ago | (#45938401)

There is no atheist terrorism you fucking moron.

Re:Egocentrism (2, Insightful)

Teun (17872) | about 10 months ago | (#45938445)

Ah you must be American for you've never heard of guys like Stalin or Mao.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938597)

Atheism was functional in those Cults of Personality, the same way sex is functional in your relationship with someone who friendzoned you.

Re:Egocentrism (2)

c0lo (1497653) | about 10 months ago | (#45938633)

Ah you must be American for you've never heard of guys like Stalin or Mao.

But... they weren't terrorists, they were the "heroes of their people" (grin).
You see, they acted within the bound of the law (pretty much as NSA does lately).

Re:Egocentrism (2)

dunkelfalke (91624) | about 10 months ago | (#45938807)

Well, not quite. Stalin was indeed a terrorist pre-1917 and has even served prison time when he was caught.

Re:Egocentrism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938819)

Stalin and Mao murdered millions of their own citizens. I don't think the NSA is quite in the same league, and any legal system that allows one to murder people is not really a legal system.

Re:Egocentrism (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938723)

I might be mistaken, but I think what Noxal was getting at was that those with a non-religious agenda orchestrating Terror (whether it's Stalin, Mao, Robbespierre, whatever) are doing so *not* because non-belief is the one and only true path to enlightenment as the dogmatic religious believe, but because they believe (and virally spread this belief) in higher authorities than the State or the Party or the Glorious Leader. Their religious indoctrination was at odds with the dictator and their doctrine.

In other words, atheism and a policy of non-belief was a means to consolidate power. Weed out those that gather and foment discord and make them illegal.

Saying 'atheist terrorism' and Stalin or Mao or Earth First in the same sentence is stupid and does make you sound like a fucking moron. Atheism is not their agenda. Power, control and a totalitarianism agenda *is*.

Re:Egocentrism (2)

cusco (717999) | about 10 months ago | (#45938857)

Stalin's secret police broke up hiking clubs and imprisoned the leadership of the country's largest amateur rocket club. It had nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with a group not sponsored by Stalin's political apparatus having meetings.

Re:Egocentrism (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45938901)

Well, no, even though I think the charge of "atheist terrorism" is incredibly moronic, Stalin did have a quite official anti-religion position, stemming, quite directly, from Marx and his "opiate of the masses" assertion.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938477)

There is no atheist terrorism you fucking moron.

What? Have you ever read a history book? Some anti-religious people can be as crazy as some religious people.

Re:Egocentrism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938497)

There is no atheist terrorism you fucking moron.

WRONG [wikipedia.org]

Who's the moron? Hopefully you're not fucking because we really don't need your genes to continue in the human gene pool.

Assuming you're human.

Re:Egocentrism (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938621)

The given link doesn't show that Earth First are a) Atheists or b) Terrorists. So in answer to your question, I guess "You" would be the correct response.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

jcr (53032) | about 10 months ago | (#45938789)

If you want an example of atheist terrorism, all of the communist regimes that ever existed fit the description.

-jcr

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938853)

What about the Rote Armee Fraktion in Germany? I think there's little doubt that they were terrorists, and I'm quite sure that as communistic terrorists they were also atheists.

Re:Egocentrism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938637)

Well depends on what constitutes terror in the definition of terrorism. I'd say an atheist group out of Wisconsin that regularly tries to use the power of liberal courts by filing what could be financially crippling lawsuits against small communities in the South that they don't agree with could be considered as being a form of terrorism.

They base their arguments on the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State (a phrase that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution) only that is not what the 1st Amendment says. The Amendment says specifically that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress had nothing to do with a small town high school saying prayers before a football game, but a bunch of atheists in Wisconsin seem to think they need to but in. The religion clause of the 1st Amendment specifically applies to the federal government, not the States. State constitutions might have a similar clause which then would trickle down to local communities, but that is up to each State to decide.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Chrisq (894406) | about 10 months ago | (#45938737)

Well depends on what constitutes terror in the definition of terrorism. I'd say an atheist group out of Wisconsin that regularly tries to use the power of liberal courts by filing what could be financially crippling lawsuits against small communities in the South that they don't agree with could be considered as being a form of terrorism.

