What is Digg?53 Comments
- gnail, on 10/28/2009, -5/+20What is it with denialists? What is wrong with better efficiency, less foreign oil dependence, what is wrong with renewable energy that may get America back on the forefront of technology? If these reports are wrong, that the current global warming is 100% natural, what will we have in 10 years time? Better, quieter cars, less reliance on oil from middle east, high paying high-tech jobs. If the denialists are wrong though, what would we have? (Runaway) greehouse effect? Climate change? We don't know, but the former definitely sounds a lot better.
- Cowzeetgrass, on 10/28/2009, -9/+15Our knowledge on climate change isn't even close to our ability to predict the weather, which are both awful. Our planet was here long before we were, and will be here long after, unless we manage to completely blow it up. The planet has been much more inhospitable than what we're doing to it. We're not trying to save the planet, we're trying to save us.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -1/+6That you're taking a creative writing course at a community college?
- L0C0loco, on 10/28/2009, -1/+5My My, you oil/coal corporate shills get up early!
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+4Well yes -- have you really been thinking all this was something other than an effort to keep the earth an hospitable ecosystem for human life?
- Jordan117, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3What are you talking about? "They" have called it climate change at least since the foundation of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on *Climate Change*) more than twenty years ago. It's not a new term.
- s8nzsj, on 11/02/2009, -0/+3Or you could just die right now and make the world a better place.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3If you had even bothered to glance at the article you would have had enough information to impeach your own post:
"The sediments are considered unique because they contain rare paleoclimate information about the past 200,000 years, providing a far longer record than most other sediments in the glaciated portion of the Arctic, which only reveals clues to the past 10,000 years."
We have many more than 100 years of observations.
We get thousands of years of climate information from tree rings, so accurate that we can date houses by them.
We can get actual atmospheric samples over thousands and even hundreds of thousands of years from ice cores.
You, like many people who throw up their hands at climate data, would benefit by reading a bit more. - gnail, on 10/28/2009, -0/+3Clear that the Earth is actually cooling? [citation needed]
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumenta ... - ismhmr, on 10/28/2009, -1/+4The media coined that term. Watch Fall of the Republic.
- ismhmr, on 10/28/2009, -2/+5They coined that term to make it sound like holocaust denialist. To make it sound evil to question the government's claims.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2First, trees grow at different rates depending on the climate they're in. There's a great deal of data on how specific trees react to different temperatures so tree ring growth can be correlated well to temperature.. That's how it's used in paleo-climatology. Dendro-dating is a beneficial byproduct of that research.
Additionally, the structure of tree leaves can be used to determine average temperature within two degrees, both in the modern day and historically.
But you're saying that it's up to the article to teach you fundamental research methods in climatology, and if it doesn't it's just as valid for you to throw up your hands and call it all the work of witch doctors??
You're saying that even though you didn't know that core samples and other methods establish a long record for us to analyze, and other basic information, you still decided to make proclamations about the veracity of science in a field that you don't even have them most basic knowledge of?
Well, just to be on the safe side, here's an article on things called "automobiles." I'm worried you might declare the idea of them to be invalid, and walk out into the street to prove a point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile
- dvsbastard, on 10/28/2009, -3/+5I agree with you... but I ***** HATE the word "denialist"... It sounds more like a marketing buzzword rather than something that should ever be used in any reasonable scientific discussion...
- treeflappa, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2vegetarians fart alot anyway.
- s8nzsj, on 10/30/2009, -1/+3All you do is find threads so you can put people down to make you feel better about yourself.
Live up to your name, go smoke a joint on a wall, fall off and crack your head?
Alright loser? - curtisag, on 10/28/2009, -0/+2You forgot forcing everyone to become a vegetarian. We can't let those cows fart too much.
- treeflappa, on 10/28/2009, -4/+6Tax CO2 and send all our industry oversea's to countrys that won't limit their Carbon(dioxide) emissions. It would also be great to implement a carbon(dioxide) tax to tax everything we do, including breathing, washing and eating. Employ government inspectors to come into peoples homes and fine them for having big TV's, old fridges and light bulbs. Doesn't the future sound great!
