digg

Facebook Connect Join Digg About

Al Gore's brand-new slideshow on the climate crisis watch!

ted.com — Al Gore presents evidence that the pace of climate change may be even worse than scientists were recently predicting

Who dugg this? Made popular Apr 9, 2008

Digg DudeWhat is Digg?

Digg is a place for people to discover and share content from anywhere on the web. Digg surfaces the best stuff as submitted and voted on by the community. Take the Tour to learn more.

759 Comments

show profanity settings
expand all
  • lovek, on 04/09/2008, -15/+167Believe him or don't. My thinking is:
    -Recycling isn't that hard. It takes about 5 more minutes out of my week, if that.
    -If I (or you, or some massive corporation) spend money now to "go green," and do it in a way that recoups the initial cost plus more in energy savings over the year, then why not?
    -Maybe global warming is a scam, but is treating the planet more "kindly" really going to hurt anyone?

    Basically my point it, why NOT do it as long as your doing it the right way?
  • sporefrog, on 04/09/2008, -48/+156Since when did rationally considering our own actions become anathema? Fervent Al Gore haters are just as moronic as the alarmist environmentalists.
  • christoast, on 09/04/2008, -46/+148Its real trendy to be a skeptic. I'll follow Al Gore to the grave or to when the evidence/facts states otherwise (not including witty comments by pseudo-intellectuals on the internet or some scientist with an agenda and a fake Phd giving vague counterpoints.) You have to admit, as George Carlin once said, "Something is ***** up"
  • FecalHurler, on 04/09/2008, -27/+115Maybe he has to overstate the seriousness of the situation to get some people to actually pay attention to the problem on hand. I cannot believe that some people STILL believe that we have no affect on atmospheric CO2.
    Fact: CO2 absorbs IR radiation. This cannot be disputed.
    Fact: We are pumping gigatons into the atmosphere every year.
    So where does it all go? I will agree that this whole issue is being blown out of proportion (because we really have no idea what affect global warming will have on this planet) but to assume that humans can have no affect on our atmosphere is ignorant and childish. Remeber how quickly CFCs tore the ozone layer a new one (pun intended)? I just cannot believe that people still think this whole thing is a hoax. Look at the numbers, they don't lie... Average temperature is rising at an unprecedented level. Think that after billions of years in the same cycle the earth is just going to spontaneously have higher temperatures? Give me a break.
  • blinkatron, on 04/09/2008, -33/+103Okay, so there are a lot of people who think Al Gore's speeches contain "junk science." Fine, you probably haven't actually looked at the data and studied it for yourself, but whatever. At the very least, reducing CO2 emissions will help the HEALTH of people. Anyone been to LA lately? Nice little brown haze over the city which is horrible for people. What is so wrong with ridding ourselves of pollutants?
  • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -17/+84Well, it looks he convinced at least one person.
  • Darthyoshiboy, on 04/09/2008, -18/+80Anyone else notice that it's not Global Warming, but Climate Change/Crisis now?
  • MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -17/+75Global warming is causing a global barley shortage. I hope you ***** are satisfied. You didn't listen, and now it's affecting beer.
  • milamberdob, on 04/09/2008, -43/+99I am really very shocked at the comments on this so far. REALLY are you all so up your selves that you cannot admit to your mistakes. It so typical of americans to to admit to a fault. it actually makes me sick that the response to this is so negative. He is trying to convey that this is a real problem that must be dealt with and all you can say is..... "no no, its not our fault!!"...... I am deeply saddened.
  • Rotzooi, on 04/09/2008, -97/+152I was at TED (a Republican's nightmare, filled with academics, progressive entrepreneurs and thinkers from all over the globe) this year, and after singing a German song with Al Gore, and hundreds of other inspiring individuals, I have a new appreciation for the man. He has a great sense of humor, he is a true visionary and a good man. Don't waste talent like this, America. Not again.
  • jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -26/+75okay, so al gore exaggerates the facts. his earlier emphasis on global warming was wrong, as the real problem is a broader climate change. which it looks like he's finally admitting.

    but all these asshats on digg saying it's "complete *****" are even worse. humankind generates enormous amounts of waste and pollutants, and it's folly to think that this doesn't affect our environment and atmosphere to some extent. like most issues, neither extreme is perfectly correct and the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

    we as a society have an enormous amount to gain by reducing pollution and developing green technologies. cleaner air, more efficient cars, independence from foreign oil. if you don't like gore's style, fine, but ranting about it on digg makes you look like a complete dumbass.

    go on, bury me you *****.
  • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -5/+47Logical fallacy- argument from (non)authority. The truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.
  • JT114881, on 04/09/2008, -9/+46CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
  • HunkOfLove, on 04/09/2008, -31/+64i saw his lecture in reykjavik yesterday. he is a pretty good speaker and i was really impressed, the skeptic i am.
  • minoss, on 04/09/2008, -11/+42Don't forget to buy your carbon credits.
  • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -5/+34You think his keynote keynote was eating young babies from middle class couples ALIVE and then using the blood to write "Suck my *****, Jesus".

