Beta
×

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!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Let's Call It 'Climate Disruption,' White House Science Adviser Suggests (Again)

timothy posted about 7 months ago | from the let's-just-settle-on-nuclear-winter dept.

Earth 568

sciencehabit (1205606) writes "First there was 'global warming.' Then many researchers suggested 'climate change' was a better term. Now, White House science adviser John Holdren is renewing his call for a new nomenclature to describe the end result of dumping vast quantities of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into Earth's atmosphere: 'global climate disruption.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Shut Up (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913319)

Just shut the fuck up already.

We all know it's a scam. We all know you and your ilk stand to profit from it. We all know you have No Clue what's going on.

Re:Shut Up (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913457)

The only scam here is the environmental exploiters funding junk science and junk social engineering so they can continue to profit from fouling the global commons without cost to themselves. Big Tobacco could have learned a trick or two from these guys.

Re:Shut Up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913761)

The only scam here is the environmental exploiters funding junk science

Oh, fuck off. Taxpayer funding for this shit dwarfs all spending by oil companies on R&D.

Re:Shut Up (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 7 months ago | (#46913825)

The only scam here is the environmental exploiters funding junk science and junk social engineering so they can continue to profit from fouling the global commons without cost to themselves. Big Tobacco could have learned a trick or two from these guys.

Actually, it's the other way around-- the tactics used to spread confusion about climate science are ones that they learned from the tobacco industry's fight against health science, when the cigarette companies were trying to discredit the science that showed that cigarettes were bad for health.

It's not merely the same strategy that is being used for spreading the illusion of doubt, it's many of the same people doing it.

Re:Shut Up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913833)

What? You didn't mention the Koch brothers? I thought that was standard protocol for you dipshits.

Re: Shut Up (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913983)

It's not even necessary to mention those jackals, everyone knows they are only interested in continuing to profit from your stupidity.

But, it's ok fuckwhit. Just keep doing what you are doing. If you live long enough you'll reap the whirlwind. Perhaps quite literally, dumb shit.

Re:Shut Up (4, Informative)

ShanghaiBill (739463) | about 7 months ago | (#46913957)

Big Tobacco could have learned a trick or two from these guys.

This is completely backwards. The funded part of the denialist movement directly copied the methods of the tobacco lobby, and in many cases employed the same lobbyists [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Shut Up (-1, Flamebait)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 7 months ago | (#46913471)

Who stands to profit more?
Professors on a fixed salary or corporations selling the stuff that is blamed for climate change?

Re:Shut Up (3, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | about 7 months ago | (#46913603)

Pollution? Corporations.

Global climate grant change? Scientists.

How bout we get back to the pollution issue which has been attenuated by climate discussion.

Pollution is not under dispute.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i... [vrx.net]

Re:Shut Up (2)

retroworks (652802) | about 7 months ago | (#46913877)

Get back to lost habitat (rain forest, coral reefs). Maybe if we preserved more forests, they'd suck up more CO. The "climate" is established science but it's also boring as hell, there will be winners (Greenlanders) and losers (African Sahel). I don't see that 350.org is motivating as many young people as Jacques Cousteau, Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey did. People care about habitats and animals more than they care about weather vocabulary.

Re:Shut Up (3, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 7 months ago | (#46913605)

Devil's Advocate here:

Last I checked, Al Gore wasn't a professor. None of those folks trading in carbon credit are professors. Professional 'Greenwashers' (read: marketing folks who make companies look pretty to the public and environmental orgs) are not professors. The environmental orgs themselves (who often take in some rather healthy donations from corporations, well-heeled individuals, etc).

Also consider that profit does not always mean money. To the average and otherwise-obscure prof or environmental organization, it also means prestige, fame, name recognition, and influence (see also Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc.)

Re:Shut Up (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | about 7 months ago | (#46913873)

Devil's Advocate here: Last I checked, Al Gore wasn't a professor.

Last I checked, Al Gore wasn't relevant in any way. It is only the climate change deniers that are interested in Al Gore-- but they seem to be completely obsessed with him. He's not a scientist, he hasn't written or contributed to any of the papers laying out the science behind anthropogenic climate change, he is not part of the scientific literature. If he didn't exist, the climate models, the analysis of climate data, and the conclusions would be unchanged.

