Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
Are Your Attitudes Toward Global Warming Changing?
21st-century-citizen.com — A recent Poll by Gallup and Yale University is suggesting that the attitude of Americans toward Global Warming is changing — and changing fast. For example: 69% are convinced that Global Warming is caused either completely or partially by human activities. (57% believe that human activities are directly to blame.) What do YOU think?
mklopez- 498 diggs
- digg it
- pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -42/+33i guess i'm out of the loop... i thought the documentary on video.google.com called "the great global warming swindle" smashed the "warming troofers" to pieces.
am i wrong?- kbedell, on 10/10/2007, -27/+48That video was funded by gas and oil interests working to create confusion in the minds of the public -- thereby keeping millions or billions of dollars in governmental regulations from hitting their industry.
Truth is, they misled you.- MaynardJK, on 10/10/2007, -34/+25And the supporters of man caused global warming are infallible right? There is corruption and activism on both sides of the issue in the scientific community. They are both funded by groups that have interests in the outcome of the debate. If you dismiss one side out of hand because of it, then you must do the same for the other.
Truth is, you are a ***** idiot.- Dweller99, on 10/10/2007, -15/+33Actually, the truth is that the Great Global Warming Swindle has been thoroughly debunked REGARDLESS of who funded it.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2Please point out this alleged thorough debunking. In fact, only a few points made by the film have been refuted.
- sethaldridge, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Do you have a link to back this claim up? No link/video...DIDN'T HAPPEN!
Who are the people pushing global warming? The scientists/lobists that make money from studying it...if it's found to not be true, or as wide spread as they say then they are out of a job...and even if I cut way back on my "carbon emissions" Japan and China are telling the world "Our economy is more important than global warming" if they keep "polluting then won't Global Warming happen anyway?- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Uhm, sorry, no. It's a racket, and a racket can go on as long as it has to. The AGW scientists claim that they need funding to better understand the issue, but will never better understand it. The AGW politicians (often the same) will always claim that more action is needed, and the lack of results will always comprise evidence of this need. In the end, if the doomsday scenariou doesn't pan out they will claim it's because of the effectiveness of their actions. If it does happen, then they'll keep calling for more action.
In the mean time, millions of lives will be wasted because cost effective energy is denied to developing countries. Billions of dollars are wasted on tax-pollution-credit schemes whereby polluters are subsidized by the government to reduce emissions at the expense of the taxpayer.
The best course of action at this point is to understand the issue better. Taking action to stop something we know absolutely nothing about will most likely make it worse. Doctors don't prescribe medications unless they know what they're treating, yet we have politicians actually proposing dumping pollutants like iron oxide into the oceans, or seeding clouds with iodides to encourage rain and scrub the atmosphere. It's ludicrous.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Uhm, sorry, no. It's a racket, and a racket can go on as long as it has to. The AGW scientists claim that they need funding to better understand the issue, but will never better understand it. The AGW politicians (often the same) will always claim that more action is needed, and the lack of results will always comprise evidence of this need. In the end, if the doomsday scenariou doesn't pan out they will claim it's because of the effectiveness of their actions. If it does happen, then they'll keep calling for more action.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9There are not two sides to scientific issues like this one. Scientific consensus has been reached. Global warming is a fact. The fact is it's caused by humans. There is only one set of facts. Anyone else claiming otherwise are a bunch of kooks, just like the people who push creationism or those who say the world is flat, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary.
There is no corruption in the science camp. Scientists aren't making gobs of money off their research into global warming.
The people denying global warming are doing so out of their own political agenda. Oil companies want to ignore the facts in order to sell you more of their goods. Republicans want to ignore the facts because they hate the proposed remedies, which include more regulation of business who give them millions of dollars every year. THAT is where the corruption lies. THOSE are the people with the motivation to lie.- Smight, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Faith is a fact...
no wait... faith is a facet. haha I almost said faith is a fact!
Science doesn't have consensuses for theories which cannot be tested and retested in a laboratory with controlled conditions.
- Smight, on 10/10/2007, -8/+5Faith is a fact...
- Isidore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
New Scientist addressing main climate skeptic claims
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Unfortunately, Sir David Attenborough isn't a physicst, chemist, or climatologist. He's a naturalist (the kind that likes nature, not the kind the kind that hangs out int he woods all day naked) and a tv personality. His OPINION is really pointless. New Scientist, likewise, is a popular science magazine, not a legitimate scientic journal.
Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. Even wise people can be mistaken. (And if Attenborough was not to be believed before, why does he have credibility now?)
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2Unfortunately, Sir David Attenborough isn't a physicst, chemist, or climatologist. He's a naturalist (the kind that likes nature, not the kind the kind that hangs out int he woods all day naked) and a tv personality. His OPINION is really pointless. New Scientist, likewise, is a popular science magazine, not a legitimate scientic journal.
- Dweller99, on 10/10/2007, -15/+33Actually, the truth is that the Great Global Warming Swindle has been thoroughly debunked REGARDLESS of who funded it.
- semrocks, on 10/10/2007, -12/+13And James Hansen, second only to Al Gore in alarmism, received $720,000 in funding from George Soros to promote the idea of human-induced global warming.
And, as soon as Al Gore gives up his mansions that consume more energy in a month than I use in over a year, I'll start listening to him. Find it awful funny that his series of concerts on global warming purchased carbon credits from a company he has a stake in. Nothing like making a little profit off of the alarmism...- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Gore did NOT ask people to give up their homes. Gore asked that people reduce their carbon footprint. He's installed electrically efficient appliances. He's installed solar panels to create his own electricity, the rest he buys from green power generation. Gore HAS reduced his carbon footprint.
The idea that a former SENATOR and former VICE PRESIDENT must live in a studio apartment before speaking out is just plain dumb.- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Uhm, sorry Charlie. Gore's electric bills are 20 times that of a normal house, costing $30,000 a year. I don't care who he is or was, he is using far more resources than he should. That's his right. But when he goes around telling everyone else to cut back on their electric use and consume less, then he uses 20 times that of the average house, well that sir is the very definition of hypocrisy. The idea that he's speaking out is plain dumb. He ought to lead by example.
Incidentally, he doesn't buy "green power generation". He buys carbon offsets, which are the 21st century equivalent of plenary indulgences.
Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill
http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_w ...
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3Uhm, sorry Charlie. Gore's electric bills are 20 times that of a normal house, costing $30,000 a year. I don't care who he is or was, he is using far more resources than he should. That's his right. But when he goes around telling everyone else to cut back on their electric use and consume less, then he uses 20 times that of the average house, well that sir is the very definition of hypocrisy. The idea that he's speaking out is plain dumb. He ought to lead by example.
- semrocks, on 10/10/2007, -8/+4"Gore did NOT ask people to give up their homes. Gore asked that people reduce their carbon footprint. He's installed electrically efficient appliances. He's installed solar panels to create his own electricity, the rest he buys from green power generation. Gore HAS reduced his carbon footprint.
The idea that a former SENATOR and former VICE PRESIDENT must live in a studio apartment before speaking out is just plain dumb."
The idea that someone who is so PASSIONATE about man-made global warming STILL using more energy in a month than a normal person in a year is plain dumb.
As are the ones who defend him...
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -4/+8Gore did NOT ask people to give up their homes. Gore asked that people reduce their carbon footprint. He's installed electrically efficient appliances. He's installed solar panels to create his own electricity, the rest he buys from green power generation. Gore HAS reduced his carbon footprint.
- vanlawrence, on 10/11/2007, -8/+5I am soon to begin promoting the idea of Man-Made Global Warming myself as it will prove to be profitable. My company has recently purchased an interest in 'Green' energy alternatives and a farm selling carbon credits. I find it hilarious that even when my customers read this...they will still purchase from me! HO hohohohoh ahah ahahhahhah hah hah ahah aha ROFLMAO
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2It's sad but true. I work for a company that sells a product which has been in use for over 300 years. (No, not vaseline.) For all the benefits the product provides, the only one we are content to promote is the fact that's environmentally friendly. I say it's a "green" product, and people don't even ask why, they just perk up and reach for their wallets. Not that I feel bad about taking their money, I just wish they had a true appreciation of the product. (I'll stew about that small injustice after I cash my bonus checks, mind you :)
- MaynardJK, on 10/10/2007, -34/+25And the supporters of man caused global warming are infallible right? There is corruption and activism on both sides of the issue in the scientific community. They are both funded by groups that have interests in the outcome of the debate. If you dismiss one side out of hand because of it, then you must do the same for the other.
- pedrovoltaire, on 10/10/2007, -29/+9iof global warming presents a serious threat to humanity in the next, say, few hundred years, Mr Market will take care of it, i assure you. stop telling me to give my money to el savior Al Gore and to ride my bike to work. Damn sheep.
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20'Mr Market will take care of it" - That always works, right?
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Unless it's interfered with by government. Then it goes disastrously wrong. Pollution is one example - the majority of pollution occurs on public lands where no single individual has a vested interest. The government, charged with managing these lands, does nothing. If the government would start charging (fining) polluters for the economic offsets they get by polluting, the market would work. I know that if someone dumps trash in my yard, they receive a very costly ass kicking.
- IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10When did Al Gore ask for money from you exactly? I've heard him try to persuade people into doing things smarter and to consume less, but he hasn't asked for money has he? Maybe I had cotton in my ears during that part of "An Inconvenient Truth."
- Fabozz, on 10/11/2007, -8/+3Al Gore runs Generation Investment Management, whose business is to sell carbon credits. "An Inconvenient Truth" was an infomercial, plain and simple.
- pineutrino, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Mr Market will only take care of you if it's maximally profitable for people to follow a course of action that helps prevent global warming, which will only happen if a system of tariffs and subsidies is put in place to ensure this, which will only happen if our politicians find that putting this in place gets votes, which will only happen if the populace voting them in is educated and informed about global warming.
- XopherMV, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"Mr Market" is the one who got us into this mess in the first place. "He" has no interest in getting us out.
This faith in markets borders on religious lunacy. Beware the extreme Libertarian fundamentalists, they'll literally be the death of us.
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -4/+20'Mr Market will take care of it" - That always works, right?
