digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • djelder, on 04/09/2008, -191/+57THIS NEEDS TO BE ON THE FRONT PAGE, OF EVERYTHING!!!!! THIS WAY TOO IMPORTANT OF A TOPIC TO GLANCE AND FORGET!!!! This is the future of our generation, our kids generations, and beyond. WE HAVE TO MAKE DECISIONS, EVEN IF THEY COST US NOW, THEY WILL COME BACK TO HELP IN THE FUTURE!!! BELIEVE IN CHANGE, BE POSITIVE ABOUT CHANGE, INSPIRE CHANGE, AND IT WILL HAPPEN!
    • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -17/+84Well, it looks he convinced at least one person.
    • EwMo, on 04/09/2008, -5/+32zomg. have a heart attack why don't we.
    • cr4ft, on 04/09/2008, -19/+16yeah w/e, his approach in this comment was 'strange' but I think it's just passion, no need to digg him down...if only other people had the same passion
      • didiman, on 04/09/2008, -9/+15I think you are confusing passion with insanity.
      • heyiquit, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3Caps do not equal passion.
    • 14justice, on 04/09/2008, -12/+7Sorry, DJ, being right is no defense against being Dugg down!
    • JT114881, on 04/09/2008, -9/+46CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL!
    • Miche1987, on 04/09/2008, -4/+7Why'd you keep part of it lowercase? It's either all caps or not, you indecisive *****.
    • RomanThommassen, on 04/09/2008, -45/+26GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD, THE EARTH HAS BEEN LOWERING IN TEMPERATURE SINCE 1998 AND CO2 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S THE SUN. AL GORE WANTS YOU TO PAY TAXES ON CO2. WAKE UP
      • opticwind, on 04/09/2008, -13/+13Link to evidence, please.
        • RomanThommassen, on 04/09/2008, -15/+8http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-330991046 ...
        • DavidBGie, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Man made global warming is just political corruption. It has nothing to do with science now. The earth has been cooling for 7 years. Wake up and smell the lies! More evidence will be on the way as more scientist start to stand up against the politicians who benefit from the lie.
          • Godlike, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1THE POLAR ICE IS GONE NOW ***** WAKE UP
      • MadOgre, on 04/09/2008, -13/+14We've had 7 months of winter here where I live. It's snowing right now. There is frost and ice on the ground. Normally it would have been in the mid to upper 60's now.
        Global Warming is a fraud. The sun is the cause of climate change, not Man. IF it was Man made, and my Full Sized Ford Bronco was to blame, we would be living in a tropical climate here and we could go back to farming in Greenland.
        • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -7/+7Anecdotal evidence of your specific location being unseasonably cool is proof of nothing.
          Unusual climate variations could just as easily be proof of climate change.
          • stevetrojanman, on 04/09/2008, -2/+7Well isn't that just a little too convenient to be used as "evidence"?
            I mean...hell, everything is attributable to "climate change" these days.
          • cygnus2112, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5Don't the pro-global warming advocates use the same anecdotal evidence of specific locations for their main proof?

            i.e. a specific polar bear population in North America. El Nino. Katrina. etc etc.
        • darlingt, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3There's a difference between "weather" and "climate".
          • brycelb, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6There is also a difference between fact and fabrication.
        • SteveIsTheDude, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1So the guy who loves Al's slide show gets dug down *AND* the guy who says its ***** gets dug down too? Why don't you people pick a point of view.
      • clbw, on 04/09/2008, -17/+11global warming is real and it is happening.
        from the IPCC:
        Of the last 12 years, 11 have ranked among the warmest years since 1850. The warming trend of the last 50 years is nearly double that of the last 100 years, meaning that the rate of warming is increasing. The ocean’s temperature has increased at least to depths of 3,000 meters (over 9,800 feet); the ocean absorbs more than 80 percent of all heat added to the climate system. Glaciers and snow cover have decreased in regions both in the Northern and Southern hemispheres, which has contributed to the rise of sea levels. Average Arctic temperatures increased by nearly twice the global average rate over the last 100 years (the IPCC also noted that Arctic temperatures have are highly variable from decade to decade). The area covered by frozen ground in the Arctic has decreased by approximately 7 percent since 1900, with seasonal decreases of up to 15 percent. Precipitation has increased in eastern regions of the Americas, northern Europe and parts of Asia; other regions such as the Mediterranean and southern Africa have experienced drying trends. Westerly winds have been growing stronger. Droughts are more intense, have lasted longer and covered larger areas than in the past. There have been significant changes in extreme temperatures – hot days and heat waves have become more frequent while cold days and nights have become less frequent. While scientists have not observed an increase in the number of tropical storms, they have observed an increase in the intensity of such storms in the Atlantic correlated with a rise in ocean surface temperatures. http://www.ipcc.ch/

        http://www.earth-policy.org/temp/2008.htm http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWar ... http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2007-02/200 ... http://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/news/press/01/pr0158.htm http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. ...
        • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -6/+11LOL!!! Except for those scientists who werre involved who demanded their name be romved because their work was being misrepresented. Way to ignore that.
          • kpsfire, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Agreed. Only 14 people drafted the original work, there was a referendum, and then it went through the grand political machine, was fed to Al Gore, and now we have another crisis. Fantastic.
        • OriginalLucid1, on 04/09/2008, -6/+3No it isn't, and no it is not.
      • rkef, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Look up what el nino is, and look up which was the worst recorded year for el nino, ever. Your word calendar for today reads: skew.
    • SuperWinner, on 04/09/2008, -19/+15OH NO, the sky is falling! Global warming hysteria is just another thing they use to scare us into doing what they want, in Al Gores case he wants us to pay more taxes to maintain a problem thats not even there.
    • Brownds, on 04/09/2008, -7/+13No more Gore flavored Kool-Aid for you!!!
    • didiman, on 04/09/2008, -20/+29Al Gore's mouth is the leading cause of global warming.
      • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -6/+22You forgot his home and his love of flying his private jet.
        • torressr3, on 04/09/2008, -17/+2No actually it's more people like you.
      • tabion, on 04/12/2008, -0/+1That is an ignorant comment. No idea why you even got digs for it.
    • 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?
      • tracywood, on 04/09/2008, -3/+15Yeah, stay away with your nonsense. You're a DENIER and you should be in jail. DENIER!!! DENIER!!!
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -15/+4Scientific consensus does NOT mean "every scientist agrees and if you find one that doesn't you have dis proven consensus"

        There is no sound scientific argument that can pass peer review that discredits the case for climate change. Cite peer reviewed studies if you want to make a case based on science.
        • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -1/+10Dugg down for not knwoing what a Scientific Consensus is.
        • skiddles, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Dug down for not understanding that "peer review" can mean jack if the peer reviewer(s) have the same agenda as the original researcher.
      • ISIfunded911, on 04/09/2008, -11/+6Except that the International Panel on Climate Change has 100 times more scientists than where interviewed by Alda, and 99% of them say that it is man-made.
        Watch the video: al Gore explains very clearly why. The comparison with Venus (hot atmosphere containing a lot of carbon) is excellent. Venus is 3 times hotter than Mercury, although Mercury is right next to the Sun!
        • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -3/+8You forget the fact they most scientists didn't believe heavier than air flight (machines like airplanes) was possible. How about the view they held that the human body could not withstand the stresses of traveling over 30 mph. Science has had some pretty funny theories in the past. What makes science so great is the fact that scientific knowledge can be and usually is updated as better data comes along. Your reasoning is faulty and laughable.
          • kpsfire, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1In the 1970's, we had a "scientific consensus" that we were entering a period of global cooling. Even Time Magazine featured an article on it. This "Global Warming" crisis does not exist, although I am all for cutting CO2 pollution for environmental issues.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/11/2008, -0/+0kpsfire: No, we didn't. Your inability to discern journalistic sensationalism from scientific knowledge does not refute anything.

