×

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!

Global Warming Dissenters Suppressed?

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the come-see-the-violence-inherent-in-the-system dept.

928

sycodon writes "Global Warming has become more than just a scientific issue and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Hollywood, Politicians and Science Bureaucrats, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to Richard Lindzen, an Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT. From the article: 'Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

928 comments

DEATH TO ALL BLACK NIGGERS (-1, Troll)

Sexual Asspussy (453406) | about 8 years ago | (#15116259)

DTABN

Re:DEATH TO ALL BLACK NIGGERS (1, Funny)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 8 years ago | (#15116283)

...long live the white nigger?

Re:DEATH TO ALL BLACK NIGGERS (-1, Offtopic)

Lord Bitman (95493) | about 8 years ago | (#15116380)

this moderation brought to you by AutoMod! Why bother the tedius process of reading posts when AutoMod will:
  - Detect availability of mod points
  - Home in on words like "Nigger" or "Microsoft" [note the careless use of the "s" character!]
  - Moderate "appropriately"

Comes with a handy guide to moderating things as "Troll" vs "Flamebait", "Off-topic" or "Overrated". [ Chapter one: "If you don't get it, it's a troll!" Chapter two: "If you disagree, it's a flamebait!" ]

Re:DEATH TO ALL BLACK NIGGERS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116421)

I'm actually being stalked by a mod, I suspect. After getting modded down, a comment by an anonymous coward appears, telling me how worthless my comment is, or how stupid I am. This isn't happening ever day, of course, but often enough that I do think I'm being stalked.

It'd be funny if it wasn't so sad that someone's life was that pathetic.

(Posting AC so I won't be recognized wearing a tinfoil hat in public.)

omg (2, Insightful)

Chicken04GTO (957041) | about 8 years ago | (#15116266)

And in other news, people who don't like certain viewpoints tend to supress those viewpoints...

...whether your a nazi in disguise as a neo-con or a tree hugging liberal college enviro-hippy.

Blowing Hot Air (5, Funny)

yintercept (517362) | about 8 years ago | (#15116405)

People who disagree with global warming are just blowing hot air. If we don't suppress them, this hot air is going to contribute to global warming.

I am 100% on the side of the global warming crowd. The way I see it, if global warming does happen, I will be able to score points by telling everyone "I told you so." If it doesn't happen, I can claim that I saved the planet.

Re:omg (1)

jjleard (575385) | about 8 years ago | (#15116510)

Agreed. Want to see fun(!) evidence of this? Click on the "Reader Responses" section of the article in question and see just how many opposing responses are availabe. By my count... let's see... still zero.

Right (2, Funny)

pHatidic (163975) | about 8 years ago | (#15116271)

Because the world's climate scientists have so much to gain by tricking people into driving more fuel efficient cars.

Re:Right (0, Troll)

Chicken04GTO (957041) | about 8 years ago | (#15116286)

besides grant funding and public attention for their pet theories?

Re:Right (2, Informative)

WilliamSChips (793741) | about 8 years ago | (#15116321)

I suspect that you could probably get more for saying Global Warming is a fake(think of all the corporations that so desperately want that to be true) than that it's real, happening right now, and that there are things we can do to stop it(who would directly profit from emissions reductions? If it were the government, don't you think they would have voted that bill in?)

Re:Right (2, Insightful)

pHatidic (163975) | about 8 years ago | (#15116326)

Certainly they would get a lot more money to prove that global warming wasn't real despite the fact that CO2 concentrations are way higher than they have ever been in the last ten thousand years. Fixing global warming will cost certain companies billions of dollars, although with carbon trading the economy as a whole doesn't really suffer. Even still though, I'd bet the big companies would be willing to pay a people a lot of money to say the problem isn't real, no?

Re:Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116295)

Nah, it's just because they hate people that make money. They're all Godless commies obviously.

Re:Right (5, Insightful)

stupidfoo (836212) | about 8 years ago | (#15116336)

Yeah, they just have $1.7 Billion in funding to fight over, in the US alone.

RTFA

Re:Right (2, Insightful)

pHatidic (163975) | about 8 years ago | (#15116364)

Let's see...spend four years in college, another year getting a masters, another four years getting a PhD, and another two years doing post doc research. Then make 40,000 a year teaching at a B level university for the next ten years. If you get tenure then your pay goes up to 80,000, but most likely you don't get tenure and end up effectively getting fired.

OR work go to business school and make 250,000 your first year out of college.

I'm sure the world's climate scientists are all just in it for the money.

Re:Right (1)

minus_273 (174041) | about 8 years ago | (#15116440)

or they could be politically motivated. I wonder how many of the global warming supporters are to the political left?

Re:Right (1)

TodLiebeck (633704) | about 8 years ago | (#15116448)

Because the world's climate scientists have so much to gain by tricking people into driving more fuel efficient cars.


