Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:35AM   Printer-friendly [Skip to comment(s)]
from the Hot-under-the-Collar dept.

Darryl Fears reports in the Washington Post that according to the government's newest national assessment of climate change, Americans are already feeling the effects of global warming. "For a long time we have perceived climate change as an issue that's distant, affecting just polar bears or something that matters to our kids," says Katharine Hayhoe, a Texas Tech University professor and lead co-author of the changing climate chapter of the assessment. "This shows it's not just in the future; it matters today. Many people are feeling the effects." The assessment carves the nation into sections and examines the impacts: More sea-level rise, flooding, storm surge, precipitation and heat waves in the Northeast; frequent water shortages and hurricanes in the Southeast and Caribbean; more drought and wildfires in the Southwest. "Residents of some coastal cities see their streets flood more regularly during storms and high tides. Inland cities near large rivers also experience more flooding, especially in the Midwest and Northeast. Insurance rates are rising in some vulnerable locations, and insurance is no longer available in others. Hotter and drier weather and earlier snow melt mean that wildfires in the West start earlier in the spring, last later into the fall, and burn more acreage. In Arctic Alaska, the summer sea ice that once protected the coasts has receded, and autumn storms now cause more erosion, threatening many communities with relocation."

The report concludes that over recent decades, climate science has advanced significantly and that increased scrutiny has led to increased certainty that we are now seeing impacts associated with human-induced climate change. "What is new over the last decade is that we know with increasing certainty that climate change is happening now. While scientists continue to refine projections of the future, observations unequivocally show that climate is changing and that the warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases. These emissions come mainly from burning coal, oil, and gas, with additional contributions from forest clearing and some agricultural practices."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by Horse With Stripes on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:58AM

    by Horse With Stripes (577) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:58AM (#40491)

    I have to say that just about every report, statement, declaration, etc that comes out about climate change / global warming tries to make a case that it is a dire emergency. The fact is that most of the general population does not see something that could happen in 20, 50, 100, or more years from now as "Danger, Will Robinson, Danger!".

    It's a bit of a Chicken LIttle situation.

    I think most people would understand if things were presented in terms of "your children" or "your grandchildren", etc. Trying to be alarmist about something that most of us may never live to see is only affecting the credibility or believability of the situation, no matter how severe or accurate these predictions are.

    We're also not going to get most developing nations on board with "green" technologies unless these technologies are cheaper for them to implement and are readily available or "home grown". They see the world powers as those who have already used up many of the Earth's resources, and as those who have created this situation to begin with. They do not want their opportunity to advance their countries to be derailed by new, expensive and somewhat unproven technologies that appear to be only within the grasp of those who have already had their bite at the apple.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:28PM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:28PM (#40500) Homepage Journal

      "Trying to be alarmist about something that most of us may never live to see is only affecting the credibility or believability of the situation."

      It's not something that will happen in the future like running out of fossil fuels, it's something that has happened, is happening and will continue to happen. There is no crisis of credibility or believability, they were manufactured so the people who profit from the status quo could continue to profit and scheme while the US prevaricated. Today's issue is that people are so wrapped up in themselves that if they aren't the ones being drowned by the annual rains causing floods three metres over their usual high-water mark, it's SEP.

      Yes, I'm feeling cynical, sue me.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:33PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:33PM (#40518) Journal

        It's not something that will happen in the future like running out of fossil fuels, it's something that has happened, is happening and will continue to happen.

        Unless, you know, it's not. I think the big problem here is why should I get worked up over a problem that might not ever become significant in anyone's lifetime? There needs to be sound evidence, not just a good sounding story that anthropogenic global warming is that serious a problem.
         
         

        Today's issue is that people are so wrapped up in themselves that if they aren't the ones being drowned by the annual rains causing floods three metres over their usual high-water mark, it's SEP.

        I wouldn't consider human incompetence at flood control climate-related. Way too much human mismanagement is misattributed to climate change.

        • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:17PM

          by wantkitteh (3362) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:17PM (#40535) Homepage Journal

          Leave this troll alone, he can't even be bothered to click the link to the article and read it.

