What is Digg?Sponsored by HTC
You and You and You. view!
youtube.com - You don't need to get a phone. You need a phone that gets you.
379 Comments
- drunkenoaf, on 11/13/2009, -20/+48This troll article is in a UK broadsheet "quality" newspaper, which is worrying.
The editor doesn't like alternative energy (he once told a hack there to write a story about how wind power doesn't work at night -- *****!) and he doesn't believe in global warming. So he instructs journalists to write these articles.
Please note that the Telegraph's editor is not a scientist, hasn't researched this topic, and seems to be confused by wind power and solar energy. Christ on a bike! At least the motoring section is good. - brainflakes, on 11/13/2009, -3/+31Gas studies at volcanoes worldwide have helped volcanologists tally up a global volcanic CO2 budget in the same way that nations around the globe have cooperated to determine how much CO2 is released by human activity through the burning of fossil fuels. Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually.
This seems like a huge amount of CO2, but a visit to the U.S. Department of Energy's Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) website (http://cdiac.ornl.gov/) helps anyone armed with a handheld calculator and a high school chemistry text put the volcanic CO2 tally into perspective. Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value. - RyanBlueThunder, on 11/13/2009, -0/+25All scientists should be 'skeptics'. Even those that believe that global warming is cause by man's activities. Skepticism should be the norm, not a term of derision.
- norman619, on 11/12/2009, -61/+85There is no definitive proof CO2 drives climate change or even the last warming trend we had. If there were scientists would be in agreement for te most part which they are not. Why? There's plenty of data which shows CO2 has little to no effect on the changing climate. This has been known for a long time by geologists, climatologists, and oceanographers. MIT researchers have even demonstrated that CO2 does not prevent radiation from escaping out into space so it does not have the poerful greenhouse power many alarmists keep claiming.
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=2
Fron the link:
"SPPI’s authoritative Monthly CO2 Report for July 2009 announces the publication of a major peer-reviewed paper by Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, demonstrating by direct measurement that outgoing long-wave radiation is escaping to space far faster than the UN predicts, and proving that the UN has exaggerated global warming 6-fold.
Lindzen’s paper on outgoing long-wave radiation shows that the “global warming” scare is over. Thanks to recent peer-reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we now why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.
This month’s CO2 Report provides the latest real-world scientific data about the climate"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gmJiZfyDPE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suySkDny-zk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKSgj8Itbzs
Will this new and PEER REVIEWED data shut the Anthropogenic Global Warming alamists and profiteers up? Not ***** likely. What it will likely do is make them scream louder and make more baseless accusation of bias and corruption. It's pretty sad. All the CURRENT data says CO2 had very little, if anything, to do with the last warming trend we went through and any of the past warming or cooling our planet has been thorugh. This new data only supports what the research of other scientists have been saying for a while now. - hallisna, on 11/13/2009, -7/+31For ***** sake, these global warming stories are getting out of hand.
Do we need to hear about every single unsupported claim by every professor out there who has an opinion about whether or not humans are accelerating climate change?
Also, does being a climate change denier mean that you don't know how to use the reply button? - mulock, on 11/13/2009, -2/+24Also, there is a reason for the peer review process... Unfortunately the same cannot be said for the scare tactics of the media. They seem to give equal air time to those with peer reviewed findings as those without... which is why you have loons from hawaii scaring the piss out of the world about black holes from the LHC, when thousands of peer reviewed papers speak to the contrary.
- Crimeodial, on 11/13/2009, -13/+35The forces of stupid are out in full force I see.
- mulock, on 11/13/2009, -6/+26Wow. Let's all go find inept news articles explaining a short summary of massive peer reviewed theories written by people who are more intelligent or more qualified than us, and paste them to try and manipulate the opinions of people whose opinions largely do not matter in the outcome of the debate because they are woefully unqualified and unknowledgable about the subjects that they must be forced to agree with and understand. In short, stop the madness. Those with the openness and intelligence to push our understanding of the systems that we live in and are apart of will continue to do so. Those that continue to push psuedo science and deny things that do not 'properly' reinforce their bias and comforting beliefs will continue to be left behind and in the most danger. Simply put, the deer in the headlights gets killed... and the deer that ran the ***** away lives on. This is kind of the point in the grand scheme of things....
