What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
118 Comments
- Azerael, on 02/23/2009, -7/+27National Geographic are obviously biased communist liberals.
Global warming is a lie sent by science to kill us. Wake up sheeple! - dikky, on 02/23/2009, -8/+24this is obviously propaganda. Let me dig up the research funded by oil companies as proof.
also all the scientists who support global warming are obviously biased and after money, the only sane and reasonable scientists are the ones funded by oil companies - RDinSB, on 02/23/2009, -2/+17I am no climatologist - I am not a scientist at all... I have done a fair amount of reading on this subject, and it seems clear to me that yes- there are natural cycles - the earth cools and warms all on its own. To say that human influence cannot affect natures cycles is a bit naive - our plastic and garbage waste has created a GIANT floating trash mess in the Pacific - we are losing our coral reefs - 90% are in decline or gone, we are clearing our rain forests in South America, we are decimating our top soil - everywhere.... and we are in the middle of the largest die off of nature - more animals are going extinct than ever... and MOST scientist acknowledge and report that we are to blame (humans). So we should look at what we are doing and change what we must.
- a117, on 02/23/2009, -2/+16They're not disappearing... Alaska is just going to go hang out with Hawaii
- hellahyphy, on 02/23/2009, -5/+17Hurry quick! Everyone change their light bulbs before global warming takes over.
- doctechnical, on 02/23/2009, -3/+12We'd better start drilling in Alaska before it all disappears!
- MalaysianMafia, on 02/23/2009, -6/+14If I'm to understand digg, the world should never change... the average temperature should remain constant, as should the coasts?
Come on now, things change, the planet changes... Don't use it as an excuse to not pollute, JUST DON'T POLLUTE, don't yell at me about a bunch of crazy ***** like the coasts changing, they've been doing that since there was such a thing as coasts.... - JuanBSU, on 02/23/2009, -7/+15About osko2052:
I am a conservative, gun carrying Christian husband and father of 3. I don't like the direction our country is headed in and want to see it changed back to it's Judeo- Christian pro family values. Proud member of the Sons of the American Revolution.
Yep. That explains it. - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+8"Like you Global Warming folks that can't see that the temperatures are heading for a ice age lately?"
Let me guess, your reply will be something like there's a ice age coming and that global warming is happening at the same time?"
You guessed wrong. You know there are a number of scientific organizations that keep track of the temperature and not one concurs in your baseless opinion. Want evidence of this assertion? Fine, here you go:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
"Calendar year 2008 was the coolest year since 2000, according to the Goddard Institute for Space Studies analysis [see ref. 1] of surface air temperature measurements. In our analysis, 2008 is the ninth warmest year in the period of instrumental measurements, which extends back to 1880 (left panel of Fig. 1). The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. The two-standard-deviation (95% confidence) uncertainty in comparing recent years is estimated as 0.05°C [ref. 2], so we can only conclude with confidence that 2008 was somewhere within the range from 7th to 10th warmest year in the record"
Got that? The ten warmest years all occur within the 12-year period 1997-2008. How you get from that the world is heading into a Ice Age is beyond me. How is that even possible for you to conclude? That is some deep, deep delusion you got going heir.
Want to know just how unlikely such an event is? You do. Ok, some researchers put up the odds of those records being pure natural random variation. Matter of fact they published it in peer reviewed journal:
How Unusual is the Recent Series of Warm Years?
"It considers the likelihood that the observed recent clustering of warm record-breaking mean temperatures at global, regional and local scales may occur by chance in a stationary climate. Under two statistical null-hypotheses, autoregressive and long-memory, this probability turns to be very low: for the global records lower than p = 0.001, and even lower for some regional records."
Journal of Geophysical Review
Zorita, E., T. F. Stocker, and H. von Storch (2008)
Now notice how I used peer reviewed information? - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+7"Global warming doesn't come from scientists, it comes from politicians."