There is money and fame to be had in promoting either side of the global warming argument (or any major political/scientific/economic issue for the matter). As will be the case with any "hot" scientific issue, there is certainly adequate motive to do this. I'm not taking either side here, but the statements in the article cannot be dismissed on the basis that there would be no motive for scientists to overstate global warming.

Re:Right (2, Insightful)

IntelliAdmin (941633) | about 8 years ago | (#15116458)

This totally ignores what the story is trying to drive home. The greed of the scientists is what drives them to support global warming. If they don't support global warming then they lose their funding, popularity, and their status as a scientist. I feel that in this way the global warming crowd is hurting the cause for a cleaner environment. (I believe that most global warming is fueled by sunspot activity - just look at the world around the 1500s - Look it up you will see) The West is always berated for all the polluting we are doing. Has anyone ever been to China, Taiwan, or India? We really need to start working to educate these governments about pollution, and the environment. If only a few western countries cut back on pollution where will it get us if China is belching out billions of tons of pollution every day? How about we cut the global warming crap, and just talk about the facts. Lets work to make the environment cleaner - for cleanliness sake. The air is dirty, and we want it clean. Our water is dirty and we want it clean. This is much easier to sell then fuzzy global warming theories designed to scare the crap out of us It really is sickening when you are walking down the streets of Tainan, Taiwan and you have to wear a mask because the pollution is so bad. How come I never see or hear the global warming people complaining or doing anything with these countries? Why is that? Could it be that the only purpose is to use scare tactics so people will fund more of their research? I hope not.

Re:Right (2, Insightful)

_newwave_ (265061) | about 8 years ago | (#15116483)

No, because they have so much to gain by receiving money to study the "problem." Which is the very reason they're producing alarmists commercials concerning global warming.

Oh wait...what's that link in your sig? What pathetic irony.

WSJ, say no more. (-1, Flamebait)

isaac (2852) | about 8 years ago | (#15116282)

Another WSJ editorial seeking to introduce more FUD around climate change. Yawn.

Wake me up when the WSJ actually ackowledges climate change. Or the utility of a middle class.

-Isaac

Re:WSJ, say no more. (1)

stupidfoo (836212) | about 8 years ago | (#15116317)

Yeah, I only read stories from sources I agree with!

Who cares if the person writing it is a Professor of Athmospheric Science at MIT? What does he know!

Let me guess... you always write "Faux News" too, don't you?

Re:WSJ, say no more. (1)

Tweekster (949766) | about 8 years ago | (#15116318)

They just did... if you would have had the patience to read 5 sentances of the summary you would have realized that : To summarize even further, "Those that arent alarmists are supressed"

Re:WSJ, say no more. (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | about 8 years ago | (#15116324)

Yeah, and from a Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT! How dare they publish such a hack from a lousy institution like that! I'm sure they're due to lose their accreditation any day now.

Re:WSJ, say no more. (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | about 8 years ago | (#15116418)

The majority opinion isn't always right, this is true.... but anyone who has seen anything at all about, say, receding glaciers link to photo compares [nsidc.org] (there are several of these sites from the USGS and other associated government groups on the web) knows that something is happening, just not what the consequences of it will be....

Sir, I beg to differ. (1)

Medievalist (16032) | about 8 years ago | (#15116441)


The WSJ fully acknowledges the utility of the middle class!

Who else is going to stoke the Emperor Ming's radium furnaces?

Hey, YEAH! (1, Funny)

Wubby (56755) | about 8 years ago | (#15116290)

And why is it that Intelligent Design isn't tought in schools? It's a big conspiracy, I tell ya. Look at the eye, man! We're talking like scientist, so we should be accepted like scientists, right?</SARCASM>

Re:Hey, YEAH! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116451)

I enjoyed. Meta-modding down folks who mod this crap up. I'm so tired of reading about Intelligent design. Whether you are pro- or anti-, I mod down posts that refer to it, and metamod down anyone who mods up. I only get to about 40 per day, but it makes me happy thinking you schmucks get your mod rights taken away.

None conformist (1, Interesting)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | about 8 years ago | (#15116293)

OK, we all know about the butterfly affect (if not, hand in your geek card)

Now, what if we are looking at the problem in slightly the wrong way.
How about in the last 100 or so years mankind has built more large structures on the face of the earth and diverted the wind (due to butterfly wing -> hurricane thinking...) into different places than usual.

What if the problem wasn't just the fuel burning we use to heat the building, but the size and location of the building itself that was the problem?
Most of us have stood between 2 manmade skyscrapers and been blown off our feet, that wind pattern has to directly affect the weather patterns in another part of the world. Theres no need to pore over detailed chemical tables or discuss possible scenarios, we each affect the climate simply by being here.

Theres my "none conformist" view on global climate change take it as you like.

Re:None conformist (1)

PatrickThomson (712694) | about 8 years ago | (#15116342)

We* suffer the arrogance of humanity. The climate is enormous. Actual physical discrepancies appearing on the surface of the planet is nothing new (trees and mountains, anyone?). Only by modifying linchpins such as the ozone layer or the composition of air itself can we directly alter the climate.

