If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Global Post)   The Arctic Meltdown: Climate change has enabled companies like Shell to pursue previously inaccessible resources   (globalpost.com) divider line 44
    More: Interesting, Arctic Meltdown, Arctic, Eskimos, Royal Dutch Shell plc, trillion cubic feet, environmental organization, bowhead whales, environmental organizations  
•       •       •

3985 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Oct 2012 at 1:17 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-10-04 12:26:14 PM  
4 votes:
It's a great business plan - Shell helped create the very conditions that allow them to exploit more resources.
2012-10-04 10:52:10 AM  
4 votes:
But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.
2012-10-04 02:02:11 PM  
3 votes:

gulogulo: Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat. We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change. Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models. For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life. I have no problem with the hypothesis that man contributes to climate change. I take issue with the fact that so many people seem to "know" how large of an effect we produce. Especially because any interest group be it church, climate change enthusiasts, government or even scientists (that want to get their research funded), all have a financial stake in the outcome and will ride this rollercoaster into the ground

What kind of biology do you do? I'm surprised you'd bring out the 'scientists do it for the money.' Sure, there are some, but the majority I know are not such 'one-trick-ponies.'


I have a graduate degree in Physics. I spent lots of time around research scientists. They most definitely do it for the money, they have mortgages to pay and children to feed and desire for a nice retirement just like anyone else. This is not to say they are somehow more "evil" than the rest of us, hardly. But they are subject to the same winds of change when funding sources move around and change focus.

Don't kid yourself, Scientists are always modifying their proposals to try to win the grant money, if that means tying in their research with the focus that federal grant money has at the time, so be it.
2012-10-04 01:47:08 PM  
3 votes:

Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs


Yes, but as the location where food can be grown changes (a lot of food producing region are experiencing long-term droughts) we will need to adapt quickly. Our systems have been so optimized for efficiency (low inventories) and we have monetized food in the form of commodities that we are ripe for food shortages and speculative price increases. Denying the problem only delays the implementation of proactive and reactive actions to protect our food supply.
2012-10-04 01:26:27 PM  
3 votes:

FishyFred: But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.


That's why they're trying to change the narrative from "Global warming isn't real" to "Global warming is real, but it's a natural cycle." It's hard to totally deny it now, but if things are going to be OK anyway, then why not drill that oil?
2012-10-04 02:25:31 PM  
2 votes:

meat0918: wildcardjack: Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?

I wonder if future archeologists will look back and call this the Oil Age?


Future shamans will look back on this as the age of the gods.
2012-10-04 01:57:05 PM  
2 votes:

Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat. We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change. Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models. For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life. I have no problem with the hypothesis that man contributes to climate change. I take issue with the fact that so many people seem to "know" how large of an effect we produce. Especially because any interest group be it church, climate change enthusiasts, government or even scientists (that want to get their research funded), all have a financial stake in the outcome and will ride this rollercoaster into the ground


What kind of biology do you do? I'm surprised you'd bring out the 'scientists do it for the money.' Sure, there are some, but the majority I know are not such 'one-trick-ponies.'
2012-10-04 01:52:19 PM  
2 votes:

Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: Weather/climate change is cyclical.

Except that what we're seeing now doesn't correspond to any historic "cycle" in climate in rate, magnitude, or timing. Furthermore, regardless of the existence of climate cycles, we are undeniably perturbing the natural climate variability with the enhanced greenhouse effect.


If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat. We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change. Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models. For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life. I have no problem with the hypothesis that man contributes to climate change. I take issue with the fact that so many people seem to "know" how large of an effect we produce. Especially because any interest group be it church, climate change enthusiasts, government or even scientists (that want to get their research funded), all have a financial stake in the outcome and will ride this rollercoaster into the ground
2012-10-04 01:42:05 PM  
2 votes:
Okay, say climate change is fake and whatever...what the fark do we do when we run OUT of oil? That crap doesn't grow on trees.
2012-10-04 01:34:39 PM  
2 votes:

Joe Blowme: This is terrible!!! i mean, its never happened in the past this is totally new, the planet has always been the same temp since god made it and man rode the dinosaurs


It has happened in the past plenty of times, but never before in the course of 200 years. Data from Antarctic/Arctic ice cores shows that changes take thousands of years naturally.
2012-10-04 01:33:22 PM  
2 votes:

jake_lex: FishyFred: But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.

