Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate."A complete list of things caused by global warming"
numberwatch.co.uk — A list of links to articles talking about various strange consequences of global warming.
Tiabin- 348 diggs
- digg it
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Only a few are about global warming. It is an odd list of various studies on the effects of pollution. Some reputable, some not.
- johndi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13You're right, this list is self-contradictory. It has forests declining and expanding. It has Britain becoming warmer and colder. Coral reefs growing and shrinking. Harvest will be both up and down. What a shoddy site. I looked at enough of the links to know the titles don't always reflect the stories. With stuff like this out there it's no wonder people are skeptical.
- Aewheros, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5I guess that's much of the purpose of the list. Then of course, an increase in global warmth will have different effects in different regions and many of those are highly unpredictable.
- SpacemanSpiff, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Missing from the list: Controversy
- MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Of course it's contradictory. Everything wrong with the world seems to be blamed on "global warming" by someone, or someone else. The article's topic is tongue-in-cheek.
- DuoPros, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Wolves eat more moose? WTF?
- Glynderi, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11The contradictory nature of the list is exactly its virtue - demonstrating the nature of all the hubris and hype of much that is said and written about climate change. Dr Edward Wegman may or may not be a sceptic, but he is undoubtedly a statistician of repute, and it's his acknowledged professional reputation and expertise which demonstrates that the IPCC's position is untenable.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4You sound just like a creationist--ignore the people with proper expertise who don't agree with you, latch on to the people without the expertise just because they agree with your pseudo-scientific position.
- illynova, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8did anyone actually read the article before digging it? Its... well, a big list of one word links.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2The links go to articles written about the "horrors" of "global warming". I'm suprised no one has written an article about how global warming kills puppies. Although there might've been one since I only went through a sampling of the articles.
- abramelin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"I'm suprised no one has written an article about how global warming kills puppies."
Oh my god! Does global warming really kill puppies as well!? That's terrible; it must be stopped.
Remember - puppies aren't just for christmas - you can eat them on boxing day as well.
(seen as a car sticker)
- n8r0n, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19The #1 thing caused by global warming:
The beginning of Al Gore's acting career.- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7So Al Gore doing a documentary is the start of his acting career? So am I to gather that you're calling this work disingenuous? Am I also to assume that you do this without the benefit of having seen it? (Your loss. It's actually an execelent documentary.)
And obviously, you've never seen on any other shows prior (Futurama, etc.), so feel free to review his actual acting career (outside of politics, of course).
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0330722/ - LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -7/+6[quote]So Al Gore doing a documentary is the start of his acting career? So am I to gather that you're calling this work disingenuous? Am I also to assume that you do this without the benefit of having seen it? (Your loss. It's actually an execelent documentary.)
And obviously, you've never seen on any other shows prior (Futurama, etc.), so feel free to review his actual acting career (outside of politics, of course).[/quote]
Al Gore's "documentary" is crap.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
If the scientists listed in that article aren't enough, here's what the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, Richard Lindzen, says:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
His appearances in Futurama are good though.
- culbeda, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7So Al Gore doing a documentary is the start of his acting career? So am I to gather that you're calling this work disingenuous? Am I also to assume that you do this without the benefit of having seen it? (Your loss. It's actually an execelent documentary.)
- warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Bees, Lazlo. Killer bees.
- afex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3nicely done, anyone who dugg you down doesn't get it.
- warmonger48, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Thanks!!! So you to are a loyal Lazlo listener,
- DrMindHacker, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10 How about another thing to add to list: the congegration of psuedo-scientific morons.
- MacBigot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12I thought this list was "complete." Where's male pattern baldness?
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Nice!
- MicrowavedH2o, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4...anyone read Crichton's "State of Fear"?
- mitchki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Yes, it has led me to keep an open mind on the Global Warming debate and to always look for actual data rather than only computer projections. We have a hard enough time predicting tomorrow's weather.. predicting global climate change is orders of magnitude more difficult.
- spjmm0, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I read State of Fear and I found the point he made about stars and politicians lending their"power" to efforts to stop global warming but are unable to give up some of their habits that contribute. Limousines that get 9 mpg, Lear jets that use more fuel then buying a plane ticket, huge mansions and grounds that require cooling and lots of water to keep their lawns beautiful.
