What is Digg?Sponsored by FUNimation Enertainment
Watch the First 8 Minutes of Evangelion 1.01 Movie -- Anime view!
funimation.com - Available now on DVD. The rebuild of the ground breaking anime Neon Genesis Evangelion.
125 Comments
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -6/+30Earth, schmerth. We can always get another one, right?
The survival of the human race ought to be a political issue, with lots of arguing and partisanship. I mean, sure all them fancy pants scientists are saying we need to do something, but there's a couple of scientists that Exxon hired who say maybe we don't. What's more important, life on earth, or a couple extra dollars in the economy? Think, people! - CiDaemon, on 10/10/2007, -5/+26Don't worry, Daddy Bush says it's not a problem so all of these studies must be BS, right? I mean, c'mon, would our beloved government REALLY deny science for their personal agenda? It's not like they're corrupt or anything.
- throop77, on 10/10/2007, -3/+16A scientist was wrong once... so let's not ever listen to any scientists again!
- LawSchoolBound, on 10/10/2007, -5/+16It doesn't matter how much proof there is of global warming, or how much the icecaps melt every year. People as a whole will simply not care up until the day it effects their personal life. Droughts in Africa, who cares? Asia running out of water due to melting glaciers, who cares? Not until it starts to harm Americans on an obvious level will we care, and by then we very well could be too screwed to do anything about it.
- Dingle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Because they're in the ***** desert?
- boiker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5....and the warming process is continuing today. Who said global warming was a 10 year process? It'll be decades before we realize how the climate has changed world-wide.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Unfortunately, anything scientifically relevant on the national (or global) level and how we handle it is going to be affected by politicians and the White House.
Currently, Bush is more about what's good for his wallet and his peoples' wallets. Why else would he stack the federal environmental protection agencies with people who have a vested interest in weakening environmental laws and policies? - Jareth86, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Who cares, I have an iphone.
- DracoFlameus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6Yeah but they didn't have a historic record back then. Now we have it! Congratulations...
- overtoke, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5we want stability, you ***** moron
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4People won't give a ***** until it's too late. At that point, no amount of money is going to change things (or stop things fro changing).
- Afreyt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Exactly, those same consumers who benefit the most from burning fossil fuels and would make alternative sources of energy competitive in the marketplace. Think before you post.
- stklaw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"National Snow and Ice Data Center"
This world is weird. - davids1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"The puzzling thing, he said, is that the melting is actually occurring faster than computer climate models have predicted."
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+7Climate change deniers, can one of you speak up and say what you have to gain from your position?
If you're wrong, as massive amounts of data and scientific opinion seem to think you are, you're gambling with the future of the human race - it's not like we can just turn this planet on a dime, you know.
If you're right, what does that get you? Let's say for the sake of argument that climate change isn't real, or that it's completely unrelated to human activity. The business of cleaning up our emissions and reducing pollution is helping to drive a growing economy, not hurt it. Think of the jobs that are created by emerging technologies as we try to get off the fossil fuel habit and on to new sources of energy.
Ecological catastrophes don't help the economy, they devastate it.
Please, I'm being serious, I want to know your argument. - otakushark, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4http://www.realclimate.org/
Note the second chart. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8Wrong, the record low is zero arctic sea ice.
This has occurred in all the past interglacial periods.
BTW melting sea ice does not raise sea levels.
In the long run natural global warming will cause about 20 meters more sea level rise.
In any case 90% of the expected sea level rise has already occurred during the last 20,000 years. - climateHeretic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So what radical shift in the last 150 Years are you referring to? The .7C increase in temperature? That seasonal melting of the arctic hit a record for the mere 30 years we have been tracking it? The dramatic sea-leval rise of 1-2mm year? or perhaps the regional weather events that now always get reported on in the media to fuel the Climate Change fire? Are you aware media has only two levels of weather now (severe and extreme), and they are used for all weather stories. Over 90% have the terms Global Warming or Climate change in the report.
- snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Local heat island effect due to concreting over large areas of land. (c/w termite mounds for interesting reading)
- snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What is a "climate change denier" - someone who denies the climate has ever changed?
Or is it a cheap pejorative used by the trendy left to use guilt-by-association with the Jewish Holocaust and the embedded term "holocaust denial" in order to win an argument by anything other than science? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5Are you ***** serious? 200 degrees?
Global warming will result in just about no increase near the equator and the most increases around the poles. We'll be able to grow tropical food products further north and south, and the same goes for what we grow in temperate regions. - Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, that correlation you made is pretty retarded.
That's like these people who post pictures of the snow in their backyard in the dead of winter and say the snow is proof there's no such thing as global warming. - Briankb68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2What experiments have they done?
- Briankb68, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We don't know if they did or not. Per the article we have only been monitoring the extent of Arctic sea ice since the 1970s. So the record low is only the low within the last 37 years.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nature takes thousands to hundreds of thousands to millions to hundreds of millions of years to get things done.
Not a century and a half. - Cyberen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3lol River in Egypt.