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Lazarus on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:20PM

            by Lazarus (2769) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:20PM (#40611)

            How do you know he's a troll? A ton of ignorant conservatives actually believe the things he says, because that's what the Republican alternate-reality propaganda machine tells them to believe.

            A lot of money has gone into Fox News, hate-radio, and the wingnut blogs, all to keep foolish far-right-wing people confused and angry.

            • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:09AM

              by wantkitteh (3362) on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:09AM (#40843) Homepage Journal

              In my comments and article submissions, anything I write I can't already defend either gets researched and referenced to the point I can defend it or revise it prior to posting or I make it obvious it's my own conjecture. As such, the only time people accuse me of trolling is when I crack a joke and it doesn't quite come off right which is entirely my fault and I take it on the chin.

              It is an unfortunate fact that political victimization is rife in the world and much discussion of important matters in mainstream media is coloured by the agenda of whoever is doing the talking. However, when an article includes a link to a weighty piece of evidence and a commenter subsequently complains about the lack of evidence, it's quite obvious that their ignorance in this case is their own fault. Having the motivation to post and follow-up multiple times but being intellectually bone-idle enough to ignore the link to the evidence in the very same article they're commenting on shows that commenter is most certainly a troll and is not worthy of any further attention.

              Oddly enough, I made this perfectly clear in rather shorter sentences when I called troll on this guy in the first place. Excuse me while I avoid the rest of this thread, it seems to have taken a detour under a bridge.

          • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday May 08 2014, @01:15AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 08 2014, @01:15AM (#40776) Journal

            Look, I get tired of people just lazily asserting stuff with perhaps a "look at this 841 page report and fuck off" as their sole justification. I think I'll rant epically about it in my journal.

            • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:20AM

              by wantkitteh (3362) on Thursday May 08 2014, @08:20AM (#40845) Homepage Journal

              I wouldn't normally continue a discussion like this, but that kind of referencing is the academic standard for responding to a rebuttal built on ignorance of previously established evidence. Well-written papers (and Wikipedia articles) contain a list of references to supporting evidence and anyone wishing to make a rebuttal is required to put the effort into researching and supporting their argument themselves without wasting the time of the original author.

              If you didn't understand that already, you may be out of your depth commenting here.

              • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 09 2014, @10:26PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 09 2014, @10:26PM (#41416) Journal

                It's proof by obfuscation. It's so complex that I can't point to anything as being right or wrong, so it must be true. Instead, I want a damn, smoking gun type of evidence. Something so incontrovertible, the only people keeping up the fight are the ones who defend the flat Earth theory in their spare time. A more solid argument not a more pages argument.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by crutchy on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:35PM

      by crutchy (179) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @12:35PM (#40501) Homepage Journal

      the problem is most of the general populous think of climate change in terms of weather. what they might not think of is effects on crop growth and harvest, changes in water table levels and salinity, reliability of natural springs, etc.

      risks to food and water supplies are among the most significant effects of climate change, regardless of cause.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:40AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:40AM (#40765)

        How many states does a storm have to cover at once [nasa.gov] before it's seen as a harbinger?
        When they have to go past Z naming the giant storms for a single season, that's called a hint.

        The previous time California was in an extreme drought (the '70s; not even as bad as the current one), you had to request a glass of water in a restaurant; it wasn't served automatically.
        (Think: 12oz to drink and another 12 to wash the glass.)
        You couldn't wash your car or water your lawn.
        (Water-based green paint was selling well in affluent areas).
        Gov. Jerry Brown's response this time? {Crickets}

        Anybody else in an area that set temperature records for April?

        Anybody's kid taking Earth Science?
        Are they driving home The Venus Effect?

        -- gewg_

    • (Score: 4, Funny) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:10PM

      by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:10PM (#40508)

      There's a river that's rising to unprecedented levels. It's called de-Nile.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:23PM

      by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:23PM (#40511)

      It's a bit of a Chicken LIttle situation.

