What is Digg?Sponsored by Bing.
Save Cash This Holiday Season. view!
bing.com - Affordable gifts that look expensive--Bing(tm) helps you find gifts under $50.
167 Comments
- greenfyre, on 01/22/2009, -35/+80The article is trying to create the impression of controversy and doubt by citing 3 cranks pushing totally discredited ideas.
The article doesn't get to reality until almost the end
FTA "“There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, “and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists, so I’m certainly not alone in that certainty.”"
FTA "Too many scientists are either ignoring, or don’t understand, the well-established fact that Earth’s climate has changed rapidly in the past"
What utter *****! Scientists are well aware of it, it is all part of climate science, and fully accounted for in climate change work - only a clueless twit would claim otherwise:
http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/Resources/gcc/contents.ht ...
The Younger Dryas is not nearly the mystery that the article suggests:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes_ ...
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
FTA "the Earth could possibly be about to return to another cooling period."
No, long since shown to be nonsense:
http://bravenewclimate.com/2008/09/14/what-if-the- ...
Phil Chapman has been shown to be pretty much clueless about climate
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7 ...
FACT every new record hot year is followed by a slightly cooler period. That's been going on for 50 yrs and the only ones who are surprised by it are the Deniers:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.lrg ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ3OLRgcSII&fea ...
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-myths-debunk ... - MorganMghee, on 01/22/2009, -9/+33No one is ignoring anything. Please don't rely on Daily Galaxy for your science news.
- Dipsomaniac, on 01/22/2009, -12/+27Ah, there's the standard "Al Gore wants money" argument. Will you be following it up with the "Show absolute proof or you're completely wrong" argument?
Now, can you argue against the facts? It would be nice to see someone actually try that instead of using the usual talking points.
Although this article is using the 'cosmic rays cause cloud formation' for which there is no supporting evidence; there is, however, experimental evidence showing no correlation. - kazz67, on 01/22/2009, -10/+25FTA (lest it goes unread by the majority): "the vast majority of prominent scientists believe the bulk of evidence points towards an overall warming trend... The Daily Galaxy asked climate expert Thomas Reichler, what he has to say about it. According to him, anyone claiming that the Earth isn’t getting warmer, or that it’s perhaps even getting colder, simply isn’t looking at the actual data.
“There is absolutely no doubt that the world is in a warming phase,” Reichler told the Daily Galaxy, “and that conclusion is supported by 99% of all serious scientists...”" - obe1kenobi, on 01/22/2009, -3/+16I really don't care if it's warming, cooling, or doing jumping jacks. We shouldn't be polluting the way we are and we need to utilize more renewable forms of energy. So, yeah, don't care.
- Anomaly100, on 01/22/2009, -4/+17According to the article, at the end, it basically states, why the hell even try to help, it's no use! Isn't that what it's saying? Pathetic. It's our planet. We live and breath here.
"Reichler is probably right, but it wouldn’t be the first time if the fringe opinion turned out to be onto something. But from a broader perspective, does it really matter who’s “right” as far as preparations go? Whether the climate gets cooler or warmer, or does nothing at all, people will still need massive amounts of energy. Even if we were to take the reverse approach and intentionally increase greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in order to stave off cooling, it would likely have little effec......" - DaClamp, on 01/22/2009, -8/+20your mom goes both ways.
- MiddleAmerica, on 01/23/2009, -1/+12
Warming Skeptics Debunked - No 1970s Ice Age Consensus
Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s - USATODAY.com
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarm ...
Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=351_1224020923
- WasabiBomb, on 01/23/2009, -2/+12I hate your argument. See it all the time on digg. So what happens if we do nothing, and it turns out that the scientists who study the climate are right, and the "climate crisis" ends up costing us trillions of dollars, dooming millions of people to slow starvation, and killing off all the animals who couldn't adapt to the new environment fast enough. When your food is gone, you're not going to have enough body bags.
Honesty is ALWAYS the best policy.
Also, why can't people see that the same people who are saying that humans aren't causing global warming are the same ones who make billions of money from polluting the environment? - inactive, on 01/22/2009, -3/+12This is not a flame, it's an honest question. What happened before 1850? All your charts show data from 1850 until present day. I don't know a lot about global warming but that has always been my major question.
A simple yes or no question: did climate changes like the one we're experiencing now ever happen during the 4.6 billion year life of our planet?
