Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Debunking Global Warming
philvalentine.com — A Skeptic's Guide To Debunking Global Warming Alarmism
Shep- 90 diggs
- digg it
- Ozzman002, on 10/12/2007, -21/+18Man made global warming is the Y2k of 2007, what a joke. Keep profiting Algore.....
- Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12Keep profiting, big oil.....
- imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -7/+8According to the same Global Warming Deniers crowd we didn't even have global warming and now "it isn't our fault"?
I'm fine with skepticism on the subject and there are many climatologist and other scientists who are still unconvinced with the current theory(and they have valid scientific reasons for that conclusion), however whenever these political pundits and scientist big-oil whores try to counter the CO2 induced hypothesis as the basis of the Global Warming theory, they use bad science and just plain lie. - masgrada, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Hope the author is enjoying his $10,000 from exxon
- iam413x, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I will only be willing to listen to skeptics when they actually have a real alternative theory to why the earth is getting hotter. Just saying it is natural is not enough, skeptics need to point out what the natural change is.
Oh, and if you think it's more energy from the sun, look up global dimming on wikipedia. - draebor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I could just as easily come up with a page of vaguely referenced 'facts' that purport to prove that Santa Claus is real.
"Hundreds of weather reports from actual television news stations all over the world indicate the presence of a flying sleigh on Christmas eve."
Its so easy to sell a lie to people when they don't like the truth. - Zera, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@iam413x
Ok, I'll play devil's advocate. Let me start by saying some radio kook from Tennessee isn't the best spokesman for this, and that is likely why this is getting dugg up on digg. Its fun to knock down straw men.
People who are skeptical of Global Warming aren't saying the Earth ISN'T getting warmer (yes, some crazy people are, but they aren't skeptics), they're saying that the increase is very small. So small that it is borderline negligible. There is alot of evidence to support that the earth has gone through warming and cooling trends on it's own, with no major problems caused. Certainly no major species extinction in the dozens of times it has happened in the last few thousand years.
People who are skeptical of Global Warming are also skeptics of all the variables left in the equation. Such as:
To what extent ARE humans responsible?
What problems have been caused by Global Warming?
What problems will be caused if Global Warming continues?
What are the plausible courses of action to reverse it?
What are the benefits of reversing it?
What are the costs of reversing it?
Would humans be able to stop it?
Are there any known concrete consequences to not stopping it?
And the point is that we have partial answers to all of those. We all need to be skeptical about each piece in order to make educated decisions. We cannot afford to assume that everything we hear that seems to support Global warming is just correct be default, and we can't assume that evidence to the contrary is wrong because we've DECIDED Global warming is a fact. So, we all just need to keep cool heads here, and think about the problem at hand carefully.
So here's what we can do. Clearly we will need to stop using oil eventually. So why not now? The solution is very simple. Millions of gigantic wind turbines all over the U.S. Those areas with the most wind without huge electric consumers (e.g. North Dakota) become our new oil fields. At the base of those giant turbines you place huge electrolysis stations to produce hydrogen. You compress the hydrogen down into a liquid to be distributed around the nation for vehicular fuel. Done. We are nearly completely off oil in just one generation of car purchasing.
What else can we do? We can reduce the amount of CO2 in the air by consuming trees more wisely. Trees are little carbon factories, ripping it out of the sky. -Keep an open mind here- If we were to put all of our used paper in landfills, instead of incinerating it, or recycling it, (both processes pollute heavily) we would have effectively removed THAT much carbon (greenhouse gas) from the atmosphere (because now it's underground) Understand that 99.999% of trees used for paper are trees grown on tree farms, FOR paper. They are harvested like any other crop, keeping track of erosion problems, and replanting of course. A farmer who doesn't replant screws himself. And while it isn't perfect, remember, recycling paper involves ALOT of very nasty chemicals being flushed into the sewer, and ultimately, the rivers and environment.
