What is Digg?351 Comments
- grungegbunny, on 12/20/2008, -34/+71Global warming is supported by the evidence. It is not a political position or some conspiracy theory of cherry picked data. Watch me get dugg down.
- alapoet, on 12/19/2008, -42/+75As the evidence piles up, the deniers bury their heads deeper.
- getoffmybridge, on 05/05/2009, -4/+28Santa could not be reached for comment
- Paranoidmarvin, on 12/20/2008, -6/+25Ah, at least we're ahead of schedule on something.
We don't flying cars or robot maids, but at least global warming is getting along quickly - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -6/+24I think that digg is just too full of skeptical thinkers, and so they are not willing to accept anything very quickly. It is not their fault nor is it, say, a bad thing. Skeptical thinking challenge the presentation of the truth, so that we end up getting to the bottom of things instead of just blindly following what someone else says to be true.
It's kind of admirable, you skeptics out there about GW. I am myself a huge skeptic in everything I come across but I, personally, feel that there is enough evidence to support this theory. I admit I could be wrong! But with every discovery and every study verifying the effects of GHG emissions and the dynamic properties of climate change etc, the more confident I am in my belief.
But do not stop challenging us, diggers. And I'm sure you didn't need me to tell you that. Simply put, you are keeping us honest by resisting acceptance to our notions.
But please, PLEASE, don't just use weak arguments like we are just mindless robots jumping on a bandwagon because we are in love with Al Gore. I have never once in my entire life heard Al Gore speak and I never will. He is not a scientist so I care not what he thinks. I listen to scientists and weigh the evidence they present, and from that I can extrapolate that they are indeed on to something. Your arguments should only consist of verified scientific evidence, NOT some blog post that some basement dweller in South Carolina wrote to PROVE TO THE WORLD HE IS RIGHT AND SCIENCE IS WRONG!
tl;dr If you skeptics wish to prove us wrong, please do so using sound arguments (that means no logical fallacies, kids) and not mere dismissal or wild conspiracy scenarios. This is a highly debated topic but if you cannot produce an argument for your case, you may want to question why you then believe it. I am sure every proponent of GW in here will agree, and I hope the skeptics give it some thought. - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -7/+25What drives global warming deniers? Can somebody explain this to me? Do they get some kind of kick out of going against scientific consensus. Maybe they like to be against everybody else and in the process in the center of attention?
- trollick, on 12/21/2008, -10/+27It proves one thing - climate models suck.
- leapingstan, on 12/21/2008, -1/+15There is 6 billion of us wasting unprecedented amount of natural resources spewing waste product into atmosphere, ground and seas. Even basic logic without studying the research reports dictates we are affecting weather patterns. Why try to deny it.
Seriously, everyone here has a opinion and just talks about the facts that support that opinion. My question is, what makes one believe we have NO impact despite the drastic industrialization pace in the last decades. - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -13/+26So we're suppose to believe in the climate change in spite of inaccurate models?
- G2Asia, on 12/21/2008, -11/+24Is this old data from 2007? 2008 showed a 30% increase in year over year ice!!!
While we all can agree the climate is always changing, lets look at it as a science instead of a religion.
The fact is http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_ar ...
" comparison of these maps (derived from NSIDC data) below shows that Arctic ice extent was 30 per cent greater on August 11, 2008 than it was on the August 12, 2007. (2008 is a leap year, so the dates are offset by one.)"
also from the source http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Here is a trivia question for you in the last two hundred years how many ships have made it through the North West Passage? Which years did they cross it? A free case of Ice Cold beer to whoever gets the closest answer. - vault, on 12/21/2008, -15/+27Those oh-so-accurate climate models that couldn't predict us being 20 years ahead of schedule, interesting.
- pintomp3, on 12/20/2008, -16/+28much like with evolution, they will claim there is no consensus because they trot out a few kooks as "dissenting experts".
- wholesum, on 12/21/2008, -6/+17do not confuse WEATHER with CLIMATE.
- bruce86, on 12/21/2008, -2/+13Regression to the mean, The bad thing is the mean is moving to the warmer extreme. For someone saying "lets look at it as a science" its sad you didn't take the time to familiarize yourself with basic statistical concepts to actually interpret the data with out falling for basic statistical fallacies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_toward_the ... - grungegbunny, on 12/21/2008, -2/+13I agree. Being skeptical is very good and healthy. Being dogmatic and sticking your fingers in your ears to avoid hearing the evidence is bad. I consider myself very skeptical but at the same time you have to be able to change your mind in light of new evidence if you cannot you are dogmatic and no better off than a creationist or a flat earther.