            http://skepticalscience.com/What-1970s-science-sai ...
            the large majority of climate research in the 1970s predicted the Earth would warm as a consequence of CO2. Rather than climate science predicting cooling, the opposite is the case.

            norman619: Scientific theories aren't overturned by laughing at historical anecdotes. Please reference this better data that updates current scientific knowledge.
        • sv650touring, on 04/09/2008, -3/+7The IPCC has a vested interest in that answer. Any scientific organization in which 99% of the members agree on something so difficult to determine conclusively is probably not an unbiased source.
        • pontiac, on 04/09/2008, -5/+2@norman: So because science has had some silly theories in the past then global warming must be one of those? Is that what you're saying? That seems like faulty reasoning to me if I ever heard it.
      • MadMonk67, on 04/09/2008, -3/+5Consensus isn't everything. There has to a seed of common sense among the group-think. There once was consensus that the world was flat and that ships would fall off the edge (if they got past the huge sea monsters). Global temperature cycling is a natural thing, but there needs to be a LOT more research done before anyone can definitely state that it's predominantly caused by man. Anyone telling you different is a snake-oil salesman trying to get your money (Gore) or just willfully ignorant (Gore's fans, a.k.a. sheeple).
      • Trykt, on 04/09/2008, -3/+2http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...

        "National and international science academies and professional societies have assessed the current scientific opinion on climate change, in particular recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the IPCC position that "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities."[1]

        This page documents scientific opinion as given by synthesis reports, scientific bodies of national or international standing, and surveys of opinion among climate scientists. It does not document the views of individual scientists, individual universities or laboratories, nor self-selected lists of individuals such as petitions."
    • exronin, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6Caps lock should be banned on forums/chat/email.
    • PURPLEDRINK, on 04/09/2008, -13/+3god i swear i'm going to kill al gore in real lifei think someone should setup as a sniper and take him out
      -pat roberts
      • jmkiii, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Big brother is watching (especially) you.
      • MadMonk67, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4Secret Service visit in 3...2...1
    • rye425, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Brick Tamland: LOUD NOISES!!!
    • MaceSoul, on 04/09/2008, -8/+4EVERY OTHER PLANET IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM IS ALSO HEATING UP. PLEASE EXPLAIN.
      • SpacePoet, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2Well, it's not every planet, there are a few, but here you go.... There are many sources for this information, please, if the subject interests you, look into it, it is very in depth and research goes back many decades on it. They are actually able to record solar output by the rings in trees, so they can go way back before there was ways of keeping a record of it. by all means, I think it is a good question, but it is a red herring...

        Others have pointed out anomalous warming on other worlds in our solar system.
        Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University who monitors studies and news reports of asteroids, global warming and other potentially apocalyptic topics, recently quoted in his daily electronic newsletter the following from a blog called Strata-Sphere:
        “Global warming on Neptune's moon Triton as well as Jupiter and Pluto, and now Mars has some [scientists] scratching their heads over what could possibly be in common with the warming of all these planets ... Could there be something in common with all the planets in our solar system that might cause them all to warm at the same time?”
        Peiser included quotes from recent news articles that take up other aspects of the idea.
        “I think it is an intriguing coincidence that warming trends have been observed on a number of very diverse planetary bodies in our solar system,” Peiser said in an email interview. “Perhaps this is just a fluke.”
        In fact, scientists have alternative explanations for the anomalous warming on each of these other planetary bodies.
        The warming on Triton, for example, could be the result of an extreme southern summer on the moon, a season that occurs every few hundred years, as well as possible changes in the makeup of surface ice that caused it to absorb more of the Sun’s heat.
        Researchers credited Pluto’s warming to possible eruptive activity and a delayed thawing from its last close approach to the Sun in 1989.
        And the recent storm activity on Jupiter is being blamed on a recurring climatic cycle that churns up material from the gas giant’s interior and lofts it to the surface, where it is heated by the Sun.
        Sun does vary
        The radiation output of the Sun does fluctuate over the course of its 11-year solar cycle. But the change is only about one-tenth of 1 percent—not substantial enough to affect Earth’s climate in dramatic ways, and certainly not enough to be the sole culprit of our planet’s current warming trend, scientists say.
        “The small measured changes in solar output and variations from one decade to the next are only on the order of a fraction of a percent, and if you do the calculations not even large enough to really provide a detectable signal in the surface temperature record,” said Penn State meteorologist Michael Mann.
        The link between solar activity and global warming is just another scapegoat for human-caused warming, Mann told LiveScience.
        “Solar activity continues to be one of the last bastions of contrarians,” Mann said. “People who don’t accept the existence of anthropogenic climate change still try to point to solar activity.”
        The Maunder Minimum
        This is not to say that solar fluctuations never influence Earth’s climate in substantial ways. During a 75-year period beginning in 1645, astronomers detected almost no sunspot activity on the Sun. Called the “Maunder Minimum,” this event coincided with the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, a 350-year cold spell that gripped much of Europe and North America.
        Recent studies have cast doubt on this relationship, however. New estimates of the total change in the brightness of the Sun during the Maunder Minimum suggest it was only fractions of a percent, and perhaps not enough to create the global cooling commonly attributed to it.
        “The situation is pretty ambiguous,” said David Rind, a senior climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, who has modeled the Maunder Minimum.
        Based on current estimates, even if another Maunder Minimum were to occur, it might result in an average temperature decrease of about 2 degrees Fahrenheit, Rind said.
        This would still not be enough to counteract warming of between 2 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit from greenhouse gases by 2100, as predicted by the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.
      • proliance, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3This just in...Caps locks cause climate change.
    • OneLess, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4'No matter what side of the argument you are on, you always find people on your side that you wish were on the other." -Jascha Heifetz

      You're my climate change pick of the day, djelder.
    • AllanX, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3lrn2sarcasm
    • forgiste, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2You know having an aneurysm due to stress isn't going to help the situation, I suggest you calm the ***** down.
    • kingfoot, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2so what? it gets hot, melts and floods the planet, killing the weak people and animals in the world, then continue to re-freeze beginning another ice age, killing even more of the weak people and animals, then stabilizing once more into a "new" world and we have the strongest of the strong continuing the species. the way i see it, its a good thing.
    • riskybeats, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Haha I love how you had caps lock, and when you got super excited and pressed shift, it went into lower cases, when we all know you wanted to get even more juice outta that capslock button.
      • grrrrrrrrrrrrrr, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2He was just catching his breath
  • xekko, on 04/09/2008, -154/+177Take a half hour break to watch this, you may not like Gore but at least he knows what he's talking about.
    • JimmySpaza, on 04/09/2008, -61/+62Uh...it's because Al Gore DOESN'T know what he's talking about that most people don't like him. Hello?!?
      • jboettcher, on 04/09/2008, -44/+23Gore knows JACK ALL. In fact 11 of his major points have been proven false in a COURT OF LAW in the UK. It is illegal to show his movie in the UK school system without presenting alternative views at the same time, and without pointing out the fallacies contained in it. See link for more info... http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2007/1 ...
        • 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.
        • opticwind, on 04/09/2008, -4/+12I see what you did there. The judge said a variety of the things were simply false. Several of the faults were brought up because there was no evidence to support them. And I quote:
          "Gore cited a scientific study showing that polar bears had drowned by "swimming long distances--up to 60 miles--to find the ice." Evidence backing up this claim was not produced to the British court. The judge wrote that the only scientific study shown to him indicated "that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.""
          and!
          "An "Inconvenient Truth" claimed that citizens of some low-lying inhabited Pacific atolls "have all had to evacuate to New Zealand" because of the inundation of their islands caused by global warming. The judge said that he found no evidence of "any such evacuation having yet happened.""
        • laserdog, on 04/09/2008, -6/+14Al Gore has one and only point.

