Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Debunker Debunked

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the you're-getting-warmer dept.

676

Earlier this month we ran an article linking Christopher Monckton's attempt to discredit global warming. The submitter asked plaintively, "Can anyone out there go through this piece and tell me why it might be wrong?" George Monbiot has now done so. From the article: "This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong... In keeping with most of the articles about climate change in [the Sunday Telegraph], it is a mixture of cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation, and pseudo-scientific gibberish. But it has the virtue of being incomprehensible to anyone who is not an atmospheric physicist... As for James Hansen, he did not tell the US Congress that temperatures would rise by 0.3C by the end of the past century. He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate — high, medium, and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was 'the most plausible.' As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000." And on the political front, the only major ally for Pres. Bush's stand on global warming, Australia's Prime Minister John Howard, is now willing to look at carbon trading.

cancel ×

676 comments

Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16842994)

Try and pick somebody who isn't a complete loon next time.

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (1)

Graham Clark (11925) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843054)

Regardless of what you think of him, he does point out crippling flaws in the article. A more thorough and technical demolition would be quite welcome too, of course.

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (1)

xTantrum (919048) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843076)

i didn't read the article, but i'm pretty sure the answer is cake!

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843174)

Maybe so, but Monbiot is also a masterful spinner of information - his books are intentionally written to appeal to the downtrodden masses to increase sales volume. Any piece, PERIOD, by Monbiot is suspect because he doesn't bother with things called "logic" or "the scientific method."

Any discussion on this piece is a waste of time. Please see the appropriate peer-reviewed articles in the appropriate scientific journals and/or conferences for a proper discussion of the facts on global warming.

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (2, Interesting)

SillyNickName4me (760022) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843458)

Maybe so, but Monbiot is also a masterful spinner of information - his books are intentionally written to appeal to the downtrodden masses to increase sales volume. Any piece, PERIOD, by Monbiot is suspect because he doesn't bother with things called "logic" or "the scientific method."

No idea about him and the scientific method, but he definitely bothers with logic in this article..

Any discussion on this piece is a waste of time. Please see the appropriate peer-reviewed articles in the appropriate scientific journals and/or conferences for a proper discussion of the facts on global warming.

Interestingly enough, the fact that the 'climate change debunking' article was not published in such a form is one of the main complaints from Monbiot, so you may find yourself in agreement with him on where to look for good information on this.

But hey, this is slashdot, so why bother to read the article before commenting..

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (5, Interesting)

ccarson (562931) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843522)

I've been following global warming for a long time now doing a lot research on the side for the last couple of years. Here are some facts about global warming. Some of which you hear and don't hear from the main stream media: 1.) The world appears to be getting warmer with many computer models showing an increase in global temperature. 2.) Tying a trend to warmer temperatures based on older data from the early 1900's is suspect at best. Good, reliable, accurate scientific equipment that measures the temperature wasn't readily available until recently (late 1900's). 3.) Apparently, the Earth magnetic field has decreased by 10% in the last 150 years (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/earth_magnet ic_031212.html [space.com] ). I'm an electrical engineer and during my studies in particle physics, I learned that a particles velocity can be affected by magnetic fields. I keep hearing about the increased activity of our Sun and believe it's possible that more of the Sun's radiation is penetrating the Earth's magnetic field due to it being weaker. If more radiation hits the Earth and the Sun is spewing out more heat, shouldn't that also increase the overall temperature of the Earth and can global warming be attributed to this? 4.) Jupitor is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/060504_red_j [space.com] r.html [space.com]) 5.) Mars is experiencing the same climate change that Earth is. (source: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/ [space.com] mars_snow_011206-1.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/new s/news.html?in_article_id=410901&in_page_id=1770 [dailymail.co.uk] ) How can you explain the recent same climate changes on different planets? I doubt it's all those cars being driven there. Is it possible that the warmer temperatures that Earth is experiencing are caused by cyclical natural phenomena? What about glaciers in Greenland that have been shrinking for 100 years (source: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/08/21/060821191 [breitbart.com] 826.o0mynclv.html [breitbart.com])? Also, how do you explain huge ice ages on Earth? Were thse caused by huge carbon emissions or was it a small natural climate cycle that just happens? Were those climate changes, which are no doubt more extreme than what's going on now, caused by the combustion engine?

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (4, Insightful)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843812)

Gee, that's a lot of broken links.

Ok, so I'll have to repeat my standard response to stuff like this.

I love this logic:

1. The climate has always been variable.
1a. The climate is variable on other planets.
2. Therefore, man is not having an impact on today's climate!

QED, right?

Here's an exercise: Explain to me how increased levels of CO2 (which are rising due to humans- I challenge you to find an alternative explanation that has not been debunked from here to Shanghai and back), which Arrhenius demonstrated over 100 years ago [nasa.gov] could cause climate change, can't possibly be causing climate change?

Hey, climate science is uncertain, and questioning the current consensus is great. But if you are going to do so, please find a coherent argument why the current thinking is incorrect (again, please stick to the stuff that hasn't been shown to be wrong 100x over). So please go read RealClimate [realclimate.org] , debunk them (you have to do better than the M&M side show [uoguelph.ca] ), and then we can have a conversation.

Re:Georges Moonbat. Great choice there. (1)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843852)

Oops I screwed up the Arrhenius link [nasa.gov] . Just Google for him.

not "welcomed" by the naysayers, though (1)

MollyB (162595) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843418)

Quite right about a better technical rebuttal, but whose eyes will ever see it? The Sunday Telegraph speaks for the vested interests. Unless an unimpeachable authority finds the ear of those who don't want to hear it, we'll sail along over the waterfall still arguing about how to start the engine.

The author (Monbiot) seems to have garnered much criticism so far, but the final two paragraphs of TFA are well-crafted.

Hahahahaha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843022)

Monbiot? You mean the original moonbat? He's a zoologist. But nice try.

Global Hubris (-1, Flamebait)

redelm (54142) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843066)

There may very well be global warming. Temperatures _are_ higher. Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures. Effect, not cause. Humans are unlikely to be the cause: we emit annually about 0.070 kg/m2 (world average) into an atmospheric CO2 inventory of 5.4 kg/m2. 77 years of current [max] burning! And both are negligible compared to rain scrubbing of 800 kg/m2.

Re:Global Hubris (3, Funny)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843168)

Can we make a hole in the ozone so some of that CO2 can leak out and make everything right again?

