Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!
Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.Doomsday graph 'proving' global warming: flawed!
john-daly.com — There are five potential areas of error. 1) Errors caused by environmental change in the general location of the measuring instrument. 2) Errors arising at the point of measurement, such as equipment or procedural faults. 3) Errors arising from statistical processing by GISS and CRU, such as poor station information 4) Errors arising from station
msaleem- 374 diggs
- digg it
- epluribusunum, on 10/12/2007, -56/+45Man, haven't you figured out yet that anybody who supports the global warming hoax is an "environmental scientist," and anybody who says it just ain't so is a Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld//Halliburton/Enron stooge?
- evirus, on 10/12/2007, -23/+37show me some peer reviewed articles, untill that ill disregard what you say
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -6/+31I agree. I was going to mention the sixth source of errors:
6. Bias (intentional or not) caused by the political ideology of the person evaluating the data.
The fact that the different sides on this argument are so split on ideological lines tells me that neither side is correct. While politicians are practiced experts in doublethink, there are scientists who can still be objective.
This should be a scientific discussion, but since you can tell a person's stance on the issue by what party he belongs to tells me that science is not driving the debate. - Langford, on 10/12/2007, -8/+18Lets suppose neither side can prove it's argument to the satisfaction of the other. If the billions of people in the world continue polluting, we may or may-not effect the environment. Only time will tell, and if it turns out we are, then we are screwed in a long lasting, if not permanent, way. If we stop polluting, it doesn't matter which side was right or wrong, because not-polluting is not going to hurt the environment for certain.
- bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -9/+30@evirus:
It was sarcasm. He's pointing out the fact any time you try to discuss global warming critically with someone who believes in the alarmist position, they will accuse you and any evidence you present as being "petrol funded." It happens over and over again.
Frankly, I'm surprised this story made it to the front page, given that most of the time, it's 100% left-of-center while opposing viewpoints are buried in the story queue. Just browse the queue sometime to see everything you don't see on the Digg front page because of the Digerals around here who mod down everything they disasgree with. - interiot, on 10/12/2007, -3/+22Because the best place to discuss the scientific merits of someone's detailed hypothesis is not a peer-reviewed journal, but by posting it on the internet, and letting 15-year-olds digg it up or down. Approximately 0.1% of diggers have the expertise to properly evaluate this material... trying to convince us that the author merely SOUNDS like they know what they're talking about isn't just useless, it's misleading.
- McLurker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8@conceptjunkie
"The fact that the different sides on this argument are so split on ideological lines tells me that neither side is correct"
Call me old fashioned but I prefer to evaluate whether or not people making a claim are correct by looking at the evidence they present and seeing it if matches the facts. Controversy over an issue does not mean that both sides are in some way incorrect. Not for global warming, not for holocaust denial, not for creation "versus" evolution, not for anything.
The way to tell if a claim is true is to look at the facts, not to speculate about the motivation of the person making the claim.
Where is this party split anyway? Most scientists recognise human-caused global warming as reality, regardless of their politics. - zincanode, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8this is lame and super out of date. the MSU data that this guy quotes were processed wrong, and have since been corrected. they now agree very well with theory and ground observations. i understand that the right wingers out there need to sow the seeds of doubt on this issue, but they should at least keep up to date with the science they are arguing against.
- jellygraph, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5@McLurker:
you are deadly wrong. when facts and evidence are uncertain, the other persons motivation is deeply serious...
and this is where the wedge tactic is so effective. if you get enough people to share your motivation, you can use propaganda over and have them repeat it like sheep over and over again until everyone starts questioning "the evidence"... not because there is anything wrong with the evidence, but then... what is fact? most of us will never get our hands on the equipment that scientists use or even understand how they make their calculations. so fact can _always_ be made to appear less than fact - mfratt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4I saw an interesting bumper sticker the other day that said "More Trees, Less Bush." The only thing I could think is how ignorant this person must be. As a liberal republican, Bush is actually quite enviormentally friendly (part of why I dont like him personally).
- fredrated, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5@jellygraph
Your'e an idiot, global climate change is as controversial as whether the sun revolves around the earth or the earth revolves around the sun. Only fools and those paid to be deceptive take your position. - avalanch00, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@mfratt:
From: http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0223-32.htm
"Environment: The Bush administration's fiscal year 2006 budget proposal slashes total federal spending on the environment and natural resource conservation by more than 10 percent.
The greatest single cuts ($700 million) are to federal payments to a joint state-federal fund that underwrites projects to improve water quality and helps poor communities build waste-water treatment plans and other water projects.
It also proposes cuts to the discretionary budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by 5.6 percent ($500 million cut); a $750 million cut to the Land and Water Conservation Fund and a $333 million decline in spending for National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
The NOAA budget reduction includes a 12 percent overall cut to NOAA Fisheries, a 53 percent cut to programs aimed at protecting marine mammals and sea turtles, a $29 million decrease in funding for the federal salmon plan, and eliminates an initiative to tackle marine debris. It also reduces the National Ocean Service budget by $255 million."
"Bush is actually quite enviormentally friendly" yeah sure he is. - epluribusunum, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5evirus: "show me some peer reviewed articles, untill that ill disregard what you say"
Professor Richard Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
I find the following particularly interesting:
"And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest." - geekee, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3"If we stop polluting, it doesn't matter which side was right or wrong, because not-polluting is not going to hurt the environment for certain."
No, if it's not true, it's similar to taking a bunch of people who were doing productive labor, and paying them instead to dig ditches one day, and fill them the next day. It drains the economy, which affects the price of everything, including essentials like food, shelter, and energy. - nigeltufnel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The biggest arguments pulled out against scientific studies showing human-aided global warming are actually wrong.
FACT: Scientific studies showing global warming is real HAVE been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals. Studies "proving" it wrong have not.
FACT: The scientific community is NOT "split" on global warming. The scientific community has come to a consensus that it exists.
Read up:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686 - Drahkar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The 'Split' is purely political, not Scientific. The simple truth is you can't pump massive amounts of poisons into any environment and not expect it to have an effect. That's just pure logic.
- evanname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@epluribusunum
re: Professor Richard Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Please note that a Wall Street Journal (or any newspaper for that matter) opinion piece is not peer-reviewed literature. Also, Richard Lindzen does receive consultation money from oil and coal companies. This does not necessarily invalidate what he says, but it is worth mentioning. Additionally, you should be extremely wary of individuals who claim that they can not get published because of institutional bias. In general, if journals are rejecting papers, there are good reasons for the decisions. - ccran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"In general, if journals are rejecting papers, there are good reasons for the decisions."
