What is Digg?Sponsored by Double Your Dating
The "Bad Boy Way" To Meet Women Online view!
doubleyourdating.com - You don't have to be a bad boy to succeed with the ladies - but here's a lesson ANY GUY can use...
61 Comments
- inactive, on 10/26/2008, -2/+25We better start preparing to colonize Mars.
- monoa, on 10/26/2008, -4/+11This is nit-picking over an article that clearly flags a very worrying trend. It's the equivalent of complaining that there's no olive in your Martini as the deck of the Titanic is angled at 45 degrees.
If you want hardcore science, USA Today is not the place. For those who want more rigorous science, Google will provide. - ElBeh, on 10/26/2008, -1/+7I heard the view there is really nice.
- Isidore, on 10/26/2008, -2/+7The planetary scientists at NASA probably know more about climate than you do.
They believe that humans are now changing this planet's climate.
Check the scientific evidence by climate scientists.
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
PS: they know about Mars and earth. - joe7845, on 10/27/2008, -0/+5The current warming is unprecedented, looking back thousands of years. This much is clear. It's also quite fast.
Additionally, in the prehistoric past, when major warming events occurred, species went extinct. Look up the Permian extinction event. - nick111, on 10/26/2008, -4/+9No *****, it's just another piece of evidence that we're headed for a disaster.
Only idiots ignore science in favour of politics. - MacBookForMe, on 10/26/2008, -4/+8Sadly, but don't worry mate. As we are we'll destroy that Mars even faster and more thoroughly...:)
- angryredplanet, on 10/27/2008, -0/+4Scientists use the term "climate change" because that's exactly what it is and they've done this for the last 15 years. That's why the IPCC is called the IPCC and not the IPGW.
Anytime a denier uses the term "global warming" I question their credentials, arguments and ability to stay up-to-date with ever-changing science.
"what ever happened to science answering questions and making great discovery's"
Science still does, it's just when people hear things they don't like, that doesn't fit their world view or aren't comfortable acknowledging, they stop absorbing information and go into denial. Sound familiar? BTW it's "discoveries". - shatteredmind, on 10/26/2008, -8/+12"Methane levels have kept scientists guessing for the past decade. They were on the rise until about 1997, then soared in 1998 and then leveled off until jumping again in 2006."
#
could be the most important sentence, and its the last one ..... which most people dont even reach.
why so important? because it has the potential to contradict the theory behind the article, that the current polar meltdown could be behind the jump in methane levels.
according to that quote, methane has basicly always been on the rise, including a few jumps and an 8 year pause.
#
when articles are written like that, i dont trust them. its simply not right, to build up a certain impression during the article, which is not in line with vital information not revealed until the end. - joe7845, on 10/27/2008, -0/+4You're essentially arguing that climate science is a conspiracy.
- christopherRB, on 10/26/2008, -1/+5There certainly is a rise in methane gas.
- KMye, on 10/26/2008, -0/+4Maybe we could ship our excess CO2 et al over there; it could use it.
- chrisinsocalif, on 10/26/2008, -2/+5Taco Bell is the direct cause of the methane increase in our atmosphere.
- danielttt, on 10/26/2008, -1/+4No it's not. You just don't know how to think for yourself. For you, it's probably best to continue to allow others to form your thoughts. However, you need to look for better sources than you've chosen thus far.
- joe7845, on 10/27/2008, -0/+3What in the world makes you believe global warming is no longer a major concern?
- BradHAWK, on 10/26/2008, -1/+4Destroy what, exactly? Are you afraid we'll extinct those delicate Martian dust storms?
- lostlyrics, on 10/26/2008, -0/+3http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/oct/HQ_08-268 ...
- Arrhenius, on 10/27/2008, -1/+3"The ice-caps of Mars ... Sun cycles which interact with cosmic rays which, in turn, effect the amount of clouds"
That can't possibly work on Mars. Mars doesn't have clouds. D'oh!
"How did Earth manage to deal with all the previous climate changes?"