Re:Global Hubris (4, Insightful)

ResidntGeek (772730) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843198)

There's higher pressure in a warm beer because the product of pressure and volume increases with temperature. Carbon dioxide doesn't magically leak into the beer as it gets warmer. You're not an atmospheric scientist, don't try to act like one on slashdot.

Re:Global Hubris (5, Funny)

thelost (808451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843364)

technically slashdot is exactly the place to pretend you know shit about stuff you don't - the whole commentary for this story will prove this.

Re:Global Hubris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843484)

1 + 1 = 3 !!!!!!
  I AM A MATH TEAHCER

Re:Global Hubris (2, Interesting)

Bender0x7D1 (536254) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843280)

So... If you inventory of 5.4kg/m2 is correct, then how can the rain scrub 800 kg/m2? Where does the other 794.6kg/m2 come from?

I'm not trying to be a troll - I'm just asking...

Re:Global Hubris (3, Informative)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843312)

By your own statistics, we will double the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in less than 100 years. That is not a negligible point.

CO2 provides the most climate forcing due to its chemical properties and relative bulk in the atmosphere. To forestall the atmospheric H2O canard - H2O is a more powerful GHG, but it only maintains the current temperature. It is not a forcing agent because it cycles too fast. H2O cycles in 14 days. CO2 cycles in ~150 years.

The comment about rain scrubbing is utterly nonsensical. It shows no time component and is irrelevant because rain doesn't fall evenly over every square meter of the planet.

Re:Global Hubris (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843426)

Careful, you dared to question the religion of environmentalism. Like Christianity, environmentalism preaches the following:

1.) The Earth was in a pristine state at some point in the past.
2.) Humans came along and mucked it all up with their sins.
3.) You must appease nature (god) through ritual prayer and sacrifice (like recycling).
4.) If you don't believe these, you are an infidel and will be judged on Judgement Day (natural disaster).

Michael Crichton brought this up, pointing out that in nearly every ideology on Earth, these fundamental tenets are followed--pristine state in the past mucked up by humans, with noisy followers trying to convince everyone to believe what they believe or face disaster. It's so inherent in every ideology that it may well be natural to the human brain to adopt a belief system that attempts to reclaim some imaginary state of the past.

Re:Global Hubris (1)

ThosLives (686517) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843748)

The only flaw in your analogy is that Christianity states that it's not up to humans to fix things, but that God fixed things already (through Christ - hence "Christ"ianity). Oh, I guess that wasn't the only flaw - in the Christian "Judgement Day", everyone will be judged, not just "the infidels". This will be done, however, in a truly just manner and, oddly enough, isn't based on how much "good" or "bad" you have done. (By the way, Christianity also does not have any bit of sacrifice, in the Old Testament sense at any rate. Then again, there is no activity that you can do without some "sacrifice" - if you post on /. you're sacrificing time you could spend doing something else, for instance.)

I don't know how that applies to nature - because nature is both a cause of and response to human behavior, and nature cannot itself cause humans to get "right" with nature again. "Nature" also has no impetus to become "pristine" again - there is no physical forcing function to make things "environmentally sound" (and what does that mean anyway?). As far as "natural" "Judgment Day" would go, I don't know that there's any judging going on other than the consequences of the laws of physics. Incidentally, those are also completely impartial.

I don't disagree that 'environmentalism' is a religion, however. There are a lot of things that are religions, but aren't necessarily "spiritual" in nature.

Re:Global Hubris (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843824)

noisy followers trying to convince everyone to believe what they believe or face disaster.

That's what I said, but noooooooo, noisy followers had to whine to the EPA and make me spend $500 out of my corporation's pocket to quit pumping mercury into the water supply. Damn those noisy followers, do they think money grows on trees?! Do they not understand that coughing up black shit and dying of lung cancer is a sign of PROGRESS! Back in my grandfather's day you had to smoke plants to get lung cancer, now we have plants that smoke for everyone!

Re:Global Hubris (4, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843478)

>Effect, not cause.

Both. One of the reasons we need computer models. Especially since warmer climates speed up some processes that *absorb* CO2 as well as speeding up processes that release CO2.

CO2's causal role is simple phsyics. The numbers on feedback have been hard to pin down. But there's not any question that *other things being equal* more CO2 means a warmer planet on average.

>Humans are unlikely to be the cause:

We are, indeed, responsible for only a small percentage of the CO2 in the atmosphere. The amount that was there before we started is responsible for keeping the oceans from freezing. A small change to that large an effect is worth thinking about.

Re:Global Hubris (4, Informative)

MyNymWasTaken (879908) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843624)

A 22.5% increase over 2 centuries, 19.4% in 45 years, is a small percentage?

[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/siple.htm [ornl.gov] ]
>>
An atmospheric CO2 record for the past 200 years was obtained from the
Siple Station ice core.
[...]
Neftel et al. (1985) concluded that the atmospheric CO2 concentration
ca. 1750 was 280±5 parts per million by volume (ppmv) and that it
increased by 22.5% to 345 ppmv in 1984 essentially because of human
factors.
>>

[ http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm [ornl.gov] ]
>>
The Mauna Loa record shows a 19.4% increase in the mean annual
concentration, from 315.98 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of dry
air in 1959 to 377.38 ppmv in 2004.
>>

Take a physics class (1)

Goldsmith (561202) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843622)

Thermodynamics is not a one-way street, nor is it limited simply to gasses. Liquids (such as rain) must come to thermal and chemical equilibrium with the atmosphere. Mass and chemicals (including CO2) do not just go away.

If the increasing temperature is decreasing the solubility of CO2 into the oceans, where is the rain "scrubbing" the CO2 away to, and how is it keeping it from coming back out into the atmosphere via normal thermodynamic means?

In short, your physics is wrong.

you just proved the point (1)

idlake (850372) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843644)

Let's take your numbers. CO2 levels have only started to rise fairly recently, so your 800 kg/m2 of scrubbing must have been extremely well balanced by natural CO2 emissions.

Furthermore, you're arguing that humans, so far, have not contributed much. Now, human are adding 0.07 kg/m2 (your numbers) per year. Even if that rate doesn't increase, that means that in merely 77 years we'd be doubling the amount of CO2 that's been the steady state for as long as there have been humans. And, on top of those human emissions, you also postulate that warming will release further CO2 naturally, meaning that atmospheric CO2 could double in a fraction of the time. Basically, what your numbers and analysis implies is that there will be a devastating runaway greenhouse effect within our lifetimes.