If you're talking about Al Gore, you're really not talking about science. At best, he's a popularizer.

Re:Shut Up (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46913901)

A lot of the global warming "solutions" proposed by a politicians may well be exploitative power grabs, but that's true of a lot of *everything* they propose. That doesn't mean the problem isn't real, just that they're power-hungry bastards trying to exploit a very real problem for personal gain.
The way I see it there are two possibilities :
(A) There's a global conspiracy of tens (hundreds?) of thousands of climate researchers to "manufacture" a story of one of the largest crisis our species has ever faced for the benefit of political power grabs.
(B) The problem is real, but a lot of scientifically illiterate politicians and social action groups around the globe are more interested in creating non-solutions that serve their own ends than actually addressing the problem efficiently.

Re:Shut Up (3, Insightful)

Austerity Empowers (669817) | about 7 months ago | (#46913903)

How can you possibly believe that the massive environmental changes we are creating both for living our daily lives and for powering our cities and running our factories, that the chemicals we're synthesizing that had never been seen on planet earth prior to us, are NOT having an effect on the climate? Is it such a stretch that those changes aren't, necessarily, bad for life as we've known it, given that life as we've known it was adapted to the environment that existed prior to us?

You don't need a PhD or hi-falutin intellectual elite pedigrees to see the obvious. The only questions should be "How bad is it?", and I might agree with you that there's enough money on the table for all parties that it has to be taken with a grain of salt, and a realization that most of us would rather perish than go back to living in caves.

The real reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913323)

Because everyone associates "global warming" change with Al Gore.

Re:The real reason (-1, Troll)

pete6677 (681676) | about 7 months ago | (#46913491)

Lets just call this what it really is: Make Al Gore even richer!

Re:The real reason (2)

Manuka (4415) | about 7 months ago | (#46913595)

And that "Climate Change" is often met with "The climate has ALWAYS changed".

When losing an argument, change the rules and the terms so it looks like you're not losing.

Re:The real reason (2, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46913647)

It's been a while since we've seen debunked denialist argument #1 [skepticalscience.com] being brought up around this parts. Guess most of them got smarter than that...

Re:The real reason (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913667)

The only loss is the general American public being too stupid and too lazy to read the scientific research. Issues about carbon cap-and-trade and possible solutions are politics, not science. If everyone is so damned convinced that the scienctific data do not support the hypothesis, then get off their lazy butts, learn some damned math, and write some scientific refutations. Nobody would ever have a gardener work on their car, or trust their open-heart surgery to a writer, so why on earth does everyone trust a bunch of idiots who know nothing about science screaming that scientists are wrong?

Re:The real reason (3, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | about 7 months ago | (#46913813)

And that "Climate Change" is often met with "The climate has ALWAYS changed".

So because climate has changed before, we should just keep doing what we're doing, indefinitely, without worrying about consequences? Sure, climate has changed before, but not to this degree in this short of a time frame.

When losing an argument, stick your head in the sand so you don't hear the argument

There, fixed that for your side. You're welcome.

some still calling this 'weather' (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913343)

hard to believe http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=weather+manipulation+wmd never ending holycost http://www.globalresearch.ca/weather-warfare-beware-the-us-military-s-experiments-with-climatic-warfare/7561

I gotta better name (5, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 7 months ago | (#46913345)

Pollution.

The simple goal should be to spew as little as possible, regardless of the potential issues.

Re:I gotta better name (2)

sg_oneill (159032) | about 7 months ago | (#46913529)

Yeah, or just use the name scientists have used for it since the 1870s when Fourier et al started warning about CO2 and atmospheric infra-red trapping.

"The greenhouse effect"

Re:I gotta better name (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46913535)

That's misleading because it doesn't work the same way as a greenhouse at all

Re:I gotta better name (2)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46913685)

Both cases cause the system's radiative heat efflux to be smaller than its influx. Close enough.

Re:I gotta better name (1)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46913861)

no, actually, with the atmosphere, the radiative heat efflux is exactly the same as the influx. Really.

Re:I gotta better name (3, Insightful)

dougmc (70836) | about 7 months ago | (#46913945)

Fair enough, but the equilibrium temperature where this happens does change.