- newtontwo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@mitchki:
Maybe you could elaborate more on why you think climate prediction is "orders of magnitude more difficult" than predicting tomorrows weather. Be sure to address the scales of 24 hour prediction, on the order of 1-100km and the major forcings of those events.
As far as I'm concerned, climate prediciton is an exercise in averages. For example, you better consider local terrain in a 24 hour forecast for oragraphic effects, but in a climatological framework, oragraphic effects are negligible. In fact, climate studies focus on the radiation budget and methods for how this budget is affected. Think of the diurnal temperature range at your current location, compare that to the annual fluctations of a globally averaged temperature.
But I'm sure you've considered this, as you do definitively state your conclusion in your post. I await your knowledge. - milieu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Yup. It was the crappiest book I read that entire year.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@MicrowavedH2o
Climatologists use extensive data and carefully considered models to form their opinion, global warming deniers use a fictional book. And yet somehow we are expected to take both positions as being equally valid. You may as well be a fundamentalist using the latest Chick tract to counter the latest fossil discovery, complaining about how schools need to "teach both sides." - inkgrok, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2... Yes and found it a tough slog to get through. IMO his worst work of writing yet ... politics of the issue aside. Or maybe that's why it sucked. It certainly got in the way of the story. Which is maybe a good thing since the story was a mess.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@newtontwo
It's a global fluid dynamics simulation with the problem that everything on the earth affects the simulation to some degree. They can simplify the simulation by excluding parts and variables and making assumptions, but any simulation or experiment is only as good as your assumptions. Even if they could model the whole climate which is basically impossible due to the almost infinite number of variables, go talk to an automobile engineer or an aircraft designer about how complete their fluid dynamics simulations are for their aerodynamics calculations. Or you could just look at how accurate our weather predictions are. If we can't even predict the path of a hurricane for the next day with even 90% accuracy all the time, what makes you think we can accurately model the whole planet over decades? The global error in those calculations has got to be astronomical. Here are a few articles dealing with the difficulties in modeling the whole earth.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4923248.stm
text below from http://edgcm.columbia.edu/outreach/exercises/global_warming.html
"Setup for Modern Climate "Control" Experiments
No computer model of a complex system is a perfect representation of that system in the real world. Unfortunately, assigning error bars to the output of such complex process models is also not possible in any straightforward sense. Thus, climate simulations are generally compared to a "control run", which acts like a base against which all other simulations can be compared. For future climate experiments the control runs are nearly always some type of simulation of the modern climate. The term "modern" is defined differently by various modeling groups, but is nearly always a representation of the average climate of a multi-decade period in the later part of the 20th century. EdGCM has preset modern climate control runs that use characteristics of the atmosphere and oceans that are representative of the period 1951-1980. We use 1958 values for the greenhouse gases in our control runs since that was the first year that regular and continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2 were begun. "
According to the above, the simulations are based on a simulation that the scientists say closely matches existing data. I can tell you from doing simpler simulations, that, unless you spend alot of time running and verifying many, many of these controlled runs, your simulation will not be accurate. Also, even if you do that, your simulation is only as good as how correctly it models those control runs and how well the data/variables you used to verify the control runs models the system as a whole (it's only as good as your model (and the associated assumptions)).
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/early_20th_cent_warming.html
Notice the lower half of Fig1 where they highlight Experiment 3 as closely following the observations. They don't say what the error is, but just look at 1960, 1965, 1975, 1978-9 and how off it is. The study itself concludes that more study is needed to explain differences and learn more about the uncertainty in these simulations.
Beware your assumptions. - LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@CopperFalcon
http://www.digg.com/environment/A_complete_list_of_things_caused_by_global_warming#c2359334
Don't buy the hype that every climatologist agrees about global warming. - Forkmiester, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I have read State of Fear. That book to me has more un-reputable scientific information than Al Gore's 90 minute rhetoric on WHAT IF THIS HAPPENS OR WHAT IF THE ICE SHIELD MELTS stuff. Yeah ,what if a volcano sprouted in the middle of Yellowstone park (it's one big volcano anyway) and pumps millions of tonnes of ash and SO2 into the atmosphere? The world temperature would plunge 10-20 degrees. That is solid evidence..
