What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Killer Gift For A Movie Buff view!
bestbuy.com - Insignia Blu-ray player instantly streams Netflix movies right to your TV & comes with a free disc.
198 Comments
- thesoprano, on 10/10/2007, -15/+39This is silly. Manbearpig is clearly a greater threat.
- DRINKxREDxBULL, on 10/10/2007, -35/+59If you believe that, then I have some carbon credits to sell you, and if you don't give me your money THE WHOLE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!!!!!
- abran1984, on 10/10/2007, -12/+24Global warming stories seem to be all about striking fear in everyone. I'm so sick of it...
- Smoov, on 10/16/2007, -14/+25They are breaking one of their core propaganda stratgies. The reason all the previous attempts to scare the public failed so miserably (i.e., "Global Cooling", "Population Bomb", "Hole in the Ozone", etc.) is that the propagandists did not project their doom scenario out far enough. The Population Bomb fanatiacs (the "global warmers" of the 1960s and early 1970s) projected global collapse and mass starvation in the US in the ealry 1980s. Well, that period came and went with no global collapse. All their predictions were 100% wrong.
This time they learned their lesson. They project global warming horror 100 years from now, when nobody will be alive to prove them wrong. By setting this particular prediction only 20 years from now they will be proven to be the liars and scare-mongers (for political, not scientific, reasons) that they are. It'll just take 20 years. Hopefully this will all have blown over by then anyhow and the would-be socialists and state-control freaks will have moved on to their next Big Lie in yet another effort to micromanage every detail of our lives.
***** them, I say. I've cared about the environment my whole life. I ain't gonna let some ***** city-dwelling "green activist" preach to me. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+13Good, those ice caps piss me off.
They just ***** sit there in the water all day when *I* am the one who has to go to work. - christor, on 10/10/2007, -6/+15Brilliant observation. If only all the scientists who waste their time collecting and analyzing data would simply realize that the Earth goes through cycles, think how much better off we'd be. Why do complex studies and collect numbers and things when all you have to do is observe that the Earth goes from hot to cold and back again? In fact, I made this point to my wife this morning when she yelled at me to take my hand off of the hot stove. What to her smelled and looked like burning flesh, I knew to be just a warmer period in my body's neverending homeostatic struggle. Thank god for cartoons like Ice Age and commercials by the Competitive Enterprise Institute ( http://www.cei.org/pages/co2.cfm ). Sure I've lost the use of my hand, but now I know that it would have happened anyway at some point and that it's impossible to know how much of the burning came from the stove and how much from the ambient air. I do hope, YuriSakazaki, that you publish your important observations in Science or Nature. There are just too many scientists wasting precious time and money studying this altogether natural cycle.
- gummih, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Well, as far as I can see they DIDN'T make any prediction! They made a specific series of statements, they said:
Arctic icecap has never been smaller.
The Arctic Icecap is shrinking at a faster rate than before.
If the increase in shrinking will continue then the ice will be gone in 2030.
To state simply; IF things will continue at the current rate THEN the Icecap will be gone in 2030.
I agree that I find it unbelievable that the entire icecap will melt by 2030, but I think it's now obvious that it won't be around for much longer unless there is some intervening catastrophic geological event - in which case we might be even worse off. - cygnus2112, on 10/10/2007, -18/+26It's very likely. The ice age cycles have been happening every 100,000-125,000 years. We are experiencing the peak of a natural global warming cycle followed by yet another ice age.
- gummih, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Melting of arctic Ice (floating) won't effect water levels, but melting of glaciers in Greenland and the Antarctic will have a massive impact
- sponeil, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8And I have some land in Canada to sell you that's about to become prime real estate. ;-)
- YuriSakazaki, on 10/10/2007, -18/+26Because the Earth totally doesn't have cycles where it gets warmer, then gets colder. Sounds like some scientists need to go rent "Ice Age".
- wdoyle0447, on 10/10/2007, -8/+15I guess it is time to give up anything 18th century through now and live in the forests and graze on grass. Even then there would be too many people on the earth in 20 years. Camp fires of 12 billion people would just keep melting the caps. So the obvious solution is to limit the unworthy population in some manner. I see the big picture, liberal nazis are coming.
- islingt0ner, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9"but...why did they put all the ice in a circle ?" Girl sitting next to me in a Calc 3 class. Please let her be joking...please.
- strafefire, on 10/10/2007, -10/+16If meteorologist, geologist, and climatologist can't predict what will happen next month -- hell even next week -- what makes this prediction so accurate?