*You

Re:None conformist (2, Informative)

PortHaven (242123) | about 8 years ago | (#15116408)

Man, I've been arguing that point for years. Cementification of the planet's surface is "proven" to affect global warming. (ie: a recent study even pointed out the wind farms, you know...safe, clean, energy, cause a dramatic increase in surface temperature and they noted the surrounding area suffered more dessertification)

Re:None conformist (1)

PitaBred (632671) | about 8 years ago | (#15116452)

We all know how to use affect and effect correctly (if not, hand in your english card)
Though I will let you off with just a warning for using "pore" correctly instead of the more common "pour" and using the correct "affect" later in the post.

/GrammarNaziCop

Re:None conformist (1)

umedia (964947) | about 8 years ago | (#15116466)

"What if the problem wasn't just the fuel burning we use to heat the building, but the size and location of the building itself that was the problem? Most of us have stood between 2 manmade skyscrapers and been blown off our feet, that wind pattern has to directly affect the weather patterns in another part of the world. Theres no need to pore over detailed chemical tables or discuss possible scenarios, we each affect the climate simply by being here."

We're doomed, and it all started when we domesticated animals and created large unnatural pockets of methane in the atmosphere. Perhaps if we unplugged and headed back up the trees we could make a difference...

Gadfly (2, Insightful)

Himring (646324) | about 8 years ago | (#15116297)

It's a highly politicized topic. One can easily trace the links: global warming/industrialization/fossil fuels/automobiles/SUVs/selfish conservatives. Or maybe it's global warming/savetheearth/treehuggers/anti-social liberals.

An objective scientist doing his job has no place in the arena by any of its participants no more than Socrates' objective criticisms of the Greeks were welcomed. In the end, they would rather force the hemlock than hear the truth....

Don't dishonor the sacrifices made by our troops! (2, Funny)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | about 8 years ago | (#15116366)

If you're not driving the biggest car possible with the lowest MPG possible, you're unpatriotic and disrespectful of those who have given their lives that we may be free to pursue our gas guzzling lifestyle.

Maureen Jambor [divisiontwo.com], executive management consultant and part time mom, put it much more eloquently than I ever could.

Suffice it to say, if you care about global warming, the terrorists have already won.

Re:Don't dishonor the sacrifices made by our troop (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116476)

Good satire is the kind that doesn't club you in the face. Thanks.

Global Flamebait Stories Increase Slash Revenue? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Crowhead (577505) | about 8 years ago | (#15116300)

Slashdot's financial situation has become more than just a mess and has been portrayed as nothing less than the End of the World by some. However, despite all the hoopla from Zonk, Malda and Scuttle Monkey, there is another side, but it's being suppressed according to various Slashdot denizens. From the article: 'Slashbots who dissent from the alarmism have seen their karma disappear, their posts derided, and themselves libeled as Evangelicals, Republicans, or worse. Consequently, lies about Slashdot's impending death gain credence even when they fly in the face of the truth that supposedly is their basis.'

Anyone notice somthing (3, Insightful)

pHatidic (163975) | about 8 years ago | (#15116303)

Anyone notice how when everyone was saying global warming was seven or eight years ago, Slashdot was all for the Kyoto protocol. And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?

Hint: Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it right. This is why people dislike nerds.

Re:Anyone notice somthing (2, Insightful)

distilledprodigy (946341) | about 8 years ago | (#15116490)

Slashdot is not saying it's fake. Slashdot is pointing out what could be an interesting article that pointedly counter-acts an earlier article saying that the administration suppresses "scientific results" pointing to Global Warming. Slashdot as a website doesn't seem to take a stance on issues, and like any good news source posts interesting articles.

Re:Anyone notice somthing (5, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | about 8 years ago | (#15116492)

And now that the tide of scientific consensus is overwhelmingly saying that global warming exists and is a real problem, Slashdot is now saying it's fake?
No, Slashdot is merely reporting that one single individual's opinion column is saying global warming is fake. Slashdot is not a source, it is an amalgamation of sources. In this particular case, the source appears to be biased, as the author cites only three data points for his claim, one of which occurred 14 years ago and another which he himself wrote. As a result, I personally am taking this article with a serious grain of salt.

-Kurt

Re:Anyone notice somthing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116509)

Hint: Just because something is unpopular doesn't make it right. This is why people dislike nerds.

Hint: Just because something is popular doesn't make it right.

The point is discussion. The unpopular views are brought up to challenge the popular views in the hope that the more logical view will become the popular view.

Report from Iron Mountain (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116305)

Some will say that the report from Iron Mountain was a hoax, but at times, some of the co-authors have said that it was real. Read it and you'll understand this whole thing about global warming :-)

Y'know... (2, Funny)

Otter (3800) | about 8 years ago | (#15116312)

My first thought was that it would be great if some fake field of "science" could be created, and used as a sandbox for all the people for whom science is just one more bit of fuel for inane flamewars.

