digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.
See the original image at salon.com

Anti-Science Conservatives Must Be Stopped

salon.com — Americans must not allow global warming deniers to block the policies needed to avert catastrophic climate change. Our future is at stake. Most Republican senators questioned the reality of human-caused climate change or ignored the climate threat entirely.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Dralha, on 06/30/2008, -127/+208Global warming denialism is a well-funded, rapidly-spreading religious cult that promises salvation through Complete Reality Denial. Big oil's gospel of obfuscation and distortion is spread far and wide across the internet, on digg, in every forum, on every comments section to every article that deals with global warming from any perspective. The denialist cabal will soon spring into action to dig this comment down as much as possible.

    http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
    http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/sk ...
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/
    http://www.bluemarble4us.com/page09.html
    http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climate ...
    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
    http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/ ...
    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
    http://www.denialism.com/2007/03/what-is-denialism ...
    http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/ClimateTimeMachine/cli ...
    http://www.ivillage.com/green/home/0,,bmgh3s0c,00. ...
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek ...
    • SpartanErik, on 06/30/2008, -22/+33What about global warming acceptance? Look at all the "green" industries popping up, and "carbon credits".

      Both sides are to blame as they are equally greedy.
      • jrizzo, on 06/30/2008, -10/+17Agreed. Only ignorance or arrogance could make you think either side is different.
      • takamalak, on 06/30/2008, -15/+14In the former, the greed will cause the destruction of our environment. In the latter it will save it. All life is greedy; it wants to survive above all.
      • bugsy187, on 06/30/2008, -6/+14Both sides are equally greedy? The overwhelming amount of profit is with the oil companies and global warming deniers at the moment. Exxon alone made something like $39 billion in profit last year. That's why there's such a struggle to make any change. The fact that any progress has been made is pretty incredible.
      • ozydingo, on 07/01/2008, -1/+7@takamalak: not necessarily--as in "green" initiatives that really aren't. Corn-based ethanol springs to mind...
      • Scruffydan, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7The difference is that one side has the backing of science, one doesn't.
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8"Only ignorance or arrogance could make you think either side is different."

        You forgot intelligence, but I guess that's not surprising.
      • CryRightardCry, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah, and I'M so greedy I want a clean environment to live in.
        What a dumbass you are, to think it's all about money.
        You can't live in money, you can't eat it or drink it.
        Get a ***** clue.
    • geoffg, on 06/30/2008, -16/+10"Global warming denialism is a well-funded, rapidly-spreading religious cult that promises salvation through Complete Reality Denial."

      Sorry but skepticism and religion will never mix.
    • sanman, on 06/30/2008, -17/+32Don't forget the anti-nuclear fanaticism from the anti-science liberals. They're trying to doom us all to fossil-fueled warming by denying us the chance to build up nuclear power infrastructure, which could reduce our global footprint.
      • kmolnar, on 06/30/2008, -16/+16To associate anti-nuclear fanaticism and anti-science behavior or beliefs with liberals is to completely misunderstand what liberalism even means.

        The primary difference between a "liberal" and a "conservative" is that a "liberal" wants change, and a "conservative" does not. That is what these words mean. There are many liberal pro-nuclear efforts, and almost all anti-science thought is on the conservative side of the fence.
      • EarlOfLade, on 06/30/2008, -14/+15This is just another example of right wing *****.

        I have no problems with nuclear power, if and only if, we can develop safer ways of using it, including disposal of nuclear waste material.

        I would prefer fusion power as it is 100% clean, but there is virtually ni investments done in the area, basically due to oil companies having bought, here in the US, the vast majority of congress and the senate. When your political system is so corrupt as it is here in the US, new technology is not a priority, making fortunes are.

      • bugsy187, on 06/30/2008, -13/+6Why don't you let the "liberals" argue what their alternative energy sources are. Who are you fooling by conjuring up crap arguments from your imagination?
      • Farnn, on 07/01/2008, -6/+4Kmolnar: Those are outdated definitions that do not apply to liberals and conservatives in our political culture. The core of each party is what they want the role of the government to be. Unfortunately a lot of other wackos get lumped in with one group or the other because there are really only two political parties in this country.
      • Lavarock, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Yes. It's the predominantly liberal environmentalists who are absolutely petrified of anything with the big scary nuclear foil. If a shoddily designed solar power plant in the Ukraine spontaneously combusted and burnt down a town they might be scared of solar energy too. They're scared because they do not understand how amazingly safe it really is.
    • NuclearFalcon, on 06/30/2008, -17/+9I don't think global warming (er... climate change) is caused by humans.

      I will not join the Warmons in their religion saying it is.
    • PabloMac, on 06/30/2008, -26/+43Global warming is a well-funded religious cult, too. Al Gore has skimmed over $100M from it.

      He also uses 20X the normal American's carbon footprint.
      • dafunkmonster, on 06/30/2008, -2/+6He clearly doesn't believe what he's preaching, eh?
      • ozydingo, on 07/01/2008, -4/+10Could we stop talking about Al Gore please? I don't know or care if he uses false claims and phony science (ok, I care a little), but the idea of global warming has been around since long before he made it popular knowledge, and it deserves more credit than the doings of a single man no matter what you believe of that man.
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+8You're right, smart man, he's made a bundle ... investments in Google, Apple http://valleywag.com/tech/bogus/al-gores-inner-ent ... but not seeing anything from carbon trading, or biofuels, or green technologies, nothing at all from green technologies that I can see

        In fact, he may lose his shirt Biofuel Cos go Bankrupt http://www.infiniteunknown.net/2008/06/28/biofuel- ...

        Fool should have invested in Oil and denied climate change like Bush, Cheney etc have been doing
      • Origin415, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1He uses 20x the electricity of the normal American, but he pays premium for it to come from green sources. I have no doubt he has a higher carbon footprint, but 20x is not it.
      • djm19, on 07/01/2008, -0/+11. Al Gore purchases his electricity from renewable resources (which cost quite the pretty penny to do as it is)

        2. Al Gore != Global Warming
    • BufordT, on 06/30/2008, -16/+21I'm sure some of it is "bought and paid for" but even more of it is ordinary people with a differing viewpoint. I do not buy into the Global Warming scare, and I can attest to you that I am definitely not well funded or a part of any cult. I just don't believe it is caused by humans. I am digging your comment down because you call anyone who is not on the bandwagon a cult. It sounds to me like the global warming "believers" are a lot like some Christians who label followers of non popular religious beliefs as cults.
      • monoa, on 07/01/2008, -3/+8"I just don't believe it" isn't a persuasive argument against the global scientific consensus that human activity is largely or entirely responsible for recent global warming.

        You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4""I just don't believe it" isn't a persuasive argument "

        Even if I type it in CAPS??? ;-)
      • BufordT, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I could have gone into the reasons why I don't believe it, but I was just stating my opinion on the matter. To say I have no basis because I just don't believe it is splitting hairs, and a cheap shot.
      • greenfyre, on 07/02/2008, -1/+1You call it the "Global Warming scare" and are obviously making a judgement. Climate change is not a matter of opinion like 'what's your favourite colour?' or 'who's the best team'.

        It's more like your neighbour 'not believing' that leaving poisoned bait around the neighbourhood is a threat to your children and pets. It is a matter that has profound consequences no matter what is done or not done.
    • Barackalypse, on 06/30/2008, -14/+29The best indicator of any religious zealot is what efforts they go through to convert everyone else to their viewpoint and how they treat people that disagree with them, and in that regard global warming acts far more like a cult. They have nothing but derision for people for don't believe in it, you can tell just based on the headline here, they've labeled dissenters as "anti-science". Its hysterical how these are some of the same people who bash religion for "fear-mongering" and mock them for suggesting non-believers will be punished, and yet they're doing exactly the same sort of fear-mongering themselves with global warming.
      • goes211, on 06/30/2008, -6/+11I could not have said it better!
      • Dauntless1, on 06/30/2008, -6/+12Yes, a mythical hell that no christian can prove to me exists versus the top 250 climate scientists in the world telling me we're ***** up the planet, yeah that's the same.
      • vertigoacid, on 07/01/2008, -6/+1The best indicator of any religious zealot is what efforts they go through to convert everyone else to their viewpoint and how they treat people that disagree with them, and in that regard heliocentric crowd act far more like a cult. They have nothing but derision for people for don't believe in it, you can tell just based on the headline here, they've labeled dissenters as "anti-science". Its hysterical how these are some of the same people who bash religion for "fear-mongering" and mock them for suggesting non-believers will be punished, and yet they're doing exactly the same sort of fear-mongering themselves with heliocentrism.
      • monoa, on 07/01/2008, -3/+12You see it as a cult because you lack the intellect to understand that global scientific consensus was reached long ago. The science was confirmed decades ago. Serious warnings from scientists started over 20 years ago.