      Except that this time, the sky is demonstrably falling. It's conceivable that it's a Boy who Cried Wolf situation, what with publicizing the hockey-stick graph, but that's not the same thing.

      A better metaphor here would be an extremely large barge moving towards a bridge abutment. Momentum means that when it hits, it's going to do massive damage, but because it's moving at 3 km/h, not everyone realizes that we need to reverse the engines right now if we have any hope of preventing a problem.

      And for those who are screaming for developing nations to do something, I'll just point out that one of the worst offenders per capita by far is the United States. The US has energy-inefficient housing, transportation, and industry. It also has a political system and a large portion of the population that refuses to see that as a problem.

      --
      The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
      • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:39PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:39PM (#40523) Journal

        Except that this time, the sky is demonstrably falling.

        Ok, where's the demonstration? Sure, I grant that global warming could be a really serious problem. But I'd expect actual evidence of this problem to be out there, not merely the usual assortment of talk and confirmation bias gimmicks.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:01PM

          by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:01PM (#40531)

          But I'd expect actual evidence of this problem to be out there, not merely the usual assortment of talk and confirmation bias gimmicks.

          Demanding "actual evidence" is a less effective rhetorical tactic when there is an 841-page report sitting in front of you that you haven't even looked at. Download the report. [globalchange.gov] It contains the evidence. Feel free to refute it point by point. Good luck.

          --
          [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:15AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:15AM (#40752) Journal

            I'll looking for evidence not 841 pages of campaign materials. They're doing the usual confirmation bias game with extreme weather, for example. And I would expect, whether or not global warming is a present danger, for this administration to come up with scare materials. Evidence on the other hand distinguishes between hypotheses.

            So what is the problem with coming up with evidence? Why is it always, "look at the 841-page report" rather than actually coming up with the evidence?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @02:16PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @02:16PM (#40903)

              No True Scotsman. You want evidence, go find it yourself. Surely, someone out there has done something you find acceptable to your view of the world (more confirmation bias!).

              • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 09 2014, @10:42PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 09 2014, @10:42PM (#41417) Journal

                You want evidence, go find it yourself.

                And if I want high quality groupthink, you are a licensed provider, right? There's way too many people who gave this about as much thought as they give breathing. I'm not looking for some empty bureaucratic ritual that satisfies them. I'm looking for firm evidence that satisfies me.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:01PM

          If you're looking for proper experimental science that can reliably predict future conditions, you're not going to find it because it doesn't exist. Climatology's only claim to useful science is their study of the past which, despite their claims, can not be used to reliably predict the future. If it could, they would have an accurate model that they pointed at all the time saying "see, we predicted within a tenth of a degree what the average global surface temperature would be for this entire decade".
          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
          • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:29PM

            by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:29PM (#40541)

            We're at a point where climate change has demonstrably happened in the recent past. While it's true climate models can't accurately predict the future, that's like saying you can't predict the results of Russian roulette. Maybe you can pull the trigger once, twice, even four times and be fine. Maybe not. That's what "unpredictable" means.

            --
            [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
            • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:51PM

              Guess I'm just spoiled by physicists, chemists, and other proper scientists. They may be wrong a bit at first but eventually they can accurately predict the future.
              --
              My rights don't end where your fear begins.
              • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Sir Garlon on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:39PM

                by Sir Garlon (1264) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:39PM (#40571)

                I fully agree with you that a lot of what we now call science is not science in the sense of making falsifiable theoretical predictions.

                That is not to say that genetics (for example) is without value. On the contrary, applying systematic measurements and analysis in unpredictable fields like economics and medicine have paid vast dividends in both knowledge and technology.

                It's tricky because unless and until you have a scientific law you can express in mathematical terms, it's all hand-waving and heuristics. Yet even those laws are usually approximations. For fun, one time, I tried writing out the equation for a simple pendulum while relaxing the small-angle approximation. Filled up three pages with trigonometric functions and went off to cry into my beer. There is complexity lurking just below the surface, everywhere. Even quantum physics is a statistical model. I mean, WTF, can there be absolute truth in a universe with laws like that?