"Greenhouse effect" is accurate enough. The energy entering and leaving a patch of plants is going to be equal (on average), but if you build a greenhouse around it the inflow and outflow of energy will still be equal, but the temperature where they are equal will be higher. (The flow isn't just radiative, of course, but as far as analogies go it's far better than mot.)

Re:I gotta better name (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 7 months ago | (#46913927)

Not really - traditional greenhouses reduce heat loss due to convection (warm air carrying heat away from the sun-warmed ground) - a sheet of glass or plastic does almost nothing to stop radiant heat loss, or for that matter conduction.

Re:I gotta better name (4, Insightful)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 7 months ago | (#46913607)

What? Don't throw junk into the environment? What is this madness?!

On a serious note, that's what it should really come down to. Don't toss junk into the environment, whatever it is. We should always be trying to reduce the amount of pollutants we produce. You can even find trace amounts of antidepressants [webmd.com] and other prescription drugs in our water supply.

There's reasonable steps that society can - and does - take to reduce pollutants, but there's still a lot of things we could be doing more about. Plastics, for example. So much is packaged in giant wads of hard plastic or shrink wrapped plastic. Is it really necessary to keep piling this crap into our landfills? What is wrong with packaging something in paper or paperboard with a bit of natural glue to hold it shut?

Re:I gotta better name (4, Interesting)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46913707)

It usually turns out that those things use *more* resources than the alternative, hence why they are more expensive. You may save an ounce of oil from the plastics but you use two on the paper processing.

Re:I gotta better name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913959)

[Citation needed]. That does not sound very plausible.

How about ICC (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913349)

Inconvenient Climate Change

so the hockey stick graph is bullshit after all? (0, Troll)

lseltzer (311306) | about 7 months ago | (#46913357)

(This is the graph that has been all shaft and no blade for the last 12 years or so.) Didn't the "overwhelming scientific consensus" believe in that not too long ago?

Taxes (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913395)

Since the solution promoted by politicians is to raise taxes and raise costs of energy, I suggest that we levy a tax on every word spoken by politicians. They spew so much hot air that it easily competes with the effects of all the CO2.

Re:Taxes (1)

meglon (1001833) | about 7 months ago | (#46913769)

This was modded wrong... it should not be "funny," but "insightful."

Re:so the hockey stick graph is bullshit after all (-1, Troll)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46913441)

yup, they did but with scientists they have this disclaimer thingy. It's kind of like Sarah Palin and common sense: " I can see scientific proof from my house! "

Re:so the hockey stick graph is bullshit after all (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913523)

with scientists they have this disclaimer thingy

It's called admitting new evidence even if it contradicts previous "settled" conclusions. I know you bible-thumper types seem to view that as a bad thing, that you must instead bull-headedly stick to your original notion no matter what new evidence surfaces against it, but it really isn't.

Re:so the hockey stick graph is bullshit after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913753)

Funny with how bad Sarah Palin is the only thing morons like you seem to be able to attribute to her is what Tina Fey said. I'll even bet you didn't realize the quote you used was never said by Palin.

I guess the left really is the dumbest of the dumb, but we had better believe them on AGW or they might misquote other people to make us look bad.

Re:so the hockey stick graph is bullshit after all (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913785)

Know whats great? Facts. Sarah Palin never said she should see Russia from her house. http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/russia.asp But hey, the left never seems to care about facts as long as they can raise taxes and gain power

Re:so the hockey stick graph is bullshit after all (3, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46913709)

Nice switch, but nobody said that. You're just trying to drag debunked climate myth #16 [skepticalscience.com] into the discussion.

Eh? (1, Insightful)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46913371)

Another name change? What are we at now, lets see. First it was global warming, then climate change and now global climate disruption? Did I miss any? Sound like the equivalent of three card monte.

Re:Eh? (-1, Troll)

KermodeBear (738243) | about 7 months ago | (#46913539)

You missed the global cooling scare of the 80s, don't forget that one. Back then we were headed for another ice age.

Re:Eh? (5, Informative)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46913737)

If you're going to mindlessly regurgitate debunked climate myth #11 [skepticalscience.com] , at least get the decade right with respect to the canon...