In fact, the reason why the atmosphere has been stable despite such a large amount of scrubbing is strong evidence that there must be some kind of negative feedback mechanism; otherwise, you'd expect natural fluctuations to lead to much higher changes in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Right now, we're still somewhere around the equilibrium of that feedback mechanism, but we are moving away more and more. If we keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere, eventually, the current feedback mechanism will break and a new feedback mechanism will pull us rapidly towards another equilibrium at much higher CO2 concentrations and probably much higher temperatures. That's not a question of "if", it's only a question of "when".

Re:Global Hubris (1, Insightful)

syphax (189065) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843652)

Talk about pseudo-scientific gibberish. Good frickin lord. What's your alternative hypothesis for the relationship between human emissions and atmospheric concentrations [doe.gov] ? Yes, there's a lot of natural carbon flux going both ways. But we've tipped the balance. No one with more than three neurons firing debates this. There are plenty of things about global warming to debate; please for everyone's sake find a topic that's not so obviously wrong and easily disproved.

Here's another fun graph [ornl.gov]

Let's re-write some physical laws... (2, Insightful)

The Famous Druid (89404) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843664)

> Ever open a warm beer? CO2 increases at warmer temperatures.

This one nearly made me spill my coffee !

Ever hear of the law of Conservation of Mass?

Put in simple terms, it says that the amount of Carbon in the can is fixed at the time the can is sealed.
Heating it, cooling it, or giving it a really good shake makes no difference.

Re:Global Hubris (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843728)

Ever flown into LAX? Seen the giant toxic mushroom cloud that sits over the LA basin? Still doubt humans have any affect on the atmosphere?

Re:Global Hubris (2, Informative)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843878)

Ahh, fine poppycock you're spouting there. Have you ever worked in a lab with solutions in equilibrium? How about buffer solutions, simple high school chemistry stuff? Or indicator solutions? The effects of 1 mL reagent in 100L solution can indeed be drastic, depending on how much reagent is there already. Do you know for certain that 5.6 kg/m2 isn't the tipping point at which we face drastic climate change? I sure as hell don't, and I'm not sure I want to find out.

And your figure for rain scrubbing of 800kg/m2? Utter bullshit, on two counts -- 1) CO2 is simply not that soluble in H20 at atmospheric pressures. 2) That CO2 that does get "scrubbed" finds its way back into the air. It's not a one-way reaction, it's a global equilibrium.

When we add carbon into the cycle, we add atmospheric CO2. Plain and simple. The question is at what point the extra carbon disrupts our welfare to a degree that is unacceptable -- and the answer is based upon the magnitude of the effects and our tolerance for the effects. We're constantly learning more about the magnitude of the change, but our tolerance to change will be in debate as long as humans exist.

Re:Global Hubris (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843894)

I'll bite,

Rain scrubbing only works if there is something to absorb the CO2/carbolic acid??? When it hits the ground... otherwise CO2 back to the atmosphere.

Also I don't know where you live, but there are a lot of lake dead and dying up here. Acid rain exists too.

Moo (4, Interesting)

Chacham (981) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843146)

It's amazing how many monikers this "debunker uses". "cock-a-hoop", "cherry-picking, downright misrepresentation and pseudo-scientific gibberish." And while the original article mentioned sources and showed the numbers he was talking about, this article just keeps saying how the first was incorrect, and how others have proven this or disproven that. However, the details are not found there.

This is just pandering to those who want thim to respond. But there's really nothing to see here if you don't like name calling.

Re:Moo (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843266)

At least the cases quoted in the /. writeup are correct: The original presentation did specify a range of outcomes with probabilities attached to each, and suddenly the anti-environmental groups latched onto the wildest, lowest probability outcome like bulldogs. When you point out that that's the lowest probability outcome out of a particular range, they go off on their standard non sequitor "zomg! so the guy went and lied before congress presenting all this stuff that wasn't going to happen and he knew it wasn't going to happen blah blah blah blah blah".

Whether it's carbon dioxide or mercury, there will always be corporate warlords who have decreed that killing people is the price of progress, as long as they're not the ones to pay it. It's terrible and sad if some peon gets cancer from living in the wrong place at the wrong time, but suggest that it's the company that should pay for the treatment and suddenly you're a barbaric anti-progress socialist that wants everyone to live in the stone age.

Re:Moo (1, Funny)

thrillseeker (518224) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843282)

Nice debunking of the debunker's debunking.

Re:Moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843886)

He he

Re:Moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843368)

The details are a matter of public record in hundreds of science journal records spanning decades. But if you want to trust some crack-pot fly-by-night journalist with a thesaurus-backed vocabulary who thinks his uneducated science knowledge outweighs hundreds of other life-long and degreed scientists and their documented research and trust a news publisher with the singular goal of gaining eye-time with whatever gimmick they can concoct - truch or not - go ahead - you're not alone.

Re:Moo (5, Insightful)

gurps_npc (621217) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843424)

I strongly disagree. The cherry picking answer is key.

The first article did NOT make an argument. Instead it attempted to convince everyone he was correct by saying how X,Y and Z arguments are false. But there are 100's of arguments for global warming. OF COURSE some of them are false.

The first article was a poorly thought out piece of crap, because it did NOT do what science must do: present disprovable data. Instead it simply disproved a small portion of other people's arguments.

That is called Cherry Picking. It is a stupid way to argue, I can use it to prove anything.

Here: Some people (my 3 year old nephew) claim that Communists killed Jesus. This is patently false, because Jesus was killed and ressurected years before Communism was invented. Others (my 10 year old niece) claim that Communists killed their father. I have here a signed affadaivit that her father is alive and well, and living with a 19 year old stripper in Miami. Finally, some people (my insane neighbor), claim that Communists are poisoning our water supply with fluride, but I have here ten studies, all double blind, showing that Fluride is not harmfull in the quantities placed in our water.

Therefore Communists do not kill people.

This is EXACTLY what the first article did. It picked a VERY few articles, that may or may not have been false, and attacked them. This is called Cherry Picking. Such a methodology is foolish and proves nothing.

Re:Moo (5, Funny)

0racle (667029) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843756)

Your nephew is an idiot. The Jewish high priests were definitely Capitalists.

Re:Moo (5, Insightful)

greginnj (891863) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843868)

The first article did NOT make an argument. Instead it attempted to convince everyone he was correct by saying how X,Y and Z arguments are false. But there are 100's of arguments for global warming. OF COURSE some of them are false.
This is a pretty low standard... I believe in global warming. But it's also possible that the arguments for GW are simultaneously 1)true and 2) overhyped. The first article was the least shrill, least tendentious, attempt I have read to present the 'case against'. If we're right about GW, it shouldn't be hard to disprove it, using the same or higher standards of both rhetoric and logic. I notice that TFA didn't say anything specific about the 390x overweighting of bristlecone-pine climate data and its use in erasing the the warm period during the middle ages. I'm willing to believe the original article got it wrong; since science is on our side, it should be easy to explain how.