Predictions my ass...I am still waiting on my flying car! - rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7That blog isn't convincing at all. They start off by saying essentially, "If you don't think global warming is man-made, then you must prove how it is not." No, the natural climate cycle is the default hypothesis. The claim is that it IS man-made, you can't prove that it is by telling someone to prove that it isn't. Then they go on to say "You also must prove how a 30% increase in the second most important greenhouse gas doesn't correlate to temperature change." Well first off, no I don't. Secondly, let's start with the fact that it contributes to less than 10% of the warming effect of greenhouse gases. This is clearly a manipulation of numbers, emphasizing on things like "THE NUMBER 2 GREENHOUSE GAS!" and "THIRTY PERCENT!" conveniently leaving out such facts like the actual contribution to warming. The blog is about as ignorant and "magical" as the people it is purportedly correcting.
If you look at that chart you posted, on the left of it, CO2 is following temperature, not the other way around. The rest of it is too hard for my eyes to determine, it's really a crap chart given how small and compressed the data is. Honestly, it just makes me further think that deceptive data is purposely being used to bolster the argument. A larger graph with better detail to distinguish the trends would be helpful. - sonycam, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Nice. Let's throw a festival at 8 different locations worldwide to save it!
- jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You're shifting the burden of proof. How can you show evidence to back up a claim that there is no evidence?
- doctechnical, on 10/10/2007, -9/+14We were worrying about it in '75 or thereabouts. I've seen a good number of doomsday scenarios that never came to fruition.... in the 60s Ehrlich predicted that by 2000 half the world's population would have starved to death with the remainder starving.... there were predictions that we'd be out of oil in twenty years, you'd need a gas mask to go outside in LA, yadda yadda.
So I'm just a *little* leary of doomsday predictions these days. - elvisjulep, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8And the fearmongering escalates.
So which scientists are wrong? Are these guys right and the earlier predictions wrong? Will these guys be wrong next month when another group of scientists predict the polar caps will melt in 11 years? - rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7So, what you're saying is, we should stop using all of Earth's resources? I suppose we should go back to living in caves, killing wild animals, and living off the land... no, wait, those damn cave men ruined it when they discovered fire. And we can't kill any of Earth's innocent little creatures, now can we? Just ignore that lion slaughtering that gazelle in the background...
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5No, not for nothing. You can still be a smug prick about it.
- AJH16, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5that end up going crazy from freaky genetic mutations and you have to shoot your way through to survive?
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I'm really sick of people faulting me for reading their arguments and evaluating them to decide for myself whether I want to agree with the information presented. You can't tell me what makes sense to me, okay? I don't know everything, but I'm not stupid, and if something sounds so confusing and backwards that it sounds like BS, then I'm not going to buy into it, regardless of who is telling me to hit the "I believe" button.
- shark615, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Since when did a work of fiction become a prediction of the future?
- doctechnical, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6FTA: "If the increased rate of melting continues, the summertime Arctic could be totally free of ice by 2030."
It was hotter yesterday than the day before. If this trend continues Lake Erie will boil away within five years. - VitriolAndAngst, on 10/16/2007, -1/+5Dire predictions were made -- and actually, Australia suffered a bit from the Ozone hole. The whole point was -- that the predictions were on target IF WE KEPT USING CFCs.
So, the activists pushed the government, and the government created regulations and -- we solved the DAMN PROBLEM. Just like the phosphates that used to be in all the detergent were making the rivers cover with foam. We got government to change regulations and Phosphates were reduced.
Amazing that our economy didn't collapse due to the harsh strain on these industries.
The Ozone Hole is a great example of Liberal Activists changing things for the better. Government responding and problems getting solved.
By the way, the Ozone hole is diminishing but not gone -- and it DOES help to increase global warming. If it weren't constrained to the South Pole, it would cause serious damage to an ecosystem if it showed up in South America.
We need Ozone in the upper atmosphere to reduce the UV rays our world gets.
Can't you people just grow the Hell up? - rarson, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If we do have a return to another ice age, you can bet people are going to be crediting (or blaming) the steps taken to reduce CO2, and ignore the possibility of a natural trend.
- g30ph, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Since the bible. How many billions of people think Revelations is whats going to happen to us? I think one of them is our president.
Face facts. Most humans are retarded. - Antwan718, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Flordia will be back underwater soon yay =)
- VitriolAndAngst, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3In 10 years, when you explain how the earth got so f'd up to your kids -- I hope some of you can come back and read your stupid comments.
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You've got to be kidding me. THIS IS WHY PEOPLE DOUBT THESE "FACTS."
First, they tell us that CO2 is causing global warming (ignoring the #1 greenhouse gas that is responsible for MOST of the Earth's warming effect). Then they give us graphs showing that CO2 correlates with temperature, except that it lags behind temperature. Next we're told that "Well the heat-up takes 5000 years, while CO2 is only lagging by 800, SO THEREFORE, it doesn't matter that CO2 follows temperature, because it still causes temperature increases (note though, that in following temperature, CO2 still peaks after the temperature peak drops off, so it doesn't quite make total sense). "CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an amplifier once they are underway." So... the Earth naturally warms up, and THEN CO2 becomes an issue. But then how do we know that we're not just at the beginning of that natural, non-CO2 warm-up? CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, long before the industrial revolution.