                I guess I'm both concurring with and refuting your point. Yes, unpredictable models are less desirable than precise ones and they can lead you straight off a cliff. Yet to rely only science where we can write down and solve the equations would leave us stuck at the end of the nineteenth century.

                So there's a continuum, really, with classical physics at one end and cargo cult [lhup.edu] nonsense at the other. And you're right, climate science is somewhere in that uncomfortable space between.

                --
                [Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
                • (Score: 1, Troll) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 07 2014, @04:13PM

                  I'm actually okay with hand-waving heuristics as long as they're labelled such. My objection is that the pundits and even some of the scientists are taking unproven models and calling them proven fact. I know truth in lobbying is a lot to ask but there you have it.
                  --
                  My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:15PM

          by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:15PM (#40534)

          Ok, where's the demonstration?

          Some of the predicted effects that have actually happened:
          1. California wildfires that are much larger and moving faster than in the past.

          2. Severe drought in Texas [unl.edu], Oklahoma [unl.edu], and a bunch of other neighboring places, that has been going on for years and is causing serious problems for farmers and ranchers.

          3. The Maldives is heading towards being completely underwater. Sea level is rising right now, as predicted.

          The actual report, if you bothered to read it, rattles off a bunch more stats, maps showing existing and projected problems, appropriate charts and graphs, and so on. Now, I realize it's coming from climatologists including many employed or funded by the government, so many will think it's just a hoax that's part of the global warming conspiracy to take away people's Ford F150's, but this stuff is real whether we believe it or not.

          --
          The inverse of "I told you so" is "Nobody could have predicted"
          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:43AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:43AM (#40767) Journal

            1. California wildfires that are much larger and moving faster than in the past.

            Our expectations are based on a few decades of experience. We should expect to see what you wrote every so often even in the absence of global warming.

            2. Severe drought in Texas, Oklahoma, and a bunch of other neighboring places, that has been going on for years and is causing serious problems for farmers and ranchers.

            Severe drought happens there anyway. We should expect to see this even in the absence of global warming.

            3. The Maldives is heading towards being completely underwater. Sea level is rising right now, as predicted.

            Finally, something that might actually be tied to current global warming. Only problem is that Maldives sinking beneath the waves in the next few centuries isn't very "sky is falling" material. Even if we consider current city centers rather than a group of small, remote islands, the time scales in question give ample time to move that infrastructure in a low cost way.

            I wasn't asking if there was any evidence of global warming, but rather if there was evidence for the claim that "Except that this time, the sky is demonstrably falling."

            The actual report, if you bothered to read it, rattles off a bunch more stats, maps showing existing and projected problems, appropriate charts and graphs, and so on. Now, I realize it's coming from climatologists including many employed or funded by the government, so many will think it's just a hoax that's part of the global warming conspiracy to take away people's Ford F150's, but this stuff is real whether we believe it or not.

            The fatal flaw in your assertion is the assumption that the "stuff" is real enough to be a serious, urgent danger. If it isn't, then you don't have an argument.

            Note the two arguments I deployed. There are some real, easily measurable effects of global warming. These are easily dismissed as mild and slow, because they are. Then the rest can be dismissed as confirmation bias - they would have happened anyway. And I honestly think that they are cases of confirmation bias.

            You need strong climate or weather frequency data over centuries or millennia. That doesn't exist right now. My view is that we are making a host of bad decisions based on very incomplete and inaccurate knowledge.

            What is very real and measurable here are the huge sums which can be spent by the world's governments solely because the public believes climate change is an urgent danger. There is the money, power, and incentive to buy the science that keeps the game going. I believe that there is a very real danger that this is simultaneously a vast case of public hysteria and a huge hoax.

            • (Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:02PM

              by wantkitteh (3362) on Saturday May 10 2014, @01:02PM (#41564) Homepage Journal

              Ignorant troll continues to troll, please don't feed this lazy, ignorant nutjob any further.

              • (Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday May 11 2014, @09:37PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday May 11 2014, @09:37PM (#41901) Journal

                You know, you would have a lot more credibility, if you weren't the poster child for the very complaint you make. A bunch of your posts in this thread have been content-free whining about my "trolling".