          Increased carbon dioxide emissions trap more infrared light.

          That is a testable hypothesis, has been for decades, and there is no credible alternative.

          You can nitpick his presentations of examples of this all you like, but no one can touch that, or even claims to. They just find something to latch onto and shout about it as if it refutes an established scientific observation.
        • jdotter, on 04/09/2008, -4/+9Did you even RTA you linked to? It pretty much says the judge feels Gore may have flubbed a few assumptions/theories and declared them facts but nothing was outright false. Seems you shot yourself in the foot with that reference.
      • cnot3, on 04/09/2008, -3/+6He knows a ***** ton about manbearpig.
    • drmangrum, on 04/09/2008, -56/+61No, he doesn't. Al Gore is a media whore. He's a snake oil salesman. He claims to know more than scientists who have spent their lifetimes studying climate change. These scientists aren't even sure how, why, or to what extent it's happening. Yet, Al Gore does? *****.
      • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -12/+37Ok then see a similar program by David Attenborough.

        Jesus, peoples' Al Gore hate blinds them to everything.
        • cnot3, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3David Attenborough could narrate a nancy drew mystery and would still be ***** awesome.
          • Niten, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1I don't like the fact that your post implies narrating Nancy Drew mysteries should somehow be contrary to awesomeness.
      • muchachoburacho, on 04/09/2008, -12/+16Actually scientists do know. And they agree with Al Gore.
      • MadMonk67, on 04/09/2008, -10/+7Well, he DID invent the Internet, and I've heard that he always stays in a Holiday Inn Express when he travels so that makes him qualified.
    • themastersb, on 04/09/2008, -25/+14The number 1 threat to this planet isn't global warming... it's man-bear-pig.
    • evan119, on 04/09/2008, -11/+6i don't think there's gonna be philharmonic orchestras in 1000 years...
    • IslandDog, on 04/09/2008, -27/+17Al Gore doesn't know crap.
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -7/+1ad hominem.
        You are awarded zero internet win points.
        • brycelb, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2When the article is about what Al Gore thinks he knows, how is that Ad Hominem? If he said Al Gore is a gay homosexual so global warming is bunk I would agree.
      • Speed, on 04/09/2008, -6/+3Maybe not, but he's not a scatologist. He does, however, know climate change.
        • akamurph, on 04/09/2008, -4/+5Under what credentials? I didn't know al gore was a scientist now? Or a geologist?
        • MadMonk67, on 04/09/2008, -4/+1It's the same thing.
    • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -47/+73Last 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.
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -5/+46Logical 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.
        • compu73rg33k, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4I saw his book, "The Assault on Reason" the other day, I think I may have to pick that up. Looking at some of these comments, definitely looks like there is. People let the person get in the way of attempting to comprehend any facts. So sad. :(
        • brycelb, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2Fair enough but.... If I am unfortunate enough to glance at a National Inquirer It would probably be in my best interest (and be the most intelligent route to take) to assume that most of the info will not be factual or even remotely accurate. The credibility of the source has been proven to be unreliable. I see no difference with Al Gore.
      • Speed, on 04/09/2008, -9/+15Last I checked, you're not either, so you can't discount climate change unless you provide some credible evidence.
        • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -9/+11Funny because I never claimed to be. I'm a person using my natural ability to think critically and to think for myself. You should try it sometime. It's pretty liberating. The fact that you so easily dismiss the MANY other scientists who's data contradicts or at the very least calls the pro human global warming views prevalent today into question shows just how biased you are. You guys are treating this as a religion.
        • weeeezzll, on 04/09/2008, -6/+7norman619: I have yet to see any contradictory evidence that has not been rebutted by reputable sources.

          ScruffyDan has pulled together a good list of rebuttals for all climate change skeptic arguments that i've ever heard.
          http://www.scruffydan.com/blog/?p=1183
          • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -6/+4So you don't think the last 12 months in which GLOBAL temps had dropped like a stone means nothing? How about the 3000 NASA/JPL robots in the ocean monitoring ocean temperatures which say the ocean temps have not risen in quite a while? I guess NASA data is only correct when it seems to say you are right. When it shows you may be wrong it's not valid. How can the GLOBAL temperature drop by that much w/o a corresponding drop in human CO2 production? If you are honest then you'd see how this should make you question the theory that CO2 is the cause/driver of temperature rises. This is something well known to climatologists for a while now. Yet Gore, the media, and people like you continue to ignore this.
          • vikingcoder, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0A single same-month data point does not refute a 30+ year trend. Jan 2007 showed the highest temp anomaly on record, so there is no surprise that Jan 2008 shows the largest same-month temp anomaly decrease.

            http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-h ...
            http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts ...

            "How can the GLOBAL temperature drop by that much "

            The La Nina effect, which is starting to subside right on track. This is why it is not prudent to conflate short term weather fluctuations with long term climate trends.

            If 2007 "wiped out a century of warming", then the last two months reinstated 75 years of it.
            http://skepticalscience.com/La-Nina-watch-March-up ...
      • laserdog, on 04/09/2008, -6/+25He'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...
        • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -5/+6You forget what I was responding to? Someone claimed Al Gore knows what he is talking about. The fact that he's not working in the field he does not know what he's talking about. He MAY believe what he is being told but that is not KNOWING. He only "knows" what he is spoon fed. You can ignore this all you want it does not change that fact.
        • muchachoburacho, on 04/09/2008, -4/+7And you don't only know what your being spoon fed? How many hours have you spent in the field collecting data. Are you a climatologist? Have you ever spoken directly to a climatologist about global warming? Have you ever been to a greenhouse when its cool out and FELT the greenhouse effect?
          • norman619, on 04/09/2008, -4/+5My god it's a simple concept. You don't understand the difference between knowing and believing. Please tell me this. If Al Gore "knows" what he is talking about why won't he debate any of the many scientists who have requested a debate with him? If he knew he was right and armed with concrete facts he shouldn't have much of a problem debating them and winning which would be a major win for the truth. One of my majors in college was physics. The professor told us many things. Since we were students we lacked the problem knowledge to question and test what he was telling us so we believed what he was teaching us. The belief turned into knowing AFTER being given the tools and time to test the concepts we believed to see if they were truth or not. Only after DOING the work ourselves we KNEW what we were told was fact. The same applies to Al Gore. He does not KNOW anything about this subject. He believes the people giving him the information. And since most of us on Digg are in the same position as Al Gore and anyone else not actively doing the research you have a duty to yourself and your children to look at ALL the data out there. Say "they are being funded by big oil" does not invalidate contradictory data.

