digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

nasa.gov — A new NASA-led study shows that human-caused climate change has impacted a wide range of Earth's natural systems, from permafrost thawing to plants blooming earlier across Europe to lakes declining in productivity in Africa.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • rlray216, on 05/15/2008, -35/+38More science that the right-wing whack-jobs who hang out at Drudge will ignore or downplay the importance of.
    • KMye, on 05/15/2008, -11/+8I'm not saying this study isn't valuable, but I'm curious what you see here as important that "right-wing whack-jobs" would dismiss...
      • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -5/+20Pretty 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!!!"
        • geoffg, on 05/15/2008, -7/+3Shut up liberal fascist! There... now I'm going back to Drudge.
        • doctechnical, on 05/15/2008, -6/+5Wow, I see it quite differently, with the Global Warming crew saying things like "The debate is over, we have consensus, anyone who doesn't believe in global warming should have their credentials yanked".
          I think study is a great thing. We definitely need more of that. What we don't need is legislation and government regulation built on bad science.
          • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Guess it depends on where you stand. From where I'm standing, anytime anyone conducts any scientific research, they're accused of just having an agenda. I really hate being a fence-sitter, because really, it just means that you take flak from both sides, but for me, I don't give a ***** about the political implications, and I fear that too many people let the political implications impede scientific process. Everyone's obsessed with either proving it or debunking it, whereas I just want to know the truth.
        • staplez, on 05/15/2008, -5/+5See, I'm not a "right-wing anything" but I also don't think we should over react to global climate changes as we are. EVERYTIME we over react we do something really really stupid, like bottled water cause we thought the sewage system was too polluted, or coal plants because we thought nuclear power was too dangerous, or paving roads because we thought railroad companies were corrupt etc.. etc... And EVERYTIME it comes and bites us in the ass. Like Hybrid cars, WE KNOW BATTERIES are incredibly toxic and we should only make as many as we need. Yet thanks to Hybrids, we're now mass producing incredibly toxic batteries that WILL destroy the environment as opposed to just driving normal cars. We may know there is a temperature rise, however it might be perfectly normal as the last bajillion years pointed out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core ... We may not be able to stop the ice age, cause it's natural, but we CAN stop buying Priuses that are producing toxic batteries.
        • KMye, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2There are certainly people on the right that are essentially like that, but there are just as many people on the left who are completely convinced there's nothing in question anymore because they've skimmed a couple websites. I only asked the question because this study doesn't actually address the issue of AGW; it implicitly assumes it, and instead just looks at effects of recent warming. I don't think any more right-wing nutjobs will seek to downplay or ignore this than people "on the other side" will take this study to somehow address and confirm that humans are the main driver behind the warming of the last 40 years.
    • jordanmerle, on 05/15/2008, -11/+19Of course the the first ***** comment has to have some kind of political slant.
    • paperclipsNsoup, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Off topic

      Did the comments just change?
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -2/+2Yup - they're piling up fast in the comments below.

      It's just amazing how many geniuses we have amongst us at Digg, who assure us that there are glaring flaws in scientific method and conclusion within peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of scientists at NASA and scientific facilities around the planet.

      There was me thinking "I should listen to the scientists who do the work", but I should really be listening to 'McCainRocks' and '*****', here at Digg. Silly me.
  • JazminMillion, on 05/15/2008, -26/+5So are we sure this is not just Al Gore upset, cause he did not become president? Wake the ***** up people and do what you can and help your planet! Do you want to have children one day?
    • jordanmerle, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4We are sure. I am awake but a little tired, did not get enough sleep since I was watching Arrested Development on Hulu. Yes.
      • socketman, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Dugg for reference to Arrested Development and Hulu
    • hairydotus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I agree that people need to wake up but it is not about wanting to have children but it is about do you want the human race to survive or do you want to enjoy things in nature such as polar bears that cannot survive in this warming climate. Unfortunatelly people say these things are just natural selection, and if climate change were natural and not caused by us I would agree.
  • 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?
    • Duositex, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2Yeah really.. if you don't have a handle on what "natural variability" is, it sounds like you're building a house of cards.
    • SOS84, on 05/15/2008, -7/+9No the debate is not centered on the uncertainty of natural variability. You must be watching Faux News or listening to talk radio. The debate that is going on right now is what systems will be impacted by anthropogenic climate change and how bad it will be.
      • betasp, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3"Faux News"
        Ha, Ha, Ha. Did you get that directly from the "left wing douche" handbook. That is so original. I don't know how you come up with such things. I bet you type M$ a lot. That, too, is sooooo witty.
    • Pstmann, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5"Isn't the current debate centered largely on our uncertainty of the "natural variability" of global temperature changes over extended periods of time?"
      Yeah, it's kind of like how back in the 80's a FEW "scientists" debated the uncertainty of cigarettes causing cancer or being addictive.
      Where ever there is money involved someone will do their best to convince the majority of the population that the blue sky is really pink.
      • jerwin, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Not sure you are making the point you want to make. The 'money'; is on having people believe that humans are somehow responsible for global warming, and that doing completely inane things like buying carbon offsets or hybrid cars will somehow fix the problem.

        No argument that the planet is in a warming trend, the argument is whether it is a natural occurrence that has happened thousands of times over the history of the planet, or something we are causing and can therefor fix. The money is made selling the fixes, so by your argument, the whole hype about human-caused global warming is happening because there is money involved.

        I wholeheartedly agree with this!