Also, we need to stop being retarded when it comes to government subsidies. The U.S. government subsidizes oil heavily, which is outrageous. It creates a market barrier that makes it more difficult for alternative fuels to get started. Since we're gonna run out of oil anyways, we should be putting those subsidies towards wind and hydrogen technologies. Also, Bush's and his idiots in office are pulling the wool over your eyes with Ethanol. Ethanol is total BS, and it's JUST a distraction from the things that would ACTUALLY replace oil. It is bad for the environment because it requires burning 1.8 gallons of hydrocarbon burned for every 1 gallon of ethanol consumed. http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/08/23_ethanol.shtml
Hear that? Ethanol is nearly TWICE AS BAD for the environment than gasoline! Don't let Bush trick you on this.
This is why we need to be skeptical of everything. If we aren't careful to scrutinize the facts and evidence, then we're likely to make the wrong decisions.
- fiver22, on 10/12/2007, -23/+19As intelligent as deniers of Evolution, deniers of the fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid, and deniers of the theory of gravity. -while they're at it they might as well deny that planes fly. How does this ***** even get dugg by 17 people -is it possible that 17 citizens of the planet earth are that stupid? -My guess is that some Exxon exec has 17 digg accounts and is staying up late.
And I don't give a ***** how many of you morons post ***** akin to 9/11 conspiracy theories -you're still so wrong a three year-old could detect your mental deficiencies.- Bocaj22, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17so the slight majority that believes humans cause global warming, and minority who believe it will be the end of the world is as convincing to you as gravity. I don't know, comparing global warming skeptics to denying gravity may be the most retarded thing I have ever heard.
- OldeDog, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2That's just silly name calling. Personally, I am not faith based enough to believe in some computer models without proof, but I feel no need to denigrate people of greater faith.
- NeoRicen, on 10/12/2007, -15/+16Judging by the utter stupidity of those points, the false labelling of "Skeptic", and the blantent conservative POLITICAL bias of the author, this is a load of crap.
It's no coincidence that all these Global Warming deniers are heavily poltically biased. The simple fact of the matter is that Global Warming is occuring, the vast majority of Scientists agree with the idea is is primarliy man-made. The only remaining issue is the speed and imminence of its effects.
I mean seriously, pointing out past mistakes by the press over 80 years ago does nothing to downplay Global Warming and the scientific consensus today.
Other points are mainly press mistakes and chooses small studies by a minority of dissident scientists who claim contrary to consensus. This does nothing but prove there is another minority opinion. An opinion rejected by most scientists.
This guy does what all conservatives do, if there is an opposing scientific opinion to 'liberal ideas' then the 'liberal idea' is automatically false.
I could go through and point out all the logical fallacies but that would take too long and produce a list as lengthy as the original 'article'. - tony11572, on 10/12/2007, -12/+6Dugg as innacurate ;]
- Bonhomme, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11I'd be interested in knowing how it's innacurate. Is it because you have some facts that disprove it, or becuase it might be true?
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -13/+9It's inaccurate because the author is not a skeptic, he is a denier, and because global warming is a fact.
- 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -9/+10No, although it is generally accepted in the scientific community and is given about a 90% chance of being as a result of human activities, Global Warming is still considered a theory
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3No, its a fact. Unless you are using the word wrongly in which case EVERYTHING is a theory.
- OldeDog, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2Global warming is a faith based theory. You have to have faith in computer models to believe.
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10I've heard this "theory" ***** enough. Evolution deniers say the same thing, that evolution is just a theory. True, likely, they never took a high school science course so they don't know what a theory really is
"In science, a theory is a mathematical description, a logical explanation, a verified hypothesis, or a proven model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."
A theory DOES NOT EVER get upgraded to a law. A law CANNOT be downgraded to being a theory. Law's describe something that happens, theories offer an explanation as to why that happens. That the earth moves around the sun is a theory.
Now, there's plenty of arguments against global warming; such as Limbaugh's assertion that volcanoes emit more global warming gas than humanity ever could.