        There is no debate in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic global warming - only the time and severity of the consequences. There is no debate for the same reason there is no debate about evolution.

        And much like Creationists claim they are being persecuted, so too are the global warming deniers now. Get used to it folks, you're only going to look dumber and dumber as you continue to deny the scientific reality.
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Agreed - notice how hysterical people were trying to tell everyone about the Holocaust, and Cambodia, and Rwanda, and ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, and lynchings in the southern US, and shooting of children in South Africa, and ...

        Why couldn't they just chill and take a more relaxed, moderate view.
      • BufordT, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1monoa - There is still debate in the scientific community, or we wouldn't be posting comments about this article. Does the fact that there is a "consensus" of belief in a God or higher power mean the debate is over? That we shouldn't continue to doubt the existence of God. I don't think so.
      • Origin415, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1@BufordT
        There is debate between scientists and politicians, but not among scientists. We are posting comments on this article because politicians do not agree with the scientists.
    • KhanneaNL, on 06/30/2008, -14/+2It's very simple. Make a complete list of anyone who keeps denying. Chart their statements and actions and make clear how they use their influence to oppose sound environmental policies. Publicly expose these statements and start a steadily mountain lobby that connects severe penalties to these actions. Right now you can't lock the deniers up but in a decade you can (and that includes active voters and bloggers).

      I'd say the signs will so evident in ten years that we will see people receiving death sentences. Now I am not in favor of death sentences but a steadily mounting threat of legal action and severe consequences will make many of the deniers pause.

      This strategy will work. Foremost deniers, including many oil people, will almost certainly sit out decades of hard prison time, at some time in the future - when people start dying en masse because of the effects global warming and environmental collapse. Too bad it will make almost no difference by then.

      Basicly I have given up. Humanity is dead set on a mass-extinction. It almost looks as if the deniers KNOW there is climate change, like the rest of us, but they are using the denial card to shove other people into the ovens ahead of them.
      • ProUSADigger, on 06/30/2008, -3/+12I'll be teaching a class on 20th Century History this coming Fall. I was wondering...would you mind if I
        use your post as a perfect example of facism?

        I was especially "impressed" with this gem: "Publicly expose these statements and start a steadily mountain lobby that connects severe penalties to these actions."
      • IconoclastStill, on 06/30/2008, -4/+2"Make a complete list of anyone who keeps denying. Chart their statements and actions and make clear how they use their influence to oppose sound environmental policies. "

        Absolutely, Comrade. Of course people who have worked hard to reduce pollution, protect species, etc. but regard owl, hansen and their cult of gorebull scamming a ludicrous scam have no environmental credentials. Good thing for you Kool-Aid can be produced without releasing much CO2.
      • dafunkmonster, on 06/30/2008, -3/+2ALL HAIL GLOBAL WARMING!!! *salutes*
      • Equinox2012, on 07/01/2008, -1/+4@IconoclastStill
        I'm sure you would have no objection to dumping waste in your backyard or drilling for oil in your favorite fishing hole. It only seem that the stupid don't get active until it effects them personally. We only have one Earth... unlike your wife, you can't open a catalog and mail-order a new one.
    • calbff, on 06/30/2008, -11/+18Isn't it anti-science as well to blindly follow a theory? I'm not saying there isn't very good scientific evidence pointing to global warming, I'm just saying there's also a lot of crap science too, and it's up to intelligent individuals to be skeptical. I don't see much difference between the blind anti-climate changes and the blind zealot supporters.
      • nick111, on 06/30/2008, -3/+10No - the evidence is overwhelming on this one - if it were anything else then it would be accepted as common sense, but it has been politicised so there are people who will quite happily lie through their teeth because they think the "side" they have chosen is more important than the truth, or (for that matter) the continuation of life as we know it.

        This is not a game between two "sides". It's heavily funded lobby groups playing to a morass of profoundly and willfully ignorant former Bush-voters/conservatives vs everyone else on the planet.
      • Dauntless1, on 06/30/2008, -2/+7Ummm, the average denialist can't point to a scientist that disputes climate change who isn't on big oil's payroll anymore?
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3"I'm just saying there's also a lot of crap science too"

        For example?
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5"blindly follow a theory?"

        In case you hadn't noticed, the climate change proponents are all pretty well informed and frequently offer information, links to real science, sources and legitmate references.

        I personally am a biologist, and like all the other biologists, climatologists, and most scientists, there is absolutely nothing blind about our acceptance of the scientific data.
      • Equinox2012, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Most of the people who follow GW are not novices who just picked up a magazine, read it, and said "That sounds good to me!". Most of us are well versed in many sciences and are able to pick out the crap from sound study.
        Go ask an economist on how weather works and most don't have a clue on the ins and outs. Yet they are prolific in the anti-GW movement. Their job is to run stats and create models from results of the past. Not the data mind you just the results. They aren't looking for flukes, El Nino, volcanic activity or sun spots. They just crunch numbers.

        One economist put it like this. Take 20 guys with an income of about 20k a year and average it... you will get about 20k. Now take one guy out and put in Bill Gates... the average income is now in the millions.
      • kurtu5, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Equinox2012 - says "Most of the people who follow GW are not novices who just picked up a magazine, read it, and said "That sounds good to me!"."

        Ok, then why there are children on my TV telling me to worry about the climate crisis? If this is a professional opinion, then why is the public receiving such heavy does of PR? I have not seen a single commercial that explicitly says what the actual crisis is, just that there is one.

        Where are the commercials with kids telling me to worry about the economy?
      • Equinox2012, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1That's advertising and PR. It's whole purpose is to get you interested.... you still have to do the research.
        As far as the advertising and PR for the economy... if the economy fail, life goes on. If the earth fails, money mean nothing.
    • DrVermin, on 06/30/2008, -12/+7LOL. So, the people saying "slow down, maybe the Earth *isn't* about to explode" are the cultists, eh?
    • bmgoau, on 06/30/2008, -7/+24The Royal Society
      http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
      http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=11 ...
      http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=13 ...

      Canadian Institute for Climate
      http://www.cics.uvic.ca/scenarios/index.cgi?More_I ...

      United Nations Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change
      http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/091.htm# ...
      http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
      http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/WG1AR4_SPM_Appro ...
      http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf
      http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
      http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_S ...
      http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM13apr07.pdf
      http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf
      http://arch.rivm.nl/env/int/ipcc/pages_media/FAR4d ...


      On the suns natural cycle
      http://climatesci.colorado.edu/publications/pdf/Wa ...
      http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/sola_nature05. ...
      http://cc.oulu.fi/~usoskin/personal/nature02995.pd ...

      Princton University
      http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/25/science/earth/25 ...

      Science (journal)
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/306/5702/168 ...
      http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/04572/EGU05-J ...
      http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/307/5716/176 ...

      Max Plank Society
      http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentati ...

      Natural Science Journal
      ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

      Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research Occasional Paper #58
      http://instaar.colorado.edu/other/download/OP58_dy ...

      National Center for Environmental Statistics
      http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epalib/nwlet.nsf/434d56 ...

      Nature Science Journal
      http://www.caenvirothon.com/Resources/Mann,%20et%2 ...
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v438/n7066/ab ...
      http://www.geog.umd.edu/resac/outgoing/GEOG442%20F ...
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v443/n7108/ab ...
      http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v406/n6797/ab ...
      BBC
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6179409. ...

      Journal of Geographical Research
      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2005/2004JC002671 ...

      United Nations Environmental Program
      http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/CEO_brie ...

      Geophysical Search Letters
      http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~victor/recent/scheffer_ ...
      http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2004/Schmidt_e ...
      http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028164 ...

      Open University
      http://www3.open.ac.uk/earth-sciences/downloads/Pr ...

      Scientific America
      http://ccr.aos.wisc.edu/news/0305046.pdf

      National Academy of Sciences
      http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/97/18/9875

      Univeristy of East Anglia
      http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2005-12-WMO.pdf

      NASA
      http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/

      Jounal Climate
      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/Smith ...

      National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
      http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

      You're argument on how since co2 comprises only .3% of atmpsphere and thus couldnt possibly be responsible for warming demonstates your utter lack of understanding. It is CO2 along with our oceans that regulates the temperatures of the globe. 0.3% may not sound like much to some people, but its what stops us freezing to deah by trapping heat from the sun.