- nimski, on 10/10/2007, -8/+10A few degrees is one thing, but think about how your car, house and the farms that grow your food. What temps can they withstand? 120? 150? 200? We're not talking about a few degrees and then it stops... we're talking about run away rising of temperatures.
To be honest I think humans are too greedy and stupid (in the crowd sense) to prevent it. - felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Whatever the motivation behind the action, it seems evident to me that we should be doing this for the economy, if not the environment. Encouraging new technologies and fighting pollution helps the economy as a whole, so why aren't we doing it?
- MisterFlibble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2PopularTech = Mastertech = Poptech, twice banned from digg for spamming.
He's back again ban-evading and spamming his latest page.
Total postings/linkings of/to Popular Technology to date 51 and counting. - Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Global warming denialists don't have arguments. They witness their faith like those crazies who knock on your door.
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I think overtoke might have been a bit aggressive but the point is that 'higher global' temperature really means more chaotic weather patterns (not warmer weather). Any system that has energy added to it will become more chaotic. It's a simple fact of survival that the more your environment changes the more difficult it is for a species to survive in that environment. As global warming continues expect more floods & more droughts, more hurricanes, early frosts, record highes, etc.
OH and don't forget the other fun problem global warming introduces, which is to increase the accessibility of artic oil resources. Which sounds good until you consider the potential conflicts that may ensue when people argue of who owns the rights to it. - KLowD9x, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I don't even want them to replicate their experiments.
I want to watch the ice melt and never come back. Then you might convince me. - abben, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3That's a good idea. I think from now on, instead of listening to scientists who dedicate their career to their work, everyone should have to personally replicate their experiments before they are allowed to believe them.
- Sukem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes the Earth goes through cycles. Scientists are not denying this. How is it so hard for you to see that we are inducing this one prematurely? You take Carbon from the crust of the Earth and pump it into the atmosphere by the billions and billions of tons. This changes the composition of the atmosphere. CO2 IS a greenhouse gas. I don't understand how you don't understand.
- Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3In the religion of fundamentalist corporatism, the money is far more important.
- ProgressBar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2We know... you want to feel good about yourself while driving your Tahoe.
- felchdonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2A climate change denier is someone who denies that climate change is happening, it's a real and present danger, and we ought to be fighting it.
Now that you've had a chance to give your emotional reaction, would you like to follow up with a logical one? - snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Amusing to hear leftist-inspired class-envy coming from a biker. Any biker who has spent time campaigning for bikers' rights ought to be aware that bikers are on the firing line from the progressive left.
- snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Science doesn't act on *anything* it is a methodology.
People (scientists?) act. However, back in the real world, we all know that its only the actions of those who wield power which counts. Considering this it is politicians which act.
As for this "deny the data that the atmosphere's temperature has risen a small amount in the last few decades" this is an absurdism. Translation - "few people deny that the data which shows the atmosphere's temperature has risen shows the atmosphere's temperature has risen" - wuh?
It all depends on which data one looks at if you want to use this to set the context for the entire debate. You might just as easily say "few people deny that the data which shows the temperature has cooled shows the temperature has cooled".
I think you meant to imply that few people dissent that data which shows the atmosphere has warmed provides an accurate picture. Even then you'd need to examine which part of the atmosphere as there is a lot of variance.
Still, it's one up from claims that the physical mass of the Earth has warmed ("no one denies that the Earth has warmed"). Hey, that's one big heating effect heating a body of such huge mass!.
Still, dugg up for having a good stab at the problem! :) - WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Does your soft-drink overflow when the ice melts? Idiot.
- Kevin108, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The science IS the politics, in this case.
- ProgressBar, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Blocked! Thanks for playing!
- snowball69, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It turns out that given the "terraformed" Earth many would wish for, that forest fires might be more useful than is realised. There have always been forest fires and always will be, due to natural causes rather than careless cigarettes.
- MisterFlibble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No, I missed a few.
16 spams on this page.
61 total for the PopularTech incarnation. - Sukem, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you're pretty dumb.
- Richandler, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2At one time the great Napa Vally in California was completely flooded with ocean water. This has happened 3 times that we know of. This massive flooding was not caused by man made global warming. It was a natural occurance. And look, we have awesome wine because of it.
- MisterFlibble, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1PopularTech = Mastertech = Poptech, twice banned from digg for spamming.
He's back again ban-evading and spamming his latest page.
Total postings/linkings of/to Popular Technology to date 55 and counting.
That's 10 spam postings of Popular Technology (PopularTech's page) on this page alone.
Andrew, the Author of Popular Technology is a notorious internet spammer. Anybody else who objects to his repeated ban evasion here at digg, the address to report abuse is abuse@digg.com. - salinemist, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2If we can't just turn this planet on a dime then how did we magically destroy it in the past 20 years?
- KLowD9x, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Still can't see it. I'm looking, but there is no ice here. In fact, there hasn't been any in a LONG time.
- WoollyMittens, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem is that the men in power seem to think that the "rapture" will happen "aaaaaany second now". So apart from keeping an iron grip on the holy land, there's very little that will interest them, except their personal fortunes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is