What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
492 Comments
- venicerocco, on 04/07/2008, -32/+92It's probably time for us all to wake up and do something.
- canrocks, on 04/07/2008, -9/+58It depends on where you are. . . Climate change causes a whole bunch of fun stuff; flooding in some areas, droughts in some areas, and generally ***** up weather everywhere.
- dbixler, on 04/07/2008, -5/+51No, the Earth is not in crisis, at least not from us. Mankind might be in crisis but the Earth will prevail despite what we do.
- didiman, on 04/07/2008, -35/+74I heard global warming is causing global cooling now...
- renagadex2, on 04/07/2008, -10/+46Regardless if you think global warming is a hoax or not (which by now is ridiculous) the result, less toxic emissions, alternative fuel sources etc. should all still be pursued.
- Tr33fiddy, on 04/07/2008, -22/+54I love how both sides of the debate are trying to predict the nature of a vast, non-linear system using an infinitesimal (and ultimately impossible to obtain) amount of the data required and by taking into account only certain parts of the system, sometimes a single part.
Using decades of detailed information, supercomputers and statistics we can predict the weather for up to about 10 days, max.
Here we are with incredibly coarse data in a select few areas of the system and we are using those predictions of the global climate to make species-altering decisions.
Whether the climate changes or not, whether it's our fault or not and whether there is anything that we can still do about it, I believe that as a species we should 'tread lightly' on the environment. I also believe there's as much chance of that happening as Tom Cruise losing '*****' as his middle name. - o0joshua0o, on 04/07/2008, -9/+36Don't listen to this guy. Pumping millions of tons of pollutants into the air and water has no effect. NO EFFECT!
- 360news, on 04/07/2008, -24/+49I hear this ever day. I also hear that this is all BS.
I am inclined to believe we are in Deep Sh*t.
There is some very good PR work being done by both sides in this 'debate'.
My two cents? Trust the NASA scientist - pintomp3, on 04/07/2008, -5/+30the oil industry and coal unions hired the same PR firms the tobacco industry did when they wanted to disprove the link between cigarettes and cancer. they also offer money to scientists to dispute global warming:
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/car-news/-scientists- ... - kieranmaine, on 04/07/2008, -4/+28To name one things, the US could improve emissions but setting better fuel efficiency targets. Europe has higher MPG standards and is in no way any worse for it.
- Bhatch514, on 04/07/2008, -17/+41
The people that are warning us have nothing to gain in doing so, the people that are saying everything is fine make 1billlion a year doing so. - DrDragun, on 04/07/2008, -3/+23The below graph is mindblowing to conservatives. It has warm and cool cycles AND trends upward over time. To conservatives these 2 traits are mutually exclusive.
.......................................................o
..................................................o
.................................o............o
.............................o.....o......o
...........o.............o.............o
.......o......o......o
...o..............o.
o. - johnnysaucepn, on 04/07/2008, -4/+24Yeah, that's right. Because no scientists were studying global warming for decades before Al Gore brought to your attention, right?
- venicerocco, on 04/07/2008, -6/+23Thankfully 90% of those involved in researching climate change disagree with you.
- vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -2/+18norman619,
The planet is still warming at the same rate. Denial of century-old science does not refute it.
http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped ...
http://skepticalscience.com/Global-warming-stopped ... - 4d669, on 04/07/2008, -36/+52Taxing people won't do *****.
- supernovasky, on 04/07/2008, -2/+17Global cooling? Last I've seen, the trendline is still positive.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lr ...
just because we are in a down year on warming, does not wipe out the warming trend that has occured over the last 10 years. By that same logic, you could say there was no warming from 1990 to 2000 (but that would be terribly flawed, because you ignore the trend lines in favor of picking out just two data points and comparing them to each other.
We are not "globally cooling." The trend is still towards warming. - inactive, on 04/07/2008, -14/+29In other news, I just found out there is a job opening in NASA, they are looking to replace their "top climate scientist". An education from a private Baptist University is required, theology preferred. Degree in Earth Science or Meteorology not required.
- pintomp3, on 04/07/2008, -0/+14scientists get grants to research cancer too, that doesn't mean cancer isn't real.
