digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at learningfundamentals.com.au

Do Something: Solving Global Warming [PIC]

learningfundamentals.com.au — A multitude of ways you can help. Who will you be?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • dotlizard, on 03/05/2008, -24/+110you know, it really is pretty simple. even if you're a global warming skeptic, no one could possibly argue that if everyone followed that little map, life on earth would improve. it really doesn't matter if we are the whole entire reason for global warming or just part of the reason, we have been really careless with our planet. the point is we can change, we can do better.
    • jjustice, on 03/05/2008, -6/+7I know what you mean, but, at the same time, there are a *lot* of things that would get fixed easily if you could get *everyone* to do a certain thing =[
    • Thud, on 03/05/2008, -20/+9Global warming? That's soooo last year.
      In the past 12 months, several credible climate institutes recorded the single fastest global temperature change every observed-- global temperatures have DROPPED SIGNIFICANTLY since the start of 2007.

      http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/ja ...

      Clearly, we just passed some sort of tipping point that is triggering a new ice age. We're all gonna die!!!
      • DelayedEraser, on 03/05/2008, -6/+8not that this needs to get into a detailed debate AGAIN... but a temperature change tracked over a single year has absolutely nothing – repeat, nothing – to do with measuring global warming or climate change.
        • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -6/+6not when the evidence isn't in your favor. the global temperature drop was so steep that it literally does wipe out a hundred years of "warming" data trend-building.

          hows this, if we don't have a record hot year next year will you finally perhaps admit you or Al Gore don't know what you're talking about?
          • Isidore, on 03/05/2008, -4/+7One month's evidence does not make a trend.
            No one on the IPCC doubts that climate is complex and that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.

            Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ...

            but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ...

            Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that all global warming can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 (3 mins)

            The hypothesis that natural causes alone explain recent climate change has been falsified.

            Can the deniers produce a climate model using natural factors alone which explains recent global warming?
          • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -1/+6"One month's evidence does not make a trend. "

            I didn't say one month, you did. I was talking about over the course of 2007.

            "Can the deniers produce a climate model using natural factors alone which explains recent global warming?"

            Yes, it is extremely easy: a model showing increasing solar activity, a model re-evaluating the previously-collected data to factor in the increasing urbanization and heat-trapping properties of areas near temperature monitoring stations, a model to factor in the utter destandardization and large uncertainty rates of data collected before the advent of electricity, shall I continue? I could do this all day if I was paid for it.

            Accurately predicting novel events in earth's atmospheric climate is impossible. Even according to Al Gore, who was once questioned about the utter direness of his rising sea level claims by George Stephanopolis, had this to say about the validity of using climate models as a justification for his predictions:

            "(Scientists) don't have any models that give them a high level of confidence"

            one way or the other and then claimed - in his defense no less - scientists "don't know. . . . They just don't know."

            http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008597
          • TsuruchiBrian, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2It is easy to make a climate model that can produce whatever results you want. It just probably won't be a good model. However the fact is that NO climate models are good ones. Even the most advanced climate models that predict global warming don't take into account the effect of clouds. Even once they do take into effect clouds and other important factors, that does not mean that the model is correctly using these factors.

            The true test of these models will be if they accurately predict future climate for many years. Unfortunately none of them have been able to do this. Climate is very complicated.
        • Rikkochet, on 03/05/2008, -0/+9Go to google and punch in 'define statistical outlier' and then come back.
        • cygnus2112, on 03/05/2008, -1/+8I have a better chart for climate change that Al Gore and others ignore:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core ...
        • cygnus2112, on 03/05/2008, -1/+7Or even this one:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Tempera ...
        • Thud, on 03/05/2008, -2/+6And yet, any time somebody has a hotter than normal day, or a particular state gets less rainfall than normal for a year, it's quickly attributed to "global warming." Interesting. I remember when global warming caused all those hurricanes in 2005, and it was only going to get worse. Al Gore said so.
          The hurricane seasons since then have been rather mild-- so 2004-2005 looks more like a fluke, rather than indicative of a trend... no?
          • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6In 1997, Gore predicted Buenos Aires temperatures to be dramatically increasing due to more south pacific El Nino events, ten years later the ocean is dominated by La Nina events and Buenos Aires records its lowest summer temperature in 90 years. He simply doesn't know what he's talking about.

            http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/november_2 ...

            It will be interesting to see how much longer he can keep the charade up -- hopefully somebody will call him out on this (and he'll actually take notice) before he just sort of fades from the limelight altogether, with his ill-gotten spoils in tact.
      • muchachoburacho, on 03/05/2008, -1/+7http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictiona ...
      • frazw, on 03/05/2008, -2/+22Yeah Thud, I know what you mean. It's obvious that global warming is a total myth just invented by governments to lay more tax on us.
        The fact of the matter IS that temperature are dropping. I mean this afternoon it was quite warm but now a mere 6 hours later it's freezing here.
        I was gonna do more research involving longer time spans and different locations but you know I got bored and I got the result I wanted and expected so that's proof enough for me. I mean 50 years of research might have shown one thing but my research blows that out of the water coz its up to date and I'm a credible source so I must be 100% correct at all times.
        Take that hippies!
        (do I really need the sarcasm tag for this one?)
      • Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1I'm going to be bold and suggest he was using sarcasm. It's not like the subject of the last sentence, in conjunction with "!!!" gave it away or anything. Nor was it the extra ooo in the word soooo, or the phrase "That was so (insert whatever)," which usually implies some kind of jesting.
        • muchachoburacho, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Dude half of digg would have missed that if he hadn't said it
        • frazw, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1i thought that until i saw one of his other posts
    • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -14/+8"no one could possibly argue that if everyone followed that little map, life on earth would improve."

      We should mandate that people follow the Great Map or be composted, as humans are overpopulating the earth, wasting its precious energy by having to eat and be alive; not to forget exhaling dangerous greenhouse gasses.

      Its the only way to defeat the blatant fascism of the denierists!

      /not
    • monkeybacon, on 03/05/2008, -12/+7The fact that people like you don't understand the full costs of everyone following this map illustrates part of the great problem. You do not have the ability to see the full outcome of the changes you propose, all you see is the (supposed) positives without also looking at the negatives. How could life be worse you ask? OK, so if everyone stops flying, do you have any idea how many people in poor countries depend on tourism dollars to survive? What do you think will happen to them once everyone stops flying on vacation? Ah yes, you may only go on vacation to places you can walk or bike to, great.
      • trogdor282, on 03/05/2008, -9/+6If we stop riding in buggies, what will happen to the horse industry? Oh noes!!
        • monkeybacon, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6Of course you completely miss the point. I am not suggesting protectionist measures to protect those in the tourism industry, I am making the point that liberal do-gooders rarely think about the full consequences of their proposed cures for societies ills. And I stand by my statement that life would not be better for millions if not billions of people if everyone followed this map. Of course what you people really mean is that your guilty liberal rich (by world standards) conscience would feel much better if everyone followed this map. Certainly some of the things on this map are ok or harmless, but this blind submission to global warming hysteria is out of control.