      As for denial You may be interested in these articles...
      Nature Science Jounal
      Exxon funds climate change denial
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2006/sep/20/ ...
      Other
      http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Business/story?id ...
      Resistance by Oil Companies
      http://www.ceres.org/news/news_item.php?nid=56
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/science/story/0,129 ...
      Newsweek
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek ...
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20113753/site/newsweek ...
      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20226462/site/newsweek ...
      Bush Administration changed research papers
      http://foi.missouri.edu/whistleblowing/bushaideedi ...
      http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/columnists/wi ...
      The guardian
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/ ...
      Science Jounral
      http://www.sciencemag.org.www2.lib.ku.edu:2048/cgi ...
      The dayily telegraph
      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/ne ...
      • Rednik2011, on 07/01/2008, -4/+7Forget all that "evidence", I'm gonna go with what Ron Paul and some shady oil-funded studies say
      • BufordT, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2I just can't get enough of the global warming crowd that posts a pile of links without telling us why they are posting them. If you want to be more than a blind link poster, take information you've garnered from the articles and make an argument using them as references. Anyone can do a Google search and come up with the same stuff, and I'm damn tired of scrolling through pages upon pages of links to the same stuff in every comment section of global warming articles posted on Digg. I don't intend to be mean, but you should learn how to spell University consistently if you want to make a point.
      • greenfyre, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1"I'm damn tired of scrolling through pages upon pages of links to the same stuff"

        Agreed, but when the Deniers keep posting the same nonsense you post the same science that debunks it.
    • dafunkmonster, on 06/30/2008, -10/+14My bank account balance reads $12.67, and I don't believe in man-made global warming. I decided that man-made global warming was a crock of ***** when I saw that the "scientists" on the IPCC were mostly political scientists, that Al Gore had "adjusted" his ice core data to hide the 800 year lag from temperature to CO2, and that sunspot activity has coincided directly with all of the major climate extremes of the last 2000 years.

      In short, I must OBVIOUSLY be a shill for big oil, and completely ignorant of any scientific data or theory. I am clearly part of the scum of the earth: the global warming denier cult.

      Give it two decades. We'll see who has the last laugh.
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -4/+6"saw that the "scientists" on the IPCC were mostly political scientists"

        i) what is a "political scientist"
        ii) where did you see this?
        iii) please provide their names

        Al Gore never had any ice core data, he merely presented the work of others

        Which 'lag' are you refering to? there have been many, they are well understood by climatologists and incorporated into the models.

        Sunspots and solar cycles repeatedly debunked by scientists
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
        http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-deniers-f ...
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006 ...
      • mjantz, on 07/01/2008, -5/+3The point is we can't "give it two decades"



        ass
      • cardgame, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Here is the problem GreenFrye. for as many links you can post that show scientist debunking Sunspots, I can show just as many that support it. so posting links proves nothing, for both sides. So you have to look at the reports themselves. See that on your side the scientist debunking sunspots have a material investment in the successful acceptance of their research into man made global warming. if something comes along and is critical to that, then it must be debunked or that scientist is out of a job. Same thing hold true on the con side. are the studies funded by oil companies our other institutes that have a message to support. In the end it comes down to obvious and personal observations. The temperature has gotten colder over the last few years or at least flat lined which is right in line with the sunspot activity or the lack there of. cause and effect completely observable in real time. If man made CO2 had an effect sunspot activity could be immediately ruled out because the temperature would not react to the actions of the sun, BUT IT DOES. so you need to question your beliefs.
      • greenfyre, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1No, it is not 'did, didn't' - not with science.

        If you have more recent scientific articles (real science, peer reviewed or referencing peer reviewed) that show that sun activity is indeed the cause then I must accept that.

        This may come as a shock, but if you have got better science I welcome it! Neither I, nor anyone I know wants CC to be real. However at this point the real science says it is, so we're trying to deal with it.

        "The temperature has gotten colder over the last few years or at least flat lined "

        By the same logic http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhsh ... it also stopped in 1973, 1983, and 1990 (only it didn't).

        "which is right in line with the sunspot activity"

        No The hottest year was 1998, the peak of sunspot activity was 2001, http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?typ ...

        No one says the sun has no effect. Obviously the sun is the source the earths heat, and obviously things like orbital variations etc affect that.

        What the science is showing is that _in addition to all that_ we are experiencing anthropogenic climate change, and it is going to be catastrophic. It is additive, not either/or.

        I am not operating from beliefs, this is not a theological discussion, at least not on my end. I keep referring the science because I am talking about the science.
    • Andysan, on 07/01/2008, -7/+7There is only one way to solve this warming problem. Just Google ["global warming" yes] 8.970.000 hits -- then Google ["global warming" no] 30,200,000 hits. End of discussion -- Google knows Al Gore is full of crap!
      • Stavrosian, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Light-hearted as you obviously were being, I still can't help but despair at the way people have to link their belief in facts to their pre-determined opinion of the people who present them.
      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -2/+1"Google knows Deniers have no life"

        That having been said; you don't understand search engines or the English language very well, do you?

      • greenfyre, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1Google knows Deniers have no life

        Apparently you do not understand any of science, search engine or the English language. At least you are consistent.
  • mejaredme, on 06/30/2008, -106/+178Were any of you alive 25-30 years ago? Remember global cooling?
    • jezsik, on 06/30/2008, -35/+103Yeah, I remember it. There was an article in Newsweek or Time. The theory didn't have much serious support from the scientific community. What about it?

      Oh, you're not equating THIS to global warming, are you?
    • chesscat, on 06/30/2008, -21/+27I'm alive now and I don't remember anything about the possibility of the North Pole not having any ice by the end of September—a real chance of happening THIS year.
      • SpartanErik, on 06/30/2008, -7/+30Read about the cause of the arctic melting on National Geographic.

        They've shown that underwater volcanoes 3 miles deep that were previously undiscovered may be responsible for the heating.
      • PabloMac, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5Source?
      • paker, on 06/30/2008, -6/+21"Fire Under Arctic Ice: Volcanoes Have Been Blowing Their Tops In The Deep Ocean"

        ScienceDaily (June 26, 2008) — A research team led by the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) has uncovered evidence of explosive volcanic eruptions deep beneath the ice-covered surface of the Arctic Ocean. Such violent eruptions of splintered, fragmented rock--known as pyroclastic deposits -- were not thought possible at great ocean depths because of the intense weight and pressure of water and because of the composition of seafloor magma and rock.

        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/08062 ...

        Golly that was easy.
      • sensor, on 06/30/2008, -8/+2SpartenErik sources please, this national geographic article does NOT mention anything about any volcanoes. I think you are lying

        http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/08 ...
      • Notasheeple, on 06/30/2008, -1/+7Bingo! Someone else has figured it out. This is nothing more than divide and conquer on a global (warming) scale.
      • Quaterni0n, on 06/30/2008, -2/+5So are those volcanoes also causing the antarctic ice shelves to collapse or the increase in freaky weather catastrophes?
      • HenryJonesJr, on 06/30/2008, -6/+6Here's a quote from that ScienceDaily article that says it all..."There must be a lot more volatiles in the system than we thought." Ohhh, so you mean scientists DON'T know everything about the planet already?? You mean there are variables involved that might not have been considered? And yet I thought I heard that the science is irrefutable when it comes to global warming??? Hmmm...why do I get the feeling there's a few variables out there just waiting to be discovered that'll blow this whole global warming B.S. out of the water. Can't wait until they find it so you all can shut the hell up.
      • tdeveny, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2I think its Bush's fault!
      • mrsammercer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5HenryJonesJr, okay, so if 20 years from now global warming if all fake, but we embraced the idea...what will we have? More efficient used of the oil that WILL EVENTUALLY run out. Possibly an alternative to that oil, such as better solar, wind or purely electric cars. No matter what, civilization has to face the fact that the oil will run dry. Why wait until the last possible minute? Oh wait, that's right, because the incredibly wealthy oil industrialists want to bleed everything dry with the highest profits possible first. ***** it if the poor people are starving to death because we are behind when the time finally comes to move on to the next energy technology.
      • dexter411, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2That's the argument religious zealots use to convince atheists that blind acceptance of God can't possibly be a bad thing. Doesn't that scare you?
      • minoss, on 07/01/2008, -2/+3I've give you 10-1, up to $1000 that this won't happen. Let me know if this is acceptable and I'll find an escrow.
    • niczar, on 06/30/2008, -27/+22/facepalm
      Not this global cooling BS. It's been debunked a thousand times already.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 06/30/2008, -11/+21That's his point...

        Global cooling had alot of support as well...and wasnt true..
      • sensor, on 06/30/2008, -6/+14"Global cooling had alot of support as well...and wasnt true.."

        No support from the scientific community. Don't spread lies. Source: Peterson, Thomas & Connolley, William. The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus (PDF) http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
    • CrazedLeper, on 06/30/2008, -13/+4Any observable warming is more likely due to Project H.A.A.R.P. than carbon (which is absorbed by the oceans and plant life).
    • NuWeb, on 06/30/2008, -14/+21CO2 Emmisions, Global Cooling, Ozone, Y2K, Acid Rain, Scientoligists
      Yawn, When are they going to ban H20, because people slip on it?
      (You do know its anouther way of making Govt money)
      • dupswapdrop, on 06/30/2008, -3/+6Don't ban it tax it!
      • NapalmNewt, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1There's a difference between media hysteria and global scientific consensus on very well founded principles and observations repeated 100's of times (like with global warming and ozone layer depletion by CFC's).