- levine, on 10/10/2007, -8/+16In short, yes.
- hammerattack, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3Yes and no. The problem is that the producer of the documentary (a) is a known provocateur, and provocateurs have credibility issues by default, and (b) they producer did make a few critical errors. On balance, those errors didn't affect the validity of the producers arguments and critics of his film haven't actually effectively countered the balance of the film. Had this been a Michael Moore documentary, these errors would have been dismissed out-of-hand. But, since it challenges the orthodoxy of the agw movement, the film and it's producer have been hammered relentlessly. If you look above, you see the usual accusations of "being in the pocket of the oil & gas industry", or "this film has been debunked" et al. However, the movie gets it right 90%. 10% disproved. If this were a college thesis, he could tidy up those few points and turn the new documentary in for a A+.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's funny how you call him a provocateur in response to him being accused of "being in the pocket of the oil & gas industry".
Provocateur: person hired to make trouble
http://www.aussmc.org/Global_Warming_Swindle.php
"The Great Global Warming Swindle does not represent the current state of knowledge in climate science. Scepticism in science is a healthy thing, and the presence of orthodox scientific scepticism in climate change is ubiquitous. Many of the hypotheses presented in the Great Global Warming Swindle have been considered and rejected by due scientific process. This documentary is far from an objective, critical examination of climate science. Instead the Great Global Warming Swindle goes to great lengths to present outdated, incorrect or ambiguous data in such a way as to grossly distort the true understanding of climate change science, and to support a set of extremely controversial views." - hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Lesson #1: If you're going to make up a ***** definition, at least make it arguable close to the true definition of the word.
Provocateur: 1. a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator.
Lesson #2: Don't argue with someone who is supporting your viewpoint.- vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2provocateur: shortened form of agent provocateur "person hired to make trouble"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=provoca ...
TGGWS is a complete fraud produced by a fraud and only positively referenced by the willfully ignorant & exceedingly gullible.- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So... how long did you have to search for definition that made your argument right (in your own mind)? Because in reality, words have meanings and if you use them outside of the colloqial, you look like an ass.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=provocate ...
Second, TGGWS is no more a fraud than the IPCC report. The scant few assertions that have even been challenged have largely held up, with only a few minor facts having been shown to be false. If the same standard were applied to the IPCC, the entire thing would have been thrown out by now. - vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It's on that page. I explicitly linked to the third entry, Online Etymology Dictionary, because it gave the definition for the full form that every entry lists.
Who needs "minor facts" when you have strength of belief?
Willful ignorance does not disprove anything. - Rhodamine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hammerattack
It's not often that you get to see a person prove the point of the person, whom they are arguing with, quite as well (and frequently) as you do.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1So... how long did you have to search for definition that made your argument right (in your own mind)? Because in reality, words have meanings and if you use them outside of the colloqial, you look like an ass.
- Rhodamine, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1ouch
- vikingcoder, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2provocateur: shortened form of agent provocateur "person hired to make trouble"
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2It's funny how you call him a provocateur in response to him being accused of "being in the pocket of the oil & gas industry".
- Scottamus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Apparently attitudes aren't changing fast enough.
Does anyone else feel like making a list of all the naysayers so we can lynch them when it's 110 degrees outside in Colorado?
- kbedell, on 10/10/2007, -27/+48That video was funded by gas and oil interests working to create confusion in the minds of the public -- thereby keeping millions or billions of dollars in governmental regulations from hitting their industry.
- nexah3, on 10/10/2007, -26/+67I think Global Warming is one of those things that you'd rather be safe than sorry.
- bradallen18, on 10/10/2007, -10/+34exactly, how can being more environmentally friendly be a bad thing?
- diggSJaustin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Well, for one thing, it could involve thinking uncritically and doing something *less* friendly to the environment. I'm not suggesting this is the case with climate change, but if you blindly accept everything anyone labels as "environmentally friendly," you could end up being counterproductive. Research the cloth diaper debate for an example of what I mean.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8It's called the green religion (amongst other things), but real environmentalism looks at the science (and the precautionary principle) not press releases from "green" companies or other sources of unreliable information.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5Sometimes something environmentally friendly is unfriendly to people. Take for instance the banning of the DDT pesticide. It made sense at the time (I mean, come on! Bald eagles!), but now mosquito populations are on the rise, which is why West Nile Virus and other mosquito-borne illnesses are on the rise. Deaths from malaria number in the tens of thousands per year in third world countries. I'm sure if you asked the families of the dead, they would make a few bird species extinct to have their loved ones again.
I'm not saying all environmental causes are bad. I am saying that any plan to tinker with the environment, society, and the economy (all three of which are unbelievably complicated) will cause unintended consequences. Often those consequences are deaths, disease, poverty, and famine in ways and places that aren't apparent at first blush.- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7DDT was not banned for malaria use, BUT it was used excessively and resulted in DDT resistant mosquitoes.
see:
http://timlambert.org/2005/02/ddt3/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DDT#Criticism_of_rest ...
you can get it here
http://www.treated-bednet.com/agro-chemical.htm - jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6DDT wasn't banned for making resistant mosquitoes. It was banned because it shells of birds' eggs thinner (from Wikipedia): "[Silent Spring, the popular anti-DDT book] suggested that DDT and other pesticides may cause cancer and that their agricultural use was a threat to wildlife, particularly birds." It's also worth noting that the evidence regarding DDT being a carcinogen is still largely inconclusive.
Also from the Wikipedia article:
"In the period from 1934-1955 there were 1.5 million cases of malaria in Sri Lanka, resulting in 80,000 deaths. After the country invested in an extensive anti-mosquito program with DDT, there were only 17 cases reported in 1963. Thereafter the program was halted, and malaria in Sri Lanka rebounded to 600,000 cases in 1968 and the first quarter of 1969. Although the country resumed spraying with DDT, many of the local mosquitoes had acquired resistance to DDT in the interim, presumably because of the continued use of DDT for crop protection, so the program was not nearly as effective as it had been before." From reading that, it seems that DDT resistance comes from inconsistent spraying, much like antibiotic-resistant diseases result from people not finishing their prescriptions.
All of this is a little off my real point, though. DDT may or may not be a good example of what I'm trying to say here-- All environmental policies instituted by government will have unintended consequences. Our first impulse is to assume that any green is the best thing to do. In real life, the environment, society, and the economy (all of which are affected by green policies) are much to complicated to make things so black and white. - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Its worth nothing that Silent spring did not advocate for a total ban on DDT.
" No responsible person contends that insect-borne disease should be ignored. The question that has now urgently presented itself is whether it is either wise or responsible to attack the problem by methods that are rapidly making it worse. The world has heard much of the triumphant war against disease through the control of insect vectors of infection, but it has heard little of the other side of the story - the defeats, the short-lived triumphs that now strongly support the alarming view that the insect enemy has been made actually stronger by our efforts. Even worse, we may have destroyed our very means of fighting. …
What is the measure of this setback? The list of resistant species now includes practically all of the insect groups of medical importance. … Malaria programmes are threatened by resistance among mosquitoes. …
Practical advice should be ‘Spray as little as you possibly can’ rather than ‘Spray to the limit of your capacity‘ …, Pressure on the pest population should always be as slight as possible.
-Rachel Carson in Silent Spring" - krasherspk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Environmental questions are indeed complicated. The problem is that not enough people are involved in the decision process. Policy makers should be one voice among many when it comes to problems of the environment. We can not just have closed room discussions between political and economic leaders when making these decisions. Problems of the environment affect everyone, an example, mercury used in the past and present for gold mining are accumulating in the fish we eat, and this is just one example of many. Once people understand how complicated these situations are then we can realize how quickly we need to start solving them or else it may be too late before any real help or progress can be made.
I don't think everyone is thinking in black and white as you say. They just want the ball to start rolling on policies that will help to make this world liveable for the future. - jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1@krasherspk
I'm not following your reasoning. You're agreeing that environmental policies are complicated and that it's not just black and white, but then you use that premise to say we should act right away. How do you know acting too quickly won't make a gray area into a much blacker one? - krasherspk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think there is much gray area, I was saying a majority of people(not necessarily the poster above you) are not thinking in black and white, they know there are complications that need to be accounted for. The consequence of us being on earth will always be a certain amount of pollution and resource use, how we limit this however is important. Developing sound environmental solutions is what I was implying was complicated. By starting now we can begin to develop ideas which can be investigated. It is hard to say whether we can account for all variables in a certain problem, inaction will do us no good however. Unlike previous forays into development, ideally when developing environmentally we will be able to monitor the ecosystems that are affected and adjust for new problems. Similarly creating systems that are as close to being closed as we can would help. Having the byproducts of production be inputs into other production processes and avoiding byproducts that are either toxic or that can not be inputs into other processes. There are small steps that can be taken, the larger ones however are out of my grasp, this is why action must be taken to bring minds together that could develop such solutions.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7DDT was not banned for malaria use, BUT it was used excessively and resulted in DDT resistant mosquitoes.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11Here's an example: Congress passes a carbon tax. Energy prices climb significantly. Low income people living in very cold (or hot) areas cannot afford to keep their homes at a healthy temperature. Small business owners that depend on low energy costs (like truckers) are run out of business. Costs of items that require lots of shipping and refrigeration (e.g., fresh produce, meat, dairy, etc.) increase. It's nice to think that taxes are being applied to just the "rich corporations", but you know that the taxes will just be passed on to their customers. And the customers who will be hit hardest will be the ones who a)don't make much money or b)can't adjust their lifestyles to adjust to the new costs.
- IllBeBack, on 10/10/2007, -7/+8It sounds like you took the really bad, fear-filled doom and gloom branch at each branch of your decision tree.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5The question was how can being more environmentally friendly be a bad thing, not will being more environmentally friendly be a good thing on the whole.
And really, that situation isn't far fetched at all. The whole point of carbon taxes is to make carbon-based fuels (and therefore energy in general) more expensive. The only branch I took was "Will energy cost more?" - krasherspk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3This is not necessarily all bad. It will breed new types of thinking, such as development of better public transportation, more efficient use of vehicles so they are only used when needed, etc..