So, instead of using infantile theory/fact logic that anyone who took a high school science course could refute, why don't you resume pulling things out of your ass like the rest of the deniers? - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5
@Bonhomme: I'd be interested in knowing how it's innacurate. Is it because you have some facts that disprove it, or becuase it might be true?"
They're not inaccurate so much as it is disingenuous and draws wrong conclusions. It launches ad hominem attacks(media this and that), nitpicks on very narrow datapoints(Alaska is colder...than the 1970s, it of course ignores global temperatures) and uses absurd data(in the 1890s...we don;t use ***** leaches anymore what makes you think climatology is the same?). He completely ignores global temperature trends, ice core data etc.
@1337Einstein: No, although it is generally accepted in the scientific community and is given about a 90% chance of being as a result of human activities, Global Warming is still considered a theory"
See the great post by jivatmanx on your complete lack of scientific basics on theory, hypothesis and law.
@OldeDog: Global warming is a faith based theory. You have to have faith in computer models to believe."
All the Global Warming data is not just computer models. It comes from satellite data, ice core data, ocean temperature data, CO2 measurements, etc. Computer models are used to attempt to extrapolate the data. Why do you have faith that Global Warming isn't happening? It obviously isn't from real research or facts. - OldeDog, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What kind of person labels themselves Imperium, anyway.
In any case, if you believe the data, you have to note that there has been no warming for the last six years.
See: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/globaltemperature.html
Like I said, I am not faith based enough to believe in computer models without question, and computer models are at the heart of the global warming hypothesis. - imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've used imperium2000 on the internets tubes for 15years. It means supreme power, the right to enforce power and empire. Blame it on teenage ego. Done with the ad hominem attack?
No warming in the last 6 years? Wasn't this year's global temperature the highest ever recorded?
- ngonzales80, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Check out this video from a guy who calls himself The Internet Skeptic. It's basically a rebuttal to Al Gore's movie and is full of some pretty compelling information. Let me know how you guys feel about it. I realize it's a bit long.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3358069185645182264&hl=en- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ngonzales
So, for some reason, you think that posting a link from some website is considered contributing to the discussion? I went to his site, his reccomends reading Micheal Crichton's "State of Fear". A book of fiction. Oh yeah, and all of Anne Coulter's books.
And, btw, I always wondered why all of the so-called skeptics need to always use phrases like "mass-media generated hysteria". I've seen this trend lately; they run out of science, so they start using the neocon, limbaughian tactic of feeling like everyone's against you.
It's quite telling that you're unwilling to list a single point from his video to "debunk" us. I dare you. - ngonzales80, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@jivatmanx
To be honest, I did not spend much time reviewing this guy’s website. What I really appreciated was the level of detail he goes through and the number of sources he sites (unlike Al Gore did for his movie).
I’m not saying I believe everything this guy has to say. I’m just saying that I have an open mind and am willing to listen to both sides of the argument. I’m not a scientist so I have to base my opinion off of what other people say (including this guy) and decide what I believe.
The reason why I posted the link was to hear what other people had to say and see how they could disprove some of the things this guy claims. Your response has not helped.
You asked for a single point from the video to “debunk” “us”, I’ll give you several that stuck out to me while watching. Again, I’m not a scientist and I’m not claiming to support these points, I am honestly very interested in hearing counterpoints to these issues to help me formulate my own opinion on man-made global warming:
1. (Starting at 22:40) Global warming is mostly caused by water vapor. Water vapor accounts for 95% of green-house gases. Therefore any additional CO2 we add to the atmosphere will only be increasing a fraction of the remaining 5%. On top of that, he points out that the hydrogen car alternative will actually be adding more water vapor to the atmosphere which will add even more global warming gases and have the opposite of the intended effect.
2. (Starting at 33:08) CO2 chart shows that data is taken from two different sources. He points out that the chart that Al Gore uses to show the current rise in CO2 is inaccurate because it first uses data from ice core measurements then uses measurements at Mauna Loa in Hawaii. The problem is that the measurement techniques are completely different and it is wrong to combine the data in one graph where the ice core measurements represent the past levels of CO2 and the Mauna Loa measurements represent more current levels.
