"In conclusion, the fact that it is currently 50 degrees in New York City is a localized, temporary, one-off temperature fluctuation, and anyone who takes it to undermine the well-established fact that there's no such thing as global warming is an idiot.
Don't you think it's a scootch ironic in light of the fact that the temperature chart you include begins in 1880? Datapros Krugman and Brad Delong do this all the time.
Do a point for point bullet list of the specific contentions, evidence for, and evidence against and we've got something. Charts that start in 1880... fail.
And yes 9/11 was an inside job, and yes we still haven't seen Obama's long form birth certificate (have we?), and yes Oral Roberts just died, and no I'm not a republican or conservative, or democrat or progressive or libertarian socialist so just stfu with any partisan rejoinders.
As someone who occasionally works on climate change issues in Washington DC (both science and policy), this whole issue makes me want drink...heavily. The amount of misinformation, ignorance, and over-simplification among both deniers and advocates (including Gawker and commenters in this thread) is astounding.
Long story short, the media is fucking awful. I would encourage everyone to read the IPCC Synthesis Report for Policymakers. It's long but it's fair, informative, and fairly easy to read. [www.ipcc.ch]
@The Van Buren Boys: Yep. Nobody understands this very well and making it worse is the tag 'global warming,' which misleads non science oriented people into thinking winter has been cancelled, such as. 'Climate change' isn't much better, but at least that phrase offers an indication that extremes of heat, drought, precip and cooling are all possibles. This is a tough one. I started writing climate stories with the big 1982 ENSO and kept it up until my editors' eyes glazed over around 1995. Almost nobody gets it. Keep trying I guess.
@krismry: I have friends who work at a nationally-known environmental group, and they tried to get people to use the phrase "climate disruption" instead of "global warming" or "climate change," but the other phrases had already entered the public consciousness. A pity, as it's more accurate.
So does Maslowski believe that "there is an 80% chance of the north polar ice cap will be nearly ice-free within five to seven years," or does he believe that "80% of the north polar ice-cap will be nearly ice-free within five to seven years?" Or both? Which? Wha?
The thing that pisses me off the most about this (and it pisses me off a lot!) is the stealth implication that all of a sudden we can start to trash the planet again because, hey, there are no consequences, not really!
Whether climate change is or is not actually happening, while extremely important, is far from the only justification for being good stewards of our planet.
@DennyCrane: Amen. Eff Al Gore and the rest of his crew for conflating environmental common sense with the "Warriors Against Climate Change" movement.
If you've not read SuperFreakonomics, you should, particularly for the discussion and analysis of global warming solutions. If the interview subjects in the book are correct, global warming can be battled with relatively cheap solutions (shooting chemicals into the stratosphere). And Al Gore all but admits that cheap, effective solutions are not what he's looking for.
@Mo MoDo: Stratosphere, not atmosphere. Hey, I'm no scientist. The fellas who thought of this, however, are. They noticed that a recent volcanic eruption sent certain chemicals into the stratosphere, and the chemicals cooled things off. It's not as elegant as cap and trade, but it sounds like it might actually work.
@Richard Petty Bourgeoisie: Pure bullshit. People, do NOT read Superfreakonomics. EVER. It's what happens when economists try to dissect massive environmental problems with zero expertise. The interview subjects in the book are completely and utterly INcorrect:
@Voyou_Charmant: So am I. But it seems that something can be done now, AND we can start to correct our impact on the environment. Some people who are much, much, much smarter than I am think that, if we take every step imaginable to lower the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere starting today, we might see a reduction in 2075. By then, we'll be taking boat tours of Wall Street.
Let's be realistic: No one is going to convince China and India to trade improvements to their populations' standard of living for being team players in cleaning up the world. Why not explore cooling ideas and technologies we have today while we figure out efficient, cheap, clean energy sources?
Mo Modo was right in what she/he was saying because Earth's Atmosphere is made up of layers, including but not limited to the Mesosphere and Stratosphere.
You say that it sounds like a good idea yet do not, and I stress that I'm not trying to be insulting, know the basic make up of the atmosphere or which layer. You think it sounds good because it was said with authority.
@toastball: @Voyou_Charmant: Let me check my post above. Yep. It appears I wrote, If the interview subjects in the book are correct. So, since I don't claim to be a scientist or very smart, I'm not sure I understand the vitriol (Voyou_Charmant's non-insult assertion notwithstanding). That David Keith fella in the YouTube clip provided by ydmos above seems to think geo-engineering is worth exploring. His bio says he's something called an "environmental scientist." I have no idea what that means, but it sounds like he might be a scientist whose field of study is the environment.