They base their arguments on the 1st Amendment separation of Church and State (a phrase that does not appear anywhere in the Constitution) only that is not what the 1st Amendment says. The Amendment says specifically that

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress had nothing to do with a small town high school saying prayers before a football game, but a bunch of atheists in Wisconsin seem to think they need to but in. The religion clause of the 1st Amendment specifically applies to the federal government, not the States. State constitutions might have a similar clause which then would trickle down to local communities, but that is up to each State to decide.

Oh that's all right then - because some group brings financially crippling lawsuits the muslims should be allowed to kill, kidnap and rape.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938937)

I'm pretty sure killing, kidnapping and raping is forbidden regardless of religion.

Re:Egocentrism (4, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 10 months ago | (#45938801)

. I'd say an atheist group out of Wisconsin that regularly tries to use the power of liberal courts by filing what could be financially crippling lawsuits against small communities in the South that they don't agree with could be considered as being a form of terrorism.

Nope. Harassment and malicious litigation aren't terrorism. Nobody's afraid that these people in Wisconsin are going to kill them.

-jcr

Re:Egocentrism (1)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45938931)

Nope. Harassment and malicious litigation aren't terrorism. Nobody's afraid that these people in Wisconsin are going to kill them.

-jcr

Playing devil's advocate again, since people I'd agree with are making so many dumb assertions in this thread, but "harassment and malicious litigation" get called terrorism every time the RIAA or patent trolls are involved.

Re:Egocentrism (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938911)

The religion clause of the 1st Amendment specifically applies to the federal government, not the States. State constitutions might have a similar clause which then would trickle down to local communities, but that is up to each State to decide.

The Supreme Court decided in 1947 [wikipedia.org] that the anti-establishment clause applies to the states as well as Congress due to the 14th Amendment. Similar logic [wikipedia.org] has been applied to much of the Bill of Rights.

Re:Egocentrism (1)

radio4fan (304271) | about 10 months ago | (#45938863)

Just two off the top of my head:

Tamil Tigers [wikipedia.org] (yes, atheist suicide bombers, no less!)

INLA [wikipedia.org]

I'm sure there are plenty of other (pretty much by definition atheist) Marxist-Leninist terrorist groups.

Re:Egocentrism (2)

indy_Muad'Dib (869913) | about 10 months ago | (#45938535)

dont forget the ecoterrorism. ALF, sea shepard, greenpeace, etc etc etc.

Re:Egocentrism (1)

arielCo (995647) | about 10 months ago | (#45938635)

Yeah, that furry fat alien was the scourge of the Tanners.

Re:Egocentrism (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 10 months ago | (#45938669)

The only one of those that are proper eco-terrorists are the ALF. The others are just protest groups who occasionally commit petty crimes (they don't use violence). There are other real eco-terrorist groups out there like TAS.

Re:Muzzi-wog pimping Egocentrism (1)

noshellswill (598066) | about 10 months ago | (#45938541)

Tell that to the  slaughtered Syrian & Lebanese Christians ... then join a white-JiHad group displacing Lebanese Sunnis.  Pick yo' klan hoser ... Allah Akbar and kick-their   Muzzi-wog *zzwhole.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

wyr_taliesin (1000725) | about 10 months ago | (#45938561)

Don't forget US military trrrism.

Re:Egocentrism (1)

TWX (665546) | about 10 months ago | (#45938811)

Add to that "there's no Islamic terrorism because they haven't hit my town ... yet!

Sure there's Islamic terrorism! Fox News told me so! And when they tell me about global warming, poverty, and racism I'll believe it then too, but not until then!

Re:Egocentrism (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938303)

"There's no racism because I'm white."

Ah, the old "whites can't suffer racism" canard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_farm_attacks [wikipedia.org]
http://www.examiner.com/article/federal-statistics-of-black-on-white-violence-with-links-and-mathematical-extrapolation-formulas [examiner.com]

Now go on talking about white privilege or some other inane rebuttal you undoubtedly have and remember that whites (and jewish people) largely are behind the computer you are typing your response with.

Re:Egocentrism (-1, Flamebait)

Kythe (4779) | about 10 months ago | (#45938371)

You would have done much better if you hadn't cited the Examiner. If it's independent data from a respected source, you should be able to link to something more reputable.