            Yes I have been in a greenhouse. Do YOU know why they are warm? It's the HUMIDITY. The water vapor content of the air in them is what traps the heat. You can observe the opposite in the desert. There is very little water vapor in the desert air and as a result the temperatures in the desert go to one extreme during the day to another extreme at night. It's not CO2 content.
          • weeeezzll, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5norman619:
            "Yes I have been in a greenhouse. Do YOU know why they are warm? It's the HUMIDITY."

            While water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone levels in a green house might impact how it functions they are not required. Greenhouses are warm because they suppress convection which would normally carry heat away, and because "there is a smaller quantity of air that needs to be heated inside a greenhouse. In the Earth's atmosphere, there is a mass of air that extends more than a mile (1.6 km) above the ground (at most points). The greenhouse floor can heat its smaller volume of air much more efficiently than the ground outside can heat all of the air contained in the Earth's atmosphere.
            The heated air in a greenhouse rises to the ceiling, is replaced by even warmer air and gradually sinks back to the floor. The circulation path is short enough that the sinking air is still relatively warm when it reaches the floor, and so can be heated to an even higher temperature than before."

            The term "greenhouse effect" is actually an incorrect analogy of what is happening in our atmosphere, but the reasoning behind the name is that the gases in our atmosphere act as a greenhouse roof, they allow light in which heats the molecules inside and block the convection that would allow the heat to escape.

            You are right about water vapor's relationship to the greenhouse effect in the desert but have incorrectly applied that to a green house.
          • dirtprof, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1CO2 and H2O are both greenhouse gases. If norman619 actually learned anything about physics while majoring in it, he'd have known that already.
    • OriginalLucid1, on 04/09/2008, -25/+18"at least he knows what he's talking about."

      LOL! Oh wait, you wasn't kidding?
    • greydonkey, on 04/09/2008, -6/+15Well 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.
      • evilangela, on 04/09/2008, -5/+4Wrong.

        Antarctica is losing ice mass, according to NASA's GRACE (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_ ... "The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005."

        And if the ice sheet in the center of Antarctica is growing, the way that it's growing in Greenland, it's not due to global warming being false, but just the opposite. As a climate warms, the amount of precipitation increases. And if that climate is still below freezing, but getting warmer, it just means there's going to be more precipitation and thus more snow deposited. If the process continues, the amount of snow going onto the ice sheet will increase and increase... until suddenly it's above freezing and it all melts.
        • Infra6x, on 04/09/2008, -3/+4If, as you argue, the temperatures in Antarctica are below freezing, then there cannot be any precipitation. Precipitation is caused when evaporated (gaseous) water condenses as the temperature of the air decreases. If the air is already below freezing, there cannot be any evaporated water.

          Good try, though. Al Gore would be proud.
          • dirtprof, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0Wow... Who knew that all that snow in Antarctica was above freezing. I guess you'd only need a light jacket to visit the south pole...
          • evilangela, on 04/10/2008, -0/+0Wait. So you mean it never snows in Antarctica? Quick, better tell reality that it's wrong.
          • kizkiz, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1oh my good god your statement about there not being any evaporated water is just wrong, the earth has a global atmospheric system which circulates water vapour ALL around the world, so water evaporating in another area of the world can be circulated to Antarctica and fall there as snow (which is a form of precipitation). Water doesn't just evaporate straight up and fall straight back down again!!
            Oh and thanks for the little 'gaseous' hint there - can't risk us thinking water evaporates as a solid now can we!
        • greydonkey, on 04/09/2008, -2/+5NASA's survey results cover 3 years. That's not even a decade. Local fluctuations are widely recognised to occur in time periods up to 5 years or more. Using a time scale like that anyone could say, "Oh well global temperatures are down this year. So we are heading towards a new Ice age".

          Look at the British Antarctic Surveys results for a much longer period before you shout, "Wrong" again.

          Also the average temperature in the Antarctic is minus 25 degrees. Worst case IPCC senario Antarctica is not going to melt anytime within the next 18'000 years. Any climate scientist or meteorologist will tell you that. The problem is Al Gore isn't either he's a scare monger who uses non Scientific methods whilst proclaiming Scientific creadability.

          Climate Change is not Global Warming.
          Global Warming is not Anthropogenic Global Warming and
          Science is not Consensus.
      • MisterBozo, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1>> if we pay huge sums of Carbon Tax. Which is going to do what exactly?

        The carbon tax would REPLACE other taxes. So globally you wouldn't pay more taxes. And it would actually force companies to make efforts to be more environment friendly in order to remain competitive. Why should polluting be free? It's a crime, put a price on it. Puting a price on pollution is the only way to effectively reduce it, it'll be far more effective than imposing tons of rules and regulations.
    • Forsakenmantra, on 04/09/2008, -14/+21I'm going to be buried down for this, and I'm not saying that there is no global warming, but Al Gore is only one side to the argument. For every scientist that says we are causing global warming, there is another that says we may in fact not be.

      The problem here is we really DON'T know that much about the climate of our planet, and for CO2 emissions (and I cant remember exactly and I don't have the book in front of me) from humans is only about 5-6% of the total CO2 emissions released into the atmosphere. Problem is that that 5-6% shouldn't be there at all. But as to how much its affecting the planet is what the real question is. I see everyone that says that Al Gore is wrong get instantly buried down by those who think he is right. Al Gore isn't a scientist, and he is known to use things without others consent. My professor in college who was teaching my pollution and human health class was put on the list of names that Al Gore had in his original "The Inconvenient Truth" movie and statistics of scientists who believed in his views. He did not agree with Mr. Gore and was never asked when his name was put on the list. So it goes to show you that everyone needs to read BOTH sides of the facts and to make sure these facts are coming from credible sources.

      That being said, conserving energy and everything is of course not a bad thing. And we should be doing that anyway. But all this world coming to an end and sea level rising stuff needs to stop getting so out of control with the media.
      • Forsakenmantra, on 04/09/2008, -3/+0*Sigh* I missed the deadline to edit my post and then my digg stopped letting edit, digg, bury anything, not like its a big deal but I had some minor changes :(
      • dirtprof, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1"For every scientist that says we are causing global warming, there is another that says we may in fact not be. " That's completely made up BS. Show one piece of evidence supporting your assertion. I assert that the vast majority of scientists with relevant expertise accept that most climate change is anthropogenic, and I cite http://www.ipcc.ch
    • 0Degrees, on 04/09/2008, -9/+10http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-E ...

      Read it. Start accepting truth, Al Gore is not a scientist and has an agenda exterior to "Saving the plant".
    • robbielaney, on 04/09/2008, -3/+4No he doesn't. .6 degrees increase in temperatures in the 1900s. The majority of that occurred in the first half of the century when we didn't have big honking SUV's driving around. Look at that big ball in the sky that 1 Million Earths could fit into. Al Gore's first graphs have been proven wrong so he developed some more. What an idiot!
    • Schmich, on 04/09/2008, -4/+11Some nice replies you got. Apparently a high percentage of digg users claim to know more than Al Gore. I will go ahead and say that I assume and presume Al Gore knows more about climate change than 99.9% of the digg community. Whether that's correct or not is irrelevant. I do however believe that all the pollution we create comes at a cost and the longer we wait to do anything about it the higher it will be. If you believe that what we do has no consequences I'd say you're ignorant. I rather we, as the human race, act early and preventive _for once_ than take the risk of 'hoping' nothing too bad comes out of pollution.
      • AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1it isn't that... it is that scientists say otherwise and people pick up on that. i mean, does he even talk about how much the temp rises each year or does he just talk about co2 all day long? his speeches drive people nuts, even supporters.
    • tfarris, on 04/09/2008, -4/+2UMM... you're sure about that? GORE DOESN'T KNOW HIS ASS FROM HIS ELBOW!
    • shakbhaji, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1TED changed the intro music... I want my 10 seconds back.
  • thedinomeister, on 04/09/2008, -54/+16I agree with everything except the small comment about the sun. I think he has things mixed up. Other than, it's a good watch.
    • GrammarNazi3000, on 04/09/2008, -17/+7To me, it looks like hes back saving the earth with deadly sideshows instead of deadly lasers.
  • Railer, on 04/09/2008, -138/+121Al Gore is a moron, who's alarmist ***** has not come true what so ever. He changed his power point because the first power point was so amazingly wrong it's considered a joke. Temperatures have dropped over the last 10 years and continue to drop, but don't tell Gore that.