Again, I'm only trying to get this question answered. I can't find it on google and everyone seems to avoid the question. I'm a 16 year old kid, bear with me please. - Alheithinn, on 01/22/2009, -4/+13I suppose it came as a surprise to them and not being conversant with research on the subject they concluded that it surprised everyone else as well. A typical mistake by a person pretending to know more than they do.
- Dipsomaniac, on 01/22/2009, -1/+10Before 1850, weather records were spotty at best, so before that the reliance for data is on things like ice cores, and trees, even rocks and fossils; but those things don't show year-by-year transitions.
- AmishRefugee, on 01/22/2009, -1/+9"ice cores, and trees, even rocks and fossils; but those things don't show year-by-year transitions."
yeah they do. that's why they're so useful, trees make rings and ice thaws and re-freezes every year. - asaccin, on 01/22/2009, -5/+12Nice post and website greenfyre.
- inactive, on 01/22/2009, -2/+9Archie - I hear that a lot but I'm really only looking for data that breaks that down. I mean..is this stuff fact or is it all just hypothesis at this point? My teachers at school often mistake my excessive questioning as rebellious when I ask them the same questions. I've seen teachers get so mad when I ask for simple stuff like what I'm asking here. It really sucks, everyone just dismisses my questions because I'm 16 and don't know a lot about science. I got a grade knocked off at the end of my sophomore year because I couldn't come up with a good presentation on Earth day...we were asked to make presentations about how we can change global warming. Most of my classmates made videos using clips from that movie that our former Vice President made (I really like that guy) but I just can't make sense out of it...I have so many freaking questions, I feel like a complete idiot!
I really want to know about it but all you guys act so crazy and angry on these threads, its even the same way at my school or at home with my older sisters. Where can I find a good resource that shows me both sides of the argument and gives me proof on what has happened on Earth over the last 4 billion or so years? - anonymous1986, on 01/22/2009, -6/+13Except that you're an idiot who doesn't have a clue what you're talking about.
From New Scientist quote:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11650
"So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity."
It's a pity that you and the people who dugg you up treasure ignorance. - jeopardydd, on 01/23/2009, -0/+799% of scientists will never say anything is 100% certain.
- Ne007, on 01/22/2009, -10/+17People have to realize that in the history of the Earth it is uncommon to have a stable environment.
Yes, pollution should be minimized, but not in the context of measurement of Carbon emissions. In the context of paying carbon taxes for the amount of you carbon emit, say, in the future, if there is a cooling trend, then the government better be paying tax credits for the amount of carbon emitted.
The whole context of "carbon footprint" wreaks of a mandatory tax. - vikingcoder, on 01/23/2009, -0/+6A scientific consensus is overturned when new research or new interpretations of old research that better fits the observations is presented. It is not refuted by calling it a consensus and conjuring vast conspiracy notions to explain it without acknowledging the accumulated research. It is not refuted by endlessly presenting the same tired partial truths, outright myths, vapid ad hominems laced with puerile wordplay and sophistic bluster.
You are right about the polling. An opinion poll is irrelevant in a discussion about science. This is why it's hilarious to see deniers point to the Oregon Petition / Petition Project.
"Denier" isn't some sort of ad hominem slight, it is a descriptive term like skeptic. What else should you call somebody who denies knowledge presented to them based on nothing more than belief? Pseudoskeptic is another option. http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Pseudoske ... - greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -2/+8Thank you
- JCEEZ, on 01/22/2009, -5/+11at the end of the day, polluting is bad, no matter how you look at it. Stand behind a bus lately? It doesn't smell good. See the plants on the side of the freeway? Notice how they are a little darker then the ones at the park? Would you rather eat fish from a nice clean part of the ocean, or something picked up out of the Valdez aftermath. Now think about that on a bigger scale.
No matter how big the impact is, it doesn't hurt to try and help ol' Mother Nature out. This isn't a liberal/conservative issue. This is responsibility and common sense. - SemiSarcastic, on 01/22/2009, -6/+12Whatever happens there is only one thing that is certain. Whomever is alive today will eventually die.
- lostlyrics, on 01/22/2009, -17/+22now this turdload of false asserts is almost criminal.
from a corner pledged to ignoring facts & data 24/7.
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0130-11.htm
while others' lives depend on respecting tough reality.
you must not increase manmade gw to stop an ice age
coming - although that would be just like so sweet fully
an interest of exxon paying hundreds mega$$ for spam ... - JCEEZ, on 01/23/2009, -0/+5but we ARE NOT doing NOTHING. We are creating more and more waste....
- MrBussi, on 01/22/2009, -5/+10Please look up the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures before making such claims.