Further -- the Monbiot article says that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept" -- meaning that CO2 release precedes its effects by several decades. Nice, but the original (Monckton) article claimed that the problem was that warming preceded CO2 rise, which means Monbiot didn't really rebut him. There are many, many specific claims in the original article (and the linked-to PDF is even more detailed); Monbiot tackles very few of them adequately. Rather than slamming a journalist for lack of sufficient credentials, he should be congratulated for attempting to meet the scientists halfway by speaking their own language, and set right where he needs to be set right. The truth has nothing to fear from polemic.

Re:Moo (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843608)

However, the details are not found there.

I think one of the points is that the paper was so full of errors that pointing each of them out would be long. He does point out some discrete examples. Two temperature graphs that were compared to each other were not depicting the same region (global vs Europe), and they were not at the same scale to do meaningful comparison. A cause and effect analysis that showed no effect did not take into account a period of time for the effect to take place. Some factual errors were pointed out. The leading climatologist did not testify to Congress as it was reported.

Many people don't want to believe that global warming exists for many reasons. Some of them are for purely politicol or commercial reasons. Global warming has a complicated mechanism. Not many can fully understand it. However, they refuse to believe those who can. There are those who can't understand the science to want hard numbers. Because of the scale, climate science may not be present data in exact terms like chemistry or physics. They can't say exactly for every degree in temperature rise, the sea would rise X feet. But they can agree that it will rise generally.

Re:Moo (5, Insightful)

KeensMustard (655606) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843686)

You failed to mention that the article he debunked asserted that there was a global conspiracy headed by the UN to promote the concept fo global warming in order to establish a world government. Is that really the domain of serious science? Hmmm?

Re:Moo (1)

Trails (629752) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843754)

Actually, there are some solid pieces in the article. Unfortunately, they're almost lost admist the editorialising ("cok-a-hoop" and the like as you point out). In essence, Mr. Monbiot sinks to the level of Mr. Mickton. Unfortunate given that he derides these same techniques he uses.

The 3 scenarios of James Hansen and the black body stuff are valid.

Re:Moo (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843766)

Wow, you cannot be more wrong. How about this:

"Schmidt points out that Monckton also forgets, in making his calculations, that "climate sensitivity is an equilibrium concept": in other words that there is a time-lag of several decades between the release of carbon dioxide and the eventual temperature rise it causes. If you don't take this into account, the climate's sensitivity to carbon dioxide looks much smaller. This is about as fundamental a mistake as you can make in climate science." ...or this:

"So what of those graphs? Look at them carefully and you see that they are measuring two different things: global temperatures (the UN panel's progression) and European temperatures (Monckton's line). You will also discover that the scales are different."

There's more, but you missed the main point: Monckton is not a scientist, he has no science degree, yet he published a scientific analysis of scientific facts and of course his paper was not peer reviewed. That final fact alone should convince anyone that they should not base their opinions of global warming on Monckton's analysis.

As an aside, it appears that Monckton has some other very strong OPINIONS. This is from the Wikipedia entry for him:

In January 1987, Monckton wrote in an article in The American Spectator[1]:

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

"There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life [...] Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month [...] all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently."

Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Monckton subsequently disassociated himself with these comments, citing modern medical breakthroughs as reason alone to disregard these comments

"The details are not found there"? (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843896)

The Monbiot article explains
o The textbook Stefan-Boltzmann equation doesn't apply to a reflecting body
o The original article leaves out time-delayed effects
o The original article compares a graph of average worldwide temperature to a graph of European temperatures

>nothing to see

Plenty to see, even though it's not a point by point rebuttal. A point by point rebuttal would have mentioned Monckton's claim that scientists were predicting global cooling in the 70s. The facts are readily available and even summarized on the web at the global cooling bibliography [wmconnolley.org.uk] .

man its hot in here (0)

Kazrath (822492) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843172)

I have read the articles and heard the criers shouting about how the greenhouse effect will destroy the earth. This has been going on for decades with one prediction after another never coming to fruitation. What ever happened to El Nino? That used to be in the news every day as the marker for this great catastrophe.

Basically I am not saying its a good thing to shoot polution into the air. And taking preventitive measure to reduce the potential harm is a great step. But trying to bludgeon people into thinking its gonna end the world and your children will not be able to go outside is just plain ridiculous.

NASA GISS GCM on your laptop (4, Informative)

HoneyBeeSpace (724189) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843208)

If you'd like to run a global climate model (GCM) yourself, you can now do so. The NASA GISS Model II GCM has been ported to run on Mac/Win computers and wrapped in a point-and-click interface. GISS, the Goddard Institute of Space Studies, is the lab that Hansen (mentioned in the summary) runs.

The EdGCM [columbia.edu] project provides this free GCM wrapped in a GUI. If you want to add CO2 or turn down the sun or whatever, you may now do so with some checkboxes and sliders.

Re:NASA GISS GCM on your laptop (3, Funny)

diersing (679767) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843446)

End result is always extinction; I don't like this game let's play something else.

Slashdot position (1)

bonch (38532) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843236)

Why does Slashdot always seem to take a position on this? The fact remains that there is not a scientific consensus on global warming or its causes, there is plenty of contradictory evidence, and scientists were claiming in the 1970s that we'd be entering a new ice age--it never happened. I suspect in 40 years, we'll be looking back on the alarmism of today and laughing the same way we laugh at the scientists of 40 years ago.

Re:Slashdot position (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843308)

Wrong. There *is* scientific consensus, their is just not media or lay-person consensus. Also, there was not one scientific article claiming global cooling, again, that was the media. Get your sources straight and don't waste your time with sources that are not knowledgable in the domain.

Re:Slashdot position (2, Informative)

Overly Critical Guy (663429) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843508)

Wrong, there is not scientific consensus, and yes, most scientists were claiming global cooling, based on the temperature drop that occurred from the 1940s to the 1970s. They predicted natural disaster by the 1980s and a "new Ice Age."

Please, do your research before making yourself look uninformed. This is a serious debate that requires knowing all the facts.

Re:Slashdot position (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843572)

Can you cite or provide a reference of some of these scientific publications predicting an ice age please?