A peer-reviewed study on this claim would be interesting.
- shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -11/+49This article is OLD. The author, John L Daley, died back in 2004.
He was a self-trained maverick and to quote from one of his obituraries: "One of John%u2019s great legacies is the use of the Internet to publish scientific articles that had been rejected through the %u2018peer-review%u2019 control system. " A maverick in other words, who no one else agreed with.
Though criticizing selective use of data, he made use of the same methods carefully choosing data to fit his assertions, arguing that retreating glacies lay on the sides of active volcanoes but totally ingored glacier retreat in the Alps. (No alpine volcanoes.)
A report - June 2006 - requested by the US Congress concluded:
%u201CThe Earth was hotter in the late 20th Century than it had been in the last 400 or possibly 1,000 years%u201D
It backs some of the key findings of the original study that gave rise to the iconic "hockey stick" graph.
Find more on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5109188.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4969772.stm
This one will run and run %u2013 but it%u2019s worth looking at this new report, commissioned by congress to report on the original 'hockey stick' one that congress disliked so much they asked for a second opinion. This is that opinion.
By the way - in May 2006 President G.W. Bush said, and I quote:
"And in my judgment we need to set aside whether or not greenhouse gases have been caused by mankind or because of natural effects and focus on the technologies that will enable us to live better lives and at the same time protect the environment."
I agree with that.- hessian, on 10/12/2007, -5/+11I agree with GWB that clean technology is crucial for ensuring we maintain a high standard of living in the future, but the shirking of responsibilities on green houses gases indicates a continuation of 'high consumption' over recycling/efficiency policies. Irregardless of the technology used (e.g., hydrogen fuel cell vs biomass in vehicles), unrestrained consumption is reckless and unsustainable.
- BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+14@shefftim
Good research regarding the author. Al Gore's movie touches on how the media publishes confusing stories regarding global warming research. I believe the movie states that there have scientific peer reviewed articles are 100% that global warming exists. Meanwhile something like 53% of articles published in the media maintain that global warming exists. He compares this to the 60's when the Surgeon General first said that smoking was bad . All scientific articles that were peer reviewed agreed that smoking was bad. However, special interest groups still pushed out propaganda that smoking wasn't bad. - bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -14/+9"Good research regarding the author. Al Gore's movie touches on how the media publishes confusing stories regarding global warming research."
Al Gore's movie is also filled with half-truths and even accidentally makes the point that global warming went UP during Al Gore's time in office, which makes you wonder what authority he has to criticize the current administration. Where's ethanol, Al? You had eight years.
Gore's film is a political campaign. Don't buy into one man's self-aggrandizing. - hexix, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9bonch:
Wouldn't Al Gore lie and hide the fact that global warming went up during his time as vice president if he was out to make himself look good? Now, I haven't seen the movie, but my impression is that it's more about awareness of global warming and acknowledgment that it exists than an attack on bush or anyone else.
So I guess what I'm trying to say, is I don't see how the movie "screwed up" by showing global warming went up during the Clinton years. I think that's only screwing up if you're looking for a political fight where there isn't one.
This really needs to be solved by the people, something Republicans should be in favor of. However, for some reason, people like you seem to go out of your way to argue against global warming even existing. Very strange. - geoffp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@bonchbonchbonch:
Your bias here is far more obvious than most others', and you're just as (if not more) guilty of selectively ignoring evidence that you don't like as anyone else here.
And I assume that since you declare Al Gore's movie as full of half-truths that you're at least as qualified to say so as the PhD's over here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?cat=10
Who said:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#more-299
It's not "alarmist" if there's cause for alarm. - ccran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am still wondering why Gore's co-founding of Generation Investment Management and Current TV isn't considered grounds to question his neutrality as a spokesperson.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.05/gore.html
- Topher06, on 10/12/2007, -14/+4Well, %u2186#feD to you too!
- everfresh59, on 10/12/2007, -27/+10Shocking to see how you are all so blatantly ignorant about global warming, and how you try to justify any with any means nessecary to dis-regard the idea that our current environmental state has nothing to do with the fact that we are burning fossil fuels, cuttting trees, searching for oil, and every other form of economic gain that the world's countries are doing.
WE ARE THE REASON AS TO WHY IT'S GETTING HOTTER ON THIS PLANET. WE'VE BEEN BEATING HER DOWN FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS, HARDER THAN ANY OTHER CIVILIZATION THAT HAS EXISTED HERE. GET WITH THE PROGRAM AND ACCEPT THE FAITH THAT ONLY YOU CAN CONTROL.......- davalf, on 10/12/2007, -8/+13somebody needs to switch to decaf...or get a new keyboard with a caps lock button that doesn't mysteriously flick itself on...
- TheBarge, on 10/12/2007, -4/+14@everfresh59
So apparently you are an expert global climatologist. There's no way the Earth could be going through normal cycles of heating and cooling. I can't wait to see the new global warming show coming up on Discovery. I hope it'll be fact-based with no political spin. - cogsprocket, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6@ everfresh59
Do you have to be invited into one of these "drum circles" or is it an inclusive bunch?
The moment you personified the planet with the word "her" you lost me. I'm much more interested in hearing scientific evidence than new-age, hug-a-tree, go barefoot, kind vegan brother bear crap that tries to shame people into action by treating our planet as some live "Mother Earth" figure who is incredibly sad that we do this or that. I'm much more inclined to do something about the situation when someone gives me evidence rather than brow-beating me with the idea that I am somehow responsible for 80 years worth of industrial progress that results in environmental change.
You have done nothing more than to make yourself obnoxious and the dogma you possess uninteresting.
Also you may want to get a dictionary. I think that last sentence is an abuse of the word "faith". - StupidPeople, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7everfresh59 or to whom it may concern,
You are cattle who believe everything that is feed to them. The sky is not falling, global warming happens every day at dawn. Any scientist that claims differently has a policial agenda or is very bad at their job. Enviromentalist have done more harm than good. Go moo at your grass cattle because we're planning to eat you soon. - flamadiddle, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6You really think one civilization can affect the global climate so drastically in just 80 years?
Give me a break.
Yes, we've had a negative effect, but it's also a natural cycle that we have no control over. Pointing fingers solves nothing. Researching ways that we can fix the problem, does. - BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4@AmericaFirst
You should see Al Gore's movie. It does a good job of summing up all the global warming research that has been done. Scientists are well aware of warming and cooling trends. It's natural to see rising and cooling trends over a period of time. They study this stuff for a living.... What is concerning is that they can track ice samples back almost 1 million years. Over that time they have found a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature. The frightening thing is that over nearly 1 million years C02 levels have never reached over 300 PPM..... until now. You can either choose to believe that we have not caused a C02 rise in the past 100 years or that it is an amazing coincidence that we are experiencing something natural which has not happened in 1 million years...