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/author.htm
Perhaps you should stop reading and listening to whatever source of misinformation you got the above nugget from and start read history by sane people. I would suggest you start with Spencer R. Weart's "The Discovery of Global Warming", if you where to take your time to read through it you would discover that Global Warming was first proposed in the 19th century and that since then a long train of scientist have been studying this problem.
"You won't ever find any scientific report stating that we should spend all our money trying to reduce temperatures by 1 degree, while we allow children to starve in other countries, only a political report would promote this agenda."
Perhaps you should read what the scientist are actually saying and not what some one is telling you what they are saying. I am going to provide you with such a link so that you will never have the excuse to say such blatantly false things again:
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm - absentmindedjwc, on 02/23/2009, -1/+6nope, just obamas... it is his fault for hurricanes and earthquakes too. At least, that is what faux noise wants me to believe
- jeffbw, on 02/23/2009, -1/+6"The earth changes, the earth has always changed."
Yeah, and it's usually catastrophic for the animals that are alive then. This is not a natural change, and we don't have to all die because of it, other than there are a lot of complacent imbeciles around. - doctechnical, on 02/23/2009, -2/+7Ah, I can see you've never actually tried growing your own food. Believe me, Nature does NOT help you, it does everything it can to make things difficult for you and generally has to be beaten back at every opportunity.
I've got some weeds that need pulling if you don't believe me. - StrangeFamous, on 02/23/2009, -1/+6It's not obligatory, it's just tired and unnecessary.
- idontlikeyou2, on 02/23/2009, -4/+9Pollution is a major contributor to climate change. The rest of your argument is just conspiracy theory mumble jumble.
- Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -0/+5"That's not an assertion my friend, thats fact."
Your entire paragraphless screed is still without fact.
"Read you fearless leaders bill he just passed and tell me the amount of Govt that have been put into lace to regulate eco friendly.."
Ok, then you made the insertion. Give a link to the bill and point out to me the appropiate sections. Go ahead do it.
"dont you get the point, try getting taxed by the mile you drive, or your auto company raising the cost of cars because of the eco friendly manufacturing process, or the GREEN certification i have to attend for my job, that WE ALL HAVE TO PAY FOR!"
Translation: I want to pollute without any consequence what so ever. I just want my money in my pocket no matter what the damages to others.
Sorry, but you live in a civilized society so your just going to have to be a big boy and suck it up, or you could move to a place where their is no government and certainly no environmental regulation. So when are you going to start packing for Somalia?
"i can go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that the global temp has actually decreased over the past 3 years and should continue to decline till 2012 when the sun spots heat up again."
This is a lie. How do I know this?
1. Three years does not define climate. It takes 30 years of temperatures to define a climate.
2. How can you even remotely claim that the Earth is cooling when over the past twelve years 10 of them have been the hottest ever recorded on the the instrument record. How?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
3. You know we got these things called satellites that have been monitoring the Sun for decades. The Sun has not increased in its output for THIRTY YEARS. Got that? You can not attribute increased temperatures to the sun's irradiance. Here take a look:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irra ...
Also, people have looked at the past thirty years of irradiance and can no find that a rise in temperatures is connected to the Sun. Here take a look from a peer reviewed scientific paper:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:gUPSX2393V0J: ...
"Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Science 2007
"AND NOT TO MENTION THAT TEMP IS MORE THAN 85% REGULATED BY OCEANIC TIDES NOT CO OR GREENHOUSE GASSES! "
Tell us, oh mighty one! How do tides regulate temperature? Could you also explain how the Moon and the Earth have such different temperature extremes?
"Hell the NOAA discredits global warming."
Evidence? You say so does not make it so? I am truly curious how your assertion is reconciled with the following statement from NOAA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. ...
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."
Got that? Oh, you say it is not clear enough here try this:
"The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation."
See how easy it is to prove you a liar?
"ALL OF MANKIND have only been on our planet for like one millisecond, so to say that we are causing climate change is just a bit of ***** in my opinion."
