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!

US Secretary of State Calls Climate Change 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'

samzenpus posted about 7 months ago | from the it's-getting-hot-in-here dept.

Earth 401

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "Arshad Mohammed reports on Reuters from Jakarta that US Secretary of State John Kerry warned Indonesians that man-made climate change could threaten their entire way of life, deriding those who doubted the existence of 'perhaps the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction' and describing those who do not accept that human activity causes global warming as 'shoddy scientists' and 'extreme ideologues'. 'Because of climate change, it's no secret that today Indonesia is ... one of the most vulnerable countries on Earth. It's not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk,' said Kerry. 'In a sense, climate change can now be considered another weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even the world's most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.' In Beijing on Friday, Kerry announced that China and the United States had agreed to intensify information-sharing and policy discussions on their plans to limit greenhouse gas emissions after 2020. At home, Kerry faces a politically tricky decision on whether to allow the Keystone XL pipeline after a State Department report played down the impact the Keystone pipeline would have on climate change. However Kerry showed little patience for skeptics in his speech. 'We just don't have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,' said Kerry. 'I'm talking about big companies that like it the way it is, that don't want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.'"

cancel ×

401 comments

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

Ahh Kerry... (-1, Flamebait)

Mashiki (184564) | about 7 months ago | (#46265891)

The man who threw someone elses medals over the WH found, and got three purple hearts for flesh wounds. If you take anything he says seriously you're either drinking the koolaid deeply, or a blind partisan hack.

Re:Ahh Kerry... (4, Informative)

microbox (704317) | about 7 months ago | (#46266057)

Re:Ahh Kerry... (2)

i kan reed (749298) | about 7 months ago | (#46266353)

The sad thing is that we know it isn't that special. There isn't a rare mentality that goes with that "credulous about attacks on those I disagree with". At worst it's slightly more pronounced on the political right-wing(though it's very very pronounced among those that hit "high-RWA" characteristics).

Re:Ahh Kerry... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266371)

'I'm talking about big FEDERAL AGENCIES that like it the way it is, that don't want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.'"

there, fixed that.

Has anyone seen... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265909)

Mike Hunt?

Re:Has anyone seen... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265925)

Yes, apparently he's Secretary of State.

Re:Has anyone seen... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 7 months ago | (#46266087)

Mike Hunt?

You missing Amanda Jamitinya badly, aren't ya?

Given the mass extinctions... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265915)

We probably could consider climate change of any significant degree to be a weapon of mass destruction, if only due to foodchain collapses that would trickle down the line and proceed to kill many many many things. But, that said, it is a rather hyperbolic statement.

Re:Given the mass extinctions... (3, Informative)

plover (150551) | about 7 months ago | (#46266051)

As an island nation, most Indonesians live within a few miles of a coast. A typhoon's impact ends within a few miles of a coast. Imagine a hurricane Sandy type event striking half the population centers of the country, not just one or two cities.

Re:Given the mass extinctions... (2)

Shavano (2541114) | about 7 months ago | (#46266097)

It's not comparable. The effects of climate change advance slowly. Sure, every year more people might be exposed to storms but it takes decades for an area to become uninhabitable. It's enormously expensive and whole countries can be whittled away. Or in US terms, large portions of some states.

Re:Given the mass extinctions... (3, Insightful)

plover (150551) | about 7 months ago | (#46266177)

Yes, they're slow, but the effects can locally be violent as change happens. Warming of the ocean's waters could add energy to storms, or increase their frequency. I'm not saying Manila will be underwater next year due to the rising oceans, only that climate change increases the chances that it will be hit hard by a typhoon.

But as someone else pointed out below, if it can't be wielded, it's not a weapon. It could have the same destructive effects as a weapon, but it's not a weapon.

Re:Given the mass extinctions... (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about 7 months ago | (#46266313)

if it can't be wielded, it's not a weapon.

Just because it can't be wielded doesn't mean it can't be used as a tool of warfare.

More likely, climate change will be the cause of warfare, not a weapon thereof.

Bah, fake posturing. (4, Interesting)

Lumpy (12016) | about 7 months ago | (#46265923)

As a michigan resident I discovered this year that the Democrats have no interest in saving the environment. they wont even shut off the chicago river to keep the damn china carp from infesting the great lakes. Obama himself refuses to let the scientists and the Civil engineers shut it off. by the time they stop their stupid posturing it will be too late.