Then it occurred to me that we do have such a thing. Thank heavens for science fiction -- otherwise all the energy channeled into arguing about whether Kirk is better than Piccard would be pouring into real science, as well.

Freedom and Liberty (4, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | about 8 years ago | (#15116320)

This is why it's important not to have State control over funding; anything unacceptable - which is of course entirely orthagonal to truth or falsehood - naturally, to a lesser or greater extent, tends to be suppressed.

Did you know Winston Churchill wasn't permitted to speak on the BBC (the State telecoms monopoly of the day ) between 1933 and 1939 because his views on Nazi Germany were considered too extreme?

The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.

The State inherently holds political power; to give the State economic power is to provide it with a forceful means to implement its own ends. This is one of the reasons why its so vital to keep the State out of economic activity; because of the danger of the abuse of that economic power.

Uh, right. (2, Insightful)

StefanJ (88986) | about 8 years ago | (#15116373)

Let's have General Motors and Exxon pay the Association of Petroleum Geologists to do the research.

Then the Truthiness will Come Out.

Re:Uh, right. (1)

Toby The Economist (811138) | about 8 years ago | (#15116444)

If you permit all parties to conduct research, then there will be pro-green, pro-oil and indeed neutral parties, all conducting research.

One naturally considers the source of research when considering what is being argued.

I would rather have an open field for all comers than the State imposing its invisible foot upon those who offer unacceptable views.

John Stuart Mill argued that all views contain an element of the truth; one is best able to come closest to the real truth by being opened minded. Of course, this cannot happen with State interference; but it *can* happen when all are free to research and publish.

Re:Freedom and Liberty (4, Insightful)

pHatidic (163975) | about 8 years ago | (#15116391)

What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming? Is everyone on Slashdot insane?

Re:Freedom and Liberty (2, Insightful)

Toby The Economist (811138) | about 8 years ago | (#15116471)

> What would the state have to gain by promoting global warming?

It will also incur a great deal of political unpopularity to actually *do* something. I suspect the incumbents, who are on a knife's edge for re-election, would be best pleased if this hot potato could be defered for a few more years.

More generally of course there is always a reluctance to do something which is painful in the short term and only provides rewards in the long term.

Re:Freedom and Liberty (1)

RLiegh (247921) | about 8 years ago | (#15116431)

The State is created by free men to protect liberty and freedom. The problem we face is when the State becomes a monster and threatens the very liberty and freedom it was created to protect.

Don't you think that's a bit on the extremely unlikely side? I mean, sure, in theory that could happen; and in theory aliens could land on the white house and pose for a photo-op. Neither speculation adds anything productive to the conversation, however.

Huh? (3, Informative)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 8 years ago | (#15116480)

The BBC was a radio broadcaster, quasi-independent from government, in the nineteen thirties. I don't think they've ever been a telecom anything, let alone a monopoly.

I'm pretty sure the Post Office, which ran the telephone system back then, didn't ban Churchill from anything. As for the BBC, I can't find a reference to anything about Churchill not being allowed to speak upon it, so without further information, I'm going to chalk this down to typical pseudo-libertarian misleading given the term could mean "He was considered irrelevent to politics back then and thus never got airtime", or it could mean "Neville Chamberlain personally called up Reith, and told him if the BBC ever gave Churchill airtime, he'd personally revoke their charter."

I'm guessing the former explanation is more likely, knowing the historic spirit of independence of the BBC.

he has an axe to grind. (0)

wpegden (931091) | about 8 years ago | (#15116323)

Not to say that makes him wrong, but something to keep in mind. Here [wikipedia.org] is his wikipedia article. (Although, by the time you read this, it will probably have been changed by this post's childerens' authors....)

Just a little common sense (0, Flamebait)

Yartrebo (690383) | about 8 years ago | (#15116325)

People claiming there isn't global warming going on are labeled (not libeled) industry stooges and hacks because they indeed are such. Global warming is about as solid a theory as the Earth going around the Sun. Carbon-emitting industry does throw plenty of money to trumpet what it wants. Put the two together and you'll find hacks willing to trade what's left of their integrity for some money. Politicians do it all the time. I'm actually surprised that so few scientists are willing to bite.

Re:Just a little common sense (1)

Tweekster (949766) | about 8 years ago | (#15116403)

This article is not about the people that say global warming doesnt exist... it is about the people that are not being alarmist about it. Did you even read the full summary? honestly,

Re:Just a little common sense (1, Insightful)

PortHaven (242123) | about 8 years ago | (#15116478)

Yeah...sure...okay, first off...let's get the !@#$% debate defined.

Question 1) Is Global Warming occurring?

Question 2) If so, is it abnormal?

Question 3) If so, is it influenced by man?

Question 1 is still under debate. Though a majority is inclined toward the belief that it is indeed occurring.

Question 2 is far from agreed upon with many believing we are going thru global warming but believes it is not an atypical fluctuation.

Question 3 is even farther removed from being an absolute. Recent measurements recording increase of polar temperatures and melting of polar ice caps on Mars is potentially a shattering revelation to the theory that said warming is due to man's actions.