With mass extinction events.
"Why do we need to panic this time?"
Climate change has, at times, brought down entire civilizations. - Sornos, on 10/26/2008, -1/+3We require less methane gas.
- monoa, on 10/27/2008, -0/+2It's the sun, stupid: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/28/090/30 ...
- chrism123, on 10/26/2008, -2/+4Better start taxing the cows.
- angryredplanet, on 10/27/2008, -0/+2@CyphreDias
Don't confuse an environmental issue with your own political dogma - the two are worlds apart. This issue is born from human greed, which manifests as an economic requirement for growth at the expense of natural resources. Secondarily after exploitation, the environment gets "window-dressing" consideration, most of the time after the damage is done, in order to address the symptoms, not the problem.
With populations expanding and environmental resources dwindling, it will soon not matter what system of government you prefer. The Constitution you hold proud will be meaningless. There will be war, disease, famine, a marked drop in living standards and an immoral society who's individuals will be ready to roll you for anything valuable you may or may not possess. Sad times lie ahead, I feel.
The fact that the government (in fact, most governments) want to impose a very unpopular tax is enough to force you to consider the scale of this problem. It's been done to raise revenue in order to address anthropogenic climate change. Whether you believe it or not, it is commonly accepted and recognised by the majority of reputable scientific organisations world-wide.
"Life is carbon based and so a carbon tax is a tax on life itself."
No, it is not. Governments are not taxing carbon statically, they're taxing the change in carbon from it's natural cycle. It's a tax imposed mainly on power generation and heavy industry to encourage measures of higher efficiency. This is a classic denialist argument - I'd advise that if you don't want to be associated with or stereotyped as a denialist, then don't be one. - JLecker, on 10/26/2008, -2/+4Get your ass to Mars!
- angryredplanet, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1Total scientific peer reviewed content refuting anthropogenic climate change = 0
- CyphreDias, on 10/26/2008, -6/+7Our climate is controlled by Sun cycles which interact with cosmic rays which, in turn, effect the amount of clouds which then effect the amount of heat which is captured by the atmosphere. How did Earth manage to deal with all the previous climate changes? Why do we need to panic this time? It is all fear mongering in order to capture the minds of the public and push for an otherwise unpopular agenda. The solution being suggested is global governance by NGO (Non-governmental organizations) along with International Corporations. This carbon propaganda is designed to usher in a new system which gives greater power to those who are already very powerful.
I'm in favor of using diverse and alternative fuels, but my support for solar, wind and Geo-thermal has nothing to do with carbon. I also say that as long as the military continues to make nuclear weapons and nuclear war-ship and nuclear submarines, then it make sense to also make use of nuclear technology for the benefit of man-kind. If the day comes when the government really wants to stop generating nuclear waist, then get rid of the bombs and missiles first, and then talk to me about getting rid of the power plants. BASIC LOGIC!!!! UNDENIABLE BASIC LOGIC.
This "Carbon" based fear mongering is a creation which is intended to be the political and philosophical engine to bring in "global government" by the VERY CORRUPT United Nation and very corrupt INTERNATIONAL BANKERS and GIANT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS. The have already began to institute a "Carbon Tax" upon the people. For example, "carbon tax" provisions were placed in the recent banker bail-out bill (BANKER-BAIL-OUT SECTION 116 AND 117). Why would a banker bail-out bill need to include "carbon-tax" provisions unless BANKERS were in favor of an INTERNATIONAL CARBON TAX?
Remember, both fascism and socialism requires big government that is deeply involved with big industry, banking and lots-o regulations on everything. Socialism tends to be portrayed as a good-buy and fascism as a bad-guy, but the infrastructure is functionally the same. Big-good-government can become Big-bad-government overnight after it is established. And the USSR was socialist and not an example we should follow. China is socialist and is not an example worthy to follow. But America is becoming more like the USSR and China. This is why the founding fathers wanted us to have minimal government and a weak Federal government with very, very limited powers which were clear detailed in The Constitution. Nearly everything the Federal government does these days is Unconstitutional. The Constitution leaves most of the power to the States to rule themselves. If you want to know the details, then read The Constitution. It's not very long.