    • PhantomRogue, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2How about they Predict the weather and 'trends' correct for tomorrow and then we can worry about the weather in 3000 years.
    • rblinne, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2This is what the review article in Nature that accompanied the paper said:

      The authors make the case using what is known as the 'joint attribution' approach. They first show that the observed correspondence between impacts and warming would be very unlikely to occur if patterns of temperature change were the result of natural climate variability.
    • caponumen, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2This entire so called science (NO DOUBLE BLIND STUDIES ARE POSSIBLE) is driven by "COMPUTER PROOFS", based on models that have never been shown to represent the actual climate to any useful degree or time span. The REAL data shows solar variability to be a much more important factor that is ignored or suppressed because it discredits the CO2 forcing models. Rising CO2 levels are at least partially an effect of the primary warming that has been on going for some 10-15K years. This CO2 signal in the ice cores is proof the rising CO2 levels are a secondary effect of the orbital / solar variability that actually drives the vast majority of the system. If you review all the available data as I have, you will find this to be the only logical conclusion.
  • 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.
    • macweirdo42, 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.
      • wrongonce, on 05/15/2008, -9/+7The "taking human activity into account" is actually taking a random variable into account and then calling it "human activity". Just because the models don't match empirical data doesn't mean it is human caused.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -5/+5It's not a random variable. We know that greenhouse gases can impact the global climate. At any rate, I agree that we can't be sure, but it's definitely a possibility.
          • Scycon, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0There's also scientists out there who say global warming causes "greenhouse gas" (Co2) to rise. I don't believe anyone anymore. We can thank Al Gore for propelling this into the mainstream with a movie that was pretty much entirely debunked and is now changing political policies/legislation like crazy and we don't even know if it will be for better or worse.
      • BigManOnCampus, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2Climate modeling is a new science. I'm willing to bet there's a ton of variables they haven't even thought of yet much less accurately put into their computer models. Sticking to human-induced as the catch-all for what is poorly understood is a method of politicizing what would ordinarily be a purely scientific debate. So yes, I consider it meaningless to say, "oh my god, our data is showing so many changes on the planet, it all must be a result of humanity's actions."
        • bratterscain, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4Well, we can take your word for it or from a collection of well educated NASA scientists who know a lot more of the variables in climate change than you do. Hmmm, who should I agree with? Everyone's apparently a home-grown scientist on digg.
        • wrongonce, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Strawman. Either argue the science or agree that you are not interested in the science.
          Incidentally, BMoC is not the only person saying these things...
    • 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 ...
      • mootinator, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4Wikipedia isn't exactly the source for unbiased information on climate change.
        • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Thanks for your unbiased opinion.
        • 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."
      • BigManOnCampus, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1The history of science shows us that minority opinion often makes consensus scientists look like fools.
        • StaticThunder, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3I take issue with the word often.

          You need to look at how often the minority opinion is wrong. the minority opinion makes the consensus holders look like fools sometimes, but then thats the only time you ever hear about it. The rest of the time, the minority opinion is forgotten. Who here remembers polywater? Lamarckian evolution? Palladium catalyzed fusion? Nemesis?

          There are thousands of minority views that have been found to be wrong. Only cataclysmic scientific revolutions get remembered.
    • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -3/+3Since the primary contributing greenhouse gas is water vapor (95%), humans have no significant impact on GH gases. We contribute only 3% of the total CO2, which itself is only 3.6 % of the total GH gases, when water vapor is included. So the total human contribution to GH gases is an insignificant 0.28%. We are being scammed by the global warming alarmists. This link has all the data:

      http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. ...
      • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1The link above got garbled:

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. ...
      • canUdi9it, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Hey Diggers, before knee-jerk burying this, first read the article, and absorb the facts presented there. It's well written and easy to understand. Then ask yourself why is water vapor, which contributes 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect, ignored by the majority of global warming alarmists?

        http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data. ...
        • angryredplanet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Because H2O is short lived and self-regulating in the atmosphere. Atmospheric CO2 lasts decades to centuries and CH4 (methane) lasts even longer. The point is, atmospheric CO2 and CH4 have a large cumulative effect - i.e. the CO2 we release now will have an effect on the population between 1 to 15 generations later. H2O is indeed a GHG but to a much lesser extent as it will precipitate fairly quickly once it's density reaches a critical point.

          My second point is that there is no such "hydrological cycle" for CO2/CH4. Actually, there is but one complete cycle takes a lot longer than that of H2O.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle
          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_cycle
    • KMye, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2My comment in the first thread was trying draw out at least one catastrophic-AGW-adherent that recognized this. But it seems like all of them, in all the threads, are missing the point. It's so truly annoying so many are convinced all skeptics are uncritical sheep when they eat this kind of ***** up without a second look.
    • DeadPanDan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Well, you're right that the headline does say that. It's very poorly written.

      At first I thought it meant meteor strikes. How crazy would that be?
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -1/+3Phew!

      BigManOnCampus has spotted that dozens (hundreds?) of scientists at NASA and 10 other scientific facilities have made a mistake.