Hell, toastball, the comments section of that realclimate.org post you linked to has some lively (seemingly science-driven (i.e., not politically driven) banter about this very idea. I don't think it's accurate or meaningful to call it "pure bullshit." It might be, but I think there are some bright people who believe it should at least be studied and modeled before it's dismissed.
What if the world were about to enter another (naturally occurring) ice age, and all of our spewed C02 was going to SAVE MANKIND from icy death? I don't know anything about global warming (or anything else) so I'm wondering if people ever posit such scenarios. I mean, ice ages do happen with regular frequency, and I imagine an ice age would suck equally (or more) than a hot phase? This isn't meant to be provocative, I've just always wondered.
@Trai_Dep: Hey, wouldn't it be funny if everytime someone brought something up in conversation you just referred them to Google, rather than giving your own opinion on the subject?
I think that what most people take issue with is the idea that humans are causing the climate change and that we need to spend, literally, hundreds of trillions of dollars to stop something that may not be stoppable at all. And in so doing set up massive global bureaucracies with the power to tax and punish private citizens around the world with impunity and without any electoral recourse.
But of course the people who stand to directly benefit from the expenditure of those trillions of dollars are pure as the driven snow and not at all influenced by money or power. To imply otherwise is just crazytalk. They just want to save the planet. Right?
@Han Valen: That's a fair point when discussing politicians and private companies but not when you take into account the whole 'science' thing. Those politicians and private companies may or may not be 'pure as the driven snow' but you can't ignore the science.
Queue somebody saying the science is bunk and the scientists are lying....
I'm all for cleaning up our act and all, but we aren't going to be able to stop Mother Nature. To see people and corporations attempting to make fortunes based on the idea that we can control this gives one pause.
@BEERxTaco: I totally agree. I am a practical environmentalist who believes in taking care of our planet... but the whole global warming panic has sort of struck me as bananas. The cap and trade plan is basically another Wall St. handout that many say will not actually do anything to prevent climate change.
I feel like the scientists still have a lot more work to do before the politicians start using their theories to push an agenda. I would be much more amenable to the cuts in carbon if there was some concrete proof that it is absolutely necessary to save us from the apocalypse... I just don't see that evidence yet.
*bracing for the angry, hateful responses*
@Han Valen: Hahah. No, but I'm sure that it's purely a coincidence that the people who are the most fearsome advocates against the idea of anthropogenic global warming are also the ones that benefit directly from continued fossil fuel consumption.
But let's break it down. Do you take issue with the idea that humans are causing climate change? Or that the way to stop it is through government intervention?
Those are actually two separate questions, I guess, which I think makes it a little disingenuous that you bring them up in one sentence, as though one must necessarily follow on the other.
@Han Valen: I feel there's a spectrum to this. On one extreme side, you have scientists - many, MANY, scientists, whose careful analysis has provided plenty of quite viable evidence that does show our actions are a major contributor to the evolution of this world. On the other end of the spectrum, you have proprietors of energy production and individuals who profit from the use of natural resources for our continued benefit whose efforts are threatened by the evidence shown by scientists. In the middle, on either side, you have politicians (who must always have their own pet crusade) that champion either function, whether directly or indirectly, and use it for their own power-grabs, need to stay elected, or personal choice. Closer to the "left" (scientist) side, you have those feel their efforts to recycle and protest are protecting the Earth. Closer to the "right" (energy proprietor), you have businesses that need to survive. In the middle, you have people torn by ideologies, belief in how this world was created, how its going to end, and really, what do we all mean to the Universe anyway?
Climate Change may or may not be happening. If it is, and we're causing it, then, well, to paraphrase Neil Gaiman in one of his great works, "Our presence deforms reality. Now THAT's responsibility". If Climate Change is happening (and the evidence points to such), then the efforts made are naturally to save humanity, no? If isn't happening, then money will be wasted on a fruitless enterprise and power will be abused (but that happens anyway). Personally, I'd rather just throw caution to the wind. There's so many of us, and with our technology and expansion, it only seems logical that there WOULD be some effect on the planet. The Earth itself isn't in danger. Humanity possibly is. But the planet will change and get along fine without us as it did before.
You are right. Rather than enacting statutes and approving treaties to deal with global warming. We should let the large multinationals establish and effectuate their own pollution policies. They have a long, well-documented history of effective self-regulation.
Because you know who is not driven by money or power, the large multinationals who have the most to lose if stricter laws are enacted. Nosirreee.