One thing we need to think about is the fact that what we do here has disporportionately bad consequences for people in other countries. All the resources we use as first world nations do not all come internally. They may come from third world countries but somehow these countries stil livel in poverty because they are exporting all of their nations wealth to other countries to stay out of debt. The problem is they are perpetually in debt because they can not pay it back fast enough. So they strip mine, slash and burn, and overfertilize their lands until they are no longer useful and will still have gotten no where. These environmentally bad practices arise from first world nation industrial dominance over third world nations. Equality is needed between all nations and all people before we can make significant efforts with the environment or else we will continue to do as we do now and export our environmental problems to poorer countries.
- noisey, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Here's another example: States pass restriction laws regulating the CO2 emissions on automobiles. This adds $1000 to the cost of a car. A CO2 "catalytic converter" is added to the exhaust system of new cars. The restrictive exhaust causes dramatically higher fuel consumption. We consume more oil, we add administrative overhead (smog stations), and we end up polluting more.
This type of setup is being quietly pushed by the people with a patent on the CO2 "catalytic converter", where they stand to make, literally, billions of dollars.- stoppedcode12, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The catalytic converter in your car lower the amount of toxic gas emitted from your car. Gases like NO2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_dioxide), NO are, in particular, extremely toxic for humans.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Again, the guy asked "how can being more environmentally friendly be a bad thing?" He didn't ask whether being environmentally friendly is always a good thing on the whole. I think noisey's example is still answers the question.
- diggSJaustin, on 10/10/2007, -2/+20Well, for one thing, it could involve thinking uncritically and doing something *less* friendly to the environment. I'm not suggesting this is the case with climate change, but if you blindly accept everything anyone labels as "environmentally friendly," you could end up being counterproductive. Research the cloth diaper debate for an example of what I mean.
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -17/+13That's what the Christians say about Hell too. The fact is "better safe then sorry" rarely, if ever, applies and more often then not needlessly complicates things. It's better to sit down and weigh both arguments or else remain apathetic.
- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8So you're saying... sitting on your hands is good... apathy is good. Stuff all those people actually trying to do something good for the world. Gotcha
- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Actually, capiCrimm is saying the opposite. A complicated issue requires skepticism and objectiveness on all sides, which requires even more diligence. With that said, a sane person should want to be good to the environment regardless of any imminent threat.
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1indeed, and my point was also that we don't exactly know what is good for our environment. For example, the study on digg, that driving your car to the grocery store has a smaller carbon footprint then walking. However, the main point wasn't against Global Warming or doing something good for the environment. I'm all for alternative sources of energy and hybrid cars. The point was, 'better safe then sorry', is a bad mentality. We took out Saddam to be 'better safe then sorry', and now want to attack Iran.
In all the cases the mentality is simply fear. Fear is not a good rational state of mind.
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1indeed, and my point was also that we don't exactly know what is good for our environment. For example, the study on digg, that driving your car to the grocery store has a smaller carbon footprint then walking. However, the main point wasn't against Global Warming or doing something good for the environment. I'm all for alternative sources of energy and hybrid cars. The point was, 'better safe then sorry', is a bad mentality. We took out Saddam to be 'better safe then sorry', and now want to attack Iran.
- capiCrimm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I said use apathy *only when* you don't know what your talking about. If you don't know what good and bad are, how are you supposed to do good and bad?
If someone wants to do good, I'd prefer they figure out what is good. Not what *feels* good. Not what *seems* good. What scientifically *is* good.
- ADVIZR, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Actually, capiCrimm is saying the opposite. A complicated issue requires skepticism and objectiveness on all sides, which requires even more diligence. With that said, a sane person should want to be good to the environment regardless of any imminent threat.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I'd hardly say heaven v. hell, global warming v. playing it safe is the same thing. Finding cleaner, cheaper, safer forms of energy regardless "just to be on the safe side" isn't a bad thing. Reducing emissions to improve the air quality isn't a bad thing. Take a look at Southern California's smog problem and tell me we should wait until more information is available is a good thing.
Basically, you're saying we should hear out the people who are opposed to cleaning up our act (literally and figuratively) to hear what they have to say about pollution and alternative fuels because they might be right? Pollution MIGHT not cause global warming and it MIGHT not be all that bad for us?
- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -5/+8So you're saying... sitting on your hands is good... apathy is good. Stuff all those people actually trying to do something good for the world. Gotcha
- Auto, on 10/10/2007, -12/+7You are going to be real sorry when the economy shuts down due to too many taxes and restrictions... Can't eat your cake and have it too, and something tells me the American idea of how things should be is in huge conflict with the Green agenda. I don't know about you all, but I really like my heated and air conditioned house, the freedom to travel wherever, whenever I want to. The freedom to purchase goods from halfway across the world... I could go on.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Doesn't do you much good to stick to the old ways when you have to start working a second job to pay for utilities or you have to deal with planned blackouts because there's not enough juice in the grid.
- krasherspk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Too bad none of your offsprings offspring will ever get a chance to see the world if you have that attitude. The question comes down to, am I thinking selfishly, is what I'm doing good for all people and for future generations? Once you come to your conclusion you can either continue what you are doing, or look to find out what can be done to slow this inevitable decline.
- chrispeters, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6This is probably the best comment I've ever read/heard no global warming.
"I guess I would ask which human beings - where and when - are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that’s a rather arrogant position for people to take." - NASA Administrator Michael Griffin
Personally I think reducing pollution is something that needs to be done, but not solely to prevent climate change.- zachblume, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That's the dumbest comment ever. If we are modifying the environment in a way that is not only bad for the existing environment but FOR OURSELVES then it sure is a bad thing.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2What makes it bad? You're presupposing that we all agree that the future environment will be bad.
- mzytaruk, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The changed climate itself isn't the bad thing. The bad thing is when it changes a helluva lot in a small period of time. It amazes me that people still have problems seeing that. The problem is that if the climate changes dramatically, millions of people will die and millions more will have their lives upturned because their way of life is based on things being like they are right now.
- zachblume, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2That's the dumbest comment ever. If we are modifying the environment in a way that is not only bad for the existing environment but FOR OURSELVES then it sure is a bad thing.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -9/+3That's like saying you are willing to chop off your legs because you MIGHT get cancer in your legs sometime in the future. It's incredibly naive and arrogant that people think we know enough about the climate cycles and systems to know what is not normal change. These computer model being used are a NOT accurate. Anyone who understands the complexity of our weather and climate systems knows we do not know all the variables involved. Then this new mess with the NASA "whistle blower" is pretty damn telling. The human global warming people love to cherry pick their data. They ignore the data which says they are most likely wrong.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So, it's a bad thing to live in a cleaner world? It's ok for a few piss ant countries to have us by the balls because we NEED that fuel? It's ok that I can barely see the horizon because there is so much pollution in the air? The signs are already there, the overall data points to a change and some of those changes only occurring when there is a warming shift in the climate at a rate faster than has ever been geologically recorded.
I have yet to see ANY evidence that overwhelmingly disproves global warming evidence and theories.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4So, it's a bad thing to live in a cleaner world? It's ok for a few piss ant countries to have us by the balls because we NEED that fuel? It's ok that I can barely see the horizon because there is so much pollution in the air? The signs are already there, the overall data points to a change and some of those changes only occurring when there is a warming shift in the climate at a rate faster than has ever been geologically recorded.
- zachblume, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Wow this thread is filled with stupid comments.
I agree with the original poster--I'm not so sure about the severity of Global Warming (dissenters play it down and people who agree with the current theory of global warming hype it up to such a ridiculous number [20-50 years?]) but I am sure that pumping this much pollution into the atmosphere is not smart and it isn't practical. Can't we come up with a way to reuse the wastes? We're in ***** 2007, I think we can create that technology and distribute it if we really had the guts to do it. So let's push our government(s!) to do it. The job of governmental bodies is to protect the rights of the people and the land it protects. - vanlawrence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Just like Islam...don't worship....you go to Hell, great reason to convert! C'mon everybody, band-wagon's this way!
- ejtttje, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except we *know* the climate can and does change. And when it does, mass extinctions result. The difference with your religious comparison (aka Pascal's Wager) is that we have no evidence for the afterlife, nor any indication that what we do here will affect it even if it does exist.
So you're right, "better safe than sorry" is a questionable line of reasoning when you have no evidence of impending doom, nor a definitive way to avoid it (you're still going to hell in every other religion even if you do convert). HOWEVER, with climate change we know it can happen, and we know ways we can affect it. So it makes perfect sense we should leave some margin for error and make sure we don't start worrying about it only after Florida's underwater. (well, actually, maybe we should wait a little longer... ;)- aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, how can an individual prove to themselves that global warming is happening, or that the weather changes they experience are caused by pollution? I mean I trust a scientist more about climate, then I do a priest about the afterlife, but not so much a politician who's career is fear mongering, or a corporation who doesn't want their customers to be conservative. I am also weary that scientist working on this problem, may be obscuring facts in order to gain more funding for their research or projects. Many memes are born of fear mongering. I think in the long run though, it is important for us to remove our dependence on oil or other foreign fuels, we just have to do it with out doing large drastic changes in which we have no idea what the affects will be. I mean there were noticeable weather changes after the 9/11 attack and all airplanes grounded.
- aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well, how can an individual prove to themselves that global warming is happening, or that the weather changes they experience are caused by pollution? I mean I trust a scientist more about climate, then I do a priest about the afterlife, but not so much a politician who's career is fear mongering, or a corporation who doesn't want their customers to be conservative. I am also weary that scientist working on this problem, may be obscuring facts in order to gain more funding for their research or projects. Many memes are born of fear mongering. I think in the long run though, it is important for us to remove our dependence on oil or other foreign fuels, we just have to do it with out doing large drastic changes in which we have no idea what the affects will be. I mean there were noticeable weather changes after the 9/11 attack and all airplanes grounded.
- ejtttje, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Except we *know* the climate can and does change. And when it does, mass extinctions result. The difference with your religious comparison (aka Pascal's Wager) is that we have no evidence for the afterlife, nor any indication that what we do here will affect it even if it does exist.
