What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
110 Comments
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17Global warming is real. It is a natural cycle of our planet, and some other planets that we know of. However, human activity is accelerating the amount of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. I do not know if it can be reversed, but I am pretty certain that it can be slowed if we actually quit relying on oil so much.
- bobbydiamondz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Crap! I thought plastic water bottles were the new thing to blame for causing a problem. Please tell me which to believe, and quick, so I can join the hysteria!
- Easty, on 10/10/2007, -3/+13Solution: AIRSHIPS.
End of discussion. - Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10... there is also evidence that high altitude aircraft particulate emissions cause the formation of cirrus clouds, and indirectly lead to global Dimming. This theory is backed up by the fact that during the few days after 9/11 while aircraft were grounded, there was a NATIONAL increase in temperatures by a few degrees, which dropped again swiftly after air travel resumed. The consequences are potentially very serious, to the point of affecting the evaporation rates of water around the globe. So not only could aircraft be causing warming, they could also be causing cooling - the longer both conditions continue, the worse it will be when we stop. It's like seeing the kettle about to boil over and jamming the lid down tighter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming - hambend, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Did you even read the article you linked to? Mars is getting warmer because of winds that create dust storms that trap heat in the atmosphere that causes more winds that cause more dust storms. These storms can grow to engulf most of the planet's surface. Just because the two planets are warming at the same time, doesn't mean the two phenomena are related.
Broadly speaking though, Mars' warming is not caused by the sun, but by changes in the composition of its atmosphere. You could say the same about Earth, only with pollution instead of dust. - sealhands, on 10/10/2007, -11/+17@scamerica.
what do those who claim global warming to be a reality have to gain for it to be considered a scam?
worse case scenario they're wrong and we survive in a less polluted world.
if you're wrong, we die.
simple. - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7To be fair, it's easier for a scientist to get funding for his global warming research, and it's a political platform for many people. However you can also look at the many cases of oil companies paying scientists lots of money to throw some confusion into the issue. I'm just saying that neither side is innocent.
- foofightrs777, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5You really have no idea how science works do you?
Climate change based upon CO emissions is the best model that people who are much more knowledgeable about the issue than you or myself have come up with. This model will continually be challenged and/or affirmed by peer review and updated when new data and revelations are collected.
Stop with the FUD and name calling. You don't impress anyone. - btsr7414, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5I thought there was no debate about the extent about global warming among serious scientists? Didn't you know there is a consensus? http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=
- catalysis, on 10/10/2007, -6/+103.5% is not small.
- unibomber999, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4No, we should erect a giant umbrella over the earth.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5So you're saying we should destroy the sun?
- bromac, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Oil is dead plants. So is coal. Plants store CO2, especially when they're fossilized HYDROCARBONS.
What we're doing is burning dead plants and putting carbon that was trapped underground back into the air. This essentially sending the atmosphere back into a period when it was much warmer.
Really, this isn't that hard to figure out. We're not going to get warmer than earth has ever been, but we're certainly ***** with the timeline. - acl123, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2How about flying less, buying goods produced locally, and watching your grammar?
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2wrong. Documentary on TLC. Peace.
- ChromaVita, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3but 3.5" is.
- canandaiguan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2operative term: "climate CHANGE." overall warming, but increase extreme variations. unpredictable climate change caused by the overall warming. get it?
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2For instance, if you put an ice cube on a hot sidewalk next to a 3 foot by 3 foot block of ice, the ice cube will melt faster not only because of the size differential but because it has a lower core temperature. The Earth's ice will continue to melt faster and faster as time goes on.
As far as Mexico does, don't try to bring in stereotypes. I was using the reference because global warming is being hyped here when the real countries causing the damage don't really care. If you really believed in the cause you would have done you research.
Google "mexico pollution" and your eyes will be open to the fact that Mexico City is one of the highest pollutants in the world. I'm sure your digg brigade will bury this but apparently that's what happens to facts on digg that don't agree with user opinion. - laplacian, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2pilot, i was just about to quote that. amazing that the TIME article doesnt even mention this research.
- bobcrotch, on 10/10/2007, -4/+5HAY GUISE FOSILE FUELZ R BAD EVEN IN JETPLANES
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3I was originally not even going to reply to your comment, but I hit the back button simply because the stupidity of what you said compelled me to do so.
The two are both bad for the environment. You know that. Plastic watter bottles aren't the best (water is shipped all around using fuel, not to mention the production that had to take place to make the bottles in the first place.) Where do you think the bottles end up? In bottle heaven? No. Landfills, oceans, and at best are recycled. I drink bottled water and im not innocent when it comes to this, but let's not be ignorant- It's also obvious that airplanes burn fuel and expel exhaust into the skies. - 11Heather, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Outraged by scamerica's comment? As an environmentalist I was. So with a huge dose of scepticism I watched the video link - all 73 mins of it.
Watch the video before criticise the poster. It's eye-opening stuff. I now need to do more research, things are not as they seemed.
Also, c'mon diggers, why persecute the messenger? Is that what Digg's about? - Error601, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Why don't people save themselves the effort and go read the last repeat of this same flame war?
- DeathGod321, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Global warming is screwed up. It's not harming the planet, it's harming us. The planet doesn't care about us. There have been mass extinctions on this planet before, I don't see why the possible extinction of the human race would have a different effect on the planet's ability to continue supporting life.
- acl123, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I know that you probably spent all morning researching your post, but I'm sorry - you're wrong.
I like how you separate "Mexico" from "we", as though the world ceases to exist outside America - could you get any more stereotypical?
Mexico is not a bigger polluter than the US, at least in terms of green house gases.
Ice caps melting on Mars are not related to global warming. Mars has its own problems.