    Again I say the same thing : not one single scientific journal has shown that Al Gore is wrong. Maybe this slide should have had this number instead of this, isn't the same as saying it's a big conspiracy to make money off stupid (ie everyone else) people buying carbon credits or his book or something...and he's fat...LIKE MICHAEL MOORE.

    Not one single person in this thread has shown a single scientific article refuting even ONE of his slides (and I think that can't be that hard to do), let alone his conclusion. All we get is links to blogs, some nice news journals and a court case that actually doesn't say what you think is said.

    Why can't we have a debate. I gave my NewScientist link above, can someone at least give me a link refuting the refutations in another popular science magazine (unless they're all in on the conspiracy; being financed by George Soros!)
  • rufusdog, on 04/09/2008, -10/+38Regardless of whether or not Gore's science is credible there can be not doubt that humans are changing the environment adversely. We as a species are consuming more resources than we are generating and are altering the surface, oceans, and air of the planet. It is in our longterm best interests to manage how we change our environment rather than letting this alteration occur without oversight. To put it more simply: Don't ***** where you eat!!!
  • inactive, on 04/09/2008, -5/+32zomg. have a heart attack why don't we.
  • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -47/+74Last I checked he's a ex-politician. He's not a climatologist, meteorologist, or even a scientist. He does not know what he's talking about. He's the equivalent of a news anchor. He regurgitates info fed to him at best.
  • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -12/+38Ok then see a similar program by David Attenborough.

    Jesus, peoples' Al Gore hate blinds them to everything.
  • Whackly, on 04/09/2008, -11/+36"I won't even waste my ear listen to Al Gore till he can stop being closed mind and sit down for a reasonable debate." It's "closed minded" and also...
    HA HA HA: Irony!
  • xekko, on 04/09/2008, -154/+178Take a half hour break to watch this, you may not like Gore but at least he knows what he's talking about.
  • mrhaines, on 04/09/2008, -5/+28Thats because global warming is misleading. A cold year doesn't mean the climate isn't changing.
  • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -10/+32Hick? Dude, I live in Seattle. I've managed web sites for a career for over 10 years and have a wonderful set of white teeth -- hell, I've never even had a cavity before. I'm a vegan (good luck finding a hick vegan atheist)... I'm the furthest thing from a hick you could ever imagine if you met me in real life and my life has been infused with technology and information (as a journalist no less) since I was a teenager. Nice Ad hominem attempt though!

    I've watched over a dozen TED talks, and usually they are really good. But there are many that are controversial, such as Bono, Clinton, Gore, and Dawkins. Just because TED said so does not mean it's GOLD. And if you read the comments on the TED site, many of the commenters disagree with Gore as well.

    If there's "no other side to this story", why are so many (19,000+ last time I read) climate/environmental scientists saying climate change theory is inconclusive? Are they "hicks" or raping their wives, too?
    http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17568
    http://www.oism.org/
    http://thenewamerican.com/node/7009

    I watched An Inconvenient Truth -- maybe you should read some of the other documentation out there from well known, valid sources before you dismiss it all. Arguing about it's pointless if you're going to just try and call me names or say I have a low IQ so consider this my last reply here. Vote for your carbon tax and I'll be sure to vote against it.
  • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -5/+25TED tends to invite progressive thinkers. To say a party-line Republican would probably not enjoy sitting through Al Gore and Richard Dawkins lectures is not a stretch
  • laserdog, on 04/09/2008, -6/+26He's using his stature as a political figure to push a political issue.

    Can only doctors talk about the need for updating healthcare?

    And here's a story from national geographic talking about the scientific accuracy of the film:
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/06 ...

    Feel free to cite a similarly credible source to back up your opinion. You know, since you forgot to the first time around...
  • laserdog, on 04/09/2008, -1/+20Then trust the science.

    CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared light.

    Higher amounts of CO2 absorb more infrared light.

    Absorption of light results in heat.

    We are adding an exponentially larger amount of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.

    Even if he's wrong about it being a problem now, it only requires the simplest math of a closed system to see that it's going to be a problem eventually.

