What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.541 Comments
- inactive, on 09/04/2008, -77/+485They exaggerated everything in that movie. That is what you get when a politician tries to play scientist.
- ahawks, on 09/04/2008, -57/+384So what you're saying is that the for Al Gore, actual sea levels are, ... an inconvenient truth?
- inactive, on 09/04/2008, -30/+174Now that we've not had any sunspots for over a month... and only a couple in the 30 days before that... we'll get to see what sort of impact that sun activity has on our climate. We've just ended one of the longest, and most active solar cycles. NASA predicted back in 2006 that the next solar cycle could be one of the weakest in centuries. If so, it's feasible that we could experience another mini-ice age.
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_long ...
http://www.dxlc.com/solar/ - zeebo, on 09/05/2008, -17/+130This doesn't mean that Al Gore was lying, this is what happens in science. New studies and data are coming out all the time, and sometimes we find that we're wrong. Science isn't a religion, it has no unshakeable dogmas.
Although the short description of their methodology seems somewhat flawed 'if the glaciers continue to break up and melt like they are right now for 100 years' That seems like a pretty big if. If global temperature is increasing, even if its only slight, wouldn't the rate of the glaciers break up increase as well? Also, isn't the melting of glaciers non-linear? I thought that the smaller they got the faster that the rest of it melts due to the reduction of its effect on the local environment. - ryrocker, on 09/05/2008, -73/+164FINALLY!!!
ive been saying this for weeks now on digg... but i kept getting dugg down.... - DiggOrNotToDigg, on 09/05/2008, -9/+85Read the real article http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/ ...
It only says
"Warming glaciers raise sea level in two main ways. They add more water as they melt, and they also add water when ice breaks off from glacial flows. The incidence of this latter phenomenon has soared in recent years for some glaciers draining the southern Greenland Ice Sheet, much to the mystification of glaciologists. Unable to model such accelerated ice losses, members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change declined to include them in their widely cited projection of up to 60 centimeters of sea level rise by 2100 (ScienceNOW, 6 April 2007). "
The writer from telegraph.co.uk exaggerated the words - Stevanoski, on 09/05/2008, -73/+138An Inconvenient Truth: Global Warming chicken Little's lie and it doesn't matter to them. The new religion.
- AndrewDB, on 09/05/2008, -1/+58I sea what you did there.
- poprocksandsoda, on 09/05/2008, -17/+73Left me preface by saying I'm a Republican. Let's be honest, films like this are part entertainment/part fact. I think for them to take the deep end on speculation is typical and shouldn't make the overall message of climate concern missed. I don't believe that fossil fuels are the root cause of the Earth's changes, however I still believe as a people we need to not tip the scale of the climate with bad habits like Lead in our Petrol, etc. That's the core message of the film and valid.
- KayinAngel, on 09/05/2008, -7/+62Wouldn't this also assume that glaciers break up at the rate they currently are steadily for the next 100 years ? That doesn't exactly jive with the whole exponential growth of population and consumption. The math doesn't seem to be very accurate there.
On another subject: one guy presents "studies" of rising ocean levels and it's considered propaganda, you read another "study" contradicting it and it must be fact ? Not to rag on anyone here, but is anyone bothering to look into things themselves, or are we just too stupid we need to just be fed things and hope they fit into our current worldview ? - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -14/+65Shamwow has made sea-level rise inconsequential
- inactive, on 09/05/2008, -13/+61That reminds me of 2 things: When confronted with all the inaccuracies of An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore responded saying "Even if all the facts aren't true, the message is more important than truth." Or when Dan Rather was told that the documents that proved George Bush was awol in the Guard were faked and he said: "They may have been faked, but what they say is true." The thing that upsets me the most is the attitude that the evidence can be made to fit the facts. Or if you disagree with Al Gore's "science" then there is no other explanation other than you must be paid off by some oil company. This issue is compounded when he is given a Nobel Peace Prize for making a documentary that, as time goes by, turns out to be less and less accurate, and things are said such as: "The debate is over." But the debate isn't over. The more you look at the facts, the more they fall apart. This does not mean let's do nothing at all, it just means that the things we do need to be supported by scientific fact, not a liberal agenda. The difference between me and a liberal, is I'd rather be told the truth, even If I don't agree with it, than be pumped full of imagined "facts" to bolster my point of view. Its always better to tell the truth, even about global warming, because if you exaggerate and people find out, you diminish the entire situation.
- akeldama, on 09/05/2008, -9/+52Certainly what we are doing here to our own planet through pollution is now affecting the Sun! Inconvenient Sunspots by Al Gore in 3, 2, 1...