The earth's C02 levels are now well over 300ppm. Scientists also predicted and graphed future C02 levels 30 years ago. It turns out there predictions came in a little low. We have actually increased C02 levels more than what scientists speculated 30 years ago. It's even more frightening if you see what scientists are now predicting for C02 levels 20 years in the future. - bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8@everfresh59:
"WE ARE THE REASON AS TO WHY IT'S GETTING HOTTER ON THIS PLANET. WE'VE BEEN BEATING HER DOWN FOR THE LAST 80 YEARS, HARDER THAN ANY OTHER CIVILIZATION THAT HAS EXISTED HERE."
Show me the proof. We only contribute less than 0.5% of greenhouse gases according to the official numbers. The rest comes from natural water vapor and volcanoes. The official global temperature record shows that the temperature hasn't gone up since 1998. Your thoughts? - darkpulsaromega, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@BigKoi
"Over that time they have found a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature."
Now, is it because there is a high level of CO2 that we get greater global temperature or is it because there is a high global temperature that we get greater CO2 levels? I don't think there is a way to prove either. - TubaTechno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"The frightening thing is that over nearly 1 million years C02 levels have never reached over 300 PPM..... until now. You can either choose to believe that we have not caused a C02 rise in the past 100 years or that it is an amazing coincidence that we are experiencing something natural which has not happened in 1 million years"
Really, so when it was a little warmer a couple centuries ago, C02 levels still were lower than they are today? But I thought there was a corrilation between temperatures and CO2 levels? - DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@BigKoi
Last 1 million years? Why that it .025% of the history of the Earth.
That is kind of a small sample size. Get back to me when you compare it to, say, the last 100 million years. At least then, there is a chance that the sample reflects what is "normal" here on Earth. - munkey906, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0her? the earth is a woman now? good job at judging the article on its content not spouting off ad hominem attacks comparing us to wife beaters....
- RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -2/+19I don't see how anyone can have much confidence in our computers' ability to simulate hugely complex nonlinear systems like the atmosphere and oceans.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Of course, they can, how else could they be so accurate as forecasting weather?
Oh, wait... - sadecrvn, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The climate, and also the weather, are indeed hugely complicated nonlinear phenomena. Weather forecasts have greatly improved, but they still work by taking the best *available* data, perturbing and interpolating repeatedly, and then simulating -- when you see "60% chance of rain" in a forecast, that means it rained (somewhere in the given area) in 6 of 10 simulations, and did not rain in the other 4 of 10.
It's not voodoo, but it's not an exact science -- it's estimated that to improve the forecast by a factor of ten, you need to improve the input data by a factor of a million. But that is the plan, and federal money is being spent on it now. It's easy to justify the cost, too, because storms [and false alarms] are hugely expensive.
Some of the claptrap repeatedly posted, that the scientists are all in a big conspiracy, is just ridiculous. Scientists are as jealous of their reputations, and each others', as a group of cats in a small house. If a study gets published, showing how the data can be made consistent, you can be sure that it has been vetted carefully. Until you try to publish in the scientific literature, you can only imagine... - D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"I don't see how anyone can have much confidence in our computers' ability to simulate hugely complex nonlinear systems like the atmosphere and oceans."
I agree completely. I am currently reading "Chaos" by James Gleick, which is very informative about this type of system. If you haven' read it, I highly recommend it (as does Douglas Adams according to the cover). - D4r7h3v1l, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Oh yea, and according to Lorenz, it would be impossible to predict the weather for any length of time even if an accurate ssensor with instant communication was to be placed at every foot above the earth up to the top of the atmosphere at every foot along the face of the earth.
- ccran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"Scientists are as jealous of their reputations, and each others', as a group of cats in a small house."
Yup.
- ConceptJunkie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Of course, they can, how else could they be so accurate as forecasting weather?
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17Article is old - dated: 10th May 2000.
Also, all of its "argument points" are tired old fictions.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/fact-vs-fiction-on-climate-change.html- Zlobadon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6From ucsusa.org link -- "... that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. "
I believe this is similar to 'cooking the books'. Tweaking the numbers so that data that doesn't show any global warming trend does... How convincing. - Zlobadon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Ooops... From the link mentioned - "that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. "
Somehow I don't find data that has been tweaked to get the results you want very reliable. Kind of like the EPA goons that put endangered Lynx fur in an area they wanted to protect even though there was none. - quentinp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Actually I'm not seeing his argument points countered on that page. The article is discussing how surface temperature stations, especially urban ones may not be accurate and may, in afact, contribute to warmer than actual scores due to extra heat from clogged vents, faded reflecting paint etc. Especially in places where they don't have budgets for upkeep. His other point was that city monitoring stations, even towns have microclimates much higher than the actual rural readings due to reflection/absorption of concrete etc. Also many spots designated as villages have grown to town or city size and should have their results compensated accordingly. He argues that only rural stations should be used and if you use rural stations the warming trend is no longer there.
Right or wrong the article you linked to does not refute the article in question.
- Zlobadon, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6From ucsusa.org link -- "... that satellite data needed to be adjusted for some measurement and calibration problems. These adjustments bring surface and satellite records into better agreement, both showing a warming trend. "
- surf314, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11The thing I don't get about this is how this has become so political and polarized. I mean look at how argumentative people are for or against this. To me it makes sense. The evidence favors the fact that there are greenhouse gases, CO2 is one of them, people produce CO2 in large quantities, the earth is hotter now than it has been in a long time. Also simple solutions exist to drastically cut down emissions that won't inconvenience anyone and in fact save them money! Also what harm does research into solutions for global warming cause people? I really don't understand why people are trying so desparately to disprove that global warming exists or people that go so far the other way and expect everyone to go out of their way to provide marginal benefits to the environment. The solutions exist and they make economically sense as long as you assign the societal cost of things to thier proper source. When a company pollutes and doesn't have to pay for it, it is like someone randomly assigning thier dinner bill to someone else in the restaurant.
- will42, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Or is the global professional scientific community. But hey, what do they know right.
