What is Digg?168 Comments
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -5/+26An increase in CO2 in the atmosphere means more dissolved CO2 in the oceans. More CO2 in the ocean means more carbolic acid in the ocean. More carbolic acid in the ocean means a lower pH. Lower pH means bad news for corals and a host of other things.
- Rassa, on 07/03/2008, -2/+21While I don't want to get into the debate over global warming, humans killing the planet etc. The world with no Coral reefs would be terrible!
- bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -2/+17So is water.
Let's ask southern Iowa how too much of a good thing worked out. - monoa, on 07/04/2008, -3/+18The list can be summarised by the author of it, Lawrence Solomon: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers." - http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=12d ...
1. A detailed look at this list:
* Dr. Edward Wegman, a mathematician, said "We were not asked to assess the reality of global warming and indeed this is not an area of our expertise."
* Dr. David Bromwich - his research is based primarily on single site assessments at Amundsen-Scott Research Station. He does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change.
* Prof. Paul Reiter is a medical entomologist (he studies insect-borne disease) and therefore has no training in climate science. He has not denied the reality of global warming, he has merely questioned the relationship between it and the effects on mosquito-borne diseases. He sits on the council of an organization called the 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which has received $763,500 in funding from ExxonMobil.
* Prof. Hendrik Tennekes is a retired aeronautical engineer. He has provided no evidence to counter the accepted scientific consensus, and seems mainly concerned with the effect of turbulence on climate models.
* Dr. Christopher Landsea has said "we certainly see substantial warming in the ocean and atmosphere over the last several decades ..., and I have no doubt a portion of that, at least, is due to greenhouse warming."
* Dr. Antonino Zichichi has made a career out of controversy. He is widely ridiculed in the scientific community for his error-strewn publications.
* Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski is criticised by Professor Hans Oeschger who says that some of Jaworowski claims are "drastically wrong from the physical point of view".
* Dr. Tom V. Segalstad - he provides no evidence for his claim re. "most leading geologists". He claims "Man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 .... is small" and has, again, provided no evidence for this claim which runs counter to all other measurements (atmospheric CO2 has increased from 315ppm to 387ppm in the past 45 years). He collaborates with the discredited Dr. Jaworowski on many of his published articles.
* Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu - "it is in the best interests of mankind to reduce the rate of increase of our release of CO2 ... Prominent climate change is in progress in the Arctic"
* Dr. Claude Allegre - 20 years ago in "Clés pour la géologie", he wrote "By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature...". He now says "The cause of
this climate change is unknown".
* Dr. Richard Lindzen is also a member of 'Annapolis Centre for Science-Based Public Policy' which receives major funding from ExxonMobil. He also works for 'Cato Institute' - again funded by ExxonMobil.
* Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov - his claims that solar activity is the main contributor to climate change have been discredited - http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb ...
* Dr. Richard Tol, an economist, does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change, he has merely debated the economic impact.
* Dr. Sami Solanki - "since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming."
* Prof. Freeman Dyson - "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."
* Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen does not deny the reality of anthropogenic climate change and says "there is no reason to neglect a contribution from man made greenhouse gases. The question is how much." - http://folk.uio.no/nathan/web/statement.html
2. Many of the people on this list are taken from the discredited Heartland Institute - http://www.desmogblog.com/distinguished-scientist- ...
3. Who should you believe? The handful of discredited or misquoted scientists on this list or the thousands of credible scientists in *every* national academy in every developed country on the planet who say dangerous climate change is happening and is largely due to human activity?
4. "...no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
5. There is another, equally dishonest and discredited, list of 31,000 'scientists' who deny anthropogenic climate change will cause "catastrophic heating". It's known as the 'Oregon Petition' and has been debunked as oil-industry propaganda - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
So, the entire list is composed of lies, misquotes and discredited claims - and this is all the reality deniers have available to them, along with wilful ignorance and dishonesty. Again, the author of the book, Lawrence Solomon, says: "I ... noticed something striking about my growing cast of deniers. None of them were deniers."
scamerica keeps pasting this list even though he knows it is fraudulent. That makes him some combination of dumb, deluded, dishonest and deranged. - thebellmaster1x, on 07/03/2008, -10/+24If by "leftwing whackjobs" you mean "educated scientists," i.e. not you, then sure.
- pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -3/+15gotta love the armchair climatologists on digg who show up to refute the findings of actual scientists.
- inactive, on 07/03/2008, -8/+19This is what a collapsing biosphere looks like.
- malexan, on 07/04/2008, -3/+14I'm not 100% on board with the whole "humans are causing global warming" thing, but the overall cause is hard to not support since the outcome of successfully reducing pollution is good for all of us.
- staplemonger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+12So is oxygen, but homolytic cleavage of an oxygen molecule can form a dangerous radical species that can start a harmful chain reaction in a living creature. Just because the ingredient is necessary in some steps doesn't make it good in others.
- nodong, on 07/04/2008, -0/+10The whole problem is that the ocean is absorbing CO2, dumbass (superkendall). The PH level is actually, measurably changing. The acidity literally eats away at anything in the ocean with shells, which are basic.
- pintomp3, on 07/04/2008, -2/+12tie and plastic bag around your head and get back to us about CO2
- nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10When there's an escalating surplus of carbon in the atmosphere, strange things begin to happen to our planet.
- Anonchrist, on 07/04/2008, -1/+10Everyone that is saying that the world has a way of balancing out is right... The oceans are balancing out our C02 problem and preventing Global Warming from developing by absorbing the CO2. The problem is that we are going to maintain the unnatural dumping of C02 into the environment and it will increase the acidity of the water. I am tired of the argument that fires destroy natural habitats on a far greater scale than our air pollution. The fallacy of that argument is that every fire eventually goes out and we have no intention on stopping.
- hmunkey, on 07/04/2008, -3/+12And what are your qualifications? Oh, you're a digger, I see.
- monoa, on 07/04/2008, -6/+15Why d' ya think that is, Einstein? I see two options for you:
1. it's a hoax / lie / mistake on a massive global scale, with every national science academy of every industrialized nation on the planet in collusion, along with thousands of reputable climate scientists, politicians, world leaders and informed lay people
2. it's real, it's happening
I'd love to see your evidence for (1), because not one denier has every produced anything remotely convincing. - ultraJesus, on 07/04/2008, -0/+9Pwned.
- bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -4/+12Water isn't a pollutant either.
But let's ask Iowa and Missouri what too much can be like. - bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -1/+9If you're wiling to spend money speculating on an asteroid strike that may or may not come, why won't you speculate on a situation that you're watching unfold in front of you?
- JHW539, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8Where did you "hear about" that "plan?" The steps legitimate policy makers recommend (not the scientific industry - policy is not their realm as it is not supported or testable by observed facts, like climate change theory) are things like don't build coal plants, increase transportation efficiency, and eliminate super-greenhouse gases (much as CFCs have been successfully phased out). There is too much strawman-making being thrown about on this subject. Quit listening to the whack jobs on both sides and pay attention to the dull, soft spoken, and correct scientists and policy makers on the side of the fight.
- bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -0/+8"Just let the water run, the ground will soak it up!"
Again, there are limits. Look at Iowa and Missouri. - monoa, on 07/04/2008, -8/+15When are you going to pull your head out of your ass and read some science before making factual statements?
Try this short, simple article on CO2 for starters:
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?tip=1&id=6777 - nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+7Too much of it is a problem, though. Too much oxygen is a bad thing too. What we need is a balance.
- inactive, on 07/04/2008, -5/+12That's because a day does not go by when global warming is not killing/destroying [insert any object or life form]. Why do you guys hate the biosphere so much?
- hmunkey, on 07/04/2008, -7/+12There is no argument. It's people who think and people who don't think, but listen to their elected leaders blindly. George W. Bush isn't a smart man, so stop listening to his every word.
- korvan504521, on 07/04/2008, -5/+10wouldn't more CO2 in the ocean lead to increased amounts of algae in the ocean though?