Re:Eh? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913805)

I remember being told in elementary school that we were going to have holes in the ozone layer everywhere and it was going to "let the heat out" lol

Re:Eh? (4, Insightful)

Cl1mh4224rd (265427) | about 7 months ago | (#46913821)

You missed the global cooling scare of the 80s, don't forget that one. Back then we were headed for another ice age.

That was never actually a thing, except in the media:

Global cooling was a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere culminating in a period of extensive glaciation. This hypothesis had little support in the scientific community, but gained temporary popular attention due to a combination of a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s and press reports that did not accurately reflect the full scope of the scientific climate literature, i.e., a larger and faster-growing body of literature projecting future warming due to greenhouse gas emissions. (source [wikipedia.org] )

Peer-reviewed scientific literature overwhelmingly referred to warming, even back then:

A survey of peer reviewed scientific papers from 1965 to 1979 show that few papers predicted global cooling (7 in total). Significantly more papers (42 in total) predicted global warming (Peterson 2008). (source [skepticalscience.com] )

Re:Eh? (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 7 months ago | (#46913593)

Did you... did you just summarize the summary?

Re:Eh? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913767)

Another name change? What are we at now, lets see. First it was global warming, then climate change and now global climate disruption? Did I miss any? Sound like the equivalent of three card monte.

It turns out that as things get studied more, scientists understand them better. Over a few decades of study, our understanding of climate change has improved, and it has been suggested that some terminologies be changed to best reflect the state of the art understanding of what is happening. This seems entirely reasonable to me.

After all, this is what happens in every other area of science. I mean, physics hardly uses the same terminology that it did a century ago. As our understanding of that field changed, so did certain terminologies. Its not because physicists are running some scam on you, its because our understanding of the details of the science can change slightly as a function of time (something that creationists and global warming deniers can never seem to grasp), which might lead to changes in terminology.

Of course, the core idea of climate change has remained the same over time - the average temperature of the planet will likely increase in the intermediate term due to greenhouse gases from humans - but there are so many other details involved that "global warming" doesn't really cover it all. For example, the variance in temperatures is also expected to increase (essentially, there will be more extreme cold spells and more extreme hot spells), but explaining a prediction of more cold spells under a theory called "global warming" got old, so it seemed like it was a time for a terminology change. Once again, this seems entirely reasonable to me.

Thats a good name (5, Insightful)

egarland (120202) | about 7 months ago | (#46913403)

Global warming was always a terrible name because the imagery was all wrong.

Global climate change is more accurate, but still nebulous.

Climate disruption evokes a more accurate picture of what seems to be happening. I personally liked the name "Santa's revenge" from this winter's breakdown of the polar vortex. Melt the north pole, and you'll all get a taste of the cold!

Disruption sounds temporary ... (3, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | about 7 months ago | (#46913469)

Climate disruption evokes a more accurate picture of what seems to be happening.

Disruption sounds temporary, change sounds more permanent. Change seems a far better word to use.

Re:Disruption sounds temporary ... (5, Interesting)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 7 months ago | (#46913525)

Nothing is permanent. They earth's climate has 'changed' drastically over several billion years.

And disruption really is more accurate. The data really does support that anthropogenic inputs have altered the natural climate flows (along with meteors, volcanoes and perhaps some other things, but this time it's all about us). And this will disrupt many human activities (I suppose it will also change them).

Still and all it's semantics and unlikely to make a dent in the noise surrounding the topic.

Scientific language not appropriate for the public (1, Interesting)

perpenso (1613749) | about 7 months ago | (#46913665)

Nothing is permanent. They earth's climate has 'changed' drastically over several billion years.

And disruption really is more accurate.

And this is a beautiful example of why most scientists should not talk to the public. While your point is factually correct it does *not* communicate to the public what it communicates to the scientifically literate. The public does not think of change in geologic terms, they think of it in personal human experience terms. To the public disruptions are temporary, electricity was disrupted by the storm, etc.

Scientists like Sagan and Tyson do such a great job explaining science to the public because they learned to explain things to the public in the public's language, using the public's understanding and connotations. "Change" works in this sense, "disruption" fails.