- youannoyme, on 01/22/2009, -0/+5Uh...no... It's he's saying that whether its cooling or heating or just sitting there, we need to fix our pollution problem and be prepared to deal with the environment however the pendulum swings... He's advocating a pragmatic reason for cleaning up our act, not throwing in the towel.
- Math, on 01/23/2009, -0/+5No one denies that the Sun's output affects the temperature on Earth, but other variables also affect a planet's temperature.
Otherwise, how would you explain the temperature on Venus, a planet with an atmosphere of CO2 being hotter than Mercury, which is closer to the sun?
The makeup of the atmosphere of a planet is clearly just as large a factor as the Sun's output. - crc77, on 01/22/2009, -3/+8Jim, as Dipso said the records before 1850 are not reliable, so most of climate science is based on interpreted data such as ice cores. It's certainly not as objective as having someone with a thermometer every couple of hundred kilometers taking exact notes every day for the last few billion years, but unfortunately climate scientists were in short supply for most of the planet's history.
That doesn't mean it's not credible, though. Scientists know a heck of a lot about the universe based on hazy electromagnetic signals that happen to find their way down their telescopes and other instruments. They make educated guesses (hypotheses), then as new data comes in they see whether the uncovered data matches the hypothesis. If it seems to back it up, such as finding that carbon levels trapped in the ice increase dramatically at the same period as they found evidence of a massive asteroid strike elsewhere in the world, then it becomes a theory. If there was absolute proof (e.g. actual observations of it happening) then it would become a law, but that's obviously impossible with past events.
So climate change is a theory, but that doesn't mean it's wrong or that it's not backed up by facts.
Coming back to your question, the data indicates that yes there have been major, catastrophic changes in the climate. They have usually been found to correlate with major events like huge volcanic eruptions, asteroid impacts etc. The current climate change argument is not really about saying it didn't happen before, it's really saying that the observed changes have been happening without those sorts of cataclysmic events, and therefore the bulk of the evidence points to the changes in atmosphere caused by human industrialisation and increase in agriculture.
Hope that helps...? - inactive, on 01/23/2009, -1/+6crc77-
I seriously appreciate your time!
This makes me even more confused though. If humans contribution to climate change is a theory backed up by concrete evidence, do the people who say the exact opposite have concrete evidence too? If this stuff is all theory then how is it any different from evolutionists and creationists arguing with each other day in day out? I'm sorry for the dumb analogy I just don't know how else to put it!!! If this stuff isn't fact then why do people get so angry when someone questions it? LIKE ME??
I hate being 16 sometimes, everyone acts like you don't know *****. I mean that's pretty much true but I don't think I ask that dumb of questions. I just want to know the facts behind this thing that the whole country is making a big deal about. It seems like a lot of guys are making money off of it instead of taking time to educate society on whats really going on. - greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -3/+8"evidence an argument you've made"
This is Digg, not the Journal of Climate
So you didn't look at the links, have no evidence or facts to offer in rebuttal, so make this lame attack instead? I call BS - angryredplanet, on 01/23/2009, -0/+5@MCBROCK
"Besides the risk of turning a "little ice age" into a big one (life tends to adapt better to temperature increases than decreases)"
Global warming has been shown to be a possible cause of ice ages through the shut down of thermohaline circulation: the oceanic currents that distribute the Earth's heat. This can occur due to high dilution of saline oceans. The Greenland, Arctic and Antarctic ice shelves are at present melting very rapidly.
"...things that everyone considers good, such as providing clean water and a high-school education to the world, raising the global poverty level, eradicating diseases, etc."
Although I appreciate your altruism, ignoring the climate issue based on the science at hand, is irrational, illogical and irresponsible. Climate change has the potential to undo every effort to combat what you've listed above.
"The opportunity cost of being wrong on global warming is huge."
The financial, environmental and humanitarian costs of being right are so much more, and at present there is every indication that climatologists are right. - Math, on 01/23/2009, -1/+6Looking at the temperature data for last year, we're clearly no where near an ice age:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id= ...
2008 was in the top ten years for av. global temperature. - jeopardydd, on 01/23/2009, -2/+6exactly. we have instruments pointed at the sun, detecting whether there's been a large increase in solar radiation. and no, it's NOT the sun's fault.
- angryredplanet, on 01/24/2009, -1/+5"The problem is, you have to actually prove that it's real before I jump in with my time and effort to stop the "what if" scenario."
