What is Digg?Sponsored by HowLifeWorks
How Private Online Shopping Clubs Work view!
howlifeworks.com - How to become a member and get discounts of up to 80% on must-have luxury goods
43 Comments
- Wolfbeta, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20...these are the last days of our lives.
- Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow, WTF, have you no shame? The quote said "IN THE LAST THOUSAND YEARS" on the end of it and you just casually chopped it off and acted like you didn't change anything, despite completely changing the meaning of the sentence.
- peritonlogon, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4@WackyT
Yeah, it's true I didn't comment on unklefedd calling you a jerk, or Right wing jerk. I don't condone name calling of any kind and I think it detracts from debate. I must confess I chuckled when I read "Thank you Dr. WhackyT the Climatologist. I am sure you are much smarter than all the other scientists in your field." and skipped the rest since the first line informed me that it was a low content post.
However, this comment "All I'm asking for is for people to take a look at all the available data before coming to a conclusion." is disingenuous. And this comment "I know that's hard for a lot of sheeple to do, but try." is offensive.
"I'll take that as a clue to your affiliation." See, you would, because you believe that climate change is a partisan issue. You are crazy, it's a human race issue, and, I can't wait to see how you spin this one, but I'll stand by it, I am pro human race survival. You guessed it, that's my affiliation, that's my bias.
Let me return to you being disingenuous. This is an alleged controversy, not a real controversy. The scientific debate is not about whether man is affecting global climate but how much is man affecting it. Will the Oceans rise 20 feet in 10 years or 100 or is the range bigger or smaller? The alleged controversy is paid for people whose devotion to money is greater than their devotion to their children. And none of their 'studies' make it to peer-reviewed journals. They all go strait to press release. Then there are people who, either for money, or because of partisan affiliation or some other form of being duped or coerced, spread the word near and far about the alleged controversy. They have a couple of talking points which are
1)scientists in the seventies thought there was global cooling
2)water vapor is a green house gas too.
3)the Co2 levels when the dinosaurs were running around were way hotter than they are now.
4)the climate fluctuates all the time so we can't be 'sure' what the cause is only that it will keep changing.
and there are a couple more. But none of these 'arguments' are relevant, and all of them go out of their way to ignore the data. They are disingenuous at best. And they are simply irrelevant talking points. And these talking points are especially offensive because most of the people acting 'skeptical' and citing 'scientific inquiry' to doubt the science of climate change and whatever respected climatologists have to say do not even believe that these concepts, skepticism and scientific inquiry are worthwhile. The global climate change alleged controversy very much resembles the alleged controversy concerning natural selection, where religious ideologues claim that 'intelligent' design is scientific, when they plainly have no respect for science, scientific inquiry, the scientific method or, generally speaking the empirical world.
These are things that matter to me. To continually see science smeared by talk show hosts, senators and the president, by people who have no respect for science really makes me doubt the viability of our civilization. You can only hold your breath for so long. - rorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@WackyT
Because it's not an effect that we cause, as you quote, "in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels". CO2 and methane levels are being increased by our activies, and could be reduced by changing our way of life; we're not directly increasing water vapor levels in the atmosphere, and can't as easily reduce them. There are many more variables that go into climate change as well, e.g. reflection of sunlight from the formerly-snow-covered tundra and release of methane from rotting vegetation as the sea level rises, but they don't get a lot of press either. CO2 and methane released directly from human activies are the biggies. - peritonlogon, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4@WackyT
"It shows the blinders worn by the left when it comes to examining all the evidence concerning global warming."
Get real. Global warming is not a partisan issue, it's a human race issue. The content of what you have to say illustrates to me that you are uninformed and that you have no desire to become informed.
But if you want to convince me and other people who are actually open to arguments and actually try to assess the merits of those arguments here's a hint.
1) Do not simply claim that those taking up a different position are biased. It's an old, boring, and hollow statement. It's unoriginal and it's lame. It's offensive to people being dismissed and ignored and it makes your argument even weaker. Now, discussing bias, that can be a bit different. Name calling though, you might as well just not do it.
2) Do not simply spend thirty seconds on google and find the first wikepedia post(s) that support the conclusions you've already come to. I will not even bother to follow a wikepedia link since it is not supporting evidence, it is simply some person's post. I don't cite my own opinion as supporting evidence, I simply state it as the opinion it is. - abrupt219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If you read the caption to this graph you will find this quote:
"A possible scenario: anthropogenic emissions of GHGs could bring the climate to a state where it reverts to the highly unstable climate of the pre-ice age period. Rather than a linear evolution, the climate follows a non-linear path with sudden and dramatic surprises when GHG levels reach an as-yet unknown trigger point."