Life is carbon based and so a carbon tax is a tax on life itself. The difference between a carbon tax and slavery is subtle and academic, because practically they are the same. Carbon Tax = Slavery - monoa, on 10/26/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that's realistic. That's the only option. FFS.
- danielttt, on 10/26/2008, -1/+2That would put you in good company with here....Seemingly, many here on Digg have not eliminated in a very long time.
- JonForTheWin, on 10/26/2008, -5/+6Methane comes out of the ***** earth. The bacteria that eats crude oil and releases gases up, guess what that gas is, ***** methane.
Anyone I hear about "methane footprints" from is getting their ass kicked. - Sludgehammer, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1Umm... is this parody? Volcanoes emit CO2 not methane, at the temperatures lava is at, methane would ignite as soon as it reached oxygen. I suppose you could be talking about mud volcanoes, but those are volcanoes in name only.
- CyphreDias, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1@angryredplanet
I welcome intelligent debate that challenges my views. Perhaps you will offer some in your next reply.
Your screen name suggests you are an evangelist with a "political dogma" of your own.
I agree that we have serious environmental problems. I think you been fooled into taking your eye of the real problems, such as genetically modified food and toxins.
Can we agree that the United Nations is famously corrupt? Therefore, the IPCC is not trust-worthy because it is fruit of a poison tree.
IPCC = fruit of a poison tree
Can we agree that centralization of power is unconstitutional and historically dangerous? Can we agree that powerful men have historically dreamed of ruling the world?
I agree that we should stabilize our population. I have studied population growth in the United States and it seems the population goes up by 1% every year. To solve a problem like this, we should begin with the least invasive measures first. A new carbon tax is like using a bazooka to kill a rat. It's a rub-Goldberg solution. Why not stop illegal immigration and send the illegal people home. That might solve the problem of over-population in the United States by itself. Next, you can pay welfare a flat amount and remove the incentive to have more kids to get more welfare.
It is more intelligent to solve this problem region by region. Less radical procedures may work in some areas and more radical solutions may be needed in others. It is not elegant to force those with less of a problem to suffer the same heavy handed solution required by another area.
I agree with population stabilization via a zone defense that utilizes elegant solutions. The minimal solution is almost always the most elegant and justifiable solution. The carbon tax you support will not solve its stated objective and is a heavy handed, inelegant solution.
The same people who gave the Great Depression and the latest financial crisis are also those that are slated to doll-out the fiat carbon credits.
If you think that carbon credits will cure "human greed" you are very misguided.
The Constitution is already meaningless, because of people like you. The people who support the new world government and the new carbon tax are the same people who have brought us war, disease and famine. These are the inbred families that gave us feudalism and the dark ages.
Sad times could be nearing, and gang violence could result. This is the reason good people will need to keep guns and befriend their neighbors. You spoke of immorality. What is more immoral than creating money out of nothing and then charging interest for its use. We already live in an immoral society, and you would have me believe that I should abandon my beliefs because I am in the minority. To be well adjusted to a fundamentally sick society is no measure of health.
Remember, I don't have to prove that AGW exist and is a problem --- YOU DO! I don't have to prove a negative.
I've looked closely at both sides and I know that we have serious environmental problem and that C02 is not one of them.
Our largest problem is how gullible, dumbed-down and brainwashed our general population continues to be. LIKE YOU!
YES... LIFE IS CARBON BASED AND SO A TAX ON CARBON IS A TAX ON LIFE ITSELF!!!
THE POWER TO TAX IS THE POWER TO KILL. TAXATION IS SLAVERY.
Call me a "denialist" all you want. The people who read this will see though your B.S. The truth rings clear!