- JHW539, on 07/05/2008, -0/+5You have no knowledge of the mountain of facts, observations and tests that led to the current theory of climate change, do you?
- angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+6@jugger74
Please, do some research. The only thing you make evident in your argument is your complete ignorance of this subject. There are scientific disciplines and sub-disciplines dealing with this very subject. What do you think they do all day, drink coffee and twiddle their thumbs?
That we are affecting the biosphere with our CO2/CH4 emissions is not at all in dispute (other than by deniers like yourself). What is in dispute is the effect it will have going into the future; those things that rely on computer modeling. Things like when the antarctic and arctic ice sheets/glaciers will melt, how high the oceans will rise, what the average global suface temp will be in 10 years, how acidic the oceans will be in 10 years and when the forecasted biotically driven ice-age will occur. Contrary to popular belief within denier circles, ice ages are necessary to stabilise both atmospheric composition and the global climate systems. After the last 250 years of mankind trying his hardest to conquer the elements, consider it a way for nature to wipe the slate clean.
Although I believe we need a "manhattan project" style approach to deal with this problem, the largest threat to humanity we will face, the topic is so infused with politics, people trying to make a buck, deniers and paid shills trying to discredit the science making the mobilisation of any rescue effort so much more difficult. I would suggest you (and any other denier) read Collapse by Jared Diamond, a professor of geography and physiology, or Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester Brown, founder of the Worldwatch Institute and founder and president of the Earth Policy Institute. Not lighthearted reading at all but both highlight the magnitude of the problems that we and our descendents face. - hmunkey, on 07/04/2008, -8/+13And what are your qualifications? Oh, you're a digger, I see.
- nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+5Planting more trees will not help. They absorb more sunlight, causing the global surface temperature to rise. The only real solution is to produce less carbon.
- JHW539, on 07/04/2008, -3/+8What an idiot - cherry picking a single point in time and a single stratospheric level temperature point and thinking it means jackshiat against the legitimate statistical analysis and thousands of datapoints being investigated (and strongly challenged by every PhD and scientist who'd love to win a Nobel and be showered with money from the deep pockets of the oil industry by finding factual observations challenging the well supported and accepted climate change theory).
- greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4I am coming to the conclusion that a lot of the people here have absolutely no idea that there is any difference between having an opinion and providing facts.
They spout ***** like "CO2" is not a problem" or "scientists just want grants" with no citation or evidence.
Two min on google would show them how brain dead those allegations are, but I don't think it even occurs to them to check if they are talking out of their ass. - lndmn01, on 07/04/2008, -5/+9Just as more CO2 in the air means more and larger plants.
- staplemonger, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5If you're going to copy and paste the Publisher's statement for the book "The Deniers" by Lawrence Solomon, a book that takes quotes highly out of context at the best of times and lies at the worst, you might as well cite it so we can see where you're pulling your information from.
People really bother me when they say "The Earth goes through NATURAL changes. We are a small part of the problem, not the cause.
Unless dinosaurs had large stockpiles of CFCs, Nitrogen triflouride, and millions of smoke stack factories lying around I'm not exactly sure the Earth has gone through changes like this before. Doesn't mean she can't, but let's not pretend like we're riding a normal geological/climate cycle right now.
Even if all of this is the work of fear mongers and scientists with shoddy logic and worse facts, a 1% chance that coral reefs could be destroyed for the next 2 million years bears immediate looking into. They're too beautiful and incredible to risk us ***** them over. - Dralha, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4The religious fanatics of the Church of Global Warming Denialism are out in full force today, desperately spreading their gospel of obfuscation and distortion on behalf of their lord and savior, big oil. Their religious propaganda campaign doesn't seem to be working, though, as their proselytizing is consistently dug down.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007 ...
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptic_arguments/sk ...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/
http://royalsociety.org/page.asp?id=6229
http://www.bluemarble4us.com/page09.html
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/consult/debate/climate ...
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ... - greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4jugger74 seems to think that the climate scientists who discovered and researched historic climate change somehow don't know about it.
