What is Digg?141 Comments
- incandescent, on 12/26/2007, -5/+29I'm disappointed people are referring to glaciers on the Tibetan plateau as "Chinese".
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -8/+17Before the inevitable global warming flame-war that will ensue if/when this gets frontpage'd starts, here are some helpful links detailing the most common claims by skeptics, and why they are wrong:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/707460 ...
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics - Woecip, on 12/26/2007, -2/+11China’s Glaciers (and People) ((and servers)) are in Trouble
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -7/+14But it's cold outside and Al Gore flies in jet airplanes. Also, that one op-ed in some random Canadian newspaper said humans aren't the problem, so despite the consensus of 99.99% of the scientific community to the contrary, I say we heed Dick Cheney's infinite wisdom and do nothing.
- confusedwiseman, on 12/26/2007, -1/+7I'll take it!
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -3/+9What these articles are designed to do is insert critical thinking into an argument that is generally devoid of it. Calling science a "religion" is a perfect example of the level of critical thinking here.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -5/+10This is a big marketing scam perpetuated by evil Al Gore! Don't buy into Global Warming and the scare tactics of the left! Don't forget the terrorists either, if we allow ourselves to get distracted by the lies of the environmentalists and scientists around the world, how can we fight the war on terror! You don't want to lose the war on terror do you?
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -1/+6Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
Since everyone knows those liberal "scientists" are bias, heres some sources you can trust:
* BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
* Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
* Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -2/+7 There have been many periods in Earth history that were warmer than today - if not the Medieval Warm Period, then maybe the last interglacial (125,000 years ago) or the Pliocene (three million years ago). Whether those variations were caused by solar forcing, the Earth's orbital wobbles or continental configurations, none of those causes apply today. Evidence for a Mediaeval Warm Period outside Europe is patchy at best, and is often not contemporary with the warmth in Europe. As the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa) puts it: "The idea of a global or hemispheric Mediaeval Warm Period that was warmer than today has turned out to be incorrect".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/707460 ... - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -3/+7Good thing China and India are Kyoto signatories, eh? They have in fact committed to cutting emissions.
- rayraym0fucka, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6how do you put people second to glaciers?
- teedillo, on 12/26/2007, -5/+9Even my 12 year old child knows what's going on....
Yet the majority chooses to ignore the problems we face! - ChiefShaman, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6As Native American Prophecy has foretold, the Time of the Cleansing is at hand! Many more Earth changes are coming, and when people are blind to the warnings, all that will remain is the mourning.
- NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -1/+5They do. They really do. But wait till they hit 13 and 14.. Then they start posting on digg and suddenly are experts in Economy, War and Censorship.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6"Because I don't agree with the conclusions, all theories and evidence are wrong." Now THAT is critical thinking.
- shadygrove, on 12/26/2007, -0/+4or, scenario two, the melting glaciers raise the sea levels, increase the temperature of the world a few degrees, throw off the "great conveyor belt" that brings warm air to the norheast, and we enter a permanent ice age in much of the northeast and europe. (source: last hours of ancient sunlight)
either way, we need to be concerned about deforestation, ozone depletion, and pollution or depletion of much of the wilderness and our oceans, both in terms of continued healthy food product and because it constitutes destruction of biodiversity, which both adds its own aesthetic beauty to the world *and* because it causes unintended effects like the mysterious disappearance of the bees last year (which may have a dramatic adverse effect on the cost and availability in the coming year's supply of certain foods.)
translation: all the votes ain't in yet on whether this is good, bad, natural or a result of human impact. but either way it spells major changes and i suspect those changes will be increased demand to reduce consumption to preserve the biosphere... with or without the s'posed al gore carbon tax chatter that fixed noise is putting out there... - slvrbullet87, on 12/26/2007, -2/+6Considering the fact they have to feed a billion people I think they would like the extra water. You have to flood the field to grow rice afterall
- DeFex, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3when they start dropping like flies like they did in london before coal was banned, then they might do something about it, or maybe it is a new form of population control.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3They're chinamen.
- ChromaticDragon, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4Sheesh.
I was hoping to be able to read the article before it got buried.
But even without reading the article, I may be able to help with your misunderstanding (assuming you weren't just being sarcastic).
The issue isn't the extra water due to melting.
That ought to be a short-term bonus for all the rivers in China, India, Pakistan, etc., that are involved here.
The problem is a long-term thing. The glaciers themselves act as giant frozen reservoirs. When a winter with little snowfall occurs, the spring thaw simply draws down a bit more of the glaciers. When a winter with a lot of snow happens, the glaciers add more than will be melted in the warmer months. In essence, the glaciers help to ensure consistent water flow year after year even despite droughts.