Re:Disruption sounds temporary ... (1)

Osgeld (1900440) | about 7 months ago | (#46913909)

the person above just wants to make it sound as bad as possible so you will freak out and slather your house in solar panels ... made in china ... using the most ungreen methods possible

Re:Disruption sounds temporary ... (2)

arth1 (260657) | about 7 months ago | (#46913973)

Disruption sounds temporary

To me it brings forth an image of Klingons and Romulans.

Re:Thats a good name (1, Troll)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46913481)

Can you name any are of the world that had it's climate disrupted as a result of global warming? Because polar vortices are not a result of AGW

Re:Thats a good name (1, Insightful)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 7 months ago | (#46913977)

Because polar vortices are not a result of AGW

Absolutely! Indeed, the kind of temperatures we saw in the US because of the polar votex used to be normal a few decades ago. So I guess that answer your questions: North America. Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com] .

Other valid answers:
- Western Europe (here [wikipedia.org] are the years in which winters were severe enough to hold an outdoor skating contest in the Netherlands; making a graph is left as an exercise to the reader)
- Australia [wikipedia.org]
- The antarctic [wikipedia.org] (yes, the ice is melting overall [skepticalscience.com] )
- Greenland, where ice sheet decline [wikipedia.org] , is a boon for agriculture [wikipedia.org] - Pretty much any place that has seen shifts in habitat [livescience.com] (here come West Nile Virus [scientificamerican.com] and Malaria [theguardian.com] )
- Pretty much anywhere where there are glaciers [wikipedia.org]

A better question would be: "can you name any area of the world that didn't have its climate disrupted as a result of global warming?"

Re:Thats a good name (1)

Mr D from 63 (3395377) | about 7 months ago | (#46913495)

Global warming was always a terrible name because the imagery was all wrong.

The imagery was not created by the name. We need to call stuff what it is, not what invokes an image.

Re:Thats a good name (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 7 months ago | (#46913587)

Global warming was always a terrible name because the imagery was all wrong.

I don't know what image you had, but the one I got was of the frog swimming in a pan full of water while the heat was slowly turned up. Replace "frog" with "Life on Earth", "pan" with "Earth" and "water" for "seas and atmosphere" and I think it's a pretty clear image of what the proponents of global warming, climate change, or whatever other nomenclature you want to assign the process, are trying to get across. While I can see that changing the name might break with some of the misconceptions people have, it also makes me think of this sketch [youtube.com] by George Carlin and rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Re:Thats a good name (3, Insightful)

stoploss (2842505) | about 7 months ago | (#46913619)

Please stop using the slow-boiled frog meme. It's false. [snopes.com]

Re:Thats a good name (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913687)

Whatever it takes to generate research grants and to advance the communist agenda.

Re:Thats a boring name (1)

motorhead (82353) | about 7 months ago | (#46913735)

I'm thinking Sharknado. It's about as likely as the others.

Fourth options (5, Insightful)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#46913417)

I'm fine with calling it any of those things. But it would be better to settle on globally unified measures to do something about it like we did with the hole in the Ozone Layer (remember that?), or else we may eventually have to call it a fourth option: Global Suicide.

Re:Fourth options (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913541)

Yeah, well we also decide to stop burning coal with sulfur to combat acid rain and then all this warming shit showed up. I say lets go back to putting sulfur into the atmo and get some cooling. Fuck yeah!!

Re:Fourth options (-1, Flamebait)

Richy_T (111409) | about 7 months ago | (#46913777)

We did nothing about the hole in the ozone layer. We did a bunch of stuff that gave people the warm fuzzies and made dupont a lot of money and, of course, advanced politicians careers but the hole in the ozone layer? Pretty much doing its own thing.

Re:Fourth options (4, Informative)

wjcofkc (964165) | about 7 months ago | (#46913905)

We banned chlorofluorocarbons [wikipedia.org] and other ozone depleting [wikipedia.org] chemicals.

The hole in the Ozone Layer was very real, yes we did cause it, and yes we took international measures to fix it that worked. If you don't believe that you are either daft, very young, trolling, or all three.

Climate Clusterfuckery is more appropriate (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913423)

Climate Dipshittery?

Climate Asshattery?