That said, regardless of global warming, there is no excuse for the amount of pollution, inefficiencies, toxic waste, and mis-use of resources on the part of mankind. However, bad science is not necessarily a good case for said change.

Oh, now there's an unbiased opinion. (3, Interesting)

Jim in Buffalo (939861) | about 8 years ago | (#15116327)

From an "Alfred P. Sloan" professor. Take a look at the Board of Trustees of the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. It's basically "Who's Who" of People Who Want This Talk of Global Warming to Go Away.

Political science (4, Insightful)

vanyel (28049) | about 8 years ago | (#15116331)

First we hear the science supporting global warming is being suppressed, now we hear that science opposing global warming is being suppressed. The only clear conclusion is to get politics out of science, but I don't think anyone's ever succeeded at that in its entire history.

Re:Political science (2, Insightful)

Tweekster (949766) | about 8 years ago | (#15116450)

And if you notice, it isnt even the people that disagree flat out regarding global warming.. it is the people that agree with it, but are not going hollywood big budget movie crazy about it.

There are very few dissenters... (2, Interesting)

wealthychef (584778) | about 8 years ago | (#15116333)

The article tells the truth that there is dissent around whether global warming will cause more storms, which is very debatable. But it implies with that the falsehood that global warming does not pose a significant risk to the future in many ways. Climate change is more than weather. I'm not saying there isn't hype about global warming on both sides, but this article is not really that helpful in understanding the broad issues involved. The discussion needs to be very broad, because that is the scope of the problem. Increased global temperatures have many effects...

The politics of science (2, Insightful)

dada21 (163177) | about 8 years ago | (#15116334)

It is really sad when someone who doesn't agree with the rest of the world faces these kinds of problems -- I think it directly has to do with the politics of science. With more and more scientific studies paid for out of public dollars, of course you're going to see more and more scientists come up with the alarming issues that raise the most money.

It also goes to show that you'll find dissent creates outcasts. This is no different when anything else becomes public policy -- try speaking out about the inept public school teachers you find more often, or the low-IQ workers at the DMV, or anyone else on the dole.

Global warming is more myth than science. Much of it comes from socialist desires to control large corporations -- "why not make cars more fuel efficient?" Well, you end up making them less safe in collisions, too. "Why not curtail smokestacks?" Because other countries won't, and you'll lose jobs on top of jobs (this is already evident).

I'm not surprised in the least by this. It is harder and harder to find anti-global warming facts not because there aren't any, but because people who know the facts are afraid to bring them to light.

I don't care either way. I directly finance all the environmental causes I believe in through www.perc.org and that's the way we should be dealing with it. Drop the federal and public-taxpayer funded grants and let each individual focus on what they believe in. Instead of crying that the sky is falling at some lame protest, go work those hours at Starbucks and donate the money to the scientific research company of your choice.

Emotionally bias much? (-1, Troll)

Itninja (937614) | about 8 years ago | (#15116337)

It looks like the artical writer has a bit of an ax to grind, to say the least:
Sen. Al Gore. In 1992, he ran two congressional hearings during which he tried to bully dissenting scientists, including myself, into changing our views and supporting his climate alarmism.
Hmmm. I think I will wait for the cold hand of reason to come along....

Re:Emotionally bias much? (1)

RLiegh (247921) | about 8 years ago | (#15116486)

>Hmmm. I think I will wait for the cold hand of reason to come along....

Reason? In this debate? Hope you brought a lunch; you're in for a bit of a wait.

Possibly (2, Insightful)

thePig (964303) | about 8 years ago | (#15116345)

I tend to believe this guy.
The global temp started increasing alarmingly only after 80's due to cleaner air supported by green house gases.
But, as per the storm counts - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=140 [realclimate.org], there is an increase of stronger storms, from 1920 onwards.

Even though this doesnt prove anything, it actually puts a seed of doubt in my mind. I used to believe (without any doubt) that increased temp is causing stronger storms et al. But I do have my doubts now.

Also I do not know if some localized temp changes caused these storms too...

Re:Possibly (2, Interesting)

LordKazan (558383) | about 8 years ago | (#15116502)

I was going to go into climatology/meteorology - but then i learned to code - however I still have a large knowledge on the subject.

Ocean surface temperature under a hurricane determines it's maximum possible strength - it's also a generial indicator of it's probable strength. As ocean surface temperatures rise that creates larger areas with higher levels of potential energy, and temperatures above the minimum to hold enough potential energy to spawn hurricanes (about 80F) last for more in the year.

So as the planet warms more tropical storm systems will occur (longer season in which they can), they will be on average stronger and last longer (having more area with higher potential energy)

This all being IIRC, it's been a while since I cracked open any of my books that covers tropical weather.

The "bad guys" are suffering conspiracies too? (1)

amigabill (146897) | about 8 years ago | (#15116351)

Eh? I thought it was the environmentalists that were getting their grants pulled by industry and government folks... So the other guys are getting it too? So, should we not believe either of them then?