3. (Starting at 1:03:43) Cause and Effect. According to Al Gore’s large graph you can see the relationship between rising CO2 levels and rising temperature levels. The question is whether the CO2 is causing the rise in temperature levels. If you look closely at the graph, you will see that the temperature begins to rise BEFORE the CO2 level raises. He uses the analogy of a pot of water boiling before you turn on the stove.
4. (Starting at 1:11:42) Global Warming consensus? Check out the Oregon Petition. 17,000 scientists agree that there is no convincing scientific evidence that humans are the reason for Global Warming.
5. (Starting at 1:24:35) The sun is the reason for Global Warming. The sun is warmer now that anytime in the last 11,400 years according to one article.
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@ngonzales
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Great scientific evidence of global warming not occuring! (sarcasm)
Many people, including the writer of the article apparently, presume global warming will happen in a relatively short time. It will not. It take decades, perhaps longer, to see any noticable effects - especially on human civilization.
Quit putting this ***** with politics! Who the ***** cares if it is "liberal" or "conservative"? Scientists have been worrying about it for YEARS before Al Gore even said a word about it. - TechknoPagan, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Buried, as moranic ramblings from the neocon tinfoil hat crowd.
- TechknoPagan, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0(oops responded to wrong thread...)
- KozureOkami, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11OK guys, I can't tell how tired I am of writing this to message boards....
BUT Please start thinking and researching for your self !!!! Just go to the NASA - Homepage and read something about the melting of Mars polar caps, or how lately their satellites just fall from the sky cause of a massive increase of sun radiation - or go to the HP of the Max Planck institute and read for yourself that the sun (and that of course is effecting the whole solar system) changed its position and intensity of radiation.
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802/
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2003/07aug_southpole.htm
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that the pollution humans produce is good - I'm just saying its not causing global warming. I live in a big city myself and I hate the smell of car, airplane and industrial produced crap blown in the air.
This planet has changed its climate for millions of years in much huger scale then we can even imagine. To believe that humans who first appeared about 20.000 years ago on this planet cause global warming is just arrogant - or stupid. And if you research the so called UN "scientists" who came up with that Armageddon- like Report, and how they claim to get their results, you will find that not everything is at it seems. All their "results" are based on computer simulations - running on a computer that can't even simulate situations accurate that already happened - although they use the "exact data" collected in past 50 years. How reliable is this?
One last thing - Digging a story on whatever subject is supposed to make readers aware of the SUBJECT. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything said in it, it has nothing to do with the political, religous or sexual orientation of the author. Its just presenting a subject, which will maybe animate you to go a little further if you are interested in it, find more storys on the same subject or different opinions about it.- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Itto! Your tricks can't work on me! Accept death.
Look, it really is pretty ***** simple. Is it likely that unbalancing the ecosystem by increasing the relative amounts of exotic and / or toxic chemicals is going to be
A) good for the ecosystem or
B) bad for the ecosystem?
There's no need to look at it any more deeply than that if you cannot understand the processes underlying why the earth is getting warmer, as some people obviously cannot. - SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Great info there!
- jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Cool. You've given me another myth to adress.
"To believe that humans who first appeared about 20.000 years ago on this planet cause global warming is just arrogant - or stupid."
The entire earth's supply of oil and coal for which it has taken MILLIONS of years to accumulate, is being completely burnt within a span of two HUNDRED. The other assertion you're making, that makind is too insignificant to harm the planet, is just ignorant, considering the existing stocks of fish and square miles of forest are a fraction of what they were at the begining of the century. - MrFlesh, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4They also dig up ice cores in the arctic and antarctic that can show them atmosphere contents of 100,000 to millions of years back.....this is what they use as evidence when they say climate change hasn't happened this fast since the last great extinction. And we've only been causing climate change for the past 120 years or so...and it's not arrogant you can see humans drasticaly effecting inature in other industry. Whole fish habitats are GONE! Do to fishing,http://www.newint.org/features/2007/01/01/pollution/
When was the last time a solid wood piece of furniture was cheap? Or you could readily buy one in any given store? Look at all the endangered animals species that we put on the list. How often can you buy ivory billiard balls or piano keys? The rivers in Pittsburgh didn't come grey naturally, lake erie didn't catch on fire due to natural causes, iguanas didn't migrate to floridia, the sky above L.A. wasn't always orange, you can't see the stars in the sky because of all the crap in the air.