- MarcJeric32, on 11/12/2009, -91/+1101) There was first in the 1970's the global cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the Internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and so prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the global warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies;
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car and insurance companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 20,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/8 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock flatulence and the rotting swamps (called "wetlands" by the environmentalists) vastly surpasses the influence of human-produced CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our environmentalists tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a permanent hold on power should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
4) And now we have "cap&trade" power grab.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM - POWER GRAB!!! - shodanx, on 11/13/2009, -7/+25I can see a troll article when I see one
and judging from the average lenght of the comments, you guys are feeding the troll so much they risk becoming overweight - mikeyh0, on 11/12/2009, -41/+53As long as I don't get fined for farting, I suppose I'll be all right. But hand it to Gore - he makes money when people BREATHE!! Now that's genius. He has 1,000 times my carbon footprint but he lectures me about mine. That's hypocrisy squared.
- angryredplanet, on 11/13/2009, -14/+26"Thanks to recent peer-reviewed papers that have not been mentioned in the mainstream news media, we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we now why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate."
So, to take your evidence to it's logical conclusion, why is this news not widely disseminated? I mean, that is massive news right there. Where are representatives of the climate scientists, power generation, mining, resources, transport and livestock industries screaming, "hey world, man-made global warming is over!"?? Ending emission trading and taxing schemes now will save *billions* of dollars in infrastructure and administration costs, so why isn't it happening? Where is Lindzen when you need him? - wrathchilde, on 11/12/2009, -14/+26Some other "blog" -oh wait THAT's no a blog, picked that up too. Very nice, easy to understand. Doesn't refute that there might be a global science conspiracy... but then again maybe there is.
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1159 ... - gradient01, on 11/12/2009, -17/+29Seriously, how much time do you spend on digg waiting for *any* Global Warming story to come through so you can copy/paste the same set of links to blogs? Pathological ...
- tymufc, on 11/13/2009, -4/+16When did comments turn into dissertations?
- gradient01, on 11/12/2009, -15/+26Yes please, it'll give you something to do besides hitting the refresh button on your MacBook ... please find some new "facts" on some guy's blog. You know, because that's where all the facts are found: blogs ...
- Brutusfly, on 11/13/2009, -6/+17FTA: '"If we had only had warming, then there would be a connect between co2 and temperature, there is not," he added.'
Gee, no flaw in that logic! /s - spworm, on 11/13/2009, -1/+12*looks at comments*
So this is what a troll gangbang looks like. - Kungfumantis239, on 11/13/2009, -17/+28Check your sources people. This guy has little to no backround.
It's also well known and admitted in the scientific community that Methane is the biggest cause for global warming. CO2 is just the easiest one to regulate.
Retards, educate yourselves. - archiesteel, on 11/13/2009, -8/+17Funny how wrathchilde got modded up while greenfyre got modded down, even though they're in agreement.
I guess most deniers are just too stupid to understand this... - manlyandy, on 11/13/2009, -1/+10name calling like eco-nazi?
- fasda, on 11/13/2009, -0/+9Yes Yes it is different. Burning fossil fuels takes carbon from a stored state (one that is not constantly moving in a cycle) to atmospheric CO2. Breathing on the other hand takes carbons from other living things who in the eventually can trace all the carbons to photosynthetic activities which carbon from the atmosphere so no CO2 or other gas your body has ever produced has increased the concentration of a gas in worlds atmosphere.
- gwatzn, on 11/13/2009, -3/+12This thread is an appalling use of digg. I have a hard time believing that this is not a coordinated ambush with the digg/bury so slanted to republican agenda anti-science. People who speak definitively on either side of the debate are pretending to know more than they do... the truth is that humanity *might* be facing extinction, wouldn't it be smart to establish whether or not this is true and act on the best information we have in the meantime? I would think that we should be listening to the vast community of climatologists and meteorologists and not so much to the astroturf echo chamber. Let me add however, that I hope the deniers are correct. ;) And I'm also digging that Newsweek article before this post.
- Ferretman, on 11/13/2009, -15/+24Dude, he's not the one recycling discredited blog entries regurigtating out-dated scientific speculation....
Out of curiosity, do the Warmites hereabouts actually *know* any scientists or do you just think HuffPo and Treehugger represent the end-all and be-all of "fact"? - TheMoniker, on 11/13/2009, -0/+8@rignopolis: Yes, for many reasons, including those that fasda has pointed out.
@curunir: ostensibly you, since you seem to believe that you breathe fossil fuels. - fasda, on 11/13/2009, -3/+11I'm sorry but I'm going to have to call bull ***** that MIT proved CO2 doesn't prevent some radiation from leaving the atmosphere. This is because if they did they over turned some very basic thermodynamics that the heat capacity of a linear molecule is Cv = 5/2*R + (3N - 5)*R (R is the gas constant N is the number of atoms in the molecule). And while this predicts the heat capacity when all vibrational modes are active CO2 will still have a higher heat capacity until you approach absolute 0.