          "The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." -- Henry Hazlitt
          • jezsik, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1Ooooh kaaaaay, you say would should not follow this strategy because we can't see the full effect? So what are the terrible effects YOU see? Tourism goes down for some countries? I can live with that. Maybe it's time to bring back clipper ships and have two month vacations! In any event, I can see the full effect of NOT following the strategy and the outcome is not good.
          • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2following this strategy is no different than following a religion -- it is clinging to a belief despite its contrariness to logic and reality
          • jezsik, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1bullcutter, kindly point out the contrariness to logic and reality, please.
        • Logicexe, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1You're absolutely right monkeybacon, there will be some negative effects if we were to follow that map, but you know what? What do you think would happen if we followed our present course? Fossil fuel supplies will begin to decline in our lifetime, our mass industrial farming is slowly wearing away at our topsoil, we're consuming resources at exponentially increasing rates, many places are experiencing severe water shortages and whether or not the CO2 we put in the air is having an effect on our climate right now if we continue it will eventually have an effect. CO2 is a warming gas, adding enough of it to the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise, this is not debatable, this has been tested in the laboratory, it's not climate science it's pure physics. It's because of GHG that Venus is hotter than Mercury.

          We will have to change our ways at some point. What would you prefer? A gradual decline in our consumption with the goal of creating a sustainable economy? Or a catastrophic crash with depleted resources, hyperinflation, pollution and food and water shortages?
          • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3"CO2 is a warming gas, adding enough of it to the atmosphere will cause the temperature to rise, this is not debatable, this has been tested in the laboratory, it's not climate science it's pure physics."

            sorry bro, but that's *****. a laboratory isn't the same thing as the earth's atmosphere -- yes carbon traps heats but still comprises less than 0.038% of the earth's atmosphere.

            the fact is, water vapor accounts for 95-99% of the earth's current greenhouse effect, and natural fluctuations across the earth's surface in this percentile range FAR outweigh CO2's contribution to the greenhouse effect. To top it off, there was more water vapor added to the earth's atmosphere in the past 150 years by volcanoes than there is all anthropogenically-derived atmospheric CO2.

            As well, it has NEVER been demonstrated that a rise in atmospheric CO2 is necessarily causative of warming global atmospheric temperature, as a matter of fact evidence tends to point to the contrary.

            http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6813/fu ...
          • Logicexe, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1Yes it comprises a small portion of the atmosphere and adding more will increase the atmosphere's retention of heat. Ever notice how the climatologists are only claiming that the temperature is only increasing by a few degrees?

            Of course water vapor produces the large majority of the greenhouse, so what? Just because water vapor comprises the majority doesn't mean other gases don't also play a role. Water also tends to not build up in the atmosphere. There's this meteorological phenomenon where water vapor condenses and actually falls from the sky, you might have heard of it, it's called rain. What CO2 can do is increase the atmosphere's average temperature and thus increase the atmosphere's water retention, thus causing more warming. Ever notice how humidity is calculated as a percentage? That's because at any given temperature the atmosphere can only hold a given amount of water before it condenses and falls. Besides just warming the atmosphere with its own warming properties it increases the amount of water vapor (the major GHG) and that amplifies the effect CO2 would have if there was no water vapor. It acts as a catalyst.

            Funny how you cite one article in nature yet you ignore the thousands of climate studies done that show a link between CO2 and temperature. Cherry pick your evidence much?
          • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2"Of course water vapor produces the large majority of the greenhouse, so what? "

            so what? how about water vapor is a much, much stronger & more prevalent greenhouse gas than CO2, for starters?

            "What CO2 can do is increase the atmosphere's average temperature and thus increase the atmosphere's water retention, thus causing more warming."

            You are assuming that such a tiny increase in atmospheric CO2 can generate enough heat in order to retain "more" water vapor, and this is false, it has never been demonstrated to occur in the earth's atmosphere. there are other driving elements in the atmosphere which are responsible for modulating climate change which you completely ignore. funny how you accuse me of "cherry picking" when your model for warming is so closed and incomplete to begin with. besides, carbon dioxide has sinks too. it doesn't all stay up in the atmosphere.

            "yet you ignore the thousands of climate studies done that show a link between CO2 and temperature."

            thousands? are you mad? there's a handful at most that address the "link", and NONE that demonstrate rising atmospheric temperatures are caused by increased atmospheric CO2. please provide one that does.
          • Logicexe, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1OK, now you're just spouting *****. A five minute look around the IPCC's website provides all the data you asked for. But I guess they're just all part of the liberal conspiracy right?
    • nathanbutnet, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Simply put we need to do much more to decrease the amount of our pollution and *gasp* possibly look into a sane population management philosophy to address the root of the problem (too many people on the globe).
      • gabeh73, on 03/05/2008, -2/+2Next Bush Speech:
        "and I think I know just the team to put in place a sane population mangement strategy. "

        Chairman Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot...if you'll just coordinate your plans with the FEMA agency, Mr Chertoff, Mr Wolfowitz and my old friend mr Kissinger...I'm sure we'll be able to manage this population just like int he good ole days...my dad and Kissinger helped old Mao come up with the idea of killing babies if a family had more than one and that was a tremendous acheivement...my grand pa also had some experience in this, he helped fund Hitler when he was over at Brown Borthers Harriman, hell, there is my old buddy David Rockefller, he is an old pro at this too...we have all star management team for population control right here!....god bless america.
        • jezsik, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2The good folks of Grameen Bank discovered that if poor peasant families received education and better financal opportunities they produced fewer children.
        • nathanbutnet, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Honestly I would hope that it would not be that kind of crew running this effort, but I suppose my point is that I don't want us being the proverbial bacteria in a petri dish. http://www.culturechange.org/issue19/overpop_terro ...
    • CabesMojo, on 03/05/2008, -5/+6That little chart is a joke. Better for the world even if you are a skeptic? Hardly. Just don't fly? Ok so everyone whose lives revolve around travel in airplanes should just give that up then eh? Hell lets just shut down the airports..............that would leave poor Al Gore without his favorite mode of travel. Be a catalyst? So we should spread the myth of man made global warming even if we are skeptic?

      This chart is just some green person's view on how we should all live and how they would love to force us to live and follow their views because they think they know best for us. While I whole heartedly agree with being more energy efficient, I took part in the design more efficient power saving exhaust fans and work on reducing buildings heating and cooling costs professionally, this is nothing but a hippy art project.
      • gummih, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1Sorry, it's no myth - it's a proven fact that man contributes to global warming - the only debate is whether or not we are wholly to blame or if other factors play any significant part.
    • TsuruchiBrian, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3I am a global warming skeptic. (different than actively believing that global warming is a false hypothesis)
      The only part that I think is not true is that using recycled paper saves forests. We have tree farms that exist for the sole purpose of producing wood and paper. If anything using less wood products would slightly decrease the total amount of trees in the US. The rest of the world may be different.

      Furthermore recycling paper (depending on the grade) can do a lot of harm to the environment. They use bleaches and other chemicals to whiten recycled paper and it is arguably less environmentally friendly than simply growing more trees and cutting them down. We should probably even switch to using more paper for things like bags rather than plastic.

      Just because something is recyclable doesn't make it a good idea to recycle it. paper is perfectly biodegradable, and it costs more money/labor/energy than just making new paper. Same goes with glass. Aluminum and other metals are good for recycling.
      • bitcloud, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Yeah I agree... Recycling is industrialised ecology...

        Nature recycles paper as it stands... (and if it can't because of dyes or chemicals we need to change the manufacturing process)
    • Spektr4, on 03/06/2008, -0/+4You'll also find that you save money. Since I've become more conscious of my own consumption (food, material goods), I've realized how wasteful the Western lifestyle is. Simplifying isn't just better for the environment; it's better for your wallet.
    • GreyICE, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Want to save the world and make it a better place? Its easy as hell. And no, it doesn't involve solar water heaters or not flying or other razzle-dazzle. It'll even save you money. The solution? Stop wasting.