- surf314, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4@AmericaFirst
Thank you for proving me right about how polarized people are about this argument. What harm does it do you if what they say about global warming is right? Does it effect your life in any way if it is even exaggerated? In my opinion even if it is wrong it makes sense to pollute less and develop better alternative energy sources. Like I was saying earlier pollution is just a way to make society pay for something your doing. Polluting lowers costs because some of the costs are payed for by society. Take an economics course, all these problems will be fixed efficiently if the costs were assigned to the right people in the right quantities. It's mainly just one huge free rider problem. - pumacub, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3@ AmericaFirst
Yea, like those idiots that believe nuclear war could change our climate patterns. You can not change weather patterns in just days and weeks! Idiots! - turricanz, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@AmericaFirst
You severely underestimate the amount of industrialization which has occur ed in the last 80 years. Look up graphs on global population, energy consumption, steel production, economic growth etc etc of the last 80 years. You'll find that each of these graphs show exponential growth. Your assumption that we cannot influence our environment is absurd.
It is an established fact that global warming is occurring, and that we humans have at least some influence in it. The debate is about 'how much' influence we have, what/if it is worthwhile to actually do something about it and what the actual damage caused by global warming will be. - brian6String, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5So, all the people who criticize Intelligent Design because it doesn't pass scientific muster, when something they believe in has it's science questioned, come up with retorts like:
-right winger
-article is old
-the guy is dead (egads!)
Daly's article points out potential flaws in the methods we use as proof of GW. It is valid to ask a question like, how accurately were sailors monitoring and recording their wet and dry bulb readings 100 years ago? Certainly not as accurate as modern means of measuring temperature. So, is the comparison even valid?
I'll take a big swig of the GW Kool-aid as soon as someone can explain the following: The global temperature (which we throw around as if it is a singular number) is warmer now than in 400 or maybe 1000 years, right. So, how do we explain that the global temperature was actually WARMER in the pre-industrialized period (i.e., 400-1000 years ago)? If modern day human activity is having such a drastic effect, then how do we explain ancient episodes of global warming? - surf314, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6@AmericaFirst
I hate to drag on this argument much further but the rising costs you mention aren't so much of a "sky as falling" mentality as it is prices more accurately reflecting thier true costs. I may not know much in the scientific field but I did do well and my college business program. What I can tell you for certain is that pollution in general has costs involved and these costs need to be paid by those that originate the pollution. If you throw a can out your window then someone eventually will be paid to pick it up. That persons salary should be paid by those who originated the cost. The same applies to any type of pollution. If the costs go up because of that it is just because the prices do not reflect the true cost of production. - there, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3
I think the main source of this is that acknowledging something of the scope of global warming irrefutably begs of regulation. Why should someone switch to a more expensive energy alternative if not forced by government? (This leads to the freeloader problem.)
As we all know Rand says government and regulation is bad so it interferes with ideology and draws out the extremists.
There seems to now be a proverbial cottage industry of people that focus on trying to disprove global warming rather than just investigate the data to see if indeed it's a threat or not. My personal feelings on it is is that the data-set (as enormous as it is) is probably still too small to say that is it 100% certain. However enough credible evidence exists that it definitely warrants further attention and investigation with clear action plans in place in case it does pan out. This seems like a nobrainer since we are effectively talking about all life on this planet and there seems nothing wrong to err on the side of caution here.
What's really amazing are the people that don't realize that as humans continue to andro-form this planet more and more of these kinds of large scale issues will indeed crop up. And... OMG... we will need to regulate them.
It's sad to say that otherwise decent people (that are driven by ideology or religion for that matter) seem to sometimes ignore their own reasoning and observations in favor of outlandish moral theories that contradict empiricism. I certainly don't like regulation or rules but I'm not willing to put blinders on and possibly kill my grandchildren in order to militantly uphold a general philosophical principle 100% of the time. - ccran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"The thing I don't get about this is how this has become so political and polarized. I mean look at how argumentative people are for or against this."
"As we all know Rand says government and regulation is bad so it interferes with ideology and draws out the extremists."
That about sums it up, but I will elaborate. Take a moment and imagine how the debate might look if it wasn't assumed, by all sides, that whoever "wins" is going to force (literally use force, implied or otherwise) the others to do with themselves what they deem "right."
If we really had a choice about how to respond to the facts, folks would be much more calm about the problem. As it is, there is still debate as to how to address GW amongst those who believe it is man-made. However, the way our society is structured, only "one" solution will win out. Or, no solution will win out. That, I propose, is the death of all sound reason.
- conorobert, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0some thoughts on climate change @ www.thisbritishlife.com
- tophfisher, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Right wing diggers are funny. You would almost think that a place like digg would not really fit with their life style... But... I guess that's not the case. It's cool that the right and left can hang here.
- bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Actually, Digg typically swings wildly to the left, and the front page of the Politics section at any given point is almost 100% left-of-center while opposing submissions are buried in the queue (including correction articles pointing out that something that made the front page was wrong).
Digg used to be very libertarian, but after 3.0, it became a mouthpiece for the left. Liberals always shout down and censor opinions they oppose, so you only get one side from Digg. - ccran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Plenty authoritarians of the left and right to go around.
- bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7Actually, Digg typically swings wildly to the left, and the front page of the Politics section at any given point is almost 100% left-of-center while opposing submissions are buried in the queue (including correction articles pointing out that something that made the front page was wrong).
- SLP1111, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Don't tell Al Gore this- I saw his movie and he was super serial.
- friend18, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Does there have to be a doomsday threat for people to start being responsible and using clean energy. We shouldn't have to have an apocolypse in 10 years to make us be responsible.
- bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7But we also shouldn't adopt alarmist views that would harm us socially and economically when we're still gathering data. Remember that just 30 years ago, scientists insisted we were entering a new Ice Age.
- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If one is going to say everyone must start using clean energy because there is a doomsday threat, then there should in fact be a doomsday threat.
- dgomes, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1The carbon cycle is a "natural" part of the earth's system. The biosphere is constantly creating carbon through photosynthesis etc, storing it (through biological decay), releasing it (a *very* slow process, though a volcanic eruption would release a large amount of water vapor, carbon, sulfur, etc, quickly), then absorbing it again through the hydrosphere. The point is that our use of carbon-based fuels releases a huge amount of stored carbon very quickly and dramatically increase the CO2 load in the atmosphere, which impacts the whole carbon cycle profoundly (just as a volcanic eruption does). The question is will our accelerated release of carbon impact planetary temperatures in such a way as to negatively impact the biosphere. I believe there is good data to indicate we should be moving away from carbon-based fuels, and that the vast majority of the scientific community believes the data shows that our release of carbon is impacting global temperatures. The point needs to be clearly made that carbon release is a natural part of the planetary system (http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/Glossary/VolcWeather/description_volcanoes_and_weather.html), but we have *greatly* accelerated the release of stored carbon into the system. What results this will have are still to be determined but recognizing the potential problems and taking responsible precautions (using clean, easily produced energy sources) are not alarmist, not emotional hyperbole, simply the rational evolution of sound energy policy.