Re:Climate Clusterfuckery is more appropriate (2)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46913797)

Ohhh that's a tough choice. Lets run with asshattery as that is where the global whateverwewillcallitnow terrorists have their heads.

nuclear (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | about 7 months ago | (#46913427)

He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.

Re:nuclear (5, Insightful)

Trepidity (597) | about 7 months ago | (#46913445)

Seems sensible to me. Replacing coal plants with nuclear has a lot of other benefits, too.

Re:nuclear (2)

GryMor (88799) | about 7 months ago | (#46913689)

Like less radioactive materials spewed into the environment.

Re:nuclear (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46913841)

Of course, providing it doesn't go Chernobyl or Fukushima.

Re:nuclear (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46913857)

Well, for 30 or so years. But what then? Then you have a huge pile of radioactive crap sitting there that you can't really get rid of sensibly and that will continue to sit there for a few millennia. But maybe by then we can use the IMF to force some broke countries to take that shit from us, we use it to blackmail and and press them into submission with a lot of other things already, how hard could it be to tack that to the list, too?

Environmentalists are starting to support nuclear (5, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | about 7 months ago | (#46913601)

He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.

Well, it is.

As much as we would all really love solar and wind to scale to a level necessary for global needs that is not going to happen with current technology. Its many decades off. Lots of science and engineering are needed to get solar there. We need something to bridge the gap between today and that future date where solar scales.

If not nuclear then its natural gas, oil and coal.

Even environmentalists are starting to realize this, including a co-founder of GreenPeace.
"Moore says that his views have changed since founding Greenpeace, and he now believes that using nuclear energy can help counteract catastrophic climate change from burning fossil fuels. Says Moore, "The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2 annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles." Moore also cites reports from the Clean Air Council that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. "Meanwhile, the 103 nuclear plants operating in the United States effectively avoid the release of 700 million tons of CO2 emissions annually," says Moore. "Nuclear energy is the only large-scale, cost-effective energy source that can reduce these emissions while continuing to satisfy a growing demand for power. And these days it can do so safely." Moore points out that the average cost of producing nuclear energy in the United States was less than two cents per kilowatt-hour, comparable with coal and hydroelectric. He predicts that advances in technology will bring the cost down further in the future. According to Moore, British atmospheric scientist James Lovelock, father of the Gaia theory, also believes that nuclear energy is the only way to avoid catastrophic climate change. Concerns about past accidents in the nuclear industry were also mentioned, as he claims the Chernobyl nuclear disaster as example, calling it "an accident waiting to happen. This early model of Soviet reactor had no containment vessel, was an inherently bad design and its operators literally blew it up". He also recognized the difficulty of dealing with nuclear waste."
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Gr... [wikinews.org]

Regarding nuclear waste from current reactors. 4th generation reactors can use this waste as fuel. And the waste from 4th gen is short lived. Hundred of years rather than tens of thousands.
http://www.ga.com/energy-multi... [ga.com]

NASA also thinks nuclear has greatly improved the environment.
"Using historical production data, we calculate that global nuclear power has prevented an average of 1.84 million air pollution-related deaths and 64 gigatonnes of CO2-equivalent (GtCO2-eq) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would have resulted from fossil fuel burning. On the basis of global projection data that take into account the effects of the Fukushima accident, we find that nuclear power could additionally prevent an average of 420,000-7.04 million deaths and 80-240 GtCO2-eq emissions due to fossil fuels by midcentury, depending on which fuel it replaces. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of unconstrained natural gas use would not mitigate the climate problem and would cause far more deaths than expansion of nuclear power."
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/... [nasa.gov]

France is 75% nuclear (0)

perpenso (1613749) | about 7 months ago | (#46913621)

He also promotes using nuclear energy as part of the solution.

Well, France demonstrates he is correct. They get 75% of their electricity from nuclear and have very inexpensive electricity.

"France derives over 75% of its electricity from nuclear energy. This is due to a long-standing policy based on energy security.
France is the world's largest net exporter of electricity due to its very low cost of generation, and gains over EUR 3 billion per year from this.
France has been very active in developing nuclear technology. Reactors and fuel products and services are a major export.
It is building its first Generation III reactor.
About 17% of France's electricity is from recycled nuclear fuel."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/i... [world-nuclear.org]

Re:France is 75% nuclear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913827)

Too bad the exponentially growing debt will make it disruptive beyond today's human comprehension levels.