        Y2K and Global Cooling was media hysteria *****.
    • DrMic, on 06/30/2008, -13/+15HOLY CARP!!!!

      Yes, I was alive then and the current events are NOTHING like a momentary splash in the non-science press that was the "global cooling" phenom.

      Furthermore, the claim that there are any real similarities to the current situation have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked. Are you THAT disconnected from reality? A habitual liar? A paid troll?
    • unebaguettesvp, on 06/30/2008, -3/+3http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
    • dupswapdrop, on 06/30/2008, -8/+3In the 60's all the science was pointing to a new ice age, then freon became cheap so we needed to ban it to save jobs in the USA.
    • ojasnet, on 06/30/2008, -7/+10They are not even remotely comparable. At best, the so called "global cooling" of the 1970s was a hypothesis that was used to try to explain a slight cooling trend over a few decades back when we new little about the causes of ice ages. Although it was popularized by the media, it never had much scientific support (the vast majority scientific papers on climate actually reported that temperatures would increase rather than continue to decrease).

      It certainly was not an alarm from the scientific community, quite unlike global warming.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1970s_ ...
      • Quisquis, on 07/01/2008, -0/+0Sorry guy, but while wikipedia is a great source in many circumstances, it is terrible when it comes to politically controversial ones.
    • rz8472, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8Global Dimming does not refute anthropogenic global warming in any capacity; in fact it serves to reinforce it and disprove that the "70s cooling trend" itself disproves global warming. Essentially, particulate pollution reflected light from the sun, causing less heat to reach the surface of the Earth. However, once developed countries began increasing regulations for certain industries and began putting carbon scrubbers in power plants and factories, this phenomenon began to peter off - in effect, global dimming is masking the true extent of global warming, but it doesn't disprove it at all.

      And if you thought that maybe amplifying global dimming could solve our GW problem, that's not such a smart idea either - you can probably expect masks to be on sale in all our major cities while DDT tears the ozone a new one...

      Again, the "70s cooling trend" argument is one of ignorance. Do some research.
    • FreshPineSent, on 07/01/2008, -6/+9............................................________........................
      ....................................,.-‘”...................``~.,..................
      .............................,.-”...................................“-.,............
      .........................,/...............................................”:,........
      .....................,?......................................................,.....
      .................../...........................................................,}....
      ................./......................................................,:`^`..}....
      .............../...................................................,:”........./.....
      ..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../.....
      ............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../........
      .........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`........_/...........
      ..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}...........
      ...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../............
      ...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....}............../.............
      ............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”...............
      ............/.`~,......`-...................................../...................
      .............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__...........
      ,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,....
      .....`=~-,__......`,.........................................................
      ...................`=~-,,.,......................................................
      ................................`:,,...........................`..............__..
      .....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``.......
      ........................................_..........._,-%.......`...............
      ...................................,
    • idontlikeyou2, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7Global cooling is a pathetic excuse, hypothesis are proposed and tested and global cooling was proposed and appeared in a "FEW" journals but as technology matured, that hypothesis was struck down with data. But you're not concerned with scientific method at all, people like you only care about using red herring issues to drive a political message, you should be happy posting at conservpedia.
    • stalman, on 07/01/2008, -1/+3Is this ad hominem? I'm still working on how to classify my logical fallacies, I'm not always sure which I'm looking at. Post-hoc ergo propter hoc?
    • gzuckier, on 07/04/2008, -0/+2sure do remember it. article in time magazine 1974, still online. the two scientists proposing global cooling are still online themselves today, denying global warming. and you agree with them, while pointing out their former errors. make sense?
  • Railer, on 06/30/2008, -115/+189Remember DDT?
    Pesticides?
    Ozone hole?
    Y2K?
    Comets?
    Planetary alignment?
    Radon?
    Acid Rain?
    Hand Guns?
    and of course Eugenics?

    See I seen many "disasters" that were going to kill us all, and all they did was increase taxes and decrease freedoms. Calling skeptics "deniers" is a simple way to vilify any questions that go against doctrine. Each was designed by a small group to force through an elitist agenda.

    linking is to Gristmill kind of makes the point, what moveon.org was busy?
    • spongya77, on 06/30/2008, -42/+83You're a moron. You essentially say that we should ignore potential dangers, because all the million other potential dangers did not kill us yet.
      Not to mention, that DDT and pesticides are harmful. Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer. The ozone layer is compromised by freons, but guess what, you idiot. Because of all these stupid alarmists, there were steps taken in time to stop the process.
      Just because something does not kill you immediately, does not mean it's harmless. Go and sniff some asbestos, if you don't believe me. No. Just go and sniff some asbestos, period.

      How does eugenics come into this, by the way?
      • Warbick, on 06/30/2008, -17/+33So you are saying we shouldn't even question any theory's that come about? We should always just jump on the bandwagon without questioning it? That's ludicrous.

        Even supporters of Man-made global warming don't believe it will happen over night, so why can't we make sure we aren't spending trillions of dollars trying to reduce our CO2 emissions, when it could be all for nothing? Don't give me any ***** about if we don't start now, it's all over. China will not follow suit here and we all know it. They emit far more than we do.

        Scientists have yet to prove that CO2 is actually able to warm the atmosphere, and even then, that we emit enough of it to actually warm the earth.

        We must question it, or we will be doing this blindly.
      • Necoras, on 06/30/2008, -7/+23Eugenics was a rather large movement in the early 1900s that was pushed by badly understood science. It caused the forced sterilization of many people based on ideas that weren't thought through.

        DDT is potentially harmful, but it saved millions of lives. How many people die of malaria every year? The ozone layer is in the upper reaches of the atmosphere, on top of a great deal of relatively dense air. CFCs are considerably heavier than most of that air. Yes, they cause ozone degeneration, but how exactly do they get to the ozone layer in large quantities. Were high levels of CFCs measured at that height?

        Science is a wonderful thing, and it teaches us how things in the world work. However, we have a tendency to take a little information and make a big movement out of it before understanding the implications of it. Before spending trillions of dollars fighting global warming, we should understand whether or not we really are really the cause, and what kind of actions will be beneficial. For example, in any environment with a substantial amount of water vapor (>70% of the planet) CO2 doesn't have an appreciable greenhouse effect. Is this taken into account? Are the temperature measurements we base this science upon only taken over land, or are 70% taken over water?

        Without this information, and a whole lot more like it, we are shooting blind and that's dangerous.
      • chispito, on 06/30/2008, -7/+24DDT's absence has killed millions more through Malaria than the comparatively miniscule number of people who might get cancer from it.
      • Loonacy, on 06/30/2008, -11/+8Asbestos being harmful is just a myth perpetuated by the construction companies to make a profit from replacing your building materials. All the "liberals" who pushed for anti-asbestos legislation were just part of the brainwashed masses the fell victim to this scheme.
      • kmolnar, on 06/30/2008, -8/+7Regarding the supposed lack of proof of CO2's effect, this is an absolute crock. Venus' surface temperature is higher than Mercury's despite a huge difference in solar distance specifically because of a greenhouse effect induced by an enormous amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

        "About 96% of the Venutian atmosphere is carbon dioxide..." -- http://www.astro.umd.edu/educationalresources/astr ...
      • scubajim, on 06/30/2008, -6/+7While I agree with you on most of the issues you site. DDT was not harmful.
      • schroeder, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1I believe that DDT is harmful at large doses as were distributed when the chemical was first widely used. In small doses however it is not that harmful.

        The problem with much of the debate over global warming and such is that you can say it doesn't exist by man made means however much you like, but if you are wrong then we are in big trouble. What does it take to reduce the pollution that causes it? Money? Are the green pieces of paper you hold on to so dearly worth what could be a potential disaster? There are better, more efficient ways to do things. Sure it may cost more, but isn't it worth it? Everything now days is so cheap and easy to come by compared to even 50 years ago (relatively). Is paying what something is actually worth so bad that you would sacrifice the well being of the planet we live on? It seems people today are so concerned with getting ahead that they forget that we are just flesh and bones in a ecosystem dependent on certain variables and that we have the knowledge to disrupt that balance. Man can have an effect on the planet whether you choose to believe it or not and it's best to realize those implications before things get out of control. It doesn't take much to say we can do things better than we are right now.
      • spongya77, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2Who said anything jumping on any bandwagons? You are assuming things that I did not say. (And we all know...) There are things that are scientifically sound. Climate change is one of them. There's no refuting this fact. Go and read peer-reviewed papers on the matter. Nature has a great archives.