WHT, nothing in science is ever proven as proof is a function of mathematics. Anthropogenic climate change as a meta-concept can never be proven, but then nor will general relativity, gravity, or quantum mechanics - yet we apply our "unproven" knowledge of these things every day. The peer reviewed science and current scientific consensus indicates the level of certainty of ACC from those who are domain experts and study it every day. We are well past the point of "beyond reasonable doubt".
"It's not a strawman, both scenarios are unproven, the only difference is a bunch of idiots have actually been tricked into believing one of them."
Umm, it is a strawman. The proponent side has science to back their position, deniers have nothing that strengthens theirs. Climatologists make up their minds by looking at the science, the data, real world observations and models. Deniers make up their mind by listening to or inventing their own crackpot theories and ignoring any presented science conflicting with their world view. One side are idiots and the other side is not. You can fill in the blanks... if you're able.
"Also, can you catch the propaganda in this statement?:
So what happens if we do nothing, and it turns out that the scientists who study the climate are right?
You probably can't because they have you idiots actually believing this *****."
First, it's not a statement, it's a question and you still haven't answered it.
Second, let me reiterate this because you seem to struggle with it: ACC theory is backed by science. http://www.skepticalscience.com/ If you have some contradictory evidence, put it out there. It's likely that climatologists have examined and disproven whatever tidbit you have or marked it as irrelevant or inconsequential already. They're scientists after all and they do sciencey sorts of things.
"I'm going to go feed the real live actual non-imaginary starving children you're all overlooking."
What you are overlooking is that climate change has the potential to derail your efforts in addressing everything you've listed. It is the much bigger problem.
"Let's deal with the problems we know exist and are real before we start to knock off the imaginary ones..."
Are planetary ice sheet melts imaginary? Are rising sea levels imaginary? Is coral bleaching imaginary? Is increasing average global surface temps imaginary? We are seeing these things NOW. - Gundabad, on 01/22/2009, -3/+7Wait so you are trying to say we don't truly understand all aspects of something as incredibly complicated as the earth's climate?
- thepoliticalcat, on 01/22/2009, -13/+17Look the majority of scientists agree that the climate is changing more rapidly than the lifeforms adapted to this planet can keep up with. You don't have to believe them, of course. But at least do a little research yourself before spouting nonsensical talking points. Talk to your county agricultural office, the local gardeners and farmers. Ask them if they've noticed changes and what they think those changes mean for their profession/hobby. You'll find that the climate itself is changing. Plants native to certain regions are being overrun by plants native to regions further south, adapted to warmer climates. Native plants are dying. Talk to the CDC. Yellow fever is moving northward to more temperate climates, along with other diseases/parasites that used to be endemic to different regions.
Then ask yourself: if you're right,you don't have to do anything. But what if you're wrong? What then? - KMye, on 01/23/2009, -2/+6"Jim, the climate has changed over the Earth's history, but never so quickly (unless a cataclysmic event such as an asteroid was involved)."
Bwa ha ha ha... - TheMoniker, on 05/24/2009, -1/+5"It misses the point that there was a SCIENTIFIC consensus in the 1960s/1970s that the world was cooling and that an ice age was a likely possibility."
While the consensus was that the world was cooling (because the world was cooling due to a mix of volcanic eruptions and sulphate aerosols), there was only one paper during the period of 1965-1979 that predicted an ice age, 6 more that stated that it was possible (with varying degrees of probability—but, by all means, let's count them as claiming that it was a "likely possibility", bringing us to 7), 20 papers that were neutral on the subject, 44 that predicted warming (including, most famously Broecker's, of course).
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
"You don't have to believe me, but you you can always have a look at the actual Rome Symposium from 1961 that was organised by Unesco and the World Meteorological Organization, whereby 115 scientists from 36 countries agreed that the world is cooling."
The world definitely was cooling. What you fail to mention is that the report correctly states: "Reliable temperature records have indicated that there has been a general rising trend in temperature since late in the last centmy. It is entirely pertinent to ask whether this is part of a long-period climatic trend or is ascribable, wholly or in part, to an increased industrialization over this period. [...] There seems little doubt that, from the end of the last century to date, there have been significant changes in temperature, rainfall and flow patterns [...] It certainly seems reasonable to argue that the retreat of the glaciers and decrease of ice in the Arctic can be attributed to higher air temperatures [...] were the changes due to some fluctuation in solar activity, to an increase of carbon dioxide, or due to a fall-out of volcanic dust?" Well, speaking some 46 years later, it's clear that it was due in large part to an increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions... Interestingly, the reports also explore the connection between volcanic activity and cooling, "cold epochs more or less coincide with [...] the post-glacial world-wide waves of volcanic activity [...] the effects of volcanic aerosols and on the concentration of volcanic eruptions in certain periods [...] As a result of their size, these aerosols would be quite effective in scattering solar radiation with an appreciable amount OP back-scatter, i.e., of radiation returned to space." The cooling during the period after the early 40s until the late 70s was due primarily to aerosols, from both volcanic eruptions and industrial pollution.