      Man those scientists are dumb as dirt - lucky we got plenty of big thinkers like BigManOnCampus at Digg to keep us straight.
      • Troy64, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Are these the same NASA scientist that could not differentiate between feet and meters when when they lost the Mars Orbiter in 1999?
  • radiantarchon, on 05/15/2008, -40/+42the recent volcano activity in chile put up more carbon into the atmosphere than humans have since we invented the car
    • truthhammer, on 05/15/2008, -18/+8A crushing smash of reality to the kooks. Bravo.
      • malex, on 05/15/2008, -0/+10Reality 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?
        • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2A crushing smash of reality to those with their heads wedged firmly up their rectums.
    • br0ck, on 05/15/2008, -2/+43Volcanoes 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
      • doctechnical, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2Nonetheless, this raises a good set of questions - if a volcano goes off does that mean carbon credits should become more expensive and we should cut back more? What exactly is the "ideal" amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and what percentage of that are humans responsible for? How much leeway do we allow natural events such as volcanoes?
    • cmonkey24, on 05/15/2008, -5/+16Source please?
    • jwiesenborn, on 05/15/2008, -3/+27what 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.
      • radiantarchon, on 05/15/2008, -8/+3i didn't cite a source because i was trying to start a flame war. what else are comments/bulleting boards for
        • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Well, you've been comprehensively debunked. Goodbye!
      • eitup, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2Flame wars are cool!
    • pixelwerx, on 05/15/2008, -2/+16Citation needed
    • floorpi, on 05/15/2008, -2/+10Do you have a source to back this up, or are you just full of hot air?
    • SOS84, on 05/15/2008, -4/+15Pull out the tin-foil hats, the global warming deniers (idiots) are pulling out the volcano nonsense.
    • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -2/+15And let me guess. Trees cause pollution too?
      • Loonacy, on 05/15/2008, -10/+3Volcanoes are deforesting the earth faster than humans are.
        • jwiesenborn, on 05/15/2008, -0/+8hey, cool, another uncited and illogical statement made to support the notion that humans aren't changing their environment!
        • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3Citation eneded.

          It'll take a lot of volcanic deforestation to come close to just what's being done in Brazil, much less worldwide.

          So please, citation needed.
        • Loonacy, on 05/17/2008, -0/+1My apologies. I thought my comment was blatantly sarcastic and I wouldn't need to point out that I didn't mean it.
      • doctechnical, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Where do you think that carbon in fossil fuels came from?
        • jwiesenborn, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2seriously? you *seriously* don't know the difference between carbon and carbon dioxide? haven't you ever heard the phrase "carbon-based life forms" before?
        • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Carbon itself isn't bad.

          You try living without some in your system.
        • doctechnical, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Yes, I think I have a pretty good handle on the whole Carbon/CO2 thing. Plants use chlorophyll, sunlight and CO2 to grow (fixing the carbon from the CO2 as part of themselves). Plant biomass dies, becomes fossil fuels. Humans burn fossil fuels, put carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2. See, it's like the Lion King, the circle of life! Let's all sing now!
  • suzywang3000, on 05/15/2008, -25/+17how disappointing to learn that the url didn't have the word "onion" in it.

    buried.
    • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4nasa - onion....it must be confusing for your little cranium.
      • suzywang3000, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1haha! blittle cranium... good one. I'll use that...
  • matt.rubin, on 05/15/2008, -16/+12isn't this a no brainer?
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2Yep, no brains are required to believe in the "Climate Change" scam of the century.
  • DuffyDirect, on 05/15/2008, -3/+21Geesh, from the title I thought it was saying that meteorites cause global warming :-)
    • allengeer, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5i thought it meant global warming was causing meteroite impacts.. i was like wtf.
      • doctechnical, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1It makes sense - if the earth is warming, it must be expanding, so it presents a bigger target.
        • DuffyDirect, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1can't argue with that. Earth's gettin' roid rage
    • PabloMac, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3Yes, meteorites have impacted climate change more than any human cause ever has or ever will.
  • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -31/+26Buried...

    I'm so glad to see some great comments in here. We gotta keep backing each other up so these eco-nazis don't take everything over and run man kind down the path of the dodo bird.
    • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -7/+9Anyone who even suggests the possibility of anthropogenic global warming is an eco-nazi? Honestly, I'm on the fence - I don't think there's enough evidence either way yet. Does that make me an eco-nazi?
      • wrongonce, on 05/15/2008, -7/+6No, but if you say that there is no other way that the earth has warmed over the past 30-50 years and anyone that doesn't follow along with the AGW agenda is a "denier" then you would fall into that category. Actually, you might be a denier, since you don't believe blindly in the "science of climate change".
        Welcome to the team!
        • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -4/+2I don't believe blindly either way. The deniers are just as bad as the believers, and they can't seem to be able to see the hypocrisy.
      • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4No it doesn't make you one. But it seems the vast majority are uneducated eco-bandwagoniers. Mostly liberal Democrats at that. They pass bills that are based on radical theories (not just global warming) that cost americans Millions. This eco movement combined with our current government and it's mentality to control every aspect of our lives will ruin our society and cause mass poverty.
        • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5So 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?
        • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -3/+1Cuz it largely relates to political affiliation. I agree that the Science is the Only thing that should matter, but when this topic is about to throw millions and billions of dollars out the window for no damn reason, I tend to link the two together.