- DankBuddz, on 11/13/2009, -2/+10There's an obvious correlation between CO2 and Temp that isn't refuted by pretty much anyone (that has any credibility), the only things still up for debate (barely) is anthropogenic involvement.
The guy's a ***** geologist. He might as well talk to a wall, what a joke. - hauntedchippy, on 11/13/2009, -1/+8What? No it isn't, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas true but it is much less frequent in the atmosphere than CO2, so overall CO2 has the greater effect.
- hauntedchippy, on 11/13/2009, -3/+10Dugg for truth
- archiesteel, on 11/13/2009, -4/+11@estekid: we tried rational debate with deniers for months - nay, years - but they keep reposting the same discredited pseudo-science and conspiracy theories about Al Gore and the New World Order. There's only so much BS a rational mind can take before turning to sarcasm and (well-deserved) ridicule.
Deniers are the new flat-earthers. How long would *you* remain stoic when confronted to someone who won't accept the simple fact that the Earth is round? - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -0/+7In other words you have no clue what you are talking about (HINT if you could find any actual errors you would say what they were ... duh)
- caution, on 11/13/2009, -4/+11Fern Gully was a cool movie.
- bluto36, on 11/12/2009, -39/+46spam links 3... 2... 1...
- Angostura, on 11/13/2009, -32/+39I really can't believe that this drek is being upvoted.
Come on chaps, even if you don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, do you *really* *really* think that the debate is some kind of communist plot? Really?
The vast majority of climate scientists believe that it is highly probable that CO2 is driving climate change. But it is a complex issue and not surprisingly there are also climate scientists point out odd data and weaknesses in the models.
So there's a debate. It should be a rational debate, but apparently that's too much to expect.
There was a rational debate about 'global cooling' in the 1970s too. A small minority of scientists raised the possibility. It was rejected by the vast majority. - LtTilon, on 11/13/2009, -10/+17The same reason David Nutt got sacked. Politicians are using Global Warming to pass laws they otherwise could not pass.
- archiesteel, on 11/13/2009, -3/+10"How is that ever going to convince anyone who already disagrees with you of anything?"
While I agree with you that Greenfyre's tone is unlikely to win him friends, you have to understand there's very little chance any of these deniers can be convinced to change their minds. Most of them display the fanatics' mind set, along with a good dose of conspiracy theory.
I imagine GF's goal is not to convince these idiots, but rather to present counter-proof for any third party reading through these comments. And while his tone may drive away a few of these, the links he provide offer good reading material to help the rest make up their mind.
I agree with you to a degree, but again, have you tried rationally arguing with some of these deniers? It would turn even the most serene Buddhist monk into the FUUUUUUUU- guy in a matter of minutes... - Angostura, on 11/13/2009, -9/+16And lo, within minutes I'm being buried. How about you address the actual issues, rather than simply burying?
- magibeg, on 11/13/2009, -5/+12Or maybe the fact that virtually every international academic group agrees the earth is warming at least in part due to our emissions. The number of actual scientists that speak out against global warming are few and typically unqualified. Often have ties to oil companies as well, however even oil companies have changed their stance on climate change.
http://www.api.org/ehs/climate/new/companiesaddres ... - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -2/+8“The IPCC does not itself commission or conduct research, but analyzes and weighs findings by scientists in many nations."
http://www.sej.org/publications/climate-change/the ...
duh! - UselessTrivia, on 11/13/2009, -2/+8Anybody know of an independent party (a pollster like maybe Gallup or someone else) who has taken a survey of the scientific community to determine the truth of concensus on this issue?
You can't rely on the media for this, because they love to print the denial stories, even though they may truly be a small minority.
I'd love to see a poll of scientists and where they stand on the issue, particularly the ones working in the climatology field. Methodology would be important, though, as it would be pretty tricky to find a truly representative sample of such a specific group. - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -5/+11"Hey I got an idea,"
How about you help refute the idiocy and then I wouldn't have to put up with the crap that I do
And I'm sorry, but 95% of the Denier sludge that shows up on digg really could be debunked by a bright 12 yr old with 15 minutes and a search engine,
... and if the truth is insulting maybe some people should ponder why it's true, not why they feel insulted.