The Argument from Incredulity is a logical fallacy.
"Remember the biggest cause for co in the atmosphere is not people like some like to say, its earth it self!"
Who ever told you otherwise? Human beings for over a century and a half have been steadily adding to the CO2 levels. The earth can only absorb so much. This is evident in the amount of CO2 that has increased since the industrial revolution. Unlike water vapor which has a residency time of about 9 days; CO2 stays in the atmosphere for CENTURIES. Got that?
"...Volcanoes..."
Another lie from the United States Geological Service we find that Volcanoes put out about 1/150th the amount of humans. Here take a look:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
Got that. See how easy it is to debunk your lies?
"...comets..."
So you know a lot of comets that strike the Earth and deliver billion of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere? Please do tell.
"...asteroids..."
Since most asteroids that strike the Earth are IRON, I wonder just how much propaganda you just swallow unquestioningly.
- WasabiBomb, on 02/23/2009, -0/+5norman, you know you could just say, "I'm not going to read that link." It specifically addresses your objections. At this point, if you're not willing to read, I guess it's a safe bet that you're not willing to think, either.
From the link:
# As mentioned above, you could choose to examine the last 30 years -- that is when both surface and tropospheric readings have been available. We have experienced warming of approximately .2 degrees C/decade during this time. It would take a couple of decades trending down before we could say the recent warming ended in 1998.
# You could choose 1970 in the NASA GISS analysis -- the start of the late 20th century warming, and as such a significant feature of the temperature record. The surface temperature over this period shows .6 degrees C warming.
# You could choose 1965 in the CRU analysis -- when the recent warming started in their record. It shows around .5 degrees C warming of the smoothed trend line.
# You could choose 1880 in the NASA record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming.
# You could choose 1855 in the CRU record -- it shows .8 degrees C warming. As with the trend above, we can not say it is over without many decades more data indicating cooling.
# You could choose to look at the last 500 years in the bore hole record analysis -- that is its entire length. It puts today about 1 degree C above the first three centuries of that record. In that kind of analysis, today's record will be hidden from view for many decades.
# You could choose to look at the last 1,000 years, because that is as far back as the dendrochronology studies reliably go. Then the conclusion is:
Although each of the temperature reconstructions are different (due to differing calibration methods and data used), they all show some similar patterns of temperature change over the last several centuries. Most striking is the fact that each record reveals that the 20th century is the warmest of the entire record, and that warming was most dramatic after 1920. - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+5Did you read the article?
- WibWobble, on 02/23/2009, -3/+7Just helped us grow the food that we survive on, gave us water, ...
- nowhereelse, on 02/23/2009, -2/+6"How does a month long sensor failure equate to all the previous data being false? "
Give him a break. It's the first bit of hope GW deniers have had for ages. - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+5Did you read the article?
- Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -0/+4Did you read the article?
- Flynnz, on 02/23/2009, -4/+7you first :)
- Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -3/+6"You think the denial of global warming is oil company funded? "
Partly and the other reasons are ignorance and ideology.
"Just take a trip to India or even watch "Slumdog Millionaire" and you'll see the poverty that exists there."
How does poverty in India refute the fact of Global Warming? How will the poverty of India stop the flooding by sea level rise of the Gangs-Brahmaputra river delta? Do you think that that throwing out of home and occupation millions of farmers that live in the Delta really be a long term help for Indian welfare?
"Spending trillions of dollars in a futile attempt to stop the world from turning,..."
I think you had better go learn what what Global Warming is about so that you will learn not to embarrass yourself so much.
"...all the while allowing people to starve is not something oil companies do research upon."