- ShadowofAres, on 12/21/2008, -0/+10Actually, that one's from the wrong year. I believe you're referring to this-
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/01/antarctica ...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1553271/scien ... - inactive, on 12/21/2008, -0/+9Megaton - I'm a scientist in progress. Schooling is a large part of becoming one, and I have learned repeatedly what it means to use credible sources of information in order to make a claim. I may not have a title behind my name, yet, but I do understand and practice the fundamentals of being a scientist. Thank you.
- Farth, on 12/20/2008, -17/+26But, but, but according to these websites I go to, this is all a hoax! Even Rush Limbaugh thinks its a hoax. Come on Warmistas, this all a natural cycle!
- Trent1492, on 12/21/2008, -11/+20Why is it we can always depend on Global Warming Deniers to do three things:
1. Make a fart joke.
2. Misunderstand the difference between weather and climate.
3. Engage in Gore Derangement Syndrome.
The stupidity is astounding. - TheMoniker, on 12/21/2008, -2/+11It would be helpful, though less transparently idiotic and troll-ish of you, if you left some facts to back your rants.
- vsujohn2, on 12/21/2008, -21/+30Call me a "denier" but I don't think anthropomorphic climate change is whats going on. What is going on is regular old fashioned climate change. Stop using one glacier here or there melting and say OMG global warming. We have not the foresight nor adequate data to really know what the ***** is going on. The people who say its a "fact" are the true deniers. They deny anything that doesn't agree with this global scandal and anything that somehow can be construed to be our fault that automatically believe despite the science behind it. It truly is like a religion. Oh no, don't care question it and be labeled a blasphemer! Watch me get dugg down by the digg global warming sheep.
- Dralha, on 12/21/2008, -4/+13JimmySpaza = the cult leader of the Digg Denialist Cabal sect of the Church of Global Warming Denialism, a subsidiary of ExxonMobil.
- anonymous1986, on 12/21/2008, -11/+19The funny thing is that if you skim through the comment history of climate change deniers, 90% of them have strong conservative views. It seems that they are being blinded by their political views.
- holeepenguinpee, on 12/21/2008, -4/+12Umm that "USA today" article was 2002.
From wikipedia, for what it's worth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica
However, Antarctica's periphery has been warming up, particularly on the Antarctic Peninsula and in Pine Island Bay, which together are contributing to a rise in sea levels.[63] In 2003 the Larsen-B ice shelf collapsed.[67] Between 28 February and 8 March 2008, about 570 square kilometers of ice from the Wilkins Ice Shelf in Western Antarctica collapsed, putting the remaining 15,000 square kilometers of the ice shelf at risk. The ice is being held back by a "thread" of ice about 6 km wide.[68][69] According to NASA, the most significant Antarctic melting in the past 30 years occurred in 2005, when a mass of ice comparable in size to California briefly melted and refroze; this may have resulted from temperatures rising to as high as 5 °C (41 °F).[70] - djbuzzkill, on 12/20/2008, -1/+9citation, please?
- greenfyre, on 12/21/2008, -6/+14Why was the IPCC wrong???
Under heavy presssure from the Bush administration and it's war on climate science:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070904223028/http://w ...
http://debunking.pbwiki.com/Censorship-of-Climate- ...
censored the original report to SUPPRESS the science - see original, edits, and process here:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/d ...
Now the same kinds of nutbars who made sure the report would be wrong are complaining because it was wrong in exactly the way they made sure it would be! - omegared, on 12/21/2008, -2/+10he tells the truth it is not like oil and coal companies that deny global warming have anything to gain, by denying global warming.
They are not playing politics with a issue? Of course not the coal companies care about me and my family.
Let the politicians advocate war that is what we need, more fear. - libertygardener, on 12/21/2008, -3/+11The earth will survive - not so sure about humans
- greenfyre, on 12/21/2008, -1/+9You have? when?
Spaz, there is a difference between slightly wrong, and wildly delusional like the Denier claims are. - ICSU, on 12/21/2008, -2/+10Earth doesn't care.
We do. - Countess666, on 12/21/2008, -0/+8i know all about it. i also know that in medieval times they didn't have 50% more co2 in the atmosphere then normal like we have now.
we already know CO2 traps heat. (scientifically proven. build 2 greenhouses in you backyard and you can prove it yourself)
now imagine another maximum happening but with the added heat trapped by the CO2 we put in the atmosphere....
doesn't look so good does it. - TyrelVnne, on 12/21/2008, -1/+9More like what is humans ideal global temperature.
- TheMoniker, on 12/21/2008, -3/+11But wait, this just in, it was warm in my neighbourhood last night. Global warming proven! Oh wait ... what's that you say? Climate works with timescales of roughly 30 years? Well, I guess we're both outta luck then, shucks.