The list is interesting. As an environmentalist, I find all this media hype on Global Warming a little annoying. I'm more worried about our oceans, with chemical dumping, fertilizer runoff into drinking water, and just that - drinking water. Not WHAT IF THE WORLD TEMPERATURE WENT UP ONE DEGREE! OMFG!.. How about safe drinking water for Africa, and affordable drugs/treatment for TB, and AIDS. That has more important RIGHT now that the worlds temperature going up a WHOLE WHOPPING DEGREE.
But then again, who cares if 100 million Africans or Asians die from drinking contaminated water anyways. That doesn't sell papers or news stories. Shrinking icecaps do. Great list.
- mitchki, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I think it's the point of the page that so many contradictory and various effects have been predicted that they can't possibly all be true. The pointed statement at the bottom shows the author's true attitude.
- SimpleBinary, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Has anybody ever thought that this might just be a natural cycle? Whose to say that there aren't new species being created as we speak and that there will be a steady decline in temperature in the next thousand years?
Ahh, f*ck it, we're destroying the Earth...I'm moving.- MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Has anybody ever thought that this might just be a natural cycle?"
Many in the scientific community have proposed exactly that. Dixie Lee Ray, former Washington State governor, and former director of the Pacific Science Institute, said that in her book Trashing The Planet back in March 1992.
- MikeHinds, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Has anybody ever thought that this might just be a natural cycle?"
- ippersiel, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Mr. Smith:
"I'd like to share a revelation that I've had during my time here. It came to me when I tried to classify your species and I realized that you're not actually mammals. Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply and multiply until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area. There is another organism on this planet that follows the same pattern. Do you know what it is? A virus. Human beings are a disease, a cancer of this planet....." - Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7I agree, I mean, people cry because we loose a species, but few people realize
A) the species was a subtle highly localized mutation of some other more prolific species. Some mutated species of ants that only lived in a large dead tree. When the tree disintegrated, the species died, end of story.
B) the species probably mutated because of environmental conditions. When those conditions change, whether naturally or unaturally, they can't exist, period.
C) do we really need to worry that some species of yellow ***** doesn't survive? How is the world bettered by having a yellow ***** species?
d) new species probably come and go without our even knowing about them, its called life.
Also, global warming is a natural occurance, and has happened in the past with the planet surviving. Old species may have died off, but new ones were created. Humans have also survied global cooling and warming, and I think we are far more adaptable today then 10,000 years ago.
While I don't agree that we simply don't need to do anything about polution and greenhouse gasses (certainly we are doing nothing to improve the status quo), grandstanding statements about how we are destroying this planet are unfounded. We can't even predict the whether, yet climatoligist are pretty damn sure that global warming is taking place because of pollution, and all the strange weather patterns are because of it. When you can tell me it will rain tomorrow 100% accurately, then talk to me about your theories of global warming.
Finally, the Earth has lots of known and uknown balancing acts to counter act global warming. While some might be catestrophic to humans and other species alike, its a way for the earth to regain balance.
One of the things we have to stop saying is that things are irreversible or that we have destroyed something for ever. A million years from now, humans may not exists, but the planet will, and new species will come and go, as the world turns. - Zinite, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I love how it goes ahead and says that global warming is the cause of "billions of deaths" with a link to "Global warming: Is it too late to save our planet?".
And I think we can all relate to the tragedy of the "blackbirds stop singing".
While this list has a few good points, a lot of it is just for dramatic effect. "lightning related insurance claims". Global warming didn't cause lightning related insurance claims, lightning causes lightning related insurance claims. - mlarsen, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7if you took 5 labs, from all points of view on global warming, told them to prove their findings, and released all their findings at the same time freely on the Internet, global warming woulds cease to exist. They would all contradict each other. Drug company's have to do double blind test on their drugs, when will enviro-labs be required to do the same thing? It is just bad science.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Which spare planet do you propose to use as the "control system"?