- VoteHillary, on 09/05/2008, -3/+42Has anyone actually read the full article?
Quote:
However, a rise of just a metre or more would wipe out the Norfolk Broads and the Wash, boosting the risk of devastating storm surges. And the new estimate does exceed that of thee latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projects between 18 to 60 centimetres (7.2 to 24 inches) of sea level rise by 2100.
Dr David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey, commented: "while lower than a few of the wilder projections made by a fringe of activists, a rise of 0.8 to 2.0 metre in a century would cause enormous loss of life in the developing world and enormous cost in the developed world.
"These are big numbers, higher than the IPCC projections that governments generally use as the basis for policy-making." - inactive, on 09/05/2008, -5/+44that's because you're just some unremarkable anonymous person posting on a social news website, no one will take you seriously.
- Erythroxylum, on 09/05/2008, -65/+98I haven't seen that propaganda film, but isn't it basically Al Gore talking out of his arse and video of ice falling into the sea and polar bears looking at the camera and the theory that human-made carbon dioxide is - what? - causing the planet to heat up somehow, all based on a graph, the soi-disant 'hockey stick' proved wrong by a proved fraud, Mann?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml= ... - ZenMojo, on 09/05/2008, -1/+32Ice sea what you did there, too.
- connor9, on 09/05/2008, -16/+47I haven't seen all the references for the film about how they made their prediction of 2m of sea rise, if you read this article it says new research shows that the film was wrong. This doesn't show how their 2m prediction was formed but this article mentions new research that wasn't available at the time of the film. So if the film is going to be attacked it'll have to be its older sources based on other research and not this new article.
- ifruit, on 09/05/2008, -33/+61My favorite was stock footage of a Polar Bear standing on a floating piece of ice.
- fulibs, on 09/05/2008, -10/+36Wait, some of you are indicating the sun has something to do with the heating and cooling of the earth?!? I would like to see some proof of this outrageous claim. The scientists have proven that the warming is entirely man made, and as far as I am concerned you are a denier and possibly a witch.
- OpenRevolt, on 09/05/2008, -7/+30Yes, the currently thriving Polar Bears...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1545036/ ...
Gore has been wrong on every single account in that movie, but green kool-aid... the green kool-aid is too green just like those trash trucks.
Anything 'green' must be 'natural and good', right?
Wake up people before they put America into a 'green' coffin. - DonQueso, on 09/05/2008, -2/+21Right, because surely there's lots and lots of republicans working for a uk rag. i hear republicans run things over there.
- christor, on 09/05/2008, -1/+20But, you see, that wouldn't be as satisfying for the crowd that still likes to say that Al Gore claimed to have invented the internet - and that his interest in global warming is part of an elaborate two decade (and worldwide) conspiracy to profit from trading carbon credits.
- dblespresso, on 09/05/2008, -21/+38The libereal good intentions notion.
- biogears, on 09/05/2008, -5/+20Typical response of the left to data - "the opponent is disparate". And of course the Bible has to be invoked.
- inactive, on 09/05/2008, -2/+17Don't you see?
Their approximate claims based on uncertain data are more accurate than Al Gore's (actually, the IPCC's) approximate claims based on uncertain data.
So global warming doesn't matter because we'll have water a little over our heads instead of a little more over our heads.
I'm getting irritated by this...
Politicians and journalists leading a debate on climatology... Leave the science to scientists, please. - RaggTopp, on 09/05/2008, -0/+15"Its always better to tell the truth, even about global warming, because if you exaggerate and people find out, you diminish the entire situation."
Kinda like what happened with the D.A.R.E. program in America?
They tell outright LIES about drugs to kids, and then they justify it because "isn't it the message that's important?"
What happens when someone finds out you told them blatant lies?
Do you maybe think they might not TRUST you anymore, or believe anything you say?
Stop lying to people and then justifying it with some altruistic purpose. - akeldama, on 09/05/2008, -6/+21"Sensationalist Politician?" Doesn't buying carbon offsets from a company he owns to live carbon neutral in his mansion show you just how super cereal Al Gore is about the environment?!?
- ZenMojo, on 09/05/2008, -0/+14Not only that, all of the global warming deniers in this thread are using this story to try to defend their position when in reality it just further undermines their arguments while not totally discounting Al Gore's.
----------------------
While the inflated rates often quoted by environmentalists are not completely out of the question, the authors argue that they should not be adopted as a central working hypothesis.
However, a rise of just a metre or more would wipe out the Norfolk Broads and the Wash, boosting the risk of devastating storm surges. And the new estimate does exceed that of thee latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report projects between 18 to 60 centimetres (7.2 to 24 inches) of sea level rise by 2100.