- BevansDesign, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Dugg down for inaccuracy. :)
- yttrx, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6Just so everyone is very clear---John Daly is a known kook and whos theories are something of a joke to people on both sides of the argument.
- gavintlgold, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Even if global warming isn't caused by humans (and I'm not saying it isn't), just look at a city skyline and notice the brownish smog.
here's some pictures:
http://proto5.thinkquest.nl/~kle0001/images/smog.jpg
http://cai.blogware.com/_photos/Smog.jpg
That is FOR CERTAIN caused by humans and fuel being burnt. Even if we won't die of global warming, we could at least work together to keep the world a beautiful place! - Darylicked, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3this is getting redorkulous. no shirt global warming exists. its stupid to think that after millions of years of global change, that because we are on the planet everything is now stable. the earths environment has never been stable, and it never will be. the planet will go on changing wether we are here or not. its rather pompous of the human race to think they can do anything about it.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2It's rather like sticking our head in the sand and being willfuly ignorant to think that pumping more CO2 into atmosphere every year than a century's worth of volcanism doesn't affect the balance.
- Homunculiheaded, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm always amazed when people think that they are a small part of the world ecology. Have you ever flown? Even over some of the least populated parts of the US you can see the visible effects of human activity on the landscape. In the midwest almost all the land is sectioned off into square which represent human agricultural efforts. I understand the initial thought that the world is large beyond understanding, but look at the radical transformation of the surface of the Earth that human life has caused. There are over 6 billion people on the earth, take every action you do and multiply it by 6 billion (and yes I am aware that resource use is not even close to evenly distributed across populations).
- eluusive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Even if the graph is "flawed" what is the big hurt in converting our civilization over to technologies that make less environmental impact. We _ARE_ changing the makeup of the atmosphere, even if it isn't causing global warming. If you don't expect that to change the face of the planet as well.
To put it this way... Would you not use a condom just because you can't prove the other person has AIDS? - cadrass, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4When I was a kid the scare was about the depletion of the ozone layer and the depletion of natural resources. The world was going to end because we would not be shielded from the sun and because we would run out of oil and coal.
The liberals won and laws were passed. Now we have different propellant in aerosol cans and different refrigerant in out air conditioners and more fuel efficient cars. Congratulations!
Now the environmental non-profits had to find something else on which to spend their money. Thus we now have global warming. You can say what you want about Bush/ Cheney/ Bechtel/ Haliburton and whoever else... but these hippies lobby too and have just as many congressmen in their pockets.- sadecrvn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The ozone layer *has* been depleted, the "hole" over Antarctica is a fact, and the connection to fluorocarbons has been verified.
The "hippies" can't afford to buy lobbyists. The oil companies can -- they've purchased the current administration! They fund dozens of GW debunkers, and advertisements claiming that "pollution is progress" and "science is junk." It's not hippies they're afraid of, it's anyone who will dig for the truth. - cadrass, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2So what is causing global warming? Is it the lack of an ozone layer or is it the continued use of fossil fuels? or is it a combination of both? or can you concede that no one knows what is causing it?
from what I understand the planet goes through major and minor ice ages at pretty regular intervals. when was the last one? Are we due for another one? Why are some places that were once lush now desert? The planet evolves and adapts. Do you disagree?
Are you telling me that there are no "green" lobbyists? Are you kidding me?
- sadecrvn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The ozone layer *has* been depleted, the "hole" over Antarctica is a fact, and the connection to fluorocarbons has been verified.
- McLurker, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7An article by the notorious John L Daly getting posted in the science section and getting 99 diggs? What next, creationist articles all over the front page?
- bonchbonchbonch, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Nope, don't worry, the ultra-left of Digg will make sure to balance out one submission with about 50 left-wing submissions to drown it out.
- h4x0r1ng, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4...and of course they'll only read the titles and not the whole article.
- everfresh59, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@TheBarge & CogSprocket
First off, the earth is getting warmer because your stripping it from it's oil. Yeah it sounds stupid, and no, I am not a scientist. You've got to be one ignorant mofo, to think we aren't causing these problems. Go outside you computer geeks, take a look, breathe in some cancerous air if your in the city. And what's with the whole political spin *****.....your listening aren't you?? Then it worked...you only question political agenda because it's been placed into your mind by CNN and MSNBC, not to mention Digg! LOL.....- Fabozz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"First off, the earth [sic] is getting warmer because your [sic] stripping it from it's [sic] oil. Yeah it sounds stupid..." Finally something we agree on: Yes, it sounds very stupid indeed.
- cogsprocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ok... Show me where I said that we weren't the cause...
What I said to you is that your personification of the planet into a "Mother Earth" figure demonstrates that instead of pushing evidence you're perfectly reserved to instead press a new-age mentality and attitude which then villifies the reader of your comments and, by some form of twisted moral transitive property, cleanses yourself from such responsibility. It's a technique by which you guilt trip the reader with a conviction that is not presented with any form or reason but, rather, is presented with the purpose of scolding the reader and forcing upon them the ideal that they are somehow to blame and that it is they that should make the change.
The result is then that you have some sort of clarity that others do not and are therefore exhonerated from the initial crime that you have made yourself the sole judge by which the rest of our civilization is conviced. Because of these moralistic blitherings I simply cannot give your opinion creedance because it is not fueled by reason and you present no valid arguments by which the reader can make an educated decision. For this very same reason I can now state beyond any doubt that you bring no intelectual value to the conversation.
By the same token since you fail to read what it is that I am actually telling you have no idea what my stance is on global warming. Your response is then no longer fueled by an attitude fit for rebuttal but is instead fueled by the same self-righteous platitudes that you spout to begin with and, therefore, you wind up looking like a whiney, ignorant fool who had his feelings hurt and has to bite back.
If you can't be bothered to read all that let me sum it up for you in these two elementary level words: Grow up.
- Odweaver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I find the whole global warming thing to be stupid. Are emmisions from current combustion engines bad? Yes. Should we try to improve them? Yes. Has the planet been rising in temperature? Yes. Does this mean its because of current combustion engines? No, the temperature of the planet has been rising since the end of the iceage, if there is anything to be worrying about with combustion engines is the harmful gasses they produce that if continued, will probably suffocate us to death in a few hundred years.