          You seem like you have a pretty straight head on ya. I don't want to sound mean, I'm just expressing my opinions. This stuff really gets me razzed.
        • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1You're right, we should drop more bombs on ***** and the planet can get *****. Are you a pro-lifer?
    • geoffg, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2It's the ultimate kind of fraud because it claims skeptics as not believing in science. I don't believe in God and hold the scientific method as the ONLY rational way to understand the world, yet I'm branded a Christian neocon flat earther whack job when the burden of proof isn't even on me, the skeptic!
      • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Don't kid yourself - both sides claim the other doesn't believe in science. No matter what side your on, you can't actually study anything without having someone screaming at you about how your some sort of fascist.
        • YourRealFather, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1I use to have the name TheFascist untill somebody at digg decided to delete my profile. Now I only wish someone would call me Fascist. I loved that profile. That was my racist-saywhatyoufeellike profile.
          • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1You don't need a profile to do that. It comes out naturally.
        • YourRealFather, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Now I have to go back to being your real daddy, bjornski.
    • Pstmann, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3There are an estimated 6.5 billion people on the planet. I don't think the human race is going to go the way of the Dodo any time soon!
      That is unless we are inhabited by a superior race of aliens that take a liking to "sport" hunting humans.
    • 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!"
  • 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?
    • NJank, on 05/15/2008, -3/+8but that depends on which party takes office in november
      • tman84, on 05/15/2008, -4/+3but...not necessarily true, "going green" seems to be the new form of global slavery and is approved by both parties, as seen in recent PSA's.
    • Duositex, on 05/15/2008, -3/+2I think what you are referring to is "global climate analysis funding source variability"
    • Logicexe, on 05/15/2008, -2/+4It's due to rising cold water from deep in the ocean. It's not so much that the earth is getting colder, or that the warming has stopped, it's that cold water stuck deep in the ocean is circulating upwards and producing a cooling effect which would slow down or stop the warming until it balances out.

      It's kind of like warming up your room with a space heater, then bringing in a huge bucket of ice. The ice will cool down your room if there's enough of it to counter the space heater, but eventually that ice will melt and equalize with the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere.
    • dddavid, on 05/15/2008, -4/+1Yes, those articles were written by the oil companies.
  • Brownds, on 05/15/2008, -11/+7True or not it's not about saving the planet it's about saving our race the Earth will be here long after we and our effects on the climate are gone. Save the Human!
  • kakwakas, on 05/15/2008, -28/+22Stopped reading and buried at at "human-caused climate change."
    • pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -2/+12you are so cool. clearly you know more than NASA.
    • jwiesenborn, on 05/15/2008, -1/+18I 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?
    • pixelwerx, on 05/15/2008, -1/+12...which is part of the reason we have this problem in the first place.
    • leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6The first two words of your post summed up the entire problem with global warming deniers. Education. It rocks.
    • angryredplanet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Ignorance is bliss.
  • kelly, on 05/15/2008, -15/+6Burried
  • jimbonk8e, on 05/15/2008, -16/+9i can assure you most scientist will tell you what u want to hear in order to get the funding we want on other stuff ive seen it done too many times
    • malex, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4Interesting theory... so who exactly do you think has more money to put into "buying" scientists; environmental organizations, or the coal and gas industry?
    • leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5Right, 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?
  • floorpi, on 05/15/2008, -7/+12Don't worry, the market will work this out.
    • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -5/+0The government has WAY too much control to where it the market has no power to change itself.
  • evo8ftw, on 05/15/2008, -19/+9You Global Warmingers just won't die, will you?
    • sylvanis, on 05/15/2008, -6/+3Eventually...Hopefully when the ice age comes. meanwhile, i'l be staying warm with all of the oil we're drilling.
    • arjie, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3That's because there's a lot of us, the whole rest of the world anyway.
    • leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6Don't worry, at the rate you deniers burn oil, well be dead soon enough.

      See, I can make an idiotic, politically charged statement too!
  • nirav72, on 05/15/2008, -7/+5"from permafrost thawing to plants blooming earlier across Europe"

    Isn't that a good thing? I mean, the frost melts sooner and flowers bloom earlier! /sarcasm.

  • MrFurious2k, on 05/15/2008, -12/+7"Cynthia Rosenzweig of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Science in New York and scientists at 10 other institutions have linked physical and biological impacts since 1970 with rises in temperatures during that period."

    The article then goes on to say:

    "The study, published May 15 in the journal Nature, concludes that human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe."

    So, let's make sure we've understood this correctly. Since the temperature appears to have increased, there appears to have been a resultant impact on the various ecosystems. Permit me to say, "No *****." The warming apparently caused some changes.

    "Next, 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."
    Can they tell me what is considered, "natural variability"? How was it we had ice ages and intensely hot periods and this little fluctuation is considered out of the norm? Do we know what the norm is? What about the warming/cooling spikes that occurred in the last 2000 years? We know it was much warmer during the period of the Viking's exploration... were they driving SUVs across Greenland?
    • sylvanis, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2Vikings must have been driving SUV...where else did Ford get the Explorer, Expedition, and Excursion?
  • alwaysthere, on 05/15/2008, -9/+12This article talks about how they have found correlation between global temperature changes and observable local climate phenomena but does not explain how they are claiming that human activities are causing the global temperature changes in the first place. They keep using the terms "Human-Caused" without backing up that term with any information on how they distinguish between natural changes in global temperatures and those caused by humans. Buried, inaccurate. :(
    • Logicexe, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3Did you completely miss the last two decades of climate research? You guys act like this debate on climate change just started. Scientists have been discussing and researching this for decades,. Heck, I knew about the greenhouse effect in high school over 10 years ago.

      Is the climate extremely complex? Sure it is. So is the human body. There's a lot we don't know about the human body, but we can still make predictions on how certain drugs will react to a certain degree of accuracy.

      We have a strong correlation between CO2 content and temperature, we have the theoretical framework to show causation, and we have laboratory tests that show even small increases in CO2 content can cause increases in temperatures.
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2You're mistaking your ignorance on the subject with there not being any evidence. The two are not the same.

      There is virtually unanimous agreement in the scientific community on anthropogenic climate change. It's also not an issue of discussion anywhere outside of right-wing, bible belt USA.

