What is Digg?132 Comments
- BigManOnCampus, on 10/10/2007, -14/+55Please properly define the term "Global Warming".
Do you mean:
1) The whole world getting warmer?
2) The whole world getting warmer naturally?
3) The whole world getting warmer artificially?
4) The whole world getting warmer with a combination of man and nature?
5) The whole world proceeding towards cataclysmic climate change?
6) The whole world proceeding towards cataclysmic climate change naturally?
7) The whole world proceeding towards cataclysmic climate change because of mankind?
8) The whole world proceeding towards cataclysmic climate change for unknown reasons?
People seem to simply insert their own definition for it. Some people mean "we're all going to die" when they say global warming, and some simply mean "well, the climate isn't certain" The difference between them is vast.
Diggers are SICK TO DEATH OF THE FEAR OF THE WEEK/MONTH/YEAR. They're tired of being told to be afraid. They're tired of being told to feel guilty. You cannot induce these feelings in others forever with mere words. - TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -23/+45A lot of people, including myself, keep an open mind about things.
We can see the obvious political purposes that the global warming scare is being used for. We know how science works and we know that the logical fallacy that correlation doesn't equate causation. We can see beyond the evidence just put in front of us by global warming advocates, we can see the cyclical pattern of the earth's climate. Although we are perfectly willing to accept that man is indeed causing global warming we aren't convinced by the evidence presented. We do think it warrants attention and further research but to create a panic when it really isn't necessary, especially a panic for overtly socialist reasons isn't needed.
It's call logic.
A lot of people get confused by the term global warming, no one can disagree with that. The earth is warming the question is why? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+19"A lot of people, including myself, keep an open mind about things."
A lot of people aren't climate scientists but have opinions on scientific matters anyway. - scallon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+15You know you spend too much time on digg when you can actually remember reading each and everyone of the posts he references.
- monomyth, on 10/10/2007, -4/+14"Do Diggers Think Global Warming is Over-Rated?"
Yes.
"Is global warming just a MYTH ?"
No. It's just an inadequate abstraction of a climate change process.
P.S. global emission control is underrated . - jmpeagle, on 10/10/2007, -5/+15remember when Bird Flu was all the rage...that takes me back
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Why is it that people will assume that climate scientists have conspired to trick the world about climate change, but those same people quote "scientists" and think tanks with direct finacial ties to oil companies, and don't seem to see the much more likely conspiracy: the oil companies are paying the dissenting voices (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exx ... )
Why do people who "know how science works" not know that real science and real scientific debate is found is peer-reviewed journals it is NOT found in the media, by politicians, and especially NOT by think tanks. Why are peer-reviewed studies given the same weight as non peer-reviewed work? That is not how science works. The consensus is clear (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570 ... )
Why do people who are not climate scientists think they know better than the consensus of experts in the field of climatology. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8"Lack of consensus" this is one of those things that people say but have no evidence for.
The truth is, there IS a consensus in the scientific community that earth is warming and man is causing it. You've just had your perceptions of the matter distorted by right-wing spin doctors who push this talking point that "there is no consensus". But it's rubbish. - chmeee, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8Oooh, ooh! And I hope for a rainbow-colored winged percheron!
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Diggers like to assume that they're the super-elite of the news-reading crowd when they're just.. people. Read the aforementioned article and replace "Diggers" with "Americans".
When Jeremy Walters’ interview with leading weather scientist Sir John Houghton created some interest in America, I was surprised to read the comments left by, and the sheer quantity of Americans who are convinced that as far as global warming goes there really is nothing to worry about.
^^ not that far fetched. - whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10There has never been such a thing as a "stable environment" on earth - go back and you will see ice ages and warm periods.
- wtbuser, on 10/10/2007, -6/+12Nice post. People seem to forget that consensus science is not science, its consensus.
- TGMD, on 10/10/2007, -5/+11You have?
- weztex, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6 We do not need to be afraid or feel guilty...we just need to do what we can to help change attitudes on waste and our responsibilities to future generations. I think.
- lukifer, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10The rate at which our civilizations burn through fossil fuels is positively insane. Global warming is like evolution: some details are in dispute, but if you think the whole thing is a hoax, you're living in denial. It's not a reason to panic, but neither is it something we can ignore.
- Kethinov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8Seven of the ten most intense hurricanes ever recorded occurred within the last ten years.
Two of the only four hurricane seasons to have more than one category five storm in a single season occurred within the last 3 years.
In the last several decades global land and sea temperatures have risen proportionally right along side C02 levels.
And so on.