Re:Egocentrism (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938505)

Yes, it must be false because it came from someone with an opinion. If only you had gone to MSNBC instead.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938601)

Yes, it must be false because it came from someone with an opinion. If only you had gone to MSNBC instead.

It is not that it *must* be false, but trustworthiness of a source clearly is a factor you should consider before believing everything you read. Even if purporting to refer to official statistics, an inherently biased source can easily twist that into something there isn't a basis for. I have no opinion on how trustworthy MSNBC are, but as there seem to enough people frequently calling them out for having a liberal agenda, people are aware and can fact check them as well if their stories don't provide sources that are in line with how they present it.

Re:Egocentrism (2)

Kythe (4779) | about 10 months ago | (#45938335)

It's analogous to claiming every night after ~7pm that there is no sun because it's dark out.

Re:Egocentrism (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938395)

"I don't live in a totalitarian police state because I've never been detained without charge or sentenced without trial or deprived of property without warrant."

Re:Egocentrism (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938417)

"I'm not sexist because I'm female."

Re:Egocentrism (5, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45938483)

It would probably help if every time there's a hurricane like Sandy, Katrina, et. al. there wasn't some global warming advocate on TV arguing that this was evidence of global warming. You can't taut every weather event that supports warming as evidence and then turn around and dismiss every weather event that doesn't jibe with the narrative.

Nor do I find the argument that EVERY weather event (extreme, mild, or otherwise) somehow supports warming. You can't just set up a hypothesis and then say that there is no evidence that can ever possibly contradict it. That's religion, not science.

Re:Egocentrism (2, Insightful)

haruchai (17472) | about 10 months ago | (#45938551)

  If you're referring to the polar vortex, it actually does "jibe with the narrative" or doesn't contradict it.
And for quite a long time, every time there's been a cold snap, there's someone on Fox News making snide remarks about "we could use some global warming right now".

Re:Egocentrism (3, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45938687)

If you're referring to the polar vortex, it actually does "jibe with the narrative"

See the second paragraph. If you're going to claim that *every* extreme weather events supports your warming narrative, you're already on shaky ground. If you combine that with the fact that you refuse to accept mild weather as contradictory evidence, now you're moving into a faith-based, rather than scientific, realm. You've set up a scenario where there is no possible evidence that can ever contradict your hypothesis.

If you're going to cite weather as evidence of global warming, then you have to be willing to accept contradictory weather evidence as well (or at least accept that such evidence COULD exist). Personally, I agree with the GP that citing individual weather events for evidence of global warming is VERY ill-advised and scientifically suspect. But if you *must*, then you can't have it both ways.

Re:Egocentrism (1)

Jawnn (445279) | about 10 months ago | (#45938933)

It would probably help if every time there's a hurricane like Sandy, Katrina, et. al. there wasn't some global warming advocate on TV arguing that this was evidence of global warming. You can't taut every weather event that supports warming as evidence and then turn around and dismiss every weather event that doesn't jibe with the narrative.

If you are suggesting that the unusual extremes we're seeing in winter weather patterns are not an indicator of global warming, you have more to learn.

Re:Egocentrism (4, Insightful)

TWiTfan (2887093) | about 10 months ago | (#45938977)

Since you seem to think that these weather extremes are evidence for global warming, is mild weather contradictory evidence (if we have a mild winter or summer, for example)? And if not, then can *any* weather evidence *possibly* ever exist to contradict your argument? If the answer is "No," then that's not science. It's religion.

man made (0, Flamebait)

p51d007 (656414) | about 10 months ago | (#45938495)

man made global warming is and has always been MADE UP. The only reason, is to control people who are too stupid to realize that the sun runs in cycles. We had one of these severe cold snaps in the 70's...lasted most of the winter. It was colder than this even then. And the next summer? It was hotter than it ever was. Then, in the 80's it moderated, and in the early 90's it heated up again, then cooled again. The man made global warming nuts are just trying to control the money the United States and other "rich" countries have, steal it away, and give it to the "poor" countries, because, under their idea of a Utopian world, if someone has more than someone else, that isn't fair. Of course, those that make up these rules, are exempt from having more than anyone else. You want to see how this would all end? Watch the movie Elysium.