But I want to touch again on that 800 year lag, and that warming that takes 5000 years. That's a real knee-jerker, because I've heard about 3 million ***** shouting that "TEH EARTH IZ WARMING!!! CO2 IZ HEATING TEH PLANET!!! WE MUST DO SOMETHING NOW!!!!!1" And now you're telling me that it takes 800 years just for CO2 to catch up to a temperature increase.
But, to top it all off, in the previous blog link you posted, the author surmised that we must be able to figure out every reason, natural or otherwise, for the Earth to heat up. That was the crux of his first argument, no? He said: "So natural or otherwise we should be able to find this mysterious cause." And then this article that you post to further your proof says otherwise: "Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm."
You're DONE. People don't buy into this stuff because it's not making sense. I'm not even convinced anymore that these people aren't doing anything more than guessing at this point, because they've been wrong in the past, their arguments are shaky, and they don't make any sense. People like you are just armchair cheerleaders who simply decide to repeat whatever the majority says, without stopping to actually read and evaluate the stuff you're using to support your opinions (except they're not yours, they're the opinions of the majority).
And watch, now you'll come back and rebut me by saying "You're wrong, this has been debunked a million times, Scientist XYZ says digg user rarson is statistically almost always wrong." - ralph123, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Well, wouldn't it be up to you guys who brought this up to back up your assertions?
Anyway, here you go:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/this-is-just-natural-cycle.html
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig2-22.htm - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Me too. That's why I'm reading Stormy Weather: 101 SOLUTIONS to Climate Change.
We know the problem. Start talking about solutions. - melissawm, on 10/10/2007, -9/+12So what research institute are you from? Where did you do your research? Did you go visit the ice caps? OH, right. Then STFU
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3The people who doubt climate change theories never doubted that the warming was in fact taking place. They simply doubt that humans are a major cause.
*****, why do idiots who can't even distinguish a simple fact like that think they can talk sense into people? - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3No worries then, since the Antarctic ice cap is getting thicker:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05140/507684.stm - Yokohamalion, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7The big question here is if it is a bad thing if the earth warms, because no one can answer that question. Most environmentalists would be happy to wipe every human out of existence to maintain the status quo but to what end. Without us the earth is nothing but rock housing ***** machines anyways. Now you could say its a better the devil you know kind of argument but that kind of thinking leads to stagnation. So I really don't care if the earth warms, people in Bangladesh will just have to move.
- jrefenes, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3rarson, you're my hero
- jonnyeh, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5It's amazing how the average digger thinks so little of climate scientists. They think that scientists are making all this ***** up.
- exomni, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yeah, what does she mean "they", God is singular (despite being, as we all know, tri-une.)
- djmadness, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Damn, I bought a Prius for nothing
- rarson, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Ugh, the more I look at that chart, the more shocked I am that someone would use it to support the claim that temperature follows CO2. It simply doesn't on that graph. I think the blogger doesn't know how to read charts, because it's quite obvious.
- doctechnical, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I find it fascinating that a doomsayer (Paul Ehrlich) who's predictions turned out to be absolutely, completely and utterly wrong is still held as a hero, while someone (Lomborg) who says "Basically we're pretty well off right now" is reviled.
- ralph123, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11As this has been debunked so many times already, don't you feel embarrassed to post this old, wrong, totally debunked claim yet again? There is nothing suggesting that we are at the peak of a natural global warming cycle. No evidence whatsoever.
- gummih, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4On January 6, 2003 the DCSD reached a decision on the complaints. The ruling was a mixed message, deciding the book to be scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg himself not guilty because of lack of expertise in the fields in question:[4]
Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Bjørn Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice.
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:
Fabrication of data;
Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
Plagiarism;
Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results. - tetsuwan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Gee, the site that retells what the scientist have found might well be scaremongering, but that's not what the science is about. The rapid ice loss in the arctic is quite unexpected, and very real. I don't care much about polar bears, I care about what the change will mean to us.
Anyway, the biggest irony here is that Russian, Denmark, the US and Canada are now competing for the rights to prospect for oil in the arctic. Isn't it practical that burning oil melts the polar ice caps so that more oil can be found? - CyanideMonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I've been to Rapture, it's scary, but it looks so pretty with a good video card...
- doctechnical, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In 10 years, when you explain how the earth didn't got so f'd up to your kids but they're going to be paying outrageous taxes on failed and useless policies -- I hope some of you can come back and read your stupid comments.
- doctechnical, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yeah, I read the Wiki article too. You forgot this part:
The DCSD did not provide specific statements on actual errors.
The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid. The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate.
DCSD response
On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion. - drewjoh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2you clearly don't understand...
-
Show 51 - 100 of 198 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is