      Install $1 aerators in your sink. They'll pay for themselves in water bill reductions in 50 minutes of sink operation (Dependent on area, obviously, but 15 minutes - 2 hours is a solid range)
      Install low-flow, efficient, high-quality showerheads. $5-10 unless you're going way over the top. Pays for itself fast.
      Stop your sinks, toilets, and bathtubs from leaking. That's anywhere from $30 a year to a few hundred. Per leak.
      Take a can of insulating foam (maybe $5-$15 from a hardware store). Go around your attic and look for areas where the pink insulation has turned dark yellow. That's a hole in your house. Fill it. Then go around the outside of your house, and foam fill any holes for wires, pipes, or anything else. That could be hundreds.
      Follow the duct work around your basement. Use that foam can (its probably not empty yet) to seal any gaps where the duct goes through. Do the same for pipes.

      Every one of these will save you money. It'll take you maybe a weekend, and you'll save hundreds a year. And you'll save the earth.

      So no, green doesn't have to mean fuel cells or hybrid vehicles or not flying. Use cloth bags, check the air in your tires, an make sure not to waste.
    • NichowA, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Sorry, but I'm not going to eat less meat. Steaks are my friend.
  • mareacaspica, on 03/05/2008, -11/+13as cliche as it is, we should become the change we wish to see
    • cygnus2112, on 03/05/2008, -0/+4I want to become a million dollar bill.
      • silencerider151, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1I'm pretty sure it still wouldn't be legal tender.
      • gummih, on 03/06/2008, -0/+21. change name to Bill
        2. put self on ebay, starting bid 1 million dollars
        3. ???
        4. Profit
  • eastwood24, on 03/05/2008, -24/+19I'd like to second the idea of limiting the number of children to two. Oh how morons love to procreate
    • ichchappycat, on 03/05/2008, -4/+5Like Mike Judge's prophesy on Idiocracy :D
    • zengonzo, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5I think there is another explanation for Idiocracy ... After all, some intelligent people had to be around to build those systems that cater to the stupid people.

      I think the smart people banded together, made a spaceship, told all the dummies they were going to the library and would anyone else like to come, and then took off to get a fresh start leaving the Earth to consume itself to death.

      A somewhat more optimistic perspective ..
      • chipperrocks10, on 03/05/2008, -3/+0That would explain why YOU are here, but what about the rest of us?
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/05/2008, -1/+4No, they spent their years building self sustaining idiot proof systems, and never had time to mate...
      • mbelrose, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2When I got on the B-Ark, they told me the other Golgafrinchams would be along shortly.
      • jezsik, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Years ago I read a short story that described that very thing, but with a twist. In the future, all the smart people of the world were responsible for doing all the smart things (like keeping planes in the air) while the dummies procreated and procreated. They revived a 20th century salesman who gave them a great idea. They started a vacation service to Mars but sent everyone to some tropical island instead where they told their friends how great Mars was when the returned. This increased demand so they built some huge rockets and started blasting all the dummies to the real Mars. I wish I could remember who wrote it.
    • laughandsing, on 03/05/2008, -13/+7Do you have any idea where we would be if people only had two children? Well we wouldnt have a stove, a fire department, street lights, bifocals... Benjamin Franklin was the 17th child. Sure its uncommon to have that many children, but its a completely different environment to grow up in. People are unbelievable. What gives one person right to tell another how many children they are allowed to have. I for one don't want to live in a communistic regime like China.. who madates abortions for people who have more than one child. Rediculous.
      • leaknoil, on 03/05/2008, -4/+7You do understand the population and life expectancy when Benjamin Franklin was born was vastly different then it is today don't you ? People had more kids because they tended to die.

        Nobody is 'mandating' anything. They are suggesting that you take the future welfare of the planet and your own children into account before you pop out another one because babies are just so cute and everyone gives you the attention you don't get otherwise in your small little life. People don't need more then 1-2 kids anymore. Its just being selfish.
        • typo180, on 03/05/2008, -1/+6Most people don't need any kids. How about adopting? We have lots of kids who need homes. Why make more?
        • laughandsing, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2First of all... I do not have any children. People also do not just pop out babies to get attention. Some people do.. but not the vast majority. Also... How is having more than 2 children selfish. Just because people dont know how to budget or be creative, doesnt mean that it is impossible to give your children a good life. People from large families tend to help their communities more... tend to have tighter family bonds... The future of the planet is not dependent on how many children a person has. Also... people did not only have children because the vast amount died. Some have them for religous reasons... Some to help out at home...or on farms.
        • elementop, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2@laughandsing:
          Quote: How is having more than 2 children...?
          A husband and a wife are two people, no? If this couple then has two children, then all they have done is replace themselves in the next generation. If *everybody* in the world did this, then the population would no longer grow, and we wouldn't have to worry about how much longer this world's resources will be able to support the ever-increasing population. IIRC, there are now 6.5 BILLION people on the planet. If every one of these people picks a mate and this couple has three children, then in the next generation, the population will be over NINE billion (1.5 X 6.5 billion). Yes, this ignores the fact that not everyone will survive to procreate, but this should serve as an example to explain the reasoning behind the idea of limiting yourself to no more than two children per family.
      • mbelrose, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5Are you one of those people who believe *only* one person could have invented each thing? Someone else would have invented it instead, probably at nearly the same time. We're still arguing over who invented the radio
      • mattyfatty182, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3Actually, China doesn't MANDATE abortions. The aborted and abandoned children are a result of financial punishment they put on those families that have more than one child.

        Similar concepts, but it isnt MANDATED. You should try reading once and awhile.
        http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/ ...
      • laughandsing, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1"Fines,pressures to abort a pregnancy, and even forced sterilization accompanied second or subsequent pregnancies." Not mandated? Why dont you read. This is not only a fine. A government shouldn't have the right to do this. Everyone cries about the patriot act...and they want to add this to it? Take away more of our rights?
    • chipperrocks10, on 03/05/2008, -6/+1Your theory allows morons to procreate just as much as intelligent forms (2 each). How does that help?
    • DeFex, on 03/05/2008, -1/+6you need to take a test to drive a car. you need a license to have a dog. yet any tard can have a brat.
      • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1pro state I see
        • Opiate, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2Indeed.. it's a shame nazi ideals haven't died off.. if anything they are stronger then ever.
    • jessethouin, on 03/05/2008, -5/+6I'll have you know my wife is pregnant with our 5th child. We don't use any more electricity now than when we first got married (I know because I check the bills for usage). We buy fresh food - locally when we can. We drive no more now than we did when we first met. I can list many more examples of how our consumption hasn't changed. Can someone please explain why more than 2 children is a bad idea? Are we trying to reduce the population of the earth?

      What if one of my children grows up to contribute a solution to all this mess? What if it's the 5th one?

      Finally, I would rather experience the vast amount of love in our family than save a hundred species. Call it selfish, but perhaps if any of you morons had children you would understand.
      • doogie68, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5Hmm, something tells me that when your five children grow up to be a big adult like you, they might actually want to live in their own houses, with their own families, and each of them might consume their own electricity and have their own automobiles. So, in total, they would collectively consume more than the progeny of a family with two kids. Probably about two and a half times as much. Why is this such a difficult concept for people to understand?
      • Hananda, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3"Are we trying to reduce the population of the earth?"