The fact that the climate has varied in the pre-human past does not mean that human activity has no effect. In fact, the very page you linked to suggests that human activity might introduct instability into a sensitive and complex system. - The_Decryptor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3When they cite Michael Crichton as a source, i stop trusting their article.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Thank you Dr. WhackyT the Climatologist. I am sure you are much smarter than all the other scientists in your field. Or maybe you are just another Right Wing jerk in your Hummer blithely taking opinions on something you don't know a damn thing about.
- unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I didn't know the brother of writer Michael Crichton used words like "libtard" or could not identify which deity told man to be fruitful and multiply. And by-the-way, I don't recall exactly which pantheon HeyZeus belonged to. Perhaps the Chaldean god of conservative ignorance?
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Btw, here's a real huge ass scale for estimated CO2 levels. Amazing(tm) that they can even go this far back into history! O_o
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png
The end of the "K" there (for Creataceous), i.e. the very start of "Pg", is about when the dinosaurs died (I hope I'm not confusing creationists overly much now) and Earth is believed among some that it went through a catastrophic event. - ezod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@ WackyT
If it were a simple matter to figure out your "ROI", it would already have been done a long time ago. In the meantime, the default course of action in light of the fact that we know we are having SOME significant impact, regardless of how much, on this clearly detrimental climate change, should be to reduce CO2 emissions big time. Your line of thinking suggests we should consider ourselves innocent until proven guilty, but there's a good chance we are in fact guilty and if that's the case we'll be in deep ***** by the time we prove it. Even on the most conservative sensible estimate of your "ROI" I'd err on the side of caution and do what little it takes to reduce our impact. - rorrison, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@witte
Did you read the articles I linked to? - peritonlogon, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2"Logic is only for the sensible and open-minded, not the "keepers of all truth and knowledge.""
Exactly right, which is why logical, sensible and open-minded people understand that
"If Global Warming is antrogenic (caused by humans) then how the ***** do you explain that there were 6 or 7 Ice Ages before man set foot on the planet."
is what logicians would call 'irrelevant' just like this rhetorical question
"if evolution is caused by natural selection then why haven't we found the missing link?"
or this one
"if the earth revolves around the sun then why does the sun move from one side of the sky to the other then around again? and why don't I feel it moving?"
So, I agree with you completely, leave the logic to the sensible and open-minded. - witte, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"CO2 levels are 30% higher than ever before"
Not even close
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/76/Phanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png - unklefudd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2He must work for the White House....
- doushanes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3That comes on after "All my Children" correct?
- Tyr7BE, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6http://www.climatecrisis.net/
Everyone should see this film. It really drives home the urgency of the problem to those who dismiss global warming as something that will solve itself. - chainsawd, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I think every scientist on earth will agree that the climate will not and cannot stay the same, indefinitely. Therefore the planet must either get warmer or cooler. Which would you choose? Personally, I'd prefer to sweat a little than find myself frozen in an ice block only to be discovered in several hundred thousand years by future scientists who are wondering why it's getting warm again.
- Jugalator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"the warming of the northern hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented in the past thousand years"
I'm personally hoping we can better find out what's causing current temperature rises, and take action if necessary, *but* there are logical problems to be aware of with claims like these. Thousand years you say. Maybe the scale is just too small?
Temperatures on a large scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png
Temperatures on a smaller scale: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
Note the how we're heading for a spike in the temperature right... eeh... *now?* according to that graph comparing the ~100,000 year intervals. We're coming from an ice age, actually.
Maybe this could have anything to do with these findings, although one the other hand, one shouldn't grow overconfident in statistics. There are lies, damned lies, and statistics, as a famous guy once said. We *could* in reality be generating a terribly much higher temperature spike than would naturally be caused otherwise, and *that* is why I think research should continue in this area, and hope humanity won't simply brush it off. I think we owe the Earth and its wondrous heritage we live on that and hope we can be unselfish enough to do what we can to find out the reasons behind our climate. - gbandy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Don't think he will but if Al runs in 2008, I'll vote for him.
And regarding a few other posts, if you think the effects of Global Warming are so negligable, you might find a few former homeowners in New Orleans and Mississippi that will take issue with that opinion.
i'm looking forward to the day when the Global Warming naysayers pull their heads out of the asses of the Government/Oil companies. - rorrison, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Read the article. She's talking about ice core records that go back 650,000 years. Here's a couple other articles about the same research.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4467420.stm
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8369
Basically, there certainly are natural variations in climate and atmospheric gases. Using ice core records to look back 650,000 years through a few ice ages and the warm periods between, scientists have found that our CO2 levels are 30% higher than ever before, methane is 130% higher, and both are rising more rapidly than they've ever risen before. This is not natural. - witte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3But, as your wonderful 750,000 yr graph shows, the probability that the present is unusual is very low.