What do you think jugger? they 'forgot'? slipped their mind did it? decades of research and thousands of studies just sort of got overlooked in their excitement to research climate change?
Yeah, that sounds likely. I beieve that
or maybe it's just that you haven't a clue what you are talking about? - yakski, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4Its called scientific investigation... you know ... you do experiments and look at the results... I am sure this is a foreign concept to you but it is where factual evidence is determined ... and it is generally well demonstrated that what you are trying to say is.......... drumrolllllllll.... complete unabashed *****!!!! While it might seem like more CO2 would be a great for various plant life.. it is quite the opposite for the vast majority of plants.. they have evolved to live in a very narrow window of CO2 levels... sure algae and trees could evolve to love more CO2 over thousands of years but not over decades of ever increasing levels... the brain is a terrible thing to waste kendall (and all you other anti- or non-scientifically oriented people out there)!!!
- angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -1/+5@sk
The problem is manifesting NOW. Open your eyes and take a look around you. - angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -0/+4No, the starfish don't cause bleaching. Coral bleaching is caused primarily from higher oceanic temp, pH level and overexposure to UV light. It causes the coral to expel the microscopic algea that gives coral it's colour, making it appear bleached. Most often bleached coral will die, however they can recover but they grow slower, are less virile and are susceptible to disease.
These Crown of Thorns starfish are coral predators that digest coral polyps.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-thorns_starf ...
They are a different type of threat that has been caused by runoff of agricultural fertilisers. - greenfyre, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4"It can be recoverable"
It can, but only after a lot of damage is done. So maybe we should just let those CA fires go too, after all, CA will recover. - FasterGun, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5This article isn't even about global warming. Shut the ***** up.
- scamper22, on 07/04/2008, -1/+5To most people...its 'who care's about the coral reefs'
Now maybe these things are warning sides (canary in the coal mine).
Yet, you don't get human action with 'save the coral reefs'. You get it by saying 'Miami is going to be flooded'. The air you breathe is toxic... - nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -0/+3Wow. Impressive. A list of a bunch of people who are not climatologists i.e. aerospace and mechanical engineers, solid state physicists -- ooh, and a Star Trek character!
- bjornski, on 07/04/2008, -6/+9Yeah, and the dinosaurs used to pump all their waste into the oceans.
It's happened before. Right?
You do realize things are a BIT different this time, right? - angryredplanet, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3Yes, "some" plankton (the one specimen listed in this article) thrive under higher concentrations of aqueous CO2 - lowering it's pH level. Unfortunately for this argument, the majority of biodiversity living in the ocean do not. Coral is the litmus test for oceanic health, and it's bleaching and dying telling us something profoundly important: clean up, or suffer consequences we don't yet understand.
- nedzeve, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5You have no idea how fallacious your reasoning is. I could try to explain it, but you probably wouldn't get it.
- Jorin, on 07/05/2008, -1/+4I don't know why so many diggers shirk any responsibility for how ***** up the environment is. Do yourselves a favour and watch Manufactured Landscapes, then try to convince yourselves we haven't made some massive mistakes with our environment.
- superkendall, on 07/04/2008, -2/+5Got news for you man - Tunguska was Bush! Not satisfied with destroying the whole planet in our time, he developed a Time Machine (never question how someone like Bush can both be stupid and an evil genius at the same time, he just is) and went back in time just to kick a few more trees in the ass.
Damn that evil man! - inactive, on 07/04/2008, -6/+9I don't understand. Why would so many coral reefs still exist after 150 years if they're all likely to disappear in the next 10 years?
I bet if you go back ten years ago you'll find articles in Science saying that by 2008 all of the world's coral reefs will be gone. - Downwritemad, on 07/04/2008, -7/+10Starfish are killing the coral. Huge numbers of starfish are bleaching the Great Barrier Reef. We should start hunting them.
- Parker307, on 07/05/2008, -0/+3There is this thing called the greenhouse effect. It's why your car gets really hot inside on a summer day. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. That means it acts like the glass on your car letting light in which turns into heat and gets trapped.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 170 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 