"by 2020" is too late, way too late to begin to start to talk about things. they need to be talking now not at a date set so that none of the current leaders have to bother with it.

Your backyard (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265969)

"I'll let 'em take care of climate change after they've solved the cigarette buds problem in my backyard".

Yee-haw.

Way to go. Humankind is doomed, after all. Because were all so infinitely stupid.

Sad.

Re:Your backyard (4, Insightful)

khallow (566160) | about 7 months ago | (#46265991)

Well given that the Chinese carp situation in Michigan probably should be a more important priority for the US than hamstringing human civilization in the name of global warming, I really don't see the stupidity.

Re:Your backyard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266033)

If you don't care about global warming, why are you concerned about some overgrown goldfish?

Re:Your backyard (4, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#46266175)

you clearly have no idea what carp do to a water system. Where I live they took over in the past 30 years, 90% of the normal fish are gone, It really is a major problem and here we have a simple way to keep them from in essence destroying all the fish in our biggest natural waterways. I was actually unaware of the issue in the OPs area but as someone who knows first hand how damaging carp can be, I have to side with him. Why should we focus on the large picture when we cant even focus on the small (comparatively speaking)

Re:Your backyard (2)

TCFOO (876339) | about 7 months ago | (#46266223)

Ok. the carp can be a problem, but the OP is whining about how the politicians in Michigan aren't doing anything about a river that is in Illinois.

Re:Your backyard (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266397)

Michigan, you know that state which borders 4 out of 5 great lakes? Of course their politicians should be the most vocal when they've done the research to protect against infestation, pin-pointed the entry point which it occurs, and developed multiple viable solutions for prevention. Would it hurt business a little for Chicago, one city out of thousands in this nation for the sake of preserving a national treasure the great lakes are? Of course. Guess where Obama came from and why he's not helping the rest of us.. that's right, Chicago.

Re:Your backyard (1)

operagost (62405) | about 7 months ago | (#46266429)

No, he said "the Democrats" and included the President, implying a federal intervention.

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (1, Insightful)

gutnor (872759) | about 7 months ago | (#46265993)

The US has no interest in saving the environment. Neither is (really) any of the other first world nations. Like Europe, the US will not get the worst of climate change, and in any case, there is no place better prepared to deal with the consequences.

It is however a real problem for almost all other countries. I guess Kerry's message is really "Friendly warning guys: you better care about the environment, because we don't give a fuck and you will get the sharp end of the stick."

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (5, Interesting)

microbox (704317) | about 7 months ago | (#46266105)

That is just simply wrong. There are powerful intrenched interests with their misinformation campaign [merchantsofdoubt.org] , and a bunch of sheep who think they're rebels for repeating the tortured logic of others, but that is really the sum total of the opposition to change.

And make no mistake, change is coming. The USA, Germany and China are leading the way in creating alternative sources of energy. The Germans and northern Europeans in particular are figuring out the engineering problems of using renewables on the grid. And the price of renewables is decreasing exponentially. Wind is now cheaper than every fossil fuel save gas, and will be cheaper than gas in five or so years. Solar is a little behind, but exponential is exponential.

Sure there are problems left to solve, but don't let anyone fool you into thinking that nobody cares. In fact, some of the smartest engineers and scientists in the world are figuring this out, and there is plenty of government and industry money to do "right" by the next generation.

If there's one major problem, its that the issue is a political football, but in the end, the smart money will move on, and the fluff heads will be left with wild conspiracy theories about how coal/oil was better all along, and a bunch of communists destroyed a perfectly good industry.

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (4)

jez9999 (618189) | about 7 months ago | (#46266229)

The Germans and northern Europeans in particular are figuring out the engineering problems of using renewables on the grid.

Use nuclear. Problem solved.

BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266297)

Then why does it cost more to the consumer? if it is cheaper? Should it not be more friendly in price. Why do you need the same amount in backup power if it is so effective, or batteries, to sustain the bridge in generation? But I will give you this, it's neat in someone elses back yard. Windmills are cool. They slow the wind, they create a turbulence where there was laminare airflow before, okay how about solar, creates a hotspot changing the wind pattern, needs batteries, not as effective at night when the wind usually calms down, need a backup generation facility, just as wind, usually powered by natural gas, or coal, or the stuff none but the navy love. but they use oils, also, to feed the bearings, lube the axles, ect. etc.