- aerogant, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, it seems like some pollution has counteracted other pollution, like for example global dimming I have read has reduced the effects of global warming. If all of a sudden we stopped one kind of pollution we have no idea what that would do. Not that I think it's easy to make every one in the world do something like jump at the same time to see if the earth moves. It's better to reduce pollution, but gradually rather then make a push for large sweeping changes, and see what happens and to have scientist continue to observe and learn new things about the nature of what we are doing to this earth in mass.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2What you're talking about is called the "precautionary principle". Except, we don't know for sure what is happenning, which means we could end up doing more harm than good. Think of the planet as a sick person. Would you, as a doctor, not knowing what was wrong (only a few symptoms), go ahead and start doping up your patient on a best guess scenario? No, you'd order more tests. (Unless you watch House a lot, then you'd try everything at once to get it done in under an hour with commercials.)
- ikepigott, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2There are a lot of things that are good to do "in theory." As a general principle, it's good to be sustainable and pollute less. To buy into "green at ANY cost" is foolish, and ignores the opportunity to alleviate other human suffering with those same resources.
As to this poll - I don't put a lot of stock in public opinion. When 40% believe Saddam planned 9/11, the populace is stupid. When suddenly 70% think mankind is solely responsible for climate change, it's now evidence of truth? All it shows is that if you pound a message heavily enough, someone will assume it is true.
- bradallen18, on 10/10/2007, -10/+34exactly, how can being more environmentally friendly be a bad thing?
- umbriago, on 10/10/2007, -18/+6My attitude is changing:
I am glad I will be dead by the time whatever disaster awaits humanity (life in the oceans craps out, all the ice melts, coastal areas flood, massive famine, anarchy, wars over water), happens.- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Thanks for being responsible for your kids and the rest of humanity in the future.
- frazw, on 10/13/2007, -1/+3That comment does not suggest he isn't being responsible it suggests he feels like too many people don't care enough so we are screwed.
- vanlawrence, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Keep you anger off Digg and go beat your wife!
- avisotin, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1At least your kids know who to blame :) As they will for their genetically inherited retardedness.
- iFungus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12Thanks for being responsible for your kids and the rest of humanity in the future.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -19/+45I'm all for cutting down on carbon emissions, just don't try to promote it by taxing my ass. Instead, how bout they give tax breaks to people/companies that "go green"?
If Al Gore starts talking about tax breaks instead of tax increases, maybe I'll believe he truly cares about the environment. Otherwise, he's just another ***** trying to extract another pint of blood from Joe Taxpayer.- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Actually a lot of states offer tax rebates for "buying green" Energy Star appliances, etc.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good, I'm glad the states do that. However, I don't see anyone in the federal government talking tax breaks for the working class for voluntarily reducing emissions... all they're doing is debating how best to tax us for it; by total emissions, by miles driven, blah blah blah. All they want is more money and I am 100% positive that all that revenue won't do dick to help the environment.
Ever notice that our government seems to think the only way to influence change is through punitive measures? Didn't they ever read Dr Spock's handbook that teaches them the best way to influence behavior is by rewarding good behavior instead of punishing bad behavior? This is psych 101, and they haven't figured that out by now? Perhaps they don't want to figure it out or actually create positive change, though, since punishing us is the only way to confer more power and money to them. What do you tax-worshippers say to that?
If you really wanna help the environment, Congress, then how about you stop wasting billions of dollars rolling thousands of 50-ton tanks that get 1 mpg and planes that burn 1000 gallons an hour over Iraq? How's that for a start?!? That stupid, senseless war puts out more CO2 each day in Iraq than everyone who is reading this forum will collectively put out in our entire lives... and you want ME to pay more for my emissions!?!? ***** that. I'd rather drown in the rising ocean than let these hypocrites bilk another dollar from my already broke ass.- bentnormal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank Bush for the 50 gallon tanks w/ 1mpg (read: his tax BREAKS for business buying Hummers)...
that ain't AL''s fault.
- bentnormal, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank Bush for the 50 gallon tanks w/ 1mpg (read: his tax BREAKS for business buying Hummers)...
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good, I'm glad the states do that. However, I don't see anyone in the federal government talking tax breaks for the working class for voluntarily reducing emissions... all they're doing is debating how best to tax us for it; by total emissions, by miles driven, blah blah blah. All they want is more money and I am 100% positive that all that revenue won't do dick to help the environment.
- Ibox, on 10/10/2007, -10/+4I wish I could digg you up 100 times more.
- iluvatar, on 10/10/2007, -9/+20The right has done a fantastic job of demonizing taxes. Look, nobody *wants* to pay taxes, but they're essential to maintain the nation. And considering the level of debt our country is in taxes *need* to be raised soon before we dig ourselves deeper.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Uh, they're essential to maintain the nation the way we want it. The federal government doesn't HAVE to fund education. The federal government doesn't HAVE to pay for bridges in Nowhere, Alaska. The federal government doesn't have to give money to AIDS research. About the only things the federal government has to do is keep the peace, protect the country, and dispense justice. Most of the government's expenditures go to foreign and domestic social welfare programs, which are technically elective, whether you like them or not.
- pschommer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You said it! The federal government takes in plenty to pay for necessary services. With deference to our men and women at sea, congress needs to stop spending money like a drunken sailor. Any extra revenue is always seen as pork project in my district.
People who think we can tax our way out of a problem or into any kind of properity are quite wrong.
- pschommer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7You said it! The federal government takes in plenty to pay for necessary services. With deference to our men and women at sea, congress needs to stop spending money like a drunken sailor. Any extra revenue is always seen as pork project in my district.
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1iluvatar - hate to say it, but taxes are only so necessary, and the government only needs to provide so much. You have America confused with a totalitarian state - and lets face it, the government cannot do ANYTHING well. The less the gov't is involved in, the better!
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Uh, they're essential to maintain the nation the way we want it. The federal government doesn't HAVE to fund education. The federal government doesn't HAVE to pay for bridges in Nowhere, Alaska. The federal government doesn't have to give money to AIDS research. About the only things the federal government has to do is keep the peace, protect the country, and dispense justice. Most of the government's expenditures go to foreign and domestic social welfare programs, which are technically elective, whether you like them or not.
- jobenly, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I hate taxes, too, but a tax break for someone who isn't you means either a) you're paying more taxes or b) the government is running a little bit more in the red. It's not quite a zero-sum game, but it's not far off.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Stop the war and get rid of some of these pyramid scheme social programs and we'll be just fine. You seem to make the assumption that government spending cannot decrease; I'm here to tell you that's not true, and until I see that government making some sacrifices for the sake of global warming, I'll be damned if I'm going to bend over backwards to reduce my emissions. Lead by example or go screw.
That said, I already have CFLs throughout my house, I use an electric-powered oil radiator and a programmable thermostat to cut down winter gas use and summer A/C, I drive a car that gets > 30 mpg, and I only do laundry/dishes after 10pm, so don't call me a tree-hating oilmonger, because I'm probably greener than most of you neohippies anyhow!
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Stop the war and get rid of some of these pyramid scheme social programs and we'll be just fine. You seem to make the assumption that government spending cannot decrease; I'm here to tell you that's not true, and until I see that government making some sacrifices for the sake of global warming, I'll be damned if I'm going to bend over backwards to reduce my emissions. Lead by example or go screw.
- countmandible, on 11/15/2007, -5/+8Global warming could cause the ruin of everything. What good is the 200 dollars you saved on taxes in 2007 going to do you if the sea level rises and you end up being one of the millions who have to abandon their homes?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1For $200, I can buy plenty of wood to build a nice boat.
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4So you don't think that you should pay to help fix a problem you are complicit in? Or have you always lived carbon neutral?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Do you exhale when you breathe? Should you be taxed for that?
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1carbon neutral? What about littering or methane? wtf? Carbon neutral is a ***** buzzword. A stupid one.
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Taxing polluters is a great way to account for negative externalities. Many environmental market failures result as a form of the tragedy of the commons. Whenever you get a situation where an activity benefits one person, but the costs of that activity are spread amongst many people you get a market failure.
Take for example driving. As a driver you get the full benefits of driving, but the costs of the emissions that result from your driving are spread out amongst everyone. This is a tragedy of the commons where the common is the atmosphere and results in a negative externality and a market failure. Taxing the emissions is one way for the driver to take into account the full cost of the emissions he is producing.
No one likes to pay takes but properly applied they help prevent market failures are ensure that negative externalities are minimized.- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You think that trillion we've spent on a pointless war might have helped a bit to offset our emissions? Why do we have to reach deeper into our pockets when most of us already pay about 50% of what we earn in taxes of one form or another? Are you familiar with medieval serfdom, wherein the serfs gave half of their crops to the baron? Well, we're already right there with them, and you want me to reach even deeper into my pockets? How about if I just move into your house and reduce my emissions that way instead?
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Then maybe you should lobby your representative to stop sucking at the teet of the oil companies and push for the development of alternative fuel sources. Developing stuff like that needs money.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed. We don't even need to push alternative sources, we just need to stop SUBSIDIZING the crappy fuel sources we already have.
Americans in reality pay something like $10 a gallon for gas when you consider the billions of taxpayer dollars we hand out to big oil each year. Imagine if we stopped those subsidies and gas actually DID cost $10 at the pump... think then alternative sources might be a bit more economically viable? Yeah... me too.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Agreed. We don't even need to push alternative sources, we just need to stop SUBSIDIZING the crappy fuel sources we already have.
- JigoroKano, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, but if you want to be fiscally responsible you would need to offset the green tax deductions with carbon taxes in such a manner that the net income to the government is the same. (Lowering government spending is another issue entirely)
That's basically the idea behind carbon credits. You get X amount and if you waste them all, then you either have to buy some from a more efficient company or worse get hit at tax time.
Unfortunately too many people are having a knee jerk reaction to these ideas without really investigating them.- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just keep in mind that it was Greenspan who put us all into 4000 sq ft homes with his loose fiscal policies, so now when they decide to tax everyone with a house > 2200 sq ft, it reminds me of the famous words of Admiral Ackbar: IT'S A TRAP!