@resipsaloquacious: Will putting draconian restrictions on carbon outputs really have an effect on global temperatures?
Also, how do we know what temperature is the "right" temperature?
Despite its rep as a nation of Yes Men (Women, Tots, Toques and Moose), Canada is home to the culture-jamming, muckraking Adbusters. OK, forgot my point... mesmerized by the stinky cheese!
valet_of_the_dolls promoted this comment
Edited by Nickyboy - cruising the Autobahn and listening to the Scorpions at 12/14/09 12:27 PM
Nickyboy - cruising the Autobahn and listening to the Scorpions was starred
Nickyboy - cruising the Autobahn and listening to the Scorpions was unstarred
38% of Canadians voted for these anti-science morons. Our Minister of Science doesn't believe in evolution. Our Minister of International Trade, arguably the most competent in the Harper Cabinet, believes the world is 6000 years old. What else do you expect?
Given the bumbling ways of Iggy McEyebrows, I don't expect the Tory Reign of Terror to end any time soon.
As a Canadian, it pains me to admit that we have been coasting on a reputation for being a leader on issues like climate change that we haven't deserved since the 1970s. There was a time when Canada actually honoured its commitments but Harper and his cronies have no idea what honour is. The great old Canadian past-time of bashing the US isn't as fun as it used to be since the US voted for at least the promise of change. On our side of the border, Stephen Harper will probably win a majority in the next election. Oh Canada.
"No one is sure where this came from." Are you sure it wasn't these Australians? They like to use Canadian themes in their pranks. {{{{{Australian humour}}}}
Honestly, I'm glad the Harper government is getting killed. In our country, he has clamped down hard on media outlets through limiting access, harassing people who sumbit requests for information and cozying up to the major networks and chains.
They in turn have bent over so willingly that there literally is no seriously critical coverage of Harper's government.
(Our current minister of Defense in fact married a producer at CTV news, one of our only national news outlets. In fact, there's a long and sick history of Canadian reporters dating parlimentarians. See: Krista Erickson).
This prank, plus the organized climbing of the parliament buildings a few days ago, are basically the only free press our country honestly has.
And we deserve to get humiliated on this issue. Our citizens are basically tacitly convinced that we're an environmental country because everyone went camping as children. We're fucking idiots.
@Pope John Peeps II: Not sure what exactly you're talking about - but Harper's government is NOT getting "killed". They're coasting high in the polls (despite a slight decline due to the Afghan issue) and the Liberals are in the midst of a historical plunge. Not to mention the fact that our inaction at Copenhagen is barely denting government support (check out the weekly tracking polls)
And your crying over the fact that the Conservatives are getting no tough coverage is laughable. Ever heard of the left-wing Globe & Mail (Canada's #1 newspaper)? The even-further left Toronto Star (#1 local paper)? CBC News? Hello??
But feel free to carry on with your gross exaggerations...
(and don't paint us Canadians with the "idiot" brush. Thanks)
@Katie Town: He's right though: there's very little in the way of critical coverage. Kind of calls into question the use of labels like 'left-wing' which, really, are just thoughtless smears.
And the Globe is ANYTHING but left wing. For you to think that just shows how perverted you are to the genuine political spectrum. Maybe it seems leftist because it's one of the only genuinely centrist papers in the country, while Canwest and Sun media chains are rabidly right wing.
The Globe publishes idiot, semi-catatonic retard right-wingers Margaret Wente and Rex Murphy along with a few others (blatchford). Then they have a stable of left-wing columnists to balance it out. The CBC is hardly left wing. It's also reasonably centrist. The Toronto Star is slightly left, but that doesn't really make much difference. Torstar isn't really a national paper, or link to any national chains. it's mostly just toronto. But it's still reasonably balanced.
The Globe and the Star are the only papers with enough monetary resources to actually stay balanced. And maybe the Journal de Montreal, which is a great paper but I never read it.
And yeah, Harper will take a reasonable hit on this issue. He takes a hit on any issue that he's not utterly and totally in control of all possible information on. His government coasts along precisely because of the total void of any real information or scandal. They're basically a non-government because they know that's fundamentally what the ageing, complacent population wants. People can then fool themselves into thinking anything they want about our country - like we have a good overseas reputation and we're a stand up member of the international community. But when an issue like this comes out, and the world rises up and spits at us, maybe now we'll have to face the facts that this government has done shit all.
I do wish that Harper were indeed getting killed; he's coasting, because...Iggy's too busy gunning for top job at the UN to bother putting up any opposition. God, we thought Dion was lame, but at least Dion was BORN lame; Iggy's just acting that way.