Re:The "bad guys" are suffering conspiracies too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116361)

Which side do you think has successfully indoctrinated kids in most elementary schools?

Possibly True (1)

dakirw (831754) | about 8 years ago | (#15116352)

Not surprising - any orthodoxy, consciously or not, tends to have an accepted view, and dissenters can make their opinions known at their own peril.

And this would be because... (1)

LordPhantom (763327) | about 8 years ago | (#15116354)

...all of the top level government officials right now have an interest in stopping research that shows that global warming is not increasing..... oh wait [msn.com].

And, of course, noone is trying to stop scientists from speaking out about the dangers of global warming.... oh wait [nytimes.com].....

I'm confused about what the WSJ is doing publishing this and why people don't realize that there are extremes on both ends of this and that there are people with vested interest in any policy change that happens at that large of a scale?

This doofus sounds like he's bitter about missing out on a grant or something.

Crichton's "State of Fear" (0, Flamebait)

Dysfnctnl85 (690109) | about 8 years ago | (#15116358)

Has anyone else read this? :-) I think it's beginning to sound more and more pertinent...

Re:Crichton's "State of Fear" (1)

fizztpok (967916) | about 8 years ago | (#15116430)

This book's relevance is creepy and uncanny. I didn't do any fact-checking while reading it, so I can't say Crichton isn't pulling the wool over my eyes, but he did do a good job showing me the other (much quieter) side of the global warming debate.

Not his most interesting work, though. Reading it is like reading an argument with a story tacked on.

Other way round, surely (0)

Tim Ward (514198) | about 8 years ago | (#15116362)

The first major city lost to global warming is in the USA, but the USA government still doesn't believe in global warming. Sounds to me like the people who don't believe in it are still winning. Which city is next I wonder?

Yeah, that was completely out of the blue (3, Funny)

el_munkie (145510) | about 8 years ago | (#15116488)

New Orleans was definitely the first victim of global warming. Hurricaines never happened in the Gulf before all those selfish white people started driving SUVs.

Re:Other way round, surely (3, Funny)

chromatic (9471) | about 8 years ago | (#15116500)

Global warming went back in time and convinced the founders of New Orleans to build on a coastal swamp below sea level and not to reinforce their levees?

No wonder people are afraid. That's powerful!

Exactly... there's so much money to be made by... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116370)

Wait... what? It seems that some sort of huge political conspiracy would need some sort of purpose. In a capitalist economy it generally would revolve around... well... power or money. So who stands to gain by creating a false scare of global warming? Yeah... pretty much no one. Who stands to lose? Automobile manufacturers, Petroleum Companies, maybe even Drug Companies (what, you think chemicals they create are always disposed of properly and affect nothing?). Yeah, three of the largest industries in the world. Sounds like the wolf is pointing the finger.

2 reasons for this I think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116382)

Alarmism sells. I think there is a natural bias towards things that might threaten us. The research is naturally sexier.

The other reason is the sorry state of American politics and the 2-party duopoly. All ideas are shoehorned into either the Republican or Democratic worldview. There is no middle ground. No reasoned or principled stand that would allow grey areas. You are either a friend of mother earth or an evil global capitalist. Ideas and facts that don't fit into the simplistic views are attacked as being from the "enemy." As a libertarian, who hasn't voted for a major party in years, I am attacked on individual positions as a bleeding-heart liberal by Republicans I know, or simply advocating Republicans talking points by my liberal friends. They can't understand principled positions that don't fit into their 2-party battle, and simply assume I'm with the opposition. Seems some scientists also act that way. Probably more reason to get science funding separate from political processes.

Also suppressing Creationism and UFO research (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116383)

It's shocking, I know. The same thing is going on to suppress Creationist research. In fact, just last year, my thesis on UFO probing was rejected, and I was subjected to ridicule by my peers. Unfair!

Sorta Like Copernicus (1)

aquatone282 (905179) | about 8 years ago | (#15116384)

Except that Copernicus was threatened by the Establishment for presenting a radical idea.

Now we have the Establishment embracing radical ideas wholesale and threatening anyone who dares dissent.

Huh.

Suppression does happen. (2, Insightful)

jd (1658) | about 8 years ago | (#15116387)

However, I find it odd that the claims of suppression are coming from an institute in a country noted solely for its dissent over Global Warming, where NASA even had to write policy documents to prohibit religious propoganda being included in statements. I also find it curious that these complaints are surfacing AFTER the scandal at NASA, rather than before, when people might have been more sympathetic.


No, I question the credibility and the timing of these claims, and I find it disgraceful of MIT to be associated with what appears to be little more than a political stunt. Note I said "appears". There may well be some basis to the claims, but the timing and nature of their presentation destroys all of that. If you want to be taken seriously, you can't come across as a spoiled brat whose toy - possibly NASA - has been taken away from you.