        Asbestos? Myth? Please go, and sniff some. I beg you. And visit Steve McQueen's grave, too, before you die. You'll have a few years, so no hurry.
        DDT's effects: where malaria is prevalent, unfortunately it's important to have, because the gain outweighs the harm it causes. (Mosquito nets are useful, too). DDT is a poison, though, and it killed a massive amount of wildlife. Because, you know, all those birdies, and other stuff is important for us, too.
        I still don't get how Eugenics came into the picture. It was not a crisis. Some ***** supermacist morons started a movement claiming to be based on science they did not understand. Why not bring up the Nazis as well?
    • OliveStreet, on 06/30/2008, -27/+16Sounds a bit like something Bush would say. And we all know how right he's been over the years.
      • herschman321, on 06/30/2008, -4/+16wow - thats a logical argument:

        You sound like Bush
        Bush is always wrong
        Therefore, you're wrong

        /sarcasm
    • MadKennyP, on 06/30/2008, -20/+37DDT would've resulted in the extinction or near-extinction of many bird species. It was STOPPED. That's why it's not a DISASTER today.
      • Otto, on 06/30/2008, -16/+23It's also why millions die every year from malaria.

        ***** the damn birds.
      • screamingjoker, on 06/30/2008, -2/+23DDT was suspended in many costal areas because is softens eggs of birds, even fish, entire marine ecosystems collapsed. DDT has since been reintroduced very sparingly. And I think that is the answer ...or part of it. The debate doesn't have to be all one side or the other. You may not be able to convince people of global "warming", but nobody can deny that there is too much pollution and it needs to be mitigated.
      • BBWolf, on 06/30/2008, -7/+17Do a little research and you will find that the supposed thinning of eggs caused by DDT was wrong. No causality was ever established; Another Enviro-Whacko scare rumor that got played up in the media.

        Those of you that live here in the US are seriously insulated from the realities of Malaria. It kills Millions every year and debilitates Millions more, and DDT is the best tool against it. AGW is similar. There is NO consensus, and tho Science has been going against the AGW Theory and Models for a while now. Climate 'Models' are not reality, and please get over yourself regarding Co2.

        The central argument and causal component of the AWG adherents is that Human created CO2 added to the atmosphere caused AGW. OK, lets add some Facts to our discussion shall we and see where that takes us;

        FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.

        FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!

        FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapor and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.

        What you have just read is True. Co2 Is, in fact, a Lagging indicator of temp. increase... It causes nothing. The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
        So closing every factory and taking every car off the road tomorrow would do nothing to effect global temp or weather.

        Now that you have the facts, I have a suggestion;

        RELAX, it ain't your fault.
      • MadKennyP, on 06/30/2008, -9/+5I see you have no cites for any of your so-called "facts." Convenient.
      • tragic8, on 06/30/2008, -4/+6It isn't hard to look this stuff up yourself. Just do a search for your opinion on the matter and you will find everything you need to feel justified for you point of view. Why does it really matter anyway. Worst case scenario is that we all die. Many people here on digg are anti-christian and many more are anti-religious period. If we are here for nothing then why does it matter if we cease to exist? That isn't sarcasm btw.
      • Dauntless1, on 06/30/2008, -4/+3Ok, looking for links not sponsored by exxon. Whoops, don't see any. Do you have any non-oil company trash, you hatemonger?
      • Equinox2012, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6@ Otto
        "***** the damn birds."
        The American Bald Eagle was endangered because of DDT. Nothing says "Long live America!" like an extinct national standard.

        Malaria can be treated with Tonic Water w/ Quinine.
      • Lavarock, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5DDT is toxic to various animals in high concentrations. These high concentrations are brought about by agricultural spraying of DDT. Tons and tons of the substance are sprayed over thousands of miles of fields. Then it's deadly. It is safe when sprayed lightly as it is in homes and on people. And it saves people from ***** malaria.

        Quinine? You're joking. DDT saved millions from ever having malaria.
    • iamtehwinnerz, on 06/30/2008, -17/+22Read Silent Spring by Rachel Carson, DDT and some Pesticide's are way more harmful than you seem to think.
      • PabloMac, on 06/30/2008, -4/+5Pesticide's?
      • arpad, on 06/30/2008, -5/+14Then read some of the critiques of Rachel Carson's book. She was a fraud who couldn't be bothered with facts when they were inconvenient. One of her central factoids, the thinning of the egg shell of the brown pelican, started before DDT was developed - like global warming proponents Rachel Carson was careful about starting points for her charts - and just happened to coincide with a collapse of the fishery upon which the brown pelican depended.
      • scubajim, on 06/30/2008, -1/+8I'm sorry but Carson didn't do the research to show DDT was harmful.
      • Memnochxx, on 07/01/2008, -1/+5I hated that book.
      • IconoclastStill, on 07/01/2008, -3/+4Rachel Carson was the owl gore of a previous generation and equally "scientific."
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 06/30/2008, -6/+49I spent over a year doing Y2k related software updates to a payroll system so that people in many companies would still get their paychecks after Jan. 1, 2000. Millions of man-hours went into preventing Y2K bugs throughout the world.

      While I don't think the worst-case scenarios of Y2K were ever realistic, I still think it stands as good example of people meeting the challenge of preventing big problems. It's a shame most people don't realize the amount of work that went into it.
      • wolferz, on 07/01/2008, -9/+3Don't you mean it stands as a good example of man hours and money wasted on a pointless endeavor?

        The computers in use for most homes at the time of the "y2k crisis" were well past the point of being in any danger. Only a few smaller business' had extremely old equipment that might have been effected. All the software available out there was patched for this problem before y2k was ever heard of by the public. The rare few computers and programs not capable of handling the y2k issue were ether very old (versions) or made by no-name companies.

        I was working as a computer tech back then (still am actually) and I remember first hand all the fuss that was made. I did my own tests and found that, with a few exceptions, motherboard bios' going back no less than 3 years (1996) a up to 6 years (1993) were unaffected by y2k. In every single case a free bios update from the manufacturers web site was enough to fixes the problem. Every version of windows going back to windows 95 was capable of dealing with y2k without any patches. The only software I saw that had a problem was a piece of ***** database system built on a proprietary database by some company who's existence was little more than 3 all-caps letters like some IBM wannabes that could not be upgraded to use 4 digit years and could not have it "start year" changed. The "y2k patch" programs available wouldn't have helped with any of the problems except the non-existent windows and bios problems. The problem with that database was internal and could not be dealt with by any method except an (expensive) upgrade from the company... which when I went to make that purchase I found was defunct. (resulting in a mad dash to transfer all their data to a more well know system.)

        Back then I had people coming in by the dozen to get their computers checked out for y2k and I'll admit that I sold almost every last one of them a patch for it... You can say that was underhanded but if I had told them they didn't need the patch they would have told me I didn't know what I was doing and taken their computer to another shop that would. I had a choice between telling my customers the lie that they wanted to hear or telling them the truth and losing their business permanently. This is what the real problem is with the media hysteria that surrounded y2k. It brain washed people into telling the repair techs that had been working on their computers and had successfully bailed them out of every problem they had gotten themselves in for 5 years running that the techs didn't know anything about computers.
      • twrife, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4Did you quit your job after your building burned down?
      • Lavarock, on 07/01/2008, -4/+2The unupdated computers didn't break down and explode when they hit the year 2000. They just started reporting bogus dates such as 1900 and 1980.
      • filmbandit, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1it was underhanded
      • kurtu5, on 07/01/2008, -0/+2When DST changed we didn't patch our servers because knowing the actual time is not important to computers.

        /Sarcasm
    • madfrogurt, on 06/30/2008, -15/+9Yes the global campaign to stop ozone erosion by limiting CFCs had NOTHING to do with the reversal of that problem right? Same with DDT. Stupid science did nothing but stop eagles from going extinct.
      • defwheezer, on 06/30/2008, -3/+7Oh those "stupid" scientists!!! If we all just had "Faith", everything would be just "fine".

        /sarcasm from a "stupid" scientist who thinks you are a moron.
      • Rikety, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1def, your scientific chops are exemplified by your erudite handling of the English language.
    • gothrus, on 06/30/2008, -17/+65I remember...

      DDT - US banned it. Cited by scientists as a major factor in the comeback of the bald eagle in the contiguous US.

      Ozone Hole - Most of the world banned CFC's and reduced the problem.

      Y2K - I personally fixed COBOL and JCL mainframe problems in the late 90's along with thousands of other geeks thus saving the world from a computer meltdown.

      Comets - Seen any dinosaurs lately? Maybe it is a good thing for NASA to look for a defense.

      Acid Rain - Damaged and poisoned many lakes and forests in the Eastern US and Canada until tighter pollution regulation.