Re:man made (1)

cusco (717999) | about 10 months ago | (#45938909)

Sorry, but none of that had anything to do with "the sun running in cycles", since solar output stayed pretty much the same throughout the entire period. Or did all the solar research labs of the 1970s conspire to hide the evidence? Go look at the data.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938519)

It's all the same

"There's no global warming because I'm cold."
"There's no poverty because I'm rich."
"There's no racism because I'm white."

I am white and I can attest that racism do exist. I was the minority in a "multicultural" high school. You clearly don't know shit about racism.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938701)

It's fun being the only white dude at the African American cultural center. Those black folks are all right.

Re:Egocentrism (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938573)

"There's no God because I haven't seen him"
"There are no unicorns because I haven't ridden one."
"The Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no one has ever videotaped it."

It's NOT "all the same." Sometimes the skeptics are right.

Re:Egocentrism (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938971)

There are unicorns. It's just that they look nothing like how unicorns are usually depicted, and also have no magical abilities. And usually they are not called unicorn, but rhinoceros.

SCNR

There's no energy crisis (1)

h00manist (800926) | about 10 months ago | (#45938581)

"There is no energy crisis because I can generate my own"

Right-wing, radical freedom and independence, states rights, end-of-the-world survavalists should be embracing generation of their own energy, if they are serious about independence from corporations, monopolies, etc. It's nearly impossible to create your own gas, but electricity is comparatively easy to generate.

The military is quite right-wing, but they are just practical when it comes to generating power.

https://www.google.com.br/search?q=solar+wind+power+site%3A.mil [google.com.br]

Re:There's no energy crisis (1)

JWW (79176) | about 10 months ago | (#45938829)

It's nearly impossible to create your own gas

According to the last episode of Mythbusters, not so much.

Re:Egocentrism (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938615)

You probably believe all this is due to man kind..
You probably think that just because someone owns a business they're rich.
You probably also believe that racism against whites does not exist.

Typical of today's young brainwashed idiots.

Re:Egocentrism (5, Insightful)

Charcharodon (611187) | about 10 months ago | (#45938739)

Just as you can say

"There's global warming because it's hot."
"I'm poor because someone else is richer than me."
"I can't be racist because I'm black."

Sure (5, Insightful)

rmdingler (1955220) | about 10 months ago | (#45938285)

But only for people who confuse weather with climate.

The very same logic is used to fashion correlation from coincidence the World over.

Re:Sure (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938349)

Using a different word doesn't make it any less true or make the grant money flow any less. I would appreciate it if you quit using my tax dollars chasing unicorns and pixie dust faeries, with the sole end result being to hamstring legitmate businesses. A week ago it was so far below average temperatures here that even if the rest of the winter is normal we'll never make it up. That destroys any global warming theories from people who like to hear themselves talk but sheer brute force.

Nice bit of fan fic you have there. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938433)

Please, show where this "sole end result being to hamstring legitmate businesses" is proven, I'd like to see it.

"A week ago it was so far below average temperatures here that even if the rest of the winter is normal we'll never make it up."

No, that is incorrect. Please don't make up your own data and then fail to show the data you made up to at least PRETEND you have proof of your claims.

"That destroys any global warming theories"

So CO2 isn't an absorber of IR because it's cold somewhere???

Re:Sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938485)

LOL I bet you're the guy that opens the refrigerator door in the summertime to cool down your apartment!

Re:Sure (2)

cusco (717999) | about 10 months ago | (#45938935)

It's been so hot in Australia that they've had to add new colors to the weather charts. 50+ degrees (122 F), it's so hot that people can't use their iToys outside because they overheat and shut down.

Re:Sure (3, Funny)

The Rizz (1319) | about 10 months ago | (#45938369)

Obligatory Armstrong & Miller [youtube.com] link.

Re:Sure (4, Insightful)

Racemaniac (1099281) | about 10 months ago | (#45938627)

isn't it just that people react emotionally to such things? the real discussion is far above the understanding of 99.99(don't know how many more nines until i only keep the real experts)% of the people, so when asked an opinion, they react more emotionally than logically. So on depending on the current weather it's logical those emotions are different.