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Which spare planet do you propose to use as the "control system"?"
mlarsen's point is that scientists don't really have any way to prove global warming. The system is too complex. They could all look at the evidence and come to different conclusions about what caused the effect. Plus, I find that some of the scientists involved seem to already have their conclusions when they look at evidence or observations. Just read some papers about global warming and you'll see there's little or no discussion of alternatives even though there really isn't a consensus.
- cptpike, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Dogs and cats living together. It's mass hysteria.
- bclark303, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Thankyou Dr. Peter Venkman.
- cocytus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6The seemingly contradictory nature of this report has to be considered with the fact that the earth is a dynamic system. You can't affect only one part of it with out causing disturbances else where. So if in one region there is increased heat, that leads to more evaporation of land, which equal desertification. However, all that evaporated moisture has to go somewhere else, which means increased rains elsewhere, that could reduce desertification. That's just one example, but I believe the majority of the contradictory terms are a result of that process.
All other things asides, even if global warming isn't happening (despite strong scientific evidence to the contrary) wouldn't be in our best interests to not pollute the environment that we live in? You want toxins in your drinking water? Acid rain killing your lawn? Smog so thick you have to wear respirators just to go out side?- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's the problem I have with this whole argument. Don't try and scare me into helping the environment with your experiments attempting to model the global climate while saying nothing about the assumptions in those experiments/models and how truly accurate they might be. Tell me we shouldn't pollute because we want clean air and water, which I agree with, but don't present something as fact or as having complete agreeance amongst all scientists when neither is the case.
- phonest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Topher06,
You missed something when talking about species going extinct:
Any species that goes extinct is a part of the environment it has adapted to. Thus its extinction will have a ripple effect: if a predator goes extinct, its prey will grow in population, affecting other species in the local ecosystem, which will in turn have a ripple effect on other species.
And, yes, there have been natural cycles of climate change on the planet. But these cycles have never before been in the context of 6 billion plus humans emitting industrial pollutants, using water like there no tommorrow, and destroying habitat. - Hypnos, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Denial is a great thing. The Majority of the scientists agree that global warming is real and directly related to humans. That's scientists not fiction writers or right wing think tanks. I mean CO2 levels are at the highest in 600000 years. Then again maybe human civilization deserves to be wiped out go ahead and ignore it.
- falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The earth has been warmer before, and it will be cooler at some point in the future.
Anybody who tells you that they can see 100 years into the future within 1 degree is looking for more research money. Anybody who tells you that humanity has no impact on the world around us is an idiot in denial. As with everything else, the truth is always somewhere in the middle.
Let's just keep trying to learn more about our world and leave the scaremongering on both sides to the ratings-driven talking heads. - LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1What's the certainty of your claim about CO2 levels over the last 600000 years? These claims are based on assumptions, usually assumptions based on the world behaving exactly the same as it has in the past 100 years in relation to variables such as CO2 and NO levels. Do you have a study that explains its assumptions and its accuracy?
- falstaff, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The earth has been warmer before, and it will be cooler at some point in the future.
- phonest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3mlarsen: been reading a little Crichton?
- ChildeRoland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3There are scientists who dispute we landed on the moon, or prove that UFOs are responsbile for the human race. The difference is that we don't give their theories equal time and call it "fair and balanced".
Anyway, I think it is very prudent to take the risk that it isn't a problem. After all, in the event it does prove to be real, it will be our children who have to pay. I use the same theory when I save money by not buying car or heatlh insurance. And look at all the money New Orleans saved all those years by effectively playing the odds. If there's a 10% chance of us screwing up the environment totally, hell, let's take that chance. We can't possibly live without Suburbans. - Scottamus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Wow, and that's just the stuff we know about. Oh wait, this is supposed to be satire.
Are people blaming too much on global warming? you betcha.
Should global warming be taken seriously and not be dismissed just cuz some scientists paid by Exxon says there's not a problem? You betcha. - MaloderousRex, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1how about "whining?"
- jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1yeah, I'm in England and there are far too many people whining about it being 'too hot' right now after all of 3 days of sun.
well if the result of global warming is this sunny weather i ain't complaining, I guess the amount of hot half naked women walking around is a result of this so there's a benefit they forgot to add to the list. - andyd273, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My desire is to swim in Lake Michigan in January. if global warming will cause that, then cool. Why should Florida get all of the nice beaches and hot girls.
- jferrari, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1yeah, I'm in England and there are far too many people whining about it being 'too hot' right now after all of 3 days of sun.
- JoeyDeacon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We will all kill each other long before the planet does it for us.
- Sublime059, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0How about the WAR ON CHRISTMAS! OH NOESS!
- FrazettaGirl, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1The people who believe global warming is caused by mankind are the same as the ancient Hawaiians and Aztecs who believed human sacrifice could stop a volcano or enhance the growing season. Any reputable scientist whose funding doesn't depend on government grants knows that we are in a natural, cyclical warming trend.
I propose we throw Suburbans laden with flowers into the mouths of volcanos. This will do as much for global warming as Kyoto, but it will be more entertaining.- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes yes, it's all just based on faith, just like evolution. Oh wait, no. It's actually based on decades of direct evidence and millennia of indirect evidence. And modern climate models.
As for depending on funding from government grants, the current administration has been _suppressing_ data on global warming, remember? Sheesh, it's bad enough you anti-science types have to lie and slander, can't you at least lie and slander in ways that aren't self-contradictory?
Just another case in which global warming deniers are like creationists: they dismiss and ignore all data, dishonestly attribute their opponents' position to faith, and make vague accusations of a global conspiracy amongst scientists in order to rationalize their dismissal of experts. - Tiabin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I like your suburban idea... but not because I think you're right about global warming, as much as I enjoy destruction on suburbans (much like you).
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Yes yes, it's all just based on faith, just like evolution. Oh wait, no. It's actually based on decades of direct evidence and millennia of indirect evidence. And modern climate models.
- sworoc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1"Billions of Deaths" Let's think about this, that article said billions will die in the next 100 years. There are 6 billion people on earth, in 100 years most everybody alive now, will be dead. What a prediction!
I'm waiting for the day when I look in the newspaper and it reads "cause of death, global warming"
Ridiculous, sure we have to be responsible, but not paranoid. - sworoc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I'd also like to add that more people die in car accidents than from the pollutants that result from automobiles. There are bigger concerns, even though we should be taking steps to clean up our act.
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@falstaff:
Because scientists have never ever correctly predicted anything before, right? They're always talking about things that will harm or kill you, like this "bird flu' and 'pollution', but I'm sure they're just scaremongering in order to get more grant money. They couldn't possibly be right. Or they might be right, but there's nothing we could do to influence these things. Or maybe we could influence these things, but it'd be too expensive. Or perhaps we could afford to influence these things, but it'd be cheaper not to. Or maybe it would actually be cheaper to take action now, but that would undermine my beliefs.
No, I'm sure it must be the scientists who spend their life studying these things who are wrong. I couldn't possibly be.- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe it's that the scientists like all the press from sensationalist articles like those listed on the page because it gets them more money. I do not doubt that most of them do believe there is a problem, but there is not a consensus. Look above for my first comment that lists just a few of the scientists, who work in the field, who disagree. I don't doubt the debate or studies. I do think they could be more forthcoming about the accuracy of their predictions, but I blame the nature of the press. Every journalist wants to have that huge, groundbreaking story about how the earth is dying and he/she is the one who woke up the public and saved the world. How exciting is a story about how our earth is just going through a cycle? Not very.
Here is some info on the global cooling scare:
[quote=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20998-2004Dec22.html]One of the good guys in "State of Fear" cites Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as that which least is known." Which is why 30 years ago the fashionable panic was about global cooling. The New York Times (Aug. 14, 1975) reported "many signs" that "Earth may be heading for another ice age." Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." "Continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) could herald "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The Christian Science Monitor reported (Aug. 27, 1974) that Nebraska's armadillos were retreating south from the cooling.[/quote]
Newsweek, April 28, 1975 http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf
The conclusion of the above article: "The longer the planners (speaking of trying to convince governments to intervene about global cooling) delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change (read: global cooling) once the results become grim reality."