- brian6String, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4So, all the people who criticize Intelligent Design because it doesn't pass scientific muster, when something they believe in has it's science questioned, come up with retorts like:
-right winger
-article is old
-the guy is dead (egads!)
Daly's article points out potential flaws in the methods we use as proof of GW. It is valid to ask a question like, how accurately were sailors monitoring and recording their wet and dry bulb readings 100 years ago? Certainly not as accurate as modern means of measuring temperature. So, is the comparison even valid?
I'll take a big swig of the GW Kool-aid as soon as someone can explain the following: The global temperature (which we throw around as if it is a singular number) is warmer now than in 400 or maybe 1000 years, right. So, how do we explain that the global temperature was actually WARMER in the pre-industrialized period (i.e., 400-1000 years ago)? If modern day human activity is having such a drastic effect, then how do we explain ancient episodes of global warming? - Lurz, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Is this where Rush Limbaugh got his information?
- vandal47, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3@ AmericaFirst
An ignorant follower is one who takes the general consensus on faith alone. Those that have researched a topic on their own and have come to the same conclusion as the consensus are not followers. Not everyone gets their information from television (or maybe even a newspaper). There is plenty of good, scientific evidence that supports global warming without drawing upon emotional arguments. The most convincing evidence I have seen comes from glacial ice cores. The average temperature and approximate amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at a given time can be determined from the ice. The information from glacial ice cores combined with atmospheric records from the last 150ish years show that there is much more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than there has been at any given time in the last 400,000 years. The trends also show that a rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide and a rise in mean temperature is correlated, but usually temperature rises first. Since there has been an unprecedented sharp rise in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide in the last 150 years it is reasonable to believe that a rise in mean temperature will follow. 80-100 years of human growth has had an impact on the ecosystem.
About those who have something to gain financially (or otherwise) from the global warming debate; I think that all areas of the political stage have plenty to gain. If we can ignore global warming then the industrial sector can continue to operate much as it has for the last 150 years. If we can't ignore global warming then those researching it will continue to get funding, more articles for and against global warming get published, and the media can produce more sensationalized stories of doom about it. Your opinion is as good as mine as to which of these political forces has more to gain.
About people being just plain stupid; some people are stupid.
Sorry to get preachy, but the evidence is there. It gets skewed and washed out by the media, but when you go to the source, the reputable peer-reviewed journals that publish the research, it is quite clear. - AmishJedi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3This article is flawed.
- tboutcher, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Three reasons why the earth was warmer a few hundred years ago then now and Global Warming is not caused by man.
1) They used to grow grapes in england and can't now because its too cold
2) They used to grow coffee in the U.S.
3)The reason Greenland was named GREENland was because it was green.- BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Three reasons why the earth was warmer a few hundred years ago then now and Global Warming is not caused by man.
1) They used to grow grapes in england and can't now because its too cold
2) They used to grow coffee in the U.S.
3)The reason Greenland was named GREENland was because it was green.
@tboutcher
1) England still grows grapes. In fact you can get wine made in England. I have included a link regarding the history of wine production in the U.K.
http://freespace.virgin.net/donovan.hawley/vineyard.htm
2) I can't find anything regarding coffee being grown in the U.S. other than Hawaii. Please send a link. Being that you other 2 points are complete wrong I would assume this point is also incorrect.
3) Green land was never Green. It was named Green land to get people to move there. Again , I have provided a link for your knowledge...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland - afty8, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@tboutcher
You really need to get your facts straight. You made outrageous statements and offered no proof to their legitimacy. If you honestly believe the earth is colder now than it was years ago, you need to spend a few years in a northern area, such as Greenland or Alaska. I moved to the Kenai Peninsula (just south of Anchorage, Alaska) in spring of 1997. That summer, the temperature barely reached 70. The next winter, there was enough snow to for an 8-year-old to dig a snow fort big enough to stand up in. Now this past winter not only did it rain in the middle of December, but we barely got a foot of snow. Both of these facts were almost unheard of until now. Also our summers are now reaching into the 80s, with average temperatures being around mid 60s-70s.
- BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Three reasons why the earth was warmer a few hundred years ago then now and Global Warming is not caused by man.
- macslut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Langford, "If we stop polluting, it doesn't matter which side was right or wrong, because not-polluting is not going to hurt the environment for certain."
No, but not polluting to a level which all would agree would not hurt the environment means sacrifices far beyond simply not driving Hummers. The radical change in life, and potentially *loss* of life to meet the requirements set by some global warming theorists does have serious consequences.
I'm not a scientist and can offer no legitmate opinion on where Earth's climate is heading, humans contribution to it, and what the best course of action for us should be. I do believe however that we should study the hell out of this to make very intelligent decisions based on facts. - BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The official global temperature record shows that the temperature hasn't gone up since 1998. Your thoughts?
@bonchbonchbonch
Actually 2005 tied 1998. This is notable because 1998 was an el-nino year which typically has higher temperatures. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/ .
Please do a little research before you post... - Leadhyena, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Dude, this article so forgot to compensate for the number of declining pirates in the world. It has been statistically shown that global warming and the pirate population are inexorably linked [see Henderson, http://www.venganza.org/, para. 6]. :)
- BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now, is it because there is a high level of CO2 that we get greater global temperature or is it because there is a high global temperature that we get greater CO2 levels? I don't think there is a way to prove either.
@darkpulsaromega
That is a good question. You can read the link below regarding a lag sometimes seen at the start of global warming.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=13
The theory is that sometimes global warming is triggered by something else. Once a certain temperature is reached more C02 is released and then acts as an amplifier to further drive temperatures.- DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Yeah, tell ya what. Get back to me when they look at temperatures over a geologically significant time scale. That would be something greater than 100 million years.
- BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Last 1 million years? Why that it .025% of the history of the Earth.
That is kind of a small sample size. Get back to me when you compare it to, say, the last 100 million years. At least then, there is a chance that the sample reflects what is "normal" here on Earth.
@DaveV
It does reflect what is normal since humans began their dominance on this planet. A trend that is seen to deviate in the last 100 years out of a 1 million is pretty damn good odds. - DaveV, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@BigKoi
"A trend that is seen to deviate in the last 100 years out of a 1 million is pretty damn good odds."
Unfortunately, the Earth is 4 billion years old. If one is going to talk about global climate on Earth, then one must use data significant to the age of the Earth. A trend of 100 or even 1000 years out of 4 billion is too small to be significant. As I said in my post 1 million years is only .025% of the earth's history.
Humans have been around for such a short period of time, as compared to the actual Earth, that climate data spanning the whole of human history could be a statistical anomoly.