That's why they're trying to change the narrative from "Global warming isn't real" to "Global warming is real, but it's a natural cycle." It's hard to totally deny it now, but if things are going to be OK anyway, then why not drill that oil?


Weather/climate change is cyclical. I think the argument was and will continue to be exactly how big a role our carbon emissions play in the grand scheme of things. Its not a simple formula either as several interconnected factors contribute to global warming. Personally, I drive a hybrid because I like the environment and hate gas prices. I don't know how big of an impact that will make, nor do I care.
2012-10-04 01:27:21 PM  
2 votes:
The biggest proof the globe is getting warmer is all the sabre rattling about Arctic borders and sovereignty we're getting from Canada, Russia, the US, etc...
2012-10-04 01:24:58 PM  
2 votes:
We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.

It's kinda like watching Jim from Wild Kingdom wrestle the anaconda.
2012-10-04 01:24:15 PM  
2 votes:
Climate change has enabled companies like Shell to pursue pollute previously inaccessible resources pristine ecosystems

FTFY

The melting of the ice caps can in no way be looked at as a positive development.
2012-10-04 12:28:45 PM  
2 votes:

Superrad: I'm sorry, there can be no upside to global climate change. It can only be bad, all the time.


Right.

In order to access previously inaccessible resources - we end up creating feedback loops that expedite global warming. That's one of the reasons why climate change models are continually reformatting the time line - the degree to which a feedback loop will expedite the process depends on the intensity of the feedback loop.
2012-10-05 09:47:30 AM  
1 votes:

jake_lex: FishyFred: But climate change isn't happening, therefore we should burn this oil we just found because of climate change.

Goddammit.

That's why they're trying to change the narrative from "Global warming isn't real" to "Global warming is real, but it's a natural cycle." It's hard to totally deny it now, but if things are going to be OK anyway, then why not drill that oil?


The chocolate ration has ALWAYS been 20 grams a week. You could look it up.

cache.gawker.com
2012-10-04 09:36:45 PM  
1 votes:

make me some tea: Uncle Tractor: make me some tea: Given the uncertainty, I firmly believe we need to wean ourselves off of the fossil fuel tit and invest in green tech and reduce our CO2 emissions. It just seems like common sense to me. I don't understand why there's so much drama about this issue.

People make money by selling you fossil fuel. They stop making money if you stop using it. Thus the drama.

Well yeah, obviously. Beyond those those people though...


Beyond those people are the people who refuse to change they lifestyles they lead because those lifestyles are dependent on fossil fuels. They feel somehow it's their gawd given right as americans to use whatever they can pay for, because fu(k you that's why.

And beyond THOSE people are morans who somehow feel that the bullsh*t from shills for corporations which makes billions for their industry is more reputable than the facts and science from relatively poorly paid scientists who've spent hundreds of man-years or more collectively studying this. Reading is for fa&&ots and all that.

And even beyond THOSE people are the uber-morans who see the end of the world coming soon and that their particular deity will fix everything, so it doesn't matter how badly humans fu(k sh*t up.
2012-10-04 07:10:19 PM  
1 votes:

some_beer_drinker: oh, it's this thread again.


oh, it's this comment again
2012-10-04 06:01:48 PM  
1 votes:

Uncle Tractor: EVERYBODY PANIC: Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?

The solution to most of mankind's problems:



Not only that, but it can rid us of some really icky diseases as well. Too bad those farking priests / mullahs / witchdoctors are doing everything they can to stop people from using them.


Overpopulation is the #1 issue facing our species. Yet, it's rarely talked about.
2012-10-04 05:58:42 PM  
1 votes:

gulogulo: There's a problem with your 'activist scientist' theory here. And that is that novel approaches get attention. They get funding, and they get, most importantly, recognition.


They don't in climate science. In climate science, people who want to disprove CO2 as a primary driver are shouted down. Prove me wrong there and I might accept that you have a point. All I've seen thus far is almost outright libel against scientists who might investigate some alternative view.