        That's exactly what we should be doing, yes. Stabilizing the population is all well and good in the short term, but ultimately a global population of roughly 800 million is what we should be shooting for in terms of sustainability.
        • thugok, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1Actually 8.6 billion is better. See, my random number beats yours. Go ***** die in a fire with everyone else that has some "magic" population number that the earth can support.
      • jezsik, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3Do you consume the same amount of food? Do you produce the same amount of waste as you did back then? Will those children require additional living space when they're older? Will they reproduce as well? What would happen if everyone was "selfish" as you and had five kids (each of which had five kids)? You're right about one of them coming up with a cure for all our ills, but it's equally possible one of them will grow up to inflict some horrendous hardship on the planet.
      • Opiate, on 03/06/2008, -2/+2Don't let the human haters bring you down, do what you please. I'm sure they will be productive unlike the others here who want the gov to be mommy.
      • RedHerringHack, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1Well said.
    • twertyto, on 03/05/2008, -3/+3Number of children is irrelevant. One child from crappy parents can do more harm then 10 children from good parents. Instead of trying to institute brainless social policies of population control let's actually try to fix the diffiuclt problem and help people raise their kids correctly.
      • RedHerringHack, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1First we need to bury no child left behind. What we are doing is dragging all the smart kids down, rather than building the dumb ones up. That is the way it works. Stupid kids cannot choose to be smart, but smart kids can choose to be dumb. We are letting our children down.
  • cledford, on 03/05/2008, -10/+3Where is Digg on there? :/
  • MarkusGarvey, on 03/05/2008, -16/+10im gonna print this out for my sons school!....
  • Tomboys, on 03/05/2008, -4/+16It's missing starting a compost pile.
  • dannenberg, on 03/05/2008, -11/+6This is the truest piece of information I saw today.
  • ichchappycat, on 03/05/2008, -8/+3I'm going to print this out so I can be reminded occasionally.
  • JimmySpaza, on 03/05/2008, -36/+30Where is the Goracle and his Church of Global Warming?

    Certainly, Algore must be included...since it was his efforts that finally showed us all how we are destroying the planet...and volcanos and other natural processes are minimal compared to human footprints.

    Of course, a single average-sized volcano produces more global warming pollution in one year than all humanity has ever produced in the history of the world...but who's counting when there is hysteria to promote...and big bucks to be made?
    • neckfire, on 03/05/2008, -22/+8Conservation isn't frivolous you peabrain. If you think big oil isn't making profits hand over fist you are deluded.
      • JimmySpaza, on 03/05/2008, -8/+12Who said that conservation is frivolous? Who said that big oil isn't making huge, obscene profits?

        Don't call me a peabrain when you're the one making up lies about my post.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/05/2008, -1/+4The practice of Conservationism is good.
        The Church of Environmentalism is bad.
        • bitcloud, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1things can never be just positive to some people...

          The practice of Conservationism is good.
          The fact that people actually ENJOY participating in Environmentalism is good.
    • hydroplane, on 03/05/2008, -5/+7You're absolutely right, we can beat those stink'n volcanoes. We aren't trying hard enough. Step it up.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/05/2008, -0/+5I heard that this Xenu fella had an idea that involved H-bombs and volcanoes...
    • MidnightRealism, on 03/05/2008, -12/+5Are you retarded? If the picture has nothing to do with Gore then why are you dragging him into it?
      • fleischner, on 03/05/2008, -4/+6Well, I think the fact that Gore did receive (part of) a Nobel Peace Prize for this nonsense, he can be mentioned in ANY global warming conversation. Sort of like how the Left can bring Bush into just about any conversation on any topic.
        • WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2008, -2/+1It's funny that people who reject AGW bring up Al Gore more often than the AGW proponents do.
        • typo180, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Or how broad political and social categories can be used to dismiss someone else's ideas in a derogatory manner in just about any conversation on any topic.
      • bearcat8543, on 03/06/2008, -0/+0or the fact that the picture states "watch inconvenient truth"
    • WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2008, -7/+16Oh, stop it with the "Goracle" nonsense. If you bothered to think about the subject, instead of pithily dismissing it because it doesn't jibe with your worldview and/or consuming habits, you might find that most of us are able to care about the environment and our effect on it WITHOUT worshiping Gore.

      Oh, and by the way- that bit about volcanoes producing more CO2 than humans is false, which you'd know if you'd bother to do some research instead of regurgitating the denial industry's talking points: http://md1.csa.com/partners/viewrecord.php?request ...
      • bullcutter, on 03/05/2008, -6/+4" If you bothered to think about the subject, instead of pithily dismissing it because it doesn't jibe with your worldview and/or consuming habits, you might find that most of us are able to care about the environment and our effect on it WITHOUT worshiping Gore."

        Actually, in my experience it is usually the Warmist fanatics that have more grossly wasteful and exorbitant lifestyles, they are the ones who feel guilty about having too much for too little effort and therefore must blame themselves for destroying the earth, as they are of course always the center and end-all, be-all of everything.

        For example, Al Gore has a carbon footprint bigger than a small Tennessee town. I, a Denierist on the other hand, don't have a car, heating or even an air conditioner. What bugs the ***** out of me is how the "green" cause is being usurped to support the delusion that we are at imminent risk of being destroyed as a specie. WE ARE NOT, and whenever somebody tries to tell you that we are, you should ask yourself WHAT IS THIS ASSHOLE TRYING TO SELL ME? that I would believe something so evidently untrue (global warming has yet to kill 1 person).

        If you don't ask yourself this, its because you are not really thinking for yourself because you are content to live a closed-minded existence, content being taken advantage of by those you look up to because at least you get to feel like "part of the winning team."
        • WasabiBomb, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3Please explain how Al Gore's lifestyle affects MY choice to try to prevent global climate change. The only thing Gore did was to bring the debate over AGW to the forefront (which, frankly, was a good thing)- he's not my leader, and has no effect on me or the way I try to cut down on usage and emissions. As a matter of fact, the ONLY time I think about Al Gore is when someone like you brings him up in threads like these. I think you'll find I'm not the only AGW proponent who feels the same way.

          Frankly, the weird fascination you people have with Al Gore and his lifestyle is just kind of sad. If it bothers you so much, maybe you should try to talk to him about it, instead of using his theoretically hypothetical lifestyle as an excuse to dismiss the issue of global warming.
          • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -4/+2I'm just saying, the stuperstar of your movement is a phony jackass. Believing in global warming without accepting Al Gore is like believing in Christianity without accepting Jesus -- it makes no sense, as in either case the movement could not exist without the founder.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/06/2008, -2/+3No, you're only saying it so you have a clear target for your derision. You can't address the issue on its own, so you use Al Gore as a strawman. Hope you have fun with that.
          • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -3/+2"No, you're only saying it so you have a clear target for your derision. You can't address the issue on its own, so you use Al Gore as a strawman. Hope you have fun with that."

            You're a jackass. You are the one attacking my character instead of my argument. Please educate yourself and read any of my hundreds of comments deconstructing the arguments for global warming before you decide that I am a straw man-relier.
          • WasabiBomb, on 03/06/2008, -2/+2Feel free, Bullcutter, to show me where exactly I "attacked your character". You popped into this thread, obliquely called me a "warmist fanatic", implied that I'm only concerned about the environment because I'm overprivileged and self-centered (??), and then said that I'm not thinking for myself if I don't think the way you do.

