more bad news on the global warming front
June 20, 2002 2:39 PM Subscribe
more bad news on the global warming front is there any leadership whatsoever from the whitehouse on this issue? oh, thats right... theres a war on terrorism goin on...
Agreed. There must be a major catastrophic disaster positively linked to a blatantly obvious cause before any action will be taken. In other words, we'll get around to it one of these days.
posted by Nauip at 3:32 PM on June 20, 2002
posted by Nauip at 3:32 PM on June 20, 2002
Mind you, it's no wonder. On your link, to MSNBC's Environment page, 'Human Influences' is listed 8th of 8 causes, with no further explanation - only the first one, 'Solar Input' is elucidated. This is one of the busiest Sites on the net, I would have expected more. Why not tell us what the hypotheses for increasing global warming by a majority of scientists are?
It's like the christmas story without the baby!
posted by dash_slot- at 4:02 PM on June 20, 2002
It's like the christmas story without the baby!
posted by dash_slot- at 4:02 PM on June 20, 2002
Look on the bright side. A global climate catastrophe will probably do wonders for the world's out-of-control (human) population growth...especially in places like Africa and Southeast asia!
posted by plaino at 4:11 PM on June 20, 2002
posted by plaino at 4:11 PM on June 20, 2002
Contrary to some groups' fear mongering about the threat of diseases, temperature changes are likely to have little effect on the spread of diseases. Experts say that deterioration in public health practices such as rapid urbanization without adequate infrastructure, forced large scale resettlement of people, increased drug resistance, higher mobility through air travel, and lack of insect-control programs have the greatest impact on the spread of vector-borne diseases.
This refutation of the article in question has been up for some time over at globalwarming.org - this is hardly news. Yet another scare tactic to cover the unproven science behind the global warming issue.
posted by RevGreg at 4:46 PM on June 20, 2002
This refutation of the article in question has been up for some time over at globalwarming.org - this is hardly news. Yet another scare tactic to cover the unproven science behind the global warming issue.
posted by RevGreg at 4:46 PM on June 20, 2002
Do any of you people really believe in global warming? Are you willing to act on your beliefs? How many MeFiers live in New York City. It's a pretty good bet that NYC will be under water if the ice caps melt. So why don't you move? Why isn't land in Palm Beach going for a song? Why don't the zillionaires in shoreside homes from Malibu to the Hamptons sell up and move out? Nobody REALLY belives this stuff. I actually do. In fact, ah'm kinda lookin' forward to it. My part of the country's a gonna be America's Riviera.
posted by Faze at 5:38 PM on June 20, 2002
posted by Faze at 5:38 PM on June 20, 2002
RevGreg, you are aware that globalwarming.org is owned and run by the financially-conservative National Consumer Coalition, right? The same group whose front page currently criticizes opt-in anti-spam laws as bad for consumers. Hmm.
(See also www.greeningearthsociety.org -- Whois: Western Fuels Association Inc.
4301 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22203)
I notice also that you don't bother to point to a specific "refutation" -- I certainly couldn't find one. I did find a few articles that addressed mosquito-borne diseases by discussing things like historical records of malaria during the Dark Ages in Europe, but nothing that dealt specifically with data presented in the linked article. If you find the article, please do link directly to it, as I'd be interested to see who wrote it.
Since we're on the topic of climate change theory and its opponents, let's think for a moment what the debate is about. In a nutshell, it's about whether or not we should consider the evidence we've amassed enough to require reduction or cessation of practices believed by the majority of scientists to threaten life on earth as we know it.
If the supporters of the climate-change theories are wrong, what to we have to lose by following their advice? A temporary reduction in pollutants, which could put a temporary dent in the enormous profits of very large corporations. Nothing that will matter in a hundred years. And if the opponents of the climate-change theories are wrong, what to we have to lose by following their advice? The future of our species and thousands more.
Do the math.
posted by blissbat at 5:40 PM on June 20, 2002
(See also www.greeningearthsociety.org -- Whois: Western Fuels Association Inc.
4301 Wilson Blvd. Arlington, VA 22203)
I notice also that you don't bother to point to a specific "refutation" -- I certainly couldn't find one. I did find a few articles that addressed mosquito-borne diseases by discussing things like historical records of malaria during the Dark Ages in Europe, but nothing that dealt specifically with data presented in the linked article. If you find the article, please do link directly to it, as I'd be interested to see who wrote it.
Since we're on the topic of climate change theory and its opponents, let's think for a moment what the debate is about. In a nutshell, it's about whether or not we should consider the evidence we've amassed enough to require reduction or cessation of practices believed by the majority of scientists to threaten life on earth as we know it.
If the supporters of the climate-change theories are wrong, what to we have to lose by following their advice? A temporary reduction in pollutants, which could put a temporary dent in the enormous profits of very large corporations. Nothing that will matter in a hundred years. And if the opponents of the climate-change theories are wrong, what to we have to lose by following their advice? The future of our species and thousands more.
Do the math.
posted by blissbat at 5:40 PM on June 20, 2002
There's a summary of how global warming is affecting coral reefs in this nytimes op-ed piece. But on the brighter side of pollution news, it turns out that toxic sludge may be good for fish!
posted by homunculus at 5:50 PM on June 20, 2002
posted by homunculus at 5:50 PM on June 20, 2002
Do any of you people really believe in global warming? Are you willing to act on your beliefs? How many MeFiers live in New York City. It's a pretty good bet that NYC will be under water if the ice caps melt. So why don't you move? Why isn't land in Palm Beach going for a song? Why don't the zillionaires in shoreside homes from Malibu to the Hamptons sell up and move out? Nobody REALLY belives this stuff. I actually do. In fact, ah'm kinda lookin' forward to it. My part of the country's a gonna be America's Riviera.