/s - ismhmr, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1No it isn't. Just youtube and facebook, but you can get around that with proxies.
- Locastus, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I thought Digg was blocked in China???
- Locastus, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1@gnail
All those things are absolutely fine, in fact I commend the goal of relying less on arabian oil.
However, our governments have been treating us like dumb children with this *****. It's insulting.
Theyve been banging the drum for like four years now - ever since it was obvious that the US wasnt going to be able to fulfil its dreams of Empire. Too squeemish for the job.
The governments should have said: "Since we badly fumbled the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the best way to fight islamic extremism is to take our money from them. Go Green." - gnail, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1That's Pascal's wager, except it's misused in religion in that there aren't only 2 choices (false dichotomy), but thousands of choices of believing in different religions, or not believing in any of them.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Uhmm, what?
- gnail, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Denialism is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality.
You can definitely perform experiments in reality to measure global warming ("empirically verifiable"); how am I wrong to call them "denialists" when it's exactly what they are? - curtisag, on 10/28/2009, -1/+22012 has been debunked many times. It's the beginning of a new age and the end of the current one, not the end of the world.
- poprocksandsoda, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Wrong sir. Climate change is a general term used in meteorology for decades. It has nothing to do with the environmentalist movement which for decades have been pushing the hair brained idea of global warming. Quite an inconvienent truth isn't it? That great IPCC predicts the average temperature to rise about 10 degrees on average around the Earth this century ... hence their "Global Warming" push. People only have been using climate change since it became apparent that things are actually going down dramatically.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Really? After taunting me about responding, and I do you the courtesy, you start posting in other threads and conveniently "forget" about this one?
Unbelievable. - nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Ok, just for fun (yeah I know you will bury this but hopefully you will respond). State a single fact that was presented in the article.
- Humptydank, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1Okay, sure:
"The 20th century is the only period during the past 200 millennia in which aquatic indicators reflect increased warming."
But frankly this is a layman's article giving an overview of a narrow set of findings. It isn't a journal article so your expectations should be low to begin with.
But honestly, I would take your focus on facts more seriously if I thought you knew what facts, in a scientific context, are, and what they mean.
So in return for humoring you and finding a fact in the article for you, why don't you give me a quick description of what a "fact" is in science, and how they related to theories and hypotheses?
Feel free to invoke Popper or anyone else you need to help. - LokitheComplex, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I'm in the UK so the obsession with Gore is irrelevant to me. And the carbon problem was being discussed here long before Gore arrived on the scene. And solutions to the carbon problem neither start or end with Gore.
I'd say we can't work with capitalism and environmentalism. For that reason I favour technological solutions rather than tax incentives. For me that means general taxation to spend on research. - IKORKYI, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1The title's claim is scientifically and statistically impossible. I don't know why things with an unknown answer make people so uncomfortable. It sucks we can't say for sure if climate change is or is not natural, but you're just going to have to live with it. Like all science, you never know anything 100% but i certainly don't think there is a clear consensus either way...which throws each side of the debate over the line from theory to hypothesis. There is an extreme need to study this phenomenon, but I feel it would be foolish to act on a unvalidated guess.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/28/2009, -1/+2So what neutral language so you suggest for both?
- govtdoesnotwork, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I thought the day was December 21st, right at the equinox.
- LokitheComplex, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1I don't expect the increase to be linear. I trust the climatologists are telling me the truth.
To believe they are lying would require a vast conspiracy. - treeflappa, on 10/28/2009, -0/+1denialism is not even the dictionary but its in wikipedia(where you copied & pasted "is the refusal to accept an empirically verifiable reality." from)
You can however deny anything whether it is truth or lies. You personally may not be trying to peg man made climate change skeptics with holocaust denialists but a lot of people are. - Schmich, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1Yes, the question isn't about the planet. The question is about species getting endangered and possible dramatic increase in costs due to more frequent natural disasters. Don't also forget that some of the effects, such as methane gas releases, expand exponentially.