I'm not worried about your attempts to stereotype me. - Catspaw, on 10/27/2008, -0/+1According to Dr Vincent Gray, a New Zealander who has worked as a reviewer for the IPCC since its inception, there is no evidence that greenhouse gas emissions are harming the climate. He states: “A series of scientific arguments which appear to support the theory have been assembled. If examined closely, these are found to be based on unsound scientific and mathematical foundations.”
Gore is a politician remember....and the elite want to bring in new taxes for everyone to reduce us to serfs.. - angryredplanet, on 10/27/2008, -2/+3"Details matter. They're what separate science from hype and uninformed speculation."
I thought the scientific process of peer-review was what separated science from hype and uninformed speculation?
Considering this, at present the proponents of climate change have the support of modern science and the deniers/skeptics do not. - CyphreDias, on 10/26/2008, -2/+3Dralha... The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If our leaders do not respect the rule of law, then we certainly have cause for concern! Use of words like "denialist" is empty and meaningless. Regarding "taxes are coming"... The Supreme Court ruled saying, "The power to tax is the power to kill" and so we should certainly be concerned about taxation in all its forms, because if I don't get to keep the fruits of my labor, then my children do not get food, shelter or medical care. I NEVER SAID "destroy the government" and I do not believe in any organized religion. Furthermore, I don't trust the "free market." We have as much to fear from robber-baron capitalism as we have to fear from fascism or socialism. The good news is that The Constitution was well written and is worthy to be our rule of law. I simply ask that we live by rule of law as outlined in The Constitution. I ask for transparency of government and a stronger system of checks and balances.
Dralha - how does it feel to know that all your assumptions were 100% wrong. How does it feel to know you're that big of an idiot?
Another thing... Our leaders are not stupid and those who think recent events are the result of ignorance or low IQ need to realize that all our leaders are as smart or smarter than are we. - HumanNouveau, on 10/26/2008, -0/+1And then I'll pay a municipal tax for my composter...
- danielttt, on 10/26/2008, -4/+4Hey, digg aint for people who know what they're talking about. Your kind aint appreciated around these parts. Get lost buddy. Just a friendly warning.
- spyd3rweb, on 10/26/2008, -1/+1Thank god I only use CRT's
- urloved, on 01/13/2009, -0/+0The release of greenhouse gases stored under now melting permafrost will likely put the earth over the tipping point- it will be too late to avert rapid massive warming on the order or 10 or more degrees F. These are the facts: Instrumental temperature data has been collected since 1861. From 1988 to 2007, there were 15 years with record high global temperatures. Worldwide livestock farming generates 18% of the planet's greenhouse gas emissions. The world's cars, planes, trains, and boats account for a combined 13% of greenhouse gas emissions- 2006 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization report. Not pc, but the main contributors to global warming are overpopulation and consumption of farmed animal products.
- MadManElmo, on 10/26/2008, -2/+2"the other from flat-panel screen technology"
So I have to get rid of my LCD?!?
haah!!! - davidlow, on 10/27/2008, -2/+2It's more like reading an article that speculates about a particular martini olive, and then finding out in the last sentence that the martini was on the Titanic anyway so it doesn't matter.
Details matter. They're what separate science from hype and uninformed speculation.
We're lucky this particular article mentions the contradicting evidence at all, even if it's only one sentence at the very end. Most articles about global warming wouldn't bother. - CyphreDias, on 10/27/2008, -1/+1@Joe7845... I have seen charts that show "warming", but they are always from organization that would fail to receive funding if ever they claimed that there was no problem. Why would anyone fund an institution to do research of a non-problem? Funding manifests if a problem is found. This is a dangerous incentive which has certainly influenced some researchers to fudge procedures to get "helpful" results.
Universities and researchers all compete for funding. Good little boys get funding and less favorable people and institutes don't get any candy. Eventually, they learn the game and "play ball." Those who "play ball" get to be well funded and famous. Those who are stubborn remain mostly obscure.
Read about "The Urban Heat-Island Effect" and "Uneven distribution of weather-stations" then read about the mixing of data classes in the creation of the hockey-stick graph used in "An Inconvenient Truth"
Satellite data (which is more even) has been reported to show no warming.