I, personally, plan to stay warm by burning conservatives all winter.
@raincoaster: Ha. I'm an idiot....says the guy who uses words like "morons" and "lame" to describe politicians who have more talent & ambition in their pinky than you could ever muster up in your entire life.
Oh yeah, the Conservatives are up 2% in the weekly/daily tracking polls since the Copenhagen summit began....while the Fiberals are down.
@Katie Town: Haha. Oh the FIBERALS, eh. So you were what... an intern with the Conservative party? a "young conservative" member? A conservative party worker right now? You're maybe one of those people who leaves messages of racist indignation all over the CBC?
The Tories aren't losing any face right now because people still don't give a shit. BUT nobody really likes them. Out in Alberta, the traditional conservative stronghold, the party is down in the polls to the Wildrose party by something heavy like... 20%.
12/15/09
Don't you think it's a scootch ironic in light of the fact that the temperature chart you include begins in 1880? Datapros Krugman and Brad Delong do this all the time.
Do a point for point bullet list of the specific contentions, evidence for, and evidence against and we've got something. Charts that start in 1880... fail.
And yes 9/11 was an inside job, and yes we still haven't seen Obama's long form birth certificate (have we?), and yes Oral Roberts just died, and no I'm not a republican or conservative, or democrat or progressive or libertarian socialist so just stfu with any partisan rejoinders.
12/15/09
12/15/09
Long story short, the media is fucking awful. I would encourage everyone to read the IPCC Synthesis Report for Policymakers. It's long but it's fair, informative, and fairly easy to read. [www.ipcc.ch]
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
Drudge has also previously noted that snow is FAAAAAAABULOUS!!!!!
12/15/09
12/15/09
Whether climate change is or is not actually happening, while extremely important, is far from the only justification for being good stewards of our planet.
12/15/09
If you've not read SuperFreakonomics, you should, particularly for the discussion and analysis of global warming solutions. If the interview subjects in the book are correct, global warming can be battled with relatively cheap solutions (shooting chemicals into the stratosphere). And Al Gore all but admits that cheap, effective solutions are not what he's looking for.
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
12/15/09
I am much bigger fan of less chemicals, less pollution, less "cheap" fixes and more proper corrections to the way we impact our environment.
12/15/09
[[www.realclimate.org]]
12/15/09
Let's be realistic: No one is going to convince China and India to trade improvements to their populations' standard of living for being team players in cleaning up the world. Why not explore cooling ideas and technologies we have today while we figure out efficient, cheap, clean energy sources?
12/15/09
Mo Modo was right in what she/he was saying because Earth's Atmosphere is made up of layers, including but not limited to the Mesosphere and Stratosphere.
You say that it sounds like a good idea yet do not, and I stress that I'm not trying to be insulting, know the basic make up of the atmosphere or which layer. You think it sounds good because it was said with authority.
12/15/09
12/15/09
Hell, toastball, the comments section of that realclimate.org post you linked to has some lively (seemingly science-driven (i.e., not politically driven) banter about this very idea. I don't think it's accurate or meaningful to call it "pure bullshit." It might be, but I think there are some bright people who believe it should at least be studied and modeled before it's dismissed.
12/15/09
12/15/09
Happy hunting!
12/15/09
12/15/09
But of course the people who stand to directly benefit from the expenditure of those trillions of dollars are pure as the driven snow and not at all influenced by money or power. To imply otherwise is just crazytalk. They just want to save the planet. Right?
12/15/09
Queue somebody saying the science is bunk and the scientists are lying....
12/15/09
I'm all for cleaning up our act and all, but we aren't going to be able to stop Mother Nature. To see people and corporations attempting to make fortunes based on the idea that we can control this gives one pause.
12/15/09
I feel like the scientists still have a lot more work to do before the politicians start using their theories to push an agenda. I would be much more amenable to the cuts in carbon if there was some concrete proof that it is absolutely necessary to save us from the apocalypse... I just don't see that evidence yet.
*bracing for the angry, hateful responses*
12/15/09
But let's break it down. Do you take issue with the idea that humans are causing climate change? Or that the way to stop it is through government intervention?
Those are actually two separate questions, I guess, which I think makes it a little disingenuous that you bring them up in one sentence, as though one must necessarily follow on the other.