Let's take the last 100 years. That is about .00005 % of the history of the Earth. If you think you can tell what is "normal" for the Earth using that small of a sample, let's apply it to the average person. Most scientist believe that the Earth is about 4 billion years old and will last about another 4 billion before being destroyed by the Sun. That means we can use one half of the average human age which works out to 35 years.
.00005%*(35*365*24*60)= 10 minutes. How much has the last 10 minutes of your life been like the rest of it? Which 10 minutes do we choose? If we choose 10 minutes while you are asleep, then the 10 minutes should look like about 30% of your life. But, if we choose 10 minutes of you in your car, on the toilet, eating, well doing just about anything else, those 10 minutes do not reflect much of your life.
Again, if you are going to talk about the climate of the Earth, you need to use time scales relevant to the Earth.
- quince, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This article is too old to be interesting.
- jerbaker, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3The problem for conservatives on this one is that reality has a definite liberal bias.
To answer one poster, the reason those who believe that global warming is anthropegenic are called scientisits, and those who do not believe it are not is because THEY ARE ***** SCIENTISTS AND YOU AREN'T. How freakin' obvious is that? - dignon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm sick of ignorant, arrogant f*cks spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about global climate change just because they are too gawd-damned self-centered to change their behaviour. There is no longer any debate to be had. Climate change is real. How many Katrinas are you going to need before you accept responsiblity for your contribution and try to do something about it? How many brush fires before you sell your SUV? How faw under formerly frozen polar-icecap water will your home be? I pray that you all are not as ignorant as you act... for all our sakes.
- epluribusunum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I'm sick of ignorant, arrogant f*cks spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about global climate change... How many Katrinas are you going to need before you accept responsiblity for your contribution and try to do something about it?"
That's rich. The people supporting global warming dogma are the ones spreading FUD.
Professor Richard Lindzen: Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
"There have been repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change. Everything from the heat wave in Paris to heavy snows in Buffalo has been blamed on people burning gasoline to fuel their cars, and coal and natural gas to heat, cool and electrify their homes. Yet how can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes?
"The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.
"But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis." - p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Its okay dignon. Just because most people don't understand that this article was posed by a maverik scientist whose criticisms have been debunked (someone posted the link earlier in the comments) doesn't mean you have to be angry. Also, just because virtually every scientist in the world agrees with this Global Warming theory (virtually everything in science is a theory, don't take it literally), doesn't mean people can argue against it. I'm sure they have also procured their PHD's and devoted their time and knowledge to studying this. /sarcasm (hope that wasn't too hard to figure out)
- StupidPeople, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Dignon or to whom it may concern,
1. Katrina was a major hurricane yes but it didn't destroy New Orleans. The Mayor and other elected officials did that by spending moneys appropriated for levy repairs on a statue and things to bring in tourism. The Levies broke because they needed repairs not because Katrina was some super hurricane. Political agenda would have you believe other wise ... MOO for me baby.
2. Brush fires aren't caused by SUV's .. how you pulled that out your anus I have no clue but most brush fires are caused by people tossing lite cigarettes out of their car or SUV ( maybe that's where you were coming from) and the cigarette landing on combustibles aka paper, dry grass, your post.
3. Polar ice caps aren't melting we're not going be under water. One volcanic explosions puts out more "harmful" gas in the atmosphere than our civilization could in century. Only egotistical people think that man kind can destroy the global environment in a few decades. We're not that impressive we don't have that much power ... your penis isn't that big. - p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ eplurb
srry for the double post, but anyway
It saddens me to see the state of science right now. It should be a free practice not concerned with politics. Unfortunately, the media has a habit of slanting everything in a certain way, and not just the "liberal media." Science should be taken as the truth of the matter. Global warming is true in the sense that there is indeed global warming, no scientist would argue with that, but the question is, "Is it a problem?" There is so much spin put on everything, we don't know if gw is the doom of all humankind, but it is spun that way. Science used to be our understanding, and most scientists were respected. Now they have to fight for funding by the corrupt politicians. What do you think is going to happen? - dignon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Using a biased and discredited "scientist" like Richard Lindzen to validate your FUD certainly does not help your case. He has been paid $2500/day for consulting services to the oil and coal industries, a fact that he does not dispute, so I would consider anything that he has to say on the topic to be bias.
I don't understand how anyone would fight against reducing pollution anyway. Are you really that self-centered?!? Can't we all agree that less pollution is a GOOD thing? Is it so much to ask that we all make some very minor concessions to achieve that goal? Doing so may slow or stop global climate change and, in the unlikely event that we discover in 25 years that climate change wasn't real, then at least we still have cleaner air. Seriously. How horrible would that be?!? - dignon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yes, "p1mpjuice", I am angry. Sorry. I'm all for open discussion and debate, but as you can see from the post by "StupidPeople", the discussion surrounding climate change is not an intelligent debate. As far as I can see its pigheaded arrorgant jerks that build their whole arguments around the fact that they don't want to give up their gas-guzzling SUV because their whole self worth is built on showing the world they can drive a vehicle that consumes as much of a limited resource as possible. These idiots are killing us all and the constant FUD being spread by them, like quoting idiots like Richard Lindzen (which is what they always do), takes up valuable cycles that we could actually be DOING something. So yes, it makes me angry. I apologize for letting my anger show through, but I don't apologize for the anger itself.
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@StupidPeople
"One volcanic explosions puts out more 'harmful' gas in the atmosphere than our civilization could in century."
Strike that. Reverse it. Humanity pumps about as much CO2 into the atmostphere every year now as all volcanic activity during the 20th century did.
[ http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm ]
>>
Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year
while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year.
>>
"Only egotistical people think that man kind can destroy the global environment in a few decades."
Only people with their head in the sand, i.e. willfully & purposefully ignorant, think that we can't.
- epluribusunum, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"I'm sick of ignorant, arrogant f*cks spreading Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt about global climate change... How many Katrinas are you going to need before you accept responsiblity for your contribution and try to do something about it?"
- briser, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0If they think I'm going to take anything seriously from this website that looks like it was built in 1997, they're out of their minds.
- Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1This article is from 2000, hardly what one would consider newsworthy, and most of the comments are about as useful or even less so. We either have global warming or we don't. It really has little to do with politics, you boobs.
- BigKoi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Last 1 million years? Why that it .025% of the history of the Earth.
That is kind of a small sample size. Get back to me when you compare it to, say, the last 100 million years. At least then, there is a chance that the sample reflects what is "normal" here on Earth.
@DaveV
It does reflect what is normal since humans began their dominance on this planet. A trend that is seen to deviate in the last 100 years out of a 1 million is pretty damn good odds. - PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1lol urban heat islands have already been taken into account.