            The only thing I said was that you seem to have a weird fascination with Al Gore, evident in the fact that you can't separate the messenger from the message. Granted, I accused you of using a strawman- which you ARE. Your only argument appears to be that you think Al Gore is a hypocrit- which is irrelevant, as the argument is over solving Global Warming, NOT how Al Gore lives his life. And now you're calling ME the jackass?

            Allow me to attack your character, now: You're an idiot.
    • frewdawg, on 03/05/2008, -7/+7Actually, Jimmy's right. Every Geologist in the world who knows anything about volcanic emissions would agree with him.
    • Isidore, on 03/05/2008, -4/+9JimmySpazza said
      "Of course, a single average-sized volcano produces more global warming pollution in one year than all humanity has ever produced in the history of the world"

      NOT TRUE
      All the volcanoes in the world combined amount to about 1 / 150th of human emissions emissions.

      Sources:
      http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
      http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg ...

      JimmySpazza produce your evidence.
      • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -1/+2you mean 1/150 of human CO2 emissions... the global warming Jimmy is referring to is the product of increased atmospheric water vapor and other heat-absorbing materials. the last eruption of Mt. Pinatubo alone created more global warming that global warming did.

        but nevermind all that, you've already let yourself be completely brainwashed so why stop now?
        • gummih, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1Ok, Pinatubo is a handy example, it was no normal eruption. It ejected the largest volume of aerosols ever recorded by modern instruments into the stratosphere. The result was not simple, although the aerosols absorbed much heat in the stratosphere they emitted much of it back out to space leading to a REDUCTION in the normal amount of sunlight reaching the earth's surface by roughly 10%. This led to a DECREASE in northern hemisphere average temperatures of 0.5–0.6 °C (0.9–1.1 °F), and a GLOBAL fall of about 0.4 °C (0.7 °F).
    • gummih, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1You, kind sir, are full of *****. And you also mr. frewdawq.
  • lazycat, on 03/05/2008, -7/+10"Don't fly" sounds kind of depressing :(
  • TEHxINTERWEBS, on 03/05/2008, -11/+41Shouldn't we eat more meat to decrease the methane coming from cows?
    • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3My town's landfill uses bottled methane (in propane tanks) to power their forklifts and bobcats... Methane is useful!
    • nycmac247, on 03/05/2008, -2/+1Its raising the wheat, etc. and water use to do so that's really bad.
      Also, know that many producers STILL feed cows to other cows and use bovine growth hormone...
      • lebruf, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2I bet raising wheat and corn doesn't help since photosynthesis doesn't require CO2
        • doogie68, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2This is either the most spectacularly understated piece of sarcasm I've ever seen on digg or else the most spectacularly ignorant thing I've ever seen on digg. Someone help me here...
    • typo180, on 03/05/2008, -3/+5Ah, but eating more meat would increase the demand for cows, so we would just start making more (in those cow manufacturing plants we have).
    • mrNesbitt, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1No no no no no no no no. This only works if you stop making more cows after you kill & eat the current ones ;) Also, nycmac247 is correct about the whole system being terrible beyond just the methane. (no)
    • BECoole, on 03/06/2008, -0/+5No, we should eat Liberals to decrease the hot air coming from them.
  • Auraness, on 03/05/2008, -5/+12Tyres ftw!
  • ChevyIIMan, on 03/05/2008, -14/+8Well were not part of the problem at all.... so
    • MidnightRealism, on 03/05/2008, -3/+12Yeah, the pollutants causing low-air quality days that make it hard to breathe outside that are so common around major metropolitan areas are entirely naturally occurring. No, wait, you're an idiot. Global warming is only part of what this picture is about.
      • ChevyIIMan, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1I dotn think you get it. WE CANNOT SOLVE GOLBAL WARMING. Can we clean up our air? Sure can we reduce pollutants so we can breath easier yes but can we solve the mythical GLOBAL WARMING? No
        • bitcloud, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1I second midnights comments...

          You're an idiot.
          I'm tired of having to speak down to you morons in the back.. keep up or shut up.
          • ChevyIIMan, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1"Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming."
  • doctechnical, on 03/05/2008, -7/+21I wish I'd had a copy of this last night around 10:00pm when the ice storms here took out the power and I was freezing. I could have used it to start a fire.
    Here's a tip that could go on the sheet: Paint your roof white to increase the albedo of your home and therefore reduce the amount of solar radiation that gets converted to heat.
    • 30thElement, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5Only in warm areas. If you do that in cold areas, it just means you have to burn more fossil fuels to heat your house.
      • SpaceMonkeyZero, on 03/05/2008, -2/+1Not to mention end up with MORE damaging ice dams on your gutters... eventually pulling parts of your roof off...
      • typo180, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Er...I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm. He meant that a white roof will convert less solar energy into heat - thereby reducing global warming. har har.
        • Logicexe, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1He's right though, painting your roof white would decrease your need for air conditioning and if enough people did it it could alter the planet's albedo ever so slightly so that in combination with the reduction in energy usage from A/C it might actually make a difference.
    • oxilite, on 03/06/2008, -0/+0Yeah, reminds me of the one that says Plant Trees. They have shown that planting trees in areas with lots of snow will increase global warming.
  • DarkSamus, on 03/05/2008, -9/+16"Stop ***** submitting millions of stories"
  • SpaceDreamer, on 03/05/2008, -5/+21they forgot "Insulate your place"
    • MrSlumberjack, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1Actually, they said to have an energy audit
    • tetsuwan, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1No they didn't, but it should be really blown up as something importan, along with efficient cooling for hotter areas.
  • Arisian, on 03/05/2008, -4/+61Find me a better way to travel overseas and then I will stop flying...
    • cosmotic, on 03/05/2008, -0/+10Flying is pretty damn efficient all things considered.
    • bradtacs, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3I don't think anyone sane is saying stop flying or driving completely just try to use other means when they are available
    • kete00, on 03/05/2008, -1/+9I'm no expert on the situation, but I'm pretty sure that a plane full of 200 people flying cross-country is far more efficient than 200 cars driving cross-country.
    • resonator, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Well here is the data for a Boeing 737.
      max fuel: 20,105 (liters)
      max range: 3,815 (kilometers)
      max passengers: 168

      5.27km per liter
      885.36km per liter per passenger.