They gave us all the money we would need to buy big ass SUVs (hell, we even got tax breaks to buy the things), they shovel mortgages at us without even asking for proof of income, and now that the bubble is bursting because we're up to our eyeballs in debt, NOW they snap the trap on our necks and kill us by taxing us on those very items that they damn-near begged us to buy. Sure, we're idiots for trusting our leaders to look out for our interests and nibbling the cheese, but I for one HIGHLY question this whole "global warming" government-sponsored phenomenon given that it comes at an ohh so convenient time to bilk us out of the few morsels we have left.
To me, it seems more like government is ***** itself about the fact that they're going to lose MASSIVE amounts of tax dollars once house prices hit the ***** and half our jobs are lost overseas, and they need to conjure up a new tax to replace all that lost income so they can keep up their spending spree. Enter Al Gore and his brilliant plan to squeeze us for more.
I'm not asking any of you to agree with me, but think about it. How certain can you be about global warming when the men making those claims can't even tell you accurately whether it'll rain tomorrow? Climate science is not arithmetic; it's computer models and nerds who like to pretend those computer models somehow can mimic the myriad factors that create the biosphere of earth itself. To me, that's 50% science and 50% finger-crossing... I don't care if it's Stephen Hawking or Al Roker making the claims, because each has about the same odds of being correct.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just keep in mind that it was Greenspan who put us all into 4000 sq ft homes with his loose fiscal policies, so now when they decide to tax everyone with a house > 2200 sq ft, it reminds me of the famous words of Admiral Ackbar: IT'S A TRAP!
- wootup, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1"I'm all for cutting down on carbon emissions, just don't try to promote it by taxing my ass"
Why not? If you drive a car, or eat food that was processed or grown thousands of kilometers away using pesticides and then transported using oil (as most of us do), or consume products that were made out of oil (plastics, etc) and delivered to your markets with oil, you are complicit in all of this.
The biggest problem in neoliberal economics is the fact that environmental factors (to say nothing of social factors) are treated as externalities. If you buy a product that requires a tree to be felled, the cost should include the price of replanting a tree. If you buy a car which will spew emissions into the air, the cost of that car should include the price of dealing with global warming and all of the horrible health effects that your car exhaust will have on your neighbours (asthma, cancer, et al).
I think it's depressing how many wealthy Westerners lead obscenely destructive lifestyles and are so careless about the rest of humanity that they simply can't imagine sacrificing their own money or convenience to fix the problems they themselves are causing.- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What if we do everything Al Gore asks, and carbon dioxide levels STILL don't go down? How long do you feel we should pay that tax if it turns out that it's not actually accomplishing anything? I don't disagree that there are external costs to consider, but what I'm not convinced about at all is that there will be any external savings for all the money we throw at the problem. The way I see it, the only way we'll save the environment via a carbon tax is by not having to cut down trees to print more money, since we'll all be flat ***** broke.
- wootup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure what Al Gore is asking us to do because my research into this issue has been purely academic, but I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. What if we reduce our carbon emissions, and then carbon emissions don't go down? I'm not sure how that would be physically possible, unless you are buying into some of Exxon's propaganda about our collective carbon footprint being extremely small and functionally negligible, which it is not.
The idea is pretty simple, I think: if your actions cause this problem, you should be the one paying to fix it. It's called self-responsibility, and I understand that it's all but disappeared in the orgy of selfish indulgence otherwise referred to as present-day America, but that doesn't mean learned people don't have a responsibility to bring it back. We are killing absolutely everything through our lifestyles and buying patterns, and we need to fundamentally change things in order to stop ourselves. A carbon tax is one way to help do that. - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What if atmospheric CO2 levels don't go down despite our trillions of dollars thrown at the problem... THAT is my question. How long and how much will we have to pay until "mission accomplished" with respect to global warming? Will we be allowed to start cranking out CO2 again if the temp drops a degree over the next decade? What if temps continue to increase even if we all live in huts and hold our breath so as not to exhale more CO2 into our precious atmosphere?
I'm not buying into any propaganda on either side of the debate, because science fully supports neither. What I'm saying is I'm not prepared to shell out trillions when there is very little empirical evidence that it will do anything to solve the problem. Some studies I've seen indicate that CO2 is actually a SYMPTOM of global climate change, not a FACTOR. That being the case, maybe we'd be better off building a gigantic tinted window to put between earth and the sun.
I agree that if my actions cause the problem, I should pay to fix it, and in fact I've already done many things to reduce my carbon footprint just because doing so SAVES me money when my electric and gas bills are smaller. That is how you promote responsibility; you help people save money for being responsible instead of punishing them for being irresponsible. The irresponsible ones will realize soon enough that they're pissing money away and they'll have to do something about it. What I don't like is the ASSUMPTION of fault, wherein we're ALL part of the problem. I guess that's true given that each of us exhales CO2 with every breath, but I hardly feel I should be taxed on breathing. Same is true for just being a typical American driving 10 miles each day and farting 21 times a day. Instead of penalizing me, give me a free train ticket and I'll hop on the train each morning to save on gas.
So basically, what I'm saying is that I do NOT accept that humanity is a huge factor in global climate change, I do NOT accept that everyone is to blame just by the mere fact that we exist, and I do not accept that even if we all give 100% of our income to reduce CO2 output that global temps will actually drop. Sure, we need to slow down our plundering of earth; on that I have no qualms with you. My question to you is this: How certain are you that new taxes will solve the problem given that it might not even be humanity that caused it to begin with? - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And on a side note, before you assail me with the argument that "the science you're talking about was paid for by big oil", keep in mind that all the scientists that you are talking about were funded by big government. Just yesterday Condi Rice (former BIG OIL exec) joined the global warming cult, and to me the ONLY thing she and Gore have in common is their shared love of government. The fact that an oilmonger like her would support global warming only furthers my suspicions that global warming is more about increasing government control of our lives and less about saving the world.
As I said in a different comment, the government is HARD UP for cash right now with the massive deficits it has going, and revenues aren't projected to increase now that the housing market and consumer spending is imploding. Could you admit that it's at least POSSIBLE that global warming is just a hysteria being cooked up to milk us out of another couple trillion? - wootup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1dracostimpy - Fantastic, from admitting that you don't think that human carbon emissions are "a huge factor" in causing an increase in mean global temperatures, to referring to the scientific community as "the global warming cult," to implying that solar output may be the cause (a theorem long since refuted, though you wouldn't know that from the number of uneducated individuals on Digg who watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Google Video and think they know more than thousands of the world's best climate scientists), I think it is fair to say that you are taking about science paid for by big oil. You've bought their lies hook, line and sinker. And if you think that Condi Rice or anyone in the Bush administration has had a sudden change of heart about climate change, why haven't they signed on to Kyoto? Where is the massive nation-wide campaign to reduce CO2 emissions in America? There is none; they continue to deliberately stall on any action because they don't care about the future, they don't care about the planet, and they don't care about the human species. They care about consolidating their own power and wealth and that of their supporters - including the oil lobby, from which most senior Bush administration officials hail.
As for your claim that there is a "presumption" of guilt, look around: you ARE causing this. I for one stopped driving some time ago as an ethical decision, but in your post you admitted to driving every day, meaning you pollute every day and contribute to the problem in a major way. I assume you also eat like most of us in North America do, that is to say pesticide-grown industrial food that has been manfuactured, processed and transported thousands of kilometers with oil, emitting even more CO2. If all 6.5 billion human beings alive did what you do, the planet would be already be toast. What you and others with your habits need to do is understand that you are harming our environment and harming your children and all those who will come after us, and change your lifestyles accordingly.
You're killing the world and then crying that you are being "penalized," ignoring the obvious fact that by default, your lifestyle penalizes the people of the future, people in lowland countries, people in areas that will suffer greater desertification, people in the arctic, and numerous plant and animal species.
If your conscience is truly so weak that it requires a financial incentive to stop polluting and destroying, congratulations: you just proved my point that taxing destructive activities is necessary to stopping them. - dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Digger pleez. How is solar output refuted when the polar caps are melting on MARS? As for my conscience, it's perfectly fine because I'm not a kool-aid drinker like yourself. I'll wait until the facts are in before I start scrambling to save the cheerleader, save the world. If you think the facts are in, then you're buying what Al Gore is selling because humanity does NOT have the technology to accurately model the global climate even if EVERY ***** SCIENTIST IN THE UNIVERSE agrees on it. It's still just an educated guess, and I don't change my lifestyle drastically on account of educated guesses.
And yes, economics are the driving factor behind my decisions in life, so until it's economically reasonable for me to be even more enviro-friendly, I'll choose the opposite. If I kill the world singlehandedly by driving my Toyota, so be it because I'm not going to walk 10 miles a day and I'm not going to pay $200 a month to ride the train. Congrats to you for becoming the first truly carbon-neutral human on earth, but I hope you put a dime in the "save the planet" jar every time you exhale.
- wootup, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm not sure what Al Gore is asking us to do because my research into this issue has been purely academic, but I'm not sure that I understand what you're asking. What if we reduce our carbon emissions, and then carbon emissions don't go down? I'm not sure how that would be physically possible, unless you are buying into some of Exxon's propaganda about our collective carbon footprint being extremely small and functionally negligible, which it is not.
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What if we do everything Al Gore asks, and carbon dioxide levels STILL don't go down? How long do you feel we should pay that tax if it turns out that it's not actually accomplishing anything? I don't disagree that there are external costs to consider, but what I'm not convinced about at all is that there will be any external savings for all the money we throw at the problem. The way I see it, the only way we'll save the environment via a carbon tax is by not having to cut down trees to print more money, since we'll all be flat ***** broke.
- Zique, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's two sides of the same coin, from where do you think they're going to get back the tax cuts they would give?
- dracostimpy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1From the pointless war of aggression that has already cost us almost a trillion bucks. Instead of spending another trillion in Iran, let's just use that money to offset the tax breaks.
- Scottamus, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Yes Yes, Let's all stop paying taxes and live in anarchy. Retard. Taxes are necessary. Democrats know that, Republicans know that, and you should ***** know that too.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -0/+14Actually a lot of states offer tax rebates for "buying green" Energy Star appliances, etc.