- doctechnical, on 04/07/2008, -10/+23"When in darkness or in doubt, run in circles, scream and shout,"
- bratterscain, on 04/07/2008, -3/+16Like virii, some of us are just too stupid to see when we're consuming too much and killing that which feeds us. This ***** happens all the time to lesser organisms. It's a recurring theme. One species or society gets too powerful and all consuming, and it overtakes that which takes care of it. Must we do this ***** over and over again? Surely we're smart enough to not phase ourselves out like virii, bacteria and other parasites do. But just looking at posts like this, I can only wonder.
- eShinn, on 04/07/2008, -9/+21If they're taxed into a lowering ROI then of course they'll change. Let's say the tobacco industry was taxed enough that it became nowhere near as profitable a business model. Money is the reason behind it all. The only problem with taxing is that it goes to another private company a little more evil - Federal Reserve (aka Mr. Rothschild's Reserve)
- vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -3/+15I utterly love the irony of people pointing to science to prove that scientists know nothing. All that is accomplished is a highlighting of their own ignorance, which is occasionally willful.
- purag66, on 05/13/2009, -5/+17Even CHINA has higher MPG standards.
- vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -4/+15This recent data?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-h ...
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts ...
A single same-month data point does not refute a 30+ year trend. Try actually reading the references I provide.
My college education was a triple major in Physics, Math & Computer Science. I maintained a 3.0 (out of 4) GPA. - inactive, on 04/07/2008, -4/+15Actually, 99.9%. Global warming deniers have has had decades now to prove their point and there STILL hasn't been a SINGLE peer reviewed study refuting the consensus view.
- TrevorBradley, on 04/07/2008, -4/+15Say it with me: Weather is not climate. Stop confounding the debate in an attempt to shut it down.
Of course we can't predict the weather 10 days into the future. I once heard an estimate that because of quantum physics, a supercomputer the size of the universe could only ever predict weather 17 days into the future.
Climate on the other hand, is easier to measure because averages tend to balance out all these bizarre quantum mechanical effects. Arizona is hot. The arctic is cold. But changes do occur. New York was also once buried under a kilometer of ice and the oceans were once 200m higher than they are now. - thebellmaster1x, on 04/07/2008, -1/+12Hey, let's all not recognize the difference between a data point and a trend! Woo, this is fun!
- eShinn, on 04/07/2008, -2/+13Anything to back up your claims?
- vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+11Hooray for blithering ignorance!
2007 was the 2nd warmest.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/ - inactive, on 04/07/2008, -7/+17"The debate has ended over whether global warming is a problem caused by human activity. Consequently, we can and must act now to solve the problem, or else we will bequeath a dangerous and diminished world to our children and grandchildren."
--John McCain, Feb, 13, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion ... - br0ck, on 04/07/2008, -2/+12How about just taking the record-profit-earning oil company's 18 billion in tax breaks and stop subsidizing the broken corn-based ethanol initiatives and use all the resulting money find a real workable alternate energy source like cellulosic ethanol? Weaning ourselves from foreign oil has many different advantages that make the elimination of a chunk of the CO2 seem like just a small side benefit.
- eivi, on 04/07/2008, -19/+29***** you americans are so insanely backwards and outdated on this issue, still completely unable to believe in the massive amounts of evidence for man-made climate change. The parallells to the "debate" about whether smoking causes cancer is pretty strong, considering Phillip Morris openly planned the same tactic on this issue, to protect their oil investments. This is like reading similar discussions from 20 years ago here in Europe. There's no serious debate, just lazy media and fossil-based corporate interests muddying the water with ***** science. And nerds who love to be counterfactual with tidbits from penn&teller and south park.
- Murdats, on 04/07/2008, -1/+11even if we arent doing anything, maybe we should do something about producing massive clouds made of pollution over cities, removing large amounts of the largest forest ever, creating a hole in our atmosphere and transfering a massive amounts of fossil fuels from the ground to the air.
even if all these things have 0 effect on the planet somehow, maybe we should try to fix them anyway. - inactive, on 04/07/2008, -4/+13What the ***** is that supposed to mean to me? You still can't provide a single piece of peer reviewed literature that refutes the consensus view. We're talking about SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE and you bother me about a ***** BBC report? Go re-take kindergarten.
- weeeezzll, on 04/07/2008, -3/+12Of course it will! It will generate money for government, which they, of course, will use in a very responsible and ethical manner to improve our lives.