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (2, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | about 7 months ago | (#46266395)

You'll have to excuse the great unwashed masses (sometime called "the middle class") for being a bit skeptical after being told by our Dear Leader that with a cap and trade system, electricity prices would "necessarily skyrocket". Every cost for the transition from coal and oil is being dropped on the (former) middle class in every scenario.

Let's try doing the hard thing, putting the greatest minds to work figuring out how to do this without violating the civil rights of the people, instead of coming up with half-asses "solutions" and imposing them at the point of a gun.

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (1)

aliquis (678370) | about 7 months ago | (#46266115)

Is relative competition that important then?

Surely some of us will have some consequences and it will still cost us?

Norway seemed to get by easily though (at least if you only look at the costal lines.)

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266053)

As a Earth resident I discover I don't really care about your local enviromental issues being used to derail a global conversation.

But your (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266311)

global issue is my local issue, being usurped by the government, where I will no longer have a say.

Re:Bah, fake posturing. (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 7 months ago | (#46266151)

They're already there. You have no point.

Shit... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265929)

Now we're all terrorists.

Re:Shit... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | about 7 months ago | (#46265933)

Only if you're polluting more than your fair share, comrade.

Re:Shit... (1)

c0lo (1497653) | about 7 months ago | (#46266025)

Only if you're polluting more than your fair share, comrade.

Nah, mate... I'm not polluting [stdpioneer.org] even my share.

Re:Shit... (1)

Cornwallis (1188489) | about 7 months ago | (#46265949)

Now we're all terrorists.

I guess I am if I throw another log in the wood stove today...

Re:Shit... (4, Insightful)

microbox (704317) | about 7 months ago | (#46266121)

I guess I am if I throw another log in the wood stove today...

Burning a log is just part of the normal carbon cycle. You do know that the CO2 in the log returns to the atmosphere anyway, right? Maybe it would take 10 years instead of 5 minutes; however, the CO2 remains out of the carbon cycle only if you bury the wood underground.

The whole point is that CO2 was sequestered out of the atmosphere over billions of years, and stored underground in oil and coal. Now we're dredging that up and returning it to the atmosphere.

Re:Shit... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46266361)

We had a good carbon sequestration system in place already with the burial of yard waste.

Then the 1970s happened, and innumerate schills bleated we were running out of space, which was false. But they got it banned, and, worse, got biodegrading landfills underway.

My mother-in-law, as democrat as you can get, dutifully composts everything.

Not a Weapon (3, Insightful)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 7 months ago | (#46265941)

It's not a weapon if it cannot be wielded. If it is just lashing about indiscriminately then it's not a weapon.

Re:Not a Weapon (3, Funny)

JeffOwl (2858633) | about 7 months ago | (#46266007)

So it's a doomsday device? So we need to preserve our ability to trigger it so we can't be held hostage by other countries like China that produce more greenhouse emissions than we do? We need to actively work to avoid a doomsday gap!

Re:Not a Weapon, well lets think about that one. (1)

AlabamaCajun (2710177) | about 7 months ago | (#46266159)

Turns out it is a weapon because mother nature is wielding it. (2nd amendment rights protects her). Russia took a gamble that the mountains would have good snow because the Caucuses mountains use to have good snow. Mother nature can be a bitch. Today, it's evident that some parts of the world is warmer during winter and even mountain snow packs are hit hard. The US froze it gas off this year due to the energy now shifting the polar climate system. We tend to ignore the climate change more when we are getting hit hard with winters that freeze the lakes. The planet still has some cold spots and some places are collecting more snow like Antarctica. We can't ignore that too many places are now getting baked while we are shoveling snow and crashing cars in the "icerstates". For the conspiracist, does anyone know if HARP was fired up to spoil the Olympics? (J/K)
If the US used the weather patterns as a weapon then it's pointed at the US West coast also as we are taking a dry beating there where our vegetable and fruit basket is. Florida may pick up some of the slack since I did not hear about orange groves getting wiped out this season. It's about time the US took the posture it should have 14 years ago and did more. At least the energy companies are taking action but at a cost with the environmental damage it is causing. Why are we bitching at China when we have a mess in the US. List the problems we had. Oil spills, train derailments, fracking and other chemical spills, ask pit dam breaks (and the Governors slap them on the proverbial wrist with cheap fine while their citizens suffer and pay for the cleanup).
Why don't we pump some effort into solar steam generators so we can at least pick up some energy. It works best in the summer but if done correctly it could warm up winters too. Even at 40F sunlight striking a back tube inside a vacummed glass vessel is capable of generating steam. What happened to geothermal, we have a few places we could drop in a few systems.
We are in China to negotiate restrictions on cheap exports of solar panels which we lost tax dollars through the DOE and Solyndra et-al. We have to step up what we started and use what all countries are producing to solve the problem. Convince China to start using all those panels it makes at home for it's own people. They would benefit from it and we could produce more so we have more money to buy their mobile gadgets.