It was the same in String theory. Scientists who wanted to research something different had trouble getting funding. It's just human nature, in the desire to have a simple and elegant answer, some subjects take hold too strongly in human imagination. It is purely a function of how much we want them to be true. That doesn't make them a real part of nature, however.

kriegsgeist: Spinning a proposal or choosing to do a certain study based on available grant money is not even close to the same thing as falsifying research.


Doesn't have to be. If all you spend your money on is researching what soil is best for growing a particular plant, you might entirely miss everything else that's important like sunlight, water, availability of pollinators, etc... and conclude that soil alone drives plant growth. Proposals should be expected to be spun, it's basic advertisement. However when the flavor of money is only looking at one aspect of a problem then yes the scientists themselves have a hand in biasing the results of science at large.

kriegsgeist: Big Man On Campus:

The focus of study determines the result.

Not in real science.


Really? So studying flowers can unlock the secrets of star formation?
Yes, absolutely, the focus of study determines the result. Simply being contrarian because you disagree with me doesn't make your beliefs any more true.
2012-10-04 05:00:59 PM  
1 votes:

Joe Blowme:
thecynicaleconomist.com

Uhhhh, you know that TIME magazine cover is a fake right? A Photoshop? As in it never existed? Heck, the layout doesn't even match the era. You can search all of the TIME magazine covers on their website. Link

These are the first two covers of April 1977:
img.timeinc.net

img.timeinc.net
2012-10-04 02:53:25 PM  
1 votes:
Abuse Liability: "Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models."

Lucky for us we didn't just start looking at atmospheric CO2 yesterday. So we actually have *decades* of research into whether such mechanisms might exist, what impact they might have, etc.
And the short version is that while the future is always and of course unknowable, the chance that an algal bloom or something will appear tomorrow to notably mitigate the CO2 feedback problem becomes notably less likely every year that atmospheric CO2 increases, temperature increases and no signs of significant compensatory mechanisms emerge.
2012-10-04 02:52:26 PM  
1 votes:

EVERYBODY PANIC: WizardofToast: Okay, say climate change is fake and whatever...what the fark do we do when we run OUT of oil? That crap doesn't grow on trees.

Are you really so sure that oil is a finite resource produced by rotting dinosaurs? That 18th century concept is now in dispute. There just weren't that many dinsoaurs to explain away how much oil there is in the earth. Hydrocarbons may have other sources. Not my fight. Just saying. Go look it up.


No who is midly educated in science has every thought that oil was made from rotting dinosaurs. Thanks for playing.
2012-10-04 02:50:46 PM  
1 votes:

EVERYBODY PANIC: Are you really so sure that oil is a finite resource produced by rotting dinosaurs? That 18th century concept is now in dispute. There just weren't that many dinsoaurs to explain away how much oil there is in the earth.


Nope. Abiogenic oil is still a crackpot idea disputed by nobody serious, including oil companies. And there was certainly enough life (not "dinosaurs", but algae and stuff like that) to explain how much oil we've found.
2012-10-04 02:41:07 PM  
1 votes:

EVERYBODY PANIC: mytdawg: We have learned nothing. We shall milk the earth until she's dry or she rears back and destroys us first. Blind pursuit of profit will be our undoing as it has been to this point.

Got a better idea? There are 7 BILLION people needing food, water, shelter and a great variety of goods and services. What, my good man, would you propose we do rather than use available resources to make life tolerable for most if not all of humanity?


Use those resources to figure out how to get at least partially off of this rock.
2012-10-04 02:37:32 PM  
1 votes:

Ambitwistor: Abuse Liability: That's so much horse shiat. Funding is so tight right now, you write grants on what people will pay for, not what you're interested in doing (most scientists I know have an ear at NIH and will regularly look out for 'pet projects' they're interested in funding).