Re:Slashdot position (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843674)

Do your research? Serious debate? Knowing all the facts? Buddy, this is slashdot, people don't even RTFA. If you want a serious discussion about a topic involving MS, Linux, global warming, George Bush, or Scientology, you're going to have to go somewhere else.

Re:Slashdot position (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843844)

You are obviously not involved in any scientific discipline. At all.

It is consensus... maybe you are not familiar with peer-reviewed journals and the progression of research. I even remember hearing about it in lectures at Fermi Lab in the 80s and countless other lectures my father dragged me to. You can pick the crackpot outsiders who disagree, and of course it isn't a unanimous conclusion (that's not what a consensus is, smart guy). You will also notice that their research isn't published.

Re:Slashdot position (3, Interesting)

Glock27 (446276) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843628)

Wrong. There *is* scientific consensus, their is just not media or lay-person consensus.

Well, I suppose it depends on what you mean by "consensus". Certainly not all qualified scientists believe "human caused global warming" is a dominant factor in current climate change. You might check this 2002 article (for instance):

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/5/14 /161152.shtml [newsmax.com]

The one tangible thing that's been done to try and address global warming is the Kyoto Protocol. It is quite flawed, though, in that it gives exemptions to the countries which are most likely to be big polluters in coming decades. It would also impose economic penalties on countries like the US which are already doing quite a lot to reduce their environmental impact.

If /.ers want to rally around a single approach that would be beneficial not just to human related global warming if it exists, but also to energy independence and reduced pollution, do whatever you can to advocate constructing new nuclear reactors here in the US. That is the single best thing we could do at this point.

Those who can plug in hybrids or electric cars to charge would then be running nuclear powered vehicles...sweet! :-)

LOONS LIKE GW (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843246)

Speaking of Loons, I heard they invented the internet.

      Face it, GW is more politics than science and all designed to exert pressure, of the downward variety, on western economies so the 3rd world, countries barely capable of basic woodworking or a mere "safe and stable" 2 story structure can catch up. This is the democrat leftist form of "income redistribution".

They (the 3rd world) should stick to sex tourism since they by nature of some ridiculous cultural and social norms are f'ed anyway. Abandon some 7th century aspects and maybe, just maybe you have a chance. Until then you'll continue to stand in place and continue to be a slave to some ridiculous traditions and beliefs.

      Global Warming is the best of example of politicaly tainted science and thats why China and India were/are exempt from Kyoto. Almost fooled us but we woke up thanks to the other GW, ha aha ha aha aha aha.

Strategerie!

I really don't understand how people ... (4, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843252)

... can disbelieve in global warming.

The earth *IS* getting warmer. This is a fact. Annual temperatures are hotter than they have ever been since we started keeping records, glaciers are drastically smaller than they've ever been in recorded history, and the polar ice caps are shrinking. The earth _IS_ getting warmer, ergo, global warming is real.

What is causing it, however, is another matter... some say there is proof that humans are causing it, others will say it's merely circumstantial... that this warming is just part of a natural cycle the earth goes through before another ice age and then a gradual reheating (the latter period being one in which we are currently living).

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843310)

Of more importance is what, if anything, humans can do to stop it. If it's man-made than maybe we can change it. If it's just a natural cycle than maybe we end up wasting a lot of trying trying to have a meaningless impact

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (0)

rbf2000 (862211) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843360)

The easiest way to prove that global warming exists is to point out the fact that we are not living in the ice age. Since the time the world was almost completely frozen over, it has gotten warmer.

It would seem the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and we just happen to be around while the earth is warming up some. Even if we are contributing, the amount that we are is insignificant at best.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (1)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843440)

Yup, just a coincidence that the industrial revolution conincides with a perfectly natural warming at 1000 times the fastest rate ever. No reason to suspect any causation there.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (0)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843786)

As opposed to what? The 1500's? The 1700's?? The late Cretaceous??? Was anyone keeping record of the ACTUAL temperature back then? No. We have only been recording these kinds of things for the last 200 years at best. Core drilling's showing high CO2 in Antarctica or Greenland at best, are only based on scientific theory at best. There's many reasons that one core drilling may show higher CO2 but is anyone absolutely sure that the theory proves true? Can we conduct experiments on this?? No way to conduct that kind of experiment because non of us will be around in a million years.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (1)

AdamKG (1004604) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843864)

You apparently don't quite grasp the difference between experimentation and discovery science. Let me guess - you think the Earth is 6k years old because we can't run an experiment 13.6 billion years ago? What a troll.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (1)

AdamKG (1004604) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843564)

You can't say the same about atmospheric CO2. Global temperatures are correlated with CO2, although which way the causality flows isn't known. What is known is that atmospheric CO2 is at 350 ppm. [wikipedia.org] That hasn't happened in (at least) half a million years, and it happened in 200 years - that's one 1/500th of a million years- once the industrial revolution got going. That isn't natural. The earth's warming may be natural, but if the CO2 causes the warming, rather than the warming causing the rise in CO2, then what's going on now was caused by us humans, and it will get worse.

Personally, though, I'm of the "bring-it-on" opinion. I would rather progress and face the consequences, than not progress for fear of the consequences. The rest of humanity may not agree with that, and they should be free to decide it without FUD, which is why I don't like articles like the one that this story is a response to anyway.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843856)

The easiest way to prove that global warming exists is to point out the fact that we are not living in the ice age. Since the time the world was almost completely frozen over, it has gotten warmer. It would seem the earth goes through a cycle of warming and cooling and we just happen to be around while the earth is warming up some. Even if we are contributing, the amount that we are is insignificant at best.

This is the logical fallacy, non sequitur paired with proof by example. You have made empty assertions. Because the earth has warmed and cooled in the past in no way proves that the current warming is the result of or not the result of human interference. You assert that if we are contributing that contribution must be be insignificant, but you provide no support for that assertion and, if you look at the most reliable data we have to date, you'll notice that both of your assertions seem to contradict that data.

The rate of climate change is orders of magnitude faster than any natural change indicated by indicators from the past. This implies that the process is being influenced by a factor different than what has happened naturally in the past. Something has changed. The rate of global change correlates to the rise of human industrialization and (contrary to what you might have read) correlation suggests a possible causation.