      Data collected from http://www.planesimulation.com/737a.htm
      • gummih, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2A bit borked calculation there.
        I believe you wanted to say this:
        20,105 liters/ 3,815 kilometers = 5.27 l/km = 0.19km per liter
        31.88km per liter per passenger.
        = 75 miles per gallon per passenger
    • kevalin, on 03/06/2008, -0/+0You can just drive there, might get a little wet on the way. Just use this vehicle to do it, and bring a lot of fuel with you.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75rbwrArm1E&feature ...
      • melonade, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1That would defeat the purpose of avoiding flying.
  • wrongonce, on 03/05/2008, -9/+93In addition to "have only 2 kids", I propose "kill as many people as you can."
    • Mr.Gone, on 03/05/2008, -2/+34Yay! I will reduce everyone elses carbon footprint to zero!
    • tlenker, on 03/05/2008, -11/+9As long as they are idiot liberal global warmering cool-aid drinkers.
      • kete00, on 03/05/2008, -3/+2What's wrong with Kool-aid?
      • carterbaldwin, on 03/05/2008, -4/+4Aw c'mon, only five adjectives? I'm sure you can cram more in there. You're not even trying.
    • typo180, on 03/05/2008, -0/+20WAIT! Make sure you use bio-degradable bullets!
    • lebruf, on 03/05/2008, -2/+4Yeah, on his deathbead my father is going to regret having more than two kids because of their collective carbon footprint. I can hear him and every other Mormon father exclaiming:

      "If I had only avoided having those last 3 little ***** for kids, I could've saved Sri Lanka!!"
      • Lutremi, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Stop breathing damn it, your putting CO2 in my O2.
      • bitcloud, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2I'm already regretting your father having three kids...

        could have saved me having to read your comment...
    • gummih, on 03/06/2008, -0/+3Which brings us to the glaring fact that we ALL know the solution to global warming but still nobody want's to do anything about it.
      Nuclear winter!
  • daxsymbiont, on 03/05/2008, -11/+5digg users help the environment by limiting resources spent on sexual intercourse, public activities.

    pretty much everything is limited to an electrical supply to a computer system.

    since that can be solar powered, imagine the green-ness possibilities.
    • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1ah, but this is offset by costs due to Digg users higher prevalence of diabetes, food consumption and zit cream usage.
  • DjArcadian, on 03/05/2008, -23/+2http://www.duggmirror.com
    • Otto, on 03/05/2008, -0/+15Why does duggmirror just not ***** work at all anymore? Site is a complete piece of *****, frankly.
  • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -19/+19solving global warming is easy .... make people like Al Gore practice what they preach.
    • urbandistrict, on 03/05/2008, -8/+12...or you could simply admit that you have a problem and then collectively do something about it.
      • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -8/+3i have no problem
      • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3isn't the first step in AA? or is that accepting Jesus?

        sorry but you set yourself up for that one
        • urbandistrict, on 03/06/2008, -2/+1That comment made me think...how do AA members who are Catholic accept the blood of Christ? That's quite the moral dilemma to be confronted with under the watchful eye of ANGRY-GOD#7. ....Deep......thoughts......
    • redcard, on 03/05/2008, -8/+11He does.

      All that BS you hear about his house is YEARS old. He's almost completely off the grid.
      • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -6/+8What about his private jet that uses more fuel and gives off more pollution then if he traveled commercially?
        • dcollins, on 03/05/2008, -4/+6But he's an important person. You can't expect him to travel with commoners like us.
        • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -4/+5@dcollins

          my bad you are so right

          lol
        • redcard, on 03/05/2008, -4/+9He does travel commercially nowadays, despite how angry it makes his secret service cadre. The private jet was just in connection with his movie, he had no say over it, and it was going to fly the bigwigs around anyway. He didn't pay for it. He did, however, document every single flight, research the carbon offset, and purchased green energy in excess to offset that usage.

          And he wasn't too pleased about being TOLD that it was part of his contract that he MUST fly on a private jet, either.
          • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -2/+3"he had no say over it,"

            why are you making ***** excuses for someone you've never met? OF COURSE he "had say" over it!! What, you're going to tell me he was forced to make a movie about global warming?

            "purchased green energy in excess to offset that usage. "

            more *****. Gore's personal carbon offsets are a benefit of a company HE founded, which he gave to himself.

            "And he wasn't too pleased about being TOLD that it was part of his contract that he MUST fly on a private jet, either."

            Oh so ***** terrible, boo hoo, what a crying shame. What a flaming hypocrit asshole.
          • gummih, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1Ok, first I'll challenge your claim that he paid the offset to a company he founded.
            Second - even IF he founded it, that does not make him a hypocrit - IF it has a working method of reclaiming carbon.
            About the part that he was TOLD to use a private jet, I agree with you, if he wanted too he could have had it some other way. But if he purchased carbon credits from a company with a working method of claiming carbon I have no real problem with that.
            And remember, it's very easy to be a cynic and call everyone a hypocrite, the hard part is not being a hypocrite yourself.
        • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -5/+5@redcard

          and you know he flies commercial how? did you sit in first class with him or something? Al Gore getting off a commercial flight would be front page news.
      • iwatts, on 03/05/2008, -1/+5The pic didn't download for me due to the digg affect. But did making absurd rationalizations to apologize for Al Gore's decidedly un-environmental personal practices make the list of things we can do to help?
      • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -2/+6yeah, two years old, but still after he released An Inconceivable Truth in which he told people TO CONSERVE POWER. this makes him a ***** flaming hypocrite, and if you can't see this its because you are blind to the truth.
        • bitcloud, on 03/06/2008, -4/+1how much energy do you think it takes to spread a message to an entire planet?

          any ideas? what cost would you put on it? exactly what would it take to stop you smug assholes from complaining? Maybe he should live in a cardboard box? maybe he should have made the movie out of leaves and told people about it with morse code?

          You'll find if you ever ACTUALLY do something important with your life that it takes the help of many others to achieve a great goal. People have limited control over certain aspects, but Gore can't invent a new type of plane himself. He can only demonstrate to engineers that it's necessary. Gore can't invent a more efficient type of solar energy device. He can only demonstrate to the market to demand it from their energy suppliers...

          I'm not going to repeat this, so explain it to all your dumb little friends so we haven't gotta spend the rest of our lives talking about al ***** gore...
          • bullcutter, on 03/06/2008, -1/+3the message? you are deluding yourself into thinking its anything other than "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!"

            "You'll find if you ever ACTUALLY do something important with your life that it takes the help of many others to achieve a great goal."

            why don't you go raise a ***** village, for ***** sake you're on Digg remember?? what great goal are _you_ accomplishing here?

            and the goal is great alright, $100 million great so far, you keep payin, Gore keeps raking it in, that makes you a sucker, and theres a carbon tax that goes into effect that makes us all suckers

            im not going to repeat this, THE GORACLE IS NOT REAL.
  • nyenyec, on 03/05/2008, -11/+5Peak oil will solve global warming. :)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
    • suprememilo, on 03/05/2008, -4/+1Peak oil is still a long way off. . .
    • Logicexe, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1No it won't. We'll end up using more coal and dirty sources of oil like the tar sands and the oil shale. If anything it will make it worse.

      And to suprememilo, there is an increasingly large group of retired oil company geologists and high ranking oil executives (like the CEO of Shell) who admit that we're on the verge of demand out pacing supply.
  • Sauratos, on 03/05/2008, -11/+23i can has mirror?
  • RomanThommassen, on 03/05/2008, -26/+12The sun causes global warning. It's a fact. The US government just says we do it, so they can introduce taxes on CO2. When it doesn't help they'll make the new world order to "prevent" nuclear wars

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2004/feb/22/ ...
    • WMGoBuffs, on 03/05/2008, -4/+15Of course the sun causes warming. It heats the friggin' Earth. It's greenhouse gases that prevent that heat from escaping. That's like saying "Guns don't kill people, bullets do."
    • muchachoburacho, on 03/05/2008, -1/+7 oes that REALLY seem like the most likely scenario, or are you just really desperate to have people listen to you.
    • archer75, on 03/05/2008, -7/+9I wonder why Mars is also experiencing Global Warming if there are no humans living there? Probably because Global Warming is not caused by humans.
      • carbonetc, on 03/05/2008, -2/+4No one with a brain thinks that global warming is caused by humans. Whether the warming of the Earth is accelerating (beyond what would have happened on its own) due to human activity is the question.
        • archer75, on 03/05/2008, -1/+5Well then there are sure alot of people out there without a brain.
          • carbonetc, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2What I meant was "by humans and by humans alone" which I don't think you caught on to.