If global warming wasn't happening why would exxon have to bribe people? Why would this administration put a gag order on government employees talking about environmental issues......if for no other reason we should take steps to control pollution and prevent global warming is because we cannot afford, as life on this planet, for your view to be wrong. And your article talks about season change on mars not that they are permantly melting. - Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Huh, was hoping to be dugg up for the LWC reference:)
To specifically address the ***** in kozureokami's post:
Everything he said has been debunked, as pointed out by another poster.
Global warming is happening. The mechanism by which it is happening is still contentious but computer models are NOT what tell us that warming is happening, the raw information from meterological surveys and so on is.
As I have already said, how likely is it that pumping millions of tons of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere is going to improve matters?
Here's an idea for all the global warming deniers: go rent a biodome, then sit inside it running dozens of petrol engines and generators. If pumping ***** into the atmosphere isn't harmful, you should be fine, right? - stylerm, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"To believe that humans who first appeared about 20.000 years ago on this planet cause global warming is just arrogant - or stupid."
You don't seem to comprehend the industrial revolution.
Guess I am a little late in my reply. - Shawnosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@kozureokami Thank you for the links and info. I started googling up some info on what you suggest. However in only a few moments of searching the only articles I could find are ones that state that the solar theory is inaccurate and unrelated.
World Radiation Center - http://www.pmodwrc.ch/pmod.php?topic=tsi/composite/SolarConstant
Real Climate (climatology science site) - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192
A good quote from that site that I think sums it up nicely. This comes after how they discuss how unique the mars atmosphere is in its fragility. A major dust storm will change the climate fairly commonly.
"Thus inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth."
Thank you for at least posing a counter-argument and not blithering like most folks do in comments =) - slammyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2kozureokami wrote:
"One last thing - Digging a story on whatever subject is supposed to make readers aware of the SUBJECT. It doesn't mean you have to agree with everything said in it."
A discussion of skepticism is fine, by this article should not be Dugg, because it continues to propagate:
1) Cherry picked anecdotes ("Alaska has been really cool lately") when the subject is AVERAGE global temperatures.
2) Arguments attacking media sensationalism ("The NY Times in 1912 declared X", "The Chicago Tribune declared Y") instead of actual scientific studies with significant weight (IPCC).
3) Arguments using climate phenomena that may have existed (Little Ice Age, Medieval Warming Period), but really are not useful as arguments against anthropogenic climate change.
Etc.
If you can find an article that doesn't KEEP REPEATING this crap, I'm all ears.
- Retsudo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Itto! Your tricks can't work on me! Accept death.
- UrbanVoyeur, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2*yawn*
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Buried as inaccurate.
- SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Typical, you people know nothing of science, what happened to looking at everything and letting other people voice their opinions.. This whole debate is so dumb, ya there is warming but who knows what causes it.
And the idiots who say a week long heat wave is global warming piss me off to no end... - SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Fine this article may not be the best but definitely look at kozureokami's post above.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Increased insolation accounts for less than 20% of the observed effect. You show these things, absolve yourself of responsibility, when the lion's share of blame still should go to the humans, and the humans will need to fix it. Either that or starve when the droughts happen, and it will fix itself because there will be fewer people to burn coal. Its up to you.
The earth is reemitting less of its received heat to space than it did just 10 years ago. Please keep confounding that fact with that its getting more heat to begin with.
- SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1Typical, you people know nothing of science, what happened to looking at everything and letting other people voice their opinions.. This whole debate is so dumb, ya there is warming but who knows what causes it.
- CBTF, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Yay. More excuses to drive an SUV, leave all your lights on, etc... and not feel guilty about it.
Denial won't get us anywhere. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5@Soxfannh
No, it is inaccurate. Its making comparisons between absolute temperatures, when the issue is one of rates of increase. It IS inaccurate, and misleading, and there IS direct evidence of human causation which is poo-pooed whenever it is shown to a Republican. I am a professional scientist, I do read the papers that come out of the climatology labs, and I'm sick of global warming deniers. You are just as deluded as the creationists.
Our own government has issued reports talking about economic impact, and yet you ignore it. Ok. Whatever. - buddy06, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2I am looking forward to spring and the globe warming.
- SoxFanNH, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Haha sadly people would actually believe that statement...
- slammyd, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Why do these same DEBUNKED arguments (Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, etc.) keep coming up?
PLEASE read:
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics - footstep, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6This is the first time I've ever voted to bury a story. All of this guy's points have been long ago dismantled by actual scientists (unlike Mr. Valentine, who's a talking head). These flat-earth wannabe skeptics have confused scientific inquiry with obscurantism.
- edz0nk, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Go back to sleep America, your government is in control, go back to sleep America.
God created earth and why would he include such a preposterous thing as global warming?
Go back to sleep America, your government is in control.
RIP Hicks - schreinervideo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"Now, there's plenty of arguments against global warming; such as Limbaugh's assertion that volcanoes emit more global warming gas than humanity ever could."
Assessing blame for global warming is not the point. The point is it's happening- whether by volcanoes, flatulating bovines or whatever- and has consequences. We can sit here and say "oh, it's just natural" and still die of drought, burned crops, floods, etc. Human expansion has made natural phenomena costly disasters, either by living in earthquake and fire zones or emitting harmful gases. We can choose to something or nothing. My "theory" is something is better than nothing. Read Bill McKibben. And stop wasting time debunking theories and look at the realities- and the future.- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Volcanoes do NOT put out more warming gas than humans, and flatulating bovines is a partially product of human agriculture practices.. or there are herds of millions of wild beef cattle being fed high corn diets roaming the plains. We've even interfered with carbon cycling in the Amazon.
No, nothing is wrong, continue to burn decades of stored carbon every year that will not be resequestered.
Something is better than nothing, but we are still the cause, and I'm betting in 20 years it will be glaringly obvious to even these deniers. - jivatmanx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2here was my quote
"Now, there's plenty of arguments against global warming; such as Limbaugh's assertion that volcanoes emit more global warming gas than humanity ever could.
So, instead of using infantile theory/fact logic that anyone who took a high school science course could refute, why don't you resume pulling things out of your ass like the rest of the deniers?"
If you'd noticed, I was being quite obviously sarcastic. Just read the sentance that was under that one - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I know, that wasn't directed at you, although I hate to see the lies repeated in any form. We can squarely assign responsibility, we don't even need to fall back to, the "well, we don't know if we're causing it but lets try to fix it anyway because it can't hurt" argument.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Volcanoes do NOT put out more warming gas than humans, and flatulating bovines is a partially product of human agriculture practices.. or there are herds of millions of wild beef cattle being fed high corn diets roaming the plains. We've even interfered with carbon cycling in the Amazon.
- Shawnosaurus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ask yourself who looks at a major problem, but instead of acting they say, "Yea, but is it my fault?!" Four year olds are who do that. If you're so emotionally underdeveloped that you are hung up on whether the climate crisis is your fault or not then you need to not participate in real decisions with the adults.
I guarantee, promise and bet hard currency that not one denier can read the ipcc report and effectively counter it with legit science.