The Newsweek article even mentions melting artic ice caps as a possible solution to global cooling.
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1974-08-08.pdf
http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-01-19.pdf
Change 4 months later to possible global warming: http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/ny-times-1975-05-21.pdf
Read the studies for yourself, don't take one side or the other's take on the issue as fact no matter how many articles the media (who aren't scientists) print.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe it's that the scientists like all the press from sensationalist articles like those listed on the page because it gets them more money. I do not doubt that most of them do believe there is a problem, but there is not a consensus. Look above for my first comment that lists just a few of the scientists, who work in the field, who disagree. I don't doubt the debate or studies. I do think they could be more forthcoming about the accuracy of their predictions, but I blame the nature of the press. Every journalist wants to have that huge, groundbreaking story about how the earth is dying and he/she is the one who woke up the public and saved the world. How exciting is a story about how our earth is just going through a cycle? Not very.
- copaceticmind, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Why is global cooling on this list?
- CopperFalcon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Because the author is a dishonest git trying to smear climatologists as being self-contradictory. You'll find the same behaviour in creationists who misrepresent scientific findings in order to make it appear that evolution is self-contradictory. They have no data of their own, only fallacious rhetoric.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@copperfalcon
Once again, you can't take anyone even asking questions about your precious beliefs. You blast Christians, but you hold to your belief about global warming with no more actual scientific proof than they have. You have studies by very smart scientists, but they still make assumptions and they are also trying to model the whole of the global climate, a task ripe with opportunities to introduce and compound error as the simulation/model extends into the future. Even they admit their models are not perfect.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The above is a list of scientists who disagree that there is a consensus about global warming. Digg it down only if you think it's inaccurate (it's not), but not because you don't like evidence that contradicts the conclusions you've already reached.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html
"It was only 30 years ago that many of today's global-warming alarmists were telling us that the world was in the midst of a global-cooling catastrophe. But, the science continued to evolve, and still does, even though so many choose to ignore it, when it does not fit with predetermined political agendas."
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The above is a list of scientists who disagree that there is a consensus about global warming. Digg it down only if you think it's inaccurate (it's not), but not because you don't like evidence that contradicts the conclusions you've already reached.
- tsk1979, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What I dont understand why do people start being so defensive and give violent views on global warming. the equation here is simple
1. Is the earth getting warmer? The answer is yes even by critics of global warming
2. Is it a natural cycle or are we the cause? This brings violent discussions
What people dont understand that even its the little gnomes living under ground are the cause its "we" who will be effective. It may be a perfectly natural cycle, but if this natural cycle means that habitat of 20% of people of the world dissapears under the sea, its not a good natural cycle.
An natural asteroid could wipe out most humanity, does it means we should sit on it because its natural. Grow up. The problem is not "who did what" its to find out how to stop global warming before its too late - shivamib, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Pirates, anyone?
- Hypnos, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The reason I can say that co2 level are the highest in 600000 years is because we have examined ice cores that give a complete atmospheric record as well has a very accurate record of climate change. Has there been a history of climate change? Yes, but nothing as quick as what we are seeing now, and there is a direct relationship between CO2 levels and climate change. Go ahead guys ignore it. Its probably to late to stop it anyway. Maybe global warming is just earths immune system cleaning us a nasty infection of humans.
- LittlemanTAMU, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So you have proof that the ice cores are 600k years old? There's no other possible explanation for the formation of the ice cores or the CO2 "data" within them? Any conclusion about the past or future is just begging for error. I'm not saying you can't conclude anything, just state your assumptions and possible alternatives.
- phonest, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@tsk1979
That's right. Its happening, and it's going to be messy. We are in the middle of the sixth mass extinction on this planet, and global warming will only accelerate that.
Think about it this way: eliminating greenhouse emitting energy sources will go a long way towards protecting biodiversity and creating energy independence. No more wars for oil if we get power from the sun. - smackfumaster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2THIS ARTICLE WAS CAUSED BY GLOBAL WARMING.
ok, now the list is complete. buried. - SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Some good points, but too many of them are wayyy out there. Buried
- startr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Quite amusing. It is enjoyable and unexpected to find comedy on the science pages!
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by