I also hate discussions about topics like this, because it's just emotional shouting at eachother with facts only used to confirm what you feel is right. Even when people on this site would love to claim how intellectual they are, both sides are more about emotions and personal viewpoints than real science, we might now some good facts, read some interesting articles, but do we really know anything about climate science, all the subtle things, ... everything that can't be easily found in popular science magazines or the few popular arguments from both sides that people keep repeating to prove their own feelings are the best.

Re:Sure (1)

xelah (176252) | about 10 months ago | (#45938705)

Indeed. People are more likely to buy stuff priced at x.99, despite knowing it's a trick, they care more about the opinions of attractive people, they spend more if they go round a US supermarket anti-clockwise, they guess higher numbers for the proportion of UN countries which are African if you spin a wheel of fortune which gives a high number first and generally behave in lots of damn stupid ways. (And, by the way, all this still works even once you know about it). Assuming it's all because of stupidity is just lazy.

Global vs. local effects (5, Interesting)

ghack (454608) | about 10 months ago | (#45938289)

Global warming is exactly that- a global trend, not a local one. Locally, the effects have been most pronounced near the north pole [wikimedia.org] , which is not exactly a place where many people live.

Global climate change seems to have resulted recently in a "warming" trend, but as we know from Al Gore's movie, if the North Atlantic current gets shut off we are in for a polar vortex on a much longer time scale.

I am not sure who coined the phrase "global warming"; is it a PR failure by the scientists involved or a reporting failure by the news media? To quote a well known meme: "why not both?"

Re:Global vs. local effects (2)

rvw (755107) | about 10 months ago | (#45938333)

I am not sure who coined the phrase "global warming"; is it a PR failure by the scientists involved or a reporting failure by the news media? To quote a well known meme: "why not both?"

Global warming - I don't know if this is a good phrase of not. I've heard that if the Gulf Stream to Europe gets redirected because of the global warming, Europe will have a cold future. My experience for the past five years here in Europe is that winters have much more snow, and we have more storms than normal. We keep breaking weather records, warmest October, warmest 5 januari, coldest May - whatever. Although you don't know if this a temporary change for like five to fifty or five hundred years, it seems to show that because of warming, the ocean heats up, which results in more extreme weather.

Re:Global vs. local effects (1)

Teun (17872) | about 10 months ago | (#45938585)

And right now Europe is experiencing the warmest December and January ever...

That's local and not Global, just like the (short) cold spell in the US

Re:Global vs. local effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938783)

And right now Europe is experiencing the warmest December and January ever...

That's local and not Global, just like the (short) cold spell in the US

Actually, there's one part of the US that even this winter's succession of cold waves has hardly touched. Have you seen any of the recent temperature maps where most of the country is freezing solid, but not Florida?

Last week's Polar Vortex snap was the first below-freezing temperatures for even the parts of the state that statistically should be dipping below 32 for an average of 30 days each year. There was no traditional Xmas Freeze in the northern parts of the state (it's only Tropical south of Palm Beach). Air Conditioners were running in December.

What's even more telling is what happens between those cold waves. High Temperatures in the 70s and 80s when they should be in the 60s. If you live in Michigan and your relatives in Orlando seem to be especially irritating when talking about the winter this year, that's probably why. Not even the US is totally chilled down.

Re:Global vs. local effects (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938533)

So let's run around and make everything more dramatic. From Polar Vortex to giving every snowstorm a name now. What a bunch of shills. Hitler's big lie is your big lie. You people truly are mentors of one of the most evil men to every have existed.

All this was inspired by the principle--which is quite true within itself--that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.

—Adolf Hitler , Mein Kampf

Re:Global vs. local effects (2)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | about 10 months ago | (#45938729)

"Global warming" was a technically correct term. So is "climate change," even if it's not as specific, and it's actually an older term than "global warming" but wasn't known outside of scientific circles. The public saw "global warming" first and then when they saw "climate change" they thought it was a cop out, since everywhere wasn't getting hotter and they don't understand how averages work.

A term that would be both technically correct and colloquially descriptive might be something like "climate energy increase." It doesn't give any false expectations to people who don't understand averages, yet it describes the problem and shouldn't sound like a good thing to people who live in cold areas far from the equator.