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -2/+10Absolutely. And I cannot stress enough how important it is to not hold a static position on things but be able to change in with new evidence. The problem is, as every day passes the more evidence that piles up in favor of GW. The burden of proof is rapidly being put on the shoulders of the nay-sayers. And so far, there has not been a credible study shattering the theory; extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, people.
I am a sifter of evidence; you provide it, I can figure out if it's legit or not. All I'm asking of the skeptics is rock-solid cite-able proof. And the longer you delay in providing it, the more convinced I am that you people are crazy and, like grunge said, equivalent to creationists and flat-earthers. I guess what I'm trying to say is: prove me wrong, and I will gladly believe you. But like I said, I am a very skeptical person. Do not be surprised when I believe someone with a Ph.D in climatology over a 23 year old computer programmer. I go with the experts, for the most part. It's an uphill battle for you guys, but I do wish you luck. - nick111, on 12/21/2008, -5/+13Because Al Gore has become a target for all the fatuous denialist wankers who don't have a leg to stand on.
They do what people like them always do. They smear. - e2superman, on 12/20/2008, -2/+9How do we keep the secret when Santa can no longer live in the north pole? Do will tell our little ones that he migrated South to Canada?!?!?!
- inactive, on 12/21/2008, -5/+12"So far not one single Global Warming "expert" has done anything but avoid this question"
No offense, but you're an idiot. - Countess666, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7you know that well over 50% of the earths population lives in coastal regions.
not all of those are prone to flooding but a lot are. its not just the really low laying cities that are in trouble.
as for no proof that greenhouses are warming the planet. give me some proof they aren't.
we KNOW more co2 traps more heat in greenhouses... so why wouldn't it trap heat in the atmosphere. - noen, on 12/21/2008, -0/+7Unless of course we don't survive. Just because never in our history have we failed to survive is no indicator that we always will.
- skews13, on 12/21/2008, -7/+14keeping in mind these are the same people who believe the economy is sound, the iraq war was the right one at the right time, and sarah palin was qualified to be president.
- Richandler, on 12/21/2008, -6/+13His point is if they model was wrong then how can you trust it.
- greenfyre, on 12/21/2008, -4/+112008 temperature summaries and spin
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/12/17/2008-temper ...
Global Temperature for November Fourth Warmest on Record
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081216_ ...
following the 2nd hottest Oct ever recorded
http://digg.com/environment/NOAA_Second_Warmest_Oc ...
In the tenth hottest year ever recorded
2008 to be the warmest La Nina-influenced year with no El Ni
http://backseatdriving.blogspot.com/2008/12/2008-t ...
In the hottest decade ever recorded
In Warm 2008 makes this the hottest decade in recorded history
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/07/very-warm-20 ... - AirRaven, on 12/21/2008, -12/+19Why the ***** is Al Gore being associated with the environment a *bad* thing?
I see absolutely nothing about the fact that he's pro-actually doing something that deserves the amount of derision he brings out in the right. - vault, on 12/21/2008, -5/+12"coming to pass a lot faster" is a really diplomatic way of admitting they are flawed. I'm very much in favor of figuring out why this Arctic issue is happening, if it really is, and why the models are so flawed.
What I'm not in favor of are laws which radically restrict people's lifestyles based on flawed models, and taxing the hell out of everyone for the benefit of chicken-little warm-mongering. - GiggleStick, on 12/21/2008, -0/+6@nick111
You mean optimally adapted for right now, right. Because when we and the current set of organisms adapted to it the current climate, millions of others simply went extinct. - vikingcoder, on 12/21/2008, -0/+6Do you notice how that Ordovician ice age is an irregular dip in a stable super-warm era? The CO2 concentration doesn't significantly change but the temperature does. Therefore, atmospheric CO2 concentration wasn't the prime mover in that situation.
- monoa, on 12/21/2008, -2/+86.7 billion today and predicted 9 billion by ~2040 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
Up from est. 2000 individuals 150,000 years ago - http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/08 ... - greenfyre, on 12/21/2008, -2/+8Wrong again
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=My ...
but keep trying ... no wait, here all of the debunked myths
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/denier-vs-skeptic/d ...
think of one, look it up, move to the next, and spare the rest of us the trouble of pointing you to them - e2superman, on 12/21/2008, -2/+8climate causes weather.
- monoa, on 12/21/2008, -1/+7I can't predict if it will rain on January 22nd, but I do have a good idea about the type of weather we will likely have in June.
You can have that wisdom for free. Try to make use of it. -
Show 51 - 100 of 356 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is