      In each of these cases, an intelligent assessment of issue resulted in a solution or reduction of the threat. In each case, the people who denied the existence of a threat turned out to be wrong. Just because the media blows it out of proportion or isn't capable of getting the scientific evidence into a form simple enough for you to understand, doesn't mean that it is all a hoax. There are bigger issues in the world than how much you spend on taxes.
      • defwheezer, on 06/30/2008, -5/+11There you go again, basing your beliefs on facts- silly logical person r you!
      • Rednik2011, on 07/01/2008, -2/+8Dugg for making a great point. It's as if he went out of his way to pick phenomenon which were solved via science and hard work.
      • wolferz, on 07/01/2008, -7/+1But that assumes there was really a threat. Just because people made changes and the predicted problems never came doesn't mean they were stopped... It could be that they were never going to happen in the first place.

        For example. If the aforementioned JCL and COBOL systems had not been fixed, and assuming the mass hysteria generated by the media and profiteering companies making y2k patches had not existed, would the grocery store down the road stop working? Would the stock market have shut down? Would the internet have collapsed? Would nuclear missiles have launched? Would nuclear reactors have SCRAMed? or had a melt down? Would Planes have fallen out of the sky?

        The answer is no no no no no no and no. What would have happened is a few business' would have been in a ***** ton of trouble for a few weeks and, where applicable, their stock would have plummeted. The only people effected would have been those business' and their share holders/owners, JCL, and COBOL (whom would have been sued out of existence). The world would have kept right one going and for every one not tied to that company it would have been no more important than the Enron scandal. I'm willing to guesstimate than 95% of all the money that went into dealing with y2k problems was spent by people who had nothing to worry about. Hell... maybe not even that much... just some odd looking January 3, 1900 dates on some paperwork.

        In the end the y2k "crisis" was more along the lines of a scandal in that a handful of tech companies had known about the problem for almost a decade and still had done nothing to protect their clients from it. And I do mean a handful...
      • Equinox2012, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2I saw dinosaurs in congress...
      • filmbandit, on 07/01/2008, -1/+1***** happens. crisis no crisis, science no science, ***** happens. i'm a ***** genius.
      • Rikety, on 07/01/2008, -1/+2Your citations of personal experience are BS. None of it is correct, according to MY personal experiences...take that!
      • Railer, on 07/01/2008, -1/+11. DDT was banned Malaria exploded killing millions, under the myth it killed everything including us, that was NEVER true science lied.
        http://www.junkscience.com/ddtfaq.html - the truth about DDT
        2. Ozone Hole despite 25 years of a CFC ban the Ozone hole is the EXACT same size as when we first measured it in 1985
        actually its getting larger:
        http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/lookingatearth/oz ... - 2006 double record breaker
        20 year of Montreal accord has done NOTHING to the point again the "scientists" moved their prediction from 2030 to 2070! That's right were not wrong it's just no one alive working on it today will all be lone dead before ANY prediction need come true, ya right.You remember sheep going blind from no ozone in Chile it even in one of Gore BS books, end off it as a natural phenomena, but again no scientist was taken to task for their lies. What about Ozone Holes over all the major cities of the world?
        Y2K? You fixed a Cobal system? So I guess the mass panic hyestria and eventual crash of the IT industry from which we still havent fully recovered from was all ok then. It's good to see 100 computer world wide need fixing and we can say airplanes will fall out of the sky.

        Ya those comets are gonna kill us all, if that's your level of paranoia I doubt you can be helped.

        Acid Rain was quickly covered up after it was found many of those lake were NATURALLY acidic and are still acidic to this day!
        http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0 ...
        http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=623&pa ...
        http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=30443 ...
        http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/211 ...

        GO on beliving the world is going to end tommorow and it's all humans fault, make sure too get a sign "Repend Sinners! The End is Near!" and continue to follow the classic Judaeo Christian Myth.
      • WileEPeyote, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1@Railer,

        You need to read the articles for some of the links you posted...

        From Ozone Hole Link:
        "Observations by Aura's Microwave Limb Sounder show extremely high levels of ozone destroying chlorine chemicals in the lower stratosphere (approximately 12.4 miles high). These high chlorine values covered the entire Antarctic region in mid to late September. The high chlorine levels were accompanied by extremely low values of ozone."

        From Acid Rain Links:
        "Factors that may be contributing to this increase include the use by utilities of precipitators, sulfur scrubbers, and tall stacks; the use of petroleum; and methods of combustion of fossil fuels."

        "The results, which appear in the current issue of Nature, showed that 7 of the 48 lakes contained enough organic acids to acidify their water before the Industrial Revolution swept America in the 19th century."

        None of these debunk a thing...
        The increase in the Ozone Hole appears to be due to high chlorine levels...
        Of 48 lakes tested only 7 containted enough organic acids...
        High Acid levels may be caused by...GASP...human activity...
    • theberlindoctor, on 06/30/2008, -18/+14"Calling skeptics "deniers" is a simple way to vilify any questions that go against doctrine."

      Guess what? Scientists are professional skeptics. With qualified peer review. The the repeatable result of their findings isn't "doctrine," its scientific fact.

      jackass.
      • WileEPeyote, on 06/30/2008, -5/+4There is a difference between being skeptical and just denying everything. Scientists are skeptical in that they don't buy the conventional wisdom of why something is. They measure it, observer it and test it...

        Deniers just keep saying no, despite the evidence. They even come up with a bunch of psuedo-science to back up their claims.

        The "Global Warming is a Myth" crowd generally falls in to the later category.
      • dafunkmonster, on 06/30/2008, -1/+4Its just too bad that you've misnamed the IPCC. They're a political body, not this group of "peer-reviewed scientists". Many scientists have come forth to say that the IPCC is full of *****, but they get immediately silenced and discredited by accusations of being in big oil's pocket, or having been paid to dissent.

        Jackass.
      • wolferz, on 07/01/2008, -2/+4@WileEPeyote

        There is a difference between being skeptical and just denying[/accepting] everything. Scientists are skeptical in that they don't buy the conventional wisdom of why something is. They measure it, observer it and test it...

        [Sheep] just keep saying no[/yes], despite the evidence. They even come up with a bunch of psuedo-science to back up their claims.

        The "Global Warming is a Myth" crowd [and the "Global Warming is Real" crowd] generally [fall] in to the later category."

        -------
        There I fixed that for you.
      • WileEPeyote, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Wolferz,
        I didn't come up with any psuedo science. I believe the articles I read by respected scientists. I am not a climate scientists and 90% of the people on this thread are talking out their asses when they start talking like THEY know the science when I can tell from their talking points they are just parroting partisan ***** they heard somewhere...

        Here is some science for you: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/links.htm

        Not pseudo-science or digg-science, but actual science...
    • Calibur, on 06/30/2008, -4/+4LOL ... i remeber the HUGE lighters @ local mini-marts "Y2K survival lighters"... gives me an idea...
    • unitedatheism, on 07/01/2008, -4/+1So if the thing not kill us in a month or so, it's BS, right? Can anyone name a short-sighted user???
      Why should humans care about all these living creatures in the planet?
      Do you care about some sort of small animal will cease to exist completely just because you've turned your air-conditioning on all the time? Well, at least you're not getting sweaty, right? Good for you.

      No babe, scientists will not alarm us on things that will kill you in a week or so, they're alerting us on things that will be bad for our future. And they've already saved many humans lives, by the way, what can I say? Pasteur? Fleming/Florey? *****, I'm just still alive thanks to Paul Langerhans.
      So ***** blind belief, stick with science FTW. Now we're are saying that they're creating a conspirational theory to boost their funding base on WHAT? Nothing, so in the worst case scenario is a two-sided conspirational theory.
      Long live rational thinking and observationism.
    • Reaper2806, on 07/01/2008, -5/+2You truly are an idiot, half or more of the things in that list did and still do, pose real dangers.

      Remember DDT?
      Pesticides?
      Ozone hole?
      Acid Raid?

      All those had HUGE impacts on either the environment or general public health.

      And hand guns, what they stopped firing projectiles at lethal speeds all on their own?
    • slapout, on 07/01/2008, -0/+1Don't forget that in the 80s Ted Danson said in 10 years the ocean would be unusable.
      • WileEPeyote, on 07/08/2008, -0/+1Since when is Ted Danson a scientist? Maybe you should get your science news elsewhere...
  • samoan27, on 06/30/2008, -68/+153Show me an actual geologist that says what's occurring hasn't happened numerous times in the history of earth. I'm not saying humans couldn't have acted as a catalyst but to say it's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans caused global warming is just bad science (if you disagree read a geology textbook book for once). Another bit of evidence is the fact that all planets in our solar system have increased in temperature in recent years and I really doubt humans have too much influence on Jupiter's climate.