Re:Global vs. local effects (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938741)

In the late 80s it was the "greenhouse effect."

Conservatives came up with the label "climate change" as it seems more neutral and points less of a finger, but I think that's actually a more accurate term. The earth is a half degree to a degree and a half warmer than it otherwise would be without increased atmospheric CO2. That does not mean it is just 1 degree warmer uniformly everywhere. If that were the case it wouldn't be that big of a deal. The problem is that the added energy affects the climate in different ways in different places.

Money does not smell (2, Insightful)

mi (197448) | about 10 months ago | (#45938309)

Global warming propagandists would take any support — whether it comes from a heatwave-induced swing or real understanding of their theories.

Meanwhile, the inconvenient truth that those theories aren't really explaining the available facts [economist.com] , is explained only by lack of funding and failure to communicate [motherjones.com] ...

Smog's wish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938517)

All those articles really say is that the atmosphere may not be as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought.

Anyway, I really like this push for lower emissions. See, along with CO2, fossils fuels also emit CO, Nitrogen and Sulfur compounds, particulants, and a bunch of other nasty things that cause smog, acid rain and other things.

So, even IF Global Warming is a complete hoax created by a conspiracy of Illuminati Hippies, I welcome it so maybe, one day in my lifetime I can spend a Summer and enjoy the outdoors without coughing up my lungs.

local weather (5, Informative)

Thorfinn.au (1140205) | about 10 months ago | (#45938311)

so just as N.America has its lowest temperatures for decades
Australia is doing some of its hottest with a rounded 50C for the first time last week
Monday -> 27C and the rest of the week's forecast is
Tuesday -> 43C
Wednesday -> 39C
Thursday -> 41C
Friday -> 40C
its all about extra energy making things more variable, but no single weather event can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change

Re:local weather (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938873)

its all about extra energy making things more variable, but no single weather event can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change

Things are variable this week, so human activity must be making things more variable?

people are gossipy idiots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938315)

Opinions change to agree with the latest gossip.

Pitbull is a diggity-dog and Ke$ha yellin Timber, yo!

Sorry that was last week. Let's see now.

Bosch Personally Injected A-Rod!! Yeah, that'll stir up some opinions.

They don't understand the difference (5, Insightful)

sjbe (173966) | about 10 months ago | (#45938323)

During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."

Of course they do because many people (most maybe) do not understand the difference between climate and weather. They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend. It is just like how people overreact to a few worse than usual days in the stock market even though the long term trend for the overall market for the last 100 years has been upwards.

Weather = what is happening today
Climate = average weather over time

Re:They don't understand the difference (0, Troll)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 10 months ago | (#45938337)

Of course they do because many people (most maybe) do not understand the difference between climate and weather.

And all of them will show up eventually on Fox News.

Re:They don't understand the difference (2)

simonreid (811410) | about 10 months ago | (#45938383)

They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend

Couldn't agree with you more..... http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2013/12/explaining-the-flaw-in-kevin-drums-and-apparently-science-magazines-climate-chart.html [coyoteblog.com]

Re:They don't understand the difference (2, Insightful)

artson (728234) | about 10 months ago | (#45938399)

Well fuck'em. We spend too much time worrying about what idiots think. It's what happens when you stop graduating STEM students, instead of folks who studied occupational basket weaving.

Re:They don't understand the difference (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938449)

Well fuck'em. We spend too much time worrying about what idiots think. It's what happens when you stop graduating STEM students, instead of folks who studied occupational basket weaving.

We have to find employment for everyone. Even the marketing and communication folks.

Re:They don't understand the difference (2)

arielCo (995647) | about 10 months ago | (#45938919)

May I remind you that said idiots, by virtue of genetically being H. sapiens and breathing, have the same voting power as you and I?

Re:They don't understand the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938439)

it may have something to do with fucking poor relationship with current local or little less local (fucking us is not a whole fucking world) temperature and the average temperature used to show the trend. If people thought a bit about that they would have to conclude that they cannot judge whether global warming is true or not even if they took their fucking heating/air condition billing for a whole fucking year and compared that with one from previous one. Scales make huge m.fucking difference if one talks about a fucking parameter that may be applied locally or globally and on the other fucking hand today or averaged over the whole fucking year.