- Corgana, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2+1 for wit.
- dandyhighwayman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1At least someone is taking advantage of this...
http://marilyncarolyn.blogspot.com/2006/06/evian-introduces-glacial-melt-premium.html - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1peritonlogon, seeing as you only chose to comment on my remark and not of unklefudd's above mine, I'll take that as a clue to your affiliation.
All I'm asking for is for people to take a look at all the available data before coming to a conclusion. I know that's hard for a lot of sheeple to do, but try. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2So, there were no Gulf of Mexico hurricanes before Al's "documentary"?
I'd love to see the Global Warming cataclysmists pull their head out of Al's ass and check ALL the data before spewing even more unnecessary CO2 emissions. - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1What is the expected ROI (Return On Investment) for decreasing CO2 and methane emissions?
Would it actually make any difference, and how much of a difference?
Those are the questions that are not being answered. - Bioshocker, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1An obsession with apocalyptic thinking seems to be a natural part of the human condition (as well as an equal obsession with utopian idealism). The previous centuries have brought us both in our minds and neither in our reality, and I'm confident that will continue to be the case for many centuries to come.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Or, in the USA is also known as SUMMERTIME.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2How come no one ever mentions the largest component of the greenhouse gas equation? Water vapor.
"Water vapor is a natural greenhouse gas which, of all greenhouse gases, accounts for the largest percentage of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor levels fluctuate regionally, but in general humans do not produce a direct forcing of water vapor levels."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas - inactive, on 10/14/2007, -3/+1Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, it just amazes me how much you libtards scream "we're killing the planet, dude, we need to save it man." Wasn't it HeyZeus or God who said "multiply and spread over the earth."
This is just Earth going through one of it's everchanging phases and as a previous poster said we are coming out of an ice age. So what can we expect? We can only expect higher temperatures.
This "Global Warming" that's being portrayed by that hippie Al Gore is just so he can remain in the spotlight so he can make a run for the presidency in '08.
I suggest you take a look at a book by my brother, Michael Crichton. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0061015733/sr=8-2/qid=1151850626/ref=pd_bbs_2/104-4887028-2202340?ie=UTF8 - WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1abrupt219, I'm sure our activities here on Earth have had SOME effect on the global climate, but how much of an effect? If the human race was able to reduce our CO2 and methane emmisions to zero, which is impossible seeing as we exhale CO2 by just breathing, what percentage of global warming would be reversed?
unklefudd, thanks for your comment. It shows the blinders worn by the left when it comes to examining all the evidence concerning global warming. - witte, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
- witte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0LOL. Prove that it makes a difference and I'll mod you up, 'bioshoker' (promise!). Entertain how one establishes a precedent without any insight into the past.
- witte, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0anthropogenic, but you're exactly right.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1http://cleveland.indymedia.org/news/2004/02/8714.php
"Climate scientists who have come to the conclusion that global warming is not a threat criticize those who are concerned as being unscientific in their methods, relying on guesswork and scientific dogma rather than the hard logic and irrefutable evidence normally called for by the science community. Climate is an extremely difficult object of study, because it is extremely complex, and they believe that the current computer models are wildly innaccurate, and that the study of climate, which ought to be as objective as any other science, is being overridden by questionable environmentalist ideologies." - 3leggedHorse, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1get over it where i live 15 years ago there was snow every winter, now your lucky if you see a flake. The climate is changing so deal with it. If humansd go the way of the dinosaures who would miss us, are the dinosaures doomed.
- WackyT, on 10/12/2007, -10/+5"Most experts studying the recent climate history agree that human activities -- mainly the release of heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests -- are probably to blame."
Hmmm. I wonder what caused it before man became a power on Earth?
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
I wonder if the Earth goes through natural cycles with many influential factors coming into play? Nah. It must all be human activities causing it. - KingMoses, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1Don't confuse environmentalists with your fancy "ecology"
- anoodleman, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2And I'm freezing in the middle of the summer. So much for warming.
- cantaclaro, on 10/14/2007, -8/+1In other news the Earth revolves around the Sun.
If Global Warming is antrogenic (caused by humans) then how the ***** do you explain that there were 6 or 7 Ice Ages before man set foot on the planet.
Logic is only for the sensible and open-minded, not the "keepers of all truth and knowledge". - luciferin, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Man, global warming disappeared from the radar for a few years there. It seems that it's come back up and is in full force now.
- witte, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1"the warming of the northern hemisphere in the last decades of the 20th century was unprecedented"
Wrong.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/images/Vostok.jpg
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