Yes, correlation does not prove causation, but there are *so many* completely *direct* correlations that causation is the overwhelmingly most likely conclusion. Skeptics at this point claiming that it's all political FUD seem more afraid of opposing political viewpoints than they purport their opponents to be of global warming. - StatiK69, on 10/10/2007, -3/+9I have asthma... and of course doctors said move to Arizona, because of the dry climate, it'll help. I've been here 14 years and have watched the cloud over the city grow and felt my asthma worsen. Whether global warming is a myth or not, all of the pollution has to do something bad to this planet. Oh... and it's almost the end of September and just days ago we were still in the 100's, our monsoon was almost nonexistent. So maybe there is something behind this global warming.
- Squarsh, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12Who could possibility believe that ***** all over the earth with reckless disregard for the environment would ever have a tangible effect? NOT ME! Burn plastic grocery bags to fuel Chinese factories to make more plastic grocery bags. ***** the ozone hole! Responsible use of resources is for 3rd world suckers!
- Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6peer-reviewed science has been very clear on this issue for quite some time. The only confused scientists are the ones who get paid by oil companies, and whose research should be trusted because it isnt in peer-reviewed journals
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5It's sort of sad--It's like there are only two modes, casual neglect and rampant overhyping. I blame Television.
- davidwasman, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10Digg is being over-run by morons. Whether it's the Ron Paul jackasses or the right-wing zealots, they all know this is a place they can use to sway opinion. It's sickening---but it's apparently (and sadly) working.
Next week I bet we see a story actually complimenting Bush. Oh the humanity... - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9You can see the cyclical pattern of earth's climate? Really? You'd have to be over a few tens of thousands of years old to even get a glimpse of it.
Oh, and there hasn't been a similar warming period as this. The Medieval warming period was very brief, and nothing like what we're experiencing now.
What really does it for me? Seeing deer and cougars 600 miles more north because the snow pack isn't as deep or frozen hard anymore. Permafrost melting, polar bears drowing, and BIG ***** CHUNKS of ice falling off the Antarctic ice shelf. Those aren't exactly common events. - deflective, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Anyone who still thinks that global warming isn't real is in such a state of denial that it really isn't worth debating them.
People that take the position that the effects of global warming may not be all bad have a more interesting argument. Even so, it's best to find out how they came to that position. All to often you find that they slipped from the 'global warming is fake' position ten years ago to the 'effects of global warming are unknown' without any real consideration.
Just like 'Iraq has ties to Al Kaida' to 'Saddam has WMDs', people follow it because they want to support the conclusion of the argument more than they believe it has any real merit.
Right now, mostly, people are just tired of the shill shrieking of environmentalist lobbyists. It's hard to get anyone to make personal sacrifices for someone else, much less for someone hasn't even been born yet. This much I do know, overstating your case to get attention will backfire in the long run. - Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4You're confusing "educated" with "blasted by conflicting talking points".
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Scientists aren't members of some secret club you have to join to get that title. The Scientific Method is probably the greatest tool that man has, and shouldn't be limited to people who call themselves "Scientists" and hold themselves above the rest of us.
Present a Hypothesis. Develop a way to test said hypothesis. Verify your result. Really, it's that easy. - theuniversal, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Because most people aren't actually interested in finding out what is true and what is false. They are too lazy to dig deeply into anything. They would rather just pick and choose a few simple soundbites to support the vision of the world they already hold, and have already invested themselves into. Hence idiotic soundbites like this one from the first post: "We know how science works and we know that the logical fallacy that correlation doesn't equate causation" - as if if only more climate scientists would only improve their understanding of how science works and take another class in logic, they could then all smack their heads in unison, shout 'doh', and then the silly 90%+ scientific consensus on human-caused global warming would disappear.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Stop being afraid. Start taking action. Taking control of a situation helps eliminate the fear of it.
- Ebacherville, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I believe its over rated, but I also believe we need to stop burning dinosaur based fuel or it will be a problem, I personally burn a renewable bio fuel in my car and to heat my home. I also believe we shoudl build our home out of better materials that are renewable or recyceed like Straw bale homes or papercrete or earthship homes.. We need to tread lightly or nature wont be able to compensate for out destruction.. we have been raping the planet for to many years.
- ZenMojo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4The article pretty much says what everyone here on digg knows but won't admit. Libertarians are disproportionately represented on digg, and the climate change debate implies a regulatory storm surge that goes against their very beliefs (see: an effective system of free public transportation that was shouted down without counterexamples). Granted, whatever regulation comes will probably be quite necessary, but to admit this is to abandon the ethos of one's political position altogether, that less regulation makes the world a better place.