            But in any case, I certainly agree.
      • xstarsprinklesx, on 03/05/2008, -2/+1Mars barely has an ozone layer. We do. It's not so much that humans are causing global warming on Earth as we are exacerbating its effects like crazy by depleting the ozone layer way beyond the natural pace.
      • vikingcoder, on 03/06/2008, -2/+0Correlation does not prove causation, even when the correlation supports one's beliefs.

        Mars's orbit is more eccentric than Earth's and its climate is dominated by planet-wide dust storms.

        Mars doesn't have oceans, doesn't have rain, has an atmosphere entirely different from Earth's, and has huge dust storms that noticeably impact the climate. Since there is no rain, the dust lingers in the atmosphere. The dust storms produce large year-to-year variability, large regional changes, and can cause albedo changes by exposing or covering up dark underlying rocks.

        http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/04/29/is-g ...
        http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/070402 ...
        http://www.nature.com/news/2007/070402/full/070402 ...
        http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005 ...
    • sarixe, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1all the more reason why you should VOTE. because every vote means something or other.
  • caponumen, on 03/05/2008, -7/+30Broken, if you can't host it, please don't post it.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Yay, now i have something to say when this happens. but a mirror has been found below, after some time.
    • typo180, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3Hey - we should enact a law stating that everyone has to pay for professional-level hosting that's capable of withstanding high traffic or else they can't have a website.
      • nmnnotmyname, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Hosting is expensive. These guys picked the wrong host or aren't serving the content the best way. I think its not always about the host itself, but sometimes about the code under it.
  • Aoshi7, on 03/05/2008, -1/+8I thought Killface already cured global warming when he activated the Annihilatrix...?
  • neolarthytep, on 03/05/2008, -20/+23This is the biggest piece of hippie horse sh!t I have ever seen. Who in the hell Dugg this crap up
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Maybe more paranoia than hippie...

      its at least undoubtedly true that we are screwing ourselves a bit.
    • mt4055, on 03/05/2008, -2/+4Dugg for -> Hippie Horse Sh!t.
  • lindgren07, on 03/05/2008, -7/+1grrrr...
  • btattersall, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5Mirror Mirror, on the wall...
  • ChazHollywood, on 03/05/2008, -4/+6baaaaaaaaaaa
  • gathered9, on 03/05/2008, -5/+1any 1 have mirror?
  • ItsMyWii, on 03/05/2008, -4/+8How can I stop global warming if this page won't load?
  • NonLeftistDiggr, on 03/05/2008, -12/+4solve global warming is easy, work your way up the latter until you become god.
  • BananaAmbush, on 03/05/2008, -7/+3I want to know how (or rather, why) people are still digging this when the link is broken and they can't even see it.
    • T440, on 03/05/2008, -0/+9Hi and welcome to digg.com...first time visitor?
    • lindzee, on 03/05/2008, -1/+3sometimes i digg things that i think would interest me and come back to read them, especially things like videos.
      and if i don't like it, i'll undigg it.
  • sourceholder, on 03/05/2008, -2/+52MIRROR: http://qGrab.com/diggMirror-temp/combating-global- ...
  • Murfshay22, on 03/05/2008, -3/+39"Cancel Junk Mail"

    Believe me, I'd love for that to happen as much you!
    • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3go to lifelock.com if you live in the USA. My junk mail went down from a whole crap load a day to maybe a pamphlet or 2 a week
  • bstockwell, on 03/05/2008, -13/+14Good list but "have only two children"

    "Well dear, I'd like to have another kid too, we can afford it and we have plenty of space in the house. But, dammit, we already have Billy and Jane. Lets wait and see if one of them dies first"
    • hotpepper, on 03/05/2008, -3/+3"Sorry, dear, we have to abort our first baby. The picture said to have ONLY two children. Let's try for twins this time."
      • mman426, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1"Sorry dear, looks like we have to kill the weaker of the two twins since we already have Billy"
  • mooseontheloose, on 03/05/2008, -18/+72Guys, I measured the temperature of earth from 4 am to 8 am this morning and the results were ASTOUNDING! At the rate the temperature was increasing my calculations show we'll all be DEAD within days!

    Oh wait, you mean sometimes earth's phenomena works in cycles? There's been hundreds of ice ages before humans even existed? MADNESS!
    • malex, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5You're doing it wrong.
    • nmnnotmyname, on 03/05/2008, -4/+1People often don't take into account that it works in cycles... But still, that doesn't help any. We'd ideally want the climate to be as stable as possible I'm guessing.
    • vplakhi, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1the thing is, even if the carbon in the air, and the mercury in the soil, and the toxins in the freshwater, and the hormones in your meat don't kill the earth, they will kill people. cancer rates and genetic defects will continue to rise. as will cases of asthma.

      so, regardless of whether you believe in global warming or not -- why wait to find out if it's real? there are so many other reasons to reduce our consumption and emissions. do it for your children, and their children. it's a safe bet that we will be better off with reduced pollution.
    • xtekian, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2Scientist are smart enough to account for natural cycles. It's called having a null hypothesis. The point is that the global temperature is increasing much faster than it would be naturally.
    • tetsuwan, on 03/06/2008, -0/+2I can't believe this tripe is being voted up. It's like accusing quantum field theorists of not knowing about energy conservation.
  • alwshiloh, on 03/05/2008, -22/+19Actually, I am doing something. I'm doing my part to output as much carbon as possible, to offset all you religious fanatics who are stupid/ignorant enough to believe in man-made global warming. And I don't charge anyone for my carbon offsets, unlike your snake oil salesman god, Al Gore.
    • Forky, on 03/05/2008, -2/+4Enjoy your grandchildrens blame.
    • sarixe, on 03/05/2008, -0/+6What's the use in being a spiteful, blistering douchebag?
      • gymbrall, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1I don't like Al Gore either, but don't you think that's being a little rude?
  • NDfan0788, on 03/05/2008, -1/+5I lift to help global warming.
    • zmigliozzi, on 03/05/2008, -2/+3Actually working out is bad because you release more CO2 in the air. Shame on you :P
      • sarixe, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2ironically, it won't matter in a few million years.
        • hpfreak26, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1I'm not sure you know what ironic means...
          • sarixe, on 03/07/2008, -1/+1maybe i just misused it by accident. ever though of that?
  • ole1kanobe, on 03/05/2008, -7/+3Where does one find tyres?
  • alpha94, on 03/05/2008, -4/+11I'm not completely on board with CFL bulbs. Ther mercury all comes from mines in China, Pakistand and India and the only reason it's done there is because of how badly it pollutes the area and how dangerous it is for the workers.