      Every article that details the effect of it cannot also contain all the information that proves it. However, it's really easy to find - www.google.com.
    • angryredplanet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Buried, ignorant.
  • tierpinho, on 05/15/2008, -11/+4govt propaganda
    • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -1/+5No doubt! The only studies to be trusted are funded by the coal and petroleum industries, right?
  • macweirdo42, 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?
    • kelly, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4Actually, diggers only like the science that's most redily accepted. They would even begin to allow the scientific process to apply to theories which they have already decided against. Evidence indicating that man is not responsible for global warming or climate change is just one of a long list of instances which show this.
    • SuperVepr308, on 05/15/2008, -13/+3Well said. Libdiggers only care for facts and "science" that supports their favorite brand of socialism. Truth to them is like a breakfast buffet...
      • macweirdo42, 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.
    • 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.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3The problem is that no science can actually get done, because it's all "an agenda." If I collect data that suggests the possibility of AGW, I must be a lying socialist, and if I collect data that suggests it's natural, I'm a lying neocon.
    • Lukavich, on 05/15/2008, -8/+2We shouldn't bother (now). We should not be spending millions and billions of dollars on prevention of something that has not even come close to being proved. These liberal freaks will keep wasting money and not see any results. Therefore they will come to the conclusion that they haven't done enough so they need more money.

      There are WAY too many sensationalists when it comes to this *****.
      • macweirdo42, 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.
    • sylvanis, on 05/15/2008, -3/+5I think it's because there isn't enough data on the past to prove anything. It's like saying that the atmosphere around me is more methane, because it was sampled for 1/1,000,000,000,000th of a second after the gyro I had the other day. The fact is there isn't enough acurate data to prove a hill of beans one way or another People on the right say there's nothing happening, people on the left are pulling a chicken little "the sky is falling". It's more about politics and scaring people into believing that they need the left or right to protect them, than being a good steward of our planet.

      Guess what.... At this moment we need to rely on fossil fuels because:
      1. it isn't economically feasible for the average citizen of the usa to have a electric car (batery technologies arent there yet)
      2. nulear fusion isn't readily availible. (i'm sure the government is running their black heliocopters off of it though....lol)
      3. too many people depend on fossil fules for making a living, and/or living it up.
      4. outside of the "civilized world"....emerging countries and economies have nothing to count on but fossil fules.

      Battery technologies are improving...and even if "Western" countries decide to go with mandatory electric vehicles, look at China. Thats a lot of people that want cars...and I bet they don't have such restrictive regulations such as our fine EPA.

      Until the Aliens come and scare the hell out of humanity into acting as one group, we're screwed. If that doesn't happen, all of the Environmentalist extremeists will get their way....humanity will cause their own extinction, the Earth will self correct through it's natural levels of climate change over hundreds of millions of years and give another species an opportunity to grow and evolve and become the dominant species.
      • macweirdo42, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1It's a crying shame, really. I mean, this is what science is all about - answering unknowns, and yet, everyone wants to pick a side already even though we've only just begun to understand climate change.
    • 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.
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4There is evidence. Overwhelming evidence from multiple sources, confirmed and corroborated by thousands of scientists around the planet.

      The amazing this is the number of people who confuse "I don't know of any evidence" with "there is no evidence". Those two things are *really* different.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
    • hairydotus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1They are anti science on this subject because they may have to give up there hours of video games and web surfing to save the planet. now don't get me wrong I do surf the web and and play video games on the occasion but I do totally agree with the science pointing towards humans causing climate change and I am doing things to help. I have gotten rid of my car and bike everywhere i need to go, I buy green cleaning products, turn off lights and electronics when not in use etc. I mean no matter what you believer, we are the cause or not, you have to look at the things we are doing to the planet and its wildlife and realize that it is not beneficial to the environment so why not stop doing it and find for eco friendly alternatives
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2How come nobody is asking whether any of these climate changes are due to HAARP?
    It's way past time to investigate the terrorist United States Government!
  • socketman, on 05/15/2008, -15/+7BS there is no human caused climate change
    • jwiesenborn, on 05/15/2008, -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.
    • unebaguettesvp, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1socketman, let's see your research.
    • leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You're trolling, right? Please tell me you're trolling.
    • socketman, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Not trolling here. Really I thought it was pretty much proven now that humans aren't causing climate change.
      I am honestly surprised that people still think that we are.... That is so 1 year ago.

      Where is the research confirming that we are causing climate change? Because the major link - C02 was knocked out a long time ago.

      What are we doing now that is causing climate change?
      • unebaguettesvp, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0"Really I thought it was pretty much proven now that humans aren't causing climate change."

        you need a reference to backup this statement.

        "Where is the research confirming that we are causing climate change?"

        look at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anthropogenic+ ... if you are not at a university or college and don't have access to published journals.