Re:Not a Weapon (1, Interesting)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 7 months ago | (#46266431)

I'd rather have slowly rising seas and powerful economies that a slowed economy, if mass destruction of life is your concern.

See, people die for many reasons, and only advancing science and increased economic power (as China and India are proving yet again) really save lives...vs. disease and starvation. Nobody dies moving back from the sea, leaving old buildings anyway.

But massive economic interference is little different from. kickbacks in corrupt or failed states, in net effect.

I don't want to authorize government additional powers..because I love humanity "and the common man" .

He's Illogical (0, Troll)

usacoder (816957) | about 7 months ago | (#46265943)

His botox injections have crept into the neocortex.

USA Liable for AGW Costs? (4, Funny)

DougF (1117261) | about 7 months ago | (#46265945)

So, the US's Sec of State is self-admitting guilt of committing crimes against the entire planet, leaving the USA now liable in international court for the costs of AGW? I knew the US liberals were self-destructive, but this takes the cake.

what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266073)

the USA now liable in international court for the costs of AGW?

1. What "International court"?

2. Since when does the US do what any international authority says when it doesn't want to?

This fear of the US being liable for AGW or being taxed higher for it is complete and utter bullshit invented by Rush, Hannity and the liars on Fox News to scare people into thinking US sovereignty will be compromised.

Re:what? (1)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about 7 months ago | (#46266257)

Without binding targets, there's nothing to prosecute, in any case.

Take Copenhagen. The political elite got together in 2009, gave lots of lovely speeches but ultimately sat on their hands and achieved nothing.

My own government, for example, committed to 25% reductions of 1990 levels only if the rest of the world did something - so that was whittled down to a 5% target. A measly 5% ??? - get serious...

Re:USA Liable for AGW Costs? (0, Troll)

coastwalker (307620) | about 7 months ago | (#46266103)

Your money stinks, most of it is debt and we don't want it.

Half the world hates you with a passion for your criminal lack of morality and arrogance.

Typical for your response to be that you can always pay for the millions of deaths you will cause with a fine.

Your culture is revolting, lets hope the Chinese behave better than you because they are clearly the future.

Re: USA Liable for AGW Costs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266205)

No more crack rock and cheesy balls for you sir, now please go away!

Re:USA Liable for AGW Costs? (1)

mdsolar (1045926) | about 7 months ago | (#46266329)

Not at all. Up to the threshold of dangerous climate change, there is no blame. But, now, China is pushing us past that threshold. It is countries with growing emissions that must be forced to pay reparations for climate change induced damage.

finally the truth? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265951)

there must be a catch... http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

Skepticism (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265967)

Sorry, good science requires skepticism.

We know the previous "best" models are flawed/incomplete.

AFAIK none of them predicted a decade+ flatline in global temps.

The pro and anti groups are both religiously attached to their views.

Makes VI/EMACS looks like a pragmatic debate.

Another excuse for US to start a war? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265973)

In my imagination I've just hear words like "It's our duty to stop country X to stop their horrible acts of mass destruction, they refuse to shut down their coal/oil/atom/water/wind/whatever-suits-the-situation power plants so we'll invade them!". Sounds really dangerous and creepy to call various things "a weapon".

Way of Life. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265977)

It's not an exaggeration to say that the entire way of life that you live and love is at risk,' said Kerry.

What is this fetish for people keeping their "way of life"? If all of us kept our "way of life", we'd still be hunter gatherers. Changing ones way of life is a good thing.