- nouns, on 10/10/2007, -5/+44I'm warming up to it
- seanc6610, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2at least i didnt have to see any of the "well played/i see what you did there/***** annoying" comments
- Light11, on 10/28/2007, -1/+6well played
- modix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Congratulations for not appreciating humor. We need more shouting and name calling! The forums are way too full of people providing laughs and wittiness, with not enough declarations of "your an idiot".
- nouns, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1But, I am an idoit.....
- iChainsaw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3i see what you did there.
- Scottamus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1pass.
- seanc6610, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2at least i didnt have to see any of the "well played/i see what you did there/***** annoying" comments
- amsterdamordeth, on 10/10/2007, -7/+21I'd rather them stop dropping nuclear waste into the oceans, and mercury into our lake and river systems. I can handle some extra thunderstorms and some rising sea levels, but will it make any difference when our entire ecosystem is a ball of toxic waste?
They also forgot that 10% of global warming is caused by all the hot air coming out of our elected officials.- shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"but will it make any difference when our entire ecosystem is a ball of toxic waste?", hehe, it may not make much of a difference if there is no atmosphere.
- Smight, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The boat to worrying about the atmosphere/Ozone disappearing sailed back in '95. Sorry, no refunds.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Reality called. They wanted you to know that the worst case scenario for global warming is milder winters and more oceanfront property.
- shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hmm, I wonder, why does Venus have so many clouds?
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It was born that way.
- shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hmm, I wonder, why does Venus have so many clouds?
- sputnikv, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4"can handle some extra thunderstorms and some rising sea levels..."
lol, not me, i'm in one of those places that'll be submerged...a place for hurricanes too lol: miami - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1burry
- shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2"but will it make any difference when our entire ecosystem is a ball of toxic waste?", hehe, it may not make much of a difference if there is no atmosphere.
- stealth45, on 10/10/2007, -14/+33I think it's a natural process slightly accelerated by human activity.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Based on what?
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the earth going through the same cycles for millions of years without us polluting it? Sure we could be altering it, but it was there before us too...
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Slightly? These things don't happen overnight, in terms of geological time. 100 years in the grand scheme of things is a nanosecond in our lives.
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3If this is what you consider slight...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ ... - Renton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4If this is what you consider slight...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ ... - Isidore, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
New Scientist addressing main climate skeptic claims
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Would you stop with the cut and past propaganda. If you can't say something original, then don't say anything at all. You're not adding to the discussion, you're only making yourself look like the prescripted ass you are.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Would you stop with the cut and past propaganda. If you can't say something original, then don't say anything at all. You're not adding to the discussion, you're only making yourself look like the prescripted ass you are.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Based on what?
- pintomp3, on 10/10/2007, -6/+24i guess the propaganda isn't working. the tobacco companies used the same tactics, and same pr companies, to try to convince people cigarettes weren't addictive and don't cause cancer.
- xenuxenuts, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3you wouldn't know it by reading digg.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1...They don't? That ***** in the bunny costume lied to me!
- londubh, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I assume you are referring to the oil companies propaganda (ExxonMobile for example) saying that the science of global warming is in doubt. Because they are the ones who are like the tobacco companies.
- merper, on 10/10/2007, -12/+11Now if only we lived in a democracy, this might matter.
- xenuxenuts, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3We've never lived in one. We live in a republic, and for good reason. If you think propaganda is bad now, just imagine how it would be under a true democracy. It would impossible to find out the truth on anything.
- seraph582, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2true democracy would be tyrrany of the majority! wtf are you smoking?
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -6/+19I live my life leaving as little waste and pollution as possible, regardless of if anthropogenic climate change is a real threat or not. Everyone else is free to do whatever they want.
“Be the change you wish to see in the world.”
-Gandhi- tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Unfortunately thats idealistic and not realistic. That is the common environmental mantra that 'if i do something, maybe other people will follow my example,' but it doesn't work. Governments need to come in and make effective laws that create a significant difference. As a part of an effective democracy, its your responsibility to make your view known. Idle non-vocal action is more damaging then any active miss -nformed action.
- Ajajadude, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Oh, it works. Just when it's too late.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Well said, Comrade Stalin. Because a world where everyone is forced to do the 'right' thing by the Party is a word worth living in, right?
- trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your name is apt.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9Unfortunately thats idealistic and not realistic. That is the common environmental mantra that 'if i do something, maybe other people will follow my example,' but it doesn't work. Governments need to come in and make effective laws that create a significant difference. As a part of an effective democracy, its your responsibility to make your view known. Idle non-vocal action is more damaging then any active miss -nformed action.
- RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -13/+11 The real environmental threat is from pumping toxins into the ground, air and water. Heat is the least of it and that's all anyone wants to talk about while we poison ourselves.
Anyway's most of the science around global warming is fraudulent when you take a deeper look. Opposition is silenced while liars tell the world there is scientific consensus.- tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I agree that pollution is a threat. But where on earth are you people getting this fraudulent crap? I have seen a grand total of one report claiming a lack of consensus, based entirely on the fact that it assumes papers that don't present a opinion on global warming must not agree with it. The science is intuitive for anyone willing to learn it, and i suggest you do.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's funny, because there was only ever one report that claimed a consensus to begin with. If you look at the methodology behind this report and think about it logically, you quickly realize that the report is a fraud.
I'll boil it down for you: the report was based on an electronic search of a database of articles for the words "climate change". The researchers read the abstracts (summaries) for those articles and then decided whether the paper itself (which they didn't read) represented a viewpoint that global warming is man-made, isn't man-made or neutral. They found the majority of tests were pro man-made global warming, the minority were neutral and nobody actively disputed the notion. Here's the problem with that - nobody actually writes papers to disprove a theory. If you want to get published, you'll write a paper that promotes a viewpoint, not discourages another. It's consider nonacademic, and almost guarantees you won't get published in a scientific journal. There's the next problem - that database of scientific journals doesn't represent a complete accounting of papers issued by scientists. Not every scientist cares to be peer reviewed, and those that do aren't guaranteed to get into print. (Paper is expensive). Not withstanding the fact that many scientific journals have taken an editorial stance on the issue (which means that dissenting opinions are ordinarily rejected), the search for "climate change" is a rhetorical way of ensuring that the results of the search would line up with their viewpoint. Human language is very selective.
The bottom line is, there is not consensus. Until someone actually polls the at-large scientific community (and nobody has yet), it's just a useful tool for silencing real debate.
(BTW, that reports author is Naomi Oreskes, and she wrote about it in an article titled "Beyond the Ivory Watchtower".)
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That's funny, because there was only ever one report that claimed a consensus to begin with. If you look at the methodology behind this report and think about it logically, you quickly realize that the report is a fraud.
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Read my reply to burning ranger, just a small bit of the science behind CO2
- deanbag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I've taken a deeper look at the science, and it IS totally credible. It also makes logical sense, and there is scientific consensus. I'm tired of people saying otherwise, without a shed of proof to the contrary.
The good news is, according to the article it looks like there are fewer and fewer of you.- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Where is your proof that there is a scientific consensus? There is none. Just because you repeat a lie doesn't mean it's the truth - it just means that we've got a bunch of liars in this debate.
The fundamental science is credible, yes. But there is a huge leap from that fundamental science to the notion that humans are causing global warming. In that gap between the fundamental and the hysteric conjecture, there live people like you who want to force others to believe something that isn't necessarily true.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Where is your proof that there is a scientific consensus? There is none. Just because you repeat a lie doesn't mean it's the truth - it just means that we've got a bunch of liars in this debate.
- RationalXubrnce, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3 You can start here for a good summary of the questions around manmade warming. http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail478.html#cl ...
There is no consensus. The scientists in opposition don't get funding or published but there are more of them every day. Saying there is a consensus over and over again doesn't make it so. ( And I refer to man made warming not warming itself.)
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I agree that pollution is a threat. But where on earth are you people getting this fraudulent crap? I have seen a grand total of one report claiming a lack of consensus, based entirely on the fact that it assumes papers that don't present a opinion on global warming must not agree with it. The science is intuitive for anyone willing to learn it, and i suggest you do.
- ausfahrt, on 10/10/2007, -1/+22there goes the neighborhood. This, again, is silly. Just be good to the earth. Remember reduce reuse and recycle. Do your best even if global warming is or is not "our" fault. Get big industry to do the same ... lets all do our best and that is all we can do. Debating it is not helping and doesn't change the fact that it is good to leave a small footprint.
- amoo3, on 10/10/2007, -15/+9Its all a bunch of crap. I live in Maryland where everyone around me believes otherwise, so no, despite their continuing efforts, my attitude is not changing.
- d3dm, on 10/10/2007, -19/+9They should ask the same people that think human activity is directly responsible for global warming on Earth, why the temperature on other planets in our solar system is also increasing ...
Oh nevermind. They'd probably say it was the fault of the humans living on those planets too.- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12That has been debunked and if you'd take a few seconds to Google it you'd find that out, but that would conflict with your cozy worldview so I know you won't bother.
- futureinmind, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Debunked?! If some planets were cooling and some were warming there would be some debate, but their is only signs of warming. It's very hard to believe that its all independent.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So I take it you didn't bother to look it up either.
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1Every time one of you people claim something is debunked, people like me find out that people like you don't know the definition of the word "debunked".
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3@hammerattack
Your willful ignorance & vitriol disprove nothing.
- vikingcoder, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Correlation does not equal causation, even when the correlation supports your preconceived notions.
Why point to a supposed secondary effect when a purported primary cause is readily measurable?
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3So I take it you didn't bother to look it up either.
- futureinmind, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1Debunked?! If some planets were cooling and some were warming there would be some debate, but their is only signs of warming. It's very hard to believe that its all independent.
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12That has been debunked and if you'd take a few seconds to Google it you'd find that out, but that would conflict with your cozy worldview so I know you won't bother.
- silfiriel, on 10/10/2007, -9/+2my attitude for global warming, I say support it! Check out why http://netcashingin.blogspot.com/2007/09/why-suppo ...
- deanbag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3At first I thought you were being sarcastic, but then I read some of your other posts. Guess not.
- TaranWalker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1why not just post HERE what you think instead of assuming that people care enough to jump to another site?
- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Thank you! Global Warming would turn out to be the best thing to happen to humanity since the Holocene Climate Optimum, and people are too busy being panicked to realize it.
- tmbrwolf19, on 10/10/2007, -5/+7While its nice to hear that people are starting to catch on... it would be nice if something actually happened instead of politicians going on about how they are discussing setting goals. The government should be taking action and actually doing something other then this posturing and *****. It would be nice to have an effective democratic government for once.
- mstrebe, on 10/10/2007, -9/+9Yes, my attitude towards Global Warming is changing. I'm learning to stop worrying and love the new, warmer Earth.
- mikebrushedred, on 10/10/2007, -15/+5Sure, humans are adding to the global warming situation, however its a scientific fact that this is a natural occurrence throughout the history of the Earth, just as an Ice Age. I believe its every 13,000 years or so, when the earth flips on its axis, the earth heats up. I wasn't paying enough attention in astronomy to get into great detail. But the Earth does flip on its axis every 13,000 years causing a process that heats up the earth.
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5And then the Space Aliens come and take us away to Atlantis! CRYSTAL POWER HEALS CANCER!!!
- maliath, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Do you have an eBay store for any of these crystals? Thx!
- pineutrino, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Pay more attention in astronomy.
- Dralha, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3"I wasn't paying enough attention in astronomy"
You got that right. - Isidore, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No one on the IPCC doubts that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.
Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that it can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0
- JonnyTrombone, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5And then the Space Aliens come and take us away to Atlantis! CRYSTAL POWER HEALS CANCER!!!
- rock774, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4i wish it would hurry up cant wait to plant palm trees in my yard !
- shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6No. I have known about global warming and its effects for a long time. It may be recent that the msm has been allowed to notice it. Scientists have known about this effect since way back in the 1870s. I forget who back then is quoted as saying that we were evaporating the Earth's stored carbon by burning the fossil fuels, maybe Tesla or one of his colleagues.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Svante Arrhenius, 1896
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
Although the knowledge that CO2 absorbs heat goes back to the late 1850's - shamanlife, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Excellent, thanks.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Svante Arrhenius, 1896
- dlroo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I wish the article would say what the views were before, therefore we could actually see the change. So, how are they changing?
- Salisme, on 10/10/2007, -6/+2I wonder what this poll would show if it asked people how they thought the last ice age was started.
- Auto, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Hmmm. A greener Earth sounds good... until we consider the economic costs. If we wanted to stop global warming (in what little way we could... mind, most of what we are seeing up to this point is natural), our economy would be destroyed. And honestly, do you expect third world countries that are modernizing to care? China and India, the two countries with the greatest long-term threat have no compunction with polluting the Earth.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You know, we hear that argument a lot- that any sort of attempt to curb climate change will destroy our economy. I don't buy it- every scientific movement has, in the end, resulted in an economic improvement. The only danger is that Big Oil would make less profit- and, frankly, their failed business model is NOT my problem.
- SirDiggalot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Agreed-- new green technology isn't going to collapse the economy. Did Toyota go belly-up from introducing hybrid vehicles? Hell no! All that technological innovation will create new jobs, new markets.
As for big oil -- oil prices are just going to just rise as oil gets scarce. They'll still be profiting in the billions each year.
- SirDiggalot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Agreed-- new green technology isn't going to collapse the economy. Did Toyota go belly-up from introducing hybrid vehicles? Hell no! All that technological innovation will create new jobs, new markets.
- ejtttje, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Most of what we are seeing is natural, eh? Care to provide a "natural" explanation for the spike at the end of the graph?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ ...- hammerattack, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's called "bad data". The majority of that graph is comprised of data from well before the age of reliable thermometers, satellites and global weather stations.
- Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Global Warming will flood Wall Street. That will make it rather hard to sell and buy stocks.
- WasabiBomb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You know, we hear that argument a lot- that any sort of attempt to curb climate change will destroy our economy. I don't buy it- every scientific movement has, in the end, resulted in an economic improvement. The only danger is that Big Oil would make less profit- and, frankly, their failed business model is NOT my problem.
- Error601, on 10/10/2007, -14/+6It's hard to ignore the tight correlation between socialism and global warming propaganda.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yeah, since Socialism is a political position founded on social and economic liberal beliefs in support of the underprivileged through the role of the state and the primary source of environmental destruction tends to be externality-shifting big business. Not so much a coincidence as a natural progression.
- Appanouki, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1actually communism was far more damaging to the environment than capitalism, and socialists only think they are helping the poor with their economically uneducated policies.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4That makes no sense at all. Many Socialist/Communist countries had terrible environmental records. Far worse than here in the West, where people have the right to complain about polluted water, air, etc.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4Yeah, since Socialism is a political position founded on social and economic liberal beliefs in support of the underprivileged through the role of the state and the primary source of environmental destruction tends to be externality-shifting big business. Not so much a coincidence as a natural progression.
- mikebrushedred, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0http://www.nap.edu/html/oneuniverse/motion_30-31.h ...
read. - yoda17, on 10/10/2007, -8/+7Let the taxation begin.
Unless you have a better idea. - ganzhou1, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3Everyones attitude towards global warming is the same. Who the heck is for destroying the earth, no one. The only thing that is happening is that people are blaming each other for the problem and no country seems set to change themselves.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2I love how these countries down Bush for not accetping the Kyoto treaty. They fail to mention how most of these countries have failed to meet the unrealistic goals of the treaty going on a few years now. Now they want the US to sign the next Kyoto treaty which will be just as meaningless and the last one..
- MattCairns, on 10/10/2007, -16/+12Oh *****. Yes global warming exists just as it did 6 million years ago or so and 6 million years before that, it is a reoccurring thing and not human caused. My actions will change nothing.
- mikebrushedred, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I like how you say the same thing I did.. but I get -diggs, lol..
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2Diggers are a fickle bunch. :-)
- ejtttje, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3There is a cyclical component, but take a look at the data and it's clear there's something else at play:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_ ...
Hmm, I wonder what's causing the unprecedented spike at the end of the graph?- dookie1481, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1How could you possibly infer anything from a graph that uses data from different sources at different points? The unprecedented spike may have something to do with the fact that ice core samples were used until about 1950, when direct measurements became available. Instead of using the same source for all data points, they stop using proxies and start using direct measurements. This is bad, bad, baaaaad science, and people should understand that.
Jay- Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even if you're right about the ice core/direct measurement transition in 1950, there's a pretty sharp increase around 1800, that has nothing to do with the measurement technique and everything to do with the industrial revolution. The measurement of CO2 from ice cores isn't bad science because you say it is, not anymore than radiocarbon dating is, for instance. You can question the causality relation between CO2 and temperature all you want, but to deny that humans have had a significant impact on the CO2 levels of the atmosphere is just plain ignorant.
- dookie1481, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's not measuring form ice cores that is poor science. Proxies are used all the time; many things cannot be feasibly measured directly. It's the fact that all of a sudden changing the source of your data and then pointing to the results as "proof" of global warming is disingenuous at best, and blatantly deceptive at worst. And I am not questioning humans' impact on CO2 levels (though the impact of those levels is debatable), I am simply saying that to definitively state such requires an objective analysis of data, not this ***** pseudo-science that has a conclusion but is still searching for the data to prove itself true.
"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."
-Ronald Coase
Jay
- dookie1481, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's not measuring form ice cores that is poor science. Proxies are used all the time; many things cannot be feasibly measured directly. It's the fact that all of a sudden changing the source of your data and then pointing to the results as "proof" of global warming is disingenuous at best, and blatantly deceptive at worst. And I am not questioning humans' impact on CO2 levels (though the impact of those levels is debatable), I am simply saying that to definitively state such requires an objective analysis of data, not this ***** pseudo-science that has a conclusion but is still searching for the data to prove itself true.
- Scienceisfun, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Even if you're right about the ice core/direct measurement transition in 1950, there's a pretty sharp increase around 1800, that has nothing to do with the measurement technique and everything to do with the industrial revolution. The measurement of CO2 from ice cores isn't bad science because you say it is, not anymore than radiocarbon dating is, for instance. You can question the causality relation between CO2 and temperature all you want, but to deny that humans have had a significant impact on the CO2 levels of the atmosphere is just plain ignorant.
- dookie1481, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1How could you possibly infer anything from a graph that uses data from different sources at different points? The unprecedented spike may have something to do with the fact that ice core samples were used until about 1950, when direct measurements became available. Instead of using the same source for all data points, they stop using proxies and start using direct measurements. This is bad, bad, baaaaad science, and people should understand that.
- mikebrushedred, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4I like how you say the same thing I did.. but I get -diggs, lol..
- vikramraja, on 10/10/2007, -12/+8Is Al Gore the right person to be talking about Global Warming?
- rock774, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2he is a fake !!
- vikramraja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah,
If he is so keen on saving the environment, why didn't he do anything while Vice President?
- vikramraja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Yeah,
- rock774, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2he is a fake !!
- syxle, on 10/10/2007, -7/+2Hyperdimensional Energy affecting the entire solar system.
- Appanouki, on 10/10/2007, -15/+10yeah, I realised what a crock of ***** global warming was some time ago.
- myalibi, on 10/10/2007, -6/+7as soon as these kinds of polls get to a certain percentage of people believing that global warming is caused by humans then it will be safe for all the fake environmentalist elites to start pushing the idea of a carbon tax through the mainstream media.
So, if you don't want another useless tax being taken out of you hard earned money, I'd suggest you go and research both sides of the Al Gore, propagandized, CO2 causes global warming myth. - bobonut, on 10/10/2007, -9/+13Phew, that's a relief. I was beginning to think Digg was representative of general opinion and thankfully this has reminded me that not everyone is a relatively wealthy, white middle class male and not everyone thinks environmentalism is a conspiracy against the US. Now if only Republicans would stop trying to hijack science...
- deanbag, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6Agreed! It's a little disturbing here on the comment boards sometimes, between the global warming skeptics, the 9/11 truthers, and the Ron Paul will Save Us All folks. It's nice to remember that most of these people are on the fringe and not representative of the public at large.