        "Because the major link - C02 was knocked out a long time ago."

        i would like a reference for this please. where did you read this?
  • cmuwriter, on 05/15/2008, -12/+1Obama?
  • wrongonce, on 05/15/2008, -11/+4"concludes that human-caused warming is resulting in a broad range of impacts across the globe"
    So that means some of the impacts are good. What were these? Are we checking? Are we reporting on the benefits of a slight and gradual warming?
    I guess that would go against the politics of the authors.
    • malex, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4By the authors, you mean NASA, right? That hotbed of eco-crazy socialists?
    • SOS84, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Actually we are reporting on which effects are good and which ones are bad. But, the vast majority of good effects are short lived as increased temperatures will eventually over ride them or they will be cut off by another process kind of like the CO2 fertilization effect always trumpeted by the tin-foil army as to why climate change is good. In a lab, the positive influence is undeniable, in nature, not so much as most places do not have an excess in soil nutrients or effective water cycling to support increased growth of existing species in this manner . In almost all cases, the positive effects will be very short lived or non-existent i the real world.
    • wrongonce, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1NASA is a space agency, the authors are people.
  • 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?
    • kelly, on 05/15/2008, -11/+4Because most scientists DON'T agree that any variations in temperature are the product of humans
      • bjornski, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Citation?
      • floorpi, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1How do you come to that conclusion? Got facts? Let's see some survey results or something.
    • apetrie, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4I don't think most diggers are adverse to acknowledging it, but there is a core group who will claim there is no proof, and argue against it no matter what is shown to be true. They are called assholes, and they love to spew the same crap over and over again because they have decided that its true, regardless of reality.
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -0/+2It's a puzzle. For all the science and religion-bashing that happily appears on Digg, there's a core group who ignore reality when it comes to climate change. No evidence will shake them from their belief.

      I think accepting the reality would make them feel very guilty about their 10mpg truck that they're in love with.

      Just keep hitting them with the evidence and maybe one day it will sink in.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
    • hairydotus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Ya I agree there are people who don't want to face the facts because accepting this could mean they have to change there lifestyle or feel guilty for not changing it and they don't want either of these. People need to realize that even if we aren't causing climate change we are still hurting the planet in other ways such as dumping pesticides and fertilizers onto plants which a statistic says only 0.1% of pesticides reach there target pest and they all get into water supplies. There is a floating pile of garbage twice the size of texas in the middle of the pacific. we are killing animals at an alarming rate and the list goes on. so climate change aside there are plenty of other bad things we are doing to the planet that we can try and stop.
  • pintomp3, on 05/15/2008, -6/+27much like evolution deniers, no amount of evidence will convince a global warming denier.
    • kelly, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4We might believe if there were sufficient evidence to support either one of the two.
      • boo1, on 05/15/2008, -0/+6Let's face it Kelly, there really isn't "sufficient" evidence for you nor will there be.... right?
      • 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!
    • hairydotus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1I don't know how much more evidence you need. The icecaps are shrinking, We are dumping millions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants into the air, lakes are drying up, deserts are getting larger, and a mass extinction of animals is underway, not to mention the intense deforestation happening all over the globe. That should be enough evidence that we are destroying the planet but I could give you at least another dozen examples if you want. Just open your eyes and maybe you'll realize what is going on. I never understood why people in this country like to ignore things until it is too late. it doesn't take a lot, if everyone just made very small changes to their lifestyles such as recycling, turning off lights, carpooling, walking when you don't need to drive it would go a much longer way than people realize. for crying outloud if everyone planted a tree or two that would reduce CO2 in the air significantly
  • jwiesenborn, on 05/15/2008, -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.
    • kelly, on 05/15/2008, -3/+4We're all for its continual study... we aren't for acceptance of of a conclusion that is not proven
    • jimchou, on 05/15/2008, -1/+3We are studying it more. But the consensus of scientists is that it is real and caused by humans (IPCC report). The "controversy" argument is not scientific, it is the same type of FUD as that spread by the Tobacco Institute to discredit links between smoking and health.
      • kinerry, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2wrong, the consensus is that we know it's warming, but we may never know if its caused by humans. there are too many external variables to ever REALLY know.
  • SuperVepr308, on 05/15/2008, -12/+5Will Obama plunge his golden scepter into the barren Earth and command the Earth to cool (while ***** rainbows and pissing lucky charms)?
  • 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.
  • badNetAdmin, on 05/15/2008, -6/+14...and out come the GOP Climate Deniers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
  • JohnGalt72, on 05/15/2008, -13/+9Oh goodie...more "science" from a Gov't subsidized science body. They never would mislead anyone.

    I'm sure they're dead on and have nothing to gain or lose with their findings. *chortle*

    Don't get me wrong, I actually like NASA. But they should stick to rockets and deep space satellites. I'll start to pay attention to this "warming" when the private sector scientists start to agree with these findings. You know, the scientists that actually report what they find, and don't answer their hypothesis before they begin the study. Until then, it's just propaganda.



    • leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -0/+7Right, 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.
      • JohnGalt72, on 05/15/2008, -4/+0Before you assume that you know me, maybe I should remind you that you don't.

        How would you know that I only decry gov't organizations if I don't agree with them?
        FYI...I can't say I can find one gov't org I like. maybe we need a military and a court system, that's about it.

        Now that you know more about me, you can argue with logic instead of assumptions and emotion. Try again...
    • apophenic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+4Yes, private sector scientists never misreport their findings, which is why there aren't currently huge lawsuits over Vioxx.
      • JohnGalt72, on 05/15/2008, -2/+1Hey you two...if you have an argument with me about how genuine this so-called study is, then defend it. You don't win your argument by deflecting to private sector studies.