I am actively changing my way of life to reduce my consumerism, eat a more vegetarian diet, reduce clutter, turn off most of the electronic media (no cable), drive less - basically, I'm working on not having an American way of life and I'm feeling better and better.

Re:Way of Life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266077)

I am actively changing my way of life to reduce my consumerism, eat a more vegetarian diet, reduce clutter, turn off most of the electronic media (no cable), drive less - basically, I'm working on not having an American way of life and I'm feeling better and better.

Good for you! You know what would make you feel a whole lot better? Give up posting on Slashdot. People who stop arguing on the Internet are 72% happier after they quit.

80% of Slashdotters would be happier overall, as well.

Re: Way of Life. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266273)

But the whole point in adopting his way of life is being able to boast about it on Slashdot.

It's a very first world concept to "cut back" on one's Consumerism. It involves buying less of that stuff those brown people make their living producing.

Re:Way of Life. (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#46266243)

and that is your right, but dont make me be like you because as someone once said "I dont want... your life"

So they just admitted (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46265999)

They caused the tsunami that killed 200000 people on Christmas day? (forget the year)

technocrat.net - alternative to slashdot beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266023)

Just wanted to point out to everyone that technocrat is coming back due to popular backlash from slashdot beta... Opening up February 17!:

http://technocrat.net/

Re:technocrat.net - alternative to slashdot beta (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 7 months ago | (#46266305)

From the technocrat website:

"We are expecting to have a low-user-id land-rush on Tuesday February 17. We will be soliciting for volunteer editors then."

The next time February 17 fall on a Tuesday will be next year, 2015. Perhaps it would be better to solicit volunteer editors now?

Manmade global warming is a hoax! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266037)

Re:Manmade global warming is a hoax! (3, Funny)

afxgrin (208686) | about 7 months ago | (#46266119)

I guess we now have solid proof that Rush Limbaugh is a Slashdotter.

Re:Manmade global warming is a hoax! (3, Informative)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#46266253)

I dont agree with AGW, but using only rush limbaugh as your source even makes me cringe

We wouldn't have this problem... (1, Informative)

sabbede (2678435) | about 7 months ago | (#46266039)

if Climate Change hadn't been hijacked by wild-eyed hippies who insisted on pushing it in a way that turned off the people they needed to convince.

Re:We wouldn't have this problem... (3, Insightful)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 7 months ago | (#46266265)

1) Why were the hippies the only ones that were capable of seeing what a threat there is?
2) Why are people in need of convincing? There's a lot of very convincing science (done by non-hippies) available.
3) How did they hijack it, exactly? Are you the kind of person that accuses others of being 'fake geeks' or 'fake gamers'?

We wouldn't have this problem if people and government were less interested in short-term profit than long-term health. Don't pin it on a small segment of a smaller sub-culture.

WMD is an overused term (1)

Akratist (1080775) | about 7 months ago | (#46266041)

The "jump the shark" moment for "WMD" was when the surviving Boston bomber was charged with using a WMD. Horrible, yes. Evil, yes. However, it's not a nuclear, chemical, or biological weapon. I'm wondering how long it will before assault rifles or 3d printed handguns will be labeled "WMDs."

Re:WMD is an overused term (2)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 7 months ago | (#46266061)

The Boston Bomber was charged with a law that was on the books prior to 9/11 that used the term. It's kinda awkward, but it certainly wasn't prosecutors trying to abuse the term for PR reasons.

Re:WMD is an overused term (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 7 months ago | (#46266333)

I get what you are saying, There WAS mass destruction, by definition it makes sense. however I do see the point you are making its like the democrats claiming racism when one disagrees with obama, If you throw a word around too often for the wrong reasons, it loses its oomph

Re:WMD is an overused term (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266421)

There WAS mass destruction, by definition

I ripped open an envelope that came in the mail the other day.

Paper has mass.

My hands are weapons of mass destruction.

Excuse me, I'm off to threaten the planet and demand... ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

Yes, the word has lost all meaning, and is rather now simply an indicator now of hidden political bullshit - much like the words, "terrorism", "democracy" and "bi-partisan".

Is it really a weapon (1)

JeffOwl (2858633) | about 7 months ago | (#46266047)

Indonesia is a country largely populated by members of a certain religion. Some members of that religion want to kill us. Maybe this is strategic...