Well there you have it. Global warming is only real if double-overhead surf is pounding the Las Vegas Strip.
In related news, smoking is harmless because a single drag doesn't make you fall over dead. Polychlorinated biphenyls in the environment are actually completely harmless....you see kids playing with old power line transformers and stuff all the time, and they don't come down with cancer for, uh, quite a few years. Global warming isn't real because I don't feel hot right now.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:43 PM on June 20, 2002
Well there you have it. Global warming is only real if double-overhead surf is pounding the Las Vegas Strip.
In related news, smoking is harmless because a single drag doesn't make you fall over dead. Polychlorinated biphenyls in the environment are actually completely harmless....you see kids playing with old power line transformers and stuff all the time, and they don't come down with cancer for, uh, quite a few years. Global warming isn't real because I don't feel hot right now.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 10:43 PM on June 20, 2002
Non sequitur:
There's a great scene in "Crumb" where R. Crumb is describing the comics he drew with his older brother Charles as children -- how over time, they gradually became dominated by the text bubbles to such an extent that the characters were nearly squeezed off the bottom of the page. Judging from the latest batch, the "get your war on" series seems to be going the same way.
posted by tingley at 11:30 PM on June 20, 2002
There's a great scene in "Crumb" where R. Crumb is describing the comics he drew with his older brother Charles as children -- how over time, they gradually became dominated by the text bubbles to such an extent that the characters were nearly squeezed off the bottom of the page. Judging from the latest batch, the "get your war on" series seems to be going the same way.
posted by tingley at 11:30 PM on June 20, 2002
I notice also that you don't bother to point to a specific "refutation"
The quote came from this page on the mentioned site. The second link in my post is a scathing look at how it has been made to appear that this warming trend is unnatural through very bad statistical methods (you'd fail basic statistics trying to use dissimilar data like that to prove a theory!) Also, by many accounts, we are coming out of a "Little Ice Age" which means that it actually has been cooler than the median temperature. There is NO conclusive proof that the perceived global warming is anything but natural.
And if the opponents of the climate-change theories are wrong, what to we have to lose by following their advice?
Vast amounts of money and effort that could be better spent in other ways. What if they're absolutely correct? We'll have spent billions for no gain. What if there is global warming and it has nothing to do with the current models, then we'll have spent billions while not exploring other possibilities. What we need to do is gather much more sound information - it is the only sane way to progress. And always remember, those who propose these theories stand to gain from widespread belief in them. Scientists stand to gain research grants, companies involved will find increased need for their products used in any actions taken and politicians will use this to herd voters. If you think either side of this issue isn't driven by cold hard cash in the end, you my friend are dreaming.
posted by RevGreg at 2:44 AM on June 21, 2002
The quote came from this page on the mentioned site. The second link in my post is a scathing look at how it has been made to appear that this warming trend is unnatural through very bad statistical methods (you'd fail basic statistics trying to use dissimilar data like that to prove a theory!) Also, by many accounts, we are coming out of a "Little Ice Age" which means that it actually has been cooler than the median temperature. There is NO conclusive proof that the perceived global warming is anything but natural.
And if the opponents of the climate-change theories are wrong, what to we have to lose by following their advice?
Vast amounts of money and effort that could be better spent in other ways. What if they're absolutely correct? We'll have spent billions for no gain. What if there is global warming and it has nothing to do with the current models, then we'll have spent billions while not exploring other possibilities. What we need to do is gather much more sound information - it is the only sane way to progress. And always remember, those who propose these theories stand to gain from widespread belief in them. Scientists stand to gain research grants, companies involved will find increased need for their products used in any actions taken and politicians will use this to herd voters. If you think either side of this issue isn't driven by cold hard cash in the end, you my friend are dreaming.
posted by RevGreg at 2:44 AM on June 21, 2002
On a side note: I would be delighted to find some free clip art to write my own "get your war on" comics (although my intention is to bash the Spanish government...)
Any idea?
posted by samelborp at 4:58 AM on June 21, 2002
Any idea?
posted by samelborp at 4:58 AM on June 21, 2002
Too bad the study absolutely failed to account for the number of lives saved by the warmer WINTER temperatures.
Like maybe these 50,000 people who die every year in the UK. How many of them would be better off with a warmer climate?
posted by mikewas at 2:01 PM on June 21, 2002
Like maybe these 50,000 people who die every year in the UK. How many of them would be better off with a warmer climate?
posted by mikewas at 2:01 PM on June 21, 2002
you are joking, right, mikewas?
I mean, the idea that a random, temporary, politically arbitrary wealth-distribution problem would best be solved by permanently changing the chemical mix of the planetary atmosphere is a little much for any thinking person to swallow...
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:34 PM on June 21, 2002
I mean, the idea that a random, temporary, politically arbitrary wealth-distribution problem would best be solved by permanently changing the chemical mix of the planetary atmosphere is a little much for any thinking person to swallow...
posted by Mars Saxman at 7:34 PM on June 21, 2002
« Older but does it have vibrate? | The Library of Congress blew it. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by risenc at 3:20 PM on June 20, 2002