        What I said was truth. There aren't any private organizations showing results like this. Only Gov't sponsored studies. I'm not arguing whether or not there is fraud within the private sector scientific community, what I'm arguing here is that one shouldn't trust what a gov't sanctioned body puts out as truth, without first investigating it further.
        • apophenic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2No, what you said was that the private sector should be looked at as the ultimate vanguard of the truth, and that government funded studies aren't reliable. If anything, the government funded studies would be more likely to have a bias against global warming if they were going to misreport, since the current administration thinks it's bad science.
          I'm not defending this study because I don't actually care what it says, I just think your claim that the study should be suspect because it's government funded is ridiculous.
          • JohnGalt72, on 05/15/2008, -2/+0You guys just don't get it...You're being duped into answering to an unelected body of men that are going take your wealth in the form of Carbon Taxes. Say hello to serfdom. (and the air will be no cleaner than it is now either)
    • arjie, on 05/15/2008, -1/+6That 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.
      • JohnGalt72, on 05/15/2008, -4/+0Once again, I'll not argue whether there is or isn't corruption in the private sector.

        What I will argue is that just because NASA says something doesn't make it so. In fact, to me, it makes it less so.

        There is no such thing as Global Warming folks. Not man made, not anything. The Earth is fine. Global warming is just the next phase in figuring out how to tax people, and countries. And the next step in a movement towards Global Gov't.
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -0/+4Read the article, half-wit. NASA and *ten* other scientific facilities produced the report.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
  • 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.
  • DifferentAngle, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4In other news, researchers find what they were looking for.
  • p51d007, on 05/15/2008, -13/+9If "man made" global warming were true, then explain to me, in a logical way, how, now that some of the glaciers in
    Norway, Iceland or where ever it was, melted, revealing an ABANDONED silver mine? If that mine was ABANDONED, then, at some point in the past, it means the area that was covered with ice, was warm enough to support mining.
    The earth warms and cools in CYCLES. I remember back in the 70's, there were articles & stories about the fact that we were entering a new ice age.
    • Isidore, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4"Norway, Iceland or were ever it was" - a citation would be good.

      No-one doubts that earth's climate has many complex causes including natural CYCLES. The question is whether human activity is now ONE of the factors. "yes" say mainstream scientists.

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

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

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

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

      Can the deniers produce a climate model using _natural_factors_alone_ which explains recent global warming? eg using graphs like the ones above.
  • apophenic, on 05/15/2008, -0/+5The title made me think that global warming was causing asteroid collisions or something. I was confused.
  • leftyslament, on 05/15/2008, -2/+6God the freepers are out in full force today...
  • frostbyt, on 05/15/2008, -11/+5More lies.
  • willdiggforfood, on 05/15/2008, -9/+4Next headline:

    "Abstinence before marriage increases global warming"
  • rdmaxx, on 05/15/2008, -10/+4Anyone remember the biggest event of disinformation about global warming. This information was also used in that mocumentary "Inconvenient truth".

    http://digg.com/environment/Blogger_forces_Nasa_to ...

    No one thought it would be a big deal. But when part of your funding comes from pet projects you tend to look for information to keep that funding coming.

    Any system that allows you to acquire or debits any kind of credit for out planet needs to be against the law. This kind of stuff will become a taxation on life basically... We will then have to pay to breath the air we have. Perhaps when trees and grass stop producing it I would be ok with that but until then... I prefer my air like I want my AMERICA... FREE!!!! at least 1 remains that way... For now.. Viva La Environment-Nazi Resistance
  • em22, on 05/15/2008, -12/+4lies lies lies. they have no proof in what they say, you cannot believe any organisation which is run by money to tell you the truth. the carbon nazi will jump on any disaster that may happen to force their dirty carbon tax. they lie.
    • Delphium226, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2You're right, we should rather listen to anti-global warming smear organisations like the 'Global Climate Coalition' with members like: -
      * Exxon / Esso
      * Ford
      * Royal Dutch/Shell
      * Texaco
      * British Petroleum
      * General Motors
      * DaimlerChrysler

      After all, they only had our best interests at heart when they lobbied the government to ignore global warming. Lucky for us!

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Climate_Coalit ...
    • angryredplanet, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1If you pollute, you pay. If you use solar, wind or wave power you won't pay. Sounds pretty fair to me.

      You can see that this will force investment in clean renewable energy infrastructure or in the very least cleaner ways of burning fossil fuels.
  • 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?
    • betasp, on 05/15/2008, -2/+2Explain to me how Greenland got its name when it has been covered in so much permafrost that we are claiming it is global warming thawing it.
      • apetrie, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Are you seriously trying to discredit global warming by talking about the name "Greenland"? Wow. Lets suppose for a second that humans always name things logically and examine this theory:

        "The name Greenland (Grænland in Old Norse and modern Icelandic, Grønland in modern Danish and Norwegian) has its roots in this colonization and is attributed to Erik the Red (the Inuit call it Kalaallit Nunaat, meaning "Land of the Kalaallit (Greenlanders)"). There are two written sources on the origin of the name, in the The Book of Icelanders (Íslendingabók), an historical work dealing with early Icelandic history from the 12th century, and in the medieval Icelandic saga, The Saga of Erik the Red (Eiriks saga rauða), which is about the Norse settlement in Greenland and the story of Eric the Red in particular. Both sources write: "He named the land Greenland, saying that people would be eager to go there if it had a good name."
  • wyerleader, on 05/15/2008, -9/+5To all you ecoidiots, check your facts. There has been no rise in tempatures for over 10 years. In fact, the earth is now in a cooling off period. Most of you people don't remember the 1970's when the scientific community was screaming global cooling and a comming ice age. The main reason for the constant barrage of global warming bs is to keep the so called scientists in the green with govt funding.
    • angryredplanet, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1To you, industroidiot, you are right, the scientists are wrong, the world is flat and the sun turns off at night.
    • prcrimm1, on 05/16/2008, -1/+1Yes I remember the 70's. Railroader, walking trains in sub zero weather, watching my tracks disappear behind me. I'll take global warming man made or otherwise over global cooling any day. I am afraid the latter is what we are in for now. Been there done that and I have to say warm is always better.
  • dddavid, on 05/15/2008, -2/+3What do they know? They're not exactly rocket scientists. Oh... wait a minute, never mind.
  • mwilliams11, on 05/15/2008, -6/+1NASA = Not Above Sucking Ass
  • HeroicLife, on 05/15/2008, -6/+4The earth may well be warming, but the earth’s climate is always changing – the idea that there is an “optimal” climate is a myth. Adapting to a warmer climate has many costs, but many benefits as well. Imagine the enormous territories in Siberia and Canada that might finally be open to settlement, and the resources and shipping routes that will become available.