    This lying sack of ***** coward won't even debate his own facts! He recently came to Canada to give a speech sneaks in the back door to a group of 230 "hand picked" enviro whackos making sure even the slightest free thought would be completely crushed. Gives this newest propaganda speech now even going against the IPCC who are now stating that the last 10 year means we may have to rethink things.

    He's a COWARD who won't even take questions any more. Oh in case you are wondering, Gore has currently made over 100 MILLION dollars on Global warming so far.

    Al Gore is a 100% total lying sack of *****, who is scamming the entire world. I'd tell him to his face but he's such a coward he hides from any chance of really meeting anyone who has a differing opinion than his own.
    • Railer, on 04/09/2008, -28/+22Current snow and ice over the north pole
      http://www.socc.ca/images/seaice/current.png

      You notice how little of Antarctic he looks at because most of Antarctic is growing in size, he now just washes over Greenland (not melting beyond normal)

      Venus SERIOUSLY, Venus is just slightly closer!!

      What's the point,more lies to easily debunk.
    • minoss, on 04/09/2008, -11/+42Don't forget to buy your carbon credits.
    • DAllenJ, on 04/09/2008, -16/+22Calm down, Rush.
    • lhbaker, on 04/09/2008, -30/+23Who is the idiot again? The Nobel prize winning former VP of the United States, or some stupid Canadian who doesn't understand the difference between a spokersperson and a scientist?
      • Neo829, on 04/09/2008, -14/+13The Nobel prize winning former VP of the United States. Next question?
        • Me1000, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2Did he win in 2000?
          • Neo829, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2Nope. But telling himself that he did helps him sleep better at night.
            It also works wonders with the ladies.
            And sea anemones.
      • moomza, on 04/09/2008, -2/+6Who are you again? Some anonymous commenter on Digg who doesn't know jack ***** .. or, some anonymous commenter on Digg who doesn't know jack *****?
    • Whackly, on 04/09/2008, -8/+2*whose
    • jrm5100, on 04/09/2008, -21/+28"Temperatures have dropped over the last 10 years and continue to drop, but don't tell Gore that."

      ORLY?
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Short_Instrumen ...
      Just because 1998 was the hottest year (because of a very strong El Nino) does not mean the temperature has been dropping.

      And you have the balls to call someone else a "100% total lying sack of *****"?
      • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -9/+13In 2007 global temperatures dropped sufficiently to erase all rise in temperatures over the last 100 years.

        Do you wonder why they changed the name of the "crisis" from Global Warming to Climate Change? That way they have all their bases covered.

        I'll let you in on a little secret, sparky. The global temperature of the Earth has changed greatly over the entire history of the Earth. In recorded human history we've seen wide temperature variances. I don't think they were driving SUVs and burning fossil fuels during the Little Ice Age or the medieval era.
        • lhbaker, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5You should tell Al Gore and all those wacky scientists about this immediately!
        • supernovasky, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4Lol Kythas. You're wrong.

          Temperatures are still rising, on average. The trendline is still positive.

          http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr ...

          100 years ago, the temperature was at a -.1 degree anomoly. This year? Its around a .55 degree anomaly. You can look at the GISS (and any other temperature record) and see spikes and trenches, but the net trend is still towards heating.
        • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3although there are different methods of estimating average global temperature, they all show a positive trend line. Here is the official data to prove it:
          http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Te ...
    • ligyron, on 04/09/2008, -5/+12Why is this guy getting Dugg? He sounds like someone who would go bankrupt if we started focusing on being green because his business relies on polluting the Earth
      • lhbaker, on 04/09/2008, -7/+3Al Gore doesn't make any money from buying and selling carbon credits. He lives on the road, works his ass off giving the same speach thousands of times to millions of people. What have you done so far today?
        • stevetrojanman, on 04/09/2008, -1/+9That's not correct...
          Al Gore is a principal of two different companies that sell carbon credits...he does make a profit off of the bs he peddles.
          • lhbaker, on 04/09/2008, -3/+1Gee, you'd think a guy simply trying to get rich like that would just hire a good PR firm instead of going on the road himself. Second question: Why do you have a problem with Al Gore investing in what he thinks the future holds? You still support capitalism, no?
        • ligyron, on 04/09/2008, -1/+0By "this guy" I was referring to Railer, who had like +30 diggs at the time I replied, but now has -14 (thankfully)
    • moomza, on 04/09/2008, -7/+14I truly can't believe these comments, and I am still pondering how Digg got so jam-*****-packed with MORONS over the past year. Global warming may not be fully understood in every aspect, but it's origins (CO2 emissions) are about 99% certain at this point, and it is happening, you stupid little cans of excrement.
      • minoss, on 04/09/2008, -4/+6And? It doesn't mean I should be buying some scam artist politician's carbon credit *****.
    • thaistick, on 04/09/2008, -6/+6I rarely leave comments like this, but here goes ... Railer - you are, with zero doubt, not only in possession of a low IQ and scant ability for analysis, but you are also a douchebag.
    • mikhial66, on 04/09/2008, -0/+3Accidental reply
      • proliance, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1That's OK. Unlike most of the other posts, your's was honest, straight to the point, surprising non-political.
    • Hefelumpman, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3Even if you completely disagree with Gore on global warming, don't you think it's smart to research alternative energy sources? Disregarding the global warming argument, wouldn't it at least make countries independent of each other for oil? Coal and oil are running out, and no one really wants to see resource wars.
  • Rotzooi, on 04/09/2008, -97/+150I 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.
    • evo8ftw, on 04/09/2008, -45/+20?????????????????. Ok your post is full of so much fail its not even funny. Why to take a crack at republicans and call them all stupid, bravo! So you sang a song with them wippdie do.