The claims against Global Warming may or may not have any validity. That isn't being discussed, so I'm not going to address that here. What I am going to address is efforts to turn the debate into propoganda - by whatever side. Whether you're talking about the Swift Veterans For Toothfairies, or some other totally political movement, is also unimportant. Reality cares not one whit for opinion polls or campaign financing. If the climate is shot, it's shot, and all the PR in the world won't change that. If it isn't, it isn't, and again PR isn't worth a damn.


Politics has no business meddling in the affairs of science. The reverse is not true, as science has the knowledge necessary to define politics. But politicians should learn their place - they are the servants of the public and the slaves of the forces of nature. Allowing politics to control anything is the ultimate recipe for disaster.

Greenhouse Denial Industry (3, Informative)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 8 years ago | (#15116396)

Richard Lindzen is a well known Greenhouse denier. Don't suppress him or the other deniers - just read more about their Greenhouse denial industry [risingtide.org.uk], and the Greenhouse producers they cover for. Will you be surprised when you learn how their network is funded by polluters and petrofuel corporations?

Re:Greenhouse Denial Industry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116477)

Going by my only two options, I'd rather trust an evil person in a business suit over an evil person in a Che Guevera t-shirt.

I wish we could just have the science (1)

Bill Dog (726542) | about 8 years ago | (#15116401)

To rip off political commentator George Will (who said something similar but about a different subject), what should be a science issue with political ramnifications has become a political issue with science ramnifications.

Lindzen apparently has no trouble securing funding (5, Informative)

stonedown (44508) | about 8 years ago | (#15116410)

According to a 1995 Harper's Magazine article [sierraclub.org], Lindzen had no trouble securing funding from fossil fuel interests.
Lindzen, for his part, charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC.
Also, the Wall Street Journal opinion section is not exactly the place to go to find genuine scientific analysis. It's a propaganda mill for the same business interests which support Richard Lindzen. There is plenty of money for scientists willing to speak on behalf of big business, despite Lindzen's contrary and alarmist claims. It takes a special kind of courage to speak out on behalf of the downtrodden coal and oil industries.

I seem.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15116420)

to remember hearing this before. He has a point. How can we say its global warming when its only a 1 degree raise? It would seem like we need to find out more. I really liked the question in another reply that pointed out what if its not the fules but maybe the placement of buildings? Maybe we have somehow changed the air flow on earth enough to be moving the temperature zones around?

Selling the wrong point (1)

Hellboy0101 (680494) | about 8 years ago | (#15116439)

I think that pretty much everyone agrees that global warming is a real threat. The only problem is that everyone is working the deal all crabbed. They need to stop selling people on the problem, and start selling them on the answer. Everyone knows it's a problem. It's not a question of if, but when it will be a calamity. Fine, people know that, and people understand that. However, nobody tells them what to do about it other than to stop doing what you're doing now. The guy who modified his Prius to get 180 miles per gallon [slashdot.org] has come up with an answer. OK, somebody show people how they can implement that. That's a good solution that doesn't require major government backing (especially under the current "administration"), and doesn't require the auto industry to get involved (although if they are smart, they would). A smart group of investors can push this forward instead. The cost is maybe a couple thousand dollars to the user, and viola! They save the environment and keep some money in their pocket long term. People can't see past next week in most cases, so stop telling them in ten years that something bad is gonna happen, and start selling them on solutions that make sense now, and will divert a disaster later.

Let me sum this up: (1)

kryten_nl (863119) | about 8 years ago | (#15116443)

1990: R.Linzen publishes commentary on the "we know all there is to know about the earth, the atmosphere and global warming" attitude of his colleages.
2006: R.Linzen publishes similair piece in the WSJ, with updates!!!11!

Now, I could see how this would be an very interesting and topical story during the Clinton years, but Bush has been in power how long again?

Heretics Must Be Burned (2, Informative)

Cr0w T. Trollbot (848674) | about 8 years ago | (#15116455)

That's because it's not about science, it's about religion. [crichton-official.com]
"Today, one of the most powerful religions in the Western World is environmentalism. Environmentalism seems to be the religion of choice for urban atheists. Why do I say it's a religion? Well, just look at the beliefs. If you look carefully, you see that environmentalism is in fact a perfect 21st century remapping of traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs and myths. There's an initial Eden, a paradise, a state of grace and unity with nature, there's a fall from grace into a state of pollution as a result of eating from the tree of knowledge, and as a result of our actions there is a judgment day coming for us all. We are all energy sinners, doomed to die, unless we seek salvation, which is now called sustainability. Sustainability is salvation in the church of the environment. Just as organic food is its communion, that pesticide-free wafer that the right people with the right beliefs, imbibe. Eden, the fall of man, the loss of grace, the coming doomsday---these are deeply held mythic structures. They are profoundly conservative beliefs. They may even be hard-wired in the brain, for all I know. I certainly don't want to talk anybody out of them, as I don't want to talk anybody out of a belief that Jesus Christ is the son of God who rose from the dead. But the reason I don't want to talk anybody out of these beliefs is that I know that I can't talk anybody out of them. These are not facts that can be argued. These are issues of faith. And so it is, sadly, with environmentalism. Increasingly it seems facts aren't necessary, because the tenets of environmentalism are all about belief. It's about whether you are going to be a sinner, or saved. Whether you are going to be one of the people on the side of salvation, or on the side of doom. Whether you are going to be one of us, or one of them."
- Crow T. Trollbot

Venom! (1, Insightful)

redelm (54142) | about 8 years ago | (#15116464)

Some of the viscious ad-hominem and other epithets heaped upon Bjorn Lomborg [lomborg.com] and others has been beyonjd unseemly. Even SciAm participated in the witchhunt.