    Even the most alarmists of scientists generally agree that there is little humanity can do to influence the global climate for many decades, even if we wrecked an industrial civilization that has allowed billions of people to leave immeasurably longer and better lives. Our resources would be far better spent creating innovative technology that allows us to make the best of a constantly changing climate than crippling industrial civilization (our best tool for dealing with a constantly changing world) in a futile attempt to stop climate change.
  • designerutah, on 05/15/2008, -5/+6I'm all for the scientific method. And I agree that we should be doing all that we can to reduce the harm that we do. Problem I have is that proponent of Human-Caused Global Warming feel like the concept is proven, or at least strongly enough supported to be a valid theory. And yet, there's far more political support than there is scientific support.

    Ask yourself this: If meteorologists today, using the best technology, data gathering and weather models can't accurately predict weather for more than a few days, how is it that ecological scientists can accurately predict the possible effects of human-caused global warming? They're dealing with very similar models, though in truth, the global warming one is likely much more complex as it's not just dealing with weather.

    My only real point is this: We should do less damage to the planet. But we need to study the effects of what we're doing and understand them before we start trying to "solve" them. We're not even sure that using hybrids is better for the long term if we converted en mass. Are the toxic chemicals in the battery, and hybrid production less damaging in the long term than the increased fuel use of the non hybrid. We're assuming the damage is less. And we're spending billions of dollars to promote this assumption and get people moving towards conversion. And yet, our short term fix might be more damaging in the long run.

    I'm not a denier. I'm not a believer. But I will poke holes in either argument when I see more invective than proof.
    • ninepointfive, on 05/15/2008, -1/+4One of the better comments I've read, and yet you are being dugg down. Don't worry brother - rational minds still exist to battle the forces of the eco-dumbass!
    • mwilliams11, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0Nicely done. I've been saying the same thing for years.

      Too many people see the word "scientist" and assume that whatever they say must be the truth.

      In the end, common sense always wins.
    • SoxFanNH, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1Totally agree the science has been removed from this whole argument...
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1"...feel like the concept is proven..."

      It *is* proven. There is overwhelming evidence. There is global scientific consensus.

      You're simply mistaking your absence of knowledge with absence of evidence. The two are not the same.
      • designerutah, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0Proof that humans have caused Global Warming? Show us. Give us links, data, specific causation studies. Because as far as I've been able to see, there are proofs that mankind is putting lots of Carbon into the air. Proof that burning fossil fuels releases poisons. Proof that the temperature has increased slightly over the last 50 years. But none of those types of proof have shown cause that mankind's civilization is linked to a dangerous increase in temperature.

        I'm willing to learn. So show us the proof. I'm NOT a scientist. But I have learned that if something is accepted, it means that the solid scientific journals stop debating the theory, and start debating implications, details of the theory, and assumptions based on the theory. I haven't seen this with Global Warming, but it's possible I've missed it. So please, share.
  • rdmaxx, on 05/15/2008, -7/+2Sorry folks you can call me a denier or a GOP motivated person but its as simple as I live in the Show-Me state. While I can't prove Bigfoot is fake. No one else can prove he's real. So hes in same category as global warming until proof is provided Thats kinda what proof does. It proves things. Everything currently put out for both Bigfoot and Global Warming has evidence against it that counters the information as nothing more then speculative. When they stop using guesstimated computer models based on misinformation and start using facts to run the calculations then we can talk.
    Not to mention the biggest piece of evidence that this is "NORMAL"... The planet was once a ball of FIRE! If its not able to change without us... How did it get so green and nice enough for us to survive, regardless of how we came about to be??
    I do agree with designerutah "If meteorologists today, using the best technology, data gathering and weather models can't accurately predict weather for more than a few days, how is it that ecological scientists can accurately predict the possible effects of human-caused global warming?"
  • tao52nyc, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2After looking at the Vostok ice core data, it sure seems to me that "warming" is a brief natural spike that peaks quickly and doesn't hang around for long. This is followed by a quick downturn over a couple of centuries, followed in turn by 100000 years of winter. And the historical graphs are so disgustingly stable they could almost be superimposed over one another. Maybe a little extra greenhouse gas would be helpful this time around...?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core ...
    • monoa, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1That's cleared it up then? All those thousands of scientists around the planet in research facilities and universities have simply made a giant mistake? A mistake that they've been making for decades?

      All they needed to do was look at one ice core and ask for your opinion on what it means. Of course.

      The idiocy that this subject brings out is truly depressing.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on ...
    • hairydotus, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1the only problem to your theory is that these warming cycles are cause by a cycle of the sun where it's temperature increases and that is not happening this time. that is why scientists believe that we are the cause.
  • vault, on 05/15/2008, -5/+2buried as inaccurate
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 58 of 58 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

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


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