Does this prove that global warming is caused by human influences? No. But because we have both a logical hypothesis as to how global warming could be caused by human influence (greenhouse effect) and because the scientific method to date has supported that hypothesis more than any other presented, it is the most likely cause. As a result a logical person, a scientist who objectively considers the issue, would conclude that the most reasonable course of action should be based upon the likelihood that humans are the cause and look to potential solutions based upon that.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843430)

And the other end of the policy equation is can the western world do anything about it anyway? Particularly when developing nations like China and India completely ignore the Kyoto treaty. Go to any industrial city in China, the air looks like Pittsburgh in the fifties. And this is with nearly eveyone riding bikes.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (3, Interesting)

thelost (808451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843486)

there's a very simple reason people disbelieve global warming - their conscience. To keep it clean they turn their head and look away and it sickens me.

It's the same kind of logic that keeps people smoking when they know exactly what it is doing to them. They simply don't want to think about what is happening so they ignore it - it's the elephant in the middle of the room.

plus, as many people here have said climate science is one of the most tainted - my fingers personally are pointed at the oil businesses and their sister companies the Governments.

As Al Gore said, this is a moral issue. Whose side are you on?

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (3, Insightful)

Llywelyn (531070) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843630)

"""there's a very simple reason people disbelieve global warming - their conscience."""

Funny, this is part of the reason that people follow the concept blindly and vehemently, attacking any who attempt to raise even the specter of a rational debate.

It is a lot easier to believe that we are responsible than it is to believe that we cannot do anything about it.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (1)

that_xmas (707449) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843562)

Exactly.

However, the global warming debunkers and the global warming zealots are both arguing about man-made global warming. Many of the debunkers are firmly on the side that any global warming we are seeing now is part of a natural cycle, and CO2 emissions from human activity have very little to do with it.

Now for my bit of ranting. CO2 is the least dangerous of the greenhouse gasses. Carbon emissions trading schemes are horribly rigged to favor the most polluting countries. The US and Australia are probably doing more to stop CO2 emissions [newscientist.com] than Europe by simply giving the technology for cleaner burning of fossil fuels to China and India, the two fastest growing and soon to be most carbon emitting countries in the world.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843684)

Yes your correct the earth IS getting warmer but has been much warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before and colder before and warmer before.

      Humans have maybe occupied the earth for the length of time equal to a fraction of the period in the sentence above.

You getting this yet? Translation, it aint you or other humans its complex earth geodynamics, billions of years worth, way beyond your piss ant control or ability and I will stop there since I will be collecting the Nobel when my thesis gains wide acceptance and the 1st thing I will do...

FIRE ALL OF THOSE NOBEL COMMISION IDIOTS

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (2, Insightful)

2short (466733) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843732)

Over the recent past, the warming has not been "gradual". It appears it has been several orders of magnitude faster than ever before.
  Nobody says there is "proof" humans are causing it. They say a heck of a lot of smart people have tried very hard to come up with an explanation for it, and they've got exactly squat other than the industrial revolution.
    If you've got a realistic explanation for warming rates over the recent past other than human action, I'd love to hear it. But "it's just natural cycles" doesn't cut it. Something radically different is going on in the last hundred years of the temperature record. It's hard to see why people insist we just don't know what it could be except willful avoidance of the big obvious candidate.
    In any case, something different is going on in the last hundred years. If you've got a suggestion what it is other than human action, let's hear it, but dispense with the saying it's just the same natural cycles as before. Because it's nowhere close.

Re:I really don't understand how people ... (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843832)

I am 100% in belief that global warming is currently in the process of as we speak and live today. I do also think that the fact of human existence and our impact on our environment _COULD_ be playing a role in contributing to the current warming trends, but there are also truths that this sort of thing has happened in the past. One take could be that the Earth's climate changes are a way to "Cleanse" the Earth from certain things (pollution being the first to come to mind). It could be the equivalent of an immune system in beings that we know of. The Earth is sick literally from our contamination and is trying to heal itself. Of course there is no proof _YET_ to an idea of such, but it's definitely possible.

Tomorrow on Slashdot (4, Funny)

Lord_Slepnir (585350) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843262)

The Debunker who debunked the debunker has been debunked.

Re:Tomorrow on Slashdot (3, Funny)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843506)

No, that's Friday on Slashdot. Tomorrow we'll see this story again.

Repair (2, Interesting)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843264)

Now, I'm not a 'professional' scientist however I do take interest in such matters, I was wondering if anyone has any information on what it would realistically take to begin to reverse the damage.

How do we make any significant progress to undo what we have already done?

Re:Repair (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843362)

It's very, very, simple... all you have to do is vote liberal. Got it? Good, don't forget!

Re:Repair (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843432)

Liberal Democrat or Republican?

Re:Repair (1)

Rinzai (694786) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843542)

Begging the question isn't going to get you anywhere. If we haven't done anything to cause it, we don't need to undo what we've done. There's nothing to undo.

If the sun is warming (evidence on Mars, Titan, and Pluto, for example, of higher temperatures, implying higher rates of insolation, ergo, warmer star), we certainly can't stop it at the source. Might very little we can do to deal with the higher temperatures other than just try to ride out the storm.

If we can't ride out the storm, well, them's the breaks. We're really not important to the long-term life of the universe as a whole. None have noticed our naissance, none will note our passing. Two million years at the same address looks impressive, until you realize how long the address has been there--and then for how long the address wasn't there.

Re:Repair (2, Interesting)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843632)

We just need to learn how to breath in carbon dioxide, and exhale oxygen. This would not only help with global warming, but if this is something we can do on demand, it will help tremendously in the field of Scuba diving.

If I sound flippant, it's because I'm not really sure there is an answer any more. Many climatologists appear to believe we've already gone too far, we could have done something about it ten years ago, but we've squandered the opportunities that were available to us. And suppose someone comes up with an astonishingly good way of sucking huge amounts of CO2 out of the air before it's too late (such as the various proposals involving algae), isn't the fact a "quick fix" was available likely to undermine efforts to be responsible in terms of our planet management in the future?

Re:Repair (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843638)

Huge industrial CO2 scrubbers along the same lines they have on the Space Shuttle.

With a few issues:

1) What you do with the carbon you have just scrubbed. Originally this was trapped under the ground in the form of oil (also contains Hydrogen for those who cant remember basic chemistry). The quantities of carbon involved are astronomical (think about total weight of oil used by entire planet every year) so this is actually a serious problem as trapping it back in oil is currently not technologicaly possible on a large enough scale. (is it possible to form long carbon-hydrogen chains on any scale?)

2)Actually waiting for the reduced carbon in the atmosphere to allow enough heat to escape into space so that the earth cools and the ice caps dont melt. (incidentally this is a real problem for anyone living in Florida as a large part of the state will be under a metre of water if the sealevels rise too much more, think New Orleans * 100. New Orleans is also probably in real trouble as they are already below sea level).