    Everyone who has a bone to pick with global warming never touches the above facts, they always try to focus on some other irrelevant piece of science and try to drag it into the argument, because there are no other hypothesis even put forward to replace any of the above statements.
  • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -24/+42... YEAH WHO WANTS TO ARGUE ABOUT ANYTHING, OR HEAR THE OTHER SIDE OF A STORY, LET'S JUST BLINDLY BELIEVE WHAT CELEBRITY POLITICIANS SAY!!!!
  • skipdog172, on 04/09/2008, -10/+27I don't understand the alarmists who believe there is a scientific "consensus". I just watched a show on PBS with Alan Alda where he talked to all kinds of people working in the field of discovering the events of climate change, and not one of them said anything like "the scientific community has agreed that humans are causing the climate change from CO2 emissions". The most I got from one of these scientists is something like "Humans could be contributing to global warming but we just don't know yet." I watched this show with an open mind and was happy to see that most of these scientists certainly don't agree that there is some kind of "consensus" between scientists. It still boggles me how folks can say "there is a consensus".
  • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -2/+19How dare you bring some truth and reason into this?
  • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -6/+22You forgot his home and his love of flying his private jet.
  • MWeather, on 04/09/2008, -2/+17Gore couldn't have signed any treaties. He was never president.
  • SkaAgent11, on 04/09/2008, -12/+27No, you're an idiot. It is well known that Al Gore invests any profits he makes off his global warming movie, book, and talk are donated to carbon reduction non-profits. Take your ***** tin hat off, the guy is a genuine activist...something we NEED in this country.
  • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -2/+15Wow so every single science magazine I've read, every single one, just said the opposite of what you said. So do I trust Nature, Science or you....mmmm.
  • inactive, on 04/09/2008, -1/+14Did you even read your second article? It goes completely against your comment.
  • sharkd, on 04/09/2008, -4/+17As opposed to: 1) Convince free people that psychotic religious fanatics want to destroy them. 2) Grow government. 3) Limit personal freedom?
  • interbeing, on 04/09/2008, -9/+22The fact is, there aren't two sides to the debate. This is just another case of false "balance." Global warming has been agreed upon by the vast majority of the scientific community. Saying there are two sides to the debate is the same as saying there are two sides to a debate about whether the sky is blue. Sure, you may find an idiot willing to tell us the sky is red or pink with orange polka dots, but just because their offering a competing view doesn't mean they should be taken seriously.
  • tracywood, on 04/09/2008, -3/+15Yeah, stay away with your nonsense. You're a DENIER and you should be in jail. DENIER!!! DENIER!!!
  • wbeavis, on 04/09/2008, -4/+16What if the "some scientist with an agenda" is for the issue? Never trust science on faith, always question the validity of the data and certainly the analysis based on said data. To assume something is irrefutable goes against what science is all about. The problem with the issue of "global warming" is that it is popularized and politicized. There are valid points on both sides of the issue. We have only been collecting precise data for maybe 50 years. Imprecise data for 100 or so. From this data we simply cannot accurately extrapolate global warming. We can see trends and lead to further research. According to geology, not meterology nor climatology, we are on track with historical cycles of ice ages. Part of the problem is meteorologist are making climate claims and not climatologist. We also don't know the exact causes. Arrogance and egotism lead us to say that we are the cause. Fact is, when Krakatoa erupted it sent more tonnage of crap into the atmosphere than mankind has ever done. That is one volcano, so compare the history of the Earth all volcanoes to what mankind has done. We are not the primary cause, we may not be helping but aren't the cause. What's worse, if we try to "correct" a natural cycle we will make things worse. Leave science to the scientists. When a politician is spouting science, it is a political issue.
  • laserdog, on 04/09/2008, -1/+12The amount of Carbon is fixed. Not the amount of Carbon + 2 Oxygen molecules.