      He is not a visionary he's greedy he is lying out his ass so he can profit off of all the carbon tax credits he's bought . Why to buy into his Bs.
      • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -5/+13***** did Al Gore rape your sister or something? Yeah I would have preferred a better poster boy for climate change but beggars can't be choosers and since most Americans wouldn't know who David Attenborough is then so be it.
      • Thousand, on 04/09/2008, -4/+4It's funny to see both parties fight about each other, because they always project themselves onto the other side. Republicans think anything the Democrats do has some hidden, money-grabbing, back-door agenda, and Democrats think that Republicans can be sat down and reasoned with.
        • dirtprof, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1Brilliant--I'm going to plagiarize this!
      • utjimbo2010, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Read what you type before you click submit. And can people please stop saying comments are "full of fail?" That's possibly the stupidest thing I see on here.
      • DavidGX, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3***** republicans.
    • cr4ft, on 04/09/2008, -6/+9I was thinking of attending TED, have a blog about it or something?
    • 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
      • stevetrojanman, on 04/09/2008, -9/+4By "progressive" do you mean "radical"?
        • thaistick, on 04/09/2008, -8/+6No, he just means "Smart people that have new ideas that move humanity forward" ya know, they tend to be 99% non-republicans. (just a straight-up fact, and it tickles me)
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -3/+3A conference for people that say things that aren't new would sort of be pointless, now wouldn't it?
    • MrTulip, on 04/09/2008, -1/+6what was that german song you speak of?
    • MadMonk67, on 04/09/2008, -7/+4Was it the Hörst Wessel song? Did you have your hand extended upwards to him in salute?
    • mt4055, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5"after singing a German song with Al Gore, and hundreds of other inspiring individuals, I have a new appreciation for the man"
      Now there is a ringing endorsement! How can you refute that?
    • mahdaeng, on 04/09/2008, -1/+4I've known several entertaining people with a good sense of humor that I wouldn't trust as far as I could throw them.
    • ShagratOfMordor, on 04/10/2008, -3/+2I agree, he is indeed an opportunistic, false, power hungry maniac.
    • AngelBunny, on 04/10/2008, -1/+2i'm not saying it is, because it isn't, but you're making it sound like a cult. you appreciate him because of what again?
    • Coolspot420, on 04/10/2008, -2/+3Sorry, but I can't understand what you're saying. Take Al's ***** out of your mouth and try again.
  • evo8ftw, on 04/09/2008, -97/+79I won't even waste my ear listen to Al Gore till he can stop being closed mind and sit down for a reasonable debate. Gore doesn't have the background to research and promote such a controversial subject. Thats why Gore has to resort to calling those who actually have a background in the subject matter as dinosaurs and making them out to be idiots by claiming they still believe the earth is flat and that the moon landing was staged.

    Al Gore needs to keep his mouth shut and let those who have put time and actually scientific research into the do the talking.
    • 14justice, on 04/09/2008, -13/+12"Gore has to resort to calling those who actually have a background in the subject matter as dinosaurs and making them out to be idiots..."
      Really? When and where?
      • ace429k, on 04/09/2008, -5/+6i want proof too! quit pulling it outta yer anus!
      • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -1/+8He said that on 60 Minutes last week
        • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -0/+6I love how I'm being dugg down for pointing out that Gore did, in fact, say that those who deny global warming are dinosaurs and group them with those who believe the Earth is flat and the moon landing was filmed on a set in Arizona.

          By the way, here's video of it if you want video proof:
          http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minute ...
      • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -0/+7Here's the actual 60 Minutes interview:

        http://tinyurl.com/6z77n3
        • 14justice, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2O.K., I watched the video. Al Gore never uttered the word "dinosaurs."
          He was not referring to "those who actually have a background in the subject matter" as evo8ftw incorrectly put it.
          What he did say was that "those who deny global warming is man made" are "almost like" those who believe the moon landing was filmed on a set in Arizona, or those who believe the earth is flat.
          Sorry, this is not the same as calling them idiots or in any way implying that they actually believe the earth is flat.
          I think that stretching the truth in an attempt to prove your dubious point "groups you" with Hillary Clinton!
    • 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!
      • opticwind, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3Ha, bam. I don't have to like Gore to think that is funny.
    • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -3/+8And from your other posts YOU don't like listening to any scientist unless they deny GW. Pot. Black. Kettle.
    • johnnysaucepn, on 04/09/2008, -4/+8Al Gore isn't a scientist, has never claimed to be a scientist. He's a politician, a presenter, a face. He doesn't need a degree in climatology to present the evidence that those with degrees in climatology have produced.
    • pintomp3, on 04/09/2008, -2/+10exactly. i also don't think the issue of round-earthness is settled. i can find at least 10 scientists in the whole world who agree with me. i think each side should be given equal weight.
    • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5ad hominem.
      find your evidence and present it if you want a debate.
    • Andrwmorph, on 04/09/2008, -3/+5I'd personally rather pay a few taxes and possibly not destroy our planet. Is it really that big of a deal? Even if Al Gore (and the scientific community) are wrong then everybody is out a little money. If they are right then WE ARE ALL *****!
      • PolishLogic, on 04/09/2008, -2/+2So increasing taxes will save the planet? Sorry I don't buy that.
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -0/+3i would agree with you, except that we must do something about global warming, and al gore is the most prominent environmentalist. global warming is occuring, and most scientists agree that it is being caused to a certain degree by us. although temperatures may have dropped recently, the trendline is still positive over the past 120 years:

      http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Te ...
  • jedmed, on 04/09/2008, -66/+69Gore is giving all of his time and energy to promote a cause that many believe is vital for the survival of life on this planet.
    Thanks, Al.
  • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -43/+33Before you get all huffy about global warming, make sure you've heard and understand both sides of the story. Here's a quick explanation of the counter-argument: http://thenewamerican.com/node/7009

    If videos are your thing, this might be better: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4860344067 ...
    (The first 2/3 is all scientific, but be warned it dips into conspiracy theories toward the end.)
    • Rotzooi, on 04/09/2008, -20/+11Only people who believe in Creationist ***** would also think your information is accurate.
      • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -7/+8What in the hell are you talking about? What does Creationism have to do with anti-global warming theory? I've *LOVE* to see how you came up with that connection.

        FWIW I'm an atheist and a subscriber of evolution (like most scientists... who also argue against global warming). Oh, and I don't drive an SUV. :)
        • Rotzooi, on 04/09/2008, -9/+14There is no serious argument about global warming anymore. The ONLY country in the whole wide world where that hasn't ratified Kyoto is the US. Our stupid President happens to veto this every time. That doesn't mean a thing. The entire world is trying to come to a solution, and so should we, stupid President or not. Deal with it.
          • opticwind, on 04/09/2008, -2/+5Actually, there are 22 countries that have not ratified this agreement. And they are, the United States, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, Andorra, Brunei, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Iraq, Taiwan, Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Palestinian Authoritiy, Saint Kitts and Nevis, San Marino, Sao Tome an d Principe, Somalia, Tajikistan, Timor-Leste, Tonga, Turkey, the Vatican City (yes, it's a country), and Zimbabwe.
          • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3I'm glad to see the US stands with great resolve like those other relevant superpowers.
          • opticwind, on 04/15/2008, -0/+1My only point was that Rotzooi was way off in assuming the "entire world" is trying to fix the problem when clearly, it isn't.
    • 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.
      • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -8/+6You're tossing out a red herring. While, yes, the majority of scientists believe there are variances in global temperatures, whether or not these temperature variances are man made is by no means settled. There are as many scientists who believe these temperature variances are natural as there are who believe they are man made.
        • ch4os1337, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Whos are the idiots digging you down? Your actually making a good point.
    • 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.
      • Kythas, on 04/09/2008, -5/+3It's not a fact. It's a theory.
        • kris33, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5That's true actually

          In other news, gravity is not a fact too. It's just a theory as well.
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4Theory is the graduation point of science.
        wiki: In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.
    • tvilot, on 04/09/2008, -5/+10"Dr. Arthur Robinson is a professor of chemistry and is cofounder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which was created in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects applicable to increasing the quality, quantity, and length of human life."

      How exactly does this make this person qualified to discuss global climate issues?