- brainflakes, on 04/07/2008, -5/+14Fact: Some years will be colder then others
Fact: The AVERAGE global temperature is rising - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperat ... - thebellmaster1x, on 04/07/2008, -2/+11Blah blah blah Al Gore blah blah. He's all you ever complain about. Don't you guys have anything to say about the thousands of climatologists who disagree with you?
- inactive, on 04/07/2008, -2/+11"there is very obviously a loud debate going on"
Not among climate scientists there isn't. - richid, on 04/07/2008, -0/+9Exactly. When you can't attack the science, launch an ad hominem attack against a public figure who is trying to raise awareness.
Just in case:
http://www.aaas.org/news/press_room/climate_change ... - vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -3/+12Your thesis adviser recommended a trite duplicitous piece of fluff by the same producer who proclaimed that silicone breast implants were beneficial to women's health in a previous psuedo-documentary?
Denial of century-old science does not refute it. - Skooma714, on 04/07/2008, -2/+11If that happened then there would just be black market tobacco.
yay more drug war. - the6thReplicant, on 04/07/2008, -0/+9"Disproven" in your head you mean. Look at the New Scientist article that showed that every other "hockey stick" graph got it right. You know, peer review; occasionally they pick stuff up that isn't 100% right and it goes back.
I guess you prefer evidence based on anecdotal evidence: some cosmic rays here, a Mars polar ice cap there. Guess you think there's also two equally valid arguments to evolutions too. - inactive, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9I bet you're illiterate: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion ...
- johnnysaucepn, on 04/07/2008, -2/+10"This guy sounds like hes been drinking the same kool-aid as everyone else who doesn't understand it."
You're saying that NASA's top climate scientist doesn't understand the situation as well as you? Do you realise how that sounds? - thebellmaster1x, on 04/07/2008, -3/+11Well, that's fantastic.
Now wait to see if it continues to drop over the next century, which would ACTUALLY MEAN SOMETHING statistically. You can't "erase" global warming because one year happened to be colder. How many times did you fail statistics? - DrDragun, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9You claim that you can affirm a negative, so I know you are not a scientific-minded skeptic leader but rather a skeptic follower
- ncairns, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9Sorry, but my climatologist friends are MIT and Caltech PhDs, most of them dual climatology and physics - they don't get things explained to them.
You don't even need a PhD to get the gist of it. It's simple science. There are essentially three main shapers of global climate - Milankovitch cycles, solar flux, and 'other'. The science tells us the warming we've seen can't be attributed to either the Earth's orbital periods or increases in the Sun's output, so all we've got left is 'other'. That can include things like oceanic versus atmospheric gas sequestration, but the only quantity which has increased at a rate commensurate to average global temperature is CO2. Of course there are other gases which play a role, but their impact generally isn't nearly as well understood. Water vapor for example, which is generally pegged as a worse greenhouse gas than CO2, also is a huge contributor to an atmospheric phenomena known as 'global dimming', which results in lowered temperatures. The reality is that although CO2 may look pedantically benign relative to other factors, the volume we're talking about is simply too massive not to have an analogue effect. - vikingcoder, on 04/07/2008, -1/+9The irony being that the current administration's position has been that global warming doesn't exist, or is not anthropogenic if it does exist. Only in about the past year has Bush started trying to save face by acknowledging the science.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - writerwriter, on 04/07/2008, -8/+16This would be the same NASA that was forced by GOOD research to revise their "hot years" analysis because they had not adjusted for daytime/nighttime/seasons?
Yeah, I'm sure they're believeable...
Christopher Pearson | March 22, 2008
CATASTROPHIC predictions of global warming usually conjure with the notion of a tipping point, a point of no return.
Last Monday - on ABC Radio National, of all places - there was a tipping point of a different kind in the debate on climate change. It was a remarkable interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs. Anyone in public life who takes a position on the greenhouse gas hypothesis will ignore it at their peril.
Duffy asked Marohasy: "Is the Earth stillwarming?"
She replied: "No, actually, there has been cooling, if you take 1998 as your point of reference. If you take 2002 as your point of reference, then temperatures have plateaued. This is certainly not what you'd expect if carbon dioxide is driving temperature because carbon dioxide levels have been increasing but temperatures have actually been coming down over the last 10 years."
Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197 ... -
Show 51 - 100 of 498 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 