Let's call it dazed and confused. (0)

Virtucon (127420) | about 7 months ago | (#46913429)

Just announced: Keanu Reeves and Ashton Kutcher in the upcoming movie: Dude what's up with the weather and have you seen my car?

We're screwing up the environment on multiple levels and you're not going to stop human activity which is the root cause for all our ills. You'll never have the scientists or the political leaders agree on a solution so it's simple: Destroy all Humans! [wikipedia.org]

That seems like an easy enough problem to fix.

Let's just jump to the obvious ending (3, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about 7 months ago | (#46913449)

"Climate Terrorism"

Re:Let's just jump to the obvious ending (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913473)

Then we'd have to go to war with China.

Re:Let's just jump to the obvious ending (3, Insightful)

NoNonAlphaCharsHere (2201864) | about 7 months ago | (#46913501)

Climate Terrorism or Fracking: A Love Story. The touching story of the love affair of a society's SUVs and cheap fossil fuels.

Top Ten Future Euphemisms for Global Warming... (5, Funny)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 7 months ago | (#46913493)

10. "Global climate engineering"
9. "Atmospheric carbon dioxide deficit reduction"
8. "Carbon gifting"
7. "Meteorological redistricting"
6. "No Cloud Left Behind"
5. "The Hurricane Insurance Investment Initiative of 2024"
4. "The Global War on Terra"
3. "Operation Desert Planet"
2. "Great Flood II: Our Glorious Return to Biblical Times"

And the number 1 future euphemism for Global Warming is...

1. "Occupy Everest"

Re:Top Ten Future Euphemisms for Global Warming... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913829)

I just gifted some Methane and Hydrogen Sulfide. You're welcome!! 8^D

Just make it obvious... (2, Insightful)

elecwolf (569076) | about 7 months ago | (#46913503)

Call it double plus ungood weather.

Re:Just make it obvious... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913537)

Global Taxing Opportunity, surely?

Re:Just make it obvious... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46913819)

By whom? The UN? The UN can't even get its members to pay their membership fees, let alone get them to help them collect some tax. Don't be ridiculous.

pathetic (1)

wbr1 (2538558) | about 7 months ago | (#46913547)

Just something to poo poo and pat each other on the back over I stead of actually doing something real.

Excuse to point fingers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913599)

Climate change and global warming are a bit too vague, but climate disruption sounds like a great way to place blame on chosen targets.

These targets could also have other jingoistic labels attached to them, but the international blame game is what this term is being coined for.

"Global warming" (0, Troll)

Livius (318358) | about 7 months ago | (#46913639)

...was a fine name in the rest of the world, but Americans don't understand the meaning of 'global'.

Re:"Global warming" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913721)

...was a fine name in the rest of the world, but Americans don't understand the meaning of 'global'.

To Americans (USians) the word global means "any US interest".

Regardless of what you call it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913657)

It's still just a scam.

Re:Regardless of what you call it (2)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46913775)

Mind if I tag along when you move over to your spare Earth?

Hiding the problem (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about 7 months ago | (#46913713)

All those terms means different things

Global warming means the observable increase in the average global temperature, that has been is objectively measured and there is no opinion or local weather that can deny it. Is in the orders of a few tenths of degrees each year, but it has been increasing.

The explanation of why it is happening goes around the increase of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and it was linked to use of fuel, industrial pollution, deforestation and so on. As is linked to human activities it is called also Anthropogenic Global Warming. That increase impacts more than just the global climate system, ocean acidification and its influence in one of the most crucial ecosystems of the planet matters a lot too. It targets the cause, but as it is a complex system involving sun, earth orbit and tilt, volcanic activities, and a lot more, is always the main target of denialists.

Climate change goes around the changes that causes that extra global temperature to the climate systems. Our civilization depends on a more or less stable and predictable climate system, as extensive agriculture is very sensible to extreme or unexpected weather.

Climate disruption seem to be another layer of dilution of the visibility of the core problem, focused only in extreme weather events. It targets the most visible consequences for our narrow vision of events in time, we can see a big storm but not a gradual over the years events, like slow desertification of big areas or reduction of some core component of the ocean food chain. And if that average temperature keeps increasing, we will have a lot more to worry about than just about weather.