      I'm sure I could find someone who is a "doctor" of *something* who can "authoritatively" state gravity doesn't exist.
      • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2How is Gore qualified to talk about global climate issues? I suggest you read the article before you critique what he says. He's just representing a handful of other scientists because he's written a lot about the subject. He's a lot more qualified than Gore to talk about the subject and judging from this story, many diggers are siding with him so why not read what one doctor has to say? He's asked questions by an unbiased source and explains the issue quite well.

        My point in posting the link was not to say Gore was wrong or all of this is a load of crap -- but there's still a very big division in the scientific community about whether or not man's CO2 contributions are significant to cause damage or destruction of our ecosystem. It's worth reading both sides (watching videos from both sides may be even better) before drawing conclusions. If you simply shut out one side, you're less likely to understand the issue completely.

        The only people who say there's a "consensus" are those that favor Gore's ideology. If you read even a handful of science sites (not just media / news) you'd see the disagreement is still alive and well, and there's not likely going to be a consensus anytime soon.

        The problem is that many people are only seeing the Gore-side of things, and are ignoring those looking to profit and benefit from all of this because they're so convinced that "OMG THE WORLD IS DYING WE HAVE TO FIX IT AND KILL ALL THE HEATHENS NO MATTER THE COST" ... or something along those lines.
    • ligyron, on 04/09/2008, -7/+7Note that a lot of "scientists" were hired to say global warming isn't happening. Just like scientists were hired by tobacco companies to say smoking wasn't bad for you
      • DanNZN, on 04/09/2008, -6/+6And there is just ZERO chance that anyone was hired to say global warming does exist? Close minded much? I guess propaganda does work. They aren't just wrong, they also work for big oil.
        • deMonkey, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Bingo. There are lobbyists on both sides of this debate.
    • AnnikaAmethyst, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1Thank you for this comment with video. Yes, I'm a skeptic. I believe global warming is put on by the government in order to create fear amongst the consumers. They've been doing it since the fall of the Soviet Union (they didn't need to before since we had the World Wars). A good book to read is "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton. He uses real evidence in his book to show that global warming doesn't exist (the book may be "fiction", but its the plot that's fiction, not the science parts). Good website about the issues he brings up: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16260#w ...
  • bostmaguy, on 04/09/2008, -59/+30Algore is nothing more than a con artist. He was so depressed about losing the election, he dove into changing the world to suit his own selfish needs. He had 8 yrs as VP to do something, anything, and he only got fatter. Listening to this factually incorrect Profit of Doom is like listening to fingernails on a blackboard. http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/17380689.html
  • Rotzooi, on 04/09/2008, -82/+19***** OFF OUT OF THIS THREAD, ***** GLOBAL WARMING DENIERS.

    Take your SUV and drive to your creationist museum after molesting your children and raping your wives, before catching AIDS of the face. Imbeciles.
    • 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!!!!
      • Rotzooi, on 04/09/2008, -25/+9There is no other side to this story, even though you may wish there is. That doesn't make it so.

        No one at TED is a blind believer, but what can I explain to a hick about academics? You should leave the thinking to the people with three-digits IQs and all their teeth.
        • 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.
        • maretten, on 04/09/2008, -7/+5Yea. What he said.
        • the6thReplicant, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2Here we go again:
          http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
    • RomanThommassen, on 04/09/2008, -17/+13GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD, THE EARTH HAS BEEN LOWERING IN TEMPERATURE SINCE 1998 AND CO2 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH GLOBAL WARMING, IT'S THE SUN. AL GORE WANTS YOU TO PAY TAXES ON CO2. WAKE UP
      • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -0/+1so what you're saying is that the sun is suddenly emanating more heat? what, exactly, is your explanation for that?
    • cobbwobbles, on 04/09/2008, -3/+2wow, tbh I agree w/ most of that
    • diggrnumber1, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2there is essentially no debate within the scientific community as to whether global warming is occuring. here is the data:
      http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Te ...

      although this only goes up to 2005, the trendline is DEFINITELY positive since 1880.
  • vgan, on 04/09/2008, -34/+19MAN-BEAR-PIG is real! I'm cereal!

    Cereally though, we need to wake people up to these simple concepts. Stop wasting money on bombing Iraq to get Oil when you could spend it on Green fuel sources...
    • Kamill85, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Can you be super serial for a moment?
  • maretten, on 04/09/2008, -41/+10Global Warming? Silly Penis!!!
  • sporefrog, on 04/09/2008, -48/+154Since when did rationally considering our own actions become anathema? Fervent Al Gore haters are just as moronic as the alarmist environmentalists.
    • Railer, on 04/09/2008, -28/+11The dick lies his ass off and makes 100's of millions for his efforts. He's a coward who won't discuss the topic openly. Anyone who does this on any side is a douche. I would state the same thing about Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Peter Popoff, John Edward and Uri Geller. All dicks, when you refuse to discuss the subject and slander those scientists with valid points as "flat earthers" or "shills" makes Gore the biggest douche bag of them all.
      • FecalHurler, on 04/09/2008, -6/+9Yeah, Al Gore is a hypocrit. Does that change the fact that we are seeing unprecedented temperature increases?
        PROTIP: Whenever arguing about global warming, just agree that Gore is a lying *****. Then explain, chemically, what CO2 does. Then proceed to say how much of it we're putting in the atmosphere. A winnar is you.
      • 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.
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure where this idea that talking heads shouting at each other was something we should even want. Does that qualify as debate?
        Should Richard Dawkins appear on a Fox News Channel shouting match with a young-earth creationist? Would such an debate settle that contentious issue?
        If you want to discredit Gore arguments, do it. No one is running from any debates - if you want to debate them then just start doing it.
    • dash1185, on 04/09/2008, -2/+4I'm reassured to see that there are still moderate and reasonable people on the internet.
    • VitriolAndAngst, on 04/09/2008, -2/+3So, BEFORE Al Gore invested in alternative energy and he was saying the same things -- you were promoting that we listen to him -- or this is just another excuse not to consider these issues, because their MIGHT be a Liberal somewhere making a buck and we aren't supposed to do that?

      Only really super wealthy billionaires can pollute like hell and be treated like God's gift, apparently. This issue is bigger than Al Gore. And it is OK with me if he makes a living with it. The guy could have just gone around and made $70,000 a speech on the lecture circuit if he wanted to.
    • wrongonce, on 04/09/2008, -0/+1Someone hating Al doesn't interfere in your life whatsoever. Same can't be said for alternative.
    • kingofinternet, on 04/09/2008, -0/+0SINCE GREAT LORD RON PAUL UNCOVERED MY EYES!
    • pilot101, on 04/10/2008, -1/+0I agree, I mean without Al Gore constantly reminding us of earth threats, how else would we have found out the existence of manbearpig, third man, third bear, third pig. And don't say it's all imaginary, cause they can pass through the imaginary doorway any day now and wrack serious havoc.
  • jkbowman, on 04/09/2008, -26/+26I'm just glad to see a climate change submission that hasn't been bastardized, butchered, and editorialized to death before people get a chance to comment on it. I swear I believe the climate change deniers keep "climate change" on Google Alert and rush like wild ducks to submit a butchered headline to Digg any time a climate change article comes out.
    • jboettcher, on 04/09/2008, -13/+5The climate will never stop changing - that's not the point. The point is the alarmist, fear-mongering emphasis on the wrong factors in the climate. It's being used as another control tactic. Terrorism, and global warming...
      • tannerpetry, on 04/09/2008, -1/+3Are you saying Gore is using fear-mongering to get us to recycle, use public transportation, and in general protect our environment? How dare he!
        It seems like no one is considering the possibility that the earth's temperature is increasing due to human activity (CO2) IN ADDITION TO the earth's natural heating cooling cycle, PLUS the theory that lack of sun spots is causing a temperature increase.
        It might not be "More Taste vs Less Filling"
        It might be More "More Taste AND Less Filling"
    • mandan, on 04/09/2008, -0/+4That because they are getting paid by the oil and coal industries to do so...
  • JimmySpaza, on 04/09/2008, -39/+23Is the Goracle doing his stand-up comedy routine...or trying his hand at junk science again? It's so hard to tell with him nowadays.
  • Sharpezor, on 04/09/2008, -46/+146Its 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"
    • drmangrum, on 04/09/2008, -24/+14So a scientist with an agenda ( or truth ) is ok to be ignored, but a POLITICIAN with an agenda to sell books is ok?