Bottom fucking line is: morons should not be asked for judgment because they do not even know when they are way out of line.

Re:They don't understand the difference (1)

arielCo (995647) | about 10 months ago | (#45938943)

Bottom fucking line is: morons should not be asked for judgment because they do not even know when they are way out of line.

Problem is those morons, by virtue of genetically being H. sapiens and breathing, have the same voting power as you and I.

Re:They don't understand the difference (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938953)

this leads right into a question that bugs me about all this (and where the 'global warming' folks pretty much lose me).. the tl;dr question is how long is your sample size to determine global warming is a man-made phenomenon?

The records for this type of information are based on.. ~100 years of GOOD data at best? So, lets discount the other years of data we have no trend info for... so that other 2-4 billion years (evolutionists) or ~2-4 thousand years (creationists), we don't have data (and when you report delta data in 10th of a degree or higher then estimations of climate based on things like geologic data don't count b/c they can't resolve to that level). How can you tell me with a straight face you have proof mankind is altering the climate of the planet when the sample size you have covers only ~5% of the total time (and that's assuming the creation minimum of the earth existing and you actually have decent-resolution data for that 100-year sample.. if you go evolution in your time-period history your sample size turns miniscule).

(a/c to hide my ignorance if this is really a stupid question.. :D and i'm trying to also keep my other, opinion-based stuff out of this.. but the numbers in place just don't seem to do it for me)

tell the folks in puerto rico (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938339)

free the innocent stem cells

Re:tell the folks in puerto rico (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938487)

I got an eye on your ass.

How weather influences global warming (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 10 months ago | (#45938361)

For a large area of the US, it was colder than normal in December
People turned up the heat (burning more natural gas and using more electricity
people drove their SUV's to work (instead of using a more efficient car, or walking

glowbull warmongering not involved? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938381)

most linked pg. in history? http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

Peter Hadfield (aka: potholer54) (4, Informative)

taiwanjohn (103839) | about 10 months ago | (#45938385)

This guy has the most informative debunking of BS on both sides of of the issue. His series of YouTube videos [youtube.com] should be required viewing for policy makers and "armchair experts" alike.

Re:Peter Hadfield (aka: potholer54) (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#45938699)

I'm enjoying this. Thank you.

Yes, facts are manipulated. (1)

h00manist (800926) | about 10 months ago | (#45938421)

Yes, facts and opinion can be manipulated. Nothing new. For example, auto, coal, and oil companies can create disinformation campaigns about traffic, pollution, accidents, and global warming.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil#Funding_of_global_warming_disinformation_and_denial [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_activities_of_the_Koch_brothers#Fossil_fuel_and_chemical_industry_lobbying [wikipedia.org]

Re:Yes, facts are manipulated. (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938885)

I noticed you quoted Wikipedia for all of your references. You provide some quotes from an organisation that has been found to manipulate and edit information in an attempt to make it accepted. Below are some examples of how easy it is to manipulate Wikipedia for your own gain

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/hoax-article-detailing-fake-war-stayed-up-on-wikipedia-for-five-years/
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2023647/fake-wikipedia-entry-on-bicholim-conflict-finally-deleted-after-five-years.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/

So-called green organisations are guilty of the same behaviour
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/06/15/how-greenpeace-manipulated-the-media-like-a-pro-analyzing-the-shell-oil-hoax/
http://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2013/12/truly-shocking-manipulationgreenpeace-depressed-santa-global-warming-agenda-kids-christmas-will-have-to-be-cancelled-empty-stockings-video-video-752.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Greenpeace

Stop calling it Global Warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938429)

Call it what it is: Climate Change. Calling it global warming just skews the perspective and causes this problem. Of course someone who is not well versed on climate and climate change will say "global warming my ass, it's negative 40 out here!". Global warming by name alone implies warming, not cooling. Most of the general populace judges something they don't understand by name alone, unfortunately.

Re:Stop calling it Global Warming (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 10 months ago | (#45938743)

The problem is that is global warming. The global surface temperature [nasa.gov] (among other indicators) is rising. That brings more energy to the climate system, but that don't means that the effects of that power will mean in the short term only heat episodes, i.e. stronger winds that goes thru the pole will bring cold wind to warmer areas. We are not good visualizing big trends that happens over a year or five in our normal life, we see the day to day episodes, we think that weather==climate, and to make things worse, we always see the toast landing with the butter side down, easily dismissing the other cases.