Of course, none of this will bother China as most of their country is higher up and fucking the largest other super power on the planet will certainly not do them any harm, economically or militarily. Russia is equally protected as most of their largest cities are miles inland. I wonder why those two countries aren't keen on commiting to Kyoto.

Re:Repair (1)

gt_mattex (1016103) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843722)

Would it be possible to condense that supposed stock pile of carbon and make diamonds? Stock pile them sort of like DeBeers.

no no no (4, Interesting)

misanthrope101 (253915) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843268)

No, we can't predict exactly how much warmer it will be, or exactly what the rate of change will be. We don't know exactly how much humans contribute to this anyway. Until we know absolutely everything, we might as well do absolutely nothing. Just because all of our lab experiments lead to the conclusion that carbon dioxide makes warming worse, and we pump huge amounts of carbon dioxide into the environment, we should still do nothing. Humans changing our habits wouldn't fix all the problems, everywhere, forever, so we should still do nothing.

I really think almost all of these questions end up as what I call side of the room questions. People line up via their political orientation, and they end up on the side of the room with Michael Moore and Al Gore, or Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. You might not like everything about the people on your side of the room, but if you find the other side of the room more unpalatable, you shut up and live with your reservations. The polarized nature of politics makes you at least act as if you buy into everything from your side of the room--if you vacillate (waffle!) you might embolden the other side of the room. Aaargh! So smart people end up believing stupid stuff, just so they don't have to stand on the same side of the room as Michael Moore (or Anne Coulter, depending on your aversion). And no, I'm not exempting myself from this. I find Michael Moore's stuff smarmy and irritating, but I'd do some serious soul-searching if I ended up on the same side of the room as Anne Coulter.

Re:no no no (1)

TastyCakes (917232) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843566)

I don't think society's opinions about climate change have anything to do with lining up with Anne Coulter or Michael Moore, and only a limited amount to do with Gore. My feelings on the matter, and I'm sure I'm not alone, are that I don't know which side to stand on because both sides have data that to my layman eyes appear totally believable seperately but utterly contradictive together. Why would anyone listen to histerical party hacks on a matter like this, a matter totally disconnected from their "cultural stomping ground" of expertise? Maybe I'm just not particularly political any more, but I don't see this as a political issue, but rather as a set of facts that need to be verified or debunked decisively before political stances can be made on it.

Re:no no no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843654)

So what you're saying is if you can't fix every problem there's no point in fixing any problem? Isn't that kind of like saying "Well we lost one tire but we still have three so let's keep driving"?

We know that all that extra carbon dioxide isn't making matters better so where is the downside of reducing something we know we're creating excess of?

Re:no no no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843682)

Anne Coulter? Oh yes, the liberal who pretends to be a conservative... gives her free license to make up all sorts of whacky stuff secure in the knowledge that her friends in the lieberal media will lose no time getting out the word... I'm surprised there's still a few naive souls who aren't yet wise to this propaganda technique. It's time we tarred and feathered them all - by the way, did I mention that I'm a CONSERVATIVE. Once again, I'm a CONSERVATIVE. Hey, that's C-O-N-S-E-R-V-A-T-I-V-E. Just so you know, asswipe... be sure and vote conservative now, wont you?

Re:no no no (2, Insightful)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843768)

I agree we can't predict exactly what will happen, or what the rate of change of will be, but that doesn't stop the fools from trying. Here's what Jeremy Siegel, Ph.D., posted on Yahoo's Finance site last week:

In the last century, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have shot up from 285 parts per million (ppm) to 377 ppm. Historically, carbon dioxide levels had averaged between 180 and 290 ppm. Every 10 ppm increase in CO2 concentration is associated with a half a degree Centigrade increase in temperature and a 10 meter increase in sea levels.

Now I'm just an engineer, not a climatologist, but if the highest levels in the past were 290 ppm, and we are now at 377 ppm, we are 87 ppm over the past high. If each 10 ppm increase is associated with 0.5 C increase in temp, and a 10m increase in sea level, shouldn't average temps be some 4 C higher, and sea level 87m higher, instead of the negligible 0.3 C rise in temp, and the 17 cm rise in sea level the Earth has experienced over the last 100 years?

Some wags have told me that we're not seeing the total effects because of "time lags" in the system. But, from 1900 to 1910, we saw a 10 ppm rise in CO2 levels. It's been one hundred years since that rise, and we haven't seen 2% of the expected rise in sea level. Of course for the last 90 years, we've been continuing to pump CO2 into the air, so one would think the integral effect of all those events would be even larger than the single 10 ppm increase from 1900-10.

GW may yet prove to be a problem, but we're not seeing effects anywhere near the levels the scaremongers are throwing out. And, we have yet to prove that GW is anthropogenic; the Earth has gone through these cycles before, long before man was around. But as usual, the "Big Lie" propagandists are winning the battle.

And, frankly, I could care less where Mike Moore or Ann Coulter stand on this, or any other issue. Do you seriously decide your position on an issue on the basis of who supports it, or do you look at the facts and theories, and try to choose the set that makes the most sense?

He's pretty fascist in his outlook (-1, Troll)

PHAEDRU5 (213667) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843292)

Take a look at this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1 935562,00.html [guardian.co.uk]

His basic attitude, it seems to me, is that most people are children who have to be ordered about by an all-knowing government. Just the sort of thing one expects from a European intellectual. Give him half a chance and it's be greenshirts at Nuremburg.

(I think this may be a Godwin's Law record for /.)

Re:He's pretty fascist in his outlook (1)

jweatherley (457715) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843580)

Indeed, Monbiot isn't known as Moonbat for nothing. I remember listening to a Radio Four interview where he outlined much the same, nanny^WMonbiot knows best, agenda. The man is a loon and the first post should be modded Informative rather than Troll.

Re:He's pretty fascist in his outlook (1)

eddy the lip (20794) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843614)

His basic attitude, it seems to me, is that most people are children...
Maybe he spends too much time on slashdot?

Re:He's pretty fascist in his outlook (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843616)

His basic attitude, it seems to me, is that most people are children who have to be ordered about by an all-knowing government. Just the sort of thing one expects from a European intellectual.

It wasn't that long ago that Bush was claiming that he knew for certin that Iraq had WMD (based on secret evidence that the people could not be allowed to see) and that people should be properly obedient and do what he wanted without question and attack Iraq. Just the sort of thing one expects from an American anti-intellectual.