      You're an idiot.
      • 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.
        • drmangrum, on 04/09/2008, -20/+8Wow, you really are naive aren't you?
        • Boreras, on 04/09/2008, -13/+7more specifically carbon dioxide reducing private jets!
        • iNONYMOUS, on 04/09/2008, -1/+2No you're an idiot.
      • pintomp3, on 04/09/2008, -3/+8you seem to forget that al-gore is basing the information on the findings of the vast majority of the scientific community
      • foofighter828, on 04/09/2008, -1/+5ad hominem.
        Al Gore's evilness/goodness intelligence/stupidity has nothing to do with the logical points or fallacies of his presentations.
        A real scientist is emotionally attached to the processes of science, not the outcomes.
    • 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/+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.
        • supernovasky, on 04/09/2008, -0/+5Very good, laserdog.
          Also, for all the idiots pushing the "Water vapor, not CO2, is the main GHG"
          At 70km, where most of the heat is radiated into space, there is little to no water vapor, but CO2? Its relative importance is HUGE in our upper atmosphere.
          Ever see a towering cumulonimbus? The reason that happens is so the earth can remove heat from the atmosphere. The more CO2 we put into the atmosphere, the less heat that will be removed.
        • djepik, on 04/10/2008, -1/+1CO2 is not NEARLY the most important pollutant to Global warming, regardless of upper/lower atmosphere

          Data from IPCC 3rd assesment 2001:

          Chemical Global Warming Potential (20yr)
          CO2 1
          Methane 62
          CFC-12 10,200
          HCFC-23 9,400
          Tetrafluoromethane 3,900
          Sulfur hexafluoride 15,100

          Yes, that means that CFCs have 10,200 times more effect on Global Warming than CO2.
    • Malevolant, on 04/09/2008, -11/+7I'll listen to Al Gore once he starts practicing what he preaches. He flies in private jets, has massive personal energy bills, etc., etc., etc. I loved, "An Inconvenient Truth", but after seeing how he actually contradicts all that he supposedly believes in, and hearing differing opinions about global warming, I am much less inclined to believe in what he's trying to sell. We've had global warming throughout history, way before man, and we also had ice ages so saying the last 100 years of industrial man has changed the Earth, seems a bit over-stated. That being said I do think going "green" is very important and the best thing to do for current and future generations. The carbon tax, is another thing. It seems more like a way to further tax people and to fatten the pockets of the elites.
      • SkaAgent11, on 04/09/2008, -4/+6Al Gore runs green energy and is completely carbon neutral by offsetting his entire footprint with carbon offsets. This idea that he doesn't practice what he preaches is a ton of *****. It is unfeasible to eliminate all carbon emissions even if we had total green energy...Al Gore doesn't advocate doing this in ANY of his talks, books, or films. A certain amount of carbon in the atmosphere is a good and necessary thing. The idea is to reduce carbon emissions from the astronomically high levels they are currently at. And this thing about the jet....who the ***** cares? The guy is head or on the board of several major organizations, and is a hardcore activist who gives his speech to anyone who listens. Why do people think Al Gore has a jet for the same reasons like... I dunno.... John Travolta has a jet? It's not a superfluous toy, some people have airplanes because they need them. This is even beside the point because ultimately, Gore accounts for any emissions by the thing anyways...so this is more an attack on perceived excessive lifestyle than any double standard by Gore. I don't mean to come off like I'm on the guy's dick or part of the Al Gore fan club, but he's an exciting cat: he's one of the few politicians in existence who cares about his cause so much that he's on the road trying to sell it to anyone who will listen, despite not holding any position of power or influence. It's really disheartening to see people who value skepticism to such an unhealthy level. There is a certain level of skepticism that promotes honesty and discussion, which is healthy and beneficial...but at some point you become jaded and incredulous. Some things in our world can be worried or cared about justifiably.

        As for the ice ages and stuff...stop. Al Gore is just an activist. Not a scientist. He's a reporter for the things scientists study, and he makes an attempt to promote awareness of the issues they discover. When people make arguments like "well there's been high levels of carbon before, etc. etc."....scientists know that already. Trust me, they understand the science more than you ever will. This all goes into a model of carbon emissions, milankovitch cycles, forcings etc. So while you can look at the past and say "well this factor was higher at this time", you're missing the entire model. If you can debate the idea of global warming by saying "the combination of these factors at this time was similar or identical to todays climate and did not cause issues" then we have something to talk about.
        • Malevolant, on 04/10/2008, -2/+1Hardcore activists do not contradict their beliefs on said activism(s), period. You can make all of the excuses you want, but it doesn't change the fact that the guy has, and is, making a ***** load of money off of his little cause. You do come off as someone who is on his dick and/or part of his fan club, congrats. ALso, seeing through his ***** might upset you, but plenty of us are aware of the *****, no matter how you try to back it up.

          I like how you equate CERTAIN scientists beliefs as absolutes when there are just as many who have an opposing opinion on this, so you stop. You have no idea on what I know about science, period, so leave out your opinions, as they are already too biased towards Al.

          All that being said, and with no extreme weather, massive snow, cold weather, etc. you need to wake up. Depending on what study you view, but specific scientists on both sides of the debate, there is global warming and global cooling. This is just like what presidential candidate you want. You choose this one on emotion and marketing, I chose that one on common sense and reality.
          Good luck with all of that.
          • SkaAgent11, on 04/10/2008, -0/+2As I've said before, Al Gore makes $0 off any of his activism. This is extremely well documented and you can google it if you need proof. There's been attempts by a paper in Tennessee to accuse him off profiting off carbon offsets, which would essentially constitute fraud. This also has been debunked.

            Sorry I made assumptions about your comprehension about the topic...but "we had ice ages" is about as weak an argument as you can get. I DO choose reason over rhetoric, and I recommend you check out some of the pages I've posted elsewhere in this discussion as they debunk a lot of "global warming is false" myths, are peer reviewed, and aren't run by scientists who get their funding from sketchy sources, unlike many of the climatologists funded by oil companies who back your opinion. Science is never capable of proving absolutes, but when it gets so predictive that it might as well absolute, its moronic to ignore it.

            And once again...please show me where Al Gore contradicts his beliefs...because I thought I addressed that.
      • wonderworm, on 04/10/2008, -1/+3If Al Gore lived in a cave and used zero energy to give his educational lectures to others, then the ignorance of the masses when it comes to energy usage and global melting would far surpass the personal energy savings of Al Gore by him living in the cave.
        It's a simply quantitative analysis. The greater good of his message has an exponentially positive effect on reducing carbon and energy usage. Do you understand now why yo