                While I contribute to the discussion at hand. For example, in my previous post, I state outright the arguments I use, and will continue to use successfully, for a large fraction of climate change claims. Is it too much to ask for arguments for significant climate change that can't easily be shot down by either being insignificant or an application of the confirmation bias fallacy? Of course not.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by dotdotdot on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:47PM

        by dotdotdot (858) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:47PM (#40526)
        According to this [businessinsider.com] article:

        "Households in the U.S. alone are responsible for 20% of greenhouse gas emissions, even though they account for just over 4% of the global population."

        That page also has some pretty informative maps of the U.S. that show the carbon footprints from different sources.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by be4verch33se on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:27PM

          by be4verch33se (1994) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:27PM (#40540)

          Absolute BS. I'm expected to believe that the residential sector of the United States is responsible for 20% of carbon emissions? That would mean the industrial sector of the US, all of China, India, Europe, Russia, Africa, and South America combined is emitting a mere 5x of what 5% of the world's population is responsible for? Completely ridiculous. And they wonder why people often question their credibility?

          • (Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:22PM

            by mhajicek (51) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @03:22PM (#40565)

            I'm sure they're including the daily commute in the Hummer or Escelade, not just the house itself.

          • (Score: 1) by Hawkwind on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:39PM

            by Hawkwind (3531) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:39PM (#40622)

            This use of 'households' also threw me for a loop.

  • (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:25PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @01:25PM (#40514)

    I don't really care for the spin called "climate change",
    but i do urge everyone to spin the "right-way" 'cause some
    "left-spinners" are spinning towards more nuclear power plants or
    "long-lasting-poison generation plants" that produce electricity
    as a side effect as a mitigating solution (obviously wrong).

    the earth has pockets of heat-banks waiting to be liberated:
    oil, gas, coal, uranium are heat sources waiting to combust and
    according to some law of thermodynamics generate irreversible heat.

    so spin the right way and intercept the heat from sol BEFORE it's
    turned into heat and let that energy do something before being heat again, yes?

    i'm sure we can have interesting discussion about the global thermodynamic effects of:

    1) air-conditioner powered by oil, gas, coal, uranium
    2) air-conditioner powered by solar-panels

    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:43PM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday May 07 2014, @02:43PM (#40545) Journal

      the earth has pockets of heat-banks waiting to be liberated:
      ...

      according to some law of thermodynamics generate irreversible heat.

      If you try to suggest that the climate change is generate by the amount of heat produced by humans, you are absolutely mistaken.

      The Sun's energy that reaches the Earth surface every single second is >127,500 TJ (the Solar constant [wikipedia.org] is around 1kW/sqm after absorption in atm, the Earth radius is 6371 km). This makes a total energy/year of 1.1e+9TWh.

      Total energy consumption: 1.5e+5TWh - i.e 0.1%. Most of it finish as heat, but not all of it: part goes into chem.energy (e.g fertilizer, bleach, detergents), part of it gets emitted into space as RF (where do you think most of the radiation emitted by your mobile phone non-directional antenna goes?), etc.

      The problem is not the heat generated by producing energy from "pockets of heat-banks" by "global thermodynamic effects", the problem is with that pesky CO2 that traps more heat from the Sun radiation.

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by wantkitteh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @04:24PM

      by wantkitteh (3362) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @04:24PM (#40583) Homepage Journal

      It may come as a surprise to you, but coal power plants emits orders of magnitude more radiation into the atmosphere than nuclear ones produce waste - uranium exists as a trace element in coal, only 1ppm or so but given the amounts of coal we burn every year, that's a hell of a lot of nuclear waste we're already flinging around with gay abandon.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @05:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 08 2014, @05:29PM (#40964)

        oh i see!
        coal is bad because it can contain uranium so uhm .. let's just go straight to uranium?

        i'm not pro-coal per se but at least we have bio-nano-machines infesting this plan(e)t
        that can convert them exhaust volatiles to oxydizing agents for your daily jogging trip.