Yeah, and? People pay for climate change studies, true, and this makes people interested in studying climate change. So what? That doesn't equate to faking results, coming to pre-determined conclusions, or otherwise biased answers. The NSF doesn't solicit proposals to "prove climate change is due to humans and is really scary". They have RFPs for things like "quantifying feedbacks in the Earth system". If the answer comes out large, fine. If it comes out small, fine. Either way advances the science and funding agencies are happy.

you would like to be funded right? trying getting a grant with specific aim number one trying to disprove global warming

Despite being a scientist, you appear to have no idea how grants work. You don't write a grant trying to "disprove global warming", nor do you write one to "prove global warming". Suppose, say, you think that global warming is mostly due to solar cycles instead of human greenhouse gases. You don't write a proposal saying "I'm going to disprove global warming". Any respectable program officer would dump that in the trash, not because it "violates the consensus" but because claiming your result ahead of time is biased science. Instead, you send your proposal to the RFP on climate variability and say "Here is a way to better measure the effects of the solar cycle on climate that improves on previous studies of climate variability". That's exactly the sort of thing these calls exist to fund. And if it turns out that your findings show a greater role of solar variability that was previously thought, thus disproving the existing consensus on global warming, great! You'll probably get more money.


Obviously you wouldn't write it that way. But anyone who's ever written a grant period knows you have to include an impact statement (for the lay person) which usually amounts to a paragraph summary statement. In my experience most grants are 'fishing' for a particular result. You even have to predict the outcome of your study in your proposal and possible difficulties associated with it and its interpretation. If you don't think people get a general sense of what you're trying to do from all this information.

I'm not saying everything is biased. Sometimes your go to institution (say NIDA) in funding a lot of siRNA research, and you're and in vivo pharmacologist. You either adapt, find another institution (like there are sooo many of those), or teach somewhere.
2012-10-04 02:31:46 PM  
1 votes:
I give up. Trying to convince people that we don't know everything (read hubris) and that most climate prediction models fail Quick google search doesn't mean I'm against protecting the environment. It just means we don't have to be such alarmists. Besides, if some of those predictions are accurate, we'll either adapt and evolve, or die. I don't think there is any way we're going to get China to stop producing massive amounts of C02, even if we stop altogether. Essentially the 'you had your time' and 'now its time for our industrial revolution' mentality has set in. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many Chinese feel that its just the US wanting to keep/recapture economic leadership of the free world, similar to the way many Africans believed AIDS stood for american ideas to discourage sex.

Also, they've taken to calling mathematical projections 'in silico' (play on in vivo/in vitro). Turns out we still use animals because those models suck.
2012-10-04 02:21:44 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: That's so much horse shiat. Funding is so tight right now, you write grants on what people will pay for, not what you're interested in doing (most scientists I know have an ear at NIH and will regularly look out for 'pet projects' they're interested in funding).


Yeah, and? People pay for climate change studies, true, and this makes people interested in studying climate change. So what? That doesn't equate to faking results, coming to pre-determined conclusions, or otherwise biased answers. The NSF doesn't solicit proposals to "prove climate change is due to humans and is really scary". They have RFPs for things like "quantifying feedbacks in the Earth system". If the answer comes out large, fine. If it comes out small, fine. Either way advances the science and funding agencies are happy.

you would like to be funded right? trying getting a grant with specific aim number one trying to disprove global warming

Despite being a scientist, you appear to have no idea how grants work. You don't write a grant trying to "disprove global warming", nor do you write one to "prove global warming". Suppose, say, you think that global warming is mostly due to solar cycles instead of human greenhouse gases. You don't write a proposal saying "I'm going to disprove global warming". Any respectable program officer would dump that in the trash, not because it "violates the consensus" but because claiming your result ahead of time is biased science. Instead, you send your proposal to the RFP on climate variability and say "Here is a way to better measure the effects of the solar cycle on climate that improves on previous studies of climate variability". That's exactly the sort of thing these calls exist to fund. And if it turns out that your findings show a greater role of solar variability that was previously thought, thus disproving the existing consensus on global warming, great! You'll probably get more money.
2012-10-04 02:16:36 PM  
1 votes:
If you don't get funded... you don't get employed. We learn to suck at the government teat like our welfare brethren. Give them what they want and you're hired. Much easier to get an associates professor gig if you have a K99, versus never having received funding. shiat, even an NRSA works wonders.
2012-10-04 02:12:31 PM  
1 votes:
4.54 billion years old, yet some proclaim to know exactly how it works.

Why does warm water freeze faster than cool water? No farking clue, mpemba effect.

Consensus is not science, any REAL scientist will tell you that.
Scientific Method, How does it work?
2012-10-04 02:04:00 PM  
1 votes:

WelldeadLink: and now everyone's all warm and in short-shorts.