    In addition to not thinking it's entirely humans fault I also don't think it's entirely bad either. The time when Earth could support the most life was in the time of the dinosaurs when temperatures and carbon levels were both higher (again, if you disagree read a textbook not Newsweek). Yes there were no ice caps or polar bears for that matter and if those conditions returned I'm sure both would disappear. But if you think extinction is always an unnatural consequence of human intervention and not the regular habit of Earth you're probably too dumb to read, so please HAVE SOMEONE READ YOU A FREAKIN TEXTBOOK!
    • spongya77, on 06/30/2008, -31/+33Maybe instead of shouting you should be reading. And talk to an actual geologist. And climatologist.
      Please look up the conditions on Earth when the ice-caps were missing. Or when the ice-ages were in full swing. You lack all the reasoning skills any high school student should have.
      It's not about life on earth, you idiot. It's about 6 billion humans affected by catastrophic and unprecedentedly quick changes in climate. And most of these people live near huge bodies of water, or in areas that require irrigation already. We are talking about the possible collapse of the civilization, not about polar bears.
      • nkleffman, on 06/30/2008, -15/+15The point is that it is not man that is causing climate change. Submitting to global government and adopting a one-child policy to bring down our 'carbon footprint' is not the solution.
      • samoan27, on 06/30/2008, -12/+13The reason I may sound self-righteous telling others to read and talk to an actual geologist is because I already have. I'm going to guess the closest thing to a science education you got was tuning in to Bill Nye so I'm going to explain some of the things I learned while I took numerous science classes including geology, biology, physics, and chemistry:

        Climate change acts like a pendulum, if it changes too fast in one direction it can dramatically change in the other direction. To me the greatest threat of global warming is the global cooling that can occur shortly thereafter. Now if we are acting like a catalyst and speeding the process of what normally occurs slowly (but would occur on its own mind you), then we could fall back into a new ice age which kills far more than global warming. This whole idea is called equilibrium, I'm not sure if you ever got to that on Bill Nye.

        CO2 is GOOD for the environment. If you ever took Biology 101 I wouldn't have to explain this. If you can imagine working out breathing a higher concentration of oxygen, that's the effect higher CO2 levels have on plants, again not sure if Bill Nye covered this yet.

        The theory of Evolution says the species most capable of change survive. If you don't believe in evolution that's fine, it'll do you as much good as saying gravity doesn't exist before stepping over a ledge. I'm not saying humans don't need to adapt, in fact I'm saying quite the opposite. All I'm saying is it's by no means proven that global climate change is human caused. If the idea that Earth doesn't care if it wipes out our way of life bothers you, it's your problem coping with reality.
      • tony23, on 06/30/2008, -3/+4Here, why don't you read what an actual climatologist has to say, first-hand?
        http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
      • spongya77, on 06/30/2008, -8/+9samoan27
        Brace yourself. I am a molecular biologist. You know... The guy with white labcoat, confocal microscopes, labmice, cloning and *****. That's me.
        That does not make me an expert on climate change, but you know, it gives a damn good training in evaluating things. "Taking classes" does not qualify, really. The problem is that you are an ignorant fool who thinks that just because you took some "advanced" course in science at some community college, you are an expert. You know little factoids, but it seems like nothing of substance. (You know the saying about little knowledge, right? Or maybe not...)
        CO2 is not GOOD. This sentence is completely idiotic. There is nothing good or bad in science. (Water is GOOD, too, right? Try drinking 8 liters at once. Please do.) There are certain levels of CO2 that is desirable. Too little or too much is not. If you want to see how just a little change in CO2 would change the seas (as it changed before, actually). Look up how the oil deposits came into being. We are about to see that happen again.
        Your so called "argument" piles a lot of stuff together with no supporting evidence, with some cliche's added, so let's skip it. It is of no substance, and it's scary that you actually think you are making an argument. Please go to the Nature archives, and read about climate change from peer reviewed publications.
        One other thing: the climate has been certainly exceptionally stable in the last 10 000 years; probably that helped our species build a civilization. But this is prone to change. The problem with your argument is that in the past, even "abrupt" changes happened over an incredible long period of time. We have been around, as a civilized species for about 6-8 thousand years. We are talking about hundred thousands, and millions. Only sudden melts seem to be "snowballing" into a quick, catastrophic process (like the way the last ice age ended), and guess what... we are actively pushing the climate into one of these positive feedback loops. The poof is out there, you idiot, just open your browser, and start reading. (You might want to check why there are periodic ice ages. It's quite interesting.)
        It will go back to another equilibrium, eventually, but I'm not sure we can afford to wait a few hundred thousand years for that. Because, you know, it's us on the line. And we won't be around for that long. And if there's a slightest chance that we are responsible (and there are very good independent arguments for that), and can do something about it, then it is foolish to ignore the problem. Like those people who were dancing on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg. I have no solutions, if you ask me. I could care less about carbon taxes, Al Gore, or anybody else. It's not my expertise. I clone genes, as I mentioned. What are you doing?
      • WileEPeyote, on 06/30/2008, -4/+8"The theory of Evolution says the species most capable of change survive. If you don't believe in evolution that's fine, it'll do you as much good as saying gravity doesn't exist before stepping over a ledge."
        Just from this statement alone I call ***** on your so-called credentials. Evolution isn't going to help us here dumbass. If the world starts collapsing in 30 years because of the climate issues we are not going to evolve fast enough to save ourselves. I don't even understand why you would bring evolution in to this...

        "If the idea that Earth doesn't care if it wipes out our way of life bothers you, it's your problem coping with reality."
        What the ***** are you talking about?

        And what is your issue with Bill Nye? You mention him 3 times in your rant like he is the anti-christ.
      • Farnn, on 07/01/2008, -3/+2We won't evolve to meet the problem, those of humanity who can cope with the changes will survive, shifting the allele frequencies in the gene pool. With more environmental changes, and more subsequent frequency changes, humans may evolve into a new species.
      • samoan27, on 07/01/2008, -6/+6spongya77
        Brace yourself. I was a physicist. You know... the guy taking the classes involving more advanced mathematics and conceptually rigorous material than any other science. So while you were memorizing procedures and more or less replacing what a book can do, I was learning how to problem solve and apply natural law to every situation. You see physics, unlike biology, is the fundamental science, and with it's principles all other sciences can be predicted. So while you may know how a cell works, I know how energy, power, radiation, equilibrium, chemistry, and everything else that pertains to global warming works.

        Apparently I some how learned more English along the way too, as you seem incapable of reading a full paragraph. I didn't just say "CO2 is good." I went on to elaborate that a higher CO2 level helps plants in the same way a higher oxygen level would help animals (and we're not talking poisonous amounts here either, so don't act stupid and use that argument again). Now you are a biologist so I can't expect you to be much of a thinker, more just a regurgitator, but come on. Are you really going to deny that with a higher CO2 environment plants thrive better? After that are you really going to deny that an increase in vegetation won't lead to an increase in animal life?

        I know, thinking's tough. That's probably why you couldn't handle something that requires problem solving skills and thus, "I have no solutions, if you ask me." In the future always remember, "It's better to be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."
      • Farnn, on 07/01/2008, -3/+7I used to share that same philosophy about biology Samoan, until recently taking a molecular bio class. While there is some memorization involved, a lot of biology, especially in advanced research, is applied problem solving. It requires taking a set of data which gives very few clues to what is actually going on and trying to come up with a hypothesis that explains it. Many things which we consider common sense today, such as the structure of DNA, was conceptualized by people who were working with relatively little information.

        And just to belittle you since you were doing so to Spongya, physics is simply applied mathematics. Could you not handle the really tough math stuff? Did you have to resort to applied math instead of the cutting edge and more challenging math?

        http://xkcd.com/435/
      • angryredplanet, on 07/01/2008, -4/+8@samoan27

        Brace yourself... I'm a computer scientist and I have exceptional problem solving and communication skills. That's got nothing to do with anything, but since we're all on the "Show-and-tell" career path thing, I might as well add it in here for ***** and giggles.

        "I went on to elaborate that a higher CO2 level helps plants in the same way a higher oxygen level would help animals (and we're not talking poisonous amounts here either, so don't act stupid and use that argument again)."

        The problem with this argument (CO2 is awesome for trees) is that us pesky humans are cutting the forests down. Quickly, actually. So you can put the brakes on spewing that garbage any further. Secondarily, our oceans are becoming acidic caused primarily from the excessive uptake of atmospheric CO2. This is shown in examples of coral bleaching, where both temperature and PH levels are to blame for the die-off of coral reefs. Thirdly, we are not plants, we don't breathe CO2. We might as well scratch the whole "CO2 is good" *****. It has it's place, but at the present rate of emission, soon we'll have more of it in the atmosphere than 2 Earth's require.