I equate the invective with a fervently held belief that the invectors doubt can withstand criticism.

Global warming is a fairly simple concept. It most likely has been occuring over the past century, but definitely withing historical norms and probably withing historical rates-of-change. The cause is much less provable. Some people blame CO2 (especially anthropogenic), when it is almost certainly an effect (ever open a warm soda?).

This probably holds some weight (1)

Morinaga (857587) | about 8 years ago | (#15116467)

All of this research is heavily funded by grants. The very definition of being a climatologist is to prove global warming it seems. Headlines and funding come from alarmist proclamations that make Drudge. When evidence to the contrary or less dramatic are discovered there's no headlines and probably more importantly, no money. For example:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=021706G [tcsdaily.com]
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/0 1/18/not-as-bad-as-we-thought/#more-134 [worldclimatereport.com]

Of the 15 different findings that were released and covered by the press on December 7, 2005 about global warming, 14 of them were reporting that things were "worse than we thought" and only one of them concluded that things weren't going to be as bad as originally forecast. Given an unbiased prediction, there should be a 50-50 chance that things turned out either worse or better than expected. Under such a scenario, there is only a 1-in-2,000 chance that 14 things out of 15 would be worse. But that's what happened. So, either the original forecasts were not unbiased, a rare event did indeed occur, or, more likely, the interpretation and reporting went a bit over the top--that is, the press (and to some degree the researchers themselves) only like to hype the more extreme results.

You get headlines and grants by claiming San Diego will be underwater by the year 2100. You get ignored and better be paid by NASA or a tenured by a college if you mention increased snow accumulations in the Antarctic.

Honestly (1, Insightful)

ral8158 (947954) | about 8 years ago | (#15116498)

I'm getting tired of the science community saying 'MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY!' constantly. Hating on conservatives because of your prejudice against all of them being texas-cowboy retards who drive giant trucks. It's pathetic that a community who is constantly speaking out against people who exclude them for having different views has to exclude other people, and ridicule them, just because they believe in something different then you do. Creationism is a completely valid viewpoint, and so is evolution. They're both *possible*. I've always thought the internet was a place where you could get away from people being judgemental, conservative or liberal, believer in global warming or not. It isn't fair for people like me who are christians to be told that they're outright wrong.

And remember, just because some people treat you like assholes doesn't mean you have to be assholes to everyone else.

The controversy is in the interpretation (1)

gansch (939712) | about 8 years ago | (#15116499)

Notice his dissent is not having to do with the occurrence of higher global temperatures (or at least temperature changes in general), but with the interpretation of such changes. Very few debates regarding global warming are about the scientific data, but rather the interpretation: will there be more or less extreme weather? are humans the cause of the change? have we changed the system outside its natural range of variability? how will temperature change affect species diversity?

I think the author has a valid point that alternative interpretations of the causes and effects of global climate change need to be addressed and taken into account when forming policy. Climate change models are imperfect and fallable, and even if most current models agree, they are based on similar assumptions that may greatly influence their outcome, so alternative models and views need to be considered.

What a bunch of carp (2, Informative)

WillAffleckUW (858324) | about 8 years ago | (#15116514)

the cold hard truth is that science is a very lopsided mistress, and when you have 99.9 percent of all climatologists saying that extreme temperature variations are very likely to have a very high probability of accellerating (what you call Global Warming), the 0.1 percent who disagree because they get their funding from Exxon-Mobil get their feelings hurt.

Now, we know:

a. Global warming (accelerated rapid change) is happening now;
b. Global warming (arc) is speeding up, tenfold in just the last five years; and
c. Anyone with their heads still stuck in the sounds will be ten feet under water within ten years.

For those of you saying "yes, but it might get colder", you're absolutely correct. If the gulf stream shifts down, which can happen in a period shorter than ten years (and has), then England and France will probably freeze and the North Sea will be very very cold even in summer. New York Harbor could ice over quickly.

That's what global warming (accelerated rapid change) is: fast, increasingly violent, oscillations of the global temperature patterns until it (possibly) settles into a different state.

It might be a new ice age. It might be a period where California is 10 degrees warmer (centigrade, that's 22 degrees Fahrenheit) than it is now.

But if you live in a coastal area - and almost all of Florida is exactly that - it's not going to be fun.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

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

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

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

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...