George W. Bush: "My boys at the oil and coal companies will give you the best kind of start, and you sure as hell won't stop them now. So let's get going, there's no other choice. God willing, we will prevail, in peace and freedom from fear, and in true health, through the purity and essence of our natural... fluids. God bless you all."

Re:Is it really a weapon (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266101)

Memo to JeffOwl- Bush has been out of office for 6 years.

Re:Is it really a weapon (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 7 months ago | (#46266171)

To be fair to GP, it can be kind of hard to tell, some days.

Re:Is it really a weapon (0)

JeffOwl (2858633) | about 7 months ago | (#46266417)

Wow! Now there is a prime example of a total AC fail.

George W. Bush left the White House in January, 2009. So if we use a thing called "arithmetic" we would see that Bush has been out of office for 5 years.

If you got the reference, you would understand that it is a statement from someone who has already done what they can, and is trying to convince the current powers that be to continue what he pushed forward.

But thanks for playing.

Alright already (1)

Tokolosh (1256448) | about 7 months ago | (#46266071)

So global warming is real, scientists agree.

What to do about it? Please show me the scientific and engineering studies that prove a particular course of action is appropriate. I am tired of the knee-jerk reaction that blithely assumes reducing carbon emissions is the way to go. There are many possible alternatives, including doing nothing at all. A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to forcibly relocate everyone back to caves.

Re:Alright already (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266135)

Alright, so driving at 120 MPH on the highway increases our chance of accidents, scientists agree.

What to do about it? Please show me the scientific and engineering studies that prove that a particular course of action is appropriate. I am tired of the knee-jerk reaction that blithely assumes reducing velocity is the way to go. There are many possible alternatives, including doing nothing at all. A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to make everyone walk everywhere.

Re:Alright already (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 7 months ago | (#46266143)

A proper cost/benefit analysis is needed, before we decide to forcibly relocate everyone back to caves.

But that's just it. If climate change brings about a global rise in sea levels then some people, like those in Indonesia, would just love to have a cave because at least it's drier than the ocean they'll have been relocated back to.

Re:Alright already (1)

bunratty (545641) | about 7 months ago | (#46266183)

Also, no one is proposing we move back to caves. Reducing carbon dioxide emissions means getting power from sources such as the sun, and improving energy efficiency. It means moving into the high-tech 21st century, not back to low-tech times. It's what we need to do anyway, because no matter how much we'd like them to, fossil fuels will run out some day.

Re:Alright already (2)

xtal (49134) | about 7 months ago | (#46266271)

That's the comedic joke. There are no real options.

The only one I can see really having any effect is a mass deployment of existing nuclear technologies, focusing the entire resources of the western world on solving the fusion problem, and a massive research project to develop super-capacitor or other high density electrical energy storage technology.

People can shout about other alternatives, wind, solar, whatever, but none of the people shouting have training in thermodynamics. I've crunched the numbers for myself. They tell me one thing: We're fucked, and nothing has the energy density to replace oil.

Sadly, none of the things that will make a difference are going to happen, and all the politicians spout is hot air, and lustily dream about taxing carbon - because see my original point, there are no real options.

The leadership isn't there because we don't have an energy crisis yet. The climate will change and populations will adjust.

In the mean time, I am investing heavily in fossil fuels. Teach your kids math and physics. Lack of both in the schools has us in this mess.

Re:Alright already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266293)

Kerry is a weapon of mass destruction.
He wants to put the wind up some poor, at risk, third world bastards because he can't sell his product at home.
What's in it for him and the State Dept? Because they never do/say a damn thing that's off script or not in their own interest.
I average about a comment every 3 years. See you in 2017.

Re:Alright already (1)

Dixie_Flatline (5077) | about 7 months ago | (#46266301)

The cost is immaterial if the benefit is making sure coastal cities aren't completely or partially submerged, wouldn't you say? I mean, relocating people in North America away from the coasts runs a monetary cost that is just incredible to contemplate.

Then you've got weird weather effects coming. Places that get too little rain to grow crops, or too much. Or just really unpredictable weather, so setting up agriculture is just extra difficult. That's going to cost money.

Even things like tourism suddenly take a hit--the Great Barrier Reef generates an enormous amount of revenue from tourism, but coral bleaching will slowly kill the reef off. Bye bye tourism dollars. Beyond that, the reef is also a natural barrier (duh) from large waves coming into the coast. AND it serves as a nursery for lots of different kinds of fish that we enjoy eating.