Now, when the glaciers are gone (or much, much smaller), this functionality is lost. This means these countries are sitting ducks for a serious drought. As long as rainfall and snowfall is good, there is no trouble. But the first year (or two) of drought will cause a lot of trouble. - bjornski, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4You're right.
So instead of doing anything, let's just keep building coal plants and pumping out the CO2 also. - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
Since everyone knows those liberal "scientists" are bias, heres some sources you can trust:
* BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
* Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
* Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5Inhofe's insanely biased report cherry-picks facts and quotes to push political ideology. It has nothing to do with scientific consensus. Most of the "scientists" he quotes are economists or mathematicians, and the few scientific studies cited have been shredded in peer review because of blatant inaccuracies that the report conveniently ignores.
http://energysmart.wordpress.com/2007/12/21/inhofi ...
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions.
Since everyone knows those liberal "scientists" are bias, heres some sources you can trust:
* BP, the largest oil company in the UK and one of the largest in the world, has this opinion:
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases.
* Shell Oil (yes, as in oil, the fossil fuel) says:
Shell shares the widespread concern that the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities is leading to changes in the global climate.
* Eighteen CEOs of Canada's largest corporations had this to say in an open letter to the Prime Minister of Canada:
Our organizations accept that a strong response is required to the strengthening evidence in the scientific assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). We accept the IPCC consensus that climate change raises the risk of severe consequences for human health and security and the environment. We note that Canada is particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. - shadygrove, on 12/26/2007, -1/+4seems to me if we pay (considerably) less for goods manufactured in china -- even after the lengthy shipping -- then they a.) do not have the same environmental regulations or b.) do not have the same labor standards or c.) both... no surprise that it's c.) so if we raised the standards of living in china to "first world" ones... with labor unions, environmental standards, etc. we'd just buy american at a much higher dollar cost and the wal-mart economic model would be replaced. but it should come as no surprise that US consumers are not yet committed to buying durable goods from ethical manufacturers. not when they can get cheap plastic crap from wally world... so, ummm.... here come the glaciers!
and, yes, it *might* be true that climate change has not emerged from human pollution / carbon emissions, etc. and it *might* be true that the pliedians have engineered the whole thing to give humanity an opportunity to evolve, but smart money still says that it's saner to adopt models for sustainable living. but i don't expect miracles overnight. after all, this is the same nation that allowed bush-cheney to steal two elections and pretend to govern over the nation while rigging the planet for a global resource war.
the project for a new american century knows it's time to shore up the power reserves because big shifts are happening fast. it's about time the public got hip to it, too... - tman84, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3a bunch of NWO corps want to get in on the Global Warmongering. That's not a shocker at all. It doesn't matter if its an oil company or a gardening company. those pushing for Globalism stands to profit a great deal from getting everyone to buy into the man made global warmongering
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+3Pretty sure it does in fact have something to do with coal plants, and not just in China.
- archiesteel, on 12/26/2007, -2/+5The BBC article simply responds to common arguments brought forth by skeptics. Can you point where the rebuttal is wrong? Intent is irrelevant, what matters are facts. If you can point out where the BBC article gets it wrong, then you may have a point, otherwise *you* are the one who is acting in a religious fashion, i.e. countering logical arguments with emotion and beliefs.
- jgzman, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Observation alone is useless.
There's an eighteen-wheeler headed twords me at 60 miles an hour. Excellent observation, but let's try not to speculate too much. - SimonGray, on 12/27/2007, -0/+2The Tibetan plateau covers both Tibet and parts of Chinese China, so it's somewhat justified.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Wow, finally maybe even *I* can climb Mt. Everest.
- NoCt1, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Shaghai noon 3 - The Meltdown. "In the third installment Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson are back, This time they take the fight to the sun to stop the melting of their glacier.
- Isidore, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2The only silver lining in this story is that the Chinese Govt might see it is in its short term and long term interests to limit CO2 emissions.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Did you consider that the greenhouse effect is not all bad? Look at Russia, Northern Canada, and Alaska? We would effectively double the amount of habitable real estate available for our growing population, not to mention increasing food production, and real estate for animals & plants too. Go to the arctic today, and you will find that it is a little short on terrestrial biodiversity.
- setledownslappy, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Is anyone really surprised? It's a third world country just getting into the coal age.
- ToadPedestal, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4Enough is enough, and nothing isn't enough!