        matter of fact without that volatile this would be a barren planet.

        actually some people enjoy living in skeletal remains of structures build by above
        mentioned nano-machines ...

        on the other hand the volatiles from a "poison-production-plant" are just that. poison!
        nothing on this planet depends on it. if you could remove all uranium from this planet today
        i'll wager a bet that tomorrow nothing would go to hell ... unlike removing (not burning) all coal.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:05PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:05PM (#40594)

    Here are just a few reasons I don't believe:

    1. AGW is not science because it's unfalsifiable. Whenever doubt arises, they just move the goal posts further.
    2. 17 years of non-warming.
    3. Climatologists can't successfully predict the future, nor explain past data. They have no more predictive power than the naive position of "no change", let a lone a crystal ball or magic 8-ball. The IPCC releases "projections" not even actual predictions.
    4. It's easy to make predictions can't be falsified over hundreds of years. Is this really science?
    5. Climatologists may make forecasts about science, but do not follow evidence-based principles of forecasting (Armstrong).
    6. Computers have gotten thousands of times faster, and they still can't predict.
    7. What kind of experimental evidence is there? Show me the experiments with Earth A, Earth B, and Earth C.
    8. In the Ordovician there was well over 10x the CO2 we had now; Earth did not turn into Venus.
    9. Any series with a red noise power spectral distribution, e.g. a Wiener process, obeys an arcsine law such that extrema are more likely to occur near the edge of any given interval. Claiming everything nowadays is "extreme" may simply be casting basic mathematical truths as platitudes.
    10. Constantly revising past records to be cooler does not mean the Earth is warming. It suggests fraud.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by MrSome on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:44PM

      by MrSome (1640) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @05:44PM (#40604)
      You don't have to buy into it, it's observed.

      Neil deGrasse Tyson 'The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.'

      Please provide your alternate theory that explains why each of the items at the bottom of the linked page below are happening.

      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence [nasa.gov]

      This is how science works... you have to provide positive evidence for why your theory explains these items better than the current theory.

      Stop just saying, "I don't believe it." Provide a better explanation.
      • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:46PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:46PM (#40627)

        >You don't have to buy into it, it's observed.

        What's observed? 17 years of non-warming while CO2 keeps increasing?

        If this doesn't falsify AGW, what would?

        • (Score: 1) by MrSome on Thursday May 08 2014, @09:56PM

          by MrSome (1640) on Thursday May 08 2014, @09:56PM (#41078)

          If you're referring to the David Rose article that every news outlet ran with, that was already dismissed as cherry picked data.

          The earth has been warming since 1997. You can find the data with NOAA and NASA if you would like to research a little bit.

          But let's forget about all that... go back to my original link, and please explain all of the observed changes the earth is going through. And provide positive evidence for your alternate theory.

      • (Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:02PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:02PM (#40634)

        Your NASA link says there is a "97%" consensus on AGW.

        But the true value is below 1%. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-con sensus-disproven-by-a-new-paper-showing-major-math -errors/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

        "“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%... Cook’s paper provides the clearest available statistical evidence that there is scarcely any explicit support among scientists for the consensus that the IPCC, politicians, bureaucrats, academics and the media have so long and so falsely proclaimed"

        • (Score: 1) by MrSome on Thursday May 08 2014, @10:37PM

          by MrSome (1640) on Thursday May 08 2014, @10:37PM (#41087)

          If you truly don't believe there is a scientific consensus on the subject of climate change, and that's your only hang up, then why don't you go through the sources list here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on _climate_change [wikipedia.org]

          But beyond that, I still am waiting on your response. If increased CO2 isn't causing the situations listed on that page, then please provide me with your alternate theory and the positive evidence that supports that theory and explains those observed changes on Earth.

  • (Score: 1) by acid andy on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:56PM

    by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:56PM (#40630) Homepage Journal

    I'm not surprised Darryl Fears is worried about climate change. They should have got Donna Careless to write the article.

    Disclaimer: I'm concerned about climate change!

    --
    Where did that thought come from? And that one? What about this one? Woah, man...