- futureinmind, on 10/10/2007, -11/+7Limiting CO2 is a limit on life. It is essential, these elitists scumbags have convinced you that you are ruining the earth. While our state department pollutes 1000 times more than Switzerland and while they fly around in private jets laughing at you. Global warming, global terrorism, war on drugs, war on poverty are all excuses to take get more power, take away your freedom, and tax you till your last dime. They made Bush the scapegoat and had him stand on the side that it wasn't man-made to push you towards believing it was and now just today the Bush adminstration is announcing that they will fight global warming. It's a scam use your intuition and research for yourself. 48% of scientists are neutral on manmade global warming according to a study of over 500 papers. All this talk of global warming is based on limiting life and the comes from eugenics research the founder of UNESCO. Julian Huxley.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction= ...- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You need to look beyond your own borders. There is a world out there beyond the US, we were interested in this all along while the US resisted it. Why would GWB do that if it is a money making tool for the government considering how popular a cause it is? I invite you to research for yourself. When I say research I don't mean read a few blogs I mean read a few scientific papers, and scientific research means you look at papers from both sides of the argument not just the ones that support your theory.
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3You need to look beyond your own borders. There is a world out there beyond the US, we were interested in this all along while the US resisted it. Why would GWB do that if it is a money making tool for the government considering how popular a cause it is? I invite you to research for yourself. When I say research I don't mean read a few blogs I mean read a few scientific papers, and scientific research means you look at papers from both sides of the argument not just the ones that support your theory.
- norman619, on 10/10/2007, -11/+10Repeat a lie enough times....
- nblsavage, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4...and you're a republican.
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4You know being on digg has given me an insight into how paranoid the media can make the general population.
It has got to the point that critical thinking has gone one stage further and now nothing is to be trusted unless personally experienced. Not even peer review is good enough anymore. You don't trust an entire scientific community to self monitor through competition and so it rests on you to redo every experiment the world has ever seen so you can trust scientists. People even doubt things like the horrors of the world war 2 holocaust actually occurred despite there being people who were around in those days. Still you can't trust them either they have an agenda too. Or the moon landings, most astronomers will say it happend based on their professional experience but that's no match for a man with google now is it.
Money, money, money. Everyone is so greedy you think everyone else is eyeing up your wallet when in reality they are thinking the same about you.
The thing that annoys me about this is that the "debunking" is not done by fighting science with science which would be fine but by fighting science with conjecture, paranoia and a non-professional level grasp (or lack thereof) of the facts.- Appanouki, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2skepticism is always healthy, and I think anyone arguing that the population needs to be more gullible than it already is has some quite serious mental deficiencies.
- Kizilbash, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The lie however is that Global Warming does not exist. Only in the US are corporate propagandists powerful enough to make you believe that scientists disagree on this.
- facewarts, on 10/10/2007, -10/+8Global warming is just another tool in the tool box the politicians and the power elite will use gain more power, control you and tax you. After all who is against saving the earth ? If you can't see the end game then you are a dumb smuck !
- aptmunich, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Apparently the current people in power are against "saving the earth" if you look at recent policy decisions.
So the politicians are controlling us via Global warming how again? Dumb smuck... - frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2So the politicians are manipulating us. Hmm lets examine one. George W Bush. Where do his financial interests lie? I seem to remember something to do with oil. What's bad for oil? Global Warming. Why has the US been so slow to get on the ecological band wagon? You tell me. Why are there so many US citizens resisting Global warming?
- aptmunich, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Apparently the current people in power are against "saving the earth" if you look at recent policy decisions.
- shabos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7http://www.surfacestations.org/
see for yourself how the temperatures being recorded are not accurate - caudron, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5What's with the blame game? Who cares who is causing it? Look, I don't really care who started the whole Global Warming thing, but I'm gonna go out on a limb as call myself strongly anti-extinction. Whether we started it or not, we need to be finding every way possible to slow or reverse the temperature trend.
Letting the opposition bait you into arguments that mean nothing (like "who's fault is it?") only keeps you from addressing the real argument ("What are we gonna do about it?"). Why let them set the agenda for discussion like that?
Tom Caudron - jmcantrell, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1i think it's inevitable that this would be happening (with or without humans), but our presence here has surely accelerated the process by a few thousand years
- hunchback, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Well, some of you ***** can help by turning off your pee cees when you go off to bed, ***** those torrents, just download em tomorrow
- BlackCow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It doesn't matter what I "think", what matters is what may or may not happen.
- phenry50BMG, on 10/10/2007, -8/+11Global warming is a complete load of ***** meant to instill a new fear and a new means to impose sanctions and taxes on the sheep.
CO2 is absolutely necessary for photosynthesis. Reminds me of that ***** episode Penn and Teller did when everyone signed up to ban dihydrogen oxide. What a bunch of idiots who just want to be a part of something and pat themselves on the back while being completely oblivious to the reality of the situation.
How did we go from a predicted ice age to global warming? I think some people just jump on every new bandwagon that comes down the pike.
Since all mammals exhale CO2, will the next plan be depopulation?- hunchback, on 10/10/2007, -6/+4Wow what a shortsighted dummy.
- trogdoor, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3"Since all mammals exhale CO2, will the next plan be depopulation?"
Just like their is a water cycle there is a CO2 cycle, and just like me pissing and perspiring doesn't add net water to the globe neither do mammals increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, burning fossil fuels however does.
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11I already posted this in reply to someone else above but I think it bears repeating.
#1 You cannot deny that global temperature is rising. No scientist (worth his salt) argues that. but even if you do #2, #3 and #4 below stand on their own.
#2 We cut down trees, trees take in CO2 and give out O2. Fewer trees means less CO2 handling capacity.
#3 We generate a lot of CO2 by burning hydrocarbons (oil, petrol, diesel, coal), which give out water and CO2.
#4 CO2 absorbs sunlight in the visible region towards the UV side (around 420 nm) which gives it vibrational energy. vibrational energy can then give rise to heat through molecular collisions.
You can debate the extent to which each of those points has an impact but they are all facts you can look them up and verify them for yourself.
I'm not entirely convinced that global warming is solely man-made BUT we almost certainly have an effect.
Wake up and think about the science for yourself instead of just throwing accusations of where the money is.
You disagree with me fine give me some SCIENTIFIC counter arguments and we'll talk but please no crap about tax hikes when we all know the US government is in the oil companies' pocket.- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"CO2 absorbs sunlight in the visible region towards the UV"
Oops. Its effects would be literally visible if that were true. It's most important absorption band is in what scientists call "longwave infrared". The scientific literature is full of fun jargon such as "upwelling LW".- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Being a scientist myself I can tell you that CO2 does absorb in the visible (I highlighted this more for non-scientists to understand) AND the longwave IR and no that would not mean it would be visible, it would mean that light passing through would be stripped of that wavelength or rather band of wavelengths of light and appear to be a different colour (visibility in the traditional sense is more about reflection of light). That the band is quite narrow and the effect of it being missing is not noticable without a detector. Other factors such as the absorption percentage, emission and solar intensity at that wavelength are also important and would all affect the net radiation converted to heat.
Regardless these facts do not alter the fact that CO2 absorbs solar radiation and as a result heats up.- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Regardless these facts do not alter the fact that CO2 absorbs solar radiation and as a result heats up."
Well, but the important part is the way CO2 absorbs the outgoing infrared. It is largely (perhaps not totally) transparent to incoming radiation in the visible and short IR bands.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Regardless these facts do not alter the fact that CO2 absorbs solar radiation and as a result heats up."
- frazw, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Being a scientist myself I can tell you that CO2 does absorb in the visible (I highlighted this more for non-scientists to understand) AND the longwave IR and no that would not mean it would be visible, it would mean that light passing through would be stripped of that wavelength or rather band of wavelengths of light and appear to be a different colour (visibility in the traditional sense is more about reflection of light). That the band is quite narrow and the effect of it being missing is not noticable without a detector. Other factors such as the absorption percentage, emission and solar intensity at that wavelength are also important and would all affect the net radiation converted to heat.
- kinerry, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3"#2 We cut down trees, trees take in CO2 and give out O2. Fewer trees means less CO2 handling capacity."
Except now there are more trees than there were 50 years ago. It's called paper tree farming you ***** hippie- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not worldwide. There has been some regrowth the in US (reclaimed farmland), and some anti-environmentalist writers deliberately confuse the two.
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Not worldwide. There has been some regrowth the in US (reclaimed farmland), and some anti-environmentalist writers deliberately confuse the two.
- Kagnew, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2#1 You cannot deny that global temperature is rising. No scientist (worth his salt) argues that.
---Many scientists do. Satellites detect no warming in the atmosphere since 1979 and now see some cooling.
#2 We cut down trees, trees take in CO2 and give out O2. Fewer trees means less CO2 handling capacity.
---We plant as many if not more trees than we cut down. Lumber is a crop. There are more trees today in the U.S. than there were 100 years ago.
#3 We generate a lot of CO2 by burning hydrocarbons (oil, petrol, diesel, coal), which give out water and CO2.
---The Earth generates 90% of all CO2 in a given year.
#4 CO2 absorbs sunlight in the visible region towards the UV side (around 420 nm) which gives it vibrational energy. vibrational energy can then give rise to heat through molecular collisions.
---Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Hot humid summer nights are the greenhouse effect in action. Damn those oceans!- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Satellites detect no warming in the atmosphere since 1979 and now see some cooling."
Your information is out of date.
"The Earth generates 90% of all CO2 in a given year"
Natural process are roughly in balance. Think this through if you can - if the natural processes were not in balance, the atmosphere would be like 99% CO2. The "fingerprint" of burning fossil fuels can be seen in changing carbon isotope levels in atmospheric CO2. Contesting this point is the equivalent of being a young-earth creationist. You are just copy & pasting stuff that you don't understand.
"Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Hot humid summer nights are the greenhouse effect in action."
Water vapor has a larger effect than CO2, but CO2's fraction is larger than 5%. Its important that much of CO2's "dirty work" happens up in the stratosphere, which is very dry. Deniers who know some science will sometimes sneak in the term "sea level" when they discuss the effects
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"Satellites detect no warming in the atmosphere since 1979 and now see some cooling."
- Arrhenius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"CO2 absorbs sunlight in the visible region towards the UV"