You need to remove the catalytic converter from your car and then sell it and take out a big big home loan to buy a tank that you can drive to work in, just in case there's a terrorist attack on the commute. - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Think about increased rainfall, and getting Alaska, Northern Canada. and all of Russia back as inhabitable land - that is quite a bit of real estate and farmland for our growing population. I say Canada should welcome Global Warming. It's not exactly new to them.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Isidore - digg won't let me reply direct
You have to consider the fact that IPCC is controlled by governments. Governments are controlled by politicians with agendas, and governments are not known for producing accurate information (Iraq), or making good decisions based on that information (Iraq). The Gallup poll was cited by Cato, it was the information I was actually citing in my point. Gallup was not bought by oil interests.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 ... http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm
Ever wonder why Greenland was named Greenland by Eric the red in the 900's? Because it was Green when he discovered it (that, and a little creative marketing). The Vikings abandoned their colonies there when it froze over around the 1400s or 1500s.
Now it is getting warm (and green) again, and Al Gore is panicking.
The medieval warm period (about 900 to around 1400) was a time period of unusually warm temperatures all over the world. European, Chinese, and Native American records indicate that it covered the entire planet. We are entering another natural warming trend. It's no big deal, in fact, it may be very good. Think about increased rainfall, and getting Alaska, Northern Canada. and all of Russia back - that is quite a bit of real estate and farmland for our growing population, not to mention the increased rainfall. - jgzman, on 12/27/2007, -1/+3Because if a million people die, that's bad. If all the glaciers melt, there's a good chance on 2-4 billion people dying.
It's like asking if people are more important than Oxygen. - lhbaker, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2If only they hadn't made your computer...
- pgoetz, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Um, you always need to add the /sarcasm on digg to avoid being misunderstood. ... or not, if you don't care.
- Daz3, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3Buying ***** would be the consumerist response to a threat, the real solution lies in policy change from the top.
- Isidore, on 12/26/2007, -1/+3kfed2
The issue is a scientific one, based on observations. As individuals we can each study the evidence to post-doctoral level. Or, if we do not have the talent or time the next best thing is to rely on the consensus of those who have studied the matter in depth. If you were ill would you trust a fellow Digger, blogger or someone who studied medicine for many years? If one maverick doctor disagrees with the consensus would you trust your life to them or the majority opinion?
Who are the real experts? Is there enough evidence for them to come to a consensus conclusion? National Science Academies would seem to be a better starting point than lobbyists funded by Exxon (and dead links to the Cato institute).
The National Scientific Academies of the following countries issued this statement in support of the IPCC
“The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.”
National Academy of Sciences (US),
Royal Society (United Kingdom),
Chinese Academy of Sciences,
Science Council of Japan,
Russian Academy of Sciences,
Academia Brasiliera de Ciências (Brazil),
Royal Society of Canada,
Académie des Sciences (France),
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany),
Indian National Science Academy,
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy),
Australian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts,
Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences,
Royal Irish Academy,
Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand,
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
http://www.royalsociety.org/displaypagedoc.asp?id= ... (2001)
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20 ... (2005)
For the comments of other scientific bodies http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Statements_on ...
The scientific evidence and consensus is with the IPCC. Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.
No 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
UK Government's Meteorological Office debunking of climate-change-denial myths
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/ ...
New Scientist magazine addressing the main skeptic claims
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/ ...
Oxford University intro to climate
http://www.begbroke.ox.ac.uk/climate/interface.htm ...
NASA intro to climate
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/GlobalWar ...
This is like the tobacco industry funding their shills. Who should we trust mainstream science or big business shills? http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?co ... - Bleahdom, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Yeah, factories in the US have been cutting down and yet they're still right behind China on the emissions. Brilliant efficiency.
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Going to have to disagree with you on the Medieval Warm Period, and question a government source (don't forget that governments are run by politicians, and governments are notorious for acting too quickly on bad information - Iraq???).
Cite an independent scientific organizations very recent report & I will take a look.
Also, it does appear that the earth is following it's heat source, the sun, into a warming trend. See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm , and http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/07 ... - inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Out of date at best:
Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). On the whole, the debate within the meteorological community has been relatively healthy and, in this regard, unusual.
From : http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15 ... - shadygrove, on 12/26/2007, -2/+4i'm going to pretend like you are being ironic and that this is the funniest comment on the thread. if you are not being ironic, then perhaps it is still the funniest comment on the thread, but not in a "funny ha ha" sense... just in a "*****... and i suppose you believe saddam hussein was responsible for 9/11 too?" sort of way...
- Petrarch1603, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2china is the number one polluter on the globe
- inactive, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Hooray for satire.
- tman84, on 12/26/2007, -0/+212 year olds are pretty easy to brainwash, thats why they teach global warmongering in schools.
- lhbaker, on 12/26/2007, -0/+2Ah, that explains why China is building more than two dozen nuclear power plants, while we build zero. They're just getting into the coal age.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 137 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is