Your right the oil companies do no such thing. What they actually do though is fund disinformation campaigns. What they care about is the bottom line and nothing else. Want evidence of this assertion? Here: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/maps.php
Notice that they actually provide the tax documents provide the evidence for this funding. - TheMoniker, on 02/24/2009, -0/+3Typo:
[2] Nerem, R.S., Cazenave, A., Chambers, D.P., Fu, L.L., Leuliette, E.W. and Mitchum, G.T., 2007. Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner. Global and Planetary Change, 55(4): 358-360
should read:
[3] Nerem, R.S., Cazenave, A., Chambers, D.P., Fu, L.L., Leuliette, E.W. and Mitchum, G.T., 2007. Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner. Global and Planetary Change, 55(4): 358-360 - jeffbw, on 02/23/2009, -1/+4Relax, "conservatives" just want to do to the environment what they did to the World Trade Center, New Orleans, Iraq, and the U.S. economy. And one people are dying by the millions, they'll find some imbecilic way to blame it on the 'libs', just like everything else.
- Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -0/+3"That's not an assertion my friend, thats fact."
Your entire paragraphless screed is still without fact.
"Read you fearless leaders bill he just passed and tell me the amount of Govt that have been put into lace to regulate eco friendly.."
Ok, then you made the insertion. Give a link to the bill and point out to me the appropiate sections. Go ahead do it.
"dont you get the point, try getting taxed by the mile you drive, or your auto company raising the cost of cars because of the eco friendly manufacturing process, or the GREEN certification i have to attend for my job, that WE ALL HAVE TO PAY FOR!"
Translation: I want to pollute without any consequence what so ever. I just want my money in my pocket no matter what the damages to others.
Sorry, but you live in a civilized society so your just going to have to be a big boy and suck it up, or you could move to a place where their is no government and certainly no environmental regulation. So when are you going to start packing for Somalia?
"i can go on and on, but the fact of the matter is that the global temp has actually decreased over the past 3 years and should continue to decline till 2012 when the sun spots heat up again."
This is a lie. How do I know this?
1. Three years does not define climate. It takes 30 years of temperatures to define a climate.
2. How can you even remotely claim that the Earth is cooling when over the past twelve years 10 of them have been the hottest ever recorded on the the instrument record. How?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/
3. You know we got these things called satellites that have been monitoring the Sun for decades. The Sun has not increased in its output for THIRTY YEARS. Got that? You can not attribute increased temperatures to the sun's irradiance. Here take a look:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/IRRADIANCE/irra ...
Also, people have looked at the past thirty years of irradiance and can no find that a rise in temperatures is connected to the Sun. Here take a look from a peer reviewed scientific paper:
http://74.125.113.132/search?q=cache:gUPSX2393V0J: ...
"Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures."
Proceedings of the Royal Society of Science 2007
"AND NOT TO MENTION THAT TEMP IS MORE THAN 85% REGULATED BY OCEANIC TIDES NOT CO OR GREENHOUSE GASSES! "
Tell us, oh mighty one! How do tides regulate temperature? Could you also explain how the Moon and the Earth have such different temperature extremes?
"Hell the NOAA discredits global warming."
Evidence? You say so does not make it so? I am truly curious how your assertion is reconciled with the following statement from NOAA.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming. ...
"Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are greater than 380 ppmv and increasing at a rate of 1.9 ppm yr-1 since 2000. The global concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today far exceeds the natural range over the last 650,000 years of 180 to 300 ppmv. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration)."
Got that? Oh, you say it is not clear enough here try this:
"The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere (called greenhouse gases because they effectively 'trap' heat in the lower atmosphere) and re-radiation downward of some of that heat. Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas, followed by carbon dioxide and other trace gases. Without a natural greenhouse effect, the temperature of the Earth would be about zero degrees F (-18°C) instead of its present 57°F (14°C). So, the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect by the emission of greenhouse gases through fossil fuel combustion and deforestation."
See how easy it is to prove you a liar?
"ALL OF MANKIND have only been on our planet for like one millisecond, so to say that we are causing climate change is just a bit of ***** in my opinion."
The Argument from Incredulity is a logical fallacy.