The scope of this scam is so large. Even if a report came out saying that satellites show warming, I would not believe it because this propaganda is being pushed at all cost. - getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -2/+2Howdy stranger, this is Howser.
- Winkythecat, on 10/26/2008, -2/+2F*** Mars! I want the death star!
- datastorageguy, on 10/27/2008, -2/+1I heard smug has been exponentially rising lately.
- Betrayer, on 10/27/2008, -2/+1Dirty Science.. these guys are just collecting funds to travel the world.
with results tainted from the environmental fear fairy, i question the data collection methods and or results!
what ever happened to science answering questions and making great discovery's
any time a "scientist" uses the term global warming ... question his credentials... - Trent1492, on 10/27/2008, -2/+1Did you read the article you linked too?
- CyphreDias, on 10/26/2008, -6/+5That's the problem.... The "Warming" is happening ON MARS TOO. The ice-caps of Mars have been melting due to the Sun which was going through a warmer cycle. It is impossible for our SUVs (on Earth) to cause the ice-caps on Mars to melt so maybe we should believe those scientists which say Earth's temperature cycle follows Sun cycles which interact with cosmic rays which, in turn, effect the amount of clouds which then effect the amount of heat which is captured by the atmosphere. How did Earth manage to deal with all the previous climate changes? Why do we need to panic this time? It is all fear mongering in order to capture the minds of the public and push for an otherwise unpopular agenda.
I'm in favor of using diverse and alternative fuels, but my support for solar, wind and Geo-thermal has nothing to do with carbon. I also say that as long as the military continues to make nuclear weapons and nuclear war-ship and nuclear submarines, then it make sense to also make use of nuclear technology for the benefit of man-kind. If the day comes when the government really wants to stop generating nuclear waist, then get rid of the bombs and missiles first, and then talk to me about getting rid of the power plants. BASIC LOGIC!!!! UNDENIABLE BASIC LOGIC.
This "Carbon" based fear mongering is a creation which is intended to be the political and philosophical engine to bring in "global government" by the VERY CORRUPT United Nation and very corrupt INTERNATIONAL BANKERS and GIANT INTERNATIONAL CORPORATIONS. The have already began to institute a "Carbon Tax" upon the people. For example, "carbon tax" provisions were placed in the recent banker bail-out bill (BANKER-BAIL-OUT SECTION 116 AND 117). Why would a banker bail-out bill need to include "carbon-tax" provisions unless BANKERS were in favor of an INTERNATIONAL CARBON TAX?
Remember, both fascism and socialism requires big government that is deeply involved with big industry, banking and lots-o regulations on everything. Socialism tends to be portrayed as a good-buy and fascism as a bad-guy, but the infrastructure is functionally the same. Big-good-government can become Big-bad-government overnight after it is established. And the USSR was socialist and not an example we should follow. China is socialist and is not an example worthy to follow. But America is becoming more like the USSR and China. This is why the founding fathers wanted us to have minimal government and a weak Federal government with very, very limited powers which were clear detailed in The Constitution. Nearly everything the Federal government does these days is Unconstitutional. The Constitution leaves most of the power to the States to rule themselves. If you want to know the details, then read The Constitution. It's not very long.
Life is carbon based and so a carbon tax is a tax on life itself. The difference between a carbon tax and slavery is subtle and academic, because practically they are the same. Carbon Tax = Slavery - inactive, on 10/27/2008, -1/+0wheres deathgas? i heard thats on the rise - farted out by flying pigs apparently
- freakFlag, on 10/27/2008, -1/+0Wait ... if I have a greenhouse, what gases are bad?
- kidlinux, on 10/27/2008, -2/+1Is it that the words "carbon dioxide" are loosing their luster in public perception, or is it that the levels might be going down, or is it that its effect may have been greatly over exaggerated?
- suo97119, on 10/26/2008, -5/+4http://t-shirts.cafepress.com/item/greedy-humans-f ...
-
Show 51 - 62 of 62 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is