    So it's kind of flawed right now. Hybrids have more of a carbon footprint than Hummer's because the components are built around the world and the batteries need nickel from the mine in Sudbury. It looks like the face of the moon up in Sudbury thanks to the mine.
    • david8370, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1Not to mention if you drop a CFL bulb you have to call in a Hazmat team to clean it up.
    • vplakhi, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2Yes, but: "The irony of CFLs is that they actually reduce overall mercury emissions in the long run. Despite recent improvements in the industry's technology, the burning of coal to produce electricity emits roughly 0.023 milligrams of mercury per kilowatt-hour. Over a year, then, using a 26-watt CFL in the average American home (where half of the electricity comes from coal) will result in the emission of 0.66 milligrams of mercury. For 100-watt incandescent bulbs, which produce the identical amount of light, the figure is 2.52 milligrams."

      from http://www.slate.com/id/2183606/
    • tetsuwan, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Nope, over the life-time of the vehicle, the assembly (and disassembling) of the vehicle is minor. Minor as in 20-30% of total emission for a efficient high-tech vehicle like a hybrid, and something like 5% for a low-tech gas-guzzler like a Hummer.
      Global trading relies on shipping, which is usually extremely efficient per weight unit transported. Often it takes more CO2 to transport the bananas in your local grocer (lol) from the harbor to the store than from harbor to harbor, even if it is a 2000 miles route over sea.
  • srodolff, on 03/05/2008, -5/+4The answer is just wait.......

    http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Repo ...
  • Metatron197, on 03/05/2008, -5/+10I helping by eating a methane producing cow
  • venson, on 03/05/2008, -2/+12Or, do nothing and buy Carbon Credits, like the rich and powerful do.
    • sarixe, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1and then we can all be rich and powerful! oh wait...
    • ropers, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2...which is actually something useful; because with carbon credits you're paying someone else to actually reduce carbon dioxide output. You're outsourcing. People do this all of the time in many areas, E.g. concerning world hunger, instead of personally sharing your food you can give money to an aid NGO so they can give hungry people food. Of course your carbon credits/aid money need to be substantial enough to make up for the fact that you're not reducing your own output/sharing your own food.
      • mman426, on 03/06/2008, -0/+0So they are all paying to make other people to live crappy lives so they can live better lives, sounds so helpful, instead of me not driving maybe I should just buy someone a bike so they don't have to drive
  • xen0blue, on 03/05/2008, -12/+21in 15 years, we'll look back on global warming like the Y2K scare
    • bradtacs, on 03/05/2008, -2/+9You do know Y2K was an actual issue that was caught early and fixed by many people rewriting code right? Lets hope you are right.
      • jonnyboy1544, on 03/05/2008, -2/+5You do know that the effects of Y2K were greatly exaggerated right?

        http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/ ...
        • bradtacs, on 03/05/2008, -1/+1I will agree with exaggerated but that does not mean that is was not a real problem that had to be dealt with.

          http://www.comlinks.com/mag/faq.htm
          The Year 2000 Computer Problem

          "What a relief!! After tens of thousands of programmers had labored for millions of hours, the dreaded Y2K Bug was all but obliterated. Looking back on the problem many are asking, "Was it all hype?' Well the answer is no, and yes. The underlying problem was very serious, and through hard work was fixed. But there was a large amount of hype, especially over embedded systems. I have left this FAQ up as it was prior to 1/1/2000. Let us learn from the positive aspects of Y2K, and make sure we are not misled again, by false information, or worse still no information."
        • Isidore, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2Was tobacco-cancer exaggerated?
          So is there really a massive conspiracy involving outright fraud by so many scientists, in so many countries, in so many universities and so many governments run by so many different political parties on both the left and right? Remember that all the eco-marxist global warming conspiracy allegations also apply to tobacco-cancer eg tobacco is a natural product, tobacco alarmism is an excuse by the government and UN World Health Organization to increase taxes on pretext of health, medical researchers lie to get funding by making up tobacco scare stories, doctors scare us to be paid for health checks, lung cancer is natural and existed before people started smoking, there are many elderly heavy smokers who are still fit and healthy...

          The scientific evidence and consensus is with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Just as the scientific evidence and consensus is for evolution.

          No one on the IPCC doubts that climate is complex and that there are cycles and natural factors. The question is whether the global warming observed since the mid 1970's has a significant human cause. The IPCC says yes with 90% certainty.

          Natural causes alone (Milankovitch cycles, sunspots, solar activity, volcanoes etc.), cannot explain climate variations since the mid 1970s http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ...

          but adding human causes we get a prediction much closer to observations http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ ...

          Sir David Attenborough was once a climate skeptic, believing that all global warming can all be explained by natural causes and cycles. He changed his mind, this is why http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0 (3 mins)

          The hypothesis that natural causes alone explain recent climate change has been falsified.

          Can the deniers produce a climate model using natural factors alone which explains recent global warming?
      • RedHerringHack, on 03/31/2008, -0/+1I spent years making good money rewriting old code to avoid Y2K. We programmers were spectacularly effective at reducing the impact to near nothing. IF nothing had been done, you can believe that there would have been real problems. It's like what if you could go back in time, and kill the 9/11 hijackers before they acted? You would have been convicted of murder and executed, no one having any idea that you saved thousands of lives in the process.
    • blackjack75, on 03/05/2008, -3/+3It was only a an actual issue for companies or governments running very very old software on very very old machines, yet it was used to scare people running home computers into upgrading pretty much everything while the problem didn't affect even the 1984 Mac Classic.
      • robotdanceteam, on 03/05/2008, -0/+0You'd think that wouldn't you. We fixed all the computers in our house except the one we never used. And lo and behold, we turned it on in January to find that... Y2K KILLED MY OLD 386!
    • malex, on 03/05/2008, -2/+6You mean as something that the entire world took serious action to correct? Here's hoping.
  • fusion2k5, on 03/05/2008, -2/+15Mirrors for all

    http://img134.imageshack.us/img134/330/combatinggl ...

    http://b.imagehost.org/0205/combating-global-warmi ...

    http://www.freeimagehost.eu/image/b058e22795222

    http://s2.supload.com/free/combating-global-warmin ...

  • jayhawken, on 03/05/2008, -4/+11Ummmm, flying *is* public transportation. ; p
    • grangeryoung, on 03/05/2008, -0/+3Agreed. Something tells me that 100 people flying across country is better than, 100 people each driving thier own car across country.
      • bradtacs, on 03/05/2008, -1/+2But it is not as good as 800 people taking a train...
        • thallium205, on 03/05/2008, -0/+5However that is not as good as 1000's taking horse and buggy.
        • wrongonce, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Or staying wherever the hell you happen to be?
          I think we should all just lie down in a dark room for about 3 years. Everything should clear up by then.
  • zmigliozzi, on 03/05/2008, -8/+8Or we are coming out of an ice age? Carefully read a definition of an ice age. We need people to practice what they preach and reduce, reuse, recycle. It's funny how the most 'green' people are normal people not even thinking about it, unlike some major activists for this whole thing, Ted Kennedy who refused wind mills off the coast because it destroyed their view from their Castle 15miles away, Al Gore who lives in a mansion with 3x30 inch displays for a computer and a confirmed energy bill that is almost as much as the average American household has. Yes kill the messenger because they set up the organization where you 'donate money' to save the environment. Save it on your own and for free, reduce, reuse, recycle, simple enough.
    • scoottie, on 03/05/2008, -2/+4i take your logic and replace it with Al Gore inventor of the internet
  • jm4847, on 03/05/2008, -3/+1I'm a skeptic on this issue, but the whole "DO SOMETHING THE PLANET IS DYING BRAINWASH CHILDREN TO ACCEPT THE ABSOLUTE TRUTH!!!1" sickens me so much that I think I'm just going to go to my backyard and burn some garbage.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 100 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.