    It's called combustion, look into it.
  • Whackly, on 04/09/2008, -11/+22Just because you can find a few scientists to say what you want them to say doesn't mean there is an actual scientific debate about global climate change. There isn't. There are a few screaming crackpots who are used by those who find the issue politically inconvenient in order to try to frame it as if there were a debate where both sides needed to be considered. The reality is, however, the debate happened already. It's already over. The overwhelmingly vast majority of scientists, contradicted by only a microfraction of scientists (many of which have questionable credentials), understand that global climate change is real. You can argue the ratio in which natural cyclical changes vs. changes caused by man actually exist but the fact that man has changed, and is changing the planet for the worse is still a fact.
  • dolinski, on 04/09/2008, -2/+13Even if global warming isnt real (but im pretty sure it is) whats wrong with cutting our energy usage. Since when has conservation on anything been a bad thing?
  • FecalHurler, on 04/09/2008, -5/+16Holy ***** I can't stand that rationale. WE ALREADY HAVE ***** UP THE ATMOSPHERE ONCE BEFORE... CFCs. Look it up on Wikipedia buddy, then come back and tell me that humans can't interfere with our atmosphere. That was an ill rhyme, by the way.
  • rufusdog, on 04/09/2008, -4/+15This has already been done by Bush and Rumsfeld:
    1) Convince a free people that "the terrorists" are going to kill them. 2) Increase government (DHS, FBI wiretaps, etc.). 3) Limit personal freedom (Patriot act, suspension of habeus corpus, extreme rendition, wiretaps, ignoring 33+ laws to expand the border fences, torture, etc.).
  • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -5/+15"Average temperature is rising at an unprecedented level. Think that after billions of years in the same cycle the earth is just going to spontaneously have higher temperatures? Give me a break."

    Really? You think the temperature of the Earth has been static for billions of years?

    Here's a graph of the change in the Earth's temperature since the Precambrian era:
    http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

    Here's a page detailing the "Little Ice Age" between 1150 and 1460, which followed a period of time called the Medieval Climate Optimum:
    http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/little_ice ...

    Here's a paper by Richard D. Tkachuck, Ph.D., of the Geoscience Research Institute.
    http://www.grisda.org/origins/10051.htm

    I point you especially to the following exceprt from Dr. Tkachuck's paper:
    "Another theory for the cause of the Little Ice Age centers not on the atmospheric restriction of the amount of energy flowing into the earth, but on the concept that the sun itself is variable in its energy production. It is estimated that a fluctuation of only a few tenths of 1% in energy output would be sufficient to produce significant changes in climate (Budyko 1969). An interesting coincidence held meaningful by many is the absence of sunspot activity through most of the latter and most severe period of the Little Ice Age (Eddy 1976).

    While accurate astronomical records are increasingly difficult to obtain as one moves back in history, there is yet a convincing amount of data which allows one to have confidence in the historical sunspot record.
    At present sunspots — large areas of reduced surface temperature and increased magnetic field strength — increase and decrease numerically through an approximately 11-year cycle. These changes in solar magnetic field also affect the rate at which 14C is produced on earth and may provide a retrospective record of variations in sunspot activity (Figure 1g).

    Observations from the 1700s to the present have established a remarkable regularity in sunspot activity. Over the years there have been numerous attempts to correlate these cycles with weather cycles. While sunspot/weather analysis has not produced a consistent correlation, it is widely accepted that sunspot activity does indeed influence the weather. However, an interesting near absence of sunspot activity is found in the early decades of the 1600s extending into the first decade of the 1700s. This time corresponds remarkably with the coldest period of the Little Ice Age. "
  • BeforeSputnik, on 04/09/2008, -14/+24Note that these were not "fallacies." The judge ruled that the statements were "alarmist" or unconfirmed, but not false. Many of the 9 (not 11, check your facts) points that were deemed "alarmist" were things like, the snows on mt Kilimanjaro have disappeared but you can't prove that it was global warming that caused it. Well, what else melts snow? The judge did make a point to say that the overall message of the video was true.
  • greydonkey, on 04/09/2008, -6/+16Well all I've learnt in 30 minutes is that we can all be Hero's, a generation of Hero's in fact, if we pay huge sums of Carbon Tax. Which is going to do what exactly?

    I love the way that he mentioned the Ice loss in the Antarctic Western Peninsular but then moved on quickly and made no mention of the fact that total ice mass and coverage in Antarctica as a whole is actually increasing and the centre of the continent is getting colder.

    It's all very well alerting people to a problem but if you are going to partake in blatant scaremongering using inflammatory broad scope diagrams then be prepared for people to question you and wonder why you deem presentation of only one side of the story as the only evidence necessary.
  • bikepundit, on 04/09/2008, -0/+9Yes the planet is warming, the trend is still undeniably so, last decade or not. Look into the data that shows the outer stratosphere cooling, while we here in the lower atmosphere are warming, indicating that there is an insulating effect, trapping heat from radiating towards space, which would not happen without an increase in greenhouse gases. Oh and your caps lock is stuck.

  • didiman, on 04/09/2008, -20/+29Al Gore's mouth is the leading cause of global warming.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 764 discussions

  • Add a Comment

    Login or register to comment!
    Or, sign-in super fast with your Facebook account ...


© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content created and posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain | Terms of Use Updated | Privacy Policy
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.