You clearly don't know what 'fascist' means. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843772)

Try getting a definition from a dictionary rather than FOX news, dimwit. Your disdain for, and lack of intellectualism makes you a good candidate for president.

The Bush position (5, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843352)

From the Financial Times, July 7 2006:

  "I recognise the surface of the earth is warmer and that an increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans is contributing to the problem," he said during a visit to Denmark en route to Gleneagles.

More Evidence ... (1)

residents_parking (1026556) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843402)

... the pantomime season is early this year.

Why take the original article seriously? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843500)

I don't understand why people are even debating the mocked article, as it didn't even pass enough scientific scrutiny to publish in even the least relevant of peer-reviewed journal. For that reason alone, it deserves all the mocking monikers it receives in the title article. Moreover it was written by a classicist. As well to defend a janitor's take on special relativity.

Consider This Driving Home in Your SUV (2, Interesting)

mpapet (761907) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843512)

and I think you begin to notice that in -this- way GWB is reflecting the will of the American peoples.

There is no set of eco-friendly economic or political rules where the balance of power shifts away from the U.S. that will ever be adopted. For example, when the world starts trading polution credits, a country with rich forests pumping out oxygen won't suddenly become an economic superpower.

Every developing nation with some "fire in the belly" is going to laugh at the foolish american who has no choice but to acknowledge that we have pillaged huge amounts of natural resources and continue to pollute with reckless abandon on our way to global dominance. So why can't they? Well, they can and they will.

I'm all for a less polluted planet, but I don't see how it happens. I see lots of little nature preserves acting like ecological museums or zoos without cages making us feel better. (Yosemite anyone?) But that's about it.

Who cares about the CAUSE for Global warming (2, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843586)

When I was a kid, the highest SPF suntan lotion you could buy was SPF 8.
I was told: "Higher than that you'd be crazy"

Today I see SPF 50 on the shelves and nothing below SPF 16.

Maybe once I see SPF 1000 we'll finally know what is the cause of Global warming.

Until then we should still cut back on any emissions that would make things worse in terms of climate change, REGARDLESS OF the real cause.

While we're at it cut back,..err, cut out polution of ANY kind. I have to dump my AA batteries in the garbage because they wont recycle that but they'll gladly polute the air and water to recycle my newspaper which can rot by itself anywhere.

Re:Who cares about the CAUSE for Global warming (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843714)

Global warming has nothing to do with increases in UV radiation. It is caused by greenhouse gases trapping infrared radiation from the earth. You're confusing it with the ozone hole. Although, you were possibly trolling.

Re:Who cares about the CAUSE for Global warming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843742)

The ozone hole and global warming are not connected.

personal attacks and sloppy science (0)

abigsmurf (919188) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843612)

It always seems to me that when scientists 'debunk' global warming naysayers, they result to attacks on methology(sp?) then their facts. To me it screams Gallileo and Darwin when scientists were attacked because they went against the tide (although there is no religious element). I love the way that that advisor was supposedly correct because the temperiture increase was within his 'mid range'. The scientist was so confident of global warming he had to do a wide range of temp increases in his 'predictions' I may not be a scientist but I certainly know enough about statistics to predict the next result in a clear trend, especially if I use an wide range of values.

There's always talk about the fact there needs to be 'more debate' over climate change, especially here in the UK but it's not debate, it's "we're telling you this is going to happen, do something about it". It's bad science to assume that one theory is the correct one, especially in the case of Global Warming where it's incredibly difficult to tell if it's a natural change (things like this HAVE happened in the past, Ice age anyone?). There was a time when the destruction of the rainforests were blamed for CO2 not balancing out, then scientists discovered that the majority of CO2 absorption happens from algae in the sea and rainforests are only a time portion of the world's CO2 stores. It's not a coincidence that the whole 'save the rainforests' is a lot quieter now than in the 90's. The 'Football Field every minute' prooved to be a lie that was circulated in that time.

I'm not saying manmade climate change is a myth but you need both sides of an argument to be presented to the public, not for them to be brainwashed.

Why primary sources matter (4, Informative)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843642)

The Guardian article said NASA scientist Hansen was wrong in a forecast.

Well, there's what Hansen said, and there's what got reported. The meta-debunker went back to primary sources and found:

He presented three possible scenarios to the US Senate - high, medium and low. Both the high and low scenarios, he explained, were unlikely to materialise. The middle one was "the most plausible".
As it happens, the middle scenario was almost exactly right. He did not claim, under any scenario, that sea levels would rise by several feet by 2000. But a climatologist called Patrick Michaels took the graph from Hansen's paper, erased the medium and low scenarios and - in testimony to Congress - presented the high curve as Hansen's prediction for climate change. A memo sent in July from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, a US company whose power is largely supplied by coal, revealed that Michaels has long been funded by electricity companies.

I Don't Care: Can you change IT? (1)

BoRegardless (721219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16843802)

OK, so the temperature is either going up or going down, or going up and will soon go down, or going down & will soon go up.

The QUESTION: Can the collective world do anything, and then WILL the collective world societies do anything of consequence?

The Pundits & Politicos in the U.S. & E.U. may wring hands, put on dour and earnest faces, make proclomations and AGREE on ACTION!

But try telling, persuading or cajoling China, India, Indonesia, South America and Africa to alter their pollution output (particularly soot and CO2).

GOOD LUCK FOLKS!

The best we might hope for are a couple of quick moderately large size volcanic eruptions to cool the planet for a couple decades to give us a chance to change other countries actions. But then China, et al, will just have reason to continue as is and delay reductions in pollution.

I look for continued posturings & isolated governmental "resolutions". Oh, but wait, the U.N. can issue orders to its members, & maybe now with a new administration in "control" they can negotiate the U.S. into paying for everyone elses nappy messes. Yeah, and if you believe that, you have to be ready for the next civil war.

I was at U with C W Monckton (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16843848)

I have said this before and may yet say it again. Monckton is a professional level wind up merchant. While at Cambridge he spent a lot of time trying to get publicity by writing stuff which he did not in fact believe for one moment. He despises the middle classes and likes to mock their preoccupations. He would like to be P J O'Rourke except that he sees himself as an upper class Roman Catholic, and so O'Rourke, as an American Irish Catholic, is too lower class. I am quite sure that he is well aware of exactly where in his article he has carefully presented only one side of the argument - he comes from a family of lawyers, and it is through very special legal services that his family got the peerage.

To be fair, part of the reason for his behaviour is a long standing medical problem. I wouldn't mention this if it were not for the fact that Wikipedia has seen fit to publish it.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...