Too science-y. Most of us (Me!) really just want to know if the earth will:
a) blow up
b) become covered in lava
c) descend into a black hole without a hyper-warp option
d) become all water
e) become no water
f) attract blood-starved aliens/vampires/zombies/or killer apes with an agenda
g) lack natural resources from too many plastic twisty-ties in the oceans like the HIPPIES said.
Grrr. Lede (is that what they call it?) is incorrect. They did not discover dark matter in the mine shaft, they discovered a "hint." Since I have one more exclamation point in my quiver, though, this morning, nicely Seussed up...............!
"Astronomically speaking, this is on our block," David Charbonneau of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, lead author of the study, told reporters this week. "This is a next-door neighbor. For perspective, our own TV signals have already passed beyond the distance of this star."
Great. So their heads are filled with original runs of Felix the Cat, Amos and Andy, and footage of Hitler marching processions, and we expect to be greeted with their twelve open arms?
@lobstr: Wait until they get all of our reality shows. By the time we're technologically ready to talk the them, they will have added us to their 'Do Not Call' list.
@lobstr: And, to make for a Twilight Zone-type scenario, the aliens are taken with the Guids of the world and force the sentient members of our species into servitude, working as slaves in intergalactic orange and gel factories.
Naturally, newly appointed Overlord Snooki has no idea what's manufactured in said factories.
@MyNameIsChris: "It is most gratifying that your enthusiasm for our planet continues unabated. As a token of our appreciation, we hope you will enjoy the two thermonuclear missiles we've just sent to converge with your craft. To ensure ongoing quality of service, your death may be monitored for training purposes. Thank you."
@Airvault: Ehh... I'm going to just learn basic numbers, "hello," "goodbye," "please," and "thank you." I heard everybody on GJ 1214b is learning Wall Street English anyway.
"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?
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
a) blow up
b) become covered in lava
c) descend into a black hole without a hyper-warp option
d) become all water
e) become no water
f) attract blood-starved aliens/vampires/zombies/or killer apes with an agenda
g) lack natural resources from too many plastic twisty-ties in the oceans like the HIPPIES said.
12/18/09
Molly says: Yes!
12/18/09
12/18/09
12/18/09
Suggestion for useage: [To be accompanied by sexy R&B ] "Yo bro! Seuss it up"
12/17/09
12/16/09
Great. So their heads are filled with original runs of Felix the Cat, Amos and Andy, and footage of Hitler marching processions, and we expect to be greeted with their twelve open arms?
12/16/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Naturally, newly appointed Overlord Snooki has no idea what's manufactured in said factories.
12/16/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/16/09
Close enough. I say we rename the planet from GJ 1214b to Vonnegut.
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
Don't want to look like a tourist.
12/16/09
Or just sit in the corner and jack-off for most of the ride.
Decisions, decisions..
12/16/09
12/16/09
@Anrkist: I wholeheartedly support this endeavor, as 2001 is my favorite film.
12/16/09
@Airvault: You shall be our official translator. Now hit the books!
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/17/09
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