The bottom line is that the global system is heathing up, that causes changes in the climate patterns, and that causes sometimes more powerful weather conditions (a complex system where small variations causes big changes, remember the butterfly effect). Don't see only the cold weather in US, at the same time been record hot weather in south america and australia, warm winters in north europe and big sea storms in portugal and france, and those too are isolated episodes, but at least is a way to point that the earth is not freezing because you felt cold in US last week.

people? (0)

mythix (2589549) | about 10 months ago | (#45938475)

"Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked"

they are not entitled to be called people, since they have no brains.

Re:people? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938571)

People who have no brains are called corporations.

branding (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938523)

That's why it should be called "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming".

News Flash: People Are Stupid (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938527)

Of course it confuses people. Why do you think the phrase "Climate change" keeps getting promoted now instead of "Global Warming"?
It take an analytical mind to understand the issues of climate change, and most people don't have one. Remember the 50% or more of your highschool classes that weren't all that into their coursework, and were striving for average? Those are the American public.

Also regarding Climatology in general: People don't remember that Climatology is statistical science, rather than a hard science. We have absolute solid mathematical and experimental proof of most things in Physics, Chemistry and Biology. Modern Climatology is in its infancy and has very little proof and a whole lot of observation and statistics.

A bit hypocritical (4, Insightful)

sideslash (1865434) | about 10 months ago | (#45938531)

I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this. Remember the use of Hurricane Katrina splashed on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie cover. And pretty much whenever there's a natural disaster you have AGW alarmists (not just trolling internet comments, but also occupying high places in government) stirring the pot some more.

Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked.

I don't doubt that this is true. I also don't doubt that the enthusiasm of researchers to jump on bandwagons follows the "weather patterns" of public funding availability. That's how Richard Lindzen of MIT describes it, and it seems to fit.

science proof (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938567)

Its never night time because the sun is up right now. obviously

Weather is Not Climate? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938595)

And yet we are to believe things like Katrina and Sandy are evidence FOR Global Warming? Aren't those things just as much "weather" as the national cold streak (which, btw, I've heard Global Warming advocates cite as evidence FOR Global Warming)?

It seems that every "weather" event is trotted out as evidence FOR Global Warming by someone. According to the advocates, there appears to be no piece of evidence that can possibly be used against Global Warming, but it can all be used as evidence it is happening. Actions like this make the whole AGW movement seem more like a religion than science.

Ohh the Irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938799)

This study is exactly why people do not believe in global warming. If scientist get paid to do obvious studies like this, people who are not scientist say 'gee these scientists are not really soo smart. I could have told these scientists these obvious facts without conducting a 10 year multi-billion dollar scientific research study affiliated with Harvard or MIT. ' But scientist are doing it all the time. How many studies have been done to determine that people who live in sunny places are happier than people who are constantly baraged by freezing rain. People see this stuff, and they doubt the ability of scientists to understand and grasp complex ideas. They have a lot more faith in the scientific analysis of mylie cyrus's twerking affair, but the public can no longer put their blind faith in a group that conducts studies such as this. Then when the 'scientific facts' disagree with their own observations the field is ripe for controversy. Scientists have scietifically determined that Kimo dragons are not poisonous, and that steroids do not cause muscle growth. Both these casually obvious falsities have been proven scientific facts at various times. People just do not trust scientists anymore. If they would do real reasearch that might change. No longer are scientist trying to conduct research on particle physics, or genetics. Instead every single ground breaking scientific discovery in the last few year seems to have about some obvious peer reviewed study to determine something like drinking 5 gallons of diet soda a day for 20 years may (then again who knows) be bad for your long term health.

Never do scientist give you any data. It is all just a 15 second pronouncement from God on NPR or CBS that this blah blah blah is the new truth. You would have to be an idiot for putting your trust in people such as these.

Give up while you still can... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45938803)

The day that science depends on something as variable as human nature is the day you should give up hope for humanity's future. Oh wait...

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?