"unlikely to win him friends,"
2000+
http://digg.com/users/greenfyre/friends/view
but thanks for the concern - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7"Was that the same consensus back in the 1970's"
Is there no Denier spam to ridiculous to believe? There was no scientific consensus on cooling in the 1970s ... just another stupid Denier lie
Climate Change anatomy of a myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
1970s Cooling consensus myth debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
Myth: Global Cooling Consensus in the 1970s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6avbyocmaA&NR= ...
Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/t ...
Saturday Night Fever or Saturday Night Shiver?
http://cce.890m.com/a-new-ice-age/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Th ...
even by USA Today: Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarm ...
Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the- ... - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7"We just really don't have enough data to make any sort of definite conclusion."
Yes we do "18 leading scientific organizations send letter to Senators affirming the climate is changing, “human activities are the primary driver,” impacts are projected to worsen “substantially” and “If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced.”
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/21/18-leading-s ... - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -0/+6Meet the Digg Denier Wingnut Brigade... their war cry is
"Oh, No! It's Making Well-Reasoned Arguments Backed With Facts! Run!"
http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/oh_no_its_ ... - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -6/+12google.com ... ever heard on it?
FYI grownups provide credible evidence from reliable sources and talk rationally ... your parents will explain it to you some day - greenfyre, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7A single Newsweek story? try again ...
Climate Change anatomy of a myth
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EU_AtHkB4Ms
1970s Cooling consensus myth debunked
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nTw0KneNLg
Myth: Global Cooling Consensus in the 1970s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6avbyocmaA&NR= ...
Cooling climate ‘consensus’ of 1970s never was
Myth often cited by global warming skeptics debunked
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/37590/t ...
Saturday Night Fever or Saturday Night Shiver?
http://cce.890m.com/a-new-ice-age/
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Th ...
even by USA Today: Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of '70s http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarm ...
Killing the myth of the 1970s global cooling scientific consensus
http://climateprogress.org/2008/11/10/killing-the- ... - elliotys, on 11/13/2009, -3/+9@MarkJeric32,
I was actually interested in your comment, until you showed your political motives. You are a 76 yr old paranoid man, who obviously thinks the government is out to get him.
"I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer"
What is your MS and PhD in though. You act is if they are separate from your majors in thermodynamics and heat and mass transfer. I have never even heard of a "thermodynamics" or a "heat&mass transfer" majors. Usually those are just smaller subjects covered under a physics major. Perhaps you went on to narrow your research to those fields, but you still wouldn't have "majored" in them. What does your diploma say?
You smell fishy. - TheMoniker, on 11/13/2009, -1/+7@norman619: Changes in solar irradiance are not responsible. Here are the satellite data for the past ~30 years: http://www.pmodwrc.ch/tsi/composite/pics/org_comp2 ... compare that with global temperatures for the last ~30 years from any data set: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr ... notice that there is essentially no correlation.
"Why aren't you guys screaming about the sun?"
For two reasons: screaming about anything, save perhaps injury in some cases, is generally not the best course of action; the sun is clearly not responsible for global warming, as I've shown above.
"I know full well correlation does not equal causation but when something like CO2 doesn't lead temerature changes it should tell you it can't be the cause and it is time to look for other possible causes."
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have been leading temperature since the late 19th century. If you're talking about in the ice core record, the fact that atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations would follow temperature, with a lag, was understood before the ice core data even came in. (The reasons have to do with various climatic feedback loops, let me know if you have more questions about this, or alternately, look into basically any textbook on climate.)
"You keep burying your head in the sand while the rest of us follow the actual scientific data."
While it's all well and good to pay lip service to the notion of looking into the data and research surrounding an issue, it's more fruitful to actually do so (and it's obvious from your comments that you haven't). I strongly advise you to actually do so. Consider speaking with a number of climate scientists in your area and going down to your local library/university/college and reading through the research journals yourself. You'll find mountains of evidence for anthropogenic global warming and thorough explanations. Perhaps start with the Journal of Climate: http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-ar ... the International Journal of Climatology: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/4735/ho ... and Global Biogeochemical Cycles: http://www.agu.org/journals/gb/ - mwilhelm, on 11/13/2009, -5/+11"But he said the scientists "frightening people witless by following the party line" are motivated by politics and research funding. "
That's the only line I agree with. Otherwise - he is simply trying to draw conclusions which cannot be drawn from the data - just like the rest of em. Temperatures are not absolute measures.
We have nothing to fear. Not even fear itself. - archiesteel, on 11/13/2009, -2/+8...but greed, power and envy don't apply to Big Oil, right?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 384 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
