What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Can't get enough Dragon Age: Origins? Play the flash game. view!
DragonAgeJourneys.com - Play the free companion flash game to Dragon Age: Origins.
227 Comments
- br0ck, on 05/15/2008, -2/+44Volcanoes release 130 million tons of CO2 every year, while humans release 7,303 million tons of fossil sourced CO2 every year. Humans are releasing 53 times more CO2 than volcanoes. So if you say that the amount of CO2 release by volcanoes is enough to cause climate change, it means you're finally realizing that 53 times more than that is obviously going to have an effect.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volg ...
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -5/+34It's funny, this is one of the few subjects on which diggers are decidedly anti-science. Normally, diggers love science, but you can't even suggest the possibility of studying climate change without being called a fanatic, a zealot, and a whack job. It's like, they'll argue there's no proof of anthropogenic global warming, to which I respond, "I agree, I think we should study it more," and then I get called a liberal fascist for simply being curious about science. There is no proof either way, people. Are you suggesting we just shouldn't even bother?
- jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -3/+28what the ***** is wrong with digg these days? every time there's a climate change related article up, dozens of global warming deniers try to feed us tons of *****. radiantarchon cited no sources for his argument because it's just not true.
- pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -6/+27much like evolution deniers, no amount of evidence will convince a global warming denier.
- booyaman1, on 05/15/2008, -17/+40Wait - "the scientists conducted statistical tests and found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming."
Isn't the current debate centered largely on our uncertainty of the "natural variability" of global temperature changes over extended periods of time? - jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -1/+19I don't understand. why stop reading an article just because it challenges your opinions/beliefs? shouldn't you try to educate yourself about both sides of the issue?
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -3/+21Geesh, from the title I thought it was saying that meteorites cause global warming :-)
- SOS84, on 05/15/2008, -3/+18When did James Inhofe's tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists take over digg? My goodness, know the public school system stinks but it is worse than I thought if it if producing this many nutjobs.
- pixelwerx, on 05/15/2008, -2/+16Citation needed
- jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -4/+18I do not understand digg. every other subject that comes up, you guys praise science. there is evidence for and against the possibility of human-caused climate change, so shouldn't we continue to study it more? if you immidiately disregard all studies that disagree with what you already think/know, you completely destroy the purpose of the scientific method.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -5/+21Pretty much the entire concept of studying climate change and its impact on the planet. I mean, the debate goes a little something like this. "Shouldn't we at least study the possibility of anthropogenic global warming?" "NO! You're just using liberal scare tactics! Everyone knows climate change is natural!" "Well, even if it's natural, isn't it a problem that the planet is warming?" "NO! We're actually entering another Ice Age! DUH!" "Isn't that a problem in itself?" "NOOOOO, SHUT UP LIBERAL FASCISTS!!!"
- pixelwerx, on 05/15/2008, -1/+13...which is part of the reason we have this problem in the first place.
- SOS84, on 05/15/2008, -4/+16Pull out the tin-foil hats, the global warming deniers (idiots) are pulling out the volcano nonsense.
- cmonkey24, on 05/15/2008, -5/+17Source please?
- pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -2/+13you are so cool. clearly you know more than NASA.
- tman84, on 05/15/2008, -8/+22FTA: "the spatial patterns of observed impactsclosely match temperature trends across the globe. to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability. So, the team concluded that observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming."
Haven't there been numerous articles that it hasn't gotten warmer in the past 10 years and that it's "on hold" for at least 10 more years, and it will possibly get cooler? - BigManOnCampus, on 05/15/2008, -32/+46This perspective pre-supposes that climate change is human caused, and then attributes observed differences that are as of now simply coincidental as effects of an unproven causation.
Meaningless. - bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15And let me guess. Trees cause pollution too?
- gaqua, on 05/15/2008, -6/+18If most scientists agree that humans have caused or at least greatly accelerated climate change why are the Diggerati so adverse to acknowledging this?
- malex, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11Reality requires more than just you saying so. Especially when there's actual data demonstrating the opposite.
"Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times."
Source: http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/Gases/man.html
So here's my question: Do you actually _care_ if anthropogenic climate change is real or not, or will you just parrot whatever statements validate your political beliefs? - hydroplane, on 05/15/2008, -5/+14Talk radio says there is no such thing as human climate change. It's not like they have a corporate agenda to push.
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -6/+17Not necessarily meaningless. Current climate models cannot explain climate change over the past 50 years or so without taking human activity into account. There is certainly uncertainty about future climate change, but that's another matter.
- floorpi, on 05/15/2008, -2/+11Do you have a source to back this up, or are you just full of hot air?
- arjie, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8I swear man, I don't want to bash the US, it's a wonderful country but I've only seen people from North America ever use the word 'believer' for a phenomenon like global warming (or climate change or whatever). That's part of the problem, this 'believer' 'non-believer' *****.
Anyway, me, I take the middle ground, I'm mostly undecided but the risk is large enough that I take what care I can to the point that I actually enjoy living it this way (switching off electricity for most of the day, walking as much as possible, taking public transport). Even if it _isn't_ human caused, the amount we have to cut back is not that much, I don't understand why everybody won't. It's like the house is burning down and everyone is arguing about whose fault it is. - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8I agree - there's too much sensationalism. I'm especially disgusted with people like you who suggest we abandon scientific research because of potential political implications. Even if global warming isn't man-made, the study of climate change is of great importance, because of the impact it could have on our lives.
- jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -0/+8hey, cool, another uncited and illogical statement made to support the notion that humans aren't changing their environment!
- leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8Right, and no private organization would have any profit motive... I find it funny that people only decry government organizations when they don't agree with them.
- badNetAdmin, on 05/15/2008, -6/+14...and out come the GOP Climate Deniers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial - leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7The first two words of your post summed up the entire problem with global warming deniers. Education. It rocks.
- Isidore, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7A good way to use Wikipedia is to use it as a source pointing to the primary sources - check them out if you want.
The overwhelming scientific consensus is that human activity is now a major factor in earth's climate.
The academics on National Scientific Academies are better qualified than you or I to know who the the real scientific experts are and who the shills are. (If you don't know who end up on National Science Academies, try to find out.)
Check out the Joint Scientific Academies Statement
"It is unequivocal that the climate is changing, and it is very likely that this is predominantly caused by the increasing human interference with the atmosphere. These changes will transform the environmental conditions on Earth unless counter-measures are taken." - jynweythek, on 09/17/2008, -0/+7i am sick of this *****. there's this viewpoint out there that humans can't possibly impact the environment. what the *****? billions of cars burn gas every day, releasing pollutants into the air. you'd have to be ***** retarded to think this can't possibly have an affect on the global environment.
- leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Right, like scientists funded by petroleum companies. Sorry, but this is NASA we're talking about, a traditionally conservative organization that already has a decent amount of funding. What scientific body is gonna have to publish a statement about the evidence of manmade global warming before the deniers admit it's real? The military? NewsCorp? The Vatican? The Oakland Raiders?
- arjie, on 05/15/2008, -1/+7That is incredibly naïve. Interestingly, these so called private sector 'scientists' have been caught out doing precisely what you accuse everyone else of doing. The tobacco industry is one example where they were caught out.
It also doesn't seem very sensible. The gain from knowing just what causes climate change is possibly very little to a company. If anything, they'd be more interested in the consequences of global warming, not in its cause. - bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Citation?
- boo1, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Let's face it Kelly, there really isn't "sufficient" evidence for you nor will there be.... right?
- inactive, on 05/15/2008, -1/+8Oh ***** off, I was talking about asshats like yourself, the ones who can't seem to comprehend the notion of this issue not being black and white.
- jordanmerle, on 05/15/2008, -12/+19Of course the the first ***** comment has to have some kind of political slant.
- SickMonkey, on 05/15/2008, -3/+10I say screw all the studies and academic arguments.
I would like one global warming naysayer here to explain to me what "natural phenomenon" they believe is causing the few last remaining giant ice shelves in Antarctica (formed over ten of thousand of thousand of years) to break off and slide into the ocean so suddenly?
http://cache.eb.com/eb/image?id=74455&rendTypeId=4
I'd also like to know why so many glaciers (also formed over thousands of years) are now also suddenly disappearing over just a few decades?
http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/
It seems to me that it is kind of a big coincidence that this is all happening now and so rapidly in coincidence with our mass utilization of fossil fuels. If it is not humans causing this, then what is? - inactive, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6So bitch about the consequences, not the science. That's like arguing there are no terrorists because you're against wiretapping. Leave the science alone, for crying out loud! Why must it be politicized?
- wheninva1, on 05/15/2008, -6/+12"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ... - apophenic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5The title made me think that global warming was causing asteroid collisions or something. I was confused.
- Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Until then you'll keep believing in a book of old fairy tales that is internally inconsistent, advocates slavery and incest? What a critical thinker you are!
- apophenic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Yes, private sector scientists never misreport their findings, which is why there aren't currently huge lawsuits over Vioxx.
- spazoidspam, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6you are totally correct!!! I agree there needs to be more study to determine if the current climate change is human-caused or not.
However, just because it can't be proved, I don't think that means we should throw tires into the bonfire and think that everything is peachy keen. There is a mid-point between Eco-Nazi thinking and Oil-Profiteer thinking. Just because I want a hybrid vehicle doesn't mean I'm cool with drinking recycled urine yet.
I don't think there is much debate that when the planet warms up, stuff changes. That's like saying when I spill milk on my shirt, it is different then when I do not spill milk on my shirt. - leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -2/+7Don't worry, at the rate you deniers burn oil, well be dead soon enough.
See, I can make an idiotic, politically charged statement too! - bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5No doubt! The only studies to be trusted are funded by the coal and petroleum industries, right?
- leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Welcome to digg
- bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -3/+7I can only imagine you with your hands over your ears, and your eyes closed, shouting "LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA!"
- malex, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5Interesting theory... so who exactly do you think has more money to put into "buying" scientists; environmental organizations, or the coal and gas industry?
- malex, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4By the authors, you mean NASA, right? That hotbed of eco-crazy socialists?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 229 discussions
Catch all of your favorite Digg shows in one place, including Digg Dialogg, Diggnation, The Digg Reel and More!
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is