Dr David Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey, commented: "while lower than a few of the wilder projections made by a fringe of activists, a rise of 0.8 to 2.0 metre in a century would cause enormous loss of life in the developing world and enormous cost in the developed world.
"These are big numbers, higher than the IPCC projections that governments generally use as the basis for policy-making."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - majortom1981, on 09/05/2008, -4/+18The article that is linked here has one of the scientists state they still arent sure how everything works . So what al gore said is not right or wrong since the scientists themselves state they still arent sure.
heck the linked article states that other scientists come up with a different figure for the amount of sea level rise. - Greengoo, on 09/05/2008, -0/+14When I first read this I immediately thought "Charlie Brown teacher", but then I got what you were going for.
- ryrocker, on 09/05/2008, -3/+17i get jokes
=] - apackofmonkeys, on 09/05/2008, -1/+14Nice reading comprehension there, Ratz. I don't want my kids under your side's education plan.
- jbmcb, on 09/05/2008, -3/+16Waah - waah - waah - wawawawawa. (muted trumpet sound)
Sound effects in text is difficult. - OpenRevolt, on 09/05/2008, -8/+21It's because the green kool-aid is the most bitter flavor.
It won't be long until we see another DIGG, "Scientists say Global Warming JUST MIGHT MAYBE, JUST MAYBE, POSSIBLY BE LINKED WITH EVER WORST EXPECTATIONS AND PREDICTIONS OF DOOM"
You notice they never declare it as 100% fact because they know they are lying. - Calinthalus, on 09/05/2008, -1/+14How does Bush's failure impact the fact that Gore failed one way or another?
- DogsArePeople2, on 09/05/2008, -5/+18Well said. Thank you.
- j0ew00ds, on 09/05/2008, -7/+20Keep telling yourself that. I say Al Gore was in it for personal gain.
- ZenMojo, on 09/05/2008, -1/+13Except Bush was lying about Iraq. He falsified evidence and ignored counter evidence. Scientists simply came up with NEW evidence. There's no tit for tat in reality, buddy. The world is not "fair and balanced," and sometimes people are just lying, cheating, and stealing.
- twtmc, on 09/05/2008, -4/+16Regardless of whether or not anyone agrees or disagrees with the article, let us not forget that it /is/ The Telegraph after all. I think they are pretty brave for saying that anyone else makes exaggerated claims.
- biogears, on 09/05/2008, -7/+19Global cooling would be MUCH worse than warming. Cooling would reduce land area and crop growth. Warming will increase it.
- zacharytelschow, on 09/05/2008, -1/+12You're making the fundamentally false assumption that Gore had studies to back his initial claims. Those crazy "credible" scientists predicted sea level rises just 1/10th of Gore's. Instead of being labeled the lunatic and charlatan he is, Gore was given a Nobel prize.
- rationalist, on 09/05/2008, -0/+11RTFA - and read this more responsible article on the same study:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7598861. ...
The article dugg states that the findings of this report:
1) assume linear melting rates for the next 100 years, even though the very same article notes that the melting rate is accelerating alaermingly
2) that even the rate the report predicts, is way over the estimates of the PICC - which denialists here have derided as being alarmist.
Both articles quote experts, noting that even the 2 meters - about 6.5 feet - would be disastrous for humans.
3) it is one report. The way science (real science, not creation "science) works is that reports like this are published and then others seek to reproduce the results, examine the data for faulty analysis, and debate the conclusions.
Bottom line: even if this report, alone of all others, is 100% accurate at predicting the future (something no scientific study, including this one, claims),
A) the results will be severe
B) there is no question that humans are the primary cause of accelerating climate change. - grantHamNeck, on 09/05/2008, -8/+19I thought the point to an inconvenient truth was to try and slow down or stop climate change.
- OpenRevolt, on 09/05/2008, -6/+17It's a religion where Al Gore is the Pat Robertson of 'Greenery', saying anything to anyone to make himself rich.
- offrdbandit, on 09/05/2008, -0/+11Unless you are bashing a Republican, obviously.
- OpenRevolt, on 09/05/2008, -10/+22lol well there goes someone's research grants
- ironhide, on 09/05/2008, -2/+13Be prepared to be buried for posting the truth.
- LordPhilMil, on 09/05/2008, -1/+12the polar bear is animated...and it drowns!
poor animated polar bears... - SimmaDownNow, on 09/05/2008, -12/+22For the last time, this is not a partisan issue! I sometimes wish it wasn't Al Gore that narrated An Inconvenient Truth. Why are people so damn ignorant?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 542 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is