Glaciers melting since the ice age... ice in small amounts... sorry, I don't get it....
Mainstream science predicts that as the climate changes, many parts of the world will experience more extreme cold weather although overall the world's temperature will rise. - rodii, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Why the hell is it so hard for people to grasp the difference between climate and weather? One cool day, or a hundred, is irrelevant to the fact (or not) that there's an overall TREND of warming. And a cool day in Yokeltown, NY is irrelevant to the fact (or not) of GLOBAL warming. This is like hearing that humans have been getting progressively taller since the Middle Ages (true fact) and saying "Meanwhile, my Uncle Morty is the shortest man in Yokeltown."
- canandaiguan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2global warming or not, changing the composition of the atmosphere and oceans will have effects. while it is (maybe?) irresponsible to overstate this case, the effects of global industrialization should be regulated by more than supply and demand.... neoclassical economic theory is very clear that when you have a "tragedy of the commons," taxes are the usually the appropriate solution. even state of fear author and global warming skeptic michael crichton says he is in favor of a carbon tax.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2i have contemplated this for years...it sure makes sense. i also wonder about we effect Earth's EMF,with all our power lines around the planet...
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Even if one poo-poos the environmental impacts (or lack thereof) from flying, you've got to marvel at a mode of travel that is so essential yet so amazingly unprofitable when looked at from an investment perspective. You'd think an alternative to either the transportation itself or the means by which it's managed/executed would have surfaced by now.
- fkr3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2You're a microorganism.
- SPThom, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Is air travel exploding? I thought the airlines were constantly in dire straits about not making enough profits, having to cut corners & such because they couldn't keep seats filled. And I know several people who've sworn off flying for one reason for another. I thought it had leveled off at best.
- Dumbledorito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2During the few days after 9/11, human activity everywhere was diminished. It was eerie how quiet it was. No cars, no planes, etc.
- Pilot85, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1averages, sir. All over the country, all at once, by a relatively large difference. That doesn't happen. Not ever.
- forteller, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Only parts of Mars is getting warmer. Regional warming is not the same as global warming
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=192 - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Meanwhile, when it's a record hot day, anywhere, the Church of Global Warming Crazies scream "SEE GLOBAL WARMING!"
- marathonguy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+2The temperature change after 9/11 is an urban legend. You can't correlate any type of national temperature change with a single statistic. It was warmer yesterday, then it cooled off today - maybe we solved global warming....
- schwit, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Unfortunately most tarmac delays include engines running.
- MasterThief117, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Good impersonation of a Youtube member.
- TheUngod, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Great thinkin' captain Cid.
- BESTenemy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Does Global Warming model incorporate Hubbert's Peak Theory? Why are we so concerned with eliminating CO2 emissions when we've got only few years worth of affordable oil? Air travel will be the first industry to go bankrupt. Cars can go electric. Even inefficient fuel cells aren't so bad, but keeping in mind that hydrogen's energy density is 1:9 compared to chemical energy of oil, there are no market-ready airplane propulsion technology. So, do we ground our flights right now or wait till they're going to become thing of the past in a few years? I say, if there's one cigarette left in the pack, and you've got the last pack in the world, let's smoke it, before quitting. No point wasting money on nicotine patches at that point. Instead of introducing a new tax, let's cure malaria, or provide clean water to third world counties. Costs fraction of what we're planning to spend on fighting a self-resolving problem.
- tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3It's extremely and ridiculously difficult to fly a plane on anything other than the fuels we have, while keeping prices reasonable and transporting a lot of people. Compare that to ground transport, where are a number of much easier to implement alternatives that just wouldn't work for air travel. I think it's obvious which one we should worry about more.
- drgruney, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Why don't we construct intercontinental zip lines?
- sealhands, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0cows produce more methane than humans? obviously, why are there so many cows? oh yeah because of humans. cows are effectively a result of humans. also, im confused what you mean by "we". "global warming is happening but i dont think we are the primary cause." does that mean humans? if it does than youre wrong because humans put so many cows everywhere and mexicans are definitely people. oil companies have made a trillion times more than any scientist has made from govt funding, its insane to think otherwise.
- thatsmyaibo, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Either way, I'm sure airplanes pollute less than the amount of cars it would take to get the same amount of people said airplane is carrying to that destination.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Meanwhile, in NY it's the coldest august day in over a century.
- jennamalia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1There was a recent NOVA special on contrails and their effect on the environment.
Dimming the Sun: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/contrail.html
a cool contrail picture: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/cont-01.html - tehpwnrate, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Well, it kinda is. Remember, those planes get people across oceans, transport all sorts of stuff very quickly, and so when you look at the benefits compared to the amount of greenhouse gases, it looks pretty good. At least to me it does.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3The benefits of aviation far outweigh those of saving 3.5% of CO2.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Which you concluded from exhaustive research into the root causes of global warming? Awesome. Let's tax "suburban moms" and their SUVs!
- chaoshauk, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Since when has science ever been dictated by "con census"? At one point in time, the scientific consensus was that the earth was the center of the universe... and the people that said otherwise were the wack jobs.
On top of that, we can't predict weather accurately a few days in advance, let alone what it will be like in 100 years. The earth has been in a warming period since the last ice age. Other planets in the solar system are showing signs of "global warming" as well, must be lots of SUV's on those planets. During the great depression when emissions were cut by 30%, the rise in temperature remained constant, it wasn't even phased by the change in emissions. CO2 isn't the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases anyway, water vapor is. The earth goes through different climate periods, to think that our climate should stay static no matter what is just plain ignorance.
Global warming or global climate change is a religion, and it seems like everyone is buying into it without thinking critically. -
Show 51 - 100 of 110 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is