In any case I don't see what's wrong in trying to go green with the increase in cost for both gas and electricity. The things that are ***** are those minor change in habits that some people want. "Hey brush your teeth faster so you use less water, if everyone did it then..." you're still not going to make a difference and that everyone does it is never going to happen. - nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1The thing is "going green" has _nothing _ to do with this. There are plenty of reasons, reasons that span our lifetimes to go green. Look at how reducing pollution has really helped us and that only really happened over the last 40 or so years.
I would have no problem if the posts here were about how we can better utilize our envirement and how we can prevent poisoning our selves, but we need to remember that is not justification for making wild claims that have no citation and no science in them.
To be honest I don't even give a ***** what the earth is like 1000 years from now, sure that makes me a bad person but that doesn't mean I want to pollute the earth while I live on it, so I will do my part even though I am greedy. - Locastus, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1Sorry to stick my nose in, but here's one:
"much of the Arctic was covered by big ice sheets during the Ice Age"
Well, no ***** Sherlock! This whole article is based on some research associates exam paper, so it's not even officially confirmed as being true yet. - nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1Teach? No, but even a single fact could have helped the article, much more though a citation.
Though I'm not entirely sure what a man made thing has to do with the earth. Though to be safe I will say that no, in fact intelligent design of the earth is not science. - nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -2/+2The article had 0 science and 0 references to science. So what, I should just believe it because its on the internet?
edit: dating things by tree rings is not climate observation, and since there was zero climate data in the article I would say that in fact it is you should RTFA.
for those of you too dense to see, I _never_ stated my stance on doing what we can to preserve the earth, I simply despise pop-fiction disguised as science.
(also even 10000 years is nothing compared to the age of the earth when talking about cycles). - eocarroll, on 10/27/2009, -17/+17This so-called scientific discovery is really just part of a vast conspiracy by radical leftists to institute a totalitarian socialist world-government.
And anyone who thinks otherwise is an alarmist!
/s - poprocksandsoda, on 10/28/2009, -1/+1So you don't think the prospect of billions in free money would cause a 500 million dollar Gore supported company that sells carbon credits to only focus on facts that support their agenda?
- twohoundogs, on 10/28/2009, -2/+2That's the same kind of argument I hear from some religious people.
- poprocksandsoda, on 10/28/2009, -2/+1Wow, Wikimedia proves me wrong. A website where anyone can upload pictures, audio and video. Are you going to follow this up with a posting on Craigslist and a YouTube video of the Numa Numa guy laying out the facts as well?
- Quisquis, on 10/28/2009, -3/+2myan long count... ***** google it and shut up.
- Humptydank, on 11/01/2009, -3/+2That is not all I do. I make great Belgian waffles, I can run the quarter-mile in less than forty minutes including rest periods, and I can understand fifteen words of Tagalog.
You, however, can't even get your urban legends right and are a serial abuser of question marks.
I would give up writing and try the Belgian waffle thing; even a bad Belgian waffle is a good Belgian waffle so you'd have a lot more leeway. - ismhmr, on 10/28/2009, -4/+2This is about a Carbon Tax and they will say anything to push it through. For information on what they are trying to do, and how they are using global warming, I mean, Climate Change to do so, watch the Fall of the Republic for Free online. Youtube the full HD version.
I am in China, so I can't link you to it... Youtube is blocked here. - nepidae, on 10/28/2009, -3/+1There are plenty of reasons to say radical things, especially when what you are discussing will not affect you in your lifetime.
- treeflappa, on 10/28/2009, -4/+2denialists? Are you really trying to associate people that don't believe in man made climate change with Holocaust denialists? Your one sick dude to use the death of millions of innocent people to attempt to shame people that do not believe your point of view.
-
Show 51 - 55 of 55 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 