So digg finds on the global warming issue a combination of Libertarian skeptics and Republicans in denial from which a well-spring of counterpositioning (often without any specific examples and blanket statements) appears. - Bennettskaya, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6There may be room for argument about the effect that man is having on global warming. There may even be room for argument about whether we are experiencing global warming as anything other than a blip in the graph.
What is not in doubt is that we are raping this planet with pollution. Don't anyone let arguments about global warming be a red herring to deflect from the fact that we should clean up the mess we are making. - DMDekoth, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Did I say that? No, I'm just sick of hearing it on Digg. I already know about global warming, I don't need a story popping up every day trying to make me feel guilty or doomed. New information, fine, but this story is not new information. I just hate redundancy - I'm no fan of the endless ipod, bioshock, vista, halo stories either.
Digg me down, I'm done with this pointless argument. - harryspinner, on 10/10/2007, -7/+10it's real alright
- skubiszm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Reading the Wikipedia entry for Global Warming doesn't count.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4What, you're suggesting North Americans give up their comfortable lifestyle?
That's a sure way to get Dugg down. Too bad that it's this way anytime anyone mentions the environment. It's all good until someone suggests people actually change their lifestyles.
Then it's all excuses on why they shouldn't change. Too bad Mother Nature doesn't listen to excuses. We're *****. - InfiniteNothing, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6Buried. Articles about articles are not news, they're circle jerk.
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yeah. We've stopped the wind, turned the tide and parted seas....not really.
Sorry pal, mother nature still shows us up when it wants too. No amount of human willpower stopped the levies from topping during Katrina.
Hubris. It's the downfall of any man, and apparently may be the downfall of our entire species. - obliviousfool, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4The problem with this type of thinking is that we don't know what the effects of certain feedback mechanisms will be.
What will happen to the climate when the cooling effect of polar ice albedo is lost?
What will happen to the climate when permafrosts melt and release their greenhouse gases?
What will happen to the climate when warmer oceans hold less CO2?
What will happen to our climate if a massive thawing of ocean methane clathrate deposits occurs?
Right now we're seeing our climate change gradually. If we start hitting these feedback mechanisms, the changes may not remain so gradual. - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I'm with you.
I'd rather hear about solutions than more about the problem. It's just pissing and moaning about how doomed we are without trying to save ourselves, or more nitpicking about the exact cause of climate change. You could argue until the end of time about what caused it.
Who cares, it's happening. Do something about it already. - bromac, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Government will not save us from this. They just want to keep themselves at the top so that they ride out this storm safely.
I suspect human kind will make it through whatever changes are ahead. But it's going to be a wild ride. - stoppedcode12, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Why does it matter if it's caused by man-kind or if it's natural? If the world were to naturally freeze completely within the next century, should we do nothing about it?
- airiox, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Just like they said that this was going to be the worst hurricane season ever? Sorta like that yearly prediction that 9 times out of 10 is wrong? Sorta like that?
- BobTrips, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There may or there not be a tiger behind the door.
That one over there where you hear the growling. And smell large cat pee.
Think it might be good idea to figure out how to exit the room quickly if the door starts to open?
Or should we just sit idly by, wait, and see? - fantasy56, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2At the end of the day it all comes down to money, world leaders are not interested in the best welfare of the earth. All they care about is money and the vote, the term "Global Warming" is now starting to become popular, which means people are willing to put their money into the idea. When the mass public and news networks get behind an idea, it doesn't really matter how much scientific proof you have to disprove the idea it will inevitably be adopted by money and vote hungry politicians trying to get 'the mob' on their side.
My Question is - is there a scientific document to prove or disprove global warming beyond a natural rate that does not have any political influence in it at all? - Scruffydan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3that may be true bit it's not what is being discussed
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Great. Do you listen to them?
- Terr01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"Is he"? In a thirty minute deadline? Hell yes.
- whataboutdave, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1What we're experiencing today is no where near even the medieval warm period. projections may be in excess of the time, but so far we are within the range of normal world temperatures.
- deflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1you missed one:
it should be 'All too often' not 'All to often' - deflective, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I didn't say I wasn't looking at the arguments and evaluating them, just not trying to change the mind of people who have decided to believe them.
There are still people who believe that the earth is the center of the universe. It's interesting to see why they would choose to believe this but I'm not going to try change their mind. If, with everything arrayed against their position, they still choose to believe it then there's absolutely nothing I could do that would change their mind. - DestroyFascism, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Would be nice to have clean cheap if not free energy and Zippy electric cars that make piston engines look pathetic.....
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is