The problems with the msu data is well documentated
The flaws were caused by calibration problems, age and orbital decay of several satelites
After fixing the flaws the data matches the theory, dont listen to asshats like this guy.
http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=are_you_a_global_warming_skeptic_part_iv&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1
making something look scienctific doesnt make it science. - ABadInAlbany, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2old news, and questionable.
- wbubel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Check out this link http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2006/07/07/corals-and-climate-change/#more-155
- nikdfish, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2for those that have not heard it already,a basic rule in statistical analysis is that correlation does not imply causation...
- spock627corfu, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I find the selective disregard for science and engineering interesting. Flying in an airplane? You're trusting the judgment of hundreds of engineers, the pilots, air traffic control professionals, and more. Driving a vehicle? You're trusting automotive engineers and highway engineers. Plug in an appliance? You're trusting the product's designers and engineers. And all throughout, of course, you are trusting federal regulators to ensure your safety.
However, bring up evolution or climate change, and, suddenly, having 99%+ consensus in the appropriate scientific and engineering communities isn't enough. Suddenly we have to listen to whatever crackpot says something we want to hear, regardless of whether it is completely disconnected from reality.
The witch-burners are still with us, folks.- darkpulsaromega, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@spock627corfu
"The witch-burners are still with us, folks."
And you seem to be the one pointing the fingers.
As for climate change: yes, 99%+ of all scientists believe there is climate change, but there is a huge split in the scientific community as to whether humans play a big role in climate change or not.
- darkpulsaromega, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@spock627corfu
- arton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1what most people seem to be missing here, is that we have temp records from hundred and hundreds of thousands of years, which do oscillate up and down. Unfortunately, our temp and co2 levels are much higher than they ever have been. The last 30 years are especially dramatic, and the differences they're talk ing about here are pretty inconsequential.
- sabo10, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0We all may be wrong about global warming but the hysteria over the issue is far more interesting and beneficial than absolute evidence to the contrary. Look at all this has accomplished. Even if burning coal fired power plants were a health benefit and CO2 in the atmosphere sufficient to prevent sun burns, I would still have to press for cleaning up the atmosphere...it seems like a nice thing to do.
- klbclem, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Don't forget that CO2 has an impact on the oceans too since it creates an acid in water, the fish will love it I'm sure (sarcasm). Please look at the source of this article, just a 'bit' biased (sarcasm again).
- GreasedUpDefGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I'm not going to state that I'm an expert on the subject BUT what I do know is that several hundreds, if not thousands, of very intelligent highly educated scientists say we have a problem with global warming.
I think we'd better listen to what they have to say... - johnbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@GreasedUpDefGuy
And 100 years ago, several hundreds, if not thousands of very intelligent highly educated scientists said we had a problem with genetically inferior humans polluting the gene pool. The politicians proposed Eugenics as a policy to sterilize those of lesser intelligence and with severe mental or physical handicaps.
So argument from scientific consensus doesn't do much for me. Back in the 50's, Dr. Shoemaker proved that meteors hit the earth, the overwhelming scientific consensus was against him. In the 1970s, there was tremendous consensus that there would be mass starvation in the year 2000. In the 1970s, there was major consensus that the earth was going to cool over the next 30 years, not warm up.
Lastly, current climate models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Greenhouse_gases_in_the_atmosphere) are under considerable debate about the impact of clouds and solar variation on the models. And, it seems that every few months, someone discovers some new input into the system, or output from the system, that no one accounted for in their previous models. In other words - we don't know what all the inputs are, we don't know what all the outputs are, we don't know what the sun and the clouds are really going to do , we know that new discoveries are being made every year that add to our knowledge about the situation.
And at the same time, people are dying of cancer, birth defects, starvation and old age, all of which are meaningful, here and real right this very minute. The dollars you put into fighting global warming come from somewhere. They aren't "magic money" that comes out of the sky. It is neither shortsighted, ignorant or fascist to believe that curing cancer is a better use of our money than fighting global warming. AT the same time, it's also not shortsighted, ignorant or fascist to believe that global warming is more important than cancer. Different people have different priorities. There's nothing immoral about that. What is immoral, however, is taking money away from me to fight Global Warming, when I want to use it to fight cancer. Others may feel that space colonization is even more important, and perhaps they are right (If an asteroid hits the US next week, those of us who survive will certainly wish we had spent less money on Global Warming and more money on Asteroid defense). The point is, let people decide for themselves, as individuals how they want to save the world, instead of tell us which point of view they should have. - munkey906, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I gotta stop reading on this site, it's distracting me from valuable work in the advertising industry....
- theoldhogger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0CO2=less than .05% of the atmosphere. Don't worry! Be happy! Try to get a life!!
- vikingcoder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Don't worry sir. That meal you're eating only contains 0.05% arsenic. Be happy!
- theoldhogger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Ahh! Just got up from the table. Shouldn't I be more concerned that my lungs have a much higher percentage of CO2 at the moment than .05%? Or perhaps, since CO2 is smply a natural part of the atmosphere, and not a pollutant, I should get back to my life.
- shefftim, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Though some seem to see the latest (Wegman) report into the ‘hockey stick’ report on climate change as contradicting it, I don't interpret it that way. For example the last line of the Wegman report – I quote it below in full:
“The most conclusive finding is that the 20th century is the most anomalous interval in the entire period of analysis, including significant positive extremes in the proxy records.”
Let me interpret that:
More 'anomolous' [Deviating from the normal or common order, form, or rule] than the 'significant positive extremes in the proxy records' [i.e. the medieval warming period and Little Ice Age period].
My reading of that is: a) There is Climate Change and b) It is more significant than the other unusually significant climate changes that we have seen before over the past thousand years of civilisation.
If anything I see that statement as totally backing the central notion that global warming/climate change is occurring. It’s not a hoax as some claim.
And much other evidence produced by the scientific community supports the claim that the earth’s climate is changing.
Time to move on from the hockey stick debate, time to act. - theoldhogger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Shefftim.....Nobody is disputing that the planet has been warming gradually as we emerge from the LIA. The hoax is that humans are responsible foe most of that warming(AGW) and that we should destroy the world economies in a fruitless effort to control the massive atmosphere of this planet by tinkering with tiny percentile changes in a trace gas(CO2). The absurdity of this position should be self evident to most thoughtful persons. The "Hockey Stick" became the AGW's icon, so moving beyond it means moving beyond the whole alarmist notion.
-
Show 51 - 52 of 52 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is 