Skimpy clothes? All in favor say 'aye'

No, not you, Rosie O'Donnell
2012-10-04 02:01:13 PM  
1 votes:

Abuse Liability: If there's anything I've learned as a biologist, predictive models are 'mostly' bullshiat.


As a physicist, I have a different opinion of predictive models.

We don't completely understand what contributes to biology or climate change.

This is a red herring. "We" don't claim to have a "complete" understanding of climate change, and we don't need to in order to usefully constrain a range of possible outcomes. For example, our physical understanding of the climate system and its key uncertainties leads to a prediction of about 2 to 4 C of warming per doubling of CO2. This is a fairly wide range of uncertainty (~50%), but it's not 0, and it's not 10, and that's useful for planning for what will come.

Compensatory mechanisms wreak havoc on all of our mathematical models.

If by "wreak havoc" you mean "are already included in", uh sure.

For instance, if temperatures continued to changed, melting ice caps etc., this might change the distribution of C02 releasing and C02 consuming sea life.

Yes, and this is known and already studied along with many other feedbacks on the Earth system. Even if you take outside estimates, it changes some of the numbers, but doesn't dramatically change the range of outcomes, nor the conclusion that humans are already outweighing natural variability and will only increase this disparity in the future.
2012-10-04 01:52:49 PM  
1 votes:

WelldeadLink: CygnusDarius: Let's see: Climate change, rampant exploitation of non-renewable resources by energy companies, increasing sense of anger towards The Establishment, growing sense of paranoia by both the multi-national corporations and governments...

I give it two years, for this.

[g-ecx.images-amazon.com image 800x450]

Two years? Four years.

[i.imgur.com image 641x419]


I say two, because the people are not gonna take it, and it only needs one CEO of a big company to die in order to get the shebang going.
2012-10-04 01:50:54 PM  
1 votes:

nmemkha: I dunno, will cockroach societies have archaeologists?


I don't see why not.
2012-10-04 01:45:39 PM  
1 votes:

CygnusDarius: Let's see: Climate change, rampant exploitation of non-renewable resources by energy companies, increasing sense of anger towards The Establishment, growing sense of paranoia by both the multi-national corporations and governments...

I give it two years, for this.

[g-ecx.images-amazon.com image 800x450]


Two years? Four years.

i.imgur.com
2012-10-04 01:45:09 PM  
1 votes:

WizardofToast: Okay, say climate change is fake and whatever...what the fark do we do when we run OUT of oil? That crap doesn't grow on trees.


Either Road Warrior or Star Trek, nothing in between.
2012-10-04 01:41:02 PM  
1 votes:

Captain Horatio Mindblower: It's a virtuous cycle. If you aren't a polar bear.

/And I'm not!


Hey, there are more polar bears than there were decades ago. We have to raise more of them, so we can harvest them for their oil.
2012-10-04 01:40:05 PM  
1 votes:
Some scientists calculate it is the greatest melt in the history of humankind

Well they haven't read articles from the 1920s where explorers found totally ice free waters above the 81st parallel.
2012-10-04 01:35:10 PM  
1 votes:
Let's see: Climate change, rampant exploitation of non-renewable resources by energy companies, increasing sense of anger towards The Establishment, growing sense of paranoia by both the multi-national corporations and governments...

I give it two years, for this.

g-ecx.images-amazon.com
2012-10-04 01:33:44 PM  
1 votes:

NutznGum: The biggest proof the globe is getting warmer is all the sabre rattling about Arctic borders and sovereignty we're getting from Canada, Russia, the US, etc...


PSSSTTTT.... its been getting warmer since the last ice age. Its like a cycle or something
2012-10-04 01:29:49 PM  
1 votes:

meat0918: wildcardjack: Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?

I wonder if future archaeologists will look back and call this the Oil Age?


I dunno, will cockroach societies have archaeologists?
2012-10-04 01:26:49 PM  
1 votes:

wildcardjack: Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?


I wonder if future archeologists will look back and call this the Oil Age?
2012-10-04 01:25:03 PM  
1 votes:
Remember how we ran out of stones and had to end the stone age?
2012-10-04 11:26:49 AM  
1 votes:
I'm sorry, there can be no upside to global climate change. It can only be bad, all the time.
 
Displayed 44 of 44 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report