The costs associated with NOT acting (assuming that we can reverse any of these changes; climate change has momentum) are staggering. These are just a few things that I came up with off the top of my head. Check the Stern Review that someone else already linked you. The projected costs are in numbers so large that you're unlikely to be able to fully grasp them (I don't mean that as an insult; I can't fully grasp the enormity of the costs myself).

Re:Alright already (1)

EzInKy (115248) | about 7 months ago | (#46266407)

From what I understand, doing nothing at all results in an inevitable rise in sea levels so, if you favor inaction, then I doubt I could convince you to to take action that might allow you to take advantage of the opportunity to invest in the ocean front property that will eventually be available in West Virginia. Do nothing and hope for the best has always turned out well for humanity in the past, right?

Don't you just love newspeak? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266111)

Don't forget they're terrorists too. You can't have people deploying climate weapons of mass destruction without dying as well. So obviously they're martyrs ergo terrorists!

Now for the real question, how do we tell if she is made of wood?

- Vladimir of Camelot

Gah... (3, Informative)

conquistadorst (2759585) | about 7 months ago | (#46266125)

Regardless of whether or not mankind is fully, partially, or trivially responsible for climate change. Calling it a weapon of mass destruction is fully moronic. It's a distortion of reality for the sole sake of sensationalizing the issue. It's not worth tainting the argument for the sake of getting the point across.

Now it's just a matter of time before we start arresting people for starting bonfires or driving to work. Gas guzzler, hybrid, or all electric you'll all be terrorists wielding WMDs! /tongueincheek

Just the usual ... (1)

Pha3do (3044141) | about 7 months ago | (#46266129)

Is any more proof needed that John Kerry is a twat. He is certain to be the next president of the United States of America. We have, in Britain, a labour politician who is on record stating that she wanted to see 'a limpet mine put on every pumping station.’ She was referring to the pumping stations in the Somerset levels and was head of the Environment Agency at the time, responsible for the policies that have led to the appalling flooding in Somerset, see http://www.spectator.co.uk/fea... [spectator.co.uk] If that had been said by a person with olive skin and a foreign accent they would have 'disappeared' as a potential terrorist. These people are eco-terrorists, nothing more. We also have a member of the Green Party calling for everyone in a government position who doesn't believe in AGW to be removed, the sort of political purgess that the Communists favored; clearly living up to the 'Water Mellon' name.

Mother Nature (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266169)

...now in the axis of evil.

Use of a WMD (1)

Livius (318358) | about 7 months ago | (#46266173)

I suspect this means that the US will soon wield a nuclear or biological weapon of mass destruction, and there will be five or six decades of research and 'debate' before it's even acknowledged, must less any responsibility is assigned or measures taken to undo the damage.

As Canadian I very much hope ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266189)

Obama's administration doesn't approve the pipeline. We already have virtually no control over our corrupt, anti-democratic politicians and their oil-industry masters. The last thing we need is to see billions of dollars and even more power dropped into their hands.

IOf they don't work for the people, then they are (1)

3seas (184403) | about 7 months ago | (#46266191)

.... fired. Read the Declaration of Independence and know we have very little legitimate government left, as teh rest have been fired via Declaration of Independence. But for reasons that can only be thuggary, they are still taking money from the people, and to do what? Preform criminal acts.

They don't work for the people.... they need to be removed and charged with impersonating government and charged also with theft.

The Dutch Seemed To Have Managed (0)

cluge (114877) | about 7 months ago | (#46266199)

AGW that old saw wielded by people that are looking for funding or power or both. Sadly science gets lost with this type of hysteria and our planet's history is cherry picked depending which side of the religious argument you inhabit. (MCO anyone, or LIA)?

If everyone stopped farting tomorrow and we cut our emissions by 50% we'd barely move the needle based on peer reviewed climate models (all of them). There would be a massive world wide depression and you could expect food shortages but you wouldn't change the climate much. So instead of screaming about weapons of mass destruction, perhaps folks should start looking at the cost of mitigating potential issues created by a warmer earth. The Dutch have done a great job with dealing with a rising sea over the last 2500 years.

Looking at solutions that work instead of creating bigger problems would be a healthy start to a constructive debate. It would also be a nice change from the demagoguery.