12/15/09
Climate Change may or may not be happening. If it is, and we're causing it, then, well, to paraphrase Neil Gaiman in one of his great works, "Our presence deforms reality. Now THAT's responsibility". If Climate Change is happening (and the evidence points to such), then the efforts made are naturally to save humanity, no? If isn't happening, then money will be wasted on a fruitless enterprise and power will be abused (but that happens anyway). Personally, I'd rather just throw caution to the wind. There's so many of us, and with our technology and expansion, it only seems logical that there WOULD be some effect on the planet. The Earth itself isn't in danger. Humanity possibly is. But the planet will change and get along fine without us as it did before.
12/15/09
You are right. Rather than enacting statutes and approving treaties to deal with global warming. We should let the large multinationals establish and effectuate their own pollution policies. They have a long, well-documented history of effective self-regulation.
Because you know who is not driven by money or power, the large multinationals who have the most to lose if stricter laws are enacted. Nosirreee.
12/15/09
The whole "I'm all for cleaning up our act..." disclaimer was bullshit. Come on. Admit it.
12/15/09
What is it about the current science that gives you pause? What
"more work" do you need to see?
Please advise.
12/15/09
Also, how do we know what temperature is the "right" temperature?
12/15/09
Ok. Like I thought, you are a parrot of the company/party line.
I mean you have a point, like... how do we know which shoreline is the "right" shoreline?
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
First step, kick Harper to the curb. Second step, deport Nickleback. Third step, make Kim Mitchell's "Patio Lanterns" the new national anthem.
Happiness.
12/14/09
Given the bumbling ways of Iggy McEyebrows, I don't expect the Tory Reign of Terror to end any time soon.
12/14/09
12/14/09
12/14/09
They in turn have bent over so willingly that there literally is no seriously critical coverage of Harper's government.
(Our current minister of Defense in fact married a producer at CTV news, one of our only national news outlets. In fact, there's a long and sick history of Canadian reporters dating parlimentarians. See: Krista Erickson).
This prank, plus the organized climbing of the parliament buildings a few days ago, are basically the only free press our country honestly has.
And we deserve to get humiliated on this issue. Our citizens are basically tacitly convinced that we're an environmental country because everyone went camping as children. We're fucking idiots.
12/14/09
Holy Hockey, Pontiff, that comment just gave me morning wood.
12/14/09
And your crying over the fact that the Conservatives are getting no tough coverage is laughable. Ever heard of the left-wing Globe & Mail (Canada's #1 newspaper)? The even-further left Toronto Star (#1 local paper)? CBC News? Hello??
But feel free to carry on with your gross exaggerations...
(and don't paint us Canadians with the "idiot" brush. Thanks)
12/14/09
12/14/09
And the Globe is ANYTHING but left wing. For you to think that just shows how perverted you are to the genuine political spectrum. Maybe it seems leftist because it's one of the only genuinely centrist papers in the country, while Canwest and Sun media chains are rabidly right wing.
The Globe publishes idiot, semi-catatonic retard right-wingers Margaret Wente and Rex Murphy along with a few others (blatchford). Then they have a stable of left-wing columnists to balance it out. The CBC is hardly left wing. It's also reasonably centrist. The Toronto Star is slightly left, but that doesn't really make much difference. Torstar isn't really a national paper, or link to any national chains. it's mostly just toronto. But it's still reasonably balanced.
The Globe and the Star are the only papers with enough monetary resources to actually stay balanced. And maybe the Journal de Montreal, which is a great paper but I never read it.
And yeah, Harper will take a reasonable hit on this issue. He takes a hit on any issue that he's not utterly and totally in control of all possible information on. His government coasts along precisely because of the total void of any real information or scandal. They're basically a non-government because they know that's fundamentally what the ageing, complacent population wants. People can then fool themselves into thinking anything they want about our country - like we have a good overseas reputation and we're a stand up member of the international community. But when an issue like this comes out, and the world rises up and spits at us, maybe now we'll have to face the facts that this government has done shit all.
12/14/09
I do wish that Harper were indeed getting killed; he's coasting, because...Iggy's too busy gunning for top job at the UN to bother putting up any opposition. God, we thought Dion was lame, but at least Dion was BORN lame; Iggy's just acting that way.
I, personally, plan to stay warm by burning conservatives all winter.
12/14/09
12/14/09
Oh yeah, the Conservatives are up 2% in the weekly/daily tracking polls since the Copenhagen summit began....while the Fiberals are down.
Oops.
12/15/09
The Tories aren't losing any face right now because people still don't give a shit. BUT nobody really likes them. Out in Alberta, the traditional conservative stronghold, the party is down in the polls to the Wildrose party by something heavy like... 20%.