Anyhow, either a look at the scientific peer reviewed literature of the period, or the paper that you yourself linked (apparently without reading it) would show that you are incorrect in stating that there was anything resembling a scientific consensus that "an ice age was a likely possibility." - angryredplanet, on 01/23/2009, -1/+5"So what happens if we do nothing, and a giant jalapeno/cheesey poof pepper bybrid explodes into earths atmosphere causing sunlight to be blocked and earth willows into a deep freeze causing..."
According to science, nothing will happen, but that won't stop you from throwing that straw man out there. The logic behind your refutation fittingly indicates your grasp of reality and your understanding of the topic you are referencing. Do yourself a favour and learn about it. - archiesteel, on 01/23/2009, -0/+4"If humans contribution to climate change is a theory backed up by concrete evidence, do the people who say the exact opposite have concrete evidence too?"
No, they don't. Deniers have plenty of conspiracy theories and snide comments, but they don't have any data to support their positions. - Ghoztt, on 01/22/2009, -7/+11Anything could happen, warn scientists.
- greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -3/+7"both sides of the argument equally?"
Science does not take sides, it looks at the data and offers the best explanation that it can.
The ones who take sides are often the professional Deniers paid by industry to spread disinformation:
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/# ...
KMyre seems to think the data is far from concrete, in which case he should publish in a sciencetific journal; Nature or Science would love to have that paper.
And if his counter is not concrete to be publishable, why is he making the comment?
You can find longer temperature records here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change - cipher52, on 01/22/2009, -7/+11Climate Change is bi.
HOT. - WhiteHatTrick, on 01/23/2009, -4/+7Show me the proof to say earths climate has never changed so quickly. That's bull and we both know it. Think about how old the earth is, and then think about that statement again, and then think about math. That is utter nonsense. Don't believe everything you hear Jim. It's great that a 16 year old is asking for proof rather then believing what the establishment jams down your throat with the media, school and whatnot. Also, relying on 150 years of data to make predictions about something some odd 5 00 billion years old is inane. It would be like taking a nut from earth and assuming the entire planet is made up of nuts. Whoa! Bad example!
- WasabiBomb, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3I honestly can't figure out which side you're on.
- jeopardydd, on 01/23/2009, -4/+7@ mithfen:
the raw data is published on various websites, on NASA's, for instance
and i've looked into plenty of denier arguments, but when you find them to be constantly cherry-picking or outright lying so many times, you sort of give up on their arguments unless you see something truly compelling.
@WhitehatTrick:
if you are suggesting that the phrase should be "we have no evidence that the earth's climate has ever changed so quickly without a major catastrophic event", then yes, i agree.
but if you are suggesting that it HAS happened before, or even that it's likely that it has happened before, just because we cannot know for 100% certainty that it hasn't, then you are not being logical. - jeopardydd, on 01/23/2009, -5/+8JimReish222 asked: "This makes me even more confused though. If humans contribution to climate change is a theory backed up by concrete evidence, do the people who say the exact opposite have concrete evidence too?"
the answer is that, in this case, no. global warming deniers do not have much solid evidence on their side.
it's one of the reasons why they spend all their time peddling long-debunked attacks on climate science, instead of coming up with their own theory that explains the data.
and yes, your analogy to biologists and creationists is fairly apt, although evolution admittedly has even more rock-solid evidence on its side than man-made global warming. in fact, there probably has never been a scientific theory that so many people have tried to prove wrong and it's withstood it remarkably well. - greenfyre, on 01/23/2009, -2/+5Myth: Instrumental Record is Not Reliable
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=In ... - jeopardydd, on 01/23/2009, -0/+3it's the overall trend over a number of years that matters, not any 1 particular year.
if the temp tend to go up over time, but goes down a little for a year every now and then, there's still global warming - jeopardydd, on 01/23/2009, -2/+5you are a skeptic because the data from the instruments monitoring the sun have been finding no real increase in solar radiation?
shouldn't that make you MORE confident that the scientists are correct? -
Show 51 - 100 of 171 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 