Politics has nothing to do with this. If you are part of the conservative, liberal labeling crowd than you need to just grow the ***** up also. You can't compartmentalize everything you don't like or understand with an opposing label. - Tmacman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Let's say that we're wrong and there is no global warming but we take steps to fix the problem anyway. What's the worst that can happen? We use less oil and Exxon doesn't make $35 billion in profit. What's the worst outcome if the Deniers are wrong? Global catastrophe.
It seems like an easy choice.- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Could cause an ice age. If we're wrong and our response is overly dramatic... setting up giant mirrors in orbit and the like. To be fair.
I don't think we're wrong. The earth would be just as happy, more so than now, with 1890 levels of CO2 and methane.
And I apologize for the quality of my posts in this and the last global warming thread, my rhetorical skill goes out the window when I get really angry.
- Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Could cause an ice age. If we're wrong and our response is overly dramatic... setting up giant mirrors in orbit and the like. To be fair.
- MomoTheCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2How do comments made when milkmen still rode horses constitute compelling evidence against the conclusions of the IPCC Assessment Report that came out in February, 2007?
- MomoTheCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report is the result of the collaborative findings and unanimous conclusions of thousands of the world's leading scientists in this field. This guide is a selective cherry-picking of facts taken out of context or from questionable sources with political agendas.
Creationists use the same tactics to satisfy the modern half of their brains that the medieval half need not be updated. Mohammed Atta did the same with the Koran. It's really pathetic to see this sort of thing here. You people are smarter than this. - blogagog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Now, repeat after me, “GLOBAL WARMING CAUSES GLOBAL COLDING”, Hell! Thirty years ago we (the True Faith) were preaching that the New Ice Age would be followed by a new warm age - the equation is flexible, it can be expressed any which way. The key feature is to remember that the planet is angry with us over our wicked, wicked ways.
- KozureOkami, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Geeez! I wouldnt have thought of getting that lot of feedback....
@Retsudo
Man I'm really sorry but you have to work on your reading-skills.
1. When/Where did i say there is no global warming?
I said its prolly not caused by humans - not that it isnt happening.
2. I really doubt you read my comment completely:
heres what i said about pollution:
"I live in a big city myself and I hate the smell of car, airplane and industrial produced crap blown in the air"
heres your comment:
"go rent a biodome, then sit inside it running dozens of petrol engines and generators. If pumping ***** into the atmosphere isn't harmful, you should be fine, right?"
3.You say:"Everything he said has been debunked"
First question: by Whom? Second question: Does the NASA know that their observations on Mars have been "debunked" ? Maybe you should call and tell them.
I didn' say that these links are the ultimate truth about global warming - I just say there are millions other things to consider on this subject than 1 UN Report and these links are in my opinion interesting to start with researching.
@jivatmanx
"The entire earth's supply of oil and coal for which it has taken MILLIONS of years to accumulate, is being completely burnt within a span of two HUNDRED"
1. How do you know what the entire earths supply of fossils is? This is a Myth itself.
2. Compared to the history of our planet as far as we (think to) know it, humans are insignificant. Yes we live in an eco-system.
Actually we ARE part of an eco-system. Of nature. Man IS nature. Everything what man does is Nature. Building Nukes, polluting the environment, fighting senseless wars is nature. What will die isn't the planet - it is MAN. Like a million species did before. Thinking that humans are above Nature is what I call arrogant - cause this type of thinking is based on religion - On the thought that Man is superior to animals and plants and whatever else is existing on this planet. We are just another Species. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION so you dont need to feel attacked - that isnt my intention at all.
@slammyd
See I don't know whats the point in digging any story then. If I start research on whatever topic I like to get as much Information as possible, to view it from multiple angles - thats what for me is the process of building an opinion.
And even if this story is maybe kinda creepy - that doesnt mean its not interesting to read - as I said you dont have to agree with it but u should be aware of it - especially if you not agree.
I'd like to end this with an anecdote...There was a time not long ago when it was a FACT that we are living on a disk and that you will fall off it if you sail out too far. Today we know better.
P.S.: I'm not a native english speaker so go ahead and make fun of me if I make stupid spelling mistakes ;)
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is