        "After that are you really going to deny that an increase in vegetation won't lead to an increase in animal life?"

        Wrong again. It seems we are in the Earth's first ever biotic-driven mass extinction! Amazing huh?? 6.8 billion of us are really beginning to squeeze the balls of our planet's biodiversity (flora and fauna):
        http://www.well.com/%7Edavidu/extinction.html
        http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/eldre ...

        This extinction is due to (taken from the link above):
        * transformation of the landscape
        * overexploitation of species
        * pollution
        * the introduction of alien species

        This is why it's important that we change our ways now. If that means paying tax on what you emit, then so be it. If it's possible to slow down the effects of climate change, I'm all for it because, as much as you love evolution, we humans hate sudden changes. That's really why so many people are such devout skeptics, for fear of what that translates to in terms of themselves.
      • samoan27, on 07/01/2008, -3/+3Sorry Farnn, Math is the tail that wags the dog, xkdc is comparing apples and oranges. Physics is science, math is humans invention to describing physics, no more than a language. Long before there was 2+2=4 there was the physical reality which that describes. In turn mathematical anomalies have led to some of the greatest break troughs in physics, but math in the end is no more than a tool for science. Understanding math does not lead to any utility until it is applied to its more fundamental counterpart, science.

        In answer to your question all I went through was Differential Equations, hardly cutting edge, but I did have to apply more advanced mathematics while doing quantum (Dirac equations, Weevil functions, etc). But at the same time I do hope you're not indicating that math is revered as tougher than physics. There's a reason physics, not math is the infamous 'tough' subject. With math the problem is there in front of you. Physics; well you have think to come up with the equation, and then do what the math boys just did. Don't get me wrong math isn't easy and there's plenty of mysteries still around, same with physics. But math is the fundamental/pure language, not the fundamental/pure science, get that straight before running your dumb mouth.
      • nextyoyoma, on 07/01/2008, -1/+12Brace yourselves, guys, I have a bigger dick than both of you.
      • samoan27, on 07/01/2008, -5/+5@angryredplanet

        As you were addressing me in your comment I assume you've read all I've said up to this point and that you have the short term memory of a goldfish. So let me review some things:

        While I do not believe that man has caused global warming, I do believe we are acting as a catalyst speeding it up.

        Speeding it up is bad, so I DO believe in changing our actions

        Climate change doesn't means a changed not necessarily worse result

        Mass extinctions are common in the history of the earth

        So lets look at what you said:
        "The problem with this argument (CO2 is awesome for trees) is that us pesky humans are cutting the forests down."

        Plankton, not trees is the number one consumer of CO2. Are we chopping down plankton? But that's irrelevant, especially since not all plankton is adapting to the acidic oceans as you mentioned. And as for helping trees, I love how our cutting down trees somehow in your mind reverses my simple claim that CO2 is good for them. For someone so versed in logic code it isn't translating to well to the real world.

        Then you said I was wrong about more plant life leading to more animal life. And I guess your explanation was more plant life leads to more human life which leads to less other animal life. I wasn't quite sure though because maybe it's your logic again but really your communication skills just don't seem to translate into the real world too well either.

        Then you ranted about how we must change. Which I'm not sure if you goldfished out of remembering, but I agree with.
      • Farnn, on 07/01/2008, -2/+5Continue to think that physics is the hardest thing out there, but I can guarantee that everything you have done in physics someone did before you and you are simply applying methods someone else developed. On the cutting edge of every science the work is extremely challenging and takes applying previous knowledge to work out new equations and theories. Physics is thought of as 'hard' because at the intro levels it takes application whereas other subjects intros take memorization. At the higher levels it is all challenging, many simply do not see the highest levels.

        While mathematics is merely a tool for use in science as you claim, much of physics is merely a tool for chemistry and will never have any direct effect on daily life. It is merely something that was developed to explain chemical phenomena.

        And I was simply "running my dumb mouth" because you were acting like an ass before, acting high and mighty because you took some undergraduate physics courses. You're not special, millions of others have a BS in physics. YOU'RE NOT SPECIAL!
      • Lavarock, on 07/01/2008, -2/+6Unprecedentedly quick? The average temperature has gone up one degree in a hundred years!
      • romistrub, on 07/01/2008, -4/+4Brace yourselves: I'm a nanotechnology engineer. You know that molecular biology *****? Got it. You know that physics *****? Yeah, I got that, too. Computer science? Psh. ***** cake. I also have exceptional communication skills, problem solving skills, critical thinking skills, and I pretty much wrote the Magna Carta. All you ***** are so absorbed in your own field that your level of naivity regarding everybody else's is laughable. Now before I juice all over my own mouth, let's do this *****.

        A) Clarifying something on evolution: Biological evolution is far different from evolution as a holistic concept. Social evolution, cultural evolution, biological evolution, and technological evolution, chemical evolution (emergence), and physical evolution all contribute to the holistic evolution. This is obviously what samoan was talking about. Anybody that didn't get that is a ***** moron. He is right to say that the most adaptable species will survive, whether this means of adaptation is "artificial" or not (there is no relevance to the concept of "artificial", get that through your thick ***** heads).

        B) Think about your basic assumptions in this argument!
        - Just because humans caused global warming doesn't mean we can reverse it.
        - Whether we can reverse it or not doesn't depend on whether global warming is human-caused.
        - Even if we don't reverse it (note the difference between "don't" and "can't"), we won't necessarily die off. Perhaps we need to change our civilization to fit our environment, not try and change our environment to fit our civilization. This is the benefit if being so damn adaptable.
        - The side-effects of this are not "unnatural" (all definitions of which are arbitrary). Species will die and be displaced. Humans will die and be displaced. This is how evolution works! Just because we define sticks and factories, and not teeth and nails, as tools, doesn't mean that this is not evolution in action.
        - We need to learn how to build sustainable environments if we ever plan on surviving for thousands of years (on and off this planet), but why the hell should we start by trying to make our entire ***** planet sustainable? Isn't that asking a bit much for a prototype? Start small, brace ourselves for massive environmental changes, get the ***** off this planet, and ... if we want ... fix it when our scientific and material resources to do so are adequate.

        This ***** is not complicated, but nobody seems to be able to think about the big picture. All things being said, this thread is ***** epic.
      • mtrip, on 07/01/2008, -4/+3samoan27 you remind of creationists, just chock full of pseudo-scientific drivel.
      • samoan27, on 07/01/2008, -3/+1@Farnn
        Well your mom sure thinks I'm special, but that's probably just because I can preform in ways your dad can't.
      • romistrub, on 07/01/2008, -2/+2@LavaRock, do you understand what "unprecedented" means? DO YOU?!
      • d3lta, on 07/01/2008, -0/+5@ romistrub, you're a joke, a dumb undergrad who thinks using "*****" and "***** make your arguments more compelling... why don't you go to a real university?
        I'm not sure how many other people found it ironic that a "nano technology engineer" was trying to put forward a case for holism science rather than reductionism. Whats your point on holistic evolution anyway? Why don't we just go about clinically destroying every species that doesn't specifically provide us direct benefit and only rely on "artificial" (OH YES THAT IRRELEVANT CONCEPT) adaptation? Funny, weren't you just talking about a holistic approach, or does that only conveniently suit the your argument for evolution?
        Lets have a look at your counters to the assumptions:
        1) "Just because humans caused global warming doesn't mean we can reverse it." And it also doesn't mean we can't, right? Would it be better to ignore trying to find a solution, hope for the opposite of a "snowball earth" and rely on rapid technological advances to migrate somewhere else? Hey, maybe there'd be good demand for a nanotechnology engineer! WE'D NEED YOU THEN!!!
        2) "Whether we can reverse it or not doesn't depend on whether global warming is human-caused." really? So you've already proved that reducing our greenhouse gas emissions will not end this runaway warming! Please point me to a reference.
        3) "Even if we don't reverse it (note the difference between "don't" and "can't"), we won't necessarily die off. Perhaps we need to change our civilization to fit our environment, not try and change our environment to fit our civilization. This is the benefit if being so damn adaptable."
        Ah, holistic evolution again! You know, whether or not we are able to destroy a meteor before it devastates the earth, we can still change our civilization to adapt to its effects, so why bother about destroying it! Gotta love being adaptable!
        4)"The side-effects of this are not "unnatural" (all definitions of which are arbitrary). Species will die and be displaced. Humans will die and be displaced. This is how evolution works! Just because we define sticks and factories, and not teeth and nails, as tools, doesn't mean that this is not evolution in action."
        And its all perfectly fine until you are that human who will die or be displaced. Besides, to use one of your assumptions, what guarantee is there that we will successfully evolve or survive this? LETS JUST TAKE THAT CHANCE!!!
        5) "We need to learn how to build sustainable environments