Lets do some SIMPLE math (4, Informative)

oculusprime (1250270) | about 7 months ago | (#46913719)

Ah, so the conversation has degenerated to the "controversy" over whether burning fossil fuels could be altering the earth's climate. Look, Carbon Dioxide IS a greenhouse gas. No scientist disputes that if we just keep shoving the stuff in the atmosphere forever, eventually things will warm up. The only question is whether or not we are putting enough up there right now to have this effect. So lets do some simple math: 1 gallon of gasoline requires about 100 tons of biomass. 1 barrel of oil makes 20 gallons of gasoline. The world uses 85,000,000 barrels of oil per day. Doing the simple math, we use the equivalent of 170,000,000,000 tons of biomass per day. The earth's current biomass is estimated at 560,000,000,000 tons. So we burn the equivalent of 1/3 of all the earth's current biomass every single day. I find this pretty compelling.... And don't forget the methane, which we're also pumping up there (both directly by co-release with oil drilling and fracking, and as a side-effect of arctic climate change), and which is a much more potent greenhouse gas than is carbon dioxide.

Re:Lets do some SIMPLE math (3, Informative)

Stumbles (602007) | about 7 months ago | (#46913773)

Water vapor is a greenhouse gas so lets get rid of that why you're at it.

Re:Lets do some SIMPLE math (1)

oculusprime (1250270) | about 7 months ago | (#46913911)

Apparently some may have missed the main point of the post, so let me summarize:

We burn the equivalent of 1/3 of all the earth's current biomass every single day.

How can that possibly be a good thing? And how can anyone believe that this could never possibly be a problem?

Oh, Oh, let's not call it shit! (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 7 months ago | (#46913755)

Let's call it ... dung. You know, shit has such a negative overtone. Dung, that's the powerful stuff that promotes growth! Sounds much better! And while we're at it, could we paint that turd white maybe? Our marketing department found out that people don't like the color brown, they associate it with, well, shit. White is much superior. First we thought green, but our prototyping department found out that makes the shit, pardon, dung only look like it's infected or something. White shit is much more friendly.

Yes, that's better. It looks so much nicer now, and it's so much better talking about it, our powerful growth-promoter!

Hmm... gee, what's that smell...

Out of order (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913765)

The term "climate change" was used long before "global warming".

Remix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913791)

Let's just do a mix of stupid name discussions that help distract the public attention from the base subject: global marriage and gay warming.

Lets just keep on trying... (1, Interesting)

hackus (159037) | about 7 months ago | (#46913843)

to rename our efforts to create a world wide carbon exchange to tax nations and deindustrialize them to bring them under rule.

Not going to work, because the cat is out of the bag. The sicence behind Global Warming is so fake, it is like watching two drunk people doing Cherades at your company Christmas party.

We are suppose to be stewards of the Earth. If we REALLY wanted to clean up the environment we would agressive upgrade our energy production facilities like we do with our PC's.

Thorium Nuclear power would be a good place to start.

Chemical Fusion/Low Energy Fusion would be another nice place to start.

We have tons of energy solutions for personal cars/transport and mass transit. We are refusing to do these things because it disrupts the power structures, all of them political.

There world seems to be stuck in a rule by Oligarchs, who are hell bent on bringing another round of fascism to the table.

So we do not get change on any of the issues of energy and environment because they would lose their power structures if we did.

A good name (0)

bluegutang (2814641) | about 7 months ago | (#46913855)

"Climate change" was not a very descriptive name, because the climate is always changing. It's just changing faster now, in a way that will arguably be harder for humans and nature to adapt to. So "climate disruption" is a better name.

And I don't understand why this new terminology should be politically controversial. It's pretty clear that the climate is now changing in novel ways, due to human influence. But it's not actually clear, according to the experts [wikipedia.org] , whether the net impact of "climate disruption" on humanity will be positive or negative, and therefore whether we should make an effort to slow it...

Sure thing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 7 months ago | (#46913925)

You know there is a problem when they feel a need to keep changing the tile of the tune. Obviously, the tune (song) is not selling.Rebrand, repackage,resell. So typical.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?