Global Warming != Human Caused Global Warming (2)

Tora (65882) | about 7 months ago | (#46266203)

Everybody can agree the climate is changing, in a warming trend. However, the breakdown in logic is the immediate correlation that it must be human caused. The fact of the matter is the world's climate changes all the time, in massive geological cycles.

We must be good stewards of our planet, this is also undeniable.

The problem I have with "Global Warming" fanatics, is they have flawed logic (human caused) an then go into bizarre, egregious means to deal with it like carbon credits, and whatnot. The fact of the matter is we should definitely work to be more responsible for our world--but NOT because it is in a warming trend. We should do it simply because IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO. By disassociating the reason from morality, and tying it to a flawed premise (human caused) we are hurting the entire effort--and meanwhile corporations and the government continue to act irresponsibly.

I'm for rational, logical use of our planet. We are creatures of this planet, just like every other creature. We should treat it carefully, only using our share. We are not here to "preserve" the planet, as it is here to be used. But we should use it properly, wisely, and in a manner that helps future generations of all planetary denizens (human and all others).

Re:Global Warming != Human Caused Global Warming (2)

bunratty (545641) | about 7 months ago | (#46266281)

Arrhenius predicted global warming over 100 years ago, because carbon dioxide is emitted by burning fossil fuels, and carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, which means increasing it will cause warming. Please do explain how this logic is flawed.

War on factories - aw yeah (1)

taikedz (2782065) | about 7 months ago | (#46266207)

"We have investigated US and allied European factories and found that they constituted weapons of mass desctruction posing a threat the security and safety of the world.

"We have declared war on these rogue factories, drones will be sent to all related company towns, and blackops have been deployed to known CEOs mountain hideaways in the Alps."

...one mused.

So today's mantra (1)

argStyopa (232550) | about 7 months ago | (#46266209)

"Give me my $1 billion slush fund"

Full-court press at 11.

Finally, the beginning of sovereignty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266215)

However Kerry showed little patience for skeptics in his speech. 'We just don't have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,' said Kerry. 'I'm talking about big companies that like it the way it is, that don't want to change, and spend a lot of money to keep you and me and everybody from doing what we know we need to do.'

The first step of solving the problem is to admit the existence of it. Go democracy!

Is this the start ... (1)

lolococo (574827) | about 7 months ago | (#46266219)

... of a new war on climate?

Not a Signatory to Kyoto Protocol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266225)

Thanks Kerry! Now we can show the world we truly are as stupid as they think we are!

child porn too! (1, Funny)

stenvar (2789879) | about 7 months ago | (#46266259)

It's not just a WMD, global warming causes child porn too, because... think of the children! We must give trillions to our cronies in industry in order to combat this menace!

weather control makes for B movies just need a rea (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about 7 months ago | (#46266285)

weather control makes for B movies just need a real weather man (not jim cantore) how much will it cost to get tom skilling (can even work his brother into the plot line)

The plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266339)

"Never let a good crisis go to waste".

Then push through a plan that's poorly thought out and politically expedient.

translation (1)

stenvar (2789879) | about 7 months ago | (#46266343)

However Kerry showed little patience for skeptics in his speech. 'We just don't have time to let a few loud interest groups hijack the climate conversation,'

Translation: "We prefer our own interest groups, the ones who got us elected! We need to pay them off with trillions of dollars of tax payer money."

Mr. Kerry, you have no credible plan to stop climate change. The reductions you propose are laughable and utterly inadequate. If you proposed effective reductions, you'd face a rebellion from voters. Your administration hasn't even been able to produce a balanced budget, let alone reduce the national debt, something that even European social welfare states have done. The economic forecasts that got you elected turned out to be b.s., as did the predicted economic effects of your stimulus programs. Your administration's promises on ACA have turned out to be bald faced lies, and you haven't been able to even produce a working web site on time.

I'm not a skeptic on climate change; CO2 is rising and it's getting warmer. I simply don't believe that anything can realistically be done.

And even if something could be done, your administration is too incompetent, corrupt, and dishonest to be trusted with doing it.

No worries (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46266369)

In your life nothing will change, and also not during your grandchildren's life, life is too short to notice.

If.... (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | about 7 months ago | (#46266393)

If climate change is now a weapon of mass destruction and the US and the West are the predominate causes of it, does that mean they are guilty of war crimes (related to the WMDs)?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?