"Remember the biggest cause for co in the atmosphere is not people like some like to say, its earth it self!"
Who ever told you otherwise? Human beings for over a century and a half have been steadily adding to the CO2 levels. The earth can only absorb so much. This is evident in the amount of CO2 that has increased since the industrial revolution. Unlike water vapor which has a residency time of about 9 days; CO2 stays in the atmosphere for CENTURIES. Got that?
"...Volcanoes..."
Another lie from the United States Geological Service we find that Volcanoes put out about 1/150th the amount of humans. Here take a look:
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
"Comparison of CO2 emissions from volcanoes vs. human activities.
Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991). This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.]. Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"
Got that. See how easy it is to debunk your lies?
"...comets..."
So you know a lot of comets that strike the Earth and deliver billion of tons of CO2 to the atmosphere? Please do tell.
"...asteroids..."
Since most asteroids that strike the Earth are IRON, I wonder just how much propaganda you just swallow unquestioningly. - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -3/+6"If I'm to understand digg, the world should never change... the average temperature should remain constant, as should the coasts?"
No you do not understand. Human civilization has developed in the present climate. Our sea side cities are where the sea is NOW. Our agricultural areas are where the precipitation and snow run off are NOW. Our cities are dependent on where the water comes from NOW. Unlike blind nature humans are causing a rise in temperatures. Do you not think it is wise in a world of nearly 7 billion people it wise to try to mitigate causes of potential harm? - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -2/+5Paranoid assertions are not facts.
- TheMoniker, on 02/24/2009, -0/+3Hey DigPiglet, I'm just going through those papers right now. My thoughts so far are as follows:
Regarding the Soon paper: Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years, there are several comprehensive rebuttals, one of which can be found here [1]. From which I quote:
"But how warm was the High Medieval (2)? Comparison with modern conditions is difficult because only a few paleoclimatic records covering the past 1500 years extend to the present; many were collected before the most recent period of warming. It is clear, however, that temperatures in High Medieval time were warmer than during the subsequent Little Ice Age (~1400 to ~1900 A.D.), one of the coldest periods in the past ~12,000 years. Large-scale reconstructions of mean annual or summer temperatures for the Northern Hemisphere show a decline in temperatures from 1000 A.D. to the late 19th century, followed by an abrupt rise in temperature (6). Such analyses, when scaled to the same base of reference, show that temperatures from 1000 to 1200 A.D. (or 1100 to 1200 A.D.) were almost the same (or 0.03ºC cooler) as from 1901 to 1970 A.D. (7, 8). The latter period was on average ~0.35ºC cooler than the last 30 years of the 20th century. Data from the Southern Hemisphere are too sparse to draw reliable conclusions about overall temperatures in Medieval time. [...] The balance of evidence does not point to a High Medieval period that was as warm as or warmer than the late 20th century."
Eventually, in a news brief in Nature, the journal's publisher himself (Otto Kline) eventually stated that "[the conclusions drawn] cannot be concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in the paper".
Re: Hockey sticks, principal components, and spurious significance. I've come across this one before. This paper discusses the temperature reconstruction done by Mann, Bradley and Hughes in 1998. This paper was picked apart when it showed up on the scene, not because it was so ground breaking, but because it was demonstrably full of errors. Real Climate has a pretty decent summary of the errors with it here [1]. In short: " i) the MBH98 results do not depend on what kind of [principal component analysis] is used, as long as all significant PCs are included, ii) the results are insensitive to whether PCA is used at all (or whether all proxies are included directly), and iii) the results are replicated using a completely different methodology (Rutherford et al, 2005)"
What I always find interesting about this is how people criticize the stick, but forget about the rest of the team: there are more than eight other temperature reconstructions ("hockey sticks") of the period, each with different methods and each arriving at nearly the same results.
Energy and Environment is a social science journal and not actually a peer reviewed science journal. "Energy and Environment", is not actually a scientific journal at all but a social science journal. The editor, Sonja Boehmer-Christensen, in defending the publication of the Soon et al study, was quoted by science journalist Richard Monastersky in the Chronicle of Higher Education somewhat remarkably confessing "I'm following my political agenda—a bit, anyway. But isn't that the right of the editor?"
A number of these are comments and replies to comments which are not research in and of themselves. Anyhow, I could keep going here, skimming the abstracts, most of these papers regarding the links between solar activity and climate aren't suggesting that solar irradiance cycles are responsible for the recent warming trend. This isn't anything controversial, we know that changes in solar irradiance cycles have affected warming in the past, it just happens that they are not responsible for the warming over the past while. Is there a particular paper that you'd like me to take a closer look at? I have access to pretty much all of them online through the university, so I can probably give a few a look over.
Regarding the papers on sea level by Nils-Axel Mörner, it's very odd that his data is in direct contradiction to everyone else's measurements. Mörner does not include a single reference to any altimeter study, all of which refute his claim that there is no apparent change in global mean sea level (GMSL). There are several comments to that effect in the journals [3].
[1] http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/302/56 ...
[2] http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=111
[2] Nerem, R.S., Cazenave, A., Chambers, D.P., Fu, L.L., Leuliette, E.W. and Mitchum, G.T., 2007. Comment on “Estimating future sea level change from past records” by Nils-Axel Mörner. Global and Planetary Change, 55(4): 358-360. - jeffbw, on 02/23/2009, -1/+4When there is catastrophic climate change, massive numbers of animals die off. This is not a natural change, we can do something to prevent it, so that our children and grandchildren don't have to all die.
- norman619, on 02/23/2009, -4/+6Imagine that... Do the changing seasons scare you as well?
- Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+3@ Pig,
Here you go more some lies debunked. Who is more believable here? The authors of a peer reviewed article in the world's most prestigious science journal or a Exxon Mobile funded propaganda machine.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009 ... - WibWobble, on 02/23/2009, -3/+5http://www.endofworld.net/
- norman619, on 02/23/2009, -10/+12The data suggests Human Caused Global Warming is a myth. It also shows that "Global Warming" stopped in 1998. Yeah I know it's not as fun but it's scientific fact.
- honeybrass, on 02/23/2009, -3/+5I for one welcome our new globally warm overlords
- Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -0/+2
I"d LOVE to see you try and refute the hard SCIENCE presented in these clips."
Here you go:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
See how easy that was? - Trent1492, on 02/24/2009, -1/+3 Dig Piglet:Funny thing, Governments don't pay taxes so there's no tax records. Since politicians can commission large "Studies" and be Anonymous there's no record there. Yes, I believe scientist need and want funding. They are more than happy to bias themselves by using selective information. I don't believe there's a conspiracy among them but I do believe they will bend things a little to get maximum funds.
Translation: I do not got no stinking evidence. Evidence is for sissies.
Your faith in Global Warming Denialism is touching. Is Senator Inofhe your patron saint? Does he perform the Transmutation- of--the-Evidence on Sunday?
"I don't believe I proved that the Heartland Institute is a "propaganda machine" but I do find it interesting how low your bar of proof is that direction but how high you set it when someone disagrees with Global Warming."
You agreed with me that Exxon-Mobile uses to the Heartland Institute like a Mexican whore. You did nothing but admit the truth. I provided primary evidence of Exxon-Mobile's support for the lie machine.... I mean the Heartland Institute. You then try a tu quoque and fail to provide any primary evidence what so ever. Yet amazingly I am the one setting the bar low. You do take the cake when it comes to hypocrisy. - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+3What? You say? Exxon-Mobile funded. Yes, I say and we got the tax information to prove it.
Heartland Institute has received $676,500 from Exxon-Mobil since 1998.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php? ...
1998
$30,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: Exxon Education Foundation Dimensions 1998 report
2000
$115,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change
Source: ExxonMobil Foundation 2000 IRS 990
2001
$90,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2001 Worldwide Giving Report
2002
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2002 Worldwide Giving Report
2003
$7,500 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
19th Aniversary Benefit Dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report
2003
$85,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2003 Worldwide Giving Report
2004
$10,000 Exxon Corporation
Climate Change Activities
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2004
$15,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Climate Change Efforts
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2004
$75,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2004 Worldwide Giving Report
2005
$29,000 ExxonMobil Foundation
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2005
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Source: ExxonMobil 2005 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$90,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
General Operating Support
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$10,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
Anniversary benefit dinner
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
2006
$15,000 ExxonMobil Corporate Giving
general operating support
Source: ExxonMobil 2006 Worldwide Giving Report
Care to tell us why Exxon-Mobile is funding a Global Warming Denier site? Could not have anything to do with Exxon-Mobile being a fossil fuel company could it? - norman619, on 02/23/2009, -2/+4No you have the brain rot.
- WasabiBomb, on 02/23/2009, -3/+5norman619:
Did you even LOOK at the link I provided?
I'll post it again, just for you: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/ ...
Fact is the globe IS still warming. The fact that we had cold winters doesn't mean that the summers aren't getting warmer. Here in Seattle we had a big cold snap right before Christmas... but since then, it's been unseasonably warm. Australia has been experiencing its warmest weather on record. - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -2/+4Assertions of paranoia are fact. If you have evidence of a world wide conspiracy by the geophysicist then present primary documentation. Other wise I will conclude that your political prejudices are interfering with your perception of reality.
- Trent1492, on 02/24/2009, -1/+3"I just submitted tons of "Peer Review Studies" that contradicted your belief and you still say "Translation: I do not got no stinking evidence. Evidence is for sissies" !?"
No you did not. You submitted a list. Do you have any of these studies available? Could I ask for a certain paragraph of certain study and you give the quote and explain what it means? You know Exxon funded Heartland has a history of citing studies that do not support their position. Care to try? - jeffbw, on 02/23/2009, -0/+2*****, you've been fed a load of crap. Pay a little bit of attention, halfwit.
- Trent1492, on 02/24/2009, -1/+3"Look, I found a list of things that are caused by Global Warming. I bet you believe all this:"
Child: Oh, lookie Mommy! That Pig can mind read!
Mother: No son. That Pig is using a logical fallacy that called a Strawman attack.
Child: What is strawman attack, mommy?
Mother: It is where your opponent assigns you positions and ideas that you do not hold and attacks those instead of what your opponent is actually saying.
Child: Is that the same as lying mommy?
Mother: Not necessarily, but it is either a ignorant stance or a dishonest move.
Child: Mommy. Who does such things.
Mother: Ideologues.
Child: What is a idea-log?
Mother: Hush now. Go back to sleep my little bumpkin. - jturbo, on 02/23/2009, -1/+3@aletoledo...
For some reason I don't think that would be very effective.... - Trent1492, on 02/23/2009, -1/+3"Here's a whole page of peer reviewed studies that contradicts your belief system in the causes of Global Warming."
Here you go Pig lies debunked.
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/25/22413/ ...
So you going to get back to me on the FACT that the 10 warmest years have all been in the past 12 or not? You going to simply ignore that one? - CNAIF, on 02/23/2009, -1/+3FYI
The animals mentioned are not in jeopardy at all. You see they're smarter than humans, they'll actually walk to higher ground. - absentmindedjwc, on 02/23/2009, -1/+3I am sure there was violence before light bulbs (mercury or otherwise) were invented. Swing and a miss
- norman619, on 02/23/2009, -3/+5nadalbg:
Care to share your hard scientific proof? If you look at ALL the science you will learn that it's not settled. The "Blame Humans for Climate Changes" crowd continually ignores ALL scientific data which contradicts their views. Educate yourself a bit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-PX7gLSwX8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFfCL-JPYw